Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

As some of you may recall, I've been using Windows 95 for quite a while. Well, yesterday I finally got enough time to try and upate to Windows 98SE. But only today did I finsih the update (had to do it like three times, since some problems occurred the first times - hardware related, mostly, as inadvertedly some cards had been mispositioned on the motherboard while I was manipulating the HDD and some connectors). So, after the upgrade, I also installed DirectX 8.1 (how else could I give GTR 2002 a try, otherwise?). Well, it seems the video drivers were modified in some way within Windows, since when I started F1 2001 I had to setup the video config again... The JGTC mod didn't give me much problem, after running it, I also had to set the graphics up again and then it worked fine. The problem were the ALMS and FIA GT mods; they kept loading the video setup utility every time I attempted to run them, and then going into F1 2001. In order to solve that, I had to manually edit the config files and copy the line "VIDEOGUID=(bunch of codes follow)" from the updated config.ini file. That had happened to me earlier whenever I updated drivers for the video card too... GPL gave me no problems whatsoever (well, I still can't drive the cars properly, but that's a different ind of probleem). For GP3 I just recalibrated the video again, just in case... The worst one was NFS:PU, it would freeze after the "Loading" screen appeared, finally after several hours I found out I had to disable TwinView on my GeForce2's properies. (Either that or change vsync to "always on", which caused the menus to become really unstable) And I finally managed to get a look at IL-2! Awesome. Back the, I signed as a beta-tester and received the disk, but could never get it to work (after clicking on the shortcut, there would be some disk activity for a brief instant, and then nothing). Now i's working just fine. And finally, as someone else had explained, I installed the F1 2002 WIP demo, followed by the no-CD patch, followed by GTR 2002, followed by the 1.1 AI patch, followed by the 1.2 patch. Wow! It really is impressive. Too bad my driving hasn't improved much yet... -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"machf" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse news:[email hidden]... > As some of you may recall, I've been using Windows 95 for quite a while. > Well, yesterday I finally got enough time to try and upate to Windows98SE. Oh, wauhh so you finally got win98 !! Where do you live Afghanistan ?? 8-)))

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:24:45 +0100, JS wrote: > Oh, wauhh so you finally got win98 !! > Where do you live Afghanistan ?? 8-))) hey, you forgot they bombed them back to win3.11... 8} Last I heard, even the US were subject to a nasty attack known as "Windows XP". Me? I'd choose Peru over that, any day 8-P Thank god the penguins are closing in on Peru from the south, day by day. uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:24:45 +0100, "JS" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >"machf" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse >news:[email hidden]... >> As some of you may recall, I've been using Windows 95 for quite a while. >> Well, yesterday I finally got enough time to try and upate to Windows >98SE. > >Oh, wauhh so you finally got win98 !! >Where do you live Afghanistan ?? 8-))) >

It's not a matter of where I live, it's about what suits my needs. Up to recently, I didn't need anything that wasn't possible with Windows 95. Unlike others, I don't fall for marketing schemes. -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

Its not a marketing scheme when someone improves upon something and sells it as such. Just because it's an MS product people feel differently. I for one am glad the improvements continue. If we all had your attitude where the fuk would we be? Oh yea, the stone age...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> It's not a matter of where I live, it's about what suits my needs. Up to > recently, I didn't need anything that wasn't possible with Windows 95. > Unlike others, I don't fall for marketing schemes. > > -- > __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > '-_____|( > > remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:18:14 +0100, Uwe hoover Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote: >Thank god the penguins are closing in on Peru from the south, >day by day. Yeah, my linux machines run GPL and N2003 like a dream... Microsoft has imho done exactly 3 things right in their entire history. Internet Explorer, Xbox, and Windows XP. No I'm not going to be building a web or mail cluster out of XP machines any time in the near future, but for an entertainment-oriented OS you can't beat it right now. Jason

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:sg8ca.1367$[email hidden]: > Its not a marketing scheme when someone improves upon something and > sells it as such. Just because it's an MS product people feel > differently. I for one am glad the improvements continue. If we all > had your attitude where the fuk would we be? Oh yea, the stone age... Sure it MAY be an improvement, but unless your needs are met by the improvement, it's just extra money thrown at M$. Hey leave Marco alone...I like the way he thinks...lol! Think about it...ME, win2k, XP, how much money is that for something that, for all intents and purposes, is supposed to hide in the background? It may be a little faster, more stable...and such...but you can buy ALOT more speed by taking that OS upgrade money and buying new cpu's or vidcards. dave henrie

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >> It's not a matter of where I live, it's about what suits my needs. Up >> to recently, I didn't need anything that wasn't possible with Windows >> 95. Unlike others, I don't fall for marketing schemes. >> >> -- >> __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke >> \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru >> _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com >> '-_____|( >> >> remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying > > >

I don't know where you buy your hardware Dave but I sure can't get very much hardware for a sawbuck nowadays. And what good is said hardware if you spend half your life at the BSOD? Hell I spent nearly $700 in videocards this year alone... In fact Ive spent about 10 times as much on videocards as OS's and Ive bought every single OS MS has ever released back to dos3x. For that matter I bought OS/2 also. Now that was a serious waste of cash. Honestly XP was the single best computer related purchase Ive made in nearly 20 years of buying comps and acc. The native hardware support alone is worth a $100. The real geeks don't like it cause it works too good :) What fun is that hehe.. I keep a few machines around just for Mandrake/2000pro/win98 so I have something to screw around with it when Im bored :) Eventually most of you will upgrade to XP and when you do I doubt very much you'll come back here with your tail between your legs and fess up how much you like it :) Its about like Jesse Jackson heaping praise on George Bush. Just aint gonna happen.. Mitch "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > Sure it MAY be an improvement, but unless your needs are met by the > improvement, it's just extra money thrown at M$. Hey leave Marco > alone...I like the way he thinks...lol! > Think about it...ME, win2k, XP, how much money is that for somethingthat, > for all intents and purposes, is supposed to hide in the background? > It may be a little faster, more stable...and such...but you can buy ALOT > more speed by taking that OS upgrade money and buying new cpu's or > vidcards. > dave henrie >

Mitch_A wrote: > Eventually most of you will upgrade to XP and when you do I doubt very much > you'll come back here with your tail between your legs and fess up how much > you like it :) > Its about like Jesse Jackson heaping praise on George Bush. Just aint gonna > happen.. Dave's just a late aquirer. Took him forever to drop the Voodoo & become an "Nvidiot" too. He'll see the light one day. After the rest of the world has already upgraded twice since. :-) -- Fester A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:sg8ca.1367$[email hidden]: > >> Its not a marketing scheme when someone improves upon something and >> sells it as such. Just because it's an MS product people feel >> differently. >> I for one am glad the improvements continue. If we all >> had your attitude where the fuk would we be? Oh yea, the stone age... > > Sure it MAY be an improvement, but unless your needs are met by the > improvement, it's just extra money thrown at M$. Hey leave Marco > alone...I like the way he thinks...lol! > Think about it...ME, win2k, XP, how much money is that for something > that, for all intents and purposes, is supposed to hide in the > background? It may be a little faster, more stable...and such...but you

faster? which one? win2k and XP are slower than '95-'98 family. And if the performance loss in process and DLL handling at least improves stability, the user interface becomes just amazingly slow for nothing. From the point of view of software developer it's really frustrating to see that the newer releases are actually worse than older ones in many areas :( It's even more frustrating to see that MS is not the only company doing that :(( > can buy ALOT more speed by taking that OS upgrade money and buying new > cpu's or vidcards. > dave henrie Alex.

Bien dicho, Marco Antonio, eres listo :) Estoy d'acuerdo contigo que no hace falta instalarse nada mas que 98 para cas� todo que quieres hacer con un ordenador en estes dias, y considerando el precio del beb� mas reciente de MS, el cargo que pone sobre el sistema y las desventajas que tiene, creo tambi�n que es m�s listo para el momento quedarse con 9x. Sigo usando ME desde dos mil, y me encuentro contento para todo. Unicamente me pone un poco triste que visiblemente el soporte para estes sistemas operativos desaparecer�. Ya se nota como est� empezando esto. Cas� tengo la impresi�n que es una cosa deseada y enforzada un poco por MS, porque con la base instalada de las SO's 9x, no entiendo como hay empresas que publican sus pilotos XP semanas antes de los para 9x, y algunos que ni siquiera siguen creando pilotos para 9x. Que tengas mucha suerte con tu nuevo SO! :) Achim "machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > It's not a matter of where I live, it's about what suits my needs. Up to > recently, I didn't need anything that wasn't possible with Windows 95. > Unlike others, I don't fall for marketing schemes....

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:25:37 GMT, [email hidden] (alexti) wrote: >faster? which one? win2k and XP are slower than '95-'98 family. >And if the performance loss in process and DLL handling at least >improves stability, the user interface becomes just amazingly slow >for nothing. Er, that's why you disable all of the integrated web crap that XP defaults with and disable the services that you have no need for. My XP machine uses fewer resources, is more stable, and responds faster to input than any version of Win9x. The key is tuning your OS to your needs. I run one TSR (Sidewinder applet, which is needed to use split-axis with my wheel), only the services that are required for the OS to function, and have the GUI stripped down to near Win95a levels. Currently I'm running Agent, IE, and SecureCRT and have more resources available than I did in Windows 95 or 98 on a clean boot after a fresh install with all of the TSR's disabled on the same machine. Of course I'll have even more resources free when I add another gig and a half of RAM to this machine (which wouldn't be true in Win95/98). Win98 is pretty sweet tho if you don't mind only being able to reliably address 256mb of RAM. Jason

Only shows how poorly you had configured your Win98 ;-) <g,d&r> Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > My XP machine uses fewer resources, is more stable, and responds > faster to input than any version of Win9x...

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:55 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Only shows how poorly you had configured your Win98 ;-) <g,d&r> My Win98lite thank you very much. =p Jason

How bout the line of server products? Development products? MS rules actually.

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:25:37 GMT, [email hidden] > (alexti) wrote: > > >faster? which one? win2k and XP are slower than '95-'98 family. > >And if the performance loss in process and DLL handling at least > >improves stability, the user interface becomes just amazingly slow > >for nothing. > > Er, that's why you disable all of the integrated web crap that XP > defaults with and disable the services that you have no need for. > > My XP machine uses fewer resources, is more stable, and responds > faster to input than any version of Win9x. The key is tuning your OS > to your needs. I run one TSR (Sidewinder applet, which is needed to > use split-axis with my wheel), only the services that are required for > the OS to function, and have the GUI stripped down to near Win95a > levels. Currently I'm running Agent, IE, and SecureCRT and have more > resources available than I did in Windows 95 or 98 on a clean boot > after a fresh install with all of the TSR's disabled on the same > machine. Of course I'll have even more resources free when I add > another gig and a half of RAM to this machine (which wouldn't be true > in Win95/98). Win98 is pretty sweet tho if you don't mind only being > able to reliably address 256mb of RAM. > > Jason

Good points Jason! I'd like to add that it's also possible to enable/disable services for different hardware profiles. I have a hardware profile called simracing where the IIS is disabled, and a development profile where I can start the IIS for ASPNet development. :-) /Carl

;-) Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:55 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Only shows how poorly you had configured your Win98 ;-) <g,d&r> > > My Win98lite thank you very much. =p > > Jason

;-) Achim

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:55 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" > >Only shows how poorly you had configured your Win98 ;-) <g,d&r> > My Win98lite thank you very much. =p > Jason

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:46:53 +0100, "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'd like to add that it's also possible to enable/disable services for >different hardware profiles. >I have a hardware profile called simracing where the IIS is disabled, and a >development profile where I can start the IIS for ASPNet development. :-) I have a profile I do development in but it's called freeBSD. =) Jason

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:36:06 +0100, "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote: >How bout the line of server products? Development products? >MS rules actually. Depends on the scale really. For a small intranet or a workstation environment while I'd rather use something else I'm ok with XP if it keeps the guys who sign my checks happy. I honestly can say I've never seen it scale very well when people have tried to. Granted, when a problem happens in Windows it's generally easier to fix than in BSD, Solaris, AIX, etc - instead of ripping apart hardware you're generally dealing with a reboot. It's kinda frustrating tho when a high-availability cluster needs to be rebooted every night because otherwise it will die. Jason

Yeah, you gotta hand it to someone who is now upgrading to the OS that is being officially Unsupported by Microsoft in 3 months :) Larry "JS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3e70bedb$0$126$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "machf" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse > news:[email hidden]... > > As some of you may recall, I've been using Windows 95 for quite a while. > > Well, yesterday I finally got enough time to try and upate to Windows > 98SE. > > Oh, wauhh so you finally got win98 !! > Where do you live Afghanistan ?? 8-))) > > > >

[email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:25:37 GMT, [email hidden] > (alexti) wrote: > >>faster? which one? win2k and XP are slower than '95-'98 family. >>And if the performance loss in process and DLL handling at least >>improves stability, the user interface becomes just amazingly slow for >>nothing. > > Er, that's why you disable all of the integrated web crap that XP > defaults with and disable the services that you have no need for. > > My XP machine uses fewer resources, is more stable, and responds > faster to input than any version of Win9x. The key is tuning your OS > to your needs. I run one TSR (Sidewinder applet, which is needed to > use split-axis with my wheel),

You're a brave man! As much as I dislike MS interfaces I still keep explorer.exe running (though from Win 95). I guess if you strip down both OS to bare bones you'll get very similar performances. In this case there won't be really much OS is actually doing beside process management, context switching and disk access. And anyway, something like prime number calculations performance don't depend on OS you're running. Point made by previous poster was that MS introduces new features and advancements which are good, and the fact that you're getting decently running system by removing 90+% of those innovations must be telling something about them :) Alex.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 04:43:37 GMT, [email hidden] (alexti) wrote: >Point made by previous poster was that MS introduces new features >and advancements which are good, and the fact that you're getting >decently running system by removing 90+% of those innovations >must be telling something about them :) The only thing I'd consider innovative about XP is that the kernel runs more efficiently. =) Microsoft should be run out of business for this "OS as a web browser" crap they've been pushing since 95b. Jason