Post by: Nitelthrome-X on October 24, 2003 05:31 pm CDT
Post by: Nitelthrome-X on October 24, 2003 05:31 pm CDT
Post by: Darwin on October 24, 2003 06:14 pm CDT
Post by: Nitelthrome-X on October 24, 2003 07:23 pm CDT
Post by: BlAcK-IcE on October 24, 2003 11:19 pm CDT
Post by: LastWish on October 25, 2003 02:37 am CDT
(http://http://sazuka.rytek.info/bground.jpg)
Post by: Darwin on October 25, 2003 03:43 pm CDT
Post by: Particle on October 25, 2003 05:46 pm CDT
Here's mine!
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 25, 2003 05:47 pm CDT
Post by: Particle on October 25, 2003 05:50 pm CDT
That's just my take on the subject when people comment about a cluttered desktop or quicklaunch. What it comes down to is this: You do what works for you, and I'll do what works for me.
I'm not trying to single you out, Silv. That's a general opinion there.
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 25, 2003 05:53 pm CDT
(I don't use desktop shortcuts either, by the way.)
Post by: xkenshinx on October 25, 2003 06:24 pm CDT
ill kick your ass in it particle
even though i havn't touched it in like 6 months >_<
Post by: Particle on October 25, 2003 06:26 pm CDT
Post by: LastWish on October 25, 2003 06:31 pm CDT
Post by: xkenshinx on October 25, 2003 06:33 pm CDT
Quote from: "Particle"
Likely so--my friend and I usually play together against one bot on moderate or hard. We've lost before.
nub lol..
Post by: Particle on October 25, 2003 06:37 pm CDT
Post by: LastWish on October 25, 2003 06:37 pm CDT
Quote from: "Darwin"
Now thats style I want! How exactly did you customize it to look like that? Im using a Win2k scene atm.
I use WindowsBlinds, which gives the custom effects for the start menu and windows, etc..
Here's some examples of what my windows look like:
(http://http://sazuka.rytek.info/bgroundetc.jpg)
Post by: Nitelthrome-X on October 25, 2003 09:12 pm CDT
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 25, 2003 09:16 pm CDT
Post by: Lidge Farkley on October 25, 2003 09:50 pm CDT
I was going to mention that I am still running Win98SE and could set all my stuff to look just like that (if I REALLY wanted) but personally I dig the plain boring flat colors of the old style.
In any case, XP does not offer much new stuff in the way of features (for most people) as it really just reorganized all the defaults and the look of everything so you have to figure out where everything is again and how to modify all the OS stuff again (illogically they removed the network protocols tab from the network properties window and added a 'network bridge' icon in the networking control panel... more clickin, more confusion. Comming from a win98se/win2k environment, all the extr icons and reordered bullmalarkey made me frustrated with my bro's new computer, and I reverted to my windows98SE again.)
The only things I like about XP is that it has .net framework with it in the newest versions (from what I hear) and they fixed the active dessktop so it's not a memory hog, though you have to go download the upgrade as soon as you install. It seems that there's so many damn upgrades to download that it's really not feasible for anyone slower than Cable/DSL to get a new OS, especially if they've already spent years downloading patches for their windows98SE machine. (I just got DSL in march this year. If I had lived 1/4 of a mile farther away, it would be an other 4 years before I could get it, and I would be stuck on my 56k still)
You need to decide what's really best for your needs, but if all you want is to change your skins and GUI, then you could stay with windows98se and still have the same look. (though, as I don't use skinning stuff, I am not sure how all that works :-p)
Peace.
Post by: Particle on October 25, 2003 10:03 pm CDT
Code: [Select]
Compiled on 9/21/2003
Used Storage
------------
6,354,587,648
10,824,609,792
237,313,683,456
===============
254,492,880,896
Usable Capacity
---------------
10,487,197,696
29,520,494,592
479,994,048,512
===============
520,001,740,800
Statistics
---------------
48.94% Full
51.06% Free
===============================================
Compiled on 10/25/2003
Used Storage
------------
7,796,891,648
14,680,297,472
253,167,849,472
===============
275,645,038,592
Usable Capacity
---------------
10,487,197,696
29,520,494,592
479,994,048,512
===============
520,001,740,800
Statistics
---------------
53.01% Full
46.99% Free
Growth
---------------
+21,152,157,696
To some of us, that amount of space doesn't much matter. As for an extra 75MB of RAM:
(http://http://www.pcrpg.org/pics/misc/ramuse.gif)
Windows XP is more stable, that's the big advantage over 9x. That's why I like it--I love Windows 2000 as well. Things change, you can get used to a new icon layout, as did everybody else that was used to Windows 98.
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 25, 2003 10:10 pm CDT
And as for usage, XP takes anywhere from 75-90MB, idling. 98SE takes 25-30. Some of us don't have supercomputers with hundreds of megs of RAM to burn. I haven't noticed any stability problems with 98SE. In fact, I've had the most grief with XP.
Post by: Bice on October 25, 2003 10:21 pm CDT
Post by: LastWish on October 25, 2003 10:34 pm CDT
Quote from: "Silvanoshei"
Windows 98SE is infinitely better than Windows XP. (Well, in my opinion.) I can sacrifice a few GUI's, themes, and drivers for an extra 700MB of space and 75MB of runtime RAM. And you don't need Windows XP for a quicklaunch, background, and Winamp skin.
No, I would never.. EVER go back to 98SE. Iv'e never had so many problems with any OS in my life--Iv'e been on win2k pro for over a month and I have only froze up ONE time, and ctrl+alt+del fixed it.. with 98SE, if I ever froze, I had to restart regardless of what I did.
Windows 2000 is 100x more stable, and a ton more compatible with the latest software and updates..
Quote from: "Silvanoshei"
What's that file? the difference in space between 98SE and XP? If so, that's either wrong or you took 98SE at absolute maximum capacity and XP at minimum; and even then the diffrence wouldn't be that small. Under typical install, XP takes almost a gig, and 98SE takes about 250 - 300MB.
And as for usage, XP takes anywhere from 75-90MB, idling. 98SE takes 25-30. Some of us don't have supercomputers with hundreds of megs of RAM to burn. I haven't noticed any stability problems with 98SE. In fact, I've had the most grief with XP.
I'm on a pentium3 700 mhz with 383 ram, and I have no problems with lack of resources at all--in fact, I run much quicker on 2000 than I did on 98SE (purely because of stability). I definately don't have anything near a supercomputer.. you can't even buy these things anymore o_o
Post by: Newbie on October 26, 2003 12:02 am CDT
Post by: Blink on October 26, 2003 12:40 am CDT
Post by: Newbie on October 26, 2003 12:44 am CDT
Post by: Blink on October 26, 2003 12:45 am CDT
Post by: Jason_Xero on October 26, 2003 01:20 am CDT
WinXP = NTFS (or FAT32)
FAT32 = Files up to 4GB
NTFS = Files up to 2TB (or for those computer illiterate, 2 Tera Bytes or 2,000GB)
WinXP = teh winnar.
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 01:25 am CDT
Someday we will all be 100% linux. Someday. Someday.
Post by: Jason_Xero on October 26, 2003 01:39 am CST
Quote from: "Darwin"
Someday we will all be 100% linux. Someday. Someday.
Even mac users? Now you're dreamin...
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 01:45 am CST
Post by: Jason_Xero on October 26, 2003 02:20 am CST
Post by: Lidge Farkley on October 26, 2003 03:19 am CST
Admittedly, when I first got windows98, it was craptactical, and I only used DOS unless 98 was needed.
Then I got windows98se. I have had about 40 crashes in the last 4 years, and each has been from a crash due to an unpatched 3rd party program, a user-induced crash (visiting a popup-spawning site, like ezboard, for example), or because of a hardware failure (cd-rom, in my case, or ram failure, for example.)
As far as stability, as long as I keep my system defragmented and scandisked monthly or bi-monthly (sometimes I can go for a few months if I don't use it too much for anything elaborate) with out a single crash. I have litterally never had a windows98se related crash that wasn't caused by a 3rd party program or hardware failure in my entire 4 years of running windows98se. I stick to it primarily for that simple reason.
Of the OS's I have used windows98se has been the most stable and most simple of all. I really thought OSX for mac's was a really neato-OS, but I didn't need all the extra crap it had, much like I don't need a lot of the extra crap XP seems to have (though as I said earlier, the updated framework compatability would be nice [if I ever ran a server].)
I have used wME, wXP, w2k, OSX, and for a few minutes (this I wouldn't count for much) Yellow Dog Linux, as well as Red Hat 6.0 for a few minutes.
I really thought that graphically those were all superior to windows98se, but they were all (as I said before) full of stuff I either didn't need or simply found to be a neusance.
Stability I have seen on many systems for all OS's. In the modern OS world (post 98 1st edition) I have seen all systems running the variety I mentioned above crash, hang, and have stability issues. The thing is, all most all of those cases were in fact user-induced errors, or hardware failure related problems. As far as I can tell, stability relies on the users ability to keep their computer up to date and well cared for both in the hardware and the software. [clarification: I am not a novice user, but being new to installing a new OS I would need to go through the painful process of installing and deciphering what I needed and didn't need for the system to function the way I wanted, as I did with 95,98,98se, and redhat6. I would not look forward to that for some what I would consider to be minor improovements.]
If I were going to make a choice based on my server-based usage (of which I have none currently) and I couldn't afford one of those mega-cool sun systems (er whatever I would want to use as a file server) I would go with Windows2000 or with a Linux Distro. Again I find their slimmed dowwn ease-of-use is much more clear cut than the clutterware of OSX and XP. Of course, one could argue that if you know what you're doing when you install the OS, you can remove a lot of the clutter. Unfortunately most novice computer users don't understand what is going on exactly when they do install their OS, and it becomes clutterware anyway.
The use of the "2 GB barrier broken" phrase is not warranted I feel. I have filled up a 17 GB drive with programs, MP3's and other random bits of stuff with my windows98SE running, and by golly I had no apparent probelms with my file structure one bit. As far as I can tell, fdisk didn't really care what size I made the FAT32 partitions, and windows scolded me, though let me install and manage the entirety of the drives any way. So, though indeed I agree that NTFS is a better organised file structure, I still don't really see that ass a reason to shell out $200+ for a new OS. ;-)
Quote
by darwin
Someday we will all be 100% linux. Someday. Someday.
Quote
by jason X
Even mac users? Now you're dreamin...
FYI, there is at least one Linux Distribution for the MAC, and it's called Yellow Dog Linux. It looks the same as OSX to me... but that may be because it was configured to look like that. :-)
Any way you slice this whole thing though, I always have come back to windows98se. Of all the OS's I have used (other than DOS, which was the only product I admired microsoft for... which is also made of much 'borrowed code') I always end up back at Windows98SE. Of all my computer experiences, I haven't been shown an honest reason for me to upgrade my OS at all. W98se is still the best windows based operating system for my money, my uses, my stability and system resources.
Those are my reasons, and I'm sticking to them. You may have reasons why you run your OS, but these are mine.
(of course... after I build my next PowerHouse of a computer... I won't need to worry about running 98se any more... but I probably still will... why not eh?)
Post by: Pecker on October 26, 2003 03:59 am CST
Quote from: "Darwin"
Someday we will all be 100% linux. Someday. Someday.
The hell we will
Post by: Particle on October 26, 2003 07:16 am CST
Quote from: "Silvanoshei"
What's that file? the difference in space between 98SE and XP? If so, that's either wrong or you took 98SE at absolute maximum capacity and XP at minimum; and even then the diffrence wouldn't be that small. Under typical install, XP takes almost a gig, and 98SE takes about 250 - 300MB.
And as for usage, XP takes anywhere from 75-90MB, idling. 98SE takes 25-30. Some of us don't have supercomputers with hundreds of megs of RAM to burn. I haven't noticed any stability problems with 98SE. In fact, I've had the most grief with XP.
I quoted your own numbers. What I was showing you was my computer's storage capacity and usage from two different dates. The point I was trying to get across is that 700MB is unimportant to a lot of people nowadays. If you have even say a 20GB HDD, a 300MB OS vs a 1.1GB OS is going to make little real difference. That's what--one game nowadays, if that? You can go to walmart and buy a cheapie $500 computer that will run Windows XP.
If you've had 40 crashes in 4 years under 9x, you might want to contact Guinness. NT based OS's are just more stable. That's why they dumped the other with ME. Many people even thought ME was worse than 98. I will admit that I did have good luck with Windows 98SE, but nothing near the level I had with Windows 2000 and later Windows XP (I still think 2000 is more stable than XP).
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 10:10 am CST
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 26, 2003 10:23 am CST
Quote from: "LastWish"
Windows 2000 is 100x more stable, and a ton more compatible with the latest software and updates..
I've never seen nor heard of any hardware or software that won't run on 98SE, or that runs better on 2000 or XP. Many programs say that they're "designed for" XP and such, but they're not. Then run fine on pretty much any platform.
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 10:33 am CST
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 26, 2003 10:37 am CST
Post by: Particle on October 26, 2003 11:56 am CST
I'm not saying that Windows 98SE is malarkey and couldn't balance a pen with both hands, I'm just saying that 2000/XP/NT is more stable than 9x. NT was more stable than 2000, and 2000 is more stable than XP (from my experience). The more they seem to modify the original NT kernel, the less stable it is getting.
You could ask somebody else and get the opposite answer, though.
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 12:35 pm CST
Post by: Jason_Xero on October 26, 2003 01:04 pm CST
Personally, after using WinXP on both of my machines, it is far more stable. I am trying to get Win98SE back on my other computer for when I want to play old dos games with sound. You would not believe how often it crashes.
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 26, 2003 01:07 pm CST
Post by: Lidge Farkley on October 26, 2003 01:50 pm CST
Quote
I still think 2000 is more stable than XP
I agree. I would use it if I had a required reason, but I can't think of any.
:-)
I think I will just end up having a bual boot machine for older stuff and dos based stuff, win98se and probably dos. Who the hell knows eh? If I wanted to go overboard... I have System commander 7... I could probably have a partition of every OS, but I don't really have the need or time for all of that.
But, if windows98SE never came out... I would use windows2000, as it is the most stable I have used other than 98se.
Also... about XP stability, I read in a few different places that when you have a signature "blue screen of death" it doesn't actually blue screen, sometimes it just closes the app that's going to blue screen. Is that true? I haven't used XP enough to see that happen, but I have seen it randomly close programs for friends and family before, with no warning. I would think that to be a far greater inconvenience than a bsod.
Darwin, you should update for security patch reasons man! :-)
Wanted to edit in this remark: Windows NT sucked the big one when I was in high school. We had the latest version with the latest service pack, and I sware that every day we were reformatting at least one NT machine in the school, if not the usual 10-15 of them. We ran an NT workgroup in the Science lab (as well as many other parts of the school) and whenI was in my science class and we were using the computers we got the blue screen at least 15 times per class period (over several macines.) I can only wonder how the other classes faired. Anyhow, I know that 10 of the science lab machines had these problems due to bad ghost images, but the other 17 machines were perfectly fine software to hardware wise. They were just blue screen machines! (this was in 1998, 1999, my senior year they say)
I'll still say though, that an OS isn't dependant on it's age or it's ingenuity, it's use depends on what exactly the user needs and uses it for. Craches can always be avoided... but finding the correct hardware and knowing how to care for your file system is the most important factor in maintaining stability.
[side note to particle: yeah... I should contact guiness, especially since I know that a hardware failure or a user error caused every single one of them... or maybe I am just super lucky. I did have the orriginal wind98, but I hated it with a vengence. I wrote a song about it back in 98, but I don't know where the lyrics went... they involved burning it, sending it to bill gates and hanging someone I think. Ahh well.]
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 02:38 pm CST
Quote from: "Lidge Farkley"
Darwin, you should update for security patch reasons man!
I cant update for... certain legal reasons...
Post by: GE on October 26, 2003 03:13 pm CST
.
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 03:21 pm CST
Post by: Particle on October 26, 2003 05:01 pm CST
And Darwin, I know exactly what you are talking about--I know your dirty secret, though I don't have that problem (and you should be able to guess why).
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 06:09 pm CST
*suddenly bill gate's storm troopers rush into the room and apprehend the rogue darwin*
FREEDOM! FREEDOM!
*edit*
My knoppix desktop is very similar to this (minus all but one HDD partition)
(http://http://www.knoppix.net/mirror/snapshot2.jpg)
*I cant get the linux screen capture program working
*
Post by: Particle on October 26, 2003 07:07 pm CST
Post by: Hack-N-Slash on October 26, 2003 08:02 pm CST
My background to XP
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 08:49 pm CST
Post by: UnderGod on October 26, 2003 09:40 pm CST
I don't play CS anymore, but the BG looks badass.
(http://http://urn.ath.cx/pics/Desktop.jpg)
Oh.. This is Win2k Pro.. I wouldn't have it any other way =/
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 09:44 pm CST
Post by: UnderGod on October 26, 2003 09:48 pm CST
Post by: Silvanoshei on October 26, 2003 09:53 pm CST
Post by: Darwin on October 26, 2003 09:58 pm CST
Post by: UnderGod on October 26, 2003 10:00 pm CST
Quote from: "UnderGod"
Got resources?
Post by: Jason_Xero on October 26, 2003 10:14 pm CST
Post by: Particle on October 27, 2003 06:34 am CST
Post by: UnderGod on October 27, 2003 03:57 pm CST
Darwin, has a POS computer compared to yours.
Post by: Darwin on October 27, 2003 07:00 pm CST
(http://http://bellsouthpwp.net/t/w/twinhill/takeit.JPG)
Im planning to get a 512 for my second dimm soon.
Post by: Jason_Xero on October 27, 2003 07:25 pm CST
Post by: Darwin on October 27, 2003 07:47 pm CST
Post by: LastWish on October 27, 2003 08:47 pm CST
Quote from: "Jason_Xero"
I could go without all of them, and still do more than what you do.
Woop de forking do.
Post by: xkenshinx on October 27, 2003 09:31 pm CST
Quote from: "LastWish"
Quote from: "Jason_Xero"I could go without all of them, and still do more than what you do.
Woop de fragglewert do.
wow! my thoughts exactly
Post by: GE on October 27, 2003 11:11 pm CST
Post by: Jason_Xero on October 28, 2003 12:26 am CST
Quote from: "LastWish"
Quote from: "Jason_Xero"I could go without all of them, and still do more than what you do.
Woop de fragglewert do.
You obviously don't understand.
Quote from: "xkenshinx"
wow! my thoughts exactly
Wow! you are lame
GE, no spammy.
Post by: GE on October 28, 2003 12:36 am CST
(http://http://www.media3pub.com/images_bro/spam.gif)
Post by: xkenshinx on October 28, 2003 01:41 am CST
Post by: Particle on October 28, 2003 05:37 am CST
Back on topic, folks.
Post by: LastWish on October 28, 2003 03:04 pm CST
For some reason, I find that windowblinds lags me.. I guess thats typical since im running on a damned pIII 700 mhz with 383 SDr and a voodoo4 =/
*removes windowblinds*