Hah.

Hey I'm sure taskmanager lovers would love this. Though they could've just made a one button ctrl-alt-del...and lookie Intel made it too.....

I believe that is...idiotic.

Windows, to everyone's disbelief, does not crash every other second and does not ****-up for no reason. If you do something wrong, it ****s-up. If you do things right, however, its smooth sailing.

Yeah, Vega's right. Back in the days of Window's 98 yes, I often experianced at least one, maybe two crashes a day. However I have NEVER had XP crash on me. It's locked up a few times from lack of memory (only 256MB...), but I haven't gotten a SINGLE crash with XP (and this is only Home Edition).

In fact, I'm sure if XP was the first Window's OS ever, everyone would be praising Bill Gates and Microsoft instead of loathing them. XP is numerous times more stable then 98 ever was, and doesn't deteriorate with time either.

XP is pretty stable in my experience. Most issues I've had were programs being cranky (hello, Movie Maker, VLC Media Player...) or lack of memory...or me doing something stupid.

It *has* gone splat a few times, but certainly not to the extent 98 did...it usually at least gives warning before going weird :p.

My XP Home blue screened today! Yay! :rolleyes:

Seems to me that the only way you can Bluescreen XP is if you do something wrong but you knew it was bad cuz it probably told you. XD thats what I've seen atleast... The part where it does the memory dump heh.

MrGuy.. where do you keep finding these firefox pictures?

HaTcH can help! Why did my computer Blue Screen ('twas not the major one, though)!? All I had running was Bitcomet, which has been working fine for my other computer (XP Pro). It wasn't memory, as I still have 140 Gigs left...

Also note I actually was not there when it did, my sister was. She claims she didn't touch anything.

As for the pictures... if I say 4chan Tilly will shoot me with a 12 Gauge...

Pft, XP sucks ass in my opinion, I rather my Win 98 SE any day of the week, it's as good as it was the day it was bought. I've never liked XP, and would never use it if I had the choice.
Sure, I get the odd blue screen, but I'd rather be using 98 SE than sell out to the money grubbing Micro$oft Windows XP.

And they wouldn't really be able to have XP as their first ever OS, too ahead of their time, and it's basically just an updated version and fix up of all the older versions of Windows.


The original topic deserves to be in Jokes and Funny stuff. Meh, we can always just turn it into a general windows love/hate thread.

Unless they made numerous improvements to stabilize SE (have only used 95, 98, 2000, and XP) 98 was even more crap for me then 95 was. Within three years of our purchase of that computer (which is no longer with us, it's in a better place now *coughtrashdumpcough*) it was mandatory that it crashed at least once every day, as I said.

So, unless Microsoft fixed the deteriorating problem (heck, 95 lasted me for at least 6 years before that computer was scraped, no OS should only last 3 years) and general instability, or you don't do much on your computer, I don't see how SE could be better then XP (which we've now had for about two and a half years). Correct me if I'm wrong and if Microsoft did fix SE up though.

And that comment just meant that while previous Window's may have been worty of hate, I've encountered nothing with XP for it to deserve it (well, there is the whole security hole issue, but every OS does have it's flaws, and that's XP's)

And I never have understood how Microsoft is being so greedy with XP...

Well 98 was (if my memory serves) the first Windows OS that didn't run without any help whatsoever from DOS, as 95 and lower version of Windows did (well, they said that 95 would run without DOS, but that was over hyped, and not exactly true), so it was probably sure to have some bugs, so they released SE acouple of months later.

"Windows 98 SE was released to fix bugs and acted as a small incremental update to Windows 98. It gave users enhanced hardware compatibility and Internet features. Windows 98 SE included Internet Explorer 5 and Microsoft Windows NetMeeting version 3.0 conferencing software. It also included DirectX 6.1, which introduced Internet connection sharing (ICS) to and a variety of Windows multimedia improvements.

In the area of updates Win98 SE included all the latest updates for Windows 98 including Year 2000 updates, & USB."

So to answer your question, yes, Windows 98 Second Edition is more secure and a lot more stable than the Original 98, which is probably why it went kaput. Although they do still have the same GUI. Win 2000 is basically just a prettier version of 98 SE.

Heh, I do quite a bit on my computer, but I never said it was better than XP. XP has much more features, is more stable, and a generally more reliable OS, but I rather SE over it, and am never going to use XP. I'll wait for Long Horn to be released, and if that gets good reviews (which I'm thinking it will, seeing as though Windows is at the moment becoming less popular, especially in Europe. They'll need for Long Horn to bring people back to the Microsoft way, and if Long Horn flops, well.. Let's just say that in another 5-10 years, Windows will be very unused) and I like it, I'll upgrade, if not, I'm off to Linux.

We have experianced quite a number of crashes with XP Pro when doing alot of "work" on the computer, such as video editing and such. XP seems not able to handle acting as a small network server (2 other comps) and do editing stuff at the same time or system intensive stuff without crashing.

Windows 98 SE worked brilliantly for us when we used it, very reliable for the most of the time, although the software for it wasnt that good back then, and caused 98 SE to spaz out due to some shobby coding in certain apps.

I myself am trying to convert over to Linux, but running an ATI Radeon graphics card makes it somewhat difficult, as Linux conflict with ATI cards for some reason...

SE better than XP? Thats the silliest thing i've ever heard!

When they developed windows XP they completely re did the OS. Win2k and XP were built from an NT based kernel, not a 9x. This is what makes it faster and more stable. But like I said, NT based. XP has lots of new code.

I <3 the new start menu
Automatic driver installation <3
Movie Maker <3
Much faster and stable than 98SE, which was originally set up on this comp as a dual boot, but I reformatted the entire thing, put XP back on with a copy of Gentoo Linux.
The new look of the taskbar <3
Multiple users at the same time <3
The control alt delete window is way cooler <3
Networking <3
Error reporting <3
--need I go on?

@ MrGuy: 4chan? And anyway, could you be more specific? Usually the major XP blue screen occurs when you do something to hard ware. Perhaps bitcomet did something bad to your computer. The only time I noticed it caused problems was when I would try to run defrag on the partition I used to keep windows 98. Found out it was because I kept the page file there, defrag would try to defrag it and bleh, crash. To be honest that was the only time it ever would blue screen on me.

I don't like the XP start menu, myself...but they also let you use the old-style menu, so I'm not going to complain :p. And I like the collapsey thing of unused items, and the quick launch toolbar letting me put some stuff in the >> arrows. Most stuff I use goes in there now...

I like the Task Manager thingy too. When stuff locks up I can take care of it much easier than smacking "end program" worked in 98...

One thing I do hate is the rounded buttons/windows/etc. in the default theme...all that anti-aliasing when windows are supposed to be BOXES. But again, I can set it like the old Windows stuff, so it's all good.

And I can have Japanese text in Notepad!

Xp is top of the line, they didn't redo the OS, too much code, besides if there're going to do that then why are they saying there're going to rewrite Longhorn.

Actualy although yes Win2k and XP Pro are part of the NT series, Xp Home is not part of the series, and Home has only a very components of the NT series so while it is built from the kernel it isn't part of the series. Home is missing a FULLY functioning EFS, it can encrypt only certain files but doesn't support permissions and more complex networking. Home is also missing alot of components from the Admistritive Tools, I know because I have Pro and I used my friend's computer which was Home.

Longhorn will have alot more, and my xp isn't very stable.

HaTcH, you think XP is really stable because you reinstall the OS so often (you told me on AIM), you said every 6 months. Well for me after running XP for over a year I had to reinstall the OS because it gave me the bluescreen of "death" and was stuck on a endless bootup squence. But for me Win2k is quite stable because I rarely use it, like every 4 months or so. (dual-boot)

Settle down..Ive got XP and have used 98,95 and they all work great..I just thought it would be funny for the microsoft haters..

They didn't do it from the ground up, but they did so much work it can be considered a total redo. Longhorn is another build up, more stable, and more demanding, as it seems (you will need a Shader 2.0 accessible graphics card in order to use it).

I really don't notice a difference between Home and Pro. There is, actually, only a 3 file difference between the two systems. XD And, as I have learned back in the day, if you rip the install cd onto your PC, go in and edit ONE line of code in ONE FILE, you can change it from Home to Pro to Coperate Pro. XD You would need, of course, a correct cd key, but it'd work nonetheless.

My XP is very stable unless there is a harware error. I was, at some point, using a hacked version of XP Pro with SP2 (I now have a legit Corperate XP Pro) and it kept crashing. This was all due to the hacked-versioned-ness of it all (or the harddrvie...but I don't believe so.)

Endless bootup sequence...your partition was deleted or corrupt and it couldn't recognize any other partitions, so it was left in an endless boot, nothing, shutdown, boot, nothing, shutdown...etc in hopes that you would a) throw in the CD and reinstall or B) blow the whole thing away and redo it. I speak from personal experience.

I used to have a dual boot of XP and Longhorn, but, well, the Longhorn was too unstable for me to use (and I did not have the power to control it yet, I guess [I have to reupdate my machine again]), so I had to get rid of it. XD I still have the disc lying around somewhere. 7074, I believe.

If you're using NTFS file system, then the file 'NTLDR' got deleted or another program (usu an OS) changed your MBR (master boot record) on your mian hard drive. The XP cd has a way to repair MBR without even touching the OS and all your programs and settings.

Boot using your XP install disk, choose recovery console. Type

.

Anyway, If you are going to use Linux, I'd suggest using the GRUB boot loader. But thats just me.



*HaTcH is enjoying Zoids CC DVD6 which he got in the mail a few days ago ^^;

*nod nod* Will look into it.
What's a better distro? Debain or Gentoo Deluxe?
And back on the CPU-deal. Are you sure I should go with an Intel 530/540? I mean...the damn geeks at hlfallout make AMD seem so appealing...but...then again...they are all gamer geeks who don't do imaging/compiling of any kind...and thats really that Intels are for...

Well 3 ghz is 3 ghz no matter what computer you get. 2 processors of the same clock will do the same task in the same amount of time, otherwise they are of a different clock! I recomend just getting what ever you can afford. From what I've heard the only real differences between AMD and Intel is the AMDs run hotter (thus need better cooling) and Intels are more widely supported. (atleast the X86 (pentium) architecture) Tho AMD chips are made to work like an intel chip.

AMD boards are usually prettier than Intel boards, more colors, designs, (fan plugs). Then again you can always get something not made by either and just slap an intel or amd chip in it.

As for distributions of Linux, I've only ever used Redhat and Gentoo. Redhat is an RPM based distro as far as I know, so is debian. Gentoo is a bit different, but Im not really an expert to tell you what to choose. Give gentoo a try imo. http://www.gentoo.org/ They have excellent support docs there. (I'd imagine the other distros would too)

RPM... hmm well my guess is that RPMs are more like windows type of drivers for hardware. In gentoo, if you have hardware you have to build support for that hardware into the kernel of the OS.

*stabs so much contradiction* What I'm really saying is that in the long run it doesn't matter. Go with Gentoo on an Intel P4 board.

AMDs have been proven to run games better (Higher FPS) while Intels tend to run production software better.

Check out the articles (including benchmarks) on Anandtech if you want to see just HOW well.

The thing that kills me...is that I do all things. I'm an encoder/decoder, I have imaging programs, I want to try my hand at programing, I want to try my hand at Maya (6.0 or so), I want to try my hand at map making, and I'm a huge gamer.

It is a giant contradiction of what people say. If you want to game---get an AMD. Well---alright. I gue--If you want to render, compress, code, and other "corperate" things...get an INTEL. Wait...what? *hits person who's talking*

Why can't AMD and INTEL just make the AMTEL 64-bit OMGWTFBBQ CPU?

I'd get it.

And AMDs are a mite cheaper.

FUEL FOR THE CONTRADICTION:
Gaming
Render/Data compression
Video encoding

I mean...it maybe only a few seconds in delay---but then again...it is only a few FPS.

Might want to edit your post there....

And yeah, WIndows never has errors for no reason. People never delete old files or programs, not to mention defrag their computers at least once a month. As well, they never update nor do simple things to ensure proper running of their computer. Internet screws it up big time since you download everything fromt he sites you visit. Look on your computer.. You have every single sig ever used on this forum unless you got rid of those temp files... Thats alot of space, not to mention other aspects of the internet that gets saved on your computer...

Meh, people are stupid sometimes...

And, for that picture... LOL... Yeah, thats me when ever I run to many programs or install something while downloading a movie... :P :P :P

Ok ok.. How about you just get a poly processor system? Not HT, simply have two chips on the mobo. Nice huge power supply, couple of gigs of ram.... Now that is what you need.

My computer, when knew, could process a 406x316 movie at around 80fps. Since I've had it for 2 years, the hard drives gotten full and that speed dropped to around 50. I know its different aspect of FPS than gaming, but heck, most of the graphic crap takes place on the graphics card, save for mathematics and whatnot. Why not focus your attention less on the CPU, but make the rest of the computer faster or better. 256mb graphics card and a 2.0ghz++ with 1gig of ram & a 7200 rpm disk will run any game ever. Bottom line. Don't worry about underpowering your system. Getting any higher than 2.5 would be strictly for video processing or 3D work. Otherwise it would be a waste.

I clicked the first link in your last post. Looking at the fictures I have one comment: how is this a fair trial? an 64 chip versus a non 64 chip.. well duh its gonna run faster! I noticed all the AMDs were 64-bit. But why not bring their capabilities to what they were trying against. I believe these tests we done on a per price basis, Intel is like Mercedes part of the cost to the consumer is the name. I think it was DT who was telling me his HT system actually recognizes 2 processors in device manager.

They used the Athlon 64s as they're AMDs "flagship" processor line, just as how Intel's are the Pentium 4's.

Also, take a look at the prices of the chips Anandtech lists in that gaming link Vega gave,

Intel 570 3.8 GHz, the best benchmarked Intel processor on that list, retail version is $795.

AMD Athlon 64 3500+, the least powerful AMD processor that beats the 3.8GHz in every category listed there, retail version is only $268.

Obviously, you can see that AMD is certainly a much better value then Intel based on those benchmarks. Of course, I haven't looked at productivity benchmarks as whenever I get the money to build a computer (at least nine months) it's going to be focused on gaming. So, be sure when you look at benchmarks you also look at the price of the chips as well. If you bought a Pentium 4 3.8GHz for a gaming computer because of Intel loyalty, you would have been majorly ripped off...

*stares* I wish I could get on'a those Hatch...I don't have that much money XD

I'm so confused so...*hides in corner* I'm gonna do more research and eventually choose....and water-cooling looks so...cooool. But no. I mustn't.

But then again...whatever I get has to have PCI-e. That is...sos that I can get me on'a those X800 XL (budget X800 that's better than the X800 pro...and is cheaper...and has performance nearly comperable to an X850 XT).

And I did edit my post. Hadn't noticed it didn't catch it. Thanks.

I likes me some muffins.

*pops out from the unknown*

I have no idea really what you are arguing about but...GO INTEL! That is all I have to say.

Oh and another thing my BIOS could detect my XP Pro..it's just that it would go as far as me seeing the XP load screen and never making as far as the login screen. And right when the login screen is supposed to show I see in half a second a error screen, and of course being too fast for the human eye I whip out my camcorder and record it and look for it frame by frame...it said something of a hardware error and lines of error something like:

Something like that, but that isn't actualy code, looked for it down at microsoft, nothin'

WTF is XP Pro Corperate? You have XP Home, sucks not system wide NTFS permission setable folders and less networking features.... and XP Pro, no corperate...what's next XP military edition? Or Winux...microsoft sued some compay for using a name close to it...all I remember is that win was in front and something resembling linux as at the end of the word...oh well... Winux is something of a OS, Winux

AAANNNDDD being that Windows 64-bit edition (*snort* will it ever come out?) hasn't come out we really can't test how well them' 64-bit processors from AMD and INTEL fair.......GO INTEL! AND ITS HT TECH!

@VegaObscurablahblah So you finaly know what HT is? I remember telling you about it and you absolutly no clue whatso ever what it was....

I guess I went over my "That is all I have to say" eh?

Its funny, the very first thing I did to my computer once I got it was "borrow" a copy of partiton magic and converted the file system of the drive to NTFS.

The limited network support thing is so un true.. You can technically hook up any number of systems to a LAN and still share printers, drives, files everything...

So... YAY no encryption! Thus, it does not matter to me the differences between XP home and XP Pro, and I never heard of XP Corp...

Ah-hem...

XP Pro Corp. (the version I have) is essentially the same as XP Pro, but with no activation necessary. This is not necessary because if you license out 450 copies to some school...you don't want them to have to (and you to have to entertain) 450 activations. The XP Pro Corp is basically pre-activated (and registered).

Woot Woot.

And I've always know what HT was...maybe I didn't know in which context you ment it. HT for Intel is HyperThreading. HT for AMD is HyperTransport.

HT is going to axed from its dual-prescott endevors (dual CPUs), or so I've heard.

HT for now is kinda like dual-core processing for the masses/consumers, it's not the actual thing but imatates it.

Ah, I Googled up XP Corp and while Microsoft doesn't seem to refer to it as that,but it is to some degree that. Hmm interesting...I guess Vega snuck into his school's computer lab and stole some disks....(tsk tsk)

I actualy own Partion Magic but I haven't used it, I've been using te same disks partion sizes since it was built (over a year)..guess I bought it for nothin'.

Microsoft should make more editions of XP, like Windows XP Goverment Edtion, lol it would be for the goverment, I mean c'mon China and some other countries are "secretly" working together to develope a goverment OS based on Linux....I would love to get my hands on that OS.....

Nope...I had to redo my PC (I was using a pirated version of the same software)...and my co-worker managed to snag a copy from his work. It works...and its awesome.

HT doesn't do much more, actually...I haven't heard any rants or raves...so its just a feature, I guess---an overrated one, as I hear.

I'm still trying to decide (refer to Eternal War). XD