Seeking help for learning system for absolute beginners

In article <479cecd0.216152390@news.motzarella.org>, grue@mail.ru
says...
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:54:25 +0000 (UTC), Maciej Katafiasz <mathrick@gmail
.com>
> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
> 
>
> What a bunch of FUD. Win98 is easily the best OS Microsoft has ever create
d. Too
> bad they don't support it anymore.

Troll.

--
Keith

grue@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) writes:

> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:54:25 +0000 (UTC), Maciej Katafiasz <mathrick@gmail
.com>
> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
> 
>
> What a bunch of FUD. Win98 is easily the best OS Microsoft has ever
> created.

Which is like being the best waterskier in Antarctica.

-- Patrick

krw wrote:
> In article <479cecd0.216152390@news.motzarella.org>, grue@mail.ru
> says... 
>
> Troll.
>

depends on your POV; win98se does have alot of supporters.  I (continue
to) use XP because it hasn't crashed since I installed it; if it wasn't
for that I'd probably still be using win98se or winme; *much* lighter,
more user-comprehensible, full command line; get infected and just
reinstall in a couple minutes.


rpl

On 1/27/08 6:52 PM, in article fnj5f7$2qf$1@registered.motzarella.org, "rpl"
<plinnane3@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> krw wrote: 
>
> depends on your POV; win98se does have alot of supporters.  I (continue
> to) use XP because it hasn't crashed since I installed it; if it wasn't
> for that I'd probably still be using win98se or winme; *much* lighter,
> more user-comprehensible, full command line; get infected and just
> reinstall in a couple minutes.
>

The biggest issues I had with Win98SE/Me was with memory usage/release. I
used a program that would free up memory, with a user-selectable threshold
(Rambooster). It became a very stable system after that.

I went from, on average, rebooting once or twice a day (depending on usage)
to going a w between reboots.

I'm sure your mileage may vary - one of our XP machines at work needs
rebooting at least once per shift. Application issues still create havoc
with the rest of the OS.

In article <2P-dnTPdxs65oADanZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
lon.stowell@comcast.net says...
> krw wrote: 
> Ow, I dont remember having that kind of issue even with Win/95a--which
> wasnt a model of stability.

I didn't have it in 2K either, which was.  Win2K couldn't undock
without rebooting, XP can't anymore either.  :-(

--
Keith

krw wrote:
> In article <fnj5f7$2qf$1@registered.motzarella.org>, plinnane3
> @yahoo.com.invalid says...

<win9x> 
>
> All Win9x variants are a pile of shite.

ain't; they work fine as a personal computer OS, if consistently working
isn't a big priority.  For 95/98/98SE, the ability to drop down to DOS,
fiddle around then restart win.exe is a *very* nice thing to have for
maintenance chores.

>I've been having a lot of
> trouble with XP lately too.  In the five or six years I used Win2K I
> never had any problems that I could pin on M$.

partially, I'm sure is because the system is more non-intuitively
complex and harder to trace through.

My WinME OS installation was 80MB.

>Win2K was by far the
> most stable Windows.

no argument there.

(let's just forget Vista ever happened)

(what is this "Vista" thing you talk about ?)



rpl

kkt <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:

>grue@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) writes:
> 
>
>Which is like being the best waterskier in Antarctica.

Given the water temperature, one would have to be good, or it
would be the Blue Scream of Death.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

rpl <plinnane3@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:

> krw wrote: 
>
> <win9x> 
>
> ain't; they work fine as a personal computer OS, if consistently working
> isn't a big priority.

Oh, sure, if you don't mind it crashing a lot.  And corrupting files.
And 8.3 filenames.  And only doing one application at a time.

Tolerable for games, where crashing can be considered a hazard of the
course.  Intolerable for getting work done.

-- Patrick

Timofei Shatrov wrote:
> Maciej Katafiasz <mathrick@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
> What a bunch of FUD. Win98 is easily the best OS Microsoft has
> ever created. Too bad they don't support it anymore.

It depends on the objective.  For the OP, and absolute beginners,
it is probably not good, and Ubuntu would be much better.  But for
many W98 is quite adequate, and it doesn't get between you and the
machine.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

kkt wrote:
> rpl <plinnane3@yahoo.com.invalid> writes: 
>
> Oh, sure, if you don't mind it crashing a lot.  And corrupting
> files. And 8.3 filenames. And only doing one application at a time.

Funny thing, I am running a W98 FE installation, which was
installed around 2000, and never reinstalled.  It is protected by
ZoneAlarm 2.1.44.  Never been invaded (but I don't do stupid
things).  The filesystem handles horrible long filenames with
BLANKS embedded.  Whenever an app is brought down for illegal
operations I reboot as soon as possible.  Never corrupts files.
Never noticed any limitation of applications running.

Other places I have Ubuntu 6.06 and Mandrake 8.0.  They work too.

Follow-ups set to reduce ridiculous cross-posting.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com