windows media player problem
Michael Weaver
for.
However when I try and play the station using Windows Media player I get a
low memory message on my laptop yet my laptop has 3 gig and have even tried
temporarily removing Windoweyes with still no response or the same problem.
I am wondering if this error message is affecting other media player choices
and sometimes when I try to choose a different player such as Winamp, it
won't let me choose it when opening with a player other than Quicktime or
Itunes or something.
How do I sort out this memory problem if this is a problem?
Mike Russell
> when I try and play the station using Windows Media player I get a
> low memory message on my laptop
See if your swap drive has several gigs of free space. This is probably
your C drive. If not, move some files to a different drive, or reconfigure
your system to swap on a drive with more space available.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
John Doe
If you are using Windows 98 or anything before Windows XP, you need
to upgrade to Windows XP or higher. I realize that might not be
practical, but memory management in consumer versions of Windows
prior to Windows XP was horrible.
Brian Gaff
really memory problem though, as most even 192kbit/s stuff will play on a
machine with less than half a gig of memory on XP.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Michael Weaver" <michael...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:0M-dnVFZwI-JegPX...@bt.com...
Brian Gaff
stopping this problem in 98, or did for me at least.
I think check the swap file room and then think about maybe doing a system
file check as most of the problems I've had seem to stem from corrupted
files.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:00d79899$0$9325$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
John Doe
There is no "maybe" about it, Brian, the problem is very well
known. Windows 98 (pre-Windows XP consumer versions of Windows,
including Millennium) memory management sucked.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
You are entitled to your opinion. However, many people used - and a
sizeable number are still using -'98 (especially "Lited"), even for
multimedia app.s. (My old laptop with 128M of RAM has no problem with
audio app.s, though video is hardly usable on it.)
From the description, I suspect the OP's problem isn't this, anyway.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"It's an old Hollywood saying. Never get caught with a dead woman. Or a live
boy" - Chief Grissom [William Petersen] in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
John Doe
I know what I am talking about here, Johnny.
Relative to Windows XP and higher, Windows 98 memory management
sucks. That is an well-known fact among personal computer experts.
Many current applications will not even run on Windows 98. Yes
there are some holdouts, especially in the Third World, but I
would not wish Windows 98 on my worst enemy. Even trying to
troubleshoot a computer running Windows 98 is a major hassle,
since you are faced with the problem at hand and the additional
problem of Windows 98 system instability. Unless an upgrade is
very problematic, anyone who has difficulty using a computer would
be very well advised to upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows XP or
higher. It will not only smooth out some of their problems, it
will help relieve strain from anyone who helps them troubleshoot
difficult problems.
Brian Gaff
there is ms dos underneath it. This can be very handy at times. I suspect a
lot of the memory leaks are due to this dependence though as Dos was never
designed to be used this way.
Basically, Win 98 is a very fast switching shell application which does not
always keep all of its bits singing from the same songsheet, so to speak!
Unfortunately, Millenium edition was much much wrse in this respect.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:00668e7f$0$13093$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
John Doe
programs share the same memory space. Buggy programs cause system
freezes, forcing a restart. Windows XP is the first consumer
version of Windows that gracefully handles frozen
applications/programs. All you have to do is shut down the
program.
The only reason you might want to continue suffering with Windows
98 is if you cannot upgrade to at least 512 MB of RAM, or maybe if
you have no techie friend who can help preserve your stuff when
doing the clean install upgrade. Then you are in a very bad
situation. One other exception is if you are the only user, do not
install new programs, and your Windows 98 system limps along
reasonably well.
Windows XP also allows using a DOS prompt. And you can run
programs in any compatibility mode you want.
--
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> writes:
[]
>The only reason you might want to continue suffering with Windows
>98 is if you cannot upgrade to at least 512 MB of RAM, or maybe if
>you have no techie friend who can help preserve your stuff when
>doing the clean install upgrade. Then you are in a very bad
>situation. One other exception is if you are the only user, do not
>install new programs, and your Windows 98 system limps along
>reasonably well.
. I am a sighted person, but I have used 98lite - which is 98 with the
95 shell, which is simpler and quicker - for many years; the systems on
which I have run it are fairly stable, and do more than "limp along".
One of them has 128M of RAM, and is fine with it. The only reason I
switched to XP for this netbook is that new software and hardware
started to stop supporting '98. ..
>
>Windows XP also allows using a DOS prompt. And you can run
>programs in any compatibility mode you want.
>
. Yes, it has a pretend DOS prompt. But a new XP system will have been
supplied using NTFS rather than FAT32, so cannot be booted into DOS,
since DOS can't read NTFS discs. This is a problem if you break XP to
the extent that it won't boot.
>
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter. -e.e. cummings, poet
(1894-1962)
John Doe
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> writes:
>> The only reason you might want to continue suffering with
>> Windows 98 is if you cannot upgrade to at least 512 MB of RAM,
>> or maybe if you have no techie friend who can help preserve
>> your stuff when doing the clean install upgrade. Then you are
>> in a very bad situation. One other exception is if you are the
>> only user, do not install new programs, and your Windows 98
>> system limps along reasonably well.
>
> I am a sighted person,
You are pushing a personal agenda based on inexperience, Johnny.
> but I have used 98lite
I used several versions of that utility, and paid for it too.
> which is 98 with the 95 shell,
As I recall, that is just one option, Johnny.
> which is simpler and quicker
You are making a false generalization, Johnny, based on your
meager hardware.
> for many years; the systems on which I have run it are fairly
> stable, and do more than "limp along".
I am trying to encourage others to upgrade if they have the
chance, because there is a remarkable difference between Windows
98 and Windows XP. For the average user, even the cheapest new
name brand PC with Windows XP would be a big improvement over
almost any system running Windows 98.
> One of them has 128M of RAM, and is fine with it. The only
> reason I switched to XP for this netbook is that new software
> and hardware started to stop supporting '98.
I have used practically every version of Windows, Johnny. I have
been using Windows XP for years.
>> Windows XP also allows using a DOS prompt. And you can run
>> programs in any compatibility mode you want.
>>
> Yes, it has a pretend DOS prompt.
Please elaborate, Johnny.
> But a new XP system will have been supplied using NTFS rather
> than FAT32, so cannot be booted into DOS, since DOS can't read
> NTFS discs. This is a problem if you break XP to the extent that
> it won't boot.
Yes, I remember the days of breaking prior versions of Windows to
the point of not being able to get in. After Windows 95, not being
able to innitiate a restart or shut down properly was more likely
to be the annoyance of the day. Again... The main point is that
(given at least 512 MB of RAM and a 1 GHz CPU) Windows XP runs
smoothly and is very stable. It is much easier to use because of
its greatly improved stability. Being much more stable means that
a user is less likely to break it, and stability is very
important.
--
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
> outdated thoughts on PCs. **
>
> The most wasted of all days is one without laughter. -e.e. cummings, poet
> (1894-1962)
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:23:36 -0500
> Message-ID: <0KEMEpBwP36KFwU7 soft255.demon.co.uk>
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:17:04 +0000
> From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG soft255.demon.co.uk>
> Reply-To: G6JPG soft255.demon.co.uk
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.blind-users
> Subject: Re: windows media player problem
> References: <0M-dnVFZwI-JegPXnZ2dnUVZ8i6dnZ2d bt.com> <00d79899$0$9325$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <xiLnm.75005$OO7.61806 text.news.virginmedia.com> <00d80976$0$1399$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <CtRr0FO4J0rKFwoM soft255.demon.co.uk> <00668e7f$0$13093$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <9gBGm.3188$5w5.2258 text.news.virginmedia.com> <00672a95$0$13092$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Organization: 255 software
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
> User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<jooDLQkL8kSWRCEgddWACgUML1>)
> Lines: 36
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-hfMh41rAzJVGboa3JG8nRT9kJGwWhuknqYQgxbCBYPvfF1fIxF8o0HBccJDivC56MSz275W4GjeJilk!G8vUmQS3ApldQ39DDGRiube4+Yn8HOPaSLS1kOSZJpmJ3D8xbWPVKduCvAlkp1kWt9sQVQ3nlzcn!SXZHLR4=
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
>
Brian Gaff
to the hardware as dos did. In them old days you could really get low level
with disc utilities, but not any more so alien discs from days gone by etc,
cannot be read. This is why programs like Norton Ghost have to come out of
Windows to do clever stuff.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:00672a95$0$13092$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> writes:
>
>>> The only reason you might want to continue suffering with
>>> Windows 98 is if you cannot upgrade to at least 512 MB of RAM,
>>> or maybe if you have no techie friend who can help preserve
>>> your stuff when doing the clean install upgrade. Then you are
>>> in a very bad situation. One other exception is if you are the
>>> only user, do not install new programs, and your Windows 98
>>> system limps along reasonably well.
>>
>> I am a sighted person,
>
>You are pushing a personal agenda based on inexperience, Johnny.
. Johnny, I have no personal agenda; I don't care what people use. If
someone asked me for advice on what to use nowadays, if they had not
used computers before at all, I'm not sure what I'd advise them: I'd
probably slightly incline towards Windows rather than Linux, purely on
the basis of it still being slightly easier to find support rather than
on any actual advantage one has over the other. As for which version of
Windows, I'd almost certainly advise them not to go for '98, because so
much hardware works better (or at all) under XP and later, and a lot of
software - even freeware - is dropping support for it too. However, for
the completely new user, there is probably much advantage in going for
the latest version of Windows, simply because its way of working will be
in existence for longest; I like XP (and dislike Vista) because it is
outwardly like what I'm used to, but I think a new user should ideally
be introduced to the newest way. Probably Windows 7; I haven't had the
opportunity to play with that yet. ..
>
>> but I have used 98lite
>
>I used several versions of that utility, and paid for it too.
>
>> which is 98 with the 95 shell,
>
>As I recall, that is just one option, Johnny.
. It is indeed. However, the purpose of 98lite is to remove unnecessary
parts of 98 while still giving you the improvement and greater
robustness that 98 gave you over 95. Having the '95 shell is the most
extreme case of that. ..
>
>> which is simpler and quicker
>
>You are making a false generalization, Johnny, based on your
>meager hardware.
Johnny, that is no generalisation, and the hardware is irrelevant (I
have also used it on a more powerful desktop system). The 95 shell is
both simpler and quicker than the 98 one, whatever the hardware; you may
notice the speed aspect less on more powerful hardware, but the
simplicity is still there. I fear I didn't find things like
graduated-colour title bars, or the option to have my desktop act like a
web page, as essential as the designers might have. ..
>
>> for many years; the systems on which I have run it are fairly
>> stable, and do more than "limp along".
>
>I am trying to encourage others to upgrade if they have the
>chance, because there is a remarkable difference between Windows
>98 and Windows XP. For the average user, even the cheapest new
. I would say it depends very much on what you actually do with the PC.
For word processing, music, and text-based email and news, there is very
little difference, certainly not a remarkable one; even for playing DVDs
(provided the hardware is up to it) and a lot of websurfing. Where '98
(with whichever shell) is beginning to show its age is with some of the
latest video files and some things that some web designers are beginning
to put on their pages (though I generally find such pages less usable
whatever OS I'm using). But for _existing_ users, especially in the
visually-impaired arena, the need to upgrade is less obvious. Having
said that, I suspect most of the screenreader houses have stopped
supporting '98 too, so there will be improvements in the screenreaders
too if you switch to XP or later - not because of any intrinsic
disadvantage to '98, just that new features won't be added. It is the
user's decision whether those new features are worth the hassle of
changing, to them. And see the next bit. ..
>name brand PC with Windows XP would be a big improvement over
>almost any system running Windows 98.
. As I said, whether the improvement is big or not depends on what you
use the computer for. However, I'd certainly not try to persuade anyone
buying a new computer to try to run '98 on it! In this country (UK), you
can't buy new computers with XP on anyway, only Vista, and now 7 - with
the exception of netbooks. I bought this netbook because I specifically
wanted XP ..
[]
>I have used practically every version of Windows, Johnny. I have
>been using Windows XP for years.
. So have I, Johnny: I've been using computers since before DOS, having
built my first - a Tangerine, which originally had 1K, then 8K, of RAM -
with a soldering iron from the component level up. As for XP, I use it
at work, and have for some years, so it's not that I'm unfamiliar with
it. ..
>
>>> Windows XP also allows using a DOS prompt. And you can run
>>> programs in any compatibility mode you want.
>>>
>> Yes, it has a pretend DOS prompt.
>
>Please elaborate, Johnny.
. Johnny, what I mean is that it provides an emulation of DOS, in a
window (though it can also run full screen). For most simple DOS prog.s,
this is more than adequate. ..
>
>> But a new XP system will have been supplied using NTFS rather
>> than FAT32, so cannot be booted into DOS, since DOS can't read
>> NTFS discs. This is a problem if you break XP to the extent that
>> it won't boot.
>
>Yes, I remember the days of breaking prior versions of Windows to
>the point of not being able to get in. After Windows 95, not being
. XP systems can be broken to the point of refusing to boot too. ..
>able to innitiate a restart or shut down properly was more likely
>to be the annoyance of the day. Again... The main point is that
. As the Americans say, YMMV; I find my '98-lite-with-95-shell systems
pretty stable. I don't keep trying to do new things with them, but for
the things I use them for, they're fine. The point about DOS is that,
having used the utility that came with 95 called ERD (I'm not sure if it
is on the '98 CD, but it works fine with '98, and I'm told with Me too)
to make a backup of the system files, if I did manage to get those
systems into a condition where Windows would not boot, I could boot them
into DOS - even going from a boot floppy if necessary, though I don't
think I've ever had to - and restore them to life from one of those
backups. You can't boot an XP system into DOS, at least not one that has
an NTFS disc system, which almost any system that had XP from new will
have. (You can boot such a system into DOS from a floppy, assuming it
has a floppy drive, but it won't then be able to see the hard drive, so
you can't fix it.) I know XP has the Recovery Console, but this is much
harder to use - and in the extreme needs to be loaded from the XP CD,
which the vast majority of PCs don't come with. (Same for Vista and
later.) ..
>(given at least 512 MB of RAM and a 1 GHz CPU) Windows XP runs
>smoothly and is very stable. It is much easier to use because of
. Well, my old '98 system runs smoothly and is stable. ..
>its greatly improved stability. Being much more stable means that
. Actually, stability of itself isn't related to ease of use: you can
have a system that is very easy to use and rather unstable, or a system
that is steady as a rock but is a pig to use. ..
>a user is less likely to break it, and stability is very
>important.
>
. Well, ease of fixing must also be taken into account! ..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
. (Did you know, Johnny, that your posts had all those blank lines at
the end?) ..
. I repeat: if I was advising someone new to computers, I'd not point
them at '98. At the moment, I'd advise them to wait a month or two to
see how Windows 7 settles down, and then go for either 7 - if it seems
stable - or Vista, possibly taking price into consideration too: I
haven't found how the two compare yet. Possibly, if it's anything like
what happened with Vista, 7 will rapidly dominate anyway. If it was
someone who wanted much support from me, I'd recommend they go for XP,
simply because I don't know enough about Vista to be able to help that
much - though I have provided help to Vista users. Also, I'd ask them do
they need a new computer; a second-hand XP system can be extremely
cheap, in fact I've seen them given away. (I might do a reinstall for
them though - certainly a thorough cleanup.) If it had to be a new
computer, the only such with XP on them here are netbooks (and a few
netbooks-in-bigger-cases).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
chris mcmillan
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> writes
>
And jump over Vista and head for Windows 7 (again according to RNIB's NB
magazine review).
Sincerely Chris
--
Chris McMillan
sig line taking a holiday
chris mcmillan
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> writes
>The huge problem with Windows 98 is that it does in fact make
>programs share the same memory space. Buggy programs cause system
>freezes, forcing a restart. Windows XP is the first consumer
>version of Windows that gracefully handles frozen
>applications/programs. All you have to do is shut down the
>program.
>
Lunar, but to a lesser degree with Adobe. The only escape is the
emergency turn off at the button on the hard drive!
Why Adobe dislikes my machine so much (and I've up-graded to the latest
now) is a world's mystery.
John Doe
with Microsoft's recent innovations. Apparently disk management gets
even worse when you use an SSD (Solid-State Disk) drive. But that
might also be the utility makers fault.
John Doe
> Well, I've always had a problem with freezing apps -
> particularly my Lunar, but to a lesser degree with Adobe. The
> only escape is the emergency turn off at the button on the hard
> drive!
Are you using Windows 98? Every time Microsoft came out with a new
operating system, I looked forward to shutting down problem
applications without messing up the entire system. At first, it
always appeared hopeful, but eventually it failed. After years of
torture testing, Windows XP has proved that it can in fact shut
down applications that are frozen, without messing up the whole
system.
And then there is the one when you just cannot restart or turn off
the computer because some application in the background is messed
up. Those were the days.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>chris mcmillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I've always had a problem with freezing apps -
>> particularly my Lunar, but to a lesser degree with Adobe. The
. You're not alone with Adobe; it often freezes on me, usually when
viewing a .pdf page from a remote site. (This is usually OK, but when it
does crash, it is usually when viewing such a file.) Normally I use
Foxit to view .pdf files, but for some reason Adobe still seems to come
in when viewing remote ones, or some remote ones. And I'm talking a
well-controlled machine at work, here. ..
>> only escape is the emergency turn off at the button on the hard
>> drive!
. You probably know this anyway Chris, but in case you don't - the box
with the power switch on is the main part of the computer, containing
not only the hard drive, but the motherboard, processor, memory,
graphics card, CD/DVD drive, and so on. ..
>
>Are you using Windows 98? Every time Microsoft came out with a new
>operating system, I looked forward to shutting down problem
>applications without messing up the entire system. At first, it
>always appeared hopeful, but eventually it failed. After years of
>torture testing, Windows XP has proved that it can in fact shut
>down applications that are frozen, without messing up the whole
>system.
. It is certainly better, and maybe in theory can always do so; however,
very occasionally, I find a misbehaving application is making the whole
thing run so slowly that I give up waiting for the Task Manager box to
show up. ..
>
>And then there is the one when you just cannot restart or turn off
>the computer because some application in the background is messed
>up. Those were the days.
. Still around in practice, though rarer.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I'm a self-made man, but I think if I had to do it over again, I'd call in
someone else." - Roland Young
John Doe
crappy hardware, the difference in stability between Windows XP
and prior consumer versions is like night and day. The well
understood technical reason has to do with memory management. Even
though you do not have experience with Windows XP, anyone who can
do a bit of research should know.
Here is an example search:
http://tinyurl.com/yhb3fj2
Pay close attention to this result, Johnny.
"I think he's wacko for liking 95 better than XP"
--
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-02.inet.qwest.net!216.196.98.141.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:00:20 -0500
> Message-ID: <BgZheuFB7M7KFwoq soft255.demon.co.uk>
> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:56:49 +0000
> From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG soft255.demon.co.uk>
> Reply-To: G6JPG soft255.demon.co.uk
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.blind-users
> Subject: Re: windows media player problem
> References: <0M-dnVFZwI-JegPXnZ2dnUVZ8i6dnZ2d bt.com> <00d79899$0$9325$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <xiLnm.75005$OO7.61806 text.news.virginmedia.com> <00d80976$0$1399$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <CtRr0FO4J0rKFwoM soft255.demon.co.uk> <00668e7f$0$13093$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <9gBGm.3188$5w5.2258 text.news.virginmedia.com> <00672a95$0$13092$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <lyz7IWKjLK7KFwM$ chris.mcmillan> <005e02ed$0$8204$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Organization: 255 software
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
> User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<vQuDLw3n8kSnzBEgGReACQ0XYY>)
> Lines: 47
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-wzL4PlsohsCvwVkrBuTh9hyxYcOiiB+UdIA68f6K+r+FlbXy02sGb5SB7fVoq7F8/DPoWMYnJrma1a9!9Elx5p5kG/316U2+na9cWb79qMDyCXWNRaqSBGKTSgcW3BoUr+0X6ReblYqFYcXYzzfNc4RJq9Sk!LbEubtk=
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> Bytes: 3750
> X-Original-Bytes: 3686
>
> In message <005e02ed$0$8204$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>, John Doe
> <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> writes:
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>Once again, Johnny... For the average user who is not stuck with
>crappy hardware, the difference in stability between Windows XP
Johnny, the improvement in stability applies regardless of the hardware
(though some hardware will of course not run XP at all, and some will
run it so slowly as to be unusable - though still more securely, in
theory).
>and prior consumer versions is like night and day. The well
>understood technical reason has to do with memory management. Even
>though you do not have experience with Windows XP, anyone who can
>do a bit of research should know.
I do have plenty of experience with XP - I've been using it about 7
hours a (working) day for some years.
>
>Here is an example search:
>http://tinyurl.com/yhb3fj2
Don't post links to Google searches! I note that in this case, you'd
used a search line of
Windows XP memory management "better than" 95
which sort of preloads the hits, or would if you knew what quotes do to
Google. As it happened, the first hit - yes, I did have a brief look -
is to an article "Windows XP SP3 runs browsers 13% faster than Windows 7
RTM" (from 7 August 2009), which was interesting (they compared XP,
Vista, and 7 RTM).
>
>Pay close attention to this result, Johnny.
>"I think he's wacko for liking 95 better than XP"
>
I did happen to spot that one: it was way down in the comments section,
and was from someone indulging in a bit of back-and-forth arguing, with
not (apparently) much to say.
>
>
>
>
Anyway, I've never said '9x - particularly '95 - is better than XP; all
I am saying is that, for a non-demanding user (word processing, email,
and a bit of surfing), the difference in actual _user experience_ is
pretty minimal, and the upheaval of changing just for the sake of it is
hard to justify. I do not deny that XP is in many ways more secure, and
also more stable for the person who does things that might cause
crashes; for the person who doesn't, and shuts down every night, '98
(especially with the '95 shell, vi 98lite) is sufficiently stable that
they won't notice the difference. (I turn my old '98 systems on most
days, and one of them hasn't crashed for weeks if not months; the other
locks during closedown sometimes, but comes back fine next time.) It's
like having a car that can do 150: it is no doubt a more powerful car
than one that can only do 100, but for the driver that only ever does
50, its advantages are rarely seen. (And changing OS is a lot more of a
fiddle on than changing cars IMO.)
I've never said XP isn't _better_ than '9x (provided you've got the
hardware to run it effectively, which I think really means 1G, or at
least .5G, of RAM [and probably at least a 700MHz processor, though I
suspect the RAM is far more relevant]). I'm only saying that for some
users, if they're happy with what their system does and it doesn't crash
often, the hassle of changing isn't justifiable. Johnny.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
chris mcmillan
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> writes
>chris mcmillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I've always had a problem with freezing apps -
>> particularly my Lunar, but to a lesser degree with Adobe. The
>> only escape is the emergency turn off at the button on the hard
>> drive!
>
>Are you using Windows 98?
Good grief no. Windows XP Pro.