[Dixonary] OT: Dealing / Systems & Software

[Dodi Schultz]

Kathryn, I KNOW you have fun with your computer. I remember when you got
your first one--something called TRS? That was when I was still getting
used to the Selectric. ;-)

--Dodi

[Kathryn Lance]

Dodi-

Good memory! That was a TRS-80, made by Radio Shack, and just about the best
thing you could buy then. My total memory for everything-operation and
storage-was 48 K!

KL

[Bill Hirst]

I've been using XP Home, and it's a hube improvement over Win98. I
can't even remember when I had the last BSOD, amd that's with the
machine running 24/7 for weeks at a time.

-Bill



> Lindsey <slbourne@...> wrote:
>
>
> >> Hm. My consultant doesn't find anything later than 98 terribly
> stable, especially XP. <<
>
> I'm not sure what criteria are being used by your consultant to
arrive
> at that conclusion, but I've been using Windows XP Pro for two years
> now, and I'm finding it extremely stable, and certainly inherently
more
> stable than Windows 98. (Perhaps your consultant is measuring
against
> XP Home? I'd definitely recommend going with the Pro version.)
>
> I've been using Windows 2000 on my destop at work for even longer,
and
> that, too, is extremely stable.

[bonnyjars]

Re the win98 XP debate

Here speaks a support engineer! Horses for courses is the rule for me, but the OS useage is partially defined by machine capability
and partially by machine useage

I have 3 machines of varying ages, sizes and capabilites - and therefore usages
..
The oldest laptop could not possibly run the latest OS's; it has too little memory and too small a disk - The hard-disk wouldn't
even be enough to put XP onto it. So it uses Win98. It is used merely for writing using Word 97. I have set it up so that files are
saved small etc so its disk usage is 1/3 for the same files saved on the other machines. It is wifi'd into the home network so it is
also used both as backup for completed documents and as a print server for one of the less used printers.
The desktop is also old and thus slower. has had its memory upgraded so that it can run XP-home and is used as the hub of the
wifi-network, print-server, back-up server and is used for graphics work. My wife prefers its screens so all that she needs is also
there.
This laptop runs XP-Pro and is my main workhorse

Given their particular uses the system hardly ever dies. The operating systems are appropriate for the work that they are asked to
do. XP-Home mc sometimes goes slow if there is a lot of traffic from other machines on the wifi (three boys and two wives also with
laptops when they are home from college or visting) It also dislikes very heavy database work and can crash if I am using it
directly for very heavy use of Access. (I have to use Access for one client, usually I use something far smaller, far faster and far
easier to use which can also do far more, but the piper pays and gets the tune he wants)

The main speed issue is the way MS increases the size of registry and all the hidden work it thinks it needed to do one time and
forgets to stop doing it. I use and would highly reccomend a decent registry cleaner. On this machine I use a proprietary one once a
week and always notice the speed increase after use. The other machines rarely get 'new' things so their registries are much more
stable and need less frequent cleaning.
For my own work, it could be done with WIN98 (and sometimes has to be for I still have people whose machines are too old and slow
and small to run XP) but I'd not like to have to go back for everything. XP is fine and stable for me. My only complaint is how big
and how fast a machine you have to have to be able to use it. I hail from the days when the biggest machine in the country was 696K
available and its opsys was 8K - we had to write tight code then.

JohnnyB


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[Judy Madnick]

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: Lindsey <slbourne (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>

<< I'm not sure what criteria are being used by your consultant to arrive
<< at that conclusion, but I've been using Windows XP Pro for two years
<< now, and I'm finding it extremely stable, and certainly inherently more
<< stable than Windows 98. (Perhaps your consultant is measuring against
<< XP Home? I'd definitely recommend going with the Pro version.)

I was wondering the same thing. I have XP Home and have been very pleased with it, especially compared to older Windows versions. But I do know that those who have more computer expertise than I recommend XP Pro.

Judy

[Tim Bourne]

> That was a TRS-80, made by Radio Shack, and just about the best
> thing you could buy then. My total memory for everything-operation and
> storage-was 48 K!
>
A wonderful machine! I had one too; I remember having to solder a chip
to the main board so it could display lower case, and getting a version
of CPM for it so it could run WordStar.

Best wishes,

Tim B

[Christopher Carson]

Judy (and Lindsey),

My understanding has always been that XP Pro was only needed if you connect to a network with domain services. Otherwise Home was fine. I have Pro on my laptop and Home on the desktop that my wife uses and haven't had any issues with the machine running Home.

Chris

[Lindsey]

>> I have XP Home and have been very pleased with it, especially compared to older Windows versions. But I do know that those who have more computer expertise than I recommend XP Pro. <<

I have vague recollections of complaints from at least the early users of XP Home, but it may just be that those of us in the geek world are inherently suspicious of anything that sounds like the "lite" version of an operating system -- maybe because it brings back unpleasant memories of Windows Me, or complete fiascos like "BOB".

--Lindsey