[Ham-Computers] Speed... (was RE: Avoid one of the "Critical" Windows Updates...)

[Hsu, Aaron (NBC Universal)]

Heck, for speed without functionality, I'd go back to Windows 3.11!  A
few years back, I pulled out a set of Win311 disk and installed in on a
1GHz P3.  I copied all 7 floppies to the HD before running the
installation.  Took about 3 minutes to install.  Boot-up took about 10
seconds.  Ugly as heck as there were no video drivers for "modern" video
cards.  I remember installing the same set of disks on a 16-MHz 80386sx
system with 4MB RAM.  Took about 45 minutes to install and minutes to
boot.

Yes, 2K and XP are much more solid that previous versions of
Windows...except for all the security holes - Win9x is definitely
"safer".  From a "hardened" standpoint, 2K is probably better as it
didn't include all the PnP functionality that XP has (and all the
associated vulnerabilities).

If you are running Win98, hopefully you're using "Second Edition".  If
so, make sure that you run a Windows Update or download all the
available patches soon...I believe official "extended" support from
Microsoft ends this month - this means no more patches of any kind.
Also, no more "paid" support.  Check here:

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean18

Hmmm, Windows Me support also ends on the same date (July 11,
2006)...thank goodness!  WinME was the most horrid version of Windows
Microsoft ever released!  All the MS people I've worked with
un-officially state that MS wishes they never released WinME.  When
asked, I generally avoid working on problems with WinME and ask if it's
OK to wipe the system and install WinXP instead.

Anyways, 73!

  - Aaron, NN6O




-----Original Message-----
From: ham-computers-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:ham-computers-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of jeff
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:22 PM
To: Computers (or other) used for amateur radio, communications, or "
experimenting
Subject: Re: [Ham-Computers] Avoid one of the "Critical" Windows
Updates...

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 16:44 -0700, Loren Moline WA7SKT wrote:
> Never have cared for XP because I am an old DOS man and want that DOS 
> kernal.

I have to admit that for speed, I'd use 98.  Unfortunately it had a
habit of crashing and building up a collection of garbage, forcing
frequent reloads/rebuilds.

I gave up and went to W2k.  Have to use XP now because I support it.
They're waaaaay more solid, in my experience.

If 98 works for you, more power to you.  Hopefully you can run
everything you need to under it.

I believe support for 98 is ending shortly.  I don't know it well enough
to talk about security, but I hope you're adequately protected.


Then of course there's linux :)
I like not rebooting.



______________________________________________________________
Ham-Computers mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ham-computers
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
Post: mailto:Ham-Computers at mailman.qth.net