Don't want to flame the fires but I am telling the truth on this, I have never, in
going on 4 years now, reinstalled Windows9x and the only reason I upgraded to
Windows98 was to get USB support and be able to run the processor at full speed (350
Mhz). Been a lot of system boards and applications that have
passed through that Windows9x installation in all that time. However, as I PC support
person, I have "blown" the hard drive clean on many a computer and reinstalled because
Windows95/98/3.1 was beyond recovery unless one wanted to spend hours finding an
errant .386, .vxd, or .dll file....
Did you know that it is pretty much corporate policy that if you can't fix a
Windows95/98/NT problem in 15 minutes, you reimage the user's hard drive? That'll
also probably become a Linux standard was well, called total cost of ownership, where
it is more cost effective to just "blow" the hard drive with
new image that works than try and fix or reinstall to an existing installation.
This is one of the reasons you are seeing a "Model T" philosophy (where you could the
car in any color as long as it is black) with Linux because vendors, like Dell and
Compaq. can build an "image" that works in a specific standardized configuration and
make money but if the vendor tried to ship Linux as we
now know it in multiple configurations and try to support it, they would loose money
because the installation and support costs would be out of control! That is also the
reason that even Linux vendors are only providing very basic "installation support" -
they are not going to venture into the complex
world of multi-vendor configurations and pnp variants. Can you login? Is KDE/GNome
working? Is your hardware on the supported hardware list? Yes to any of these or No
on the last, and the answer is "Okay, we're out of here, anything else is your
problem!" Subscribe to the user's listserve...
> Clint Tinsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Although this is a Linux discussion group, I have found Windows pretty tolerant of
> > system board changes. I am currently runing a copy of Windows98 Second Edition
> > that started out life as Windows95 Upgraded Edition and it has been migrated across
> > atleast 4 system boards and 5 hard drives over the years, currently runing on a
> > K6-350. Windows95/98 seems is a too smart/too dumb adaptive semi-intelligent
> > operating system and as long as you know what you have in making sure the proper
> > drivers are available and loaded, it works well, almost under water. I have an
> > OSR2b image that I use in the workplace that so far has adapted to every system I
> > have put it on, multiple reboots while it learns and adapts which is normal. We
> > are hoping for the day that Linux is that this "adaptive" and self-configuring but
> > in the meantime we'll continue to tweak .conf files...
> >
> > fred smith wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 06:44:45PM +1030, lloy0076 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi There!
> > > >
> > > > I have recently installed an MS-5184 Baby AT VI4 Motherboard with an AMD
> > > > K6-III running at 450MHZ. I used to run an AMD K6-II @ 366MHZ with an
> > > > old, 66MHZ board. The memory is exactly the same. Some people said I
> > >
> > > You're not using PC100 RAM with the new board? I'd think that would
> > > cost you BIG on performance since you can't (shouldn't) run old RAM
> > > at the 100Mhz bus speed the K6-III will prefer.
> > >
> > > > would notice a difference; some said I wouldn't. My experiences so far
> > > > are:
> > > >
> > > > * StarOffice actually looks like it's doing something and reacts
> > > > straight away
> > > > * Netscape loads almost at the click of a button
> > > > * X runs significantly faster
> > > > * The GIMP loads significantly faster
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion the upgrade has been worth it. Besides, I now have two
> > > > relatively fast machines. The older KG II @ 366MHZ was certainly quite
> > > > fast and I still have it; just gotta get round to installing it into a
> > > > case somewhere. The only glitch is that it killed my Windows (again).
> > >
> > > Yeah, I learned the hard way last spring when I put a new motherboard in
> > > my system that Windoze positively *hates* it when the hardware changes
> > > out from under it. I'm told I should have gone to "control panel"
> > > "system" and removed all the system devices when shutting down the old
> > > motherboard for the last time. I didn't, and had a major war with
> > > Windoze to get it to even work. Even after the war there's still a
> > > skirmish or two (every time it boots Windows kindly "finds new hardware"
> > > for me, and it's always my sound card and my IDE disk controller--which
> > > it already knows about and which work fine. I've got to tell it CANCEL
> > > else it'll install a second copy of them. Every time!).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Because some of the I/O port addresses are different, Windows is asking
> > > > this and asking that and asking this and askng that. I will eventually
> > > > get around to installing the stupid thing....
> > >
> > > You could TRY doing what I suggest above, i.e., remove all the devices
> > > under control-panel/system, shut it down then reboot windoze and let it
> > > re-find all the hardware again. Reputed to work. Helped when I did it,
> > > except for the ongoing issue I mention above which is not helped by
> > > that technique.
> > >
> > > Thank goodness I rarely boot windoze on that system (I've got an old 486
> > > on which I run Windoze when I absolutely have to) so it's not much of a
> > > problem anymore.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > > --
> > > ---- Fred Smith -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------
> > > But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:
> > > While we were still sinners,
> > > Christ died for us.
> > > ------------------------------- Romans 5:8 (niv) ------------------------------
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> > > as the Subject.
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> > as the Subject.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
