tenth of speed (it's a gradual slowdown). Immediately faster on reboot. This is a clean install, and the problem wasn't there in the last install. I had to reinstall after the hard disk was irrecoverably corrupted.
Which version ?
This is why I NEVER update anything without damn good reason if it works in the first place.
Graham
That is precisely what I had on 98. I now have 2GB on XP and 3GB on Vista 64bit and aren't happy wiv eiver of em. New machine will be 12GB (growing to 24GB when they invent 4GB DDR3 sticks).
--
When you're hospitalised, it pays to be nice to your nurse, even when you're feeling miserable. A bossy businessman learned the hard way after ordering his nurses around as if they were his employees. But the head nurse stood up to him. One morning she entered his room and announced, "I have to take your temperature." After complaining for several minutes, he finally settled down, crossed his arms and opened his mouth. "No, I'm sorry," the nurse stated, "but for this reading, I can't use an oral thermometer." This started another round of complaining, but eventually he rolled over and bared his bottom. After feeling the nurse insert the thermometer, he heard her announce, "I have to get something. Now you stay just like that until I get back!" She left the door to his room open on her way out, and he cursed under his breath as he heard people walking past his door laughing. After almost an hour, the man's doctor came into the room. "What's going on here?" asked the doctor. Angrily, the man answers, "What's the matter, Doc? Haven't you ever seen someone having their temperature taken?" " Yes," said the doctor. "But never with a daffodil."
tenth of speed (it's a gradual slowdown). Immediately faster on reboot. This is a clean install, and the problem wasn't there in the last install. I had to reinstall after the hard disk was irrecoverably corrupted.
32 bit with latest updates. I think it's a motherboard problem. One of the onboard disk controllers no longer works, and for 2 months it refused to install anything form the windows update site. I was installing them one at a time manally, until it started working for some reason. I occasionally get a report that a graphics card hasn't got it's extra power connector connected, but this does not coincide with the slowdown, and the power is on the connector at a stable voltage. Besides, I was getting that error before the reinstall (running happily for a year).the first place.
I find a lot of annoying bugs and crashes disappear with updates.
-- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Never dive into deep concrete.
I have clients that use live CD's and nothing else. No hard drive at all, the data is stored on the central server.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Eeyore wrote:
ASSuMEing he can round up all the device drivers.
Your other suggestion will likely avoid that nuisance. (Linux has superior out-of-the-box hardware support.)
Yup.
If he does go the Win9x route and has beaucoup RAM (over 512MB), he'll likely need this trick:
Get
tenth of speed (it's a gradual >> slowdown). Immediately faster on reboot. This is a clean install, and the problem wasn't there in the >> last install. I had to reinstall after the hard disk was irrecoverably corrupted.
SP3 ?
longer works, and for 2 months it refused to install anything form the windows update site. I was installing them one at a time manally, until it started working for some reason. I occasionally get a report that a graphics card hasn't got it's extra power connector connected, but this does not coincide with the slowdown, and the power is on the connector at a stable voltage. Besides, I was getting that error before the reinstall (running happily for a year).
Not a good sign. Get a new mobo before something craps out.
the first place.
I rarely find bugs in anything. NEVER disturb a stable installation ! My neighbour, who can't resist the 'update now' button (despite me doing everything except punching him on the nose for it) is forever in a pickle and then expects me to fix it.
Graham
I never had a problem. He's not running new hardware, note. And there are plenty of driver sites. Bar oddball cards he should be OK.
Interesting. Not totally dissimilar to other tricks I've used (check cacheman) and advanced memory usage in control panel but useful. Bookmarked. Thanks.
Graham
me was the successor to 98, AFAICT it was supposed to fail
2000 was the successor to NT 4 (ie NT5) XP is NT6 vista is NT7
late
OS
don't state
swap
for
Thanks Graham,
Thanks for the help.
I do have 512M RAM in the notebook.
It was given to me with Win-ME loaded but it locks up occasionally/intermittently doing just mundane tasks like installing new software or poping between windows too quickly or moving the mouse too fast. I never realy heard or read anything good about ME and now i have some evidence of OS flaky-ness.
I should have stated that i was really looking for an OS other than MS flavors.
I mostly cut my computing teeth on **many** early and later unix variants like AT&T Unix PC, SCO, AIX ( i think i have an RS6000 around here somewhere) , Apple A/UX, HP-UX, SunOS , Solaris etc.....
Some flavor of Linux is a definite consideration.
As for interesting i was thinking if something like an experimental OS existed (e.g. Java-OS) or if an MMIX implementation for x86 architecture existed ?
anyways thanks for the helpful comments and advice,
robb
state
Get
tenth of speed (it's a gradual >> slowdown). Immediately faster on reboot. This is a clean install, and the problem wasn't there in the >> last install. I had to reinstall after the hard disk was irrecoverably corrupted.
Uhhhh yeah.
longer works, and for 2 months it refused to install anything form the windows update site. I was installing them one at a time manally, until it started working for some reason. I occasionally get a report that a graphics card hasn't got it's extra power connector connected, but this does not coincide with the slowdown, and the power is on the connector at a stable voltage. Besides, I was getting that error before the reinstall (running happily for a year).
I'm building an entirely new computer. £1600 worth of it. I want more memory, more CPU, different OS, and faster hard disk. So starting from scratch seems sensible.
the first place.
neighbour, who can't resist the 'update now' button (despite me doing everything except punching him on the nose for it) is forever in a pickle and then expects me to fix it.
I have yet to see an update make something worse. They always make things crash less, or fix some annoying irritation.
-- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Reboot - to kick a computer in such a way that it turns off and then on again.
But why buy ME when 2000 is available?!?!? It doesn't matter what it's based on, 2000 had everything ME did, and more.
-- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com After three years of marriage, Kim was still questioning her husband about his lurid past. "C'mon, tell me," she asked for the thousandth time, "How many women have you slept with?" "Baby, " he protested, "if I told you, you'd throw a fit." Kim promised she wouldn't get angry, and convinced her hubby to tell her. "Okay," he said, then started to count on his fingers "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven - then there's you - nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen . . . "
As was mentioned, device drivers can be hard to come by. This is especially true for non-desktops. (Outside the Linux realm,) the age of the OS is a factor WRT acquiring device drivers. I have seen several reports of manufacturers taking down dated driver caches from their sites.
Note to all who have frozentech.com's Live CD List bookmarked: Update your link. (It redirects for now.) . . Just as WINE is a reverse-engineered set of Windoze APIs to let you run Windoze-compatible apps under Linux, this
Knoppix runs from CD
on, 2000 had everything ME did, and more.
They were not 100% compatible with each other. ME was the end of the Win FAT 95 family, while W2K was a stepping stone from early NTFS Win NT to XP.
They were intended for different markets. ME was for home use, while W2K was for business use. Microsoft clearly stated that ME would be the last FAT version of Windows. W2K was released, because the development of XP was way behind schedule.
By your troll logic there was no reason to buy Windows CE, when NT was availible.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
I take exception to your use of "FAT". NT-based kernels can do FAT12, FAT16, and FAT32.
**DOS-based** is the prefered term for Win3.x/Win9x.
It's not his fault you need to go on a diet :-P
-- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com In the UK, 90% of things are prohibited. The other 10% are compulsory.
based on, 2000 had everything ME did, and more.
on a desktop.
What are YOU talking about? CE was used in a lot of embedded industrial applications, including some custom built $80,000 CB-2000/DR-2000 telemetry receivers I shipped to NASA, and other US government agencies.
you play games just as much as 98!
Games? No wonder you're so stupid. Some early Windows 95/98/SE software didn't run under any version of NT. the OEM license ME was cheaper, per machine, than W2K as well.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
FAT = 'File Allocation Table'
Prefer whatever you want. 'New Technology' was designed around NTFS. Windows 1.0 through 3.1 WFWG were designed around FAT.
Yes, you can use the wrong file system, and eliminate one of the few improvements in Windows at that time, but why? If you wanted the best performance, you used the proper file system. I used windows CE, with an
80 MB solid state hard drive. It contained the operating system, the equipment's control software, as well as the customer's configuration data. The equipment used a 25 line by 80 column plasma display.The software was installed by plugging a floppy drive, keyboard, mouse and LCD monitor into the PC-104 SBC to boot & log into the engineering network server. A batch file formatted the M-Disk drive, and downloaded all the install files. You ran the installer file, and rebooted. You moved the Windows related icons to the bottom of the screen, made sure the GUI was in the proper location on the plasma display, and sent the radio to final test for the final BER testing with the Fireberd. CE was picked, because it would run in the available memory, and had enough security to keep the user out of the system software. The completed radio had a rotary encoder and a small keypad to configure the system by the customer. They couldn't access the CE system icons, didn't have a mouse to move a cursor around the screen, or a keyboard to use the command line.
I spent about six months moving the design from engineering, to the production floor after the basic engineering was complete.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
based on, 2000 had everything ME did, and more.
install on a desktop.
Pocket telemtry recivers presumably. CE is mini windows.
lets you play games just as much as 98!
NT I agree, it didn't allow some software (mainly games) to run. But 2000 was not like NT in this respect even though it was based on it.
-- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Take some good advice: Never try to baptize your cat.
based on, 2000 had everything ME did, and more.
install on a desktop.
You are about to lose your trolling permit. Windows CE was "Compact Edition' in that it left off all the crap you didn't need for embedded applications. Things like games, handicap accesibility, and IE. It was NT that had been stripped to the bare bones. Its too bad you aren't as smart as you pretend to be. If you were you could work at a fast food place.
lets you play games just as much as 98!
not like NT in this respect even though it was based on it.
A lot of the custom engineering and production software we used at the company wouldn't run under NT or W2k, so they just kept using Win 95 in those applications. We had a SATE for the Scientific-Atlanta product line that only ran under the initial release of Windows 2.0. I suppose you think that would have run under W2K? It couldn't be updated, since Scientific-Atlanta had destroyed the source code, after losing a patent infringement case.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.