Hey Guys

It is nice to come here and see people actually getting help.
For humor visit the "Vista General" newsgroup.
Plus it may be sad.
Seeing people haveing problems. And the answers are like" Don't blame MS."
or "You're an idiot". The MVPs for the most ,and some are old ones I first
saw here ,try to help but seem like they are waiting for miracle answers from
MS.
If you ever want to feel good about keeping 98? Go there.

MVPs tend to be Microsoft apologists. They have to if they want to keep
their MVP status. And reading the Vista general ng makes me glad I'm
sticking to XP and Win98. I have an old PIII/850 still running with Win98.
It's nice to be able to change the hardware without having to reactivate.
It's nice to be able to reinstall the OS without having to call MS on the
phone and explain why I'm reinstalling so I can get it activated again. It's
nice to be able to do stuff without Windows telling me I can't.

However, it would be nice if the damn thing didn't crash every hour on the
hour, but that is the price you pay if you run Win98 lol.

"poatt" wrote in message
...
It is nice to come here and see people actually getting help.
For humor visit the "Vista General" newsgroup.
Plus it may be sad.
Seeing people haveing problems. And the answers are like" Don't blame MS."
or "You're an idiot". The MVPs for the most ,and some are old ones I first
saw here ,try to help but seem like they are waiting for miracle answers
from
MS.
If you ever want to feel good about keeping 98? Go there.

"Zootal" Don't send me any freaking spam at zootal dot com
remove the don't send me any freaking spam wrote in
:

MVPs tend to be Microsoft apologists.

You have a VERY polite way of saying things.

They have to if they
want to keep their MVP status. And reading the Vista
general ng makes me glad I'm sticking to XP and Win98.

I really should visit that group for a good laugh. It's sad, but
human stupidity and naïveté can be very amusing.

SNIP

However, it would be nice if the damn thing didn't crash
every hour on the hour, but that is the price you pay if
you run Win98 lol.

SNIP

All you have to do is tweak it properly - which admittedly may
take a few years :-)

I have 2 machines, a P166/95B/64MB and a P4/2GHz/98seLite/256MB
and neither ever crashes unless I do something really REALLY
stupid.
Actually, I do NOT remember the 98 one crashing at ALL. The 95
crashes sometimes when I'm on-line since just running Opera and
one or two other apps (like Xnews) leaves me with very little
resources.

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Zootal" Don't send me any freaking spam at zootal dot com remove the don't
send me any freaking spam wrote in message
...
MVPs tend to be Microsoft apologists. They have to if they want to keep
their MVP status.

You are absolutely wrong. I have been an MVP for 10 years and I (and the
vast majority of my MVP friends) do not apologize when MS has done something
for which they should be criticized. However, I do occasionally stick up
for the company when somebody starts ranting about something they don't have
a clue about and are totally off base. The quickest way to lose MVP status
is to start a flame war with a MS customer and to be totally rude (even
though you might be right about the issue) or use profanity.

--
Regards


Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

MVPs tend to be Microsoft apologists.

You have a VERY polite way of saying things.

No, I can be quite the ass at times, depending on my motivation. I'm not
always interested in winning friends or influencing people. I've been on
these newsgroups for over ten years. And I've seen too many MVPs take
Microsoft's side when there really was a problem that should have been
addressed.


SNIP

All you have to do is tweak it properly - which admittedly may
take a few years :-)

That is the kicker - most people don't have the time or the expertise to
tweak it to make it stable. At one time I got so disgusted with Win98 that I
switched to NT4, but it was unusuable as a workstation OS. BSOD in tcpip.sys
and sb16.sys happened on a daily bases. Video drivers for my cards were
beta. When Win2000 came out, I switched. However, the initial release of
Win2000 was horrid. While better then NT4, it was still pretty bad. One
issue in particular would cause certain files to become corrupted on disk,
and this caused me to loose hours and hours of work. It was so bad back then
that I finally switched back to Win98 and stayed with it until XP came out.
Today, several SPs later, Win2000 is much more stable and is actually usable
as a workstation OS. But the initial release and subsequent SP or two were
not terribly friendly.

Zootal wrote:

...I switched to NT4, but it was unusuable as a workstation OS.

You mean that you dindn't have the skills needed to properly maintain
NT4. Unless you want to play games NT4 blows any Windows 9x off the
face of the earth!

that I finally switched back to Win98 and stayed with it until XP came out.
Today, several SPs later, Win2000 is much more stable and is actually usable
as a workstation OS. But the initial release and subsequent SP or two were
not terribly friendly.

Yet more excuses for your lack of knowledge of the NT platform. Even
with all its bugs, as released Windows 2000 was a very stable operating
system and much more capable than Windows 98.

John

snip

Yet more excuses for your lack of knowledge of the NT platform. Even with
all its bugs, as released Windows 2000 was a very stable operating system
and much more capable than Windows 98.

John


Why is it that when Windows crashes it's the fault of the user? Why should
someone have to have extensive knowledge of the NT platform just to get a
workstation to be stable?

kernel panic: oh, sorry, we will fix that bug so it doesn't happen any more.

bsod: you just don't know how to maintain your OS.

Zootal wrote:

snip

Yet more excuses for your lack of knowledge of the NT platform. Even with
all its bugs, as released Windows 2000 was a very stable operating system
and much more capable than Windows 98.

John



Why is it that when Windows crashes it's the fault of the user? Why should
someone have to have extensive knowledge of the NT platform just to get a
workstation to be stable?

kernel panic: oh, sorry, we will fix that bug so it doesn't happen any more.

bsod: you just don't know how to maintain your OS.

If you were or if you are getting constant BSOD's and crashes with
Windows 2000 you don't know how to run it. Windows 2000 is as good and
even better than Windows XP in that regards. Can you tell us what
Windows XP has that Windows 2000 doesn't? Can you tell us the
difference between these 2 operating systems? As for NT4 your comments
clearly indicate that you have little knowledge and understanding of it.
NT4 is a workhorse of an operating system and is the one of the most
solid operating systems ever put out by Microsoft.

John

"Zootal" Don't send me any freaking spam at zootal dot com remove the don't
send me any freaking spam wrote in message
...
snip

Yet more excuses for your lack of knowledge of the NT platform. Even
with all its bugs, as released Windows 2000 was a very stable operating
system and much more capable than Windows 98.

John


Why is it that when Windows crashes it's the fault of the user? Why should
someone have to have extensive knowledge of the NT platform just to get a
workstation to be stable?

kernel panic: oh, sorry, we will fix that bug so it doesn't happen any
more.

bsod: you just don't know how to maintain your OS.


The other question that comes to mind - why is it that later SPs of Win2000
were very stable for me where earlier ones were not? And why is XP and
svr2003 stable for me? My knowledge of the NT platform didn't change, what
did? (answer - Microsoft fixed many of the bugs in the OS that was causing
it to crash. Also possible that vendors fixed bugs in their drivers).
Conclusion: it wasn't my lack of NT platform knowledge causing the crashes,
it was the bugs in the OS and/or bugs in vendor drivers.

Suppose that crashes are caused by my lack of NT platform knowledge.

If (lacking NT platform knowledge) then (crash)

The contrapositive is:

IF (no crash) then (no lack of NT platform knowledge).

But my NT platform knowledge is still lacking, but the crashes stopped. We
have a contradiction. Therefore the crashes could not have been caused by my
lack of NT platform knowledge. qed.

Can you tell us what Windows XP has that Windows 2000 doesn't?

Better Stability. Without exception, every system I upgraded from Win2000 to
XP exhibited noticeably better stability.

As for NT4 your comments clearly indicate that you have little knowledge
and understanding of it. NT4 is a workhorse of an operating system and is
the one of the most solid operating systems ever put out by Microsoft.

Then why did Microsoft fix the tcpip.sys bsod (among others)? How does
Microsoft fixing something that stops a crash constitute little knowledge on
my part?