All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Why Windows should be avoided.
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
Personaly I have never had a problem with winME in fact I found it more user friendly and more stable than XP, you just have to add a LOT of ram and reasonably good hard ware.
Comparing one windows to another, really is kinda stupid. I mean its the same thing, over and over again. Spyware, bloatware, crashware.....
No matter what version it is, and future versions are gonna be no different. The only difference I see is that the whole OS is getting more and more restrictive..... But what else is new.
--- End quote ---
Bullshit. They aren't all the same. Win9x is a 32-bit app that runs on top of a 16-bit OS. Win9x isn't even what you could consider an OS. DOS is the OS. A 32-bit enabled app running on top of a 16-bit OS is sure to cause reliabilty/stability issues.
Windows NT based OSes are really an OS. They don't run on top of anything. They are truely 32-bit, they have true pre-amptive multitasking, etc. Adding a ton of Ram to ME doesn't help anything really. I have 512MB in this comp. If you run Win9x(any of them) with more than 512MB the damn thing will crash..no if's ands or buts. Why? Because Win9x is an application that can't address more than 512MB. Windows NT based OSes on the other hand can handle tons of Ram(up to 4GB out of the box).
In most cases if you experience instability with a NT based OS you have dodgy hardware, a dodgy hardware driver or some corruption in your filesystem(corruption that can be fixed easily if you use NTFS). NT based OSes tend to be alot more stable on NTFS partations too. If you try using an old dodgy and junky legacy filesystem(like FAT) with an OS that is designed to run on a better filesytem you are likely to cause stability issues.
A dodgy filesystem that gets errors every time you turn around(like FAT) will corrupt files and will cause stability problems. To be honest, the only time I've ever had problems with XP is when I tried to use it on FAT32. Not only is the filesystem un-reliable but it is prone to fragmentation as well. When you add and move data on FAT it is so ignorant that it scatters bits of the data everywhere. NTFS manages to keep data rounded up as close as possible(NTFS doesn't need to be defragged very often). Fragmentation causes performance degradion and instability as well.
Another thing that hurts FAT is slack. FAT32 uses 32k clusters. It takes 96k to store a 65k file on FAT32. With 4k NTFS clusters it takes 68k to store a 65k file. It takes exactly 65k to store a 65k file using NTFS 512byte clusters, however even though 4kb clusters use a little slack the signifigantly outperform 512byte clusters on large drives. The slack difference between FAT and NTFS adds up quick when you are talking Megabytes, Gigabytes, etc.
(EDIT)Heh, speaking of using reasonably good hardware with your OS. I don't have a lick of trouble out of XP on my P4 on i865 chipset(XP doesn't give me trouble on any of the all Intel based systems I've tried it on either). A P4c w/Hyperthreading is more than reasonably good....it is practically top of the line. I bet ME would crash on it though.
This K6-2 that I'm using right now does suck balls but I don't think it is the cause of ME crashing so much because other Win9x OSes are running fine on it.
[ September 26, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
emh:
quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Windows NT based OSes are really an OS. They don't run on top of anything. They are truely 32-bit, they have true pre-amptive multitasking, etc. Adding a ton of Ram to ME doesn't help anything really. I have 512MB in this comp. If you run Win9x(any of them) with more than 512MB the damn thing will crash..no if's ands or buts. Why? Because Win9x is an application that can't address more than 512MB. Windows NT based OSes on the other hand can handle tons of Ram(up to 4GB out of the box) and can be modified to handle more than 4GB easily.
--- End quote ---
I got a new computer a couple months ago. It has an Athlon XP 2000+ processor and 768 MB of RAM. It's a dual-boot between Windows 98SE and Mandrake Linux 9.1. Personally, when I upgraded to 768 MB of RAM, I never had any problems with the Win 98 installation. Then again, I'm in Linux virtually exclusively now, so I haven't used my Win 98 installation for a while. I guess it depends on the hardware.
Zombie9920:
Your just lucky(or you didn't use it long enough to crash). Win9x doesn't handle over 512MB no matter what the hardware is.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/14967.html
solarismka:
quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Bullshit. They aren't all the same. Win9x is a 32-bit app that runs on top of a 16-bit OS. Win9x isn't even what you could consider an OS. DOS is the OS. A 32-bit enabled app running on top of a 16-bit OS is sure to cause reliabilty/stability issues.
--- End quote ---
Yes Win95 and 98 is built on top of dos NOT ME!!!! The DOS in that particular windows in emulated!
quote:Windows NT based OSes are really an OS. They don't run on top of anything. They are truely 32-bit, they have true pre-amptive multitasking, etc. Adding a ton of Ram to ME doesn't help anything really. I have 512MB in this comp. If you run Win9x(any of them) with more than 512MB the damn thing will crash..no if's ands or buts. Why? Because Win9x is an application that can't address more than 512MB. Windows NT based OSes on the other hand can handle tons of Ram(up to 4GB out of the box).
--- End quote ---
So your saying 9x cann't run past 512MB? Bullshit!!!! It actualy CAN, what you have is bad hardware!!! Windows can't run on bad hardware no matter WHAT version it is. Check to see if your hardware is working properly BEFORE you bitch....
quote:In most cases if you experience instability with a NT based OS you have dodgy hardware, a dodgy hardware driver or some corruption in your filesystem(corruption that can be fixed easily if you use NTFS). NT based OSes tend to be alot more stable on NTFS partations too. If you try using an old dodgy and junky legacy filesystem(like FAT) with an OS that is designed to run on a better filesytem you are likely to cause stability issues.
--- End quote ---
Its great to see, when people who use windows OS say, that if you use this file system, you'll get less crashes blah blah blah............
No matter what version its GONNA CRASH!!! I've seen windows millenioum out perform windows XP, expecialy when it comes to network security and ease of use. The fact is 9x will let you do more while newer M$ OS'es try to constrain what you do.
But thats justs M$ buissness modle
quote:A dodgy filesystem that gets errors every time you turn around(like FAT) will corrupt files and will cause stability problems. To be honest, the only time I've ever had problems with XP is when I tried to use it on FAT32. Not only is the filesystem un-reliable but it is prone to fragmentation as well. When you add and move data on FAT it is so ignorant that it scatters bits of the data everywhere. NTFS manages to keep data rounded up as close as possible(NTFS doesn't need to be defragged very often). Fragmentation causes performance degradion and instability as well.
Another thing that hurts FAT is slack. FAT32 typically uses 32k or 64k clusters. With 64k clusters it takes 128kb to store a 65k file because it takes 2 clusters to store it(it takes 96k with 32k clusters). With 4k NTFS clusters it takes 68k to store a 65k file. That slack difference adds up quick when you are talking Megabytes, Gigabytes, etc.
(EDIT)Heh, speaking of using reasonably good hardware with your OS. I don't have a lick of trouble out of XP on my P4 on i865 chipset(XP doesn't give me trouble on any of the all Intel based systems I've tried it on either). A P4c w/Hyperthreading is more than reasonably good....it is practically top of the line. I bet ME would crash on it though.
This K6-2 that I'm using right now does suck balls but I don't think it is the cause of ME crashing so much because other Win9x OSes are running fine on it.
[ September 25, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
--- End quote ---
Windows can be unpradictable to say the least, I find both FAT and NTFS to be both unstable. I see alot of people that have luck on NTFS and some with the FAT file system, in truth they are both 'dogy' file systems. Well they would be......
But I find personaly that ME is no better than XP and no different. I DO know that XP relys on the NT kernel and is built on that rather than 9z on DOS, however it does not make a blind bit of difference when it comes to, security, ease of use etc etc.......... It depends on the persons luck and what hardware he/she uses....... As well as if any drivers etc are currupt.........
The fact is its all the same, built on the same principle....
Its like comparing automakers. Each car is basicaly the same, it doesn't matter WHAT you buy.
The only difference is 'personal' preference. They all cost the same, they are ALL expencive, high insurance and costs alot to maintain.
No changes here eather. It is the same thing.
solarismka:
Actualy now that I think about it. People compare Linux the same way.
The only difference you find with each linux distrobution is the way the package it.
The target certain users with a set of skills, it all depends on what distro your going for and what will work for you.
I pefer Red Hat Linux, but thats just my preference. Gentoo is good too, but that doesn't mean I personaly would use it.
Its personaly not MY cup of tea.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version