Change to XP pros and cons

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

After about 10 years of using w95 and w98 I have become comfortable using them.
I am therefore in a quandary about changing to XP. W98 will eventually become
obsolete and M$ will soon stop its support. To go through the learning curve
with a new OS is not a pleasant thought. Is XP similar enough to w98 so as to be
little challenge or are they vastly different? I really have no idea what to
expect with XP. Maybe this is the wrong group to post this question? If so I
apologize and claim ignorance as my excuse. TIA
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gail Storm wrote:
> After about 10 years of using w95 and w98 I have become comfortable using them.
> I am therefore in a quandary about changing to XP. W98 will eventually become
> obsolete and M$ will soon stop its support. To go through the learning curve
> with a new OS is not a pleasant thought. Is XP similar enough to w98 so as to be
> little challenge or are they vastly different? I really have no idea what to
> expect with XP. Maybe this is the wrong group to post this question? If so I
> apologize and claim ignorance as my excuse. TIA

Very similar. If your computer and peripherals are compatible, or you
are buying a new system, go for it!

Peripherals MUST have Windows XP drivers (DOS and Windows 9x ones woun't
work). Unusuall peripherals may require driver downloads from the
manufacturer's web site.

I've run into few problems getting applications written for earlier
versions of Windows to run. Just remember that XP lacks the DOS mode
present in Windows 98, so DOS applications that bypass normal BIOS calls
can have compatability problems.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I think it depends very much on whether you feel the need for a new machine.
Getting Win98 to run on newer machines can be a real pain.

Just as another poster mentioned, XP is very intolerant of hardware
problems. I've just spent a year trying to find a problem that showed
intermittently--sometimes ten times a day, sometimes would run a week with
no discernable problems. Changed all the drivers, updated everything, took
everything out, put it back in, RAM checked out fine. All took forever
because I'd have to run it so long to find out if what I'd done had made any
difference. Finally, just as I'd pinned it down to the motherboard, it
started doing it regularly.

Now a year later, I have an unusable motherboard, need to fight with the mb
maker about it, have an old machine already without even using it, and to
top it all off, there's WPA in the immediate offing if I get all this
straightened out, assuming a motherboard change, since I purchased an OEM
disk.

I don't know for sure that I'd not have the same problem with 98--my 98
machine, which still plugs on reliably and is what I've been using all year,
was one of the crankiest machines I ever had to get running correctly, but
DOS, which is not there for you in XP was a great help in all of that.

On the other hand, new software often doesn't run on 98, or won't run very
well, and the handwriting is on the wall. Some aspects of XP are very nice,
such as event logging, and when everything is OK it actually is pretty good.
Sort of like the 'little girl with the little curl, right in the middle of
her forehead..'

Lest this sound too negative-- my daughter who had never treated a computer
as anything but a black box slave, decided to build her own, installed XP,
the whole ball of wax, and hasn't had a ghost of a problem, either in the
assembly, or XP installation, updating, or use, and she'd constantly
complained about 98 when she used that. I think I'm getting old.

Good luck,
Joe
"Gail Storm" <butspammeknot@attknotme.net> wrote in message
news:XVHVe.241325$5N3.119019@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> After about 10 years of using w95 and w98 I have become comfortable using
them.
> I am therefore in a quandary about changing to XP. W98 will eventually
become
> obsolete and M$ will soon stop its support. To go through the learning
curve
> with a new OS is not a pleasant thought. Is XP similar enough to w98 so as
to be
> little challenge or are they vastly different? I really have no idea what
to
> expect with XP. Maybe this is the wrong group to post this question? If so
I
> apologize and claim ignorance as my excuse. TIA
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Along with what you say, set the theme to Windows Classic and it'll even
look the same(almost).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:09:27 -0400, RobertVA
<robert_c72AThotmail@invalid.com> wrote:

>Peripherals MUST have Windows XP drivers (DOS and Windows 9x ones woun't
>work). Unusuall peripherals may require driver downloads from the
>manufacturer's web site.

Not true except for the dos drivers. Some windows 9x driver will
work in windows xp.

Some nt will also work.

Greg Ro
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gail Storm wrote:
> After about 10 years of using w95 and w98 I have become comfortable using them.
> I am therefore in a quandary about changing to XP. W98 will eventually become
> obsolete and M$ will soon stop its support. To go through the learning curve
> with a new OS is not a pleasant thought. Is XP similar enough to w98 so as to be
> little challenge or are they vastly different? I really have no idea what to
> expect with XP. Maybe this is the wrong group to post this question? If so I
> apologize and claim ignorance as my excuse. TIA
>

No matter how you slice it changing from DOS enviroment to a Unix-like
multiuser/multitasking NT requires both learning and attitude
adjustment. If this is a "con" for you then "If it ain't broke, don't
fix it!".

Cons: Hardware, Win9x runs on something that NT won't spit at.
A graphical "menagery" of helper "wizards" cluttering the screen.
Inherently unsecure requiring an "UN" army to spray DDT against viruses,
bacteria, worms, horses (did you notice there are NO birds included).

Pros: Advertisment.

So making such step I would suggest looking what IS on the market.

Have fun

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Believe this type of question will become more and more prevalent and
tolerable as we close in on the drop dead support date on 98 OS.

The smartest way to go is to get an inexpensive new PC w/XP SP2 installed.
Use a serial cable link to move all your data. XP makes it easy.

XP does take some getting used to after using 9X for a long time, I admit.
Especially on tweaking the hardware. Its native CD writing has been more of
nuisance to me than anything else. There's a way to disable it. Prefer
Nero instead as it works with DVD writing too, unlike XP. Also dislike the
help/notification popups in XP.

Good for the casual user is the Security Center as part of SP2. It will
spank you if your AV virus defintions are getting a bit too old or is not
loaded, if the firewall is off as well. XP has a native inbound only
firewall. SC works with 3rd party firewalls as well.

Difficult for many former 9X users is a lack of msdos access. So, all the
former msdos commands/tricks/fixes you learned in the past are unusable.
The repair console on the XP boot CD covers alot of things that may break,
including a repair install of XP.

XP needs more hard drive space, a faster processor, and more RAM than 9X or
ME. Can be installed some older PCs, but its a hit or miss thing.

Many people forget backups. Recommend Ghost 9 or TrueImage. Use a firewire
or USB 2.0 hard drive for the target for the backup. Some of the older
imaging programs won't work at all. Some have problems restoring properly.
Understand that some people have managed to get Ghost 2003, and DriveImage 6
to work with XP. They don't mention which filesystem they're using though.

From the git-go, if your XP installation is FAT32, convert it over to NTFS.
May be more difficult to fix for some as its not readable in msdos, but has
less filesystem problems. Windows Update for XP has a requirement now, you
have to let it check your system for the MS installation to see if its
legal, then it will run update.

XP Home Edition has a back door for users to alter their settings. Won't go
any further by advertising the details.

Have a 3 OS PC here with a 3rd party boot manager. The boot manager also
has a menu access to a partitioning manager. XP/ME/98SE. During the coming
winter holidays, will be moving Office and other applications to XP due to
lack of support of 98SE. ME, I use exclusively for MS games and video
rendering, less overhead than XP. 98SE, I use exclusively for internet
access, email, newsgroups, Office applications, CD/DVD burning, DVD video
viewing. All to move to XP. I will probably lose Norton Cleansweep, don't
think it works in XP. All else should be okay.

During the transition period from 98 to XP, believe this newsgroup could be
used to notify others of applications/versions that don't work in XP.

"Gail Storm" <butspammeknot@attknotme.net> wrote in message
news:XVHVe.241325$5N3.119019@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> After about 10 years of using w95 and w98 I have become comfortable using
them.
> I am therefore in a quandary about changing to XP. W98 will eventually
become
> obsolete and M$ will soon stop its support. To go through the learning
curve
> with a new OS is not a pleasant thought. Is XP similar enough to w98 so as
to be
> little challenge or are they vastly different? I really have no idea what
to
> expect with XP. Maybe this is the wrong group to post this question? If so
I
> apologize and claim ignorance as my excuse. TIA
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:49:27 -0400, "Lil' Dave"
<spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:

>Believe this type of question will become more and more prevalent and
>tolerable as we close in on the drop dead support date on 98 OS.

I am going to stick with 98 second even after the supports ends.
There are still some virus protection program that protect windows 95
still. So even if Microsoft drop total support. Virus protection
will continue for 98 for years to come.


For the firewall. I use outpost free version.

Greg Ro
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Gail Storm" <butspammeknot@attknotme.net> wrote in message
news:XVHVe.241325$5N3.119019@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> After about 10 years of using w95 and w98 I have become comfortable using
them.
> I am therefore in a quandary about changing to XP. W98 will eventually
become
> obsolete and M$ will soon stop its support. To go through the learning
curve
> with a new OS is not a pleasant thought. Is XP similar enough to w98 so as
to be
> little challenge or are they vastly different? I really have no idea what
to
> expect with XP. Maybe this is the wrong group to post this question? If so
I
> apologize and claim ignorance as my excuse. TIA


along with the other pro's & cons given, you can also choose whether to
have xp use the NTFS or FAT32.(file systems)
I have mine with fat32 and thereby my existing win98se can 'see' xp.
(i have both operating systems and can switch twixt the two at boot-up)

...Rex..
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com> wrote in message
news:unZgEZSuFHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:49:27 -0400, "Lil' Dave"
> <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>
> >Believe this type of question will become more and more prevalent and
> >tolerable as we close in on the drop dead support date on 98 OS.
>
> I am going to stick with 98 second even after the supports ends.
> There are still some virus protection program that protect windows 95
> still. So even if Microsoft drop total support. Virus protection
> will continue for 98 for years to come.
>
>
> For the firewall. I use outpost free version.
>
> Greg Ro

I'm presently using a computer purchased July 1999. I've updated and added to it
except for things that would necessitate a new mother board. A little slow but
it still satisfies my needs for a home computer. I would miss DOS as it is
especially handy when windows refuses to communicate with me. If it ain't broke
don't replace it!

I have passed through my golden years and entered what I call my twilight years.
I find myself avoiding software with multiple functions and large tutorials.
These are just too complicated for me and I prefer obvious simplicity to mind
boggling lengthy instructions. Taking on XP could be a bit of a challenge that I
would prefer to avoid as I have enough problems.

I personally found this thread informative and I appreciate all of your replies.
I will consider each one in a final decision, which at present is a lean toward
continuing with w98 until it becomes impossible or impractical. Hopefully it
will not totally expire until after I do.

Are you listening Mr. MS? Probably not, I question that he considered my [our]
situation when deciding to abandon w98.

Gail Storm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

For someone like you, Gail, your internet usage will likely be the controlling
factor. Yes, hardware gets fancier, yes applications get fancier, and, in both
cases, Windows 98 may simply no longer support them. Your choice whether you can
live without those things.

But the Internet is another animal, and just keeping *safe* from invaders is
going to become more and more difficult on 9x systems as time goes by. Plus,
many new technologies that will require you to have a late-model browser to take
advantage of them, which will in turn require a more modern OS. That latter
argument is similar to the previous one re applications and hardware, but when
antivirus and other protective software simply stops being available for Win9x
systems, that's where you're going to hit the wall.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"Gail Storm" <butspammeknot@attknotme.net> wrote in message
news:uP%Ve.247193$5N3.238230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com> wrote in message
> news:unZgEZSuFHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:49:27 -0400, "Lil' Dave"
>> <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Believe this type of question will become more and more prevalent and
>> >tolerable as we close in on the drop dead support date on 98 OS.
>>
>> I am going to stick with 98 second even after the supports ends.
>> There are still some virus protection program that protect windows 95
>> still. So even if Microsoft drop total support. Virus protection
>> will continue for 98 for years to come.
>>
>>
>> For the firewall. I use outpost free version.
>>
>> Greg Ro
>
> I'm presently using a computer purchased July 1999. I've updated and added to
> it
> except for things that would necessitate a new mother board. A little slow but
> it still satisfies my needs for a home computer. I would miss DOS as it is
> especially handy when windows refuses to communicate with me. If it ain't
> broke
> don't replace it!
>
> I have passed through my golden years and entered what I call my twilight
> years.
> I find myself avoiding software with multiple functions and large tutorials.
> These are just too complicated for me and I prefer obvious simplicity to mind
> boggling lengthy instructions. Taking on XP could be a bit of a challenge that
> I
> would prefer to avoid as I have enough problems.
>
> I personally found this thread informative and I appreciate all of your
> replies.
> I will consider each one in a final decision, which at present is a lean
> toward
> continuing with w98 until it becomes impossible or impractical. Hopefully it
> will not totally expire until after I do.
>
> Are you listening Mr. MS? Probably not, I question that he considered my [our]
> situation when deciding to abandon w98.
>
> Gail Storm
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:11:26 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org> wrote:

>ardware gets fancier, yes applications get fancier, and, in both
>cases, Windows 98 may simply no longer support them. Your choice whether you can
>live without those things.


Actual I can. I not into the fancy stuff. If I have to run
something it might be a mini-mac in the future


I thought Amd is/was building support for multiple operating systems.


Greg Ro
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
news:3orn38F7fhi4U1@individual.net...
>
> I thought Amd is/was building support for multiple operating systems.
>

I'm not positive I know what you're referring to, but if it's backwards
compatibility for 9x systems, OK, that's *part* of the puzzle. How about the
rest of the hardware universe?

I'm not saying it will be a completely untenable situation any time soon. But
the weeding out is already well underway. Right now, my rule of thumb when asked
by clients is, "If it's working for you, fine. But any maintenance decisions
that involve much money should be carefully weighed against the possibility that
a new machine makes more sense."

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> For someone like you, Gail, your internet usage will likely be the
> controlling factor. Yes, hardware gets fancier, yes applications get
> fancier, and, in both cases, Windows 98 may simply no longer support
> them. Your choice whether you can live without those things.
>
> But the Internet is another animal, and just keeping *safe* from
> invaders is going to become more and more difficult on 9x systems as
> time goes by. Plus, many new technologies that will require you to have
> a late-model browser to take advantage of them, which will in turn
> require a more modern OS. That latter argument is similar to the
> previous one re applications and hardware, but when antivirus and other
> protective software simply stops being available for Win9x systems,
> that's where you're going to hit the wall.
>

There is a door in this "wall".
It has a sign "Linux, *BSD, Solaris".
No harder than going NT way and for sure more economical on hardware and
"DDT".
It maybe for this particular OP as she/he stated aversion of reading.

"There is still hope."

Have fun

Stanislaw
Slack (and occasionally 98SE) user from Ulladulla.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:24:07 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org> wrote:

>"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
>news:3orn38F7fhi4U1@individual.net...
>>
>> I thought Amd is/was building support for multiple operating systems.
>>
>
>I'm not positive I know what you're referring to, but if it's backwards
>compatibility for 9x systems, OK, that's *part* of the puzzle. How about the
>rest of the hardware universe?
>
>I'm not saying it will be a completely untenable situation any time soon. But
>the weeding out is already well underway. Right now, my rule of thumb when asked
>by clients is, "If it's working for you, fine. But any maintenance decisions
>that involve much money should be carefully weighed against the possibility that
>a new machine makes more sense."

I can't remember the news story. That these new motherboard and
processors will be able to handle any operating not just windows.



Greg Ro
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well, how unusual is that? Maybe I'm just not getting your point. If you come
across the cite to show why that's really so different than previous production,
I'm interested.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com> wrote in message
news:OlZngnfuFHA.3660@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:24:07 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
> <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>>"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
>>news:3orn38F7fhi4U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> I thought Amd is/was building support for multiple operating systems.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not positive I know what you're referring to, but if it's backwards
>>compatibility for 9x systems, OK, that's *part* of the puzzle. How about the
>>rest of the hardware universe?
>>
>>I'm not saying it will be a completely untenable situation any time soon. But
>>the weeding out is already well underway. Right now, my rule of thumb when
>>asked
>>by clients is, "If it's working for you, fine. But any maintenance decisions
>>that involve much money should be carefully weighed against the possibility
>>that
>>a new machine makes more sense."
>
> I can't remember the news story. That these new motherboard and
> processors will be able to handle any operating not just windows.
>
>
>
> Greg Ro
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23OQ2QbhuFHA.3528@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Well, how unusual is that?

Not unusual at all. Some mobos have offered support
for multiple CPUs such as AMD, Intel, IBM and Cyrix
for years.

> Maybe I'm just not getting your point. If you come
> across the cite to show why that's really so different than previous
production,
> I'm interested.

Maybe he is getting confused with Apple's intent to support Windows?
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
>
> "Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com> wrote in message
> news:OlZngnfuFHA.3660@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:24:07 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
> > <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote:
> >
> >>"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
> >>news:3orn38F7fhi4U1@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>> I thought Amd is/was building support for multiple operating systems.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'm not positive I know what you're referring to, but if it's backwards
> >>compatibility for 9x systems, OK, that's *part* of the puzzle. How about
the
> >>rest of the hardware universe?
> >>
> >>I'm not saying it will be a completely untenable situation any time
soon. But
> >>the weeding out is already well underway. Right now, my rule of thumb
when
> >>asked
> >>by clients is, "If it's working for you, fine. But any maintenance
decisions
> >>that involve much money should be carefully weighed against the
possibility
> >>that
> >>a new machine makes more sense."
> >
> > I can't remember the news story. That these new motherboard and
> > processors will be able to handle any operating not just windows.
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg Ro
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Instead of XP what about Vista, would that be a better choice/product/solution?
Still paralyzed with indecision.

Gail Storm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

My dear, get a spanking new, quality machine that is around 3.0 GHz speed, with
1GB of RAM, minimum, and Windows XP (there's still the discussion of which
version XP, Home or Pro.) You want to make your purchase with an eye toward
upgrading hardware later, RAM at least, maybe CPU as well, and leave room for
another hard drive, perhaps.

You will *want* XP for the next year and a half or two years, at least, before
Vista will be at all ready for prime-time. But your hardware, if you don't skimp
now, will likely support Vista just fine, and you'll be in a position to upgrade
if necessary. You'll also be in a position to run Vista Beta when it becomes
public, along side your XP system, and become an expert before it's even
Released.

The kind of machine I'm thinking of for you costs somewhere around $1200, plus
or minus a few hundred depending on your specific desires in the video and sound
departments, what kind of CD/DVD drives/burners, etc.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"Gail Storm" <butspammeknot@attknotme.net> wrote in message
news:BFjWe.253071$5N3.93709@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Instead of XP what about Vista, would that be a better
> choice/product/solution?
> Still paralyzed with indecision.
>
> Gail Storm
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I thank you for the clarity of your reply. Direct to the point, yet you spoke
volumes. Gail Storm

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%230JLUtiuFHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> My dear, get a spanking new, quality machine that is around 3.0 GHz speed,
with
> 1GB of RAM, minimum, and Windows XP (there's still the discussion of which
> version XP, Home or Pro.) You want to make your purchase with an eye toward
> upgrading hardware later, RAM at least, maybe CPU as well, and leave room for
> another hard drive, perhaps.
>
> You will *want* XP for the next year and a half or two years, at least, before
> Vista will be at all ready for prime-time. But your hardware, if you don't
skimp
> now, will likely support Vista just fine, and you'll be in a position to
upgrade
> if necessary. You'll also be in a position to run Vista Beta when it becomes
> public, along side your XP system, and become an expert before it's even
> Released.
>
> The kind of machine I'm thinking of for you costs somewhere around $1200, plus
> or minus a few hundred depending on your specific desires in the video and
sound
> departments, what kind of CD/DVD drives/burners, etc.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
>
> "Gail Storm" <butspammeknot@attknotme.net> wrote in message
> news:BFjWe.253071$5N3.93709@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Instead of XP what about Vista, would that be a better
> > choice/product/solution?
> > Still paralyzed with indecision.
> >
> > Gail Storm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I need to start saving my website or listening to the news better.
The news does not give you full detail on something's.

I think what the news was saying. Is the Amd drivers will have
drivers for other operating system not just windows.

All the news said is "Amd will now support multiple operating on their
new motherboards"

Amd is a processor.

Greg Ro
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well, AMD is more than a processor. It builds other stuff, too. But this option
is fairly common on server systems--chose how you want it configured, for what
OS, even if you aren't buying it preinstalled, or indeed, with any OS software
at all.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com> wrote in message
news:OqclQIkuFHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I need to start saving my website or listening to the news better.
> The news does not give you full detail on something's.
>
> I think what the news was saying. Is the Amd drivers will have
> drivers for other operating system not just windows.
>
> All the news said is "Amd will now support multiple operating on their
> new motherboards"
>
> Amd is a processor.
>
> Greg Ro
>
>