Blasphemy (I know, I know ...... but ?????)

[melgross]

That's very cute.

Fransexy_ wrote:

The question is; Do you always want to be about two generations behind in everything?

On x86 world running windows you always have the perfomance of two generations behind.To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point

Linux has become as bloatware as windows in the lastest years so........

And onother os on x86 is only another win for windows as every pc sold is money for microsoft  :madashell:

[melgross]

Technically, then, the old 68000 isn't obsolete either, but we know that it is as well. Obsolete means that the purpose or performance or cost to manufacture is superseeded by more current models. I'm sure the C64 is still useful, that doesn't mean that it hasn't been obsolete for 20 years.

Waccoon wrote:

melgross:  By obsolete, I don't mean that they can't still be used if you have them. I mean that we won't be seeing anything new using those chips.

Well, technically something is obsolete, or outmoded, when it is no longer useful.  :-)

[motorollin]

@Melgross
Please can you stop posting your replies on the top of the quoted text? Everyone else on this forum posts replies at the bottom, and one person quoting a different way makes it very hard to follow the thread, and also means people may have to re-arrange the text to quote what you wrote.

--
moto

[melgross]

Sorry. The quote button is in a stupid place then. It should be at the top.

[motorollin]

I see your point  - the button is at the bottom, and it puts the text at the bottom, so you left it at the bottom :-) I think most of the people on this forum (myself included) are following Usenet etiquette, in which most people quote from the top down and put their reply right at the bottom.

--
moto

[melgross]

You're right of course. What happened is that this was the first time I used quotes here. When I decided to quote, I couldn't find the button, which on other forums is where the reply is, on the original post. The quote is automatic when you hit reply. This threw me. It was only when I scrolled down to give up and post, that I saw it. So that's how I started to use it.

This is typical of Amiga problems though, isn't it? Everything is backwards.

[irishmike]

Fransexy wrote: To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point

I have been looking at "Vista" which is supposed to be the next great Windows.  It scares me that M$ is planning to implement an OS that has the power to change the Web on any computer running the new Windows.  This is all in the name of Digital Rights Management.  But consider:  If there is questionable content on my machine that someone (currently not defined who this would be) at Microsoft did not like they can delete it from every machine that runs Vista on the Internet.  Assuming that the originating owner of the machine you downloaded this "questionable content" from was on Vista, M$ with a keystroke could wipe the item from the face of the Internet.  Very Scary!

If this (one scenario I heard as outlined above) is true of Vista, then I will definitely NOT upgrade.  This would be a catalyst for me to make the permanent switch to Linux.  Despite my "hold out" programs.  I feel a lot of people are thinking the same way.

Mind you, right now (today) the Vista OS is still being developed (it is supposed to be a total departure from NT) and Vista is merely a nicer looking Windows -- if you check out M$.com and look at Vista you can decide for yourself ;-)

My only problems with Linux at this point are the lack of software for my Printers (I can get drivers yes, but example My Epson Stylus Photo R220 prints CDs with special software, not able to do it under Linux -- one feature gone that I use all the time unless I am on a Mac or Windows -- Same with my HP all-in-one).  And the two programs that I have found no Linux equivalent for. iTunes and TextPad(on Windows) or BBEDIT (on Mac) to do my coding.  The Linux software in these realms is just not there.

[_yak_]

@ irishmike

No need to worry. If such a "feature" will be there it will be hacked in couple of weeks after the release.

[irishmike]

But why even upgrade to headache 2.0?  I am not sure how integrated the system is.  You can't hack out kernel based encryption of the files put on the OS.  The buzz is that once you copy your files to the new OS, they are encrypted and can not be copied to any other machine.  I am not sure if that is true or not, but even if it is not... I have been convinced that Windows ends at XP for me.

[Fransexy_]

I think you're still stuck in 1995. Try running Windows98 on a 1Ghz Celeron. Then replace it with WindowsXP. You should notice a huge improvement in performance, even without much more memory usage.

I had installed windows98 then upgrade to xp, xp was so slow on my machine that i have to install windows 2000, so no, i not notice an huge improvement in performance with XP is quite the opossite.

I have proven and installed almost every avaliable OS, so maybe you are who is stuck in the 95

[Boot_WB]

Funny, I AM running XP on a 1GHz celeron laptop (with 384mb ram) and, although I was impressed with the performance increase between vanilla-XP and when-I'd-turned-off-the-bells-and-whistles XP - now I'm used to it I rather miss W2K (which is on my desktop).
A lot of this is down to the fact that the hard drive will only run at PI0 mode even though it is capable of UDMA4 (and yes, I have enabled DMA in both BIOS and device manager - I also tried deleting and reinstalling the primary IDE bus - no effect).
So I'm still weighing up W2K - WXP? Which is less annoying?

WXP will barely function with less than 256MB memory, Windows 2000 was reasonably happy with 128MB+.

The wizards actually seem to work in XP, however doing things manually seems much harder than previous generations.  Which is a turnaround - after X-generations of windows where I'm used to doing things manually with the wizards being an annoyance, I find I now HAVE to use the wizards, and I don't like this.
The rollback feature is a plus - but I'll use this once a year, so it's not a deciding factor.
Drivers included with WXP are a plus, but Driverguide is only a click away.

With a 1.86GHZ/533fsb/2Mb cache dothan running with 1GB memory using Windows 2000 it is by far the best machine I've ever had, and better than most I've ever used.  Think I'll stick with 2k until something requires I upgrade.

[Waccoon]

Fransexy:  I had installed windows98 then upgrade to xp, xp was so slow on my machine that i have to install windows 2000, so no, i not notice an huge improvement in performance with XP is quite the opossite.

Sorry, man, but I do those kinds of upgrades all the time.  XP is quite a bit faster, overall, provided you use the classic interface.

I've never done a 98 to XP upgrade, though.  I always do clean installs.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if an upgrade turns the machine into sludge.

BootWB:  A lot of this is down to the fact that the hard drive will only run at PI0 mode even though it is capable of UDMA4 (and yes, I have enabled DMA in both BIOS and device manager - I also tried deleting and reinstalling the primary IDE bus - no effect).

Is this an nForce-based motherboard?  nVidia has their own ATA driver which may help.  There are also known problems between Maxtor drives and nVidia chipsets.

BootWB:  So I'm still weighing up W2K - WXP? Which is less annoying?

The main reason I've avoided XP (besides the issues changing hardware configurations), is that I hate those stupid pop-up balloons.

Also, Microsoft changed almost everything regarding network settings -- for worse.  I despise the new wizards.  Win2K is much, much easier to set up with regard to networking.  Then again, Windows networking was always braindead to begin with.  ;-)

Think I'll stick with 2k until something requires I upgrade.

I hope you've archived all the Win2K tools that you've gotten from Microsoft over the years.  They're no longer available for download.  I tried to get ACT 3.0 to help someone make a compatibility patch for 2K, only to find out it has been completely replaced by ACT 4.1, which will not run at all on Win2K.

Microsoft supports their products for 6 years.  While that's longer than most companies will support their products (*cough* Apple *cough*), now that Win2K is out of its support life, you may want to update.  XP is also a "consumer" product, rather than the workstation product that is Win2K, so it'll likely be supported for a very, very long time.

[Fransexy_]

Sorry, man, but I do those kinds of upgrades all the time. XP is quite a bit faster, overall, provided you use the classic interface.

I've never done a 98 to XP upgrade, though. I always do clean installs. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an upgrade turns the machine into sludge.

I tried the two (as i said i like to prove all OSS and combinations),And surprising XP is faster with an upgrade than clean install, and is faster intalled over a fat partition than on a NTFS one; these are my experiences obviosly your average could vary, perhaps you do not notice the difference in fast machines but in limited computers you see the slownest of the xp over old versions of windows what corroborates my exposition that  you need the next generation PC for run in "happily" speeds each new version of Windows