"EM" <1@1.1> wrote in message
news:U5hkd.175803$...
> * * Chas wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > BTW, I have copies of just about every MS OS (except WinME and XP
Home)
> > from DOS 3.0 to Server 2003 including NT 3.1, 3.50, and 3.51 I like
> > Win98SE better than the rest for several reasons. When any of the NT
based
> > OSs hang they can take up to 10 minutes to free the system. On the
other
> > hand when Win98SE hangs I can be back up and running in about 2
minutes
> > with a 3 finger salute!
>
> Funny... I've thrown *PLENTY* of one-fingered "salutes" towards my
> Windows 98SE system. Damn thing hangs half-dozen times a day.
I took my new X31 WinXP out on the road with me today for the first time.
I was in a heated discussion with a customer and I pulled the X31 out to
show him some data. I was so ****ed that I just about through it on the
shop floor because I couldn't get it to come out of Suspend and I was
unable to make my point! Later it took me about 10 minutes os screwing
around to get it fired up.
> > Win98SE runs very stable for me.
>
> (??) In what parallel universe do YOU live in??
I knew this was going to raise some hackles but if you must know, I
haven't had any major stability problems since about 2001 with any of my
7 Desktops and 4 TPs running Win98SE! I have just as many stability
problems with the 2 PCs set up to multiboot NT4 SP6a and Win2k SP4 as I do
with Win98SE which is not very often and mostly happens with a few flaky
programs.
There are certain apps that I use that are testy with any OS, WinFax and
AOL being 2 of them (I use AOL as a spam catcher for garbage E-mail
addresses and Radio AOL to listen to KPIG Radio on the net). WinFax has
always been buggy, every version, and I've tried every one up to ver 10 is
buggy. I use WinFax 8.03 because it's less buggy!
I like WinFax because it has a lot of features that I like such as using
it as a printer to fax drawings out of a 2D CAD program while pulling
addresses out of ACT! 2000.
A lot of times I'll have Word 97, Excel 97, IE 5.01 SP2, Adobe Acrobat
5.05, AdSubtract 2.55, Kerio 2.15 and F-Prot for Windows 3.15B open or
running in the background. I was running NAV 2002 until my subscription
expired last week. Occasionally I had to disable NAV when doing some heavy
work with with MS Office programs. That happened with WIN98, NT and Win2k.
NAV along with most Norton/Symantec apps are real resource hogs.
On rare occasions, I've run out of resouces and had to reboot Win98SE but
that's happened less than once a month! I've run out of resources several
times with NT and Win2k also and my systems are fine tuned and maxed out
with preimium quality RAM. My new X31 on the other hand locked up for over
10 minutes last night when I tried to do some multitasking with some
recent 32bit apps. I had NT4 lock up on me several times on Sat.
I have 1 PC running Win95B SR2.01 that I haven't used much lately but it
hasn't crashed since 1999! You want to look at my Windows Fault Logs?
> Your other reason is valid, but it's hardly the main one (the
> ultra-"fragile" Explorer shell is right up there among the main
> culprits). Windows 98 (SE or not) has NEVER been regarded as a "stable"
> OS (far from it! Only Windows ME is worse, from what I hear). Perhaps
> the only thing it has going for it is its [uncanny] ability to run older
> 16-bit Windows and DOS apps (it's even better at this than Windows 3.1).
> And this ability is perhaps the main contributing factor to its
> instability: trying its darndest do it all, and compromising stability
> in the process. And then there's the ever present issue of ressource
> usage (a non-issue in Windows 2000/XP).
>
> Think Windows 98SE is stable? Try running several programs written in
> the latest versions of Delphi or VB... SIMULTANEOUSLY! Then get back to
> me about "stability". You'll be lucky to launch more than two of these
> before your system ressources hit rock bottom. Often times these apps
> will seem small (low RAM footprint), but a quick look at a ressource
> meter will show LARGE dips, sometimes as high as 50%, maybe more. I've
> run across a few that won't run at all (ressources hit bottom and system
> hangs), even though they're "rated" to run on Win9x platforms.
>
> Now, with regards to 16-bit/DOS compatibility, well, you have to decide
> whether it's worth sacrificing the inherent stability of the NT
> platforms to be able to run these older apps. Running DOS apps in Win2k
> won't work most of the time (although there are a scant few that WILL
> work), but lately I've been pleasantly surprised at the number of "old"
> apps and games from the Windows 3.1 days that I've been able to run
> successfully on my Windows 2000 system (a TP600E).
I don't run any DOS programs outside of Norton Ghost and Dosshell. I have
some older 16 bit engineering and business programs that are just about
unreplaceable.
BTW, Win 3.11 & WFWG 3.11 ran pretty good on top of PCDOS 7.0. I ran this
combo on my TP755cx for several year without any problems but I was using
Hurricaine to manage Windows resources.
> Anyway, that's my 2¢.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's like something else, almost
everyone has one! ;-)
As far as REAL stability goes, there's nothing about the Wintel - I386
architecture that the concept applies to! You have a 500 HP VW Beetle, and
upside-down pyramid! The architecture goes back to hobby shop technology
of the 60s'. I agree, Win9x is a partial 32 bit shell on a 16 bit OS but I
still prefer it of NT technology because I can fix just about any problem
quickly.
There's nothing short of "Big Iron" (360s, 390s, PDPs, Vaxen and so on)
AS400 and Unix boxes that can really offer anything close to stability at
this point!
--
Chas.
(Drop spamski to E-mail me)
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
