OS- Your opinions

b20uvkft6m5xwg

My blue screen of Death tolerance is now beginning to wear very very thin so I'm trying to guage some opinions on what I should do. (I'm using win98 SE on a desktop Gateway Athlon 750mhz)

So.....

-->> Should I update my OS and what should I update it with??

-->> I'm worried about installing a new OS and preserving the data on my PC...
Is the changeover complex / problematic and most importantly a largely safe process?

-->> Will the majority of programs still work, given I have a lot of small freeware things I use from time to time and wouldn't like to lose them!

Any help would be much appreciated, thx:)

chernobyl

I have run my machine for a complete week ( 5 days ) on a single boot with XP 2600.
its runs everything and even after the week the machine was still useable and very repsonsive.

excellent.


oh yes, and never seen a blue screen in XP after the 25** releases.

mike65

Ah Sir, you say you're suffering the Blue Screen of Death (C),
well you need to upgrade to Win95 release 2.

Ah Sir, you say you're suffering the Blue Screen of Death (C),
well you need to upgrade to Win98.

Ah Sir, you say you're suffering the Blue Screen of Death (C),
well you need to upgrade to Win98 SE.

Ah Sir, you say you're suffering the Blue Screen of Death (C),
well you need to upgrade to Windows 2000

Ah Sir, you say you're suffering the Blue Screen of Death (C),
well you need to upgrade to Windows XP

and on 'til the end of time!

Mike.

chernobyl

Originally posted by mike65

well you need to upgrade to Windows 2000

BSOD in Windows 2000...never.

bonkey

I wouldnt say never...I saw one last week.

First one I've seen, and its on a box which gets rebooted very very rarely.....

I'd go with Win2000 at the moment, or XP if youre feeling slightly brave.

XP has issues with some drivers at the moment (for example, some Sidewinder FF stuff doesnt work apparently!), and being a brand new release, it remains to see whether or not the final release version is more or less stable than some of the RCs.

It also has a sh1tload more "Digital Rights" crap in there IIRC?

Win2000 (for me) is rock solid, with decent enough performance.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by chernobyl


BSOD in Windows 2000...never.

Never? It does happen but it is so fricken rare it may as well be never.

I have only managed to BSOD 3 times in W2K.

If you prefer windows I would say upgrade to W2K Professional otherwise go with a linux distro.

Typedef

How-to get a blue screen in NT variants.

1. Insert a floppy disk (thank you call again).
2. Insert a CDROM use it for a while then take it out (hmm see u rafter or sumthing).

Solution get Linux-Mandrake 8.1/Linux-Mandrake 8.1(gamer edition) and run everything you once ran in windows on a stable OS that does not try to sell you anything in the program menubar, does not remind you to register your software, join the pan-microsoft chat network, upgrade components every few months, etc,etc,etc, and maybe even learn what a PC can be like instead of what Micro$oft think a PC should be like!?!

Questions?

_CreeD_

Win2k, the first Microsoft OS that actually does what it's supposed to. Put it on and you won't regret it.

Typedef, Question, how does your seeming complete inability to get your Windows-Me working properly make Linux a better alternative Than Win2k?....
Mind you I agree totally on the XP activation sh1te.

Red Moose

Nah, get the new Amithlon/AmigaOS XL which boots on x86 machines, uses bitch fast code to get 68k emulation on x86 to get 600MHz 68040 on your fast PC, comes with Workbench 3.9, AmiWord, bunch more stuff including StormC, fully licensed ROMs.

http://www.amithlon.com

Linux is a bloody mess of libraries, but this Amithlon just uses a modified kernel to get video drivers (NVidia to GF2, Matrox at the moment), and then a load or proprietary non-GPL stuff to basically have an AmigaOS boot on an x86 system, either straight from a CDROM (remember those days, booting an OS without needing a HD?), or from a dedicated partition.

Actually linux is good for one big thing - drivers. The rest of the OS, the GNU bit especially, is bloated to hell. Linux will probably become the base for a whole bunch of OSs because of drivers, and you keep them GPLd, and then you can write whatever OS you want using those drivers. Perhaps the future?

dahamsta

I'm really, really not trying to be smart, but...

I have run my machine for a complete week ( 5 days ) on a single boot with XP 2600. its runs everything and even after the week the machine was still useable and very repsonsive.

That is just so funny to someone who's run *nix. I've run my two remote machines for months - sometimes more than a year - on a single boot. The only time you reboot a *nix server is when you update the kernel. Period.

That said, at home I'm running 2K, and although I've had problems with it, I'm pretty sure that's down to hardware, and not the OS. XP is based on NT, just like 2K, so I doubt you can go wrong with it.

However because of Microsoft's continuing skip down Monopoly Lane, with little or no regard for the concerns of the DoJ and the States; and because Red Hat 7.2 looks to be very cool, and probably as solid as 6.2, I don't think a foray into XP is an option for me. I think this will be my last MSOS.

adam

logic1

Originally posted by Typedef

Solution get Linux-Mandrake 8.1/Linux-Mandrake 8.1(gamer edition)

....

Questions?

Just the one... why choose such a **** distribution?

.logic.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Red Moose
remember those days, booting an OS without needing a HD?), or from a dedicated partition.

Yes I do. Continual annoying diskswapping. Oh how I love the glory days, lets go back to steam engines. :rolleyes:

Not entirely sure what your linux rant is about?

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Thx lads...

Although some dissenting voices, would it be fair to say that Win 2k Professional would be a good upgrade!?

If so....
**What are the problems in upgrading an OS. Is it fairly starightforward and importantly safe for my existing data?


**Is it this expensive though?? c. $200?? or would that be a ripoff from Amazon ??
[ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=br_ncs_/104-5037496-1450355 ]
From what I've seen its only about £100 to upgrade to XP!?
Does anyone know where is cheaper then??

dahamsta

Just the one... why choose such a **** distribution?

Mandrake is an excellent workstation distribution, particularly for newcomers to Linux. Always has been. Anyway, each to his or her own.

adam

chernobyl

Originally posted by dahamsta
I'm really, really not trying to be smart, but...

that particular machines recieves anthing up to 4GB an hour through its network conection, and i have no option but to use a windows based machine.
I think thats pretty good for a windows machine.

dahamsta

that particular machines recieves anthing up to 4GB an hour through its network conection, and i have no option but to use a windows based machine. I think thats pretty good for a windows machine.

It is.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by 80project
**What are the problems in upgrading an OS. Is it fairly starightforward and importantly safe for my existing data?

Nothing is "safe" for your existing data - neither staying on your current OS, nor upgrading.

If you can, get the really important stuff, and burn onto CD, or borrow a TBU and store it there, then upgrade. Just cause you're paranoid

Realistically, I've only ever once managed to lose data, and thats because when a windows install asked if it shoul duse all available space to create a partition (without telling me how big that space was) and I said yes, it took that to mean the entire disk, whereas I presumed it meant the unpartitioned space.

So...sure...you should be safe. Should, of course, not being much of a guarantee!

jc

Red Moose

Originally posted by Hobbes


Yes I do. Continual annoying diskswapping. Oh how I love the glory days, lets go back to steam engines. :rolleyes:

Not entirely sure what your linux rant is about?

Well obviously it can install on a HD as well, but being able to get a *decent* *nice-looking* OS loaded from just CD is good for bypassing all sorts of stuff that a ballsed up installed OS would if you are fixing the system. Yes, linux can be used similalry but my problem with the linux is the way the general applications for X are so massive, and the way everything needs a million different libraries.

With linux you can either build from source (real source, not .src.rpm or anything), or else stick with dependency-hell and 1GB+ installations. It's just very very messy - the kernel is great, but GNU is very very very messy. QNX for instance, is really slick, as is BeOS. They show that *nix style can be very slick and fast, but linux as it stands is too "widespread". I have having to have a minimally useful installation at 500MB+, just like Windows.

Back on topic: to the original poster, if you can get Windows 2000 still (and those shops with stock will start to run out) get it, or else get XP and ask MS for a downgrade license for Windows 2000 if they'll let you.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Typedef
How-to get a blue screen in NT variants.

1. Insert a floppy disk (thank you call again).
2. Insert a CDROM use it for a while then take it out (hmm see u rafter or sumthing).

Solution get Linux-Mandrake 8.1/Linux-Mandrake 8.1(gamer edition) and run everything you once ran in windows on a stable OS that does not try to sell you anything in the program menubar, does not remind you to register your software, join the pan-microsoft chat network, upgrade components every few months, etc,etc,etc, and maybe even learn what a PC can be like instead of what Micro$oft think a PC should be like!?!

Questions?

Yes. What the hell is your problem?

What you refer to was fixed in Windows 2000--an NT-based OS-- so your point is false. Remember that OS? The one we keep telling you to put on your computer? Do you keep running Windows ME just so you have something to complain about?

More questions:
1] When does Windows try to sell you anything in your menubar?
2] When does any Windows OS other than Windows XP remind you to register your software?
3] How is Mandrake's practices any different than Microsofts in the case of "learn what a PC can be like instead of what Micro$oft think a PC should be like!?!". Running any OS on your computer will only show you what the OS designers think your computer should be like. That includes your favourite OSes, the Linux variants. Explain how this is not the case for Linux.

leeroybrown

I've run Win 95 on an old PII 233 machine with 96 Mb of PC66 RAM without a single BSOD for years. (Never saw any need to upgrade to a mre CPU/RAM hungry windows variant when 95 was giving so few problems.)

I'm in the process of building an Athlon XP1600 system at the moment and I'll be installing Win2k pro.(Barring horrendous problems running games)

I think I'll keep away from Win XP for the foeseeable future.

Typedef

Just-Half.
What the hell is yours?

I don't mean to burst your bubble but when the hell was the last time I sullied my desktop with windows I don't remember maybe a month maybe two months ago so that amounts to what in or around 1% usage of windowz?

Oh and I keep running ME because I should not have to spend X hundred quid on more m$ bollox_ollogy software when the stuff they supplied me with should have worked to begin with, why the hell should I have to give them more money to remedy a situation they created? Also from my Xperience their so called "fixed" OS is of a lesser standard than alternatives I can get for free ok?

Oh and if you think that M$ will stop registration with XP you are a fool, XP is just the start soon every OS from M$ and possibly big applications will subject you the user to this gestapo crap and it sucks!

Maybe it was when I was working for Tech Support for Gateway and I saw the thousands of people who had 9x and nt variants calling in with problems with their OS that should have been fixed 2 & 3 versions earlier that I realised m$ products have and always will be (more than likely unreliable) and broken. Even posting from XP now on a machine my mother bought 5 days ago telnetting into my bsd system over the lan to play mp3's and telnetting into linux system to dial the internet I am struck with how applications net based seem to be slow and have a tendancy to stop responding, wow big suprise ther huh?

OH and sorry but posting from my mother's XP machine bought from ALDI there were at least 3 ads from companies trying to sell me stuff in the start bar. WTF hey if I wanted ads everywhere for stuff I don't want to by I could go to a porn site or a warez site but not in my start bar please, also I resent having to spend my time getting rid of spurious ads M$ are trying to brain_wash_buy me into getting ok?

Right now I think my bootable OS's on desktop system look like this

Linux Slackware
Debian Linux
Windows ME
FreeBSD
Solaris 8
AtheOS

I also might put some effort into getting GNU-Hurd and minix running so instead of criticising me for my views why don't you try out some of these OS instead of trolling on about how great windows is. I mean come on seriously you can't compare windows to Xfree86 can you , hello , windows has no virtual desktops yeah? The GUI on the OS is four year old play time wether you like it or not.

QED

JustHalf

Originally posted by Typedef
Just-Half.
What the hell is yours?

Ho, hum, I can see this becoming a post with no answers to any of my questions in the previous post, and a hall of a lot of nonsense.

Originally posted by Typedef
I don't mean to burst your bubble but when the hell was the last time I sullied my desktop with windows I don't remember maybe a month maybe two months ago so that amounts to what in or around 1% usage of windowz?

Your point?

Originally posted by Typedef
Oh and I keep running ME because I should not have to spend X hundred quid on more m$ bollox_ollogy software when the stuff they supplied me with should have worked to begin with, why the hell should I have to give them more money to remedy a situation they created? Also from my Xperience their so called "fixed" OS is of a lesser standard than alternatives I can get for free ok?

You claim to have pirated Windows ME (in a previous thread), so you clearly have no problem in piracy. And if you're a student, you can get Windows 2000 Professional for around 60quid.

I still find it hysterical that someone pirates a version of Windows, and chooses the second worst version (for home use) since Windows 3.1.

Originally posted by Typedef
Oh and if you think that M$ will stop registration with XP you are a fool, XP is just the start soon every OS from M$ and possibly big applications will subject you the user to this gestapo crap and it sucks!

My question related to past, not future, Microsoft activities. I would not rate your abilities of precognition as high, given your display of your other mental abilities.

Originally posted by Typedef
Maybe it was when I was working for Tech Support for Gateway and I saw the thousands of people who had 9x and nt variants calling in with problems with their OS that should have been fixed 2 & 3 versions earlier that I realised m$ products have and always will be (more than likely unreliable) and broken.

Windows 2000 is a very, very reliable OS. Not as reliable as trusty FreeBSD; but I can't play MechCommander 4 or FreeSpace 2 on that - at least not at equal speed.

Originally posted by Typedef
Even posting from XP now on a machine my mother bought 5 days ago telnetting into my bsd system over the lan to play mp3's and telnetting into linux system to dial the internet I am struck with how applications net based seem to be slow and have a tendancy to stop responding, wow big suprise ther huh?

You say you worked in tech support. Now if someone were to mention this to you, and ask you to solve it, what would you think? You are making no sense. Explain yourself.

Originally posted by Typedef
OH and sorry but posting from my mother's XP machine bought from ALDI there were at least 3 ads from companies trying to sell me stuff in the start bar. WTF hey if I wanted ads everywhere for stuff I don't want to by I could go to a porn site or a warez site but not in my start bar please, also I resent having to spend my time getting rid of spurious ads M$ are trying to brain_wash_buy me into getting ok?

Mmh. This is on XP? How does that relate to other MS OSes?

Originally posted by Typedef
Right now I think my bootable OS's on desktop system look like this

Linux Slackware
Debian Linux
Windows ME
FreeBSD
Solaris 8
AtheOS

I can say this with authority... Solaris sucks!

Originally posted by Typedef
I also might put some effort into getting GNU-Hurd and minix running so instead of criticising me for my views why don't you try out some of these OS instead of trolling on about how great windows is. I mean come on seriously you can't compare windows to Xfree86 can you , hello , windows has no virtual desktops yeah? The GUI on the OS is four year old play time wether you like it or not.

I'd love to see your reasons for getting GNU-Herd and Minix. Actual development work or just to increase your Unix snobbery quotient?

I've tried SuSE (Live Eval sucks), Solaris, Mandrake (not bad, but not as neat as FreeBSD) and FreeBSD. I really like FreeBSD... damn nice. I do, however, recognise its strengths and weaknesses. I can't play my favourite games on it, for example. I don't just say "FreeBSD great for me, therefore FreeBSD best for all, all Windows suck because Win 98 First Edition sucks, blah". This is my problem with you.

I never compared the Windows GUI to XFree86. They're two very different things with very different purposes in mind (aside from the obvious). The fact that Windows has no virtual desktops by default (and that CAN be changed with other programs) doesn't bother me at all.

Originally posted by Typedef
QED

*laughs* Explain how you've proven your point. Actually, first of all show me what your point is.

Better yet, lets meet up for coffee in town. I'll bring along my knowledge, and Gerry and my Unix-geek friend Aidan if I can get them to come. Then we can have a good old discussion about Windows.

Koopa

windows is totally bent, linux has potential but too much hassle to get **** working, and most of the manufacturers dont write linux drivers for their products, which means linux support for new devices is usually very ****, until 6 months later or something (not really linux's fault)

all the other unix variants suffer from the same problems linux suffers from, whats more, all of them are designed as server OS's, so they usually seem to run **** even slower than linux for end users, unless what you do all day is copy lots of little files across your hard disk for the entertainment it provides

windows nt/2k is far more 'broken' than people think, the mouse control in it is ****ed, its not stable at all, the so-called 'stability' in NT is because the computer simply forces you to wait for timeouts etc. all the time, instead of win98 which will give you control over it, the actual stability of components in nt systems is ****E (if something ****s up in win98, you will just crash win98, while only the component will usually crash in nt, but the internal way windows works is pretty similar across winnt and win98, the way it handles hardware inputs/output etc is ****e on both, the most common windows method of dealing with inputs is to buffer it, causing "hardware lag")

i use win98se at home, but its only because linux is way too much of a hassle to set up the way i want it, and games just work on win98

The Corinthian

I recently upgraded to W2K Pro from W98 and have found it to be very stable indeed. The only problems I found with it have been with certain hardware cards and refusing to even see them.

I’ve also heard glowing reports about XP, but M$’s new licensing system is one I’m not terribly happy with. Given this, I’d tend to agree with dahamsta that Win2K is probably going to be my last MSOS too.

As for non-MSOS’s, I’ve heard and seen too many falakey things with Linux to take it terribly seriously anymore. Regi swears by FreeBSD, and while I’ve not really used it, I’d take his opinion in this matters seriously. Overall, amongst the UNIX flavours out there, I’d go for Solaris if I were you. Well supported (by Sun) and stable. Really stable. Never had any trouble with it.

azezil

I've killed win2k pro lots of times! lmao tryin to install an isdn card a few weeks ago, the bluddy thing kept goin blue screen on me!

I don't really have too much trouble with 98se usually does what i tell it to... n another thing win2k is very hard on the resources, i seen it running on a p3 800mhz machine with 64mb ram .. n it was crawling! wouldn't run it on anything less than 256mb ram n 733+ processor

JustHalf

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Overall, amongst the UNIX flavours out there, I’d go for Solaris if I were you. Well supported (by Sun) and stable. Really stable. Never had any trouble with it.

http://redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen/epic.txt

WhiteWashMan

win2k for ms operating systems.
trying to figure out linux now, but id go for win2k. nice and easy and all that.

Gerry

dave, why aren't you going to lectures?

JustHalf

Well, I don't need to go to SE311, and I had to go to the bathroom at 11am. I also missed the morning lecture due to being out babysitting last night, and not getting any sleep all weekend.

I do intend to go to the 3pm one though.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by JustHalf
http://redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen/epic.txt

Solaris has caused me far fewer problems, personally, than other OS's, in the past.

Maybe it just doesn't like you

JustHalf

That's not my story - that's one referred to me after our Netsoc was having "troubles" with getting Solaris working. Ask Gerry for a more current one.

I can't stand some of the ways it acts. I much prefer FreeBSD. Mmmh, nice. But if Solaris works for you, and you're comfortable with it, respect.