On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM, David C. Kerber
>> <dker...@warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote:
>>>> From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com]
>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower
>>>> Don't have it and haven't used it, so don't know. Everything I've
>>>> heard indicates it should have been called Win98 Third Edition. I'm
>>>> pretty sure there was still DOS underneath like in ME. Removing the
>>>> real mode loader didn't occur till NT.
>>> Win NT4 significantly pre-dated Win 98; it came out in about '96. Many
>>> people feel WinME was one of the worst pieces of software ever written,
>>> while 98SE was very good. Win2k was the best, IMO.
> I don't know about that. Win2k was more stable, but it was also
> bigger, slower, and had worse DOS compatibility. And lots of bugs. But
> it was better for Win32 stuff, esp. Unicode. Yet barely anything still
> supports it nowadays. I'm surprised (but glad) people still target XP
> (which is both slightly better and worse than 2k in various ways).
If you had the hardware, it was quick enough. Windows likes RAM. I
dual booted 98SE and 2K, but abandoned that when I went to a GB of RAM
in the box, because 98SE refused to boot if it saw more than 512MB.
(There turn out to be ways around that, but I had Win2K to the point
where I simply didn't *need* Win98 anymore, so it went away.)
I din't care about DOS compatibility - the DOS stuff I used all ran
fine in an NTVDM.
>> I ran NT4 back then, but as a server OS in a computer room. It was
>> not an end-user product. It took Win2K for sufficient compatibility
>> (like the ability to use FAT32) to make it a usable end user OS.
> NT 4.0 didn't support DOS LFNs (int 21h, 71xxh) nor FAT32. Though I
> don't see how that's a huge deal breaker, no worse than all the other
> compatibility problems forced on us. Also, FAT32 isn't supported very
> much anymore, esp. Vista on up can't boot from it, so I'm not sure
> support for it is here for much longer. (With exFAT and ReFS, who
I don't care about FAT32 support for the most part. It's still
supported for read/write because every Flash drive in creation uses
FAT16 or FAT32, but how often do you need to boot from it? Here, the
answer is "never".
On NT, I can't imagine using anything save NTFS. I've seen complaints
that FAT32 is faster, but NTFS is far more robust. I've had file
system problems I used CHKDSK /F on. On NTFS, CHKDSK fixed the
problems, located the orphaned files, and put them back where they
belonged under their correct names. On FAT16/32, I'd get a
FILE000.CHK directory with a boatload of file fragments that were fun
to identify and mostly just had to be deleted, and might well still
have a mess that required reinstalling some apps to fix. The only
time I've seen NTFS have a real problem was if a directory entry
happened to be on a bad block, and even that was relatively easy to
>> 98SE was certainly an improvement over prior Win9X releases. I ran it
>> longer than I really wanted because I was waiting for drivers for
>> peripherals I used to arrive. When I finally had them all, I switched
>> to 2K in a heartbeat. Despite my best efforts, 98SE reached the
>> point where I was rebooting multiple times per day to be able to get
>> things done. Win2K just ran, and got rebooted only if I installed
>> software that required it or I was fiddling with hardware.
> Yes, it's more stable, but it doesn't run a lot of DOS stuff nearly as
> well as 9x. Granted, it was "good enough" for "most" things (more or
> less), but that support only got worse and worse, esp. with Vista. I
> don't know, some people don't mind recompiling all their apps (or just
> use popular GNU utils that are ported everywhere), but it seems
> unnecessary. We shouldn't have so much deprecation every few years. (I
> don't care how "old" or "uncool", it just works, so why break it?)
Like I said elsewhere, it ran all the DOS stuff *I* used with no
problem so I essentially didn't *care*.
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
Freedos-user mailing list