OT - RAM utilities -> XP sucks? -> ME is worse?

[Gandalph]

The thing that sucks is the new license gimmick. You actually do own XP (as far as anyone "owns" any software you purchase, which is an argument in itself)* and you do not need to continually update subscription. You do need to register with Microsoft to "activate" XP and you are good to go, unless you make a serious upgrade to your system or perform a fresh new install.

*You technically do not own any software you purchase. When you buy software, you are buying the right to use said software in accordance with it's licensing agreement.

[henk brouwer]

Originally posted by Q:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalph:
The absolutely best RAM utility is MORE RAM!!

Especially if you consider the low price for it at the moment.
I installed for about 100 US $ 256MB RAM into my old PII 233MHz with 32 MB RAM originally. It is almost as I have a new computer.

---

Sounds like my system configuration:PII 233 mhz with 64 + 256 MB RAM. but my 256 extra RAM was only 35,- $

I've only got limited experience with XP, I worked on a couple of systems (not my own) with XP for maybe three weeks in total (Pentium IV) , and I absolutely loath it. both systems I used it on crashed frequently, and after a near fatal crash I couldn't acces my own files anymore because it didn't want to recognize my username (and I did NOT forget the password), and other usernames didn't have acces to those files... that's when I gave up...

[ October 21, 2002, 22:42: Message edited by: henk brouwer ]

[Ragnarok]

XP to me is OK. In fact that's what my machine is using. I did have ME on this thing when I bought it but ME sucked big time so I went to XP for the first time. I got to install some new drivers for my display due to having a blue screen of death at least twice a week. Sometimes once a day.
But I would much rather run 2000. 2000 was/is the best OS that micro$lave has put out IMHO. But that's just me. It may be different for other Users.

[DavidG]

XP Sucks? Well depends what you compare it to. To win98 then maybe. Compared to winME though it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The fact that certain software (such as Roxio Direct CD ver 4) no longer work in XP really sucks too. Especially if you use it daily like I do. And how big a scaam is it that the built in CD support that comes with XP and is made by Roxio is a way scalled down Version.
Here is a good one. How to get my printer to work after a reboot on XP. Go to the system Hardware settings, go the to LPT1 properties and change the 'use Interupt' setting. Printer works. After next reboot change it back to previous setting to get printer to work. How wierd is that.

[Mylon]

Normally I don't have problems with my ram. When I do, that's when a good format/reinstall of Windows is in order and makes everything run nice and smooth (including 45 second boot times!). Otherwise, I use Maxmem by AnalogX (www.analogx.com). The bad part about memory cleaners (all of them!) is that they actually _increase_ disk usage to some degree. That is, you dump out everything in the RAM, and then have to wait while your computer reloads everything it was actually using, while the dead weight is (hopefully) gone until the program that caused the mem usage or mem leak is loaded/used again.

As for OSes, I use Win98 first edition on my main computer (I don't have SE and I'm too damn cheap to get it). WinXP has a bad habit of consuming a large portion of RAM (I'm pretty sure this is why most gaming articles on the issue I've read denounce XP and cite benchmark tests to back it up).

Now, I remember back in the day where we had 64 megs of RAM and we were happy. Nowdays you need 256 before your computer can crash without giving you an out of memory error for trying to load the blue screen of death!

[Askan Nightbringer]

Well as I run Visual Studio.Net I'm limitied to either one of two operating systems - XP or 2k.
Ran 2k since about 2000 (coincidece?...maybe not ) and I liked it except Warlords Battlecry patch 1 didn't work and the thing took forever to boot (although I only rebooted once every 2 months but it still pissed me off). XP boots lightning fast, you can turn all the annoying visual effects off to boost performance and its really stable.

I won't upgade to XP patch 1 yet thou, coz I don't like the "Microsoft reserves the right to screw with your machine and make things not work whenever the feel like it" clause. Yep, your computer will automatically patch itself (when connected to the net) and until I find a hacking too to turn it off then I'm not upgrading.

Askan

BTW - WinMe blows. At our office we've got so sick of it we've decided to say our software not longer supports it.

[Will]

Hmm... for everyone who's saying that Win2000 is more stable than Win98SE... I don't really think so. I usually end up having the 2000 machines here hang (hang meaning I have to wait a few minutes for Ctrl-Alt-Del to let me log off) about once every two hours on average here. My Win98SE machine at home I would get a BSoD about once a week (and that was about 30 hours of use). The only thing that's really "stable" about 2000 is you can usually get away with logging off, and logging back in (USUALLY... I've had to cut the power a few times).

XP Pro, while I haven't used it for as much time as the others, I haven't crashed yet. And I've tried a few times XP Home, I've managed to hang quite a few times for the short amount of time I was playing with it.

But, overall, I still prefer Win98SE. I don't know of any programs where you can run it on one of the newer OS, but not on 98SE. I know where most of the settings/customization is (I won't say all, because there's probably some obscure thing that I would never use that I don't know about), and it's easier to change settings than the other ones. After all, "user-friendly" implies methods to prevent "user stupidity", even if they really did mean to change that setting.