G
Guest
So their is no 3rd party utility for Win XP in existance that can read a
diskette compressed by such a monster?
diskette compressed by such a monster?
Guy Ollerearnshaw said:Are you sure there's no Drivespace solution at all?
I think I read somewhere that if you install Win98 before XP there is some
kind of option to maitain better compatibility with the previous OS - even
being still able to boot Win98. Is this true?
Guy Ollerearnshaw said:Are you sure there's no Drivespace solution at all?
I think I read somewhere that if you install Win98 before XP there is some
kind of option to maitain better compatibility with the previous OS - even
being still able to boot Win98. Is this true?
Windows XP has it's own compression, which is far superior. Therefore,
DriveSpace is not needed - nor is it supported.
No. Progress. Drivespace just isn't efficient anymore.
There are no longer horse stables on my street.
I don't agree that not supporting in 2002 what you were pushing as the best
thing since sliced bread in 1998 is exactly progress. In many fields, it is
compulsory to provide spare parts for items for 10 years after they were
last sold. Failing to support a 98 feature in XP seems to me to be very much
the sort of arrogance that makes many professionals froth at the mouth when
talking about Microsoft. I really would have thought that it wouldn't have
been beyond Microsoft's ability to produce a decompressor/decoder.
Keep in mind that XP is from the NT branch of the MS product line: WinNT,
Win2000, WinXP. No drivespace present in any of them. The Win9x line was
separate from that progression.
Your point is not lost though. For example, MSBackup incompatibilities from
one Win9x flavor to the next. Or even drivespace, drivespace 2, etc.
Colin said:XP is not descended from
Win98 and Drivespace in any flavor is obsolete. Drivespace 3
belonged the Windows 4.x era.
Ian said:Don't you think your analogy is just a tad extreme however? Even in
backwoods old central France, horses haven't been used that much for 60
years, while Win 98 was only introduced 7 years ago. I do feel that there is
a tiny weeny difference.
Colin Barnhorst said:There are no longer horse stables on my street.
--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
Ian Hoare said:Salut/Hi "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com>,
le/on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:50:14 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
I don't agree that not supporting in 2002 what you were pushing as the
best
thing since sliced bread in 1998 is exactly progress. In many fields, it
is
compulsory to provide spare parts for items for 10 years after they were
last sold. Failing to support a 98 feature in XP seems to me to be very
much
the sort of arrogance that makes many professionals froth at the mouth
when
talking about Microsoft. I really would have thought that it wouldn't have
been beyond Microsoft's ability to produce a decompressor/decoder.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website