If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
In message , Ed
writes: I know that this is a Windows 98 newsgroup and I have found massive help here in the past. But my daughter has problems with her Windows XP . What would be a comparable group to this one where I could get similar expert help on XP? There are so many XP groups about and I can't work out which might be best. Ed I asked the same question here when I moved to XP, and was recommended (all starting microsoft.public.windowsxp.) configuration_manage, customise, and newusers. m.p.w.c_m I found a bit specialised (as you'd expect). m.p.w.n, at least, is still receiving posts. (Though I agree with others that a Vista 'group _might_ be better for your problem. Depending on what the actual problem it's causing, if any, is.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it. -Michel de Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
wrote in message
... On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:26:30 -0400, "glee" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:04:32 +0000, Ed ex@directory wrote: I know that this is a Windows 98 newsgroup and I have found massive help here in the past. But my daughter has problems with her Windows XP . What would be a comparable group to this one where I could get similar expert help on XP? There are so many XP groups about and I can't work out which might be best. Ed What's wrong with your daughter's brain? Why would anyone in their right mind use XP? I suggest you take her over your knee and spank the **** out of her for using such a borked up operating system. There are only TWO operating systems that work. Windows 98, and Windows 95. (maybe Windows 2000 too). That's it. XP Vista Windows 7 are all JUNK. KILL THEM..... jw, you really shouldn't be talking about his daughter's brain when yours is unable to grasp the usage of even WinXP. XP works quite well, as well as Win98 or better, and certainly better than Win95. If you think Win2K is a better OS than XP, the actual existence of your brain is suspect! ;-) I've refused to use any of the "NT" Windows since they first were created. I saw a friend crash XP, and lose years of important personal data. I never lose data with Win98. I the system fails, I got Dos to help me fix it. That NTFS format from XP is one of the biggest failures. I wont touch it. snip You saw one friend's system go down and lose data, so you condemn them all? LOL! I've seen countless 95 and 98 systems destroyed with most or all data lost, and rarely see that happen on XP systems using NTFS. I'm not basing it on one friend's system! Your friend almost definitely had a hard drive failure, not a "crash" in XP, that caused all data to be lost. Booting to DOS won't fix a hardware failure. What you can do from a DOS floppy boot in Win98, you can do from Recovery Console or a PE boot with XP, and get better results in most cases. Because you don't know how to use the tools doesn't mean they don't exist. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ http://dts-l.net/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
In message , glee
writes: [] You saw one friend's system go down and lose data, so you condemn them all? LOL! Agreed, not too good a basis, but ... I've seen countless 95 and 98 systems destroyed with most or all data lost, and rarely see that happen on XP systems using NTFS. I'm not .... you perhaps are also guilty? Really, "countless" (i. e. a large number), with the data actually lost? (I've had a FAT system go doolally _once_ [directories full of funny-named files of silly sizes], but been able to recover most data - even from failing hard discs - on all other occasions. I think the one that went bad would have been in '95 days, or even 3.1/DOS.) basing it on one friend's system! Your friend almost definitely had a hard drive failure, not a "crash" in XP, that caused all data to be (Isn't it fun how the terminology has evolved? The origin of the term "crash" was indeed a hardware failure, when the "low-flying" head of a disc drive actually crashed into the surface!) lost. Booting to DOS won't fix a hardware failure. What you can do Indeed not. (Though depending on the type of hardware failure, it may help: if the hardware failure is just some bad sectors, then recovery may be possible - with both FAT and NTFS - via an external boot method.) from a DOS floppy boot in Win98, you can do from Recovery Console or a PE boot with XP, and get better results in most cases. Because you don't know how to use the tools doesn't mean they don't exist. Yup - I'll own up to not knowing my way round recovery console (or, much, PE). Useful that you've put it like that. (I think a large part of the resistance to NTFS is that it is sufficiently complex that it needs more than a floppy's worth of space to boot to where it is accessible: this doesn't make it a worse system, though.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it. -Michel de Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
John John - MVP wrote:
I never lose data with Win98. Anyone who has any considerable amount of experience around different computer systems will refute your claim, As someone who has operated and supported a mixed Windows OS office environment for 15 years, and specifically win-NT4, win-2K, Win-98 (from 1999 to the PRESENT) and XP (from 2005 to the present) and Vista / Server 2003 / Server 2008-R2 / Seven (from 2008 to the present) I can say that your comments about win-98 does not reflect usage on recent hardware (circa 2004/2006) but instead probably reflects usage based on hardware, drivers and specs that date from 1995 - 2000. At the present time, half of the 2-dozen PC's in our office are running win-98se on P4 2.5 ghz PC's (Intel 465 chipset, Nvidia AGP video cards, 512 mb ram, 80 gb hard drives) for our admin and production staff. We have a few NT4 and win-2k servers (web-server, SMTP mail, exchange, Jana contact data-base, shared storage, developer source-safe), XP-SP3 (software / hardware developer systems, sales staff). A few software developers ran Vista for maybe a year, but about half are still running XP and the rest are running Seven, and one developer is running 64-bit Seven as well as an experimental system with server 2008-R2). I was playing around with Windows Multipoint Server 2010 (which I downloaded from the file-sharing service Rapid-Share) and was able to activate it with one of our Server 2008 Technet product keys). All of our win-98 and XP systems (and even some of the win-7 systems) have the full-blown Office 2000 Premium SR1 installed on them (from our MSDN subscription) so that is a really cost-effective way to obtain and deploy Office software in an commercial setting (and I give the finger to Microsoft by doing so). Between 1994 and 1998 we had about a dozen PC's running wfwg 3.11, win-95 and NT3.x / NT4. In 1996 we also had a Silicon Graphics Iris 4D (which I think cost us $20k at the time). We had a subscription to MSDN from about 1998 to about 2003, and a technet subscription off and on for the past 5 years. Over the past 10 years, we've built about 400 PC's which are used in scientific research settings with special internal and external custom hardware. About half of those PC's were shipped with win-98se, and the other half were shipped with XP (we continue to ship new systems with XP-SP3). Other than hard-drive mechanical failures in win-98 systems with hard drives of 20 gb or less, none of the systems has ever come back because of logical file-system problems. All XP systems were shipped with 40 gb (or larger) drives, and there have been no hardware failures with them. So I / we have I have seen more crashes and data loss on W9x systems than I have ever seen on any NT system. W9x was/is notorious for crashes, You obviously have no experience running win-98 on P3 or P4 systems with more than 256 mb of ram or on motherboards and video cards with stable drivers. You are typical of most IT people when it comes to win-98: Your experience is limited to pathetic systems with 32mb of ram, systems built between 1996 and 1999, with buggy AGP cards and drivers. I agree that the computer hardware available during those years was horrible, and as soon as you could, you moved to Win-2K and XP, but along with those moves came new and better hardware, but you attributed the stable operation of 2K and XP to the OS and not the increased stability of the hardware and the fact that there was a lot more installed ram in those systems (the stability of any OS goes up when you give it more ram). We simply refused to have any W9x machines in our business environment, they are plainly too fragile for business use. Clearly you or your organization did not have the technical ability to build their own systems from scratch and install the OS from scratch like we did. Because we do that, because we periodically buy new hardware and re-install our OS's, we have learned what works. And I can tell you definatively that our win-98se systems are extremely stable in an office environment, and thus we are getting a great return on our OS investment. It's been an absolute pleasure to have to manage a set of PC's that simply don't get viral or malware infections. Our win-98se systems have not been infected by anthing for at least the past 6 years. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
On 11/4/2010 10:41 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
John John - MVP wrote: I never lose data with Win98. Anyone who has any considerable amount of experience around different computer systems will refute your claim, As someone who has operated and supported a mixed Windows OS office environment for 15 years, and specifically win-NT4, win-2K, Win-98 (from 1999 to the PRESENT) and XP (from 2005 to the present) and Vista / Server 2003 / Server 2008-R2 / Seven (from 2008 to the present) I can say that your comments about win-98 does not reflect usage on recent hardware (circa 2004/2006) but instead probably reflects usage based on hardware, drivers and specs that date from 1995 - 2000. At the present time, half of the 2-dozen PC's in our office are running win-98se on P4 2.5 ghz PC's (Intel 465 chipset, Nvidia AGP video cards, 512 mb ram, 80 gb hard drives) for our admin and production staff. We have a few NT4 and win-2k servers (web-server, SMTP mail, exchange, Jana contact data-base, shared storage, developer source-safe), XP-SP3 (software / hardware developer systems, sales staff). A few software developers ran Vista for maybe a year, but about half are still running XP and the rest are running Seven, and one developer is running 64-bit Seven as well as an experimental system with server 2008-R2). I was playing around with Windows Multipoint Server 2010 (which I downloaded from the file-sharing service Rapid-Share) and was able to activate it with one of our Server 2008 Technet product keys). All of our win-98 and XP systems (and even some of the win-7 systems) have the full-blown Office 2000 Premium SR1 installed on them (from our MSDN subscription) so that is a really cost-effective way to obtain and deploy Office software in an commercial setting (and I give the finger to Microsoft by doing so). Between 1994 and 1998 we had about a dozen PC's running wfwg 3.11, win-95 and NT3.x / NT4. In 1996 we also had a Silicon Graphics Iris 4D (which I think cost us $20k at the time). We had a subscription to MSDN from about 1998 to about 2003, and a technet subscription off and on for the past 5 years. Over the past 10 years, we've built about 400 PC's which are used in scientific research settings with special internal and external custom hardware. About half of those PC's were shipped with win-98se, and the other half were shipped with XP (we continue to ship new systems with XP-SP3). Other than hard-drive mechanical failures in win-98 systems with hard drives of 20 gb or less, none of the systems has ever come back because of logical file-system problems. All XP systems were shipped with 40 gb (or larger) drives, and there have been no hardware failures with them. So I / we have I have seen more crashes and data loss on W9x systems than I have ever seen on any NT system. W9x was/is notorious for crashes, You obviously have no experience running win-98 on P3 or P4 systems with more than 256 mb of ram or on motherboards and video cards with stable drivers. You are typical of most IT people when it comes to win-98: Your experience is limited to pathetic systems with 32mb of ram, systems built between 1996 and 1999, with buggy AGP cards and drivers. I agree that the computer hardware available during those years was horrible, and as soon as you could, you moved to Win-2K and XP, but along with those moves came new and better hardware, but you attributed the stable operation of 2K and XP to the OS and not the increased stability of the hardware and the fact that there was a lot more installed ram in those systems (the stability of any OS goes up when you give it more ram). We simply refused to have any W9x machines in our business environment, they are plainly too fragile for business use. Clearly you or your organization did not have the technical ability to build their own systems from scratch and install the OS from scratch like we did. Because we do that, because we periodically buy new hardware and re-install our OS's, we have learned what works. What a fscking joke! We've been running NT systems since about 1996, while you were going on thinking that Windows 98 was the only thing available we were using advance CAD/CAM software on state of the art workstations. Until a year ago you had never had an NT type computer so you know nothing about NT operating systems, less than a year ago you got an old NT4 server and you were too stupid to figure out than IIS had problems on NT4 so you decided that the problem was with the NTFS file system. You are no tech wizz... to say the least! No one with half a brain would run W98 in a business environment in this day and age. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
"Bill in Co" wrote:
I'm having a senior moment, and am trying to recall what it was about Win9x that predisposed it to this behavior, so much more than XP (which as you say, rarely crashes from most user processes). What does XP (and later) have different in its design that eliminates so much of that problem? Just that user processes in XP are *much* better isolated from the OS and from each other than they were in Win9x. -- Tim Slattery http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
Tim Slattery wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote: I'm having a senior moment, and am trying to recall what it was about Win9x that predisposed it to this behavior, so much more than XP (which as you say, rarely crashes from most user processes). What does XP (and later) have different in its design that eliminates so much of that problem? Just that user processes in XP are *much* better isolated from the OS and from each other than they were in Win9x. But generally how was that accomplished? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Which Windows XP Newsgroup?
On 11/4/2010 6:23 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
Tim Slattery wrote: "Bill in wrote: I'm having a senior moment, and am trying to recall what it was about Win9x that predisposed it to this behavior, so much more than XP (which as you say, rarely crashes from most user processes). What does XP (and later) have different in its design that eliminates so much of that problem? Just that user processes in XP are *much* better isolated from the OS and from each other than they were in Win9x. But generally how was that accomplished? Processes have a private 2GB address space where they are isolated but on Windows 98 they also have the 2 to 3GB shared address space where key parts of the Win16 code, which Windows 98 still uses, is also stored along with DLLs and other shared objects, any errant or rogue application can easily trash memory in this 1GB shared arena and bring the whole system down. On NT systems user processes have a private 2GB address space and no shared address space. To make better use of RAM processes can share DLLs and objects so these shared objects are only loaded into memory once but each process uses its own private address space to map to the shared objects, if the application mucks up these objects in its private address space it doesn't affect other processes. There is no shared address space on NT systems, each process is isolated in its private space. John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is there a newsgroup for Windows 2000? | Plugin Unhappy | Hardware | 1 | April 15th 06 06:08 AM |
Which Newsgroup | Sue | General | 3 | January 1st 06 11:45 PM |
which newsgroup | Moonraker | General | 7 | October 3rd 05 11:53 PM |
newsgroup | bob94030 | General | 1 | June 28th 05 06:34 PM |
Newsgroup into OE | Keith | General | 8 | September 14th 04 02:43 AM |