My setup is a little more complicated than most. My C: drive is in a pluggable drawer. I have one for Windows XP Pro, another for WIN98 and a third with Red Hat Linux 7.0. Drive D: stays in the PC and holds data. Drive E: also fixed, contains all software besides the operating system, that runs with XP. The very little WIN98 software I use for scanning resides on its own C: drive. I use WIN98 for the scanners, neither of which has drivers for anything later than WIN ME. I have licensed copies of all the Windows operating systems including the servers, but am quite satisfied now with XP PRO once its been tidied up a bit. I don't like multi-boot systems - that's why I have interchangeable drives. This keeps things very simple and easy to maintain. I must say I find Win2000 Pro very stable, but there are few drivers available for odds and ends.
I have another rather nice thing called WIN98 Lite. This strips all the rubbish out of WIN98 - that Mr Gates tells you is impossible to remove - and turns it into a 'fairly' stable basic operating system. I need to stick to FAT32 of course for obvious reasons. I don't use Linux much except to play with now and again. But one day this will change, I'm sure. Aino's PC downstairs is part of a small Ethernet arrangement. The printer is downstairs with her and the router and hub are up here. There are a few other PCs knocking about in the loft, but most are three years old or more, and not worth the trouble of upgrading. Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: RE: Stupid Windows question > Rubbish. > > Both PCs I upgraded from Win ME (which was an upgrade from win 98) now > run MASSIVELY faster in everything they do. Photoshop in particular > used to take ages just to load, now its really quick. > > BTW at work I did it on a 667 with 512Mb memory and its fine - even with > a slowish/smallish disk. > > I never really had the same problems others had with 98/ME though - I > had uptimes in excess of a month or two normally, even under severe > usage. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 27 November 2002 05:48 > > To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Stupid Windows question > > > > > > Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >I doubt it will any slower due to the processor than Win98.< > > > > significantly. WinXP does much more graphics effects for > > visual display elements. every aspect of using it will run > > slower than Win98 except compute-bound processing. > > > > Herb... > > > > >
