New DOS shell for Windows coming

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:24:27 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
>
>Have you ever tried the *unoffical* Win98SE Service Pack?
>http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

Looks interesting. I'm loathe to try it on my system, though, because
I've already applied a lot of the security patches. In any case the SP
doesn't provide a proper "undo" feature, so I'd only apply it to a
newly built machine. I did apply several of the tweaks, though. One
that had a dramatic effect was the addition of
"ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" to the system.ini file. That alone was
worth the look.

Thanks.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:

> It took me about four hours to master RPN when I got my HP45,
>and I never looked back. Since, I have had a difficlut time with
>arethmetic calculators.

I know. It's like "Now how do I work one of these things again? Oh
yeah. 6737 minus 1498 equals. Yuck."
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:23:03 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>> It took me about four hours to master RPN when I got my HP45,
>>and I never looked back. Since, I have had a difficlut time with
>>arethmetic calculators.
>
> I know. It's like "Now how do I work one of these things again? Oh
> yeah. 6737 minus 1498 equals. Yuck."

....and then you find that you really meant 'minus 148', or wanted to do
other things with '6737' that you hadn't anticipated. Arethmetic
calculators are for the feeble-minded.

....got a good RPN calculator for Linux?

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:54:27 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>>Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>Is this flamebait? I always prefered HP RPN calculators for
>>>_precisely_ the same reason. I find multiple nested brackets
>>>a necessary linear convention, but otherwise unintuitive.
>>>I understand equations in terms of what must be grouped
>>>together, often because of units.
>>
>>IIRC TI calculators used a 9-level stack, albeit a hidden one. In fact
>>one could access the stack on a TI-59 using undocumented instructions.
>>So it's clear that TI machines *evaluated* the expressions in the same
>>way as HP calculators, it's just that TI calculators *accepted*
>>expressions as they were written.
>
>It's irrelvant how TI handled the calculator evaluated the
>expressions. It's the UI which is under discussion, here, and Robert
>(and many others, including myself), prefer the RPN UI.

One's *preference* for certain UIs is not at issue here. I'm merely
claiming the obvious, namely that algebraic calculators have an
intuitive UI, whereas RPN does not. Take a kid who has never heard of
RPN, give him a HP calculator without a manual, and then see how long
he takes to work out what to do.

FWIW, I'm not averse to using non-intuitive interfaces, especially
when they provide powerful features. An example is the teco character
editor which I have used extensively in the past.

As for my preference for certain UIs, these days I prefer the Windows
GUI for many tasks, and the DOS CLI for others. My current calculator
is a scientific, statistical, hex/bin/oct, algebraic one. It cost me
$5 about 15 years ago.

>>No mental gymnastics were required.
>
>Are you implying the more "mental gymnastics" are required to use an
>RPN calculator? Because that would be false.

Algebraic calculators allow me to enter an expression exactly as it is
written. The machine decides the order of processing. OTOH, RPN
calculators require that I pre-process the expression and submit it in
a form which the machine can digest.

>>Furthermore, the often touted claim that HP calculators were much more
>>economical with keystrokes was a myth which I disproved many a time.
>
>"Much more economical" sounds to me like a straw-man argument. "At
>least as, and often more, economical" is the truth, not a "myth", in
>every case I've compared the two methods.

In my day HP's marketing was making such claims. It seemed like their
mantra. Personally I've never experienced a difference of more than
about 10%. In any case, TI calculators had twice the memory, twice the
features, and cost half as much, so the UI did not affect my
purchasing decision.

>>In any case, whether or not RPN is better than algebraic is
>>irrelevant. My contention is that a person should not have to adapt to
>>technology, but that technology should adapt to him. For example, I
>>should be able to pick up any unfamiliar calculator and key in "1+2=",
>>not the counterintuitive "1 Enter 2 +".
>
>A superior (or even only preferred) tool is quite often worth the
>investment in how to use it. It's ludicrous to discount RPN
>calculators because they may take a couple days getting used-to.

I would never discount them for that reason.

>>The inner workings should be
>>transparent to the user interface.
>
>True, but many of us feel the RPN UI is vastly superior, especially
>when used in conjunction with multi-line displays.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:08:42 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
to keyboard and composed:

>Arethmetic calculators are for the feeble-minded.

I just knew it wouldn't take long for an RPN snob to show his true
colours.

BTW, the correct spelling is "arithmetic", and the correct terminology
is "algebraic" notation. *All* calculators are "arethmetic" (sic).


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.24.00.08.41.800268@att.bizzzz...
>
> ...and then you find that you really meant 'minus 148', or wanted to
do
> other things with '6737' that you hadn't anticipated. Arethmetic
> calculators are for the feeble-minded.

Feeble-minded? Did I hear my name called? Once upon a time I was
enormously infatuated by the computer language Forth, because I could
understand how it worked, because it could work "close to the metal",
and because it ran very well on my then-favorite CPU.

Alas, my feeble mind was never able to think in a Forth (RPN) fashion,
despite extensive efforts to re-educate myself (' a couple days of
re-education may be required'). And I was never able to make sense of
HP calculators, even though I recognized their obvious value. To this
day I don't use Forth (never have) and I use TI calculators (34s
scattered around the house).

Felger Carbon
feeble-minded non-RPN person
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:42:56 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:08:42 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
> to keyboard and composed:
>
>>Arethmetic calculators are for the feeble-minded.
>
> I just knew it wouldn't take long for an RPN snob to show his true
> colours.

Snob? No, just stating the obvious. You _are_ feeble minded, as has been
shown here many times.

> BTW, the correct spelling is "arithmetic", and the correct terminology
> is "algebraic" notation. *All* calculators are "arethmetic" (sic).

Wow! I'm impressed. <what a loon>

--
Keith
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:29:18 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.24.00.08.41.800268@att.bizzzz...
>>
>> ...and then you find that you really meant 'minus 148', or wanted to
> do
>> other things with '6737' that you hadn't anticipated. Arethmetic
>> calculators are for the feeble-minded.
>
> Feeble-minded? Did I hear my name called?

Sure. I've been known to summong the spirit of the grand Felger before. ;-)

> once upon a time I was
> enormously infatuated by the computer language Forth, because I could
> understand how it worked, because it could work "close to the metal",
> and because it ran very well on my then-favorite CPU.

Apple II?

> Alas, my feeble mind was never able to think in a Forth (RPN) fashion,
> despite extensive efforts to re-educate myself (' a couple days of
> re-education may be required'). And I was never able to make sense of
> HP calculators, even though I recognized their obvious value. To this
> day I don't use Forth (never have) and I use TI calculators (34s
> scattered around the house).

Case closed. ;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
to keyboard and composed:

>>>Since, I have had a difficlut time with
>>>arethmetic calculators.
>>
>> ... and spelling and grammar.
>
>Spelling and tupos sure, <blush>, but there is nothgin wrong with the
>grammar. I've not had a problem with thinking, like some others here.

Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking". Why is it that
they cause difficulties for you?


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:08:32 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
> to keyboard and composed:
>
>>>>Since, I have had a difficlut time with
>>>>arethmetic calculators.
>>>
>>> ... and spelling and grammar.
>>
>>Spelling and tupos sure, <blush>, but there is nothgin wrong with the
>>grammar. I've not had a problem with thinking, like some others here.
>
> Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking". Why is it that
> they cause difficulties for you?

Because I have a brain and use it, though you've pin pointed
exactly why you can't figure out RPN. You're too easy, kid.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
> Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking"
> Why is it that they cause difficulties for you?

Because unlike you, I am not capable of not thinking!

My problem with parentheses (and it applies just as much to long
FORTRAN formulae) is that they can be hard to place-and-match.
Particularly from traditionally written equations where there
are implied groupings in radicals and hrizontal division bars.
I look at such a formula, see the parts and their origins, then
know how to group them even if the parentheses are wrong.

RPN supports this understanding-based inside-out
formula entry. Algebraic does not natively.

-- Robert
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar
> <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>>To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
>>
>>doskey ls=dir
>
>
> Wow.. talk about a blast from the past.. I haven't used Doskey in
> ages! Just tested it though, still works in WinXP SP2 though!

thank you (Franc&Tony) for that. :) i just moved to xp and
2k (from '98/2 PCs) and it "only" took me 3/xp tries. :(
(3 with xp sp2, 1 with 2k sp4)

JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
NOT so simple with xp! :(

i DID learn some new stuff about the registry
for *all* of the windows versions (98&up). :)

i'm not holding my breath on Longhorn

>
>>Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
>
>
> Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>


yes, 98se has and contines
to be (!) a real option

too many focus on the BSOD
and not on the essence

i'll grant that a real issue
with current mobos is that they
are flakey with their software
support of an old OS like 98se
(AMD especially, Intel less so;
at least in my limited experience)

i'm still using 98se as well as
recently 2k and xp (triple boot
on both pc's with 98DOS/98GUI/2k
on one, and 98DOS/98GUI/xp on
the other; via System Commander8.
i'll grant that how much longer i'll
use 98se in any serious way is a very
open question


>
>>I'm also a big user of the command line and I welcome any move to make
>>it more powerful and user friendly. In the past I've used several
>>minicomputer OSes, all with intuitive English CLIs. I've also used
>>Coherent, but it involved a *lot* of learning, more than I was
>>prepared to put in at the time. Unix (and its variants) has always
>>struck me as a cliquey, non-intuitive, boffin's language. I believe
>>that computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
>>processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that used RPN,
>>such as those made by HP, preferring calculators that supported
>>standard algebraic notation.)
>
>
> I've used a number of command lines over the years and never found any
> of them to be intuitive. Usable and sometimes very useful, yes, but
> definitely not very intuitive.


fwiw, i like command line. :)

i'm a mainframe guy (ibm '67) with
nix (Sun/cmd line and later gui)
experience since '89


>>FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful replacement for
>>command.com and cmd.exe is already available.
>
>
> Now that's even more of a blast from the past! I haven't used 4Dos in
> at least 10 years!

interesting ref to 4DOS. :)

bill
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 6/28/2005 17:59, willbill wrote:

> JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
> NOT so simple with xp! :(

This is an interesting statement. What do you find so much more complex
about the WinXP registry when compared to the Win98 registry?

I find that they're nearly identical in their organization. In fact,
significant swaths are exactly the same!

~Jason

--
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Jason Gurtz wrote:

> On 6/28/2005 17:59, willbill wrote:
>
>
>>JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
>>NOT so simple with xp! :(
>
>
> This is an interesting statement. What do you find so much more complex
> about the WinXP registry when compared to the Win98 registry?
>
> I find that they're nearly identical in their organization. In fact,
> significant swaths are exactly the same!


you are right in that the registry itself
doesn't seem to have changed that much

my frustration is showing; i got carried away.
sorry

otoh, my 2nd failed try with XP (error 633 when
atempting to use my extermanl modem with the
dialer) was likely due to flakey s/w installation
screwing up the XP registry. not sure if it was
trying a newer modem driver (US Robotics v.92)
or a failed installed of MSI video capture drivers
(for a VIVO board). when i went to the MS
knowledgebase, i was amazed at all of the screwy
stuff that can mess up the registry (with 95 thru
XP and 2003)

then too, there's XP Pro, XP Home, and oem XP;
each with their own set of problems!

the other factor is how do you fix XP (NTFS
file system) if Windows won't start in safe mode?
i've easily been able to do that with 98SE by
booting into DOS (98SE DOS), and restoring the
registry from backups i do in the autoexec.bat
(today, yesterday, this week, last week; using a DOS
do once program). then too, 98 keeps reg backups
for the last 5 days in the sysbckup directory

KB 307545 (How to recover from a corrupted registry
that prevents Windows XP from starting) may get
me some insight into the NTFS problem (i've not
read thru it yet)

one other note is that my current compressed 98SE
reg backups (rb00x.cab) are 1.5 MB. in XP Pro a
backup of the "system files" gives a file (compressed?)
that is 443 MB in size!

that size difference suggests to me that XP
has more complexity; meaning it isn't all bloat

fwiw, in XP i now keep a written log of my installs,
registry backups, and backups of my boot drive
(to other hard drives (using 2003 DOS Ghost) that
i only plug in when i do boot drive backups)

i mean i hate it when a drive dies, or the system
goes belly up

what i do like about XP is that 3rd party
s/w companies focus on making their s/w
work with XP, whereas with 98SE that is
no longer true. my MSI (NVidia) video
board is a good example: in 98SE i get
a lot less video performance than i do in XP
(same machine; triple boot via System Commander8:
98SE-DOS, 98SE-gui, XP)

bill
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 6/29/2005 17:26, willbill wrote:

> then too, there's XP Pro, XP Home, and oem XP;
> each with their own set of problems!

Not really. XP home is just a subset of XP Pro.

> the other factor is how do you fix XP (NTFS
> file system) if Windows won't start in safe mode?

You should investigate "Bart PE boot CD" for working on failed systems
with NTFS partitions. DOS based OS's(Win98) on boot disks have no hope of
reading NTFS. Also see sysinternals.com and may want to check out the
acronis utils.

~Jason

--
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:36:58 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking"
>> Why is it that they cause difficulties for you?
>
>Because unlike you, I am not capable of not thinking!

>My problem with parentheses (and it applies just as much to long
>FORTRAN formulae) is that they can be hard to place-and-match.

I've never seen *any* scientific formula expressed in RPN. They are
*all* written down in algebraic notation, parentheses and all. The
correct, or incorrect, placing and matching of parentheses in a
formula has absolutely *no* bearing on the relative suitability of one
calculator UI over another.

>Particularly from traditionally written equations where there
>are implied groupings in radicals and hrizontal division bars.
>I look at such a formula, see the parts and their origins, then
>know how to group them even if the parentheses are wrong.

>RPN supports this understanding-based inside-out
>formula entry.

.... which of course confirms my original point that RPN is
counter-intuitive.

>Algebraic does not natively.

OK, so I have to add two sets of parentheses, one for the numerator
and one for the denominator. No big deal, I can handle a little bit of
"thinking". In any case I'm still working from left to right, in an
intuitive way, which was the only point I had intended to make until
some RPN snob accused me of feeble-mindedness.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:08:24 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
to keyboard and composed:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:08:32 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> put finger
>> to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>>>Since, I have had a difficlut time with
>>>>>arethmetic calculators.
>>>>
>>>> ... and spelling and grammar.
>>>
>>>Spelling and tupos sure, <blush>, but there is nothgin wrong with the
>>>grammar. I've not had a problem with thinking, like some others here.
>>
>> Arethmetic (sic) calculators require no "thinking". Why is it that
>> they cause difficulties for you?
>
>Because I have a brain and use it,

How does your RPN-only "brain" cope with algebraic engineering
formulae?

>... though you've pin pointed
>exactly why you can't figure out RPN. You're too easy, kid.

RPN has never been a problem for me. If RPN calculators had been
competitively priced, I would have used them. Unlike you, I'm no snob.

My only contention all along, until you accused me of being
feeble-minded, was that algebraic UIs were intuitive whereas RPN UIs
were not. Clearly this is supported by your own excessively lengthy
learning curve, and by another post which refers to "inside-out"
thinking.

Here is a dictionary definition:

intuition n. immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning

intuitive a. of, possessing, perceived by, intuition

If you are indeed an engineer, then you will appreciate that the aim
of a successful designer is to produce an intuitive man-machine
interface, all other things being equal. OTOH, if you prefer to handle
simple jobs in a complicated way, then try something like this:

http://www.rube-goldberg.com/html/pencil_sharpener.htm


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
> I've never seen *any* scientific formula expressed in RPN.

Nor have I seen any scientific formulae expressed in linear
sequential algebraic notation when the idea was to competently
express complex formulae to humans. To machines, sure.
In poorly typeset papers, sure.

But competent journals go to considerable trouble typesetting
equations with various flavors of parentheses, long horizontal
division lines and radical roofs. Why do they go to the trouble?
It is much easier type the formula as linear algebraic FORTRAN-style
(((((((1+X)/(((..... They go to the trouble because people do
_not_ understand formulae linearly. They understand them by
building up terms, mostly from the inside-out.

> In any case I'm still working from left to right, in an
> intuitive way, which was the only point I had intended to
> make until some RPN snob accused me of feeble-mindedness.

Left-to-right may be the way english is read (and right-to-left
other languages), but I do not understand formulae in any such
linear fashion. I _understand_ formulae and can usually rebuild
them from first principles. This understanding is based on terms,
and usually works from inside-out. Sometimes from outside-in
when terms have been refined.

I personally find RPN _far_ more intuitive for calculating formulae,
especially long, complex ones. It works by calculating out terms.
Algebraic calculators may be simpler for people who just want a
cookbook recipe. Check the brackets are matched and pray when
they hit = .

-- Robert
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Franc Zabkar wrote:

>If you are indeed an engineer, then you will appreciate that the aim
>of a successful designer is to produce an intuitive man-machine
>interface, all other things being equal.

But Frank, we've already explained that we think the RPN interface is
better. B e t t e r.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:

>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>> I've never seen *any* scientific formula expressed in RPN.
>
>Nor have I seen any scientific formulae expressed in linear
>sequential algebraic notation when the idea was to competently
>express complex formulae to humans. To machines, sure.
>In poorly typeset papers, sure.
>
>But competent journals go to considerable trouble typesetting
>equations with various flavors of parentheses, long horizontal
>division lines and radical roofs. Why do they go to the trouble?
>It is much easier type the formula as linear algebraic FORTRAN-style
>(((((((1+X)/(((..... They go to the trouble because people do
>_not_ understand formulae linearly. They understand them by
>building up terms, mostly from the inside-out.
>
>> In any case I'm still working from left to right, in an
>> intuitive way, which was the only point I had intended to
>> make until some RPN snob accused me of feeble-mindedness.
>
>Left-to-right may be the way english is read (and right-to-left
>other languages), but I do not understand formulae in any such
>linear fashion. I _understand_ formulae and can usually rebuild
>them from first principles. This understanding is based on terms,
>and usually works from inside-out. Sometimes from outside-in
>when terms have been refined.
>
>I personally find RPN _far_ more intuitive for calculating formulae,
>especially long, complex ones. It works by calculating out terms.
>Algebraic calculators may be simpler for people who just want a
>cookbook recipe. Check the brackets are matched and pray when
>they hit = .

Good answer.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:59:57 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net>
wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:02 +1000, Franc Zabkar
>> <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
>>>
>>>doskey ls=dir
>>
>>
>> Wow.. talk about a blast from the past.. I haven't used Doskey in
>> ages! Just tested it though, still works in WinXP SP2 though!
>
>thank you (Franc&Tony) for that. :) i just moved to xp and
>2k (from '98/2 PCs) and it "only" took me 3/xp tries. :(
>(3 with xp sp2, 1 with 2k sp4)

Hmm.. was that doing clean installs or upgrades? I've never really
had any trouble doing clean-installs of WinXP (or any OS for that
matter), but upgrades are VERY hit and miss.

>JHFC, the "simple" registry has become
>NOT so simple with xp! :(
>
>i DID learn some new stuff about the registry
>for *all* of the windows versions (98&up). :)
>
>i'm not holding my breath on Longhorn

Anyone holding their breath for Longhorn will suffocate LONG before it
even hits store shelves, me thinks..

>>>Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
>>
>>
>> Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>
>
>
>yes, 98se has and contines
>to be (!) a real option
>
>too many focus on the BSOD
>and not on the essence

My experience with Win9x is that BSODs WERE the essence of it!
Actually, to be fair, I very rarely blue-screened Win9x, maybe only
once ever 10-20 crashes. Unfortunately the damn thing would become so
horribly unstable, with applications crashing and locking up, that I
would have to reboot on a VERY regular basis. I could rarely get a
day's worth of work done without being forced to reboot when using
Win9x, and it was not at all abnormal for me to have to reboot 4 or 5
times in a day. And despite popular belief, this had NOTHING to do
with hardware or drivers, it happened on EVERY PC I used.

>i'll grant that a real issue
>with current mobos is that they
>are flakey with their software
>support of an old OS like 98se
>(AMD especially, Intel less so;
> at least in my limited experience)

I wouldn't know. I installed Win2K back in March of 2000 and have had
absolutely no desire to look back. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but my
experience with Win9x was abysmal to say the least. As soon as I
tried stretching the legs of the system the least little bit (ie
running three whole applications at the same time! :> ) the system
would start causing all kinds of troubles. Applications would cease
getting processor cycles, the various sections of memory would get
filled up, explorer would crash, or any number of other possible
problems. The only common denominator was that the OS was totally
incapable of recovering from such situations.

>> I've used a number of command lines over the years and never found any
>> of them to be intuitive. Usable and sometimes very useful, yes, but
>> definitely not very intuitive.
>
>
>fwiw, i like command line. :)
>
>i'm a mainframe guy (ibm '67) with
>nix (Sun/cmd line and later gui)
>experience since '89

I like command lines for some things because, as mentioned above, they
can be very useful to accomplish some tasks. GUIs can also be very
useful for accomplishing other tasks. Different tools for different
jobs.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Jason Gurtz wrote:

> On 6/29/2005 17:26, willbill wrote:
>
>
>>then too, there's XP Pro, XP Home, and oem XP;
>>each with their own set of problems!
>
>
> Not really. XP home is just a subset of XP Pro.


really?

it may be a subset, but whatever MS
did in pruning XP Home down added
additional loopholes. i mean
i saw at least one error writeup on
the MS Knowledgebase that appeared to
be specific to only XP Home and not Pro


>>the other factor is how do you fix XP (NTFS
>>file system) if Windows won't start in safe mode?
>
>
> You should investigate "Bart PE boot CD" for working on failed systems
> with NTFS partitions. DOS based OS's(Win98) on boot disks have no hope of
> reading NTFS. Also see sysinternals.com and may want to check out the
> acronis utils.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

are the Acronis utils part of Acronis True Image 8.0?
or are they a separate package by some other name?


bill
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:59:57 -0500, willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

>> Tony Hill wrote:

>>... i just moved to xp and
>>2k (from '98/2 PCs) and it "only" took me 3/xp tries. :(
>>(3 with xp sp2, 1 with 2k sp4)
>
>
> Hmm.. was that doing clean installs or upgrades?


correct. i loaded XP Pro, then ran the sp2 upgrade


> I've never really
> had any trouble doing clean-installs of WinXP (or any OS for that
> matter), but upgrades are VERY hit and miss.


i had/have 98SE on the machine but nothing
from 98 was taken into the XP install.
HD#1 (250GB) has c: d: and e: (all fat32);
f: is the dvd/cd, g: is the last partition
on HD#1 and is NTFS. mobo is Tyan 2875
with an AMD Opty 142. HD#2 is a raid1 array


>>>Uhh.. did Win98se *EVER* cut it? :>
>>
>>
>>yes, 98se has and contines
>>to be (!) a real option
>>
>>too many focus on the BSOD
>>and not on the essence
>
>
> My experience with Win9x is that BSODs WERE the essence of it!


<smiling>


> Actually, to be fair, I very rarely blue-screened Win9x, maybe only
> once ever 10-20 crashes. Unfortunately the damn thing would become so
> horribly unstable, with applications crashing and locking up, that I
> would have to reboot on a VERY regular basis. I could rarely get a
> day's worth of work done without being forced to reboot when using
> Win9x, and it was not at all abnormal for me to have to reboot 4 or 5
> times in a day. And despite popular belief, this had NOTHING to do
> with hardware or drivers, it happened on EVERY PC I used.



geez tony, you're never gonna touch any of my PCs. :)

fwiw, i likely caused my 1st xp install failure
(it didn't fail during the install, only later
when i was loading 3rd party s/w). i wasn't very far
into it, so it was an easy decision to start from
scratch again. (i booted from my system commander cd
and ran their partition commander (a freebie included
on the cd) to delete the NTFS g: partition), and the
3 files on the c: root, and then installed xp again

the 2nd xp failure was painful coz i'd put a lot of
time into installing 3rd party software

after the 3rd install, the key things i've done
differently are: i only loaded the Intel Ethernet
drivers (and not the software; from the Tyan cd),
i didn't load any video board drivers (from
the MSI cd), i didn't load any modem drivers
(from the US Robotics cd)


>>i'll grant that a real issue
>>with current mobos is that they
>>are flakey with their software
>>support of an old OS like 98se
>>(AMD especially, Intel less so;
>> at least in my limited experience)
>
>
> I wouldn't know. I installed Win2K back in March of 2000 and have had
> absolutely no desire to look back.


i 1st loaded 2000 in early '01 and was similarly impressed.
now that it's got sp4 i'm even more impressed

bill
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:03:58 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>>If you are indeed an engineer, then you will appreciate that the aim
>>of a successful designer is to produce an intuitive man-machine
>>interface, all other things being equal.
>
>But Frank, we've already explained that we think the RPN interface is
>better. B e t t e r.

You and Robert are welcome to think what you like and how you like. I
have used both UIs and find no significant benefit in RPN. In any
case, I never intended to argue about the relative merits of one over
the other, except to state the obvious, namely that one is intuitive
whereas the other is not. I n t u i t i v e.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS