OT: Why Oh Why

oleg · #1 July 10th, 2003, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... It is prolly writing the files with NTFS not fat. All Versions of 98 can read and write to fat16 and fat32.

No, I formated Zip disc home, it has fat32. Win2k can read and write it, but apparently mess up with clusters or something.

Gryphin · #2 July 10th, 2003, 09:25 PM

oleg thank you. You just got a manager off my *ss.

Quote:

Posted by oleg:
Yes, I like Win98 and keep it on my home computer. The only problem is with using Zip disks : At work, we have the Win2000. It is NT based and uses diferent FAT system. Sometimes my home computer can not read files that were written by win2k comp.

PvK · #3 July 10th, 2003, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:
Originally posted by PvK:
My WinOS disapproval list:

(most disapproved)
1. Win 3.x or less
2. Win NT 3.x or less
3. Win 2K Server
4. Win XP Home
5. Win Me
6. Win XP Pro
7. Win NT 4
8. Win 95 (release Version)
9. Win 98 (release Version)
10. Win 2000 Pro
11. Win 95 OSR 2.5
12. Win 95 OSR 2.0
13. Win 98 SE
(least disapproved)

PvK

Strange, I run 98se, 98me, and 2000pro on a network domain served by 2000server with no problems what so ever.
...

I just meant my personal approval. I like Win 98SE best for my own needs (gaming with minimal OS overhead, and minimal installation of annoying OS-polluting apps). Win 2K Pro is a good choice if you have to install annoying OS-polluting apps, because it handles out-of-control registry-polluting system-hogging/crashing apps better, but it wastes more of your computer than Win 98SE does with unneeded services and junk, especially if you don't tweak the settings to get rid of unwanted OS default "features". 98Me has more annoying stuff and bloat than Win98SE, and I've seen the most screwed-up systems of non-guru friends on Win Me. Seems like MS added new junk for Me and then abandoned it to work on XP, so 98SE has less annoying junk and is the most refined of the 9x releases, although 95 OSR 2.0 is the most refined 9x that doesn't have the $*&^$#@ "your OS _is_ Internet Explorer nonsense).

Win 2K Server consumes massive amounts of RAM and CPU just for itself, in my experience, and is full of features I would never want unless I had a contract which forced me to use its specific products. For a network server/router, give me a simple reliable no-BS Linux box.

PvK

Suicide Junkie · #4 July 10th, 2003, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rojero:
yea i agree junkie, but you know what...it has not caused me any major problems, just a few drivers needed but as for OS...it is still runnin strong

I'm not sure what you mean there...
I was saying ME does those crazy things, and once I get the drivers I need, I'll be upgrading to 98.

Thermodyne · #5 July 11th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PvK:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:
Originally posted by PvK:
My WinOS disapproval list:

(most disapproved)
1. Win 3.x or less
2. Win NT 3.x or less
3. Win 2K Server
4. Win XP Home
5. Win Me
6. Win XP Pro
7. Win NT 4
8. Win 95 (release Version)
9. Win 98 (release Version)
10. Win 2000 Pro
11. Win 95 OSR 2.5
12. Win 95 OSR 2.0
13. Win 98 SE
(least disapproved)

PvK

Strange, I run 98se, 98me, and 2000pro on a network domain served by 2000server with no problems what so ever.
...
I just meant my personal approval. I like Win 98SE best for my own needs (gaming with minimal OS overhead, and minimal installation of annoying OS-polluting apps). Win 2K Pro is a good choice if you have to install annoying OS-polluting apps, because it handles out-of-control registry-polluting system-hogging/crashing apps better, but it wastes more of your computer than Win 98SE does with unneeded services and junk, especially if you don't tweak the settings to get rid of unwanted OS default "features". 98Me has more annoying stuff and bloat than Win98SE, and I've seen the most screwed-up systems of non-guru friends on Win Me. Seems like MS added new junk for Me and then abandoned it to work on XP, so 98SE has less annoying junk and is the most refined of the 9x releases, although 95 OSR 2.0 is the most refined 9x that doesn't have the $*&^$#@ "your OS _is_ Internet Explorer nonsense).

Win 2K Server consumes massive amounts of RAM and CPU just for itself, in my experience, and is full of features I would never want unless I had a contract which forced me to use its specific products. For a network server/router, give me a simple reliable no-BS Linux box.

PvK

LOL, you know that you don't have to load services and apps that you don't need? And with one regestry setting, you can controll what apps load during startup.

Linux does some things well, but I wouldn't want to manage several thousand Users with it.

The reason that the server Versions use more ram is related to the speed of ram access vs. the speed of HD access.

minipol · #6 July 11th, 2003, 01:01 AM

backup to another harddrive. if you ever have the cash to spare, that's the way to go. and then, once and a while you can backup your stuff from the backup drive to a cd

minipol · #7 July 11th, 2003, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:
I use Win98 at home and 95 at work. When people suggest a switch I always remind them that "A donkey that carries you is better than a horse that throws you".

Hehe, nice statement