I will be buying a new computer (from Falcon-NW) soon. Should I get it with
Windows ME or Windows 98?
I would like use the following sims with it, and I was wondering what others
are experiencing with Windows ME:
-GP2
-GP3
-GPL
-F12000
regards,
john-nicholas
Trust Falcon-NW, what ever they suggest, they have a good reputation.
G-Loc
"john-nicholas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NKEr5.3460$[email hidden]...
> I will be buying a new computer (from Falcon-NW) soon. Should I get itwith
> Windows ME or Windows 98?
>
> I would like use the following sims with it, and I was wondering whatothers
Quoted text (11 lines)
> are experiencing with Windows ME: > > -GP2 > -GP3 > -GPL > -F12000 > > regards, > john-nicholas > >On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:45:01 GMT, "john-nicholas"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>I will be buying a new computer (from Falcon-NW) soon. Should I get it with
>Windows ME or Windows 98?
Without getting too elaborate, if something runs in 98, it should run
fine in WinME with the exception of anything that requires a reboot
into Dos mode, which is not easily available in WinME. Hacks are
already available to remedy this and should become more prevalent,
soon. There are advantages to WinME, though.
Overall, WinME is much more stable than Win98*. I run wide range of
software, including things that tend to make computers cranky, like 3d
modelling, animation and rendering, music recording, video capture and
editing, the odd server, and the usual assortment of office and
utility stuff. I have experienced far fewer problems in ME than
either version of 98. My games all run just as well, as far as I can
tell.
~daxe
Benchmarks show ME a slower OS due to overhead compared to 98. \
"john-nicholas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > regards,
> john-nicholas
>
>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:11:47 -0600, "JJ Thomas" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Benchmarks show ME a slower OS due to overhead compared to 98. \
there's a couple 'features' enabled by default in WinME that
dramatically improve performance when disabled, most notably: "system
restore"
~daxe
OH CUMMON!
Overpriced crap... they can't even get the fan choices correct...
A homemade machine with any thought and an equal budget would kick ass over
FNW.... sorry but true...
"G-Loc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:l%Er5.30243$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (25 lines)
> Trust Falcon-NW, what ever they suggest, they have a good reputation. > > G-Loc > > "john-nicholas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:NKEr5.3460$[email hidden]... > > I will be buying a new computer (from Falcon-NW) soon. Should I get it > with > > Windows ME or Windows 98? > > > > I would like use the following sims with it, and I was wondering what > others > > are experiencing with Windows ME: > > > > -GP2 > > -GP3 > > -GPL > > -F12000 > > > > regards, > > john-nicholas > > > > > >Rule of thumb when dealing with Billy and his consumer OSs,
wait for the other sorry sods to Beta test his OS for him before you buy.
Otherwise... you are just a guinea Pig.
I have WinME installed on a machine beside me.... and I even have problems
with Office 2000! His own bloody company's program isn't even compatible!
Seriously dude... WinME has great potential... but wait until it has been
patched...
Cheers,
Schumi
BTW... FNW can't even tweak Win98 to run optimally yet... they rely on
mostly new/overpriced hardware that for the "most" part doesn't improve
performance... just impresses the reviewers with pure awe on a God machine
that anyone of us here could build himself. Don't be fooled... and I ain't
tryin to sell you a box either... just hate to see someone get licked like a
sucker.
Also... don't get me wrong... they have some nice parts in their
machines.... but it is all at premium price...
"john-nicholas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NKEr5.3460$[email hidden]...
> I will be buying a new computer (from Falcon-NW) soon. Should I get itwith
> Windows ME or Windows 98?
>
> I would like use the following sims with it, and I was wondering whatothers
Quoted text (11 lines)
> are experiencing with Windows ME: > > -GP2 > -GP3 > -GPL > -F12000 > > regards, > john-nicholas > >Where do you disable system restore? Any other tips? ME is one helluva
lot more stable when running O/C hardware. My Celery 366 was not
particularly stable at 500mhz under 98 but its been stable at 550mhz
for weeks under ME
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:32:42 GMT, daxe <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:11:47 -0600, "JJ Thomas" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>Benchmarks show ME a slower OS due to overhead compared to 98. \ > >there's a couple 'features' enabled by default in WinME that >dramatically improve performance when disabled, most notably: "system >restore" > >~daxeHi,
I search for the options.mas file.
Is Anyone could send it to me by mail.
I extract all *.uha files (options.uha too) but the
options.mas file don't exist...
Thanx
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...
> Where do you disable system restore? Any other tips? ME is one helluva
> lot more stable when running O/C hardware. My Celery 366 was not
> particularly stable at 500mhz under 98 but its been stable at 550mhz
> for weeks under ME
>
They tucked that one away nicely, if you right click on my computer,
properties, then Performance, File System, Troubleshooting - tick
the box at the bottom.
Seb
--
[email hidden]
Jason \"Schumi\" Murray wrote:
>
> A homemade machine with any thought and an equal budget would kick ass over
> FNW.... sorry but true...
>
Absolutely agreed!! No commercial box-stuffer can match the price you
can set by building it yourself. Usually you can do it yourself for
50-65% of retail price, with identical or superior specs.
--
Chuck Kandler
Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
Jason \"Schumi\" Murray wrote:
>
> I have WinME installed on a machine beside me.... and I even have problems
> with Office 2000! His own bloody company's program isn't even compatible!
Yep. Dig this quote from an ex-M$ employee taken from the following
URL: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/29/1247218&mode=thread
"Internally when Windows 2000 was announced, people were told not to
even think about using it for production because it was too unstable,"
says the ex-Microsoft employee.
What a damning statement, when a company wouldn't even think of using
it's own product. Would be kinda like Ford's refusing to use it's own
cars for company-supplied cars to it's execs. ;-)
--
Chuck Kandler
Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
As the homemade thing, totally agree. But with ME or 98,
I�m using a what we suspect is a final of ME (June 14
compilation and no beta numbers on the screen) and runs
great, even upgraded another machine from 98->ME, with no
problems. The biggest improvement I saw was how the system
booted (It takes less than half time of 98), the weirdest
thing is that no DOS restarts and the media player.
lito
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
The crux here is that you want to run GP2 which is a DOS game and Win ME no
longer has DOS support (DOS is still there lurking underneath but you can't
access it anymore).
Basically if you want to run DOS games stick with Win 98 and if not then Win
ME should be a little more stable.
There agian if you don't want to run DOS games then you caould always go for
Win 2000 (as long as you have the drivers for your hardware).
Some Call Me Tim
GPL works fine on WinME
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 18:57:24 -0000, "Some Call Me Tim"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)
>The crux here is that you want to run GP2 which is a DOS game and Win ME no >longer has DOS support (DOS is still there lurking underneath but you can't >access it anymore). > >Basically if you want to run DOS games stick with Win 98 and if not then Win >ME should be a little more stable. > >There agian if you don't want to run DOS games then you caould always go for >Win 2000 (as long as you have the drivers for your hardware). > >Some Call Me Tim >"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" wrote:
> Yep. I still wonder why they used the bloody broken thing to host
> http://www.microsoft.com at the very least full 2 months before release.
> Sorry, I'll take http://www.netcraft.com word over that of that ex-Microsoft
> employee. Your mileage may and probably _will_ vary, of course.
You may take Netcraft's word over an ex-employee, but not me. I think
an ex-employee has much better knowledge of what everyone was instructed
when it comes to in-house development machines & what they could run on
them. It's Solaris & FreeBSD only there.
And I also take it that you didn't click on the link "How were these
results determined?" on Netcraft's page, did you? They seem to rely
mainly on 2 methods, both of which are easily gotten around by any
company wanting to do so. They cache read the site's proxy server, and
they also refer to a database which is built by those that click on the
"If you see a wrong OS & web server reported, please tell us" link at
the bottom of their page. It can also be beaten by clustering the
servers with multiple OS'es, not an uncommon sight today.
Seems some are easily fooled. Not a slam, though. To each his own.
Just don't try to propagate FUD around me, I will speak up. ;-)
--
Chuck Kandler
Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
Paul! Please! You're killing me with this stuff!!! LOL
Regards,
Brett C. Cammack
That's Racing! Motorsports
Pompano Beach, FL
"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" wrote:
I stated my evidence as well pal. I was talking about their inside
development machines in the first place anyways, not their web servers.
You switched gears on that one, probably because you can't find anyone
to back up a counter-claim in this age of NDA's. To me it seems you
switched in order to show M$ in a better light, hence my propaganda
statement. Do you have evidence to the contrary that pertains to my
*original* statement?
Got a better source with knowledge of their development machines? And
an ex-employee is not that bad of a source, many times. I know I have a
lot to say about how my employer does business. And I will do just that
after I leave their employ. Without making anything up. To those who
can do something about it.
>
> I said that they use their OS to host their website, and I produced my
> evidence. And IMO, Netcraft seems more credible than an unnamed ex-employee.
Again, you *switched gears*!
Who the hell are you??
Please. Give me a break. On their own site, they themselves admit to a
number of weaknesses in their methods and explain them. Don't tell me
you don't comprehend how they work? Doesn't mean they did got fooled on
anything, but it would sure be easy to do! And we would have no way of
knowing.
>
> > Seems some are easily fooled. Not a slam, though. To each his own.
>
> And you, OTOH, are of course up to the latest conspiracy theory.
And you are waaay too trusting. People in the neighborhoods where I've
lived would have a heyday with somebody like you. They'd rip you off
ten ways from Sunday before you'd ever figure out what's going on.
Sooner or later you'll realize that many people, and almost ALL
businesses, will say or do anything to get your money out of you. This
world is a big rip-off.
>
> Microsoft years ago bought http://www.hotmail.com which was hosted on
> Solaris and BSD. They were a laughing stock because they didn't migrate
> Hotmail to NT.
Only to bozo's who don't know any better. Their opinions are worthless
anyways.
>
> So riddle me this, O insightful one: Why didn't pull that oh so clever trick
> on Hotmail ?
Who cares? We have no way of telling if it's running 100% M$ or not.
Are you telling me it couldn't be done?? But of course, we all know M$
would never lie. Trust them. ;-)
>
> > Just don't try to propagate FUD around me, I will speak up. ;-)
>
> FUD means "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt" is for making something look bad. ergo,
> the only FUD propagator on these mremises seems to be you.
Sorry, stating facts I've read about. This one was along the same lines
as the guy I was replying to, who advised the young man to let others
"be the guinea pigs" for Windows Me. You still haven't given any
evidence to contradict *that*. You come in bellering & going on about
web servers, backed up with evidence from a site that will admit to your
face that their methods are flawed. Hmmm...
>
> RAS is not the place to discuss those things, why don't you post those
> things on COLA and COMNA, I'm sure they could use a good laugh.
Then why post two replies stating this same thing? I don't know about
you...
Ok, I see the smiley. Otherwise I'd have told you to f@#k off. ;-)
>
> > Registered Linux User #180746
> > http://counter.li.org
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande
I take it I must have hit a real nerve here, what with all these
personal attacks thrown in. You mistake me for some
foaming-at-the-mouth, glazed-eyes-lunatic attacker of M$, which just
isn't true. I'm not anti-M$ per se, for instance they make one helluva
good flight sim. I just don't like bad software, regardless of who
makes it. And when it comes to OSes, well...
Think you need to cut down on the caffeine pal. Have a nice day.
--
Chuck Kandler
Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > [email hidden]... > > Let us clarify some things. Propaganda is made for making something look > good, I wasn't extolling the virtues of Microsoft. You badmouthed MS, I just > provide a counterpoint. If that's propaganda in your book, let's just say > that I use a closed source dictionnary, that I can't rewrite at my > leisure...Quoted text (19 lines)
> > > "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" wrote: > > > > > Yep. I still wonder why they used the bloody broken thing to host > > > http://www.microsoft.com at the very least full 2 months before release. > > > Sorry, I'll take http://www.netcraft.com word over that of that > ex-Microsoft > > > employee. Your mileage may and probably _will_ vary, of course. > > > > > > You may take Netcraft's word over an ex-employee, but not me. I think > > an ex-employee has much better knowledge of what everyone was instructed > > when it comes to in-house development machines & what they could run on > > them. It's Solaris & FreeBSD only there. > > Of course, you have evidence of that ? If you have, just produce it. Your > word or that of an unnamed ex-employee who may have an axe to grind with MS, > or plainly wants to score cheap points by jumping the lets' bash Microsoft > band wagon.Quoted text (11 lines)
> > > And I also take it that you didn't click on the link "How were these > > results determined?" on Netcraft's page, did you? They seem to rely > > You assume too much. :) > > > mainly on 2 methods, both of which are easily gotten around by any > > company wanting to do so. They cache read the site's proxy server, and > > And of course, Microsoft just does that and it fools all or nearly all of > the network computing world, but not the great Uncle Fester.Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > they also refer to a database which is built by those that click on the > > "If you see a wrong OS & web server reported, please tell us" link at > > the bottom of their page. It can also be beaten by clustering the > > servers with multiple OS'es, not an uncommon sight today. > > Wow, your knowledge and your insight just confound me.Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > -- > > Chuck Kandler > > > > Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses > > Look, an l33t dude ! Do you know http://www.l33t.com ? :)No problems with Office 2000 and ME here. Yet :)
-Larry
"Jason "Schumi" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
a
