Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] changing port name of a serial port

Expand Messages
  • DA
    Hi Alec, I ll second that. After switching to Win2k then WinXP I will never miss ol Win98. DA
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Alec,

      I'll second that. After switching to Win2k then WinXP I will never
      miss ol' Win98.

      DA


      Alec Burgess wrote:
      >
      > Dean:
      >
      > Just curious: -- *bigger* --- *slower* ?
      >
      > Aside from possible driver incompatabilities with older hardware which are
      > becoming less of an issue now that hardware manufacturer's are getting
      > caught up ... My experience with having upgraded a P-II 267 mhz system
      > (196MB RAM) from Win98 to Win2K has been nothing less than fantastic.
      >
      > Instead of having to pay careful attention to resource utilization (and the
      > number of programs in use), having to reboot four or five times a day and
      > getting frequent blue screens, with the same memory I can run many more
      > programs simultaneously, recover without rebooting from almost all errors
      > and reboot only when having installed new software that requires it - most
      > don't.
      >
      > I haven't had the chance (or money :-( ) to experiment with WinXP but
      > everything I've read suggests that it is as good as (probably moderately
      > better) than Win2K.
      >
    • Ozkan Taskiran
      ... From: Alec Burgess To: Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [NTO] changing port name of a
      Message 2 of 4 , May 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Alec Burgess" <burale@...>
        To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:16 AM
        Subject: Re: [NTO] changing port name of a serial port


        | Dean:
        |
        | Just curious: -- *bigger* --- *slower* ?
        |
        |
        | Instead of having to pay careful attention to resource utilization (and the
        | number of programs in use), having to reboot four or five times a day and
        | getting frequent blue screens, with the same memory I can run many more
        | programs simultaneously, recover without rebooting from almost all errors
        | and reboot only when having installed new software that requires it - most
        | don't.



        My previous system was like yours (PII 266Mhz,128MB RAM) and was using win98.
        I was always have to monitor memory usage,tweak swap file usage;restore a lost,replaced
        dll. When win2k appeared I read all reviews to see if win2k is better. All they say in one
        mouth
        was "win2k is slower,needs more resources,games don't run good". And I believed them :(
        I once used win2k for two days but I was so under the effect of bad reviews I couldn't
        understand
        anything. I just gave up when I couldn't find a driver for tv card. I'm still angry for
        those lost years
        with win98. Now I have a more powerful system and using xp. It's a joy.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.