Planning on buying Vista?

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:31:51 GMT
"David J Taylor"
wrote:

Paul Allen wrote:
[]
True, except this was a bug that Microsoft knew about and chose not
to fix. It ran fine (if you can ever say Windows runs "fine") if I
pulled half my RAM. Same memory controller, same everything, just
got rid of the extra RAM that was confusing it. That's not software
unable to run on new hardware. That's broken software.

To me, whether it is "broken" or not depends on the specification of
the software. If Windows 98 is specified to allow a maximum of 512MB
of RAM, and it fails with 1GB, then it's being operated outside it's
specified limits, and it's not faulty software. When you raised the
point, I did see if I could find a speicifcation of the maximum RAM
allowed, but I could not.

I looked too, and could not find a maximum RAM spec for 98. Microsoft's
response to the problem was not, "You're exceeding the spec". It was,
"Try this workaround to get the OS not to step on the bug". Did they
make a calculation that it was not in their interest to invest
engineering time in fixing a Windows 98 bug when they really wanted
everybody to buy XP? Looks like it to me. That would be the in-
character thing for them to do.

When you purchased the PC, did it come with 1GB and Windows 98
loaded? If so, what did the people who supplied the PC do about it -
did the supplier help you?

I can't remember the last time I bought a machine that was all assembled
and with an OS installed. The machine in question had an Asus P4P800
motherboard with a 2.4GHz Pentium C and 1GB of RAM. Pretty mainstream
stuff. Linux installed and ran fine, but I couldn't get Windows 98 or
98SE to run, even with the bug workaround. XP runs mostly OK on this
hardware, but I don't have many data points because I almost never boot
XP.

Paul Allen

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:05:30 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

David J Taylor wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
[]
I've crashed XP many times. It is not immune to misbehaving
programs or programs that wreck havoc with the "registry".

What I've not crashed is my linux system. I use it as a server
and had it run almost two years without a reboot until I just
had to upgrade the hardware.

---- Paul J. Gans

I have had similar experience with Windows systems as servers, with
Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Only those systems which are
Internet facing need to be rebooted, and that's only after security
updates. The last time any of the servers here was rebooted was a local
power outage.

All being well, Vista may tighten up on the ability of such mis-behaving
programs to affect the system.

I expect that's right. XP was a huge improvement over 98.

What has bothered me is that the principles needed for designing
a decent secure OS have been around since 1970. While all this
was going on, computers at major companies didn't crash.

---- Paul J. Gans


Paul,

You are dead right,
they are called mainframes, but that term is elementary as it
generally refers to hardware capabilities.
The internal structure of PC based systems is the problem whereby
processes are run locally instead of centrally.
1970 was a good year for mainframes. I worked for ICL at the time and
recall there was such a who hah over a government loan of £25,000,000
to develop a new system. That system is still being used in most
government sites, plus utilities , eg British Gas. the AA also use
that system (on shared hardware). YOU WILL NOT BREAK IT AS AN
OUTSIDER!!!!!
Regarding software vulnerabilities, it was was ALWAYS appreciated that
software was full of bugs, so ICL always published regualr patches as
part of support contracts. Todays users of PC's have been blinded by
publicity whereby they are convinced that one released, software is
perfect. dream on.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:29:37 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:


I looked too, and could not find a maximum RAM spec for 98. Microsoft's
response to the problem was not, "You're exceeding the spec". It was,
"Try this workaround to get the OS not to step on the bug". Did they
make a calculation that it was not in their interest to invest
engineering time in fixing a Windows 98 bug when they really wanted
everybody to buy XP? Looks like it to me. That would be the in-
character thing for them to do.

I ran Win98 with 1gb of ram for quite a long time. As long as you limit
Vcache to 512mb or less in the system.ini file there should be be no issue.
I never encountered any.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:24:32 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:



Have fun with your boring gray box. Why is it that Windows eXtra
Pathetic runs faster on an Intel Mac than a comparable PC?

Because it doesn't. You're just a dumb Mac user buying into the bull****.
And my box is silver with pleny of bling, bling. They stopped using beige
years ago. Do try keeping up.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:27:20 GMT, Garrot
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:33:20 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:



.. because you can now run Windows on a Mac as well.

David

Yea, but Mac's are already behind the curve on hardware compared to PC's. I
can get a faster video card and a faster cpu for PC than I can have on a
Mac. Although; I hear Mac is getting Core Duo2 soon.



Please , you lot see my previous post re mainframes.
Also

This topic is of the same old story.
EG:-


Is 177 better than 22?

..

There is so much variable, noone will will ever agree, just like
muslim religion/western governments.

All I can say is, ask this question........

Do you agree that there are many millions of people in this world?
Ans, YES

Reply,
And would you also agree that many would disagree?
Ans
YES
Well just include me in that group !!

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:24:32 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:

In article , Garrot
wrote:

You Mac people are so full of **** sometimes. PC has superior hardware to
Mac right now. There's more to a computer than a pretty face. When it comes
to monopolies Apple is no better than Microsoft, actualy they are worse as
the hardware choice is quite limited. Who needs a friigin' PSU plug held in
by a magnet? If you put your PSU cord where people can trip on it then you
are an idiot.

Have fun with your boring gray box. Why is it that Windows eXtra
Pathetic runs faster on an Intel Mac than a comparable PC?

Cos the hardware is probably faster and newr?

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:48:36 GMT, Garrot
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:24:32 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:



Have fun with your boring gray box. Why is it that Windows eXtra
Pathetic runs faster on an Intel Mac than a comparable PC?

Because it doesn't. You're just a dumb Mac user buying into the bull****.
And my box is silver with pleny of bling, bling. They stopped using beige
years ago. Do try keeping up.


Nice one Garrot!!!!

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:45:46 GMT
Garrot wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:29:37 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:


I looked too, and could not find a maximum RAM spec for 98.
Microsoft's response to the problem was not, "You're exceeding the
spec". It was, "Try this workaround to get the OS not to step on
the bug". Did they make a calculation that it was not in their
interest to invest engineering time in fixing a Windows 98 bug when
they really wanted everybody to buy XP? Looks like it to me. That
would be the in- character thing for them to do.

I ran Win98 with 1gb of ram for quite a long time. As long as you
limit Vcache to 512mb or less in the system.ini file there should be
be no issue. I never encountered any.

I don't doubt it, but what's your point? That a band-aid that only
works on some hardware is somehow OK? Whatever floats your boat.
I'm sure glad I don't depend on Windows for much.

Paul Allen

Garrot wrote:
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Have fun with your boring gray box. Why is it that Windows eXtra
Pathetic runs faster on an Intel Mac than a comparable PC?

Because it doesn't. You're just a dumb Mac user buying into the bull****.

Another ignorant Windows bigot.

But that's redundant, isn't it?

--
Ray Fischer

On 10/15/06 2:33 PM, in article ,
"Garrot" wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:01:13 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:


Who would want to defile such outstanding hardware and ignore OS X is
beyond me.

You Mac people are so full of **** sometimes. PC has superior hardware to
Mac right now. There's more to a computer than a pretty face. When it comes
to monopolies Apple is no better than Microsoft, actualy they are worse as
the hardware choice is quite limited. Who needs a friigin' PSU plug held in
by a magnet? If you put your PSU cord where people can trip on it then you
are an idiot.
AFI dreaming that his archaic **** doesn't stink. Dream on.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---