Win98banter - View Single Post

**[email protected]**

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:12:20 +1100, "
wrote:

who where wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:48 -0600, wrote:

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet.

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9".

Not quite. They are (collectively) Windows 4 and apart from that tag
were "always" referred to as Win9X. Big difference.

The latest versions were all numbers.

ALL Windows versions were numbers if you ever bothered to look under
the fancy packaging.

And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from.

Does it matter? They can stick whatever name on it they like to
distinguish it from any predecessor.

And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).

ME was the dismal last Win4 version. Win2000 was the first
"mainstream" NT version. These were two separate OS streams, just as
NT 3.51/NT4 etc had existed for years alongside Win4.

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version, able
to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE) *and*
networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions) but, after its
release, Win2000 was found to not work well on standalones, so the
revised standalone version became WinME.

Daniel

Actually you got that wrong. WinME was the upgrade from Win98se, but it
never caught on because it had too many problems. Windows 2000 was the
beginning of XP.

I typed that the Win98-Win2000 upgrade didn't work so MS brought out
Win2000, so where was I wrong??

Actually it was dan near the same, except it didn't
come with all the bloat that XP has. I run both 98 and 2000 (dual boot).
Once and awhile I cant run an app on 98, so I boot to 2000. The thing I
never understood is why a lot of software written for XP wont run on
2000, when 2000 has the same core. Windows 2000 is the last version of
MS Windows that I'll ever run. Once they got into that verification
****, I stopped using their ****.

I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy
XP, and still have to perform their verification ****. And being a
laptop, I cant install a second harddrive like I can in my desktop. My
only option is to dump all my music and videos onto a USB drive and
carry that around with the computer, because that 40gig harddrive fills
up fast.

To clone your current 40Gb HD to a bigger one, do an Internet search for
a program called something like dd.exe. Somebody mention this program,
here-abouts, as a way to clone an installed HD to a HD that is connected
via USB. This will copy your 40GB HD to a 40GB portion on your new,
bigger, HD and then it should allow you to increase the amount of the HD
which Windows would be allowed to "see".

Note I've never actually used this dd.exe program, just relating what
someone else typed. When I want to fiddle with the size of the divisions
on this HD, I use the equivalent Linux function, also called dd.

Daniel