On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:51:55 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
wrote:

homeowner wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
wrote:

Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out
modern faster gizmos. And anything 2G. 64bit W7 can handle many
terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are
progress.

Are they really progress? Win98 never needed all that memory. I can
esily run 10 different programs at once and have 25 browser windows open
at the same time. That's when things start running slow, but that is
really an overload, and I need to close some stuff.

I have 512 megs of RAM. Win98 does not need more than that to run well.

Depends on what you're doing. I can easily imagine a situation where that
much just isn't enough.

Some pretty detailed graphic editing and sound file editing.


But these new OSs suck all the RAM power before a program is even
opened. I still cant see any advantage to these newer OSs, except lots
of useless bloat. Well, Ok, to be honest and fair, the newer OSs did
fix the USB support that 98 lacks. And the newer OSs allow for huge
file sizes, which 98 did not. However I have never had any file even
close the the limit (I forget what the limit is).

2GB. About the only thing that gets that big right now is databases,
movies, and DVD images.

Ok, I dont do any of that.

But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA.

I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I
*had* to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would
not* use), it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly.

Having Win2000 as my dual boot, I will say that it's not all that hard
to use, but was the beginning of the annoying NT system.

Well, if you want to be accurate, NT dates back to the early 90's,
contemporary with Win3x.

I remember NT being talked about back when I used Win3.x. It seemed
pretty rarely used back then, sort of like linux, it was only for the
"geeks". I always wondered how much of that early NT was worked into
Win2000 and up.....

It began that nasty NTFS drive format, which I refuse to use.

Has its good points. If I was using a computer with *just* NT installed,
I'd use it... but the only thing I have that is *only* NT is my Win7
tablet. (Vista+ won't install on FAT drives, so in my case it's a moot
point.)

I wont use it on my main computer, not even on my Win2000 partition. I
want to be able to access everything from Dos. My laptop came with NTFS
and XP installed that way. I wanted to change the format, but there is
no XP install CD for it, and I was told I cant use PartitionMagic and
change the format without reinstalling. Since nothing important is kept
on that computer, all I'll lose is the OS if it fails, so no biggie.

It began
that stupid folder called "Documents and Settings", which contains
"Administrators", "All Users", and "Default User". (This is one very
irritating thing for me, because I never know which one contains what,
and most are repeats......). After all, this computer is only used by
me, I'm the ONLY user, all of thse should be in ONE folder.

Can always run as the Administrator, and rename the account as you wish.
Just sayin'.

Are you saying that I can get rid of the THREE categories and just have
one called Administrator? HOW?
Having three is so annoying, because stuff is places in any of them for
waht seems to have no rhyme or reason. I dont need 3 of them since only
"I" use the computer. Even in 98, I like to keep my "work" (documents)
WITH the program, not in "my documents".


Then there
came XP with all the stupid questions. Everyting I want to do, has a
"do you really want to ______". I get ****ed at that ****. I didnt hit
the button to do _____ just for the hell of it...

...but many people *do* hit things by accident.

I dont mind being asked when I delete something, I do accidentally hit
that sometimes, but there are many other times it asks.

And then comes the bootup and shutdown times. Both 2000 and XP seem to
take forever compared to 98. Hell, on my laptop with XP, I might just
turn it on for one minute, because I left myself a note, such as
someone's phone number. I read the note and shut off, then I'm forced
to hit TWO shutdown buttons (as if one isn't enough), and then I watch
it say "savings settings". WHAT SETTINGS? Not one ****ing thing was
changed, I read a phone number, nothing else....

But XP doesn't know that. It doesn't have a way to verify that nothing was
changed from startup to shutdown. Bad decision by MS, maybe, but them's the
way it is.

It SHOULD KNOW. It should be apparent that no changes were made to the
system files. That should be apparent. Poor design by MS.

Thats what I like most about 98. I have it set to boot to dos. 20
seconds later I open my text file that contains my notes, and shut off
the computer. If I want to enter Win98, I "WW" which is my batch file
to start windows (actually it just runs WIN.COM).

You saved yourself 1 keytroke. Bravo. (Why not just name it 'w'?)

Whatever

You cant do this in W2000 or XP. You got to go thru the entire bootup
process, waste several minutes waiting for it to boot, and then go thru
the shutdown hassle. This is not progress! It should not take 5
minutes to access a tiny text file, and shut down.

Win2000 was irritating, XP seriously annoys me, I dont even want to
imagine how I'd feel about Win7 or 8....

I've read that 8 has really improved startup times; supposedly at least on
par with 9x.

Thats good.....
It only took MS nearly 12 years to fix that!
When 9x already did it......

But, hey, MS is more interested in making money by adding useless bloat
than fixing bugs.