Build 1702
ya...@ican.net
CW Möller
No.1 --
DO NOT INSTALL OVER WIN95 !!! BIG NONO
No.2 --
You dont need FAT32 ... but it sure helps. Get Partition Magic 3 or above,
and painlessly upgrade to FAT32.
No.3 --
Win98 is MUCH more stable... In 95 I got about 10 crashes a week ... now I
get 2 in a bad week. And it's SHITLOADS faster on my machine...
CW Möller
boh...@earthling.net
ya...@ican.net wrote in message <6dtuqd$sse$1...@news1.tor.acc.ca>...
Allen
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:04:32 +0200, "CW Mцller" <boh...@earthling.net>
wrote:
>No.1 --
>DO NOT INSTALL OVER WIN95 !!! BIG NONO
I have installed several builds over Win95 with no problems.
>No.2 --
>You dont need FAT32 ... but it sure helps. Get Partition Magic 3 or above,
>and painlessly upgrade to FAT32.
You do not need Partition Magic you can convert to Fat32 with Win98
>No.3 --
>Win98 is MUCH more stable... In 95 I got about 10 crashes a week ... now I
>get 2 in a bad week. And it's SHITLOADS faster on my machine...
I didn't get crashes before and still don't with build 1702, but I
have to agree that it is faster.
Allen
>CW MЖller
0doubt
>No.1 --
>DO NOT INSTALL OVER WIN95 !!! BIG NONO
Have had NO problems here. Neither have many people in the win98.prerelease
newsgroup on MS's server. It *CAN* be done, and it is NOT a "big nono".
However, it can prevent alot of problems.
>No.2 --
>You dont need FAT32 ... but it sure helps. Get Partition Magic 3 or above,
>and painlessly upgrade to FAT32.
Amen brother. Preach on!
>No.3 --
>Win98 is MUCH more stable... In 95 I got about 10 crashes a week ... now I
>get 2 in a bad week. And it's SHITLOADS faster on my machine...
Stability is a bad term to use when judging a software for less than a
month. win95/osr2 have both been tested for OVER a year, whereas even 1681
has only been out (I may be SLIGHTLY off) a total of 2 months. I hear this
line ALL the time. "Well I used to crash all the time and now I don't.". I
tell you what, there must be some STRANGE hardware and STRANGE running
conditions out there initially, because it seems like EVERYONE had "crashes
all the time" with 95, and then when they got osr2, boom, "they stopped.
Which means it's stable.". Now the proud majority that didnt up to OSR2 are
now saying the same thing. I think with every computer the first OS you
try/use for a signifigant amount of time WILL crash, as you learn slowly
what you CANNOT do.
All that having been said, I had a decent number of crashes on 95. figure
about oh, once a day. In OSR2, maybe once a week. In Win98, I have yet to
have a single crash that was due to win98. I keep getting SYMevent errors,
but I tracked that nasty boy down and SQUASHED it.
Stability has NOT been proven conclusively. However, preliminary indications
ARE GOOD.
0doubt
>
>CW Möller
bug mouse
Soom pretty good stuff in this post except.....
W98 stability, pretty OK until you get to within 100Mo of the full disk/big
register, then it goes completely crazy.
I guess all the people out there have small registers, because they haven`t
had the time and need to do more.
Believe you me, when it gets big, it goes down blue screening all the
time...miles less stable than OSR2, and slower too.
The main cause, always the damn active desktop.
My solution, dual boot with NT4.0 which is claimed impossible by MS because
of the new DOS. I did it, and used a NT defrag tool. This showed up the
"perfect" defrag from 98, as wildly fragmented.....I tried with this tool,
and hey presto no more crashes.
Lesson: 1/ Never believe what MS tell you.......2/ Never believe what W98
tells you.
0doubt <0do...@fdt.net> wrote in message <6e61lg$k...@obi-wan.fdt.net>...
8-ft-7
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:10:49 +0100, bug mouse at tho...@rmcnet.fr wrote:
> Soom pretty good stuff in this post except.....
>
>
> than OSR2, and slower too.
> The main cause, always the damn active desktop.
> My solution, dual boot with NT4.0 which is claimed impossible by MS because
> of the new DOS. I did it, and used a NT defrag tool. This showed up the
> "perfect" defrag from 98, as wildly fragmented.....I tried with this tool,
Where did you read/see/hear this claim? I don't remember this. You may
be referring to the incompatibilities of FAT32 with NT. If you keep
FAT16 on the disk where you store both Memphis and NT, then you won't
have a problem with dual-booting NT. The only new DOS in Memphis is the
gradient in the title bar of the DOS box, really. It's "DOS 7.1"
according to a tech.
The "perfect defrag from 98" you refer to is simply Microsoft's efficent
algorithm on locating the most used programs/applications on your hard
drive on the outer cylinders of the disk platter for faster head access.
Without a defrag program being coded to read the pattern of
fragmentation, it will show it as extremely in need of optimization.
This is precisely why Symantec issued a patch for Norton Utilities.
--
8'7" (eight...@aol.com)