Re: you can't bash Microsoft enough

On Tue, 01 May 2007 02:24:19 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Mike Monett wrote:

"john jardine" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, we're all f***** then.

> I'd no intention of changing from DOS to Windows but the software
> and hardware suppliers forced my hand.

> I'd no wish to change to Win98 but all the new hardware insisted
> on USB. I'd absolutely no interest in XP but the new motherboard
> gave me no choice.

Why? Why couldn't you use Win98? What does the motherboard have that
requires XP? What about ASUS and the other motherboard vendors?

I have a strong need to stay on Win98, and your comments give me
cause for alarm. I understand Win98 SE2 runs USB fine. Is that the
reason you went to XP?

I can confirm that W98SE runs USB fine for me. My only reason for moving to XP
was that I have some applications that require it. Otherwise I'd follow the "if
it's not broken don't fix it" policy.

Graham

I found 98 to be very flakey. It locked up if not rebooted daily
(memory leaks?) and then still locked up. And sometimes it just died
hard, registry trashed or something evil. XP is quite a bit better...
runs for a week straight! But it was nice to direct access to i/o
ports and ram below 1M, though, which 98 allowed, being half-DOS
still.

XP seems to run all my old DOS apps very well, better than 98,
although it does weird stuff with serial ports. I'm still writing apps
in the DOS version of PowerBasic, graphics and all.

XP + Firefox + Thunderbird + Agent + Foxit + Cutepdf + PADS + LT Spice
+ Crimson Editor + Irfanview seems pretty stable... mimimum Microsoft
apps!

We still run our test stands under DOS for realtime predictability and
direct VME register access.

John

.

Quantcast