J
Jon Danniken
Interious said:
Any reason in particular that you don't like sp4?
Jon
Any reason in particular that you don't like sp4?
Jon
R
rferoni
yeah but did that older machine with win98 have the same RAM, Processor,
etc??
ron
|
|
| Will Dormann wrote:
|
| > Ancra wrote:
| > > Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
| > > 'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
| > > 2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
| > > in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
| > > priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being ****ed up.
| >
| > My primary reason for switching from Win9x was the "resources" problem
| > with the entire line. If you run too many programs at once and your
| > GDI or User resources drops below a certain level... BAM! The whole
| > system crashes. You don't even have to be running a ton of programs at
| > once, either. All it takes is one or two poorly coded programs to suck
| > up your Win9x resources. (I just noticed today on my parents' machine
| > that SpyBot Search & Destroy uses lots of resources)
| >
| > WinNT/2k/XP do not have this same resource limitation. Run as many
| > programs as you like. The worst thing that'll probably happen is that
| > the system will slow down as it starts swapping.
| >
| > For this reason, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Win9x is
| > significantly less stable.
| >
|
| I don't know a lot about it but what you say seems to be correct to me.
If
| you have an older slower machine it's real obvious. Win XP seems to handle
| the programs much better. I need to have four programs running at once on
an
| older machine I have and with win 98se they were always glitchy and slow.
| With win xp they all run very smoothly and with no slowdowns or glitches
or
| crashes at all. Imho A big difference.
|
|
|
| Roger
|
etc??
ron
|
|
| Will Dormann wrote:
|
| > Ancra wrote:
| > > Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
| > > 'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
| > > 2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
| > > in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
| > > priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being ****ed up.
| >
| > My primary reason for switching from Win9x was the "resources" problem
| > with the entire line. If you run too many programs at once and your
| > GDI or User resources drops below a certain level... BAM! The whole
| > system crashes. You don't even have to be running a ton of programs at
| > once, either. All it takes is one or two poorly coded programs to suck
| > up your Win9x resources. (I just noticed today on my parents' machine
| > that SpyBot Search & Destroy uses lots of resources)
| >
| > WinNT/2k/XP do not have this same resource limitation. Run as many
| > programs as you like. The worst thing that'll probably happen is that
| > the system will slow down as it starts swapping.
| >
| > For this reason, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Win9x is
| > significantly less stable.
| >
|
| I don't know a lot about it but what you say seems to be correct to me.
If
| you have an older slower machine it's real obvious. Win XP seems to handle
| the programs much better. I need to have four programs running at once on
an
| older machine I have and with win 98se they were always glitchy and slow.
| With win xp they all run very smoothly and with no slowdowns or glitches
or
| crashes at all. Imho A big difference.
|
|
|
| Roger
|
R
Roger M
rferoni said:
Yes, it's exactly the same as it was and has all the apps installed just like
they were. I didn't have to search for drivers win xp installed all of the
drivers and all the apps loaded perfectly. It's a huge difference especially
when I need to print a bunch of stuff, before all the other apps would slow or
stop now everything just keeps going like I'm not printing anything at all. Plus
it hasn't crashed once since the install. The other thing I like is it starts up
quickly in the morning. Less than a minute to boot up. Win 98 has always been
very slow starting on every computer I've ever owned. I've changed them all over
to XP.
Roger
R
Roger M
rferoni said:
Yes, it's exactly the same as it was and has all the apps installed just like
they were. I didn't have to search for drivers win xp installed all of the
drivers and all the apps loaded perfectly. It's a huge difference especially
when I need to print a bunch of stuff, before all the other apps would slow or
stop now everything just keeps going like I'm not printing anything at all. Plus
it hasn't crashed once since the install. The other thing I like is it starts up
quickly in the morning. Less than a minute to boot up. Win 98 has always been
very slow starting on every computer I've ever owned. I've changed them all over
to XP.
Roger
A
Ancra
- Great intput. - Thanks. But no
You're not disagreeing with me.Let me quote myself: 'significantly' (mainstream desktop use).
If you use up 9x resources, you don't fall into what I intended as
"mainstream desktop" cathegory.
Still, I think I have to express my reservations about running
programs, that are able to suck up 9x resources, on any OS. You're
right, they're crap code. The problem is probably that some
repetitious operation is requesting handles and contexts, but doesn't
free them as it's done with them. In this case, it's not just a
question of many programs, but for how long you run them. (The fact
that you actually notice this on 9x, could be seen as an advantage
;-)). I've (testing) run something like 100 graphic threads
simultaneously on Win95. All of them rendering through GDI at once,
without any problems at all. So I'm kinda leaning towards the opinion
that it does take "poorly coded" to suck up resources. "Ton of
programs" by itself probably doesn't do it.
Incidentally, I'm guilty of that "poorly coded" myself. But as I
remember it, (W95) I got a system warning, not a system crash. So a
crash probably involves other factors as well.
ancra
A
Ancra
This doesn't reflect my experience. On the contrary, 98se seems
snappier to me. (But I've heard your side before, so there must be
something to it). 98se is supposed to boot and launch apps slower,
than any other Windows, ok, - but it does run them very well!
Question: What do you mean by "glitchy and slow". Is this your way of
describing the fact that their user interface is 'hesitant', seems
locked up or pauses at instants?
That's normal for 9x when any of many common apps is run. And it has
to do with how things are serialized and synchronized in the UI. And
the fact that in the Windows program model, the apps thread enters the
GUI. So it's not a question of resources. And the app doesn't actually
run 'slower' or glitchy. It's just that there is no thread minding the
GUI at times. The thread owning the GUI does something else, while
still, locking out other threads from the GUI.
(The reason is requirement of 100% compatibility with Win16 apps)
I don't know much about XP internals, but it should be better in this
respect, considering the emphasis on having multimedia apps running
well..
(I certainly agree that XP is 'better'. That was my recommendation)
P.S.
If this "glitchy and slow" problem is very pronounced, then you may
have a problem in your 9x OS install. I haven't figured this out, but
I've had exactly that problem myself repeatedly, and it was how I
finally learned not to be lazy, and really disconnect CDRW-drives and
extra video cards before installing Windows.
ancra
I
Interious
I probably should have kept my mouth shut regarding XP. I've not seen
sufficient samples to come to any legitimate conclusions.
Officially retracted.
sufficient samples to come to any legitimate conclusions.
Officially retracted.
I
Interious
I tried SP4 and it jammed up this particular machine (Epox/1600+/512)
to maddening levels. I think I installed every patch and MS kludge I
could find. Googling suggested many others were discovering a buggy
SP4, so I returned to SP2 and installed every patch/upgrade I could
find.
Any suggestions on how to get sp4 running in a reasonable fashion?
Dave
to maddening levels. I think I installed every patch and MS kludge I
could find. Googling suggested many others were discovering a buggy
SP4, so I returned to SP2 and installed every patch/upgrade I could
find.
Any suggestions on how to get sp4 running in a reasonable fashion?
Dave
W
Will Dormann
Jon said:
My system does not properly restore from STR mode with SP4. With SP3,
all is fine.
-WD
S
Shep©
My win98SE boot up time is a round 30 seconds
As I dual boot there's little or no difference in my boot times with
WinXP
--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
email shepATpartyheld.de
Free songs download,
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
R
Roger M
Shep© said:My win98SE boot up time is a round 30 seconds
As I dual boot there's little or no difference in my boot times with
WinXP
Not my experience but we all can't be the same. I have had eight different machines
in use over the last eight years. All of the win98 machines were very slow to start.
I never let anything start on start up and always ran the apps I needed after the
machines were up and running. Win 98 and 98se both very slow booting on every machine
I've ever owned. Win XP took a very slow starting machine and made it a quick booting
machine. I'll admit XP has made a huge difference in my perception of all of my
computers performance.
Roger
R
Roger M
Ancra said:
Not my experience. At best I could say my machine worked before XP. I could not
say they worked well though.
No glitchy and slow means, I have several programs working at once and when one
is doing something it will completely stop the other one from working. One thing
I have one machine (a rather old Compaq p2 450) do is play music throughout my
business. If I use that machine to print out some diagrams under win98 the music
would stop and start repeatedly until the printing task was done. Really a simple
thing but damn annoying anyway. With winXP on the very same machine all is well.
No matter what I have it doing nothing stops working and everything keeps moving
including the music which continues without any hiccups.
I have a dos program from the mid eighties I use on one of my machines and it
would stop all other programs from working in win98, not so in winXP but it seems
to use a lot of processing power. Got any idea why?
I've tried just about everything but the cure was XP. I bought one copy of 98
for all of my machines (I know). So when I decided to go to XP I bought a copy to
try on one machine since I would have to buy multiple copies for all of the
machines. I bought them and it was money well spent (a peace of mind thing). No
crashes, not one since I changed over. Remember I don't know much about this
stuff so my experience is from that viewpoint.
Roger