Whoa! Win95 boots in only 3 seconds!
Mr. NG HIM
mkro...@iea.com
>Please tell me how you can boot Win95 so fast just in 3 seconds!
>
Well Mine Boots faster ! About .1 second is all it took to BOOT it out the door !
Tyresö kommunbibliotek, allmänhetens terminal
I doubt that how rought of you.POOR Boots!!???
sencierly a joke!
/ANUBIS/SWEDEN!!!!
Jurassic Mark
<ng...@asiaonline.net> reported...
>Please tell me how you can boot Win95 so fast just in 3 seconds!
Lots of weight lifting and a strong pair of Kodiak boots. As you
build strength, you'll be able to lift the Win95 box and boot it in 3 secs or
less.
. . / Jurassic Mark (Marc Y. Paulin) \ . * .
. / Email and PowWow: mar...@nbnet.nb.ca \ . *
* . ./ Censhorship sucks and -----. \ . .
--------
Legal Notice: This message may not be transmitted or received by systems on
the Microsoft Network under ANY circumstances.
Derek Wild
> gr...@metricanet.com (Greg Bassett) wrote:
>
> >falc...@starnetinc.com wrote:
>
> >>Windows 95 on my system requires 3 times as long to boot as 3.1
> >>pentium 100, 16 meg, L2 pb cache, pci bus
> >>Windows 95 really does suck........
> >Don't shut it down...
> >Greg
>
> Hay;
> I pulled it (Windows 95) off my system and as well off 7 other
> computers for clients and friends. That's 8 people that Gates wont be
> able to sell more software and soon, support to.
>
> Besides, every piece of software I have.... WORKS. Lots of them don't
> under 95. So screw that, I stay with what works.
>
>
Unfortunately, you won't be able to buy anything that works with anything BUT
Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95 will rule t
the world.
Jeff Kline
Dale Harper
writes:
anything BUT
>Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95
will rule t
>the world.
Well, that is true to a point. If enough people refuse to move and
simply stop purchasing the newer software in favor of passing the old
stuff around (legally or illegally), there will be 3.x software written
in volume to capture the market. Granted it may not be Microsoft
writing 3.x code.
The reality is that won't happen. As new machines are shipped with '95,
for every one pulled off, 10 will stay.
Win95 will not rule the world. There will be another future O/S and it
will displace Win95. It in turn will be replaced in time. Win95 will
simply pass through our lives for a time destined to be like DOS
version 1 in 20 years.
lord fnord 2
> > I pulled it (Windows 95) off my system and as well off 7 other
> > computers for clients and friends. That's 8 people that Gates wont be
> > able to sell more software and soon, support to.
> >
> > Besides, every piece of software I have.... WORKS. Lots of them don't
> > under 95. So screw that, I stay with what works.
> Unfortunately, you won't be able to buy anything that works with anything BUT
> Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95 will rule t
> the world.
Rule the world? I think not. Maybe you see the world computer market as a
PC-led one with its aim towards moron home users, but I don't believe
that's the way it is.
You probably think the Pentium Pro is the fastest processor out there, too.
There are other much better OSs out there. But if you like Gates' little
cop off, I believe, 89-Mac-Interface, go ahead, we won't stop you.
I'll stick with OS/2 Warp and Linux/X.
Nick
Domingo Gomez
Tim Southerwood
>Anybody know how to reduce the reboot time in W95?
I took a networked PC (sad Amstrad 386sx 4MB) home. Boottime>2mins
(but it works - ;-)
I removed the network drivers (SPX/IPX+TCP/IP) and saved about 30secs
startup and shutdown is faster than my networked 486dx66 16MB at work
:-)
Tip: get rid of the crap - always helps windows x.x...
PS - I put back the TCP/IP stack and added PPP and it hasn't slowed it
down - seems IPX puts a fair startup/shutdown load on)
Tim
David Ehrens
jsk...@winternet.com (Jeff Kline) wrote:
..
>I pulled it (Windows 95) off my system and as well off 7 other
>computers for clients and friends. That's 8 people that Gates wont be
>able to sell more software and soon, support to.
We've also removed Win95 from about a dozen systems in the last 2 months for a
variety of reasons. 10 or so went back to Windows for Workgroups; 1 moved on
to Windows NT Workstation.
Oh yes, we also installed one OS/2 server for a vertical application that is
talking to an HP-UX system and a whole network of WfWg laptops (which can't
run Win95 yet because there are no drivers). Lots of integrators are still
playing safe with WfWg 3.11 because Win95 is still full of problems and WE
have to support what we install.
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| David Ehrens | email: da...@pencilnet.com |
| Pencil/NET, Inc. | phone: (508) 999-5259 |
| 1750 Purchase Street | fax: (508) 999-0107 |
| New Bedford, MA 02740 | WWW: http://www.pencilnet.com |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
Starfleet
<dom...@canaldinamic.es> <30EBE6...@canaldinamic.es> wrote:
>Anybody know how to reduce the reboot time in W95?
higher processor speed, more ram. :P
Keith Sawyer
technical stuff that's around, WIN95 does a lot more preparatory work
than Windows 3.x ever did. How often are you booting anyway? I have
installed WIN95 and have yet to be forced to reboot by any kind of
problem, whereas with Windows 3.x it was quite common. In any new
product some parts will be better, some may not be, but it is the overall
improvement that counts. If we did not continually update any kind of
product once it was invented we would still be with the very first
Windows, is that what you want? Nothing is perfect in this life, you
have to take the good with the bad and get on with your life.
Keith
--
White Trash
Michael Wei <w...@sanews1.morgan.com> wrote:
>Timothy P. Kelley (tke...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: On Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18:29:55 GMT, falc...@starnetinc.com wrote:
>
>: Have you ever seen how long it takes Unix, Netware, or whatever to start up?
>: Granted, they're not meant to be turned off, but if you're judging OS's by how
>: long it takes them to load, you're not going to get much further than DOS.
>: =====================================
>
>Come on, My Linux boots faster than DOS/Windows when all the drivers are
>loaded. Give a try.
Mine too.
--
.-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Mike Dugas, aka WhiteTrsh - - mdu...@tiac.net |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "No one looks at fashion, the way I look at fashion, ain't no white |
Kenneth D. Dool
> From: Starfleet
> Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.
> ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.windows.ms,pdx.computing,sci.electronics.equipment,
> sci.electronics.basics,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.games.descent,alt.ga
> mes.doom,alt.games.warcraft,junk
> Subject: Re: Whoa! Win95 boots in only 3 seconds!
> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 16:40:30 GMT
> Organization: UFP
I'm running a Pentium 133 with 32 megs of EDO ram and it boots in just
about 20 seconds. - - -Ken
jonathon
> Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95 will rule t
> the world.
Windows '95 = Mac '89 ... 'Nuff Said
Archon
jona...@main.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers! And you
will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BigBoss
Mac = (yawn)
those one button mice are hilarious!
Kelly Painter
>
> jsk...@winternet.com (Jeff Kline) writes:
> > gr...@metricanet.com (Greg Bassett) wrote:
> >
> > >falc...@starnetinc.com wrote:
> >
> > >>Windows 95 on my system requires 3 times as long to boot as 3.1
> > >>pentium 100, 16 meg, L2 pb cache, pci bus
> > >>Windows 95 really does suck........
> > >Don't shut it down...
> > >Greg
> >
> > Hay;
> > computers for clients and friends. That's 8 people that Gates wont be
> > able to sell more software and soon, support to.
> >
> > under 95. So screw that, I stay with what works.
> >
> >
> Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95 will rule t
> the world.
It will be a cold day in hell before I buy it.
Kelly Painter
Lannie Schafroth
>
>> Unfortunately, you won't be able to buy anything that works with
anything BU
>T
>> Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95
will r
>> the world.
>
>
>Windows '95 = Mac '89 ... 'Nuff Said
>
as WIN95 (colors and all)
--
Lannie Schafroth
Scott Wheeler
<dom...@canaldinamic.es> wrote:
>Anybody know how to reduce the reboot time in W95?
Sure!
Put SMARTDRV back into your AUTOEXEC.BAT!
Size the DOS and Windows cache sizes appropriately, and Win 95 will
start very quickly without sacrificing too much memory.
The reason it's slow is: there's NO disk cache during GUI Startup.
Once it has started VCACHE takes over, so you can use a SMALL Windows
cache size setting on SMARTDRV and get away with it!
Scott
serialnumber?
wrote:
Get Hijaak95 and see what rebooting is all about. Man this thing is
buggy.
Chris
Smote
time ago. But poor pathetic MAC and 3.1* users just wont quit arguing
their opinion. The fact is: us 95 users are happy with it. Or else we
wouldn't defend it so much. We're not going to say, "Hey, this cool
guy thinks WIN95 sux, so should I!"
There is one major thing to look at. Why does WIN95 crash so much for
them? IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID ASS kids who don't know a thing
about the inside of a computer, and run and cry to their mommies when
they can't figure out what they are doing wrong! Sure my computer
crashes. Thats because I'm always fucking around with shit. And even
then it only crashes like twice in a month, which is a lot less than
it ever did with 3.1. Now I hear MAC users saying that macs don't
crash. Ya know why?!? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH
THEM!!!!!!!!!!! If you have a problem. You turn it off, and turn it
back on. They just run software and thats it. You cant play any cool
games on them (99.9% of games are initially built on the Dos/Windows
platform.) and you can't have any fun tweaking them to look the way
you want. Poor graphics as well.
Now to close: I just want to say that you have no right ripping apart
a good product if you don't even know what it does. I rip apart MACs
because I use them every day at school (High powered POWER MACs) and i
know first-hand they suck. They take at least 3 mins to boot up and
just plain suck.
So leave Windows95 alone. In Windows95, you can run DOS games as well
as 32-bit applications, all from Windows. On a MAC, what do you do
with MS-DOS games? In 3.1 you have to exit windows and play, then
restart windows when you wanna work. It is not comfortable doing that.
SmOtE
* I shouldn't and wont say bad things about 3.1, it is respectable,
but 3.1 users should go on and on about their poor efforts in
Windows95.
__________________________
I SMOTE thee across the face,
Coward.
---------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Amancio Hasty, Jr.
>In article <4c1nhr$h...@sanews1.morgan.com>,
>Michael Wei <w...@sanews1.morgan.com> wrote:
>>Timothy P. Kelley (tke...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: On Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18:29:55 GMT, falc...@starnetinc.com wrote:
>>
>>: Have you ever seen how long it takes Unix, Netware, or whatever to start up?
>>: Granted, they're not meant to be turned off, but if you're judging OS's by how
>>: long it takes them to load, you're not going to get much further than DOS.
>>: =====================================
>>
>>Come on, My Linux boots faster than DOS/Windows when all the drivers are
>>loaded. Give a try.
>
>Mine too.
http://www.freebsd.org
Me thinks that some of the Windows commercial houses should port their
apps to FreeBSD or Linux. Why? I would never support an application/OS
house 8)
Aquire) Embrace) Destroy?)
--
Amancio Hasty
Hasty Software Consulting Services
Tel: 415-495-3046
Fax: 415-495-3046
Cellular: 415-309-8434
e-mail: ha...@star-gate.com Powered by FreeBSD
Smote
The Connell
home users. Did you ever see a copy of Linux in Radio Shack? If you
don't like win95, good. But most people who buy computers today think
It's the only thing out there because they saw it on TV. I'm reluctant
to buy it because I enjoy fiddling with the settings on my computer, and
it would be a shame if the only thing I could change were the fonts and
colors.
Charlie
wrote:
Microsoft was going to make windows95 very user configurable. They
then desided it would be to confussing to the average user.
They don't think much of there customers do they.
MICROSOFT WAKE UP OR THIS IS THE BEGINING OF THE
END OF YOUR PC RULE.........
Darren Carpenter
little peice of info for the uninformed... Win95 _IS_ very user
configurable. They just didn't send out lots of technical info on their
product. That would have just scared away all of the "average users."
who want something easy to use. I personally like the best of both worlds
when I want to get work done I like a system that only requires a few
clicks of the mouse to get things done, but at the same time I like to be
able to play with the "guts" of the system too. And this is possible
with Win95 as much as it is with any other system, you just don't have
to deal with it on the surface.
Here's an example to start with. My modem has a mode that is not
supported by the Win95 drivers, nor are there any available for it. So
what did I do? Well instead of sitting back and crying about it, I fixed
the probem. I just loaded a couple of different drivers that for other
modems, made some notes. Then I took a driver that worked with my modem,
but not well, since it didn't support some of it's compression formats,
and editied the table of information on my modem. This involved changing
a couple of hex format information strings and some of the modem commands,
but in the end it worked fine. My modem now works to the best of its
capabilities, no problems (on my end of the phone line that is).
Try downloading some of the technical info available on Win95 and
reading through it. Some programmers have even written apps which give
you easy ways to change options in Win95 that Microsoft didn't put in
the control panel. If you really want to fiddle with a system you can.
You just need to know how to do it. Of course I wouln't try this on a
national security computer system, but if you'd like to have fun
explaining it to the feds. You can even do things like this on a Mac.
It's only software. God forbid they make it easy for some people to use
who don't want to do anything but change colors and fonts.
So you don't have a prompt staring you in the face from which you can
type a bunch of technical garbage. And if you really don't like the
direction new OSes are going, why don't you just write your own? All you
really need to do that is to get an assembler and learn how to program.
It just goes to show how much some of you flamers know...
I use Win95, because of what I need. The system works better than OS/2
Linux, Novell, or any other system available that will run on my computer.
That's it. I'm not saying its better for everyone, but it works for what
I do.
-Darren
Oh, and I think the FTC is more likely to end Microsoft's rule than
Win95. :)
Govaerts-Roelens
>gr...@metricanet.com (Greg Bassett) wrote:
I've put Win95 on my PC and not only it works faster, it also works
smoother and it's easier to install new hardware!
Besides, the look is much better than in Win 3.11 and there's nothing you
can say against that!
OK, it tooks longer to boot but I think it's worth waiting those few
seconds!
RamTazz
a floppy! I mean 133 MHZ dual & quad processors, & the floppy still runs
ay 4.77 MHZ.. Hey what's wrong with this picture?
******************************
Rampage Sound Studios
Lancaster, PA
***************************
Justin S. Cooksey
ites:
:>I don't think so. I know of 1 (one) person using it and thats because he has vision problems.
:>It will be a cold day in hell before I buy it.
What exactly are the problems people have had that they removed Win95?
Justin.
===========================================================================
PGP Key available by email with subject "PGP Key Request" ____________
Key fingerprint = 1D 94 EA 53 E6 A1 07 06 /\ _________\
40 E2 C4 70 67 8A 62 29 \ \ \______ /
\ \ \ / / /
_--_|\ Justin S. Cooksey (jco...@brushtail.hna.com.au) \ \ \/ / /
/ \ \ \/ / /
\_.--._/ <---- HNA, Newcastle, NSW, Australia \ / /
v \/_/
Todd Charlton
>cop off, I believe, 89-Mac-Interface, go ahead, we won't stop you.
>I'll stick with OS/2 Warp and Linux/X.
OS/2 and Linux are definately BEAUTIFUL operating systems.... but then
again, BETA was a higher quality than VHS, too.... Which one does
everyone use? I can tell you what gonna happen. Windows 95 will keep
growing, there will be another version of Windows (96?), and then,
Microsoft will have enough 32 bit software in circulation (through
themselves and all of the other vendors) behind '95 to finally do what
they've wanted all along.... to push everyone to Windows NT, which is
right on par with OS/2 (Actually... I think it's even better).... And
best of all... there will be software out for it!
Todd Charlton
>to buy it because I enjoy fiddling with the settings on my computer, and
>it would be a shame if the only thing I could change were the fonts and
It's VERY configurable! You can change all of the stuff that you
would normally (IRQ settings, etc)... Just go to the device drivers
section, and you cann edit almost (if not ALL) of the settings of
sound cards, video, etc. I look at it like this.... for being on the
internet, Windows 95, NT, OS/2, or MAC are the only way to go.
Windows 95 and NT are the only ones with a LOT of software for it.
Nafana
the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off each day?
Opinions?
Rob Hanson
>
> >>Windows 95 on my system requires 3 times as long to boot as 3.1
> >>pentium 100, 16 meg, L2 pb cache, pci bus
> >>Windows 95 really does suck........
> >Don't shut it down...
> >Greg
Maybe the reason it is taking you so long is because of what it is
doing. Try rebooting both dos and windows from win 3.1 and you will see
that it takes just about as long. If you want, you ca nhold the SHIFT
key down when comfirming the restart, it will only restart windows, and
this is must faster than restarting the whole computer. BTW, compare
this to how long it takes the MAC powerPC to start. This is much longer
than win95.
Rob Hanson
hans...@eosc.osshe.edu
Kev
>Truth is, everyone, that the software indoustry is going towards moron
>home users. Did you ever see a copy of Linux in Radio Shack? If you
>don't like win95, good. But most people who buy computers today think
>It's the only thing out there because they saw it on TV. I'm reluctant
>to buy it because I enjoy fiddling with the settings on my computer, and
>it would be a shame if the only thing I could change were the fonts and
>colors.
I've been using Win95 for months. Believe me, the fiddling is still
there in all it's glory.<g>
~~~
keV ----- dr...@ix.netcom.com
Adam Seyer
>>
>>Another voice in the Win95 debate...
>>
>
>It seems that most of the win95 detractors haven't really used it much.
>If you like os/2 or unix, then stick with them. But I've used windows
>since the start and really have no problems with 95. It's flashier, and
>much more configurable than 3.1. If you say that it isn't a good
>multitasking system, then I've got news for you... It's not the operating
>system that wins the day... It's what's available for that system. I
>don't use an operating system soley because its ultra stable, I use it to
>allow me to use the products designed for it.
>
>I'd really like to hear the true scoop from people who have use both os/2
>and 95 extensively.
Michael Venditti
be less usable to the average-shmo if it were ultra-configurable. While
this may get thee above-average user a bit aggravated (like me), it is
actually in MS's best interests to do so.
Just take a look at the typical MAC user, who probably could never figure
out how to configure anything on their computer. A lot of people like it
because it just works (most of the time). Thee fact that it is limited
in what it can do (my opinion) is not an issue because they just want
thir word procesor, spreadshet, or baby DTP package to do their simple
tasks and tht's it.
To those of you who mention that most games were first written for PC's:
This is true for really 2 reasons:
1] Mac's hav little or no memory protection for programmers.
2] No direct access to hardware
The second reson is the historical reasson, and the first is thee
modern one.
mv
On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Charlie wrote:
> On 7 Jan 1996 04:06:02 GMT, The Connell <con...@pppmail.nyser.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Truth is, everyone, that the software indoustry is going towards moron
> >home users. Did you ever see a copy of Linux in Radio Shack? If you
> >don't like win95, good. But most people who buy computers today think
> >It's the only thing out there because they saw it on TV. I'm reluctant
> >to buy it because I enjoy fiddling with the settings on my computer, and
> >it would be a shame if the only thing I could change were the fonts and
> >colors.
> >
Ali the frog
Another voice in the Win95 debate...
Some of us still use and find windows 3.11 quite satisfactory....
Even though I am doing a degree in Computer Systems.
Why is it so vital that one should get the latest version? If you wait
approx 6 months it'll be obselete anyway!
If you tinker with 3.11 it'll do most of what Win95 does at surface
level. It may be slightly slower but not generally noticably so...
For those who can't decide which OS to use, old copies of 3.11 which some
software shops and housegroups still have, are a nice midline (since a
converter is available _somewhere_ to run it under UNIX)
Anyway, just a thought.
Frog
--
The entity hereabove is existing in another dimension at the present
time.
Please try again later (or earlier).
Chris Hodgson
>
> Truth is, everyone, that the software indoustry is going towards moron
> home users. Did you ever see a copy of Linux in Radio Shack? If you
> don't like win95, good. But most people who buy computers today think
> It's the only thing out there because they saw it on TV. I'm reluctant
> to buy it because I enjoy fiddling with the settings on my computer, and
> it would be a shame if the only thing I could change were the fonts and
> colors.
I must Disagree. I've had Win95 since the day it came out and think it
is a brilliant strategic move on the part of Mr. Bill Gates. (please,
don't kill me yet...) While I do agree that it is not an excellent OS
in it's own right, the whole purpose of Win95 is to get more 32-bit
WINDOWS NT-COMPATIBLE software and hardware out there so that users can
eventually move over to NT with a new '96(or 97??) GUI.
JBlessing
--
Well it if takes 22 hours 36 minutes to boot and load Win95 what the heck
you may as well leave it on...
J Blessing L1 Master Tech
David Sharp
> I'd really like to hear the true scoop from people who have use both os/2
> and 95 extensively.
I have both of them installed on my computer, and after trying to use
Win95, I've found that it's too unstable on my system to be of much
use. I use OS/2 about 75% of the time. The 25% I spend using Win95 is
often spent rebooting to clear remnents of some program or another that
crashed and hosed Win95. CAD gets used to a lot to kill non-responsive
tasks. MS-Paint is so flakey, I refuse to launch it. For Windows
programs though Win95 is probably a better choice.
What really irritates me are the inconsistencies. I've already got an
internet account setup with a local ISP, yet when I dl'd the IE 2.0, it
puts a stupid Internet Setup Wizard shortcut on my desktop. Am I
supposed to setup my TCP/IP settings *AGAIN*? It's not a big deal, but
it is irritating.
OS/2 runs fast and nearly flawless. (Esp. since I uninstalled Windows
support).
David Sharp
ds9...@slip.net
Michael Walsh
x...@u.washington.edu (Robert Jordan) wrote:
>I'd really like to hear the true scoop from people who have use both os/2
>and 95 extensively.
I'm a systems engineer, and I support both Windows and OS/2. I've used both
since their earliest versions, and what I have on my desktop is Win95. If you
want to try to compare them, my opinion is that it's a matter of preference as
long as the software you need is available for your OS. Windows has a larger
base to draw from than OS/2, so it wins hands-down on apps. OS/2 is a *very
slightly* better multitasker, but its WIN/OS2 performance leaves a lot to be
desired. In my opinion, Win95 is the better choice for most people.
OS/2 does have advantages, however. Development for OS/2, if done correctly,
results in better performing apps. The problem is that so few people really
understand the intricate details of the OS, and most compilers don't optimize
code properly. The result is that the average program runs equally well on
both OSes.
It's really a matter of preference, as I said.
Wesley Yung
I_Ro...@softguide.be writes:
>smoother and it's easier to install new hardware!
This is true. I like Win95 as well. It crashed far less than 3.11 and
when it does I can usually close the app that's causing the problem. All
in all it's much slower at loading up, but since I never turn off my
computer (it barely ever crashes) It's not a big deal to me. The
majority of the loading time is usually the startup apps such as those
Microsoft powertools and the fonts it has to load.
Plus, since when can 3.11 mount computers over the internet like Unix
does? I just mounted Microsofts main archive as drive J: on my computer.
Through explorer I can copy files and stuff without the need for FTP.
- Wes
Darren Carpenter
>
>hmmmm... WRITE your own operating system? What? Are you insane?
No comment there, althought I'll tell you the Experimental schizophrenia
wards are generally not a very nice place to live. :) Actually when I
was 8 or 9 years old I tried to write an arcade quality video game on my
parents TI personal computer. Then, after a few days and filling up a
tape cassette, I found out about 16 K of memory. So, a little later I
tried to do the same thing on my grandfathers IBM PC, since it had 640 K.
So I guess maybe I am.
>You have
>to make up a file system, and everything! What software will you use? You
>will have to write all your own software! Also, you have to write your own
>memory management! And I/O routines, and EVERYTHING!
Actually, this is why I want to work at Microsoft. Access to lots of
source code (so I don't have to write it all), and the freedom to have a
say in how the software used by the majority of computer users is made.
And so I can, at least, contribute to an insane project like developing a
better OS than is currently available. MS does not make perfect products,
but it would be nice if they did :)
>You have to know the
>hardware inside out! hmm, if everyone had to write their own OS, computers
>would be more work then work saved!
Good point Tony! Although somebody's got to be crazy enough to write
an OS that's better than all the ones out now. That is unless we're giving
up on progress. I think it's nice that there's a place out there that lets
its programmers dream. It's just too bad there aren't more companies out
there that have the resources to shape the market. If every software
company had resources like Microsoft, computing would be truly awesome.
Part of Microsoft's problems with the FTC is the fact that they are trying
to push the market into the future. I honestly don't think they're putting
all there resources into squashing all the rest of the software companies
around, although you never know where bad apples pop up. Like the rest, MS
needs to improve their current products and make better new ones. If not,
they would lay off all their programmers. Anyway, thanks for the response.
It's nice to see more than just unintilligent flaming out there.
Oh, and never doubt what people might do. Some of us are just crazy enough
to work ourselves to death just to acheive the impossible. Money sucks, I
wish I didn't need it at all :) And if I had the time and resources, I
would write my own OS, just to see how good it would be. Along with a
compiler of some new language I haven't thought up yet, and... Well, you get
the point. :)
-Darren
Tony Ching-Kong Hwang
Followup-To: alt.engineering.electrical,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,pdx.computing,sci.electronics.equipment,sci.electronics.basics,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.games.descent,alt.games.doom,alt.games.warcraft,junk,gen
eral,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.games.descent,alt.binaries.descent,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.games,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.advocacy
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution:
Darren Carpenter (dk...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
: CG...@ICON.NET (Charlie) wrote:
: >On 7 Jan 1996 04:06:02 GMT, The Connell <con...@pppmail.nyser.net>
: >wrote:
: >
: >>Truth is, everyone, that the software indoustry is going towards moron
: >>home users. Did you ever see a copy of Linux in Radio Shack? If you
: >>don't like win95, good. But most people who buy computers today think
: >>It's the only thing out there because they saw it on TV. I'm reluctant
: >>to buy it because I enjoy fiddling with the settings on my computer, and
: >>it would be a shame if the only thing I could change were the fonts and
: >>colors.
: >>
: > Microsoft was going to make windows95 very user configurable. They
: >then desided it would be to confussing to the average user.
: > They don't think much of there customers do they.
: >
: > MICROSOFT WAKE UP OR THIS IS THE BEGINING OF THE
: >END OF YOUR PC RULE.........
: >
: I'm not going to comment on the goodness, or badness of Win95 but here's
: little peice of info for the uninformed... Win95 _IS_ very user
: configurable. They just didn't send out lots of technical info on their
: product. That would have just scared away all of the "average users."
: who want something easy to use. I personally like the best of both worlds
: when I want to get work done I like a system that only requires a few
: clicks of the mouse to get things done, but at the same time I like to be
: able to play with the "guts" of the system too. And this is possible
: with Win95 as much as it is with any other system, you just don't have
: to deal with it on the surface.
: Here's an example to start with. My modem has a mode that is not
: supported by the Win95 drivers, nor are there any available for it. So
: what did I do? Well instead of sitting back and crying about it, I fixed
: the probem. I just loaded a couple of different drivers that for other
: modems, made some notes. Then I took a driver that worked with my modem,
: but not well, since it didn't support some of it's compression formats,
: and editied the table of information on my modem. This involved changing
: a couple of hex format information strings and some of the modem commands,
: but in the end it worked fine. My modem now works to the best of its
: capabilities, no problems (on my end of the phone line that is).
: Try downloading some of the technical info available on Win95 and
: reading through it. Some programmers have even written apps which give
: you easy ways to change options in Win95 that Microsoft didn't put in
: the control panel. If you really want to fiddle with a system you can.
: You just need to know how to do it. Of course I wouln't try this on a
: national security computer system, but if you'd like to have fun
: explaining it to the feds. You can even do things like this on a Mac.
: It's only software. God forbid they make it easy for some people to use
: who don't want to do anything but change colors and fonts.
: So you don't have a prompt staring you in the face from which you can
: type a bunch of technical garbage. And if you really don't like the
: direction new OSes are going, why don't you just write your own? All you
: really need to do that is to get an assembler and learn how to program.
: It just goes to show how much some of you flamers know...
hmmmm... WRITE your own operating system? What? Are you insane? You have
to make up a file system, and everything! What software will you use? You
will have to write all your own software! Also, you have to write your own
memory management! And I/O routines, and EVERYTHING! You have to know the
hardware inside out! hmm, if everyone had to write their own OS, computers
would be more work then work saved!
- Tony
: I use Win95, because of what I need. The system works better than OS/2
: Linux, Novell, or any other system available that will run on my computer.
: That's it. I'm not saying its better for everyone, but it works for what
: I do.
: -Darren
: Oh, and I think the FTC is more likely to end Microsoft's rule than
: Win95. :)
--
/***************************************************************\
* Tony Ching-Kong Hwang -- http://ocf.berkeley.edu/~thwang *
* *
* RCC for Foothill hillside north, office hours are: *
* Tue3-5, Fri3-5, and Sun4-6 in the Foothill Computer Center *
\***************************************************************/
Arthur Hoornweg
The reason why win95 takes ages to boot is that the new disk cache is
built-in, i.e. it is not yet active while booting windows itself.
You can overcome this by loading a "modest" 256-512 kb smartdrive before
Windows 95. Once windows is running, it de-activates smartdrive.
hope this helps,
Arthur Hoornweg
(responses by e-mail, please)
Henrik Pejle
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.windows.ms,pdx.computing,sc=
i.electronics.equipment,sci.electronics.basics,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.games.descent,alt.games.doom,alt.games.warcraft,ju=
nk
Subject: Re: Whoa! Win95 boots in only 3 seconds!
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 16:40:30 GMT
Organization: UFP
Message-ID: <4cgvtu$f...@news.netvoyage.net>
References: <jeff_rau-061...@ppp-66-91.dialup.winternet.com> <4a5i8e$l...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> <4afcsu$6...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> <=
4atqnp$f...@ns.concourse.com> <4b1brt$a...@cloner3.netcom.com> <4b1nm2$a...@news.ais.net> <30d4f3c8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4c1nhr=
$h...@sanews1.morgan.com> <30EBE6...@canaldinamic.es>
On Thu, 04 Jan 1996 14:40:34 +0000, Domingo Gomez
<dom...@canaldinamic.es> <30EBE6...@canaldinamic.es> wrote:
>Anybody know how to reduce the reboot time in W95?
higher processor speed, more ram. :P
James Lindsay
>From: Arthur Hoornweg <art...@geology.aball.de>
>Subject: Make win95 boot faster....
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 08:36:24 +0100
>JBlessing wrote:
>>
>> In article <4cq7ks$q...@perseus.peganet.com>, naf...@peganet.com says...
>> >
>> > Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me as
>> much
>> >as
>> >the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
>> >better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off each
>> day?
>> >
>> > Opinions?
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Well it if takes 22 hours 36 minutes to boot and load Win95 what the heck
>> you may as well leave it on...
>> J Blessing L1 Master Tech
You can tell most folks have never worked on a real computer
Robert Klein
On 7 Jan 1996, The Connell wrote:
> Truth is, everyone, that the software indoustry is going towards moron
> home users. Did you ever see a copy of Linux in Radio Shack? If you
> don't like win95, good. But most people who buy computers today think
> It's the only thing out there because they saw it on TV. I'm reluctant
> to buy it because I enjoy fiddling with the settings on my computer, and
> it would be a shame if the only thing I could change were the fonts and
> colors.
Speaking as a person who has used Linux, the Mac, DOS,
Windows, Windows95, OS/2, AIX, BSDI, SCO UNIX, SCO Xenix, as well as a
few OS's that I can't recall, I actually like Windows95 alot! I didn't
want to, I tend to shy away from anything with a Mircrosoft label, but
Windows95 is a great OS. Sorry. I Love Linux, AIX and BSDI also, but
for the home user Windows95 is it. For the record, It's my opinion that
OS/2 and anything with an SCO label suck...alot.... And the Mac crashes
WAY too much.
Rob
Robert Lavin
>Path: news.ultranet.com!bigboote.WPI.EDU!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!news
>From: "Dr. Who" <w...@who.who.who.com>
>From: "Dr. Who" <w...@who.who.who.com>
>ral,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.games.descent,alt.binaries.descent,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.games,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.advocacy
>Subject: WHO CARES HOW GOD DAMN FAST WIN95 BOOTS!
>Date: 12 Jan 1996 20:20:01 GMT
>Organization: Not organized.
>Lines: 7
>Message-ID: <4d6fph$f...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>
>References: <4cfk5k$4...@news.xmission.com> <4cidrr$m...@rapidnet.com> <4cngra$g...@pppmail.nyser.net> <30ef7f6d...@news.icon.net> <4cp5kk$d...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> <4d5uvf$k...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: n00002-103sul.unity.ncsu.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.12 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.05 9000/712)
>To: drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
>X-URL: news:4d5uvf$k...@csu-b.csuohio.edu
>X-URL: news:4d5uvf$k...@csu-b.csuohio.edu
>1 alt.games.warcraft:3362 junk:5085 general:23649 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:48070 comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.misc:14985 comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.games:11081 comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.tech:22747 comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.advocacy:10759
>DOES EVERYBODY and their god damn monkey have to respond
>to this old "Whoa, how fast win95 boots thread?"
>Please edit your newsgroups headers
>and take the soundcard newsgroups out before posting.
>Thank you! ARGHHHHHHHHH!
So, ahhh, what's your point ?
Troy Benjegerdes
I'm getting tired of these stupid arguments over operating systems.
--
Troy Benjegerdes
troy...@iastate.edu
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~troybenj
Elson Trinidad
BigBoss <dan...@cannet.cannet.com> wrote:
>> Windows '95 = Mac '89 ... 'Nuff Said
>>
>Mac = (yawn)
>those one button mice are hilarious!
Windows '95 may be Mac '89
But one day Mac OS will be frozen in time
Windows 2000 could show Mac OS the door
And by then Apple might not be around anymore.
-- 30 --
E l s o n T r i n i d a d
ertr...@skat.usc.edu * lam...@aol.com
Visit ElsoNet @ the URL -> http://ucs.usc.edu/~ertrinid/
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Bachelor of Arts, Print Journalism
=============================================================================
The Usenet: A bunch of people saying things, and another bunch of people
arguing that they're wrong.
Dr. Who
Clifton T. Sharp
>Will you all please SHUT UP about this???
>I'm getting tired of these stupid arguments over operating systems.
Me, too!
--
Cliff Sharp There are days when no matter which
WA9PDM way you spit, it's upwind.
cli...@indep1.chi.il.us --The First Law of Reality
Rob Cartwright
>
> Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me as much
as
>the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
>better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off each day?
>
> Opinions?
>
Hmmmm.....and is the light still on after you close the door?
Alphonse Capone
can run over unix. Is that true for Windows 95? I am trying
to come up the curve on the systems end of things. what is the
fastest that one can get their degree (2yr)
Sammy
My monkey is far to intelligent for that sort of rubbish.
How about yours?
Sammy
Cal Deobald
> communications would be a rather standard item in an OS wouldn't it?
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
> web page - http://ni.cba.csuohio.edu/~drsoran
Serial communications may be fairly standard on one level, but if we are
talking about getting the most out of your modem in terms of controlling
compression levels, ... then sorry, you need to have a "driver" or YOU
need to know how to control those features.
- Cal Deobald
Nicholas Clark
>
> DOES EVERYBODY and their god damn monkey have to respond
> to this old "Whoa, how fast win95 boots thread?"
> Please edit your newsgroups headers
> and take the soundcard newsgroups out before posting.
>
> Thank you! ARGHHHHHHHHH!
Actually, they and YOU might consider taking several of the irrelevant
groups out. i.e. alt.game.* !!!
NOTICE: yes I left them in this time, and maybe, considering, the
intelligent people will add this thread to their kill file anyway... the
less intelligent people will learn a lesson about cross-posting and
responding.
Nick
--
(((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))
( Nicholas Clark )
( ncl...@inmind.com )
( http://www.inmind.com/people/nclark )
(**************************************)
( When elephants fight it is the grass )
( that suffers. )
(((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))
Woody Wood
> DOES EVERYBODY and their god damn monkey have to respond
> to this old "Whoa, how fast win95 boots thread?"
> Please edit your newsgroups headers
> and take the soundcard newsgroups out before posting.
>
> Thank you! ARGHHHHHHHHH!
>
Hey tough guy, how about a real email address?
You're a big wussy. Face up to what you do.
Steve Barnes
rca...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> I use QEMM 8.0 cuts down the time a lot for me.
>On Thu, 04 Jan 1996 14:40:34 +0000, Domingo Gomez
><dom...@canaldinamic.es> wrote:
>
>>Anybody know how to reduce the reboot time in W95?
>
>have kids and by the time they leave home it will have booted up, see
>simple, eh! but wait a minuite by the time you get to the pub 95 will
>be obsolete.
>
>.> OH NO ITS BEER O'CLOCK
>>> BARNZY.
twister
Time to add my 2 cents worth on the win95 thing.
I was a big time windows 3.1 hater. It's one of the most unstable
programs ever writtin. Why is it so unstable. Becouse people want to
stick with there old out dated programs becouse they are scared to
change. Like the person that took win95 off his computer. No offence.
So they had to right a damn shell. Then they came out with windows95
which is very close to what OS should be. If everyone threw out there
useless wordperfect 1.0 etc. We would have a OS like the best of NT
and Win95 put together.
There are very few programs that can't be run on Win95. And the ones
that are made for it. Load and work! Without a hitch. Thats good news
for new users. And good for companys who don't have time to play and
need to get some work done.
I'm not that great at tech stuff but I just hooked a second modem up
tonight. I'm using both right now. Took me a whole minute and a half.
Win95 isn't perfect only becouse everyone has to be able to use the
old dos program from 1989.
Anyone holding out. And not using Win95. Is just prolonging the
change over. By years end there will be alomst nothing for DOS.
I will miss it alittle. But I won't miss the not enough lower mem.
GPF errors.Sound irq problems, and boot disk making..This all has to
do with poor programing. I'm getting so use to doing more then one
thing at a time on the computer. I could never go back.
The OS has a long way to go. But a hell of alot better then any other
windows version yet. This just my opinon. The future is coming what
ever OS you are using. I'm waiting for the 64 bit OS <G>
Bret
>
WhasMyName again?
Mark H Pryor
>
> jsk...@winternet.com (Jeff Kline) writes:
> > gr...@metricanet.com (Greg Bassett) wrote:
> >
> > >falc...@starnetinc.com wrote:
> >
> > >>Windows 95 on my system requires 3 times as long to boot as 3.1
> > >>pentium 100, 16 meg, L2 pb cache, pci bus
> > >>Windows 95 really does suck........
> > >Don't shut it down...
> > >Greg
> >
> > Hay;
> > I pulled it (Windows 95) off my system and as well off 7 other
> > computers for clients and friends. That's 8 people that Gates wont be
> > able to sell more software and soon, support to.
> >
> > Besides, every piece of software I have.... WORKS. Lots of them don't
> > under 95. So screw that, I stay with what works.
> >
> >
> Unfortunately, you won't be able to buy anything that works with anything BUT
> Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95 will rule t
> the world.
Windows 95 can be frustrating if not set up correctly. Windows95 and the
internet is more stable than 3.11. Multiple sessions under Netscape while
FTPing or reading Email makes you want to go ISDN. There are known
incompatibilities with older Dos programs. But with software becoming easier
to develop, the 32 bit applications will rule. Chances are if it doesn't run
on NT or 95, there is something better and faster out there that does.
Mark H Pryor
DONALD LINK
Has anyone paid attention to Apple lately. Warehouse full of low end MACs
that no one bought during the holidays. Even Apple has admitted that the
sales in higer end machines was way low. Apple has taken a 80 million
dollar write off because of this. Even the machines that sold were
discounted heavely, adding to there woes. Stock prices have taken a big hit
in the last 6 months and at least 4 top executives have jumped ship. Market
analyst say the 1000 layoff is not enough and more must go. Even then the
survival of Apple will depend on either being merged or bought out. Wonder
if this new has any effect on Mac users. Does the Apple II bring back
memories.
* PowerEdit 2.3 "I'll be Bach!" - Johann Sebastian Schwarzenneger
Mathew Hennessy
twister <twi...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
>windows version yet. This just my opinon. The future is coming what
>ever OS you are using. I'm waiting for the 64 bit OS <G>
Try unix. Also, isn't copland supposed to be optimized for
PowerPCs? Could it be 64 Bit for the 620 uprocessor?
> Bret
ps: in the future, don't crosspost that much. It's annoying and wasteful.
Lasse S. L. Buck
On Thu, 04 Jan 1996 14:40:34 +0000, Domingo Gomez
<dom...@canaldinamic.es> <30EBE6...@canaldinamic.es> wrote:
>Anybody know how to reduce the reboot time in W95?
higher processor speed, more ram. :P
*****
The booting time (should apply to reboot also) strongly depends on the
speed of your HD. An IDE harddisk with PIO-mode 4 delivers a good
perfomance and so does a SCSI HD (must be of type: SCSI-2 / SCSI
fast-wide). Note that the controller on the motherboard must support
the type of HD.
/Ice
--
*************************************
I still believe this is only a dream
Lasse S. L. Buck
*************************************
Sandman
WIN95 BOOTS!I THINK ITS MOTHERFUCKING SAD THAT SOME PEOPLE DO CARE!
HAVE A NICE DAY.BYE FROM SANDMAN.
Sandman
>On 12 Jan 1996, Dr. Who wrote:
>
>> DOES EVERYBODY and their god damn monkey have to respond
>> to this old "Whoa, how fast win95 boots thread?"
>> Please edit your newsgroups headers
>> and take the soundcard newsgroups out before posting.
>>
>> Thank you! ARGHHHHHHHHH!
>
>
><--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>Thomas van Kuipers Email University: tjwh...@cs.ruu.nl *** TEAM OS/2 ***
>De Wadden 49 The Netherlands
>3524 AG Utrecht Tel: +31 30 884235 or 06-52634180 (always available)
><--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>I dont like this conversation at all!
bye from Sandman!
bob duncan
>>
>> jsk...@winternet.com (Jeff Kline) writes:
>> > gr...@metricanet.com (Greg Bassett) wrote:
>> >
>> > >falc...@starnetinc.com wrote:
>> >
>> > >>Windows 95 on my system requires 3 times as long to boot as 3.1
>> > >>pentium 100, 16 meg, L2 pb cache, pci bus
>> > >>Windows 95 really does suck........
>> > >Don't shut it down...
>> > >Greg
>> >
>> > Hay;
>> > I pulled it (Windows 95) off my system and as well off 7 other
>> > computers for clients and friends. That's 8 people that Gates wont be
>> > able to sell more software and soon, support to.
>> >
>> > Besides, every piece of software I have.... WORKS. Lots of them don't
>> > under 95. So screw that, I stay with what works.
>> >
>> >
>> Unfortunately, you won't be able to buy anything that works with anything BUT
>> Win95 in a little while and you'll have to go back. Congrats, Win95 will rule t
>> the world.
Of course Windows takes longer to boot, loading 32 bit drivers into memory;
that is, of course, if you haven't optimized it. Win 95 and 3.11 load at
approximately the same speed (less than 5 seconds) and my productivity with
win95 is GREATLY increased. The computer could take ten minutes to load and
I'd still be getting more work done in a few hours than with 3.11. Win95 is
much quicker once up and MUCH more stable. Stay away from hacked programs and
he ones already designated as incompatible and there should be no problems.
Plus, 95 can be tweaked to make it even faster (albeit less stable) if you
spend a minimal amount of time reading the manuals, resource kit and FAQs out
there.
As with DOS, most speed and software/hardware failures today can be directly
attributed to someone not allocating their system resources correctly (the
dreaded IRQs and DMAs). These problems are not difficult to learn how to fix;
I did it with only DOS 4.01's online manuals, and the info STILL isn't
outdated. I've been running Win95 exclusively since October (yes, even DOOM,
DESCENTa dn all of my other games without restarting to DOS mode) and I haven't
had any trouble.
If your problem isn't one that's already well-documented and addressed by
Microsoft, chances are the problem is your unwillingness to learn about it -
NOT Win95.
Thomas van Kuipers
Daniel Ho
>
> I'd really like to hear the true scoop from people who have use both os/2
> and 95 extensively.
Hmmm,
I think I can be of some help here.
I'm running Linux and OS/2 on my 486/66 and Win95 on my
P120. Soon to have OS/2 when I have the time.
On the whole, Win95 is quite ok. It is unstable when running some
tasks though. For example, just this weekend, I was running
Corel 3.0 Show(?) and after showling a few frames, the whole OS crashed.
_Not_ just the program.
OS/2 is great but there's very little sw for it.
I love OS/2's interfaces better than Win95.
Win95 does better gaming than OS/2.
OS/2 is a better programming environment than Win95 (but
linux rules for this. :) )
OS/2 has more shareware (I think). (But Linux has more
freeware! :) )
Win95 runs Windows 3.1 programs as well or better than OS/2.
(Although note the CorelShow 3.0 crash!)
OS/2 Multitasks 16 bit programs (that's all I have :( )
better (much better) than Win95. My 486-66 under OS/2 nultitasks
comparable to my Win95 on a P120!!!!!!!
Overall, Win95 does gaming better. :) :) :) Isn't that
the most important?
So, my conclusion:
UNIX/Linux for school, programming, research,
OS/2 for businesses, not bad for home,
Win95 ... great home entertainment system!!!!!!!! :)
Dan
"Watch for Microsoft Office to come out for the
SNES, Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation ..... " :)
--
_o Daniel Ho -- 2A Hon. Co-op Computer Science @ U of Waterloo
/< "There is nothing to fear but fear itself! ... and Algebra and Calc."
L WWW Homepage: http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/dho/
Address: d...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
Psychos 'R Us
some other flavours of Unix (HP-UX, BSD) as well as few OS's that I don't
know the right names for, I actually like OS/2 a lot! I didn't want to,
I tend to shy away from anything with an IBM label, but is a great OS.
Sorry. I love Unix also, but for the home user OS/2 is it. For the
record, it's my opinion that Windows and anything with an MS label
suck... a lot... And the Lantronix ETS16 crashes WAY too often.
Bob
Mike Collins
>
>My monkey is far to intelligent for that sort of rubbish.
>How about yours?
>
>Sammy
>
Colin D. Cashman
>In article <4d70nt$o...@canton.charm.net>, sa...@rufus.localnet.org says...
>>
>>My monkey is far to intelligent for that sort of rubbish.
>>How about yours?
>>
>>Sammy
<unzip> <*THUD!*>
Yeah? Well, mine's bigger.
--
"I'm standing in the middle of the desert | Colin D. Cashman
Waiting for my ship to come in |
But now no joker, no jack, no king | Computer Science Department
Can take this losing hand and make it win." | ccas...@cs.uml.edu
Corey Francis
sutoexec.bat or config.sys! It's is THE most unstable and slow OS I
have ever used, Win95 isn't even completely 32 bit because it has som e
16 bit code to make some of those old worthless programs run with it, in
my opinion, the best operating system : DOS.
Justin Moe
}> internet, Windows 95, NT, OS/2, or MAC are the only way to go.
}> Windows 95 and NT are the only ones with a LOT of software for it.
You can be serious. You can't really believe in this. The 'only way to go' for
Net access is UNIX, like Linux or Free BSD, not some GUI that has to have a
TCP/IP stack loaded into memory every time you want to login. A TCP/IP stack
that could crash at any time, BTW. (Can we say GPF, UAF, and all the misc
errors and crashes *any* Win apps can cause?) And don't say it doesn't happen.
I've had programs (simple little ones at that) crash, and when they do, they
write nasty little bits and bytes in memory, and it's brought down my entire
system. Progman, TCP/IP stack, screensaver, *everything*!
Only way to go indeed......
BTW, why was this thread in the soundcard newsgroups? I've deleted them, I
hope, but it was real interesting to see.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Justin Moe - jus...@ixc.ixc.net *****
***** All opinions and misspellings are mine, and mine alone. ****
PG: Define the Information Superhighway in your own words.
HL: The Information Superhighway is an annoying phrase that the public
and media have picked up to describe the Internet. It is overhyped and
overused. The Internet is very cool when people know how to use it.
The REAL Information Superhighway (the one Gore talks about) has not
been (and may never be) built yet.
CompuNotes interview of Hank Leukart, author of the DOOM FAQ.
CompuNotes, Issue #10, 5/21/95
Kevin
my MAC booted in a few seconds too!!!
Peter A. Stephens
>
> Nafana (naf...@peganet.com) wrote:
> : Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me as much as
> : the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
> : better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off each day?
>
> : Opinions?
>
> years of continuous usage it MAY take to wear a HDD out I'd think that
> wouldn't be a problem.. :) I've yet to see hard drives "wear out" on a
> 386 I had running for a few years.. I dunno if that's luck or not..
> though its hard drive has been making strange sounds lately.. usually
> kicking it corrects the problem.. ;)
Most modern hard drives have a MTBF (MEAN TIME BEFORE FAILURE) of 40,000 hours,
or about 4.6 years, based on normal DOS/Windows 3.1 usage. This will decrease with
Windows 95, but this last e-mail is probably correct. You'll probably sell it
before you wear it out and buy a new one.
Also, most newer systems and even the HD's themselves have power management
features to shut themselves down to a lower power mode which involves stopping
the HD platters from spinning.
--
Peter A. Stephens
past...@holli.com
PGP information ........... For the criminally paranoid ..............
Basic key
Peter Anthony Stephens <past...@holli.com>
Key fingerprint = 31 2A 17 B7 5B D4 82 85 62 20 AE 73 5C B2 32 12
High commercial key
Peter Anthony Stephens (hcg) <past...@holli.com>
Key fingerprint = 64 D0 2D AA 2F 44 DB 33 AF 8B 97 2A 90 A9 2B CA
Military grade key
Peter Anthony Stephens (mg) <past...@holli.com>
Key fingerprint = C8 EC CD C3 BC 67 E1 E5 D4 0C 78 95 84 6B 7D C8
Mark Hachman
>Nafana (naf...@peganet.com) wrote:
>: Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me as much as
>: the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
>: better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off each day?
>: Opinions?
> Seeing as how current hard drives will be obsolete in the 3 or so
>years of continuous usage it MAY take to wear a HDD out I'd think that
>wouldn't be a problem.. :) I've yet to see hard drives "wear out" on a
>386 I had running for a few years.. I dunno if that's luck or not..
>though its hard drive has been making strange sounds lately.. usually
>kicking it corrects the problem.. ;)
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------
> drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
> web page - http://ni.cba.csuohio.edu/~drsoran
New drives have at least a MINIMUM of a 100,000 mean time between
failure (MTBF). That works out to over 11 years of continous 24-hour
usage. And most rives are higher than that, witha 300K MTBF not that
unusual. Intel's design engineers will make your PC obsolete much,
much quicker, then your hard drive.
(Of course, that's if you're satisfied with a measly 1 GB drive in
four years when the "entry level" is approx. 5 or above... :) )
Technology marches on...
Mark
Peter Steiner
Peter Steiner
Robert Aksland
AGREE! I use Windows 95 only as a shell for running my cool
Windows-95 only programs! DOS programs and games is best ran
from DOS only! DOS RULES!
gu...@herts.ac.uk
damn fast as it is in my opinion!
StnchMiest
but frankly, anything running of a shell like win 3.1 and win95 sux cause
of performance loss. I make my dx4100 run a heck of a lot faster in dos
than a P90 in win95.
Andy
>(Tripp) wrote:
>=>On 10 Dec 1995 19:37:02 GMT, Jason Malone <jdma...@eos.ncsu.edu>
>=>wrote:
>=>>Joshua Fred Fortner <j...@atomic.usa.net> wrote:
>=>>
>=>>>I did post earlier about the 'chine that boots in five seconds,
>=>>>but i've recently upgraded to:
>=>>>
>=>>>-Sextuple Pentium PRO 200 MHz processors, one overclocked to 250, another
>=>>> overclocked to 300 MHz. Others operating normally.
>=>>>-15 Gig L2 cache, Pipeline Burst mode.
>=>>>-2 Terabytes Main Memory, Burst EDO mode.
>=>>>-432 18 Gig RAID-5 Seagate WIDE SCSI-3 Drives, each with a P-PRO-200 on
>board
>=>>>-64 Bit, 132 MHZ PCI bus, with Pentium PRO-150 for bus mastering
>=>>> (only with drivers, of course).
>=>>>-17x CD-ROM, with 2 Gig EDO RAM cache on board, .1 ms access, 17 CD changer
>=>>>-Wavetable sound card, with 128 Megs EDO-ROM, General MIDI, SB compliant.\
>=>>>-Dual Matrox Millinuem's for Windoze, each with 20 Gig's memory,
>=>>> and Pentium -120 MHz for MPEG (hardware); For DOS operation,
>=>>> Triple ARK-2000PVI chipsets with 20 Megs interleaved memory.
>=>>>-.20 dp Monitor, 50 viewable monitor.
>=>>>-Adaptec Wide SCSI-3 Optical Host adapter, with 128 Gig Burst EDO on
>=>>>board for cache (disk drives).
>=>>>--OH! And of course, for OS, CP/M version 1.0 :-)..........
>=>>>
>=>>>That should fit the bill, fairly decent performance....i'd recommend
>=>>>it to anybody.
>=>>
>=>>One question, How does it run Descent?
>=>>
>Another question... how long to format a floppy ?
Yet another: what does this have to do with Doom, Descent or Warcraft?
Vladimir Petersen
> >Another question... how long to format a floppy ?
> Yet another: what does this have to do with Doom, Descent or Warcraft?
Yes, I've got a similar system, but I have more memory, recently
upgraded to 4 terabytes and double pipeline Super-burst mode. It
takes 6ns to format 12 floppies and Doom is so fast that it normally
takes me 10-12 seconds to pass all the levels and win with 100% kill.
Well, you're asking what it has to do with DOOM? When the monsters
see me, they run away or commit suicide! :)
Vlad Petersen (vl...@deepcove.com)
Gerry Conway
>Bull shit, Win95 couldn't boot in 3 seconds if you had nothing in your
>sutoexec.bat or config.sys! It's is THE most unstable and slow OS I
>have ever used, Win95 isn't even completely 32 bit because it has som e
>16 bit code to make some of those old worthless programs run with it, in
>my opinion, the best operating system : DOS.
Uh, excuse me, but DOS is a 16 bit system...
Cool][ce
wrote:
>Arthur Hoornweg <art...@geology.aball.de> wrote:
>
>
>>> > Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me as
>>> >much
>>> >as
>>> >the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
>>> >better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off each
>>> day?
>>> >
>>> > Opinions?
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Well it if takes 22 hours 36 minutes to boot and load Win95 what the heck
>>> you may as well leave it on...
>>> J Blessing L1 Master Tech
>
>
>
>
>
>>The reason why win95 takes ages to boot is that the new disk cache is
>>built-in, i.e. it is not yet active while booting windows itself.
>
>>You can overcome this by loading a "modest" 256-512 kb smartdrive before
>>Windows 95. Once windows is running, it de-activates smartdrive.
>
>I read that the pentium pro (150MHz) kan boot up Windows 95 in 15
>seconds. The days when I could invest in my computer have long gone. I
>simply turn on and go and make coffee. I like still like this OS
>though.
>
>
>
>Chris
>
What kind of computer does he have?
Cool][ce
Roger Shannon
cfo...@xs4all.nl (Chris Foster) wrote:
ÛArthur Hoornweg <art...@geology.aball.de> wrote:
Û
Û
Û>> > Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me
as
Û>> >much
Û>> >as
Û>> >the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question-
is it
Û>> >better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off
each
Û>> day?
Û>> >
Û>> > Opinions?
Û>> >
Û>>
Û>> --
Û>> Well it if takes 22 hours 36 minutes to boot and load Win95 what the
heck
Û>> you may as well leave it on...
Û>> J Blessing L1 Master Tech
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û>The reason why win95 takes ages to boot is that the new disk cache is
Û>built-in, i.e. it is not yet active while booting windows itself.
Û
Û>You can overcome this by loading a "modest" 256-512 kb smartdrive
before
Û>Windows 95. Once windows is running, it de-activates smartdrive.
Û
Û
I don't think win95 deactivates smartdrive. I've seen smartdrive
occuping memory when loaded before, and windows was slowed down because
of it. There is the smartdrive command line params tho smartdrv (cache
size while in DOS) (cache size while running windows) ex. smartdrv 1024
256
,,_ _,
Erector @B\______MB2
Box ,###"""""9##@ University of Houston
M" lD ,@" B College of Technology
gM lD gM B
P#Bfgg##gd#Bf B
@#M""Y@""##" B Student of Information Systems Technology
]D 1@, lD JB_
]D ##[_J@__a#@\ Roger Shannon
]D ##@"Y@"""##@ ras5...@bayou.uh.edu
]D ,M lD ,@ (Stay tuned for WEB page coming soon!)
dW@" &WN"
P]#@Qgggggd#Bf
@#M""""""##C
Tibor Bereznai
>
>Arthur Hoornweg <art...@geology.aball.de> wrote:
>
>
>>> > Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me as
>>> >as
>>> >the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
>>> >
>>> > Opinions?
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Well it if takes 22 hours 36 minutes to boot and load Win95 what the heck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>seconds. The days when I could invest in my computer have long gone. I
>simply turn on and go and make coffee. I like still like this OS
>though.
>
>
>
>Chris
>
I had minor problems only, I am using it with Novell NDS, and booting
takes about 20 seconds on a DX4. Nota bene: I am not only word processing
but photo image processing as well. These are not the most problem free
applications, but I have no problems (except Corel). I think WIN 95 is
a good OS, you only have to run it on a high tech PC, `cause multitasking
needs accurate hardware. Wanna know what do I use ?
10231...@compuserve.com
Thought I'd put my $.02 in....
Actually, the real reason for the longer boot period has nothing
whatsoever to do with a disk cache. Win95 takes longer to boot thanks
to PnP (Plug-and-Play). Each time your machine boots up, even a
non-PnP machine, there are 4 PnP components that go through
initialization. This initialization can take some time depending on
the type of processor you have (est. about 1 to 1-1/2 minutes on a
typical 486-66).
There's a couple tweaks you can do to the Registry to make Win95 boot
faster, but these only buy you a few seconds at best.
As far as turning the machine off during the day and turning it back
on, it really depends on the interval at which you are doing so. The
problem here is simply heating and cooling the machine. When metal is
heated (e.g., the metal portion of a PCs circuit boards and other
parts), it expands. When cooled, it contracts. If your PC is
continually undergoing tempterature changes during the day, parts of
the circuit board can become loose and break if heated, then cooled,
then heated, then cooled, etc. IMHO, if you're going to be leaving
your PC for about an hour, leave it on. Anything more and you might
want to consider shutting it down. For example, if you get online in
the morning to do something, and then don't plan on using your machine
again until later that afternoon or that evening, then I would shut it
down.
Hope this helps.
Virtually,
Scott S.
10231...@compuserve.com
Chris Foster
Eugen Woiwod
>>The reason why win95 takes ages to boot is that the new disk cache is
>>built-in, i.e. it is not yet active while booting windows itself.
>>You can overcome this by loading a "modest" 256-512 kb smartdrive before
>>Windows 95. Once windows is running, it de-activates smartdrive.
I still dont know if it's worth even using WIN95 on my 386-40, when WIN3.1 is
currently doing just fine :-) But that Smartdrive tip sound's like it just
might work on my friend's system, who always complains about how long it takes
WIN95 to boot up.
Ttul
GBokelberg
Resume;" which stores an already booted Win '95 on the hard drive when the
computer is turned off. On my Pentium 100, Win '95 is up and ready to go
in about 2 seconds!
Rob J. Nauta
>I DONT HAVE A MONKEY AND I DONT CARE HOW GOD DAMN FAST
>WIN95 BOOTS!I THINK ITS MOTHERFUCKING SAD THAT SOME PEOPLE DO CARE!
>HAVE A NICE DAY.BYE FROM SANDMAN.
So, what do you use, and how fast does that boot ? I am sure you use a
mac, which can take up to 5 mins, if you load the system folder with inits...
--
-=*=- | Across 50 states of mind, I didn't feel inclined. You waited
Rob J. Nauta | yesterday, I didn't come your way. Now time is moving on,
r...@iaehv.nl | I know it won't be long. Till I'm shuffling away, with
-=*=- | nothing more to say. (Ride - 'Going blank again')
Brad Kohn, Jr.
>bit. Lemme ask you - what did you have to do to set up your internet
>connection? Took me about 10 minutes. How do you intend to run
>everything coming out in the next year?
>
>And while it's not 3 seconds, my P133 with 32 megs does cut down on
>the wait more than just a little...
>
Don't forget you can also boot Windows95 into a non-GUI (command line)
mode which cuts down bootup times considerably. Then, if you wish to
enter the GUI, you can just type WIN to launch it... it's what I do for
games on my personal PC.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Beau Schwabe
>>
>>
>>>> > Its not the extra time it takes for Win95 to boot that bothers me as
>>>> >much
>>>> >as
>>>> >the additional wear & tear on the HD. It raises that old question- is it
>>>> >better to leave a computer on 24-hrs/day then turn it on and off each
>>>> day?
>>>> >
>>>> > Opinions?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Well it if takes 22 hours 36 minutes to boot and load Win95 what the heck
>>>> you may as well leave it on...
>>>> J Blessing L1 Master Tech
>>I read that the pentium pro (150MHz) kan boot up Windows 95 in 15
>>seconds. The days when I could invest in my computer have long gone. I
>>simply turn on and go and make coffee. I like still like this OS
>>though.
I have a 486DX (100Mhz) that takes about 30 sec.
>
> What kind of computer does he have?
>
>Cool][ce
>
Sounds like it's time for some MAJOR defrag!
I had an OLD 286 that took 4 Days to Defrag... This guy might have to go ICE
fishing for a few weeks.
Beau Schwabe
bsch...@ionet.net
br...@gulfpak.com
Brian Sochr
What kind of computer are you using?