Clint Tinsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My original response was to one Fred Smith, who had had a skirmish with Win9x after
>changing out his system board, and I was simply submitting that he had a deeper
>problem and I was only trying to make the point that Linux will also cause you "to do
>battle" when you change system boards, especially as plug'n'play devices such as
> video and sound get moved to the system board.. This listserve and another Linux
>user list that I subscribe to are littered with the remains and debris of those
>skirmishes...
>
> I think you too have had more than your share of troubles with that other operating
>system as well but look forward to sharing Linux battlefield thoughts with you in the
>future.
>
Wrong : I do have WAY more trouble with windows than linux . Now, you beleive it or
not. Your answer is of no help to people who post that they DO HAVE TROUBLE with
windows.
Now, I stop here: this is by no way constructive.
Philippe
> Clint
>
> Philippe Moutarlier wrote:
>
> > Clint Tinsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Don't want to flame the fires but I am telling the truth on this,
> >
> > Well, I am just wondering what you are trying to do then .. and fail totally to
>see your point here.
> >
> > The main thing I can get is :
> >
> > - you could keep windows without reinstalling it for years and from my own
>knowledge you are probably the only person I know of
> >
> > - rebooting many times to install anything is normal
> >
> > - blowing off hard drive is a nice and common policy for window 9x user
> >
> > - each time you finally get windows 9x to work, create a disk image of your hard
>drive so you can apply the common policy above
> >
> >
> > Besides this you stated that changing mother board under Linux is difficult and
>needed twisting, which is, again from my own knowledge (been using Linux for 5 years)
>, perfectly wrong.
> >
> > So, maybe you could try to say "succintcly" where you want to get at and maybe
>help really those peopple in trouble with this so nice OS instead of just saying it
>works for you ? Or maybe, are you just telling them to blow off their partition and
>reinstall (???) windows again ? I think they know this solution way too well ...
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > --
> > 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.
