Public service announcement.
-
Tim Smith wrote: WHAT ARE YOU, MASOCHISTS? I am not. I use Windows 2000. :) Onkar
Then you have buggy software on your system. Maybe from shareware junk or spyware. There is no reason for W2K to run out of resources on it's own. Pull up process monitor and see who isn't releasing their physical mmemory or handles. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
What about old machines that cannot possibly run Win2K or WinXP? So the solution is: Linux. :) Venet. -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
If ya' gotta, ya' gotta. :) Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
After reading many of the responses to the thread "Most annoying experiences with Windows", I feel I need to say one thing. STOP USING 95/98/ME. WHAT ARE YOU, MASOCHISTS? Thank you. :-D Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
After reading many of the responses to the thread "Most annoying experiences with Windows", I feel I need to say one thing. STOP USING 95/98/ME. WHAT ARE YOU, MASOCHISTS? Thank you. :-D Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Tim Smith wrote: WHAT ARE YOU, MASOCHISTS? I am not. I use Windows 2000. :) Onkar
-
After reading many of the responses to the thread "Most annoying experiences with Windows", I feel I need to say one thing. STOP USING 95/98/ME. WHAT ARE YOU, MASOCHISTS? Thank you. :-D Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Tim Smith wrote: STOP USING 95/98/ME I used to be a 98er. Till, I first used 2K. After that, 98 made me sick. Now I am on XP. I can tolerate 2K, but I feel better with XP Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Buy it, read it and admire me :-)
-
After reading many of the responses to the thread "Most annoying experiences with Windows", I feel I need to say one thing. STOP USING 95/98/ME. WHAT ARE YOU, MASOCHISTS? Thank you. :-D Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
I'm using Win98se for developing in VC, and it crashes rarely (it is running 24hrs/day, i'm restarting it average once per week). When i had that HW resource wasting "OS" W2K, it was crashing more often, even when copying CD, for example. NT systems does not suck less than W98 (best M$ OS ever)
rrrado
-
What about old machines that cannot possibly run Win2K or WinXP? So the solution is: Linux. :) Venet. -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
Venet wrote: So the solution is: Linux. Ah! A sado-masochist! ;P The real solution is: Upgrade (or die!)
-
Venet wrote: So the solution is: Linux. Ah! A sado-masochist! ;P The real solution is: Upgrade (or die!)
-
I'm using Win98se for developing in VC, and it crashes rarely (it is running 24hrs/day, i'm restarting it average once per week). When i had that HW resource wasting "OS" W2K, it was crashing more often, even when copying CD, for example. NT systems does not suck less than W98 (best M$ OS ever)
rrrado
In my experience Win2k is the best OS Microsoft has released so far. Win98 - useless, no memory management at all. Win95 and Win98 (I havent used WinME) lack on "garbage collection". A simple memory waster application would bring Win9x to its knees, where as with win2k that doesn't happen. When application exists, Win2k claims that memory back continues running normally. That's my experience anyway... :) Venet. -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
-
Venet wrote: Linux even saves you on hardware!!! It can't save your hair, though! ;P
-
Richard_D wrote: Ah! A sado-masochist! The real solution is: Upgrade (or die!) So the conclusion is: Linux even saves you on hardware!!! Venet. -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
Venet wrote: Linux even saves you on hardware!!! It can't save your hair, though! ;P
-
After reading many of the responses to the thread "Most annoying experiences with Windows", I feel I need to say one thing. STOP USING 95/98/ME. WHAT ARE YOU, MASOCHISTS? Thank you. :-D Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
In my experience Win2k is the best OS Microsoft has released so far. Win98 - useless, no memory management at all. Win95 and Win98 (I havent used WinME) lack on "garbage collection". A simple memory waster application would bring Win9x to its knees, where as with win2k that doesn't happen. When application exists, Win2k claims that memory back continues running normally. That's my experience anyway... :) Venet. -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
interesting, but i'm not using such an application :-D And if i have mistake in my application, at least i'll find that :-D But sesiously, W98 is more universal, it's not possible to run some games on W2k :) I had installed both of those OS's and after cople of weeks i found out that i don't need w2k
rrrado
-
interesting, but i'm not using such an application :-D And if i have mistake in my application, at least i'll find that :-D But sesiously, W98 is more universal, it's not possible to run some games on W2k :) I had installed both of those OS's and after cople of weeks i found out that i don't need w2k
rrrado
rrrado wrote: but i'm not using such an application I'm not runnign it either. I used it to test OS-es to see how good can they recover from memory wasting. Windows95 was the worst one, gave error almost straight away: System Is Low on resources Do you want to quit the following application Windows 98 just froze. If I left it for a week, probably it would have responded to START menu. Win2k was the best. No freezing, no error message. Although memory usage went to 1.5 GIG (my Machine has 310 MB), still didn't crash. After closing the application, memory usage went to normal which is usually 150 MB. rrrado wrote: it's not possible to run some games on W2k That's true, but I don't play games anyway :) Venet -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
-
I'm using Win98se for developing in VC, and it crashes rarely (it is running 24hrs/day, i'm restarting it average once per week). When i had that HW resource wasting "OS" W2K, it was crashing more often, even when copying CD, for example. NT systems does not suck less than W98 (best M$ OS ever)
rrrado
rrrado wrote: I'm using Win98se for developing in VC, and it crashes rarely (it is running 24hrs/day, i'm restarting it average once per week). Holy crap, from what parralel universe did you get your copy of Windows 98se? :-D Every experience and comment I have had on or from W98 has been bad. When it came back I even swapped back to W95, something I have only ever done once before and that was with CuteFTP. Shocking OS, and ME just added more crashable bells and whistles. W2K was good and while XP is not as stable I am putting up with it for the benefits. Bottom line: W98 should never have been made. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
-
rrrado wrote: I'm using Win98se for developing in VC, and it crashes rarely (it is running 24hrs/day, i'm restarting it average once per week). Holy crap, from what parralel universe did you get your copy of Windows 98se? :-D Every experience and comment I have had on or from W98 has been bad. When it came back I even swapped back to W95, something I have only ever done once before and that was with CuteFTP. Shocking OS, and ME just added more crashable bells and whistles. W2K was good and while XP is not as stable I am putting up with it for the benefits. Bottom line: W98 should never have been made. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
Paul Watson wrote: W2K was good and while XP is not as stable In WinXP Microsoft found the following solution: If there is a problem with a software or hardware don't display an error message, just restart computer. This is especially true if you are installing a set of drivers for a modem. It's a nightmare. Venet. -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
-
rrrado wrote: I'm using Win98se for developing in VC, and it crashes rarely (it is running 24hrs/day, i'm restarting it average once per week). Holy crap, from what parralel universe did you get your copy of Windows 98se? :-D Every experience and comment I have had on or from W98 has been bad. When it came back I even swapped back to W95, something I have only ever done once before and that was with CuteFTP. Shocking OS, and ME just added more crashable bells and whistles. W2K was good and while XP is not as stable I am putting up with it for the benefits. Bottom line: W98 should never have been made. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
Paul Watson wrote: W2K was good and while XP is not as stable I am putting up with it for the benefits. XP not as stable??? Am I the only person that has had a nothing but good experiences with Windows XP Pro and Visual Studio.NET. IT seems everyone has a hard time but me. Jason Gerard
-
rrrado wrote: but i'm not using such an application I'm not runnign it either. I used it to test OS-es to see how good can they recover from memory wasting. Windows95 was the worst one, gave error almost straight away: System Is Low on resources Do you want to quit the following application Windows 98 just froze. If I left it for a week, probably it would have responded to START menu. Win2k was the best. No freezing, no error message. Although memory usage went to 1.5 GIG (my Machine has 310 MB), still didn't crash. After closing the application, memory usage went to normal which is usually 150 MB. rrrado wrote: it's not possible to run some games on W2k That's true, but I don't play games anyway :) Venet -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
-
Richard_D wrote: Ah! A sado-masochist! The real solution is: Upgrade (or die!) So the conclusion is: Linux even saves you on hardware!!! Venet. -------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.(Steven Wright)
-
Paul Watson wrote: W2K was good and while XP is not as stable I am putting up with it for the benefits. XP not as stable??? Am I the only person that has had a nothing but good experiences with Windows XP Pro and Visual Studio.NET. IT seems everyone has a hard time but me. Jason Gerard
Jason Gerard wrote: Am I the only person that has had a nothing but good experiences with Windows XP Pro and Visual Studio.NET. IT seems everyone has a hard time but me. Don't get me wrong, XP is great. XP has only crashed once with me, and I was trying to install 5 apps at once to get things going on a reinstall. So my fault, I guess. However I do find that VS.NET crashes about once every two days with me, especially when saving CSS and ASPX files to a web server. I blame that more on VS.NET than XP. Also I am running XP on a machine which could do with a bit more of a kick (PIII 400mhz, 256 ram) and I tend to load a lot of stuff at once to get my job done. All in all I am happy with XP, it does what it says and it is a great experience, cool UI. Just it is not as stable as W2K which never fell over with me on the same machine. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
