Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:53:15 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Aside from the fact it runs slower than XP on the same hardware

You're not supposed to put newer software on old equipment. Memory is cheap, just add some.

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB. It's the same speed in use. And in fact starts twice as fast.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural. Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

and less bugs.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

The true mark of a civilized society is when its citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:21:54 -0000, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:27:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.

You probably do. You just don't know it.

I use something and don't know about it? That is not possible.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"So it was the first fuckin' leave in six fuckin' months. I dropped off my fuckin' uniform at the fuckin' Y, went to a fuckin' bar, and picked up a fuckin' broad. I took her to a fuckin' hotel, laid her out on the fuckin' bed, and had sexual intercourse."

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:23:12 -0000, Tom Del Rosso <td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.ul2dpluv4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:20 -0000, Michael A. Terrell
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it, but
they are very, very stupid.

They are there for the benefit of others, not me. And until the number of complaints outweighs the number of compliments, they stay. At the moment the ratio is about 1 complaint : 5 compliments.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

 

[ian field]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49440F34.E28BAFA0@hotmail.com...

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it,
but
they are very, very stupid.

Really, I rather like them.

Graham

You do set yourself up for it don't you!

 

[flipper]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:53:15 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Aside from the fact it runs slower than XP on the same hardware

You're not supposed to put newer software on old equipment. Memory is cheap, just add some.

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB.

That's three times the memory, not twice.

It's the same speed in use.

Thank you for making my point, You used three times (vs twice) the
memory to get right back where you started.

And in fact starts twice as fast.

I guess throwing up a splash screen works for you but I judge load
times by when things become fully operational.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural.

You mean 'looks pretty'.

Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

That's a stupid question because there's nothing about a GUI that
'requires' transparent window borders.

and less bugs.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

Then you either don't know as 'many' people as you claim or they only
use the limited software set you do but compatibility problems with
Vista are legion and that's one reason, in addition to all the
hardware incompatibilities, why MS has their 'Vista Upgrade Advisor."

Things have gotten better as vendors struggle to patch and 'upgrade'
their products to work with Vista but that doesn't solve everyone's
problem, especially if they're on an older version where their only
choice might be to buy the latest release or do without.

And you do people a disservice by claiming they can upgrade and
'everything' except "perhaps the odd third party freebie utility" is
going to work just fine afterwards.

 

[Eeyore]

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it,
but they are very, very stupid.

Really, I rather like them.


You do set yourself up for it don't you!

They certainly amuse me. What am I supposedly being 'set up' for ?

Graham

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:494476AF.D26353A3@hotmail.com...

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned
it,
but they are very, very stupid.

Really, I rather like them.


You do set yourself up for it don't you!

They certainly amuse me. What am I supposedly being 'set up' for ?

Graham

I must admit, I found the 'ten steps to crapping like a man', particularly
amusing. I think I could identify with at least nine of them ... !

Arfa

 

[Chris F.]

I'm still using my Sony KV-35S45, it was one of the best CRT sets ever
made, and IMO it outperforms the vast majority of LCD and perhaps even
plasma sets on the market. It's size and weight, and the lack of HD, is a
downer for sure, but it's well worth it to have a TV that looks and performs
like a TV really should. Even if I could afford an HD set, the only one I'd
even consider would be a Pioneer Elite plasma.
LCD's may have the advantage when it comes to resolution, size, and
efficiency, but you just can't beat the rich, accurate color of a good CRT.
Everybody else might be racing to the nearest Wal-mart to pick up a cheap
LCD, but I'm sticking with the old, tried-and-true favorite.
"Albert Manfredi" <bert22306@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:319a2e1b-0fed-467d-96a0-f7d011a6cd67@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 10:51 am, Elephant <dr...@cox.net> wrote:

I bought a television "monitor" from JC Penney back in 1977. The darn
thing is still plugging along today. Picture quality is still great
and so is the sound. It was one of the first stereo tv's on the
market, so the seperation is a bit lacking, but other wise it's still a
fantastic set. It's one of those that has more inputs and output jacks
on the back than I know what to do with.

I don't plan on upgrading to digital until this gem takes it's last
breath.

Not to p*ss on anyone's parade or anything, but quite frankly, I can't
fathom how anyone can rave over analog CRT TVs anymore. Not when it's
so easy to go into stores and view either SDTV or HDTV over LCDs or
plasmas. It must take an enormous amount of mental rationalization to
rave over old sets, IMO.

After buying an LCD monitor and HDTV STB for our main setup, we bought
another STB for the upstairs setup. Used it with a very nice Sanyo CRT
we had owned for a number of years. But honestly, it was hard to enjoy
that anymore. Even fed from an HDTV STB, so the image was completely
free of any ghost, the image on the analog CRT was so "TV-like" as to
be uninvolving anymore. No definition, grainy, obvious shadow mask,
just unacceptable anymore.

So we moved the downstairs set upstairs, and bought a bigger one for
downstairs.

By the way, neither of the two LCDs we bought was adjusted even close
to correctly, straight out of the box. My recommendation is to start
by deactivating any of their auto picture adjustment gizmos, and go
from there. Ditto with the audio. Don't be discouraged when the
initial image looks totally underwhelming.

Bert

 

[ian field]

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news:ihq8k4d17ghd272dsknq875b9ug6ojtcp1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:53:15 -0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Aside from the fact it runs slower than XP on the same hardware

You're not supposed to put newer software on old equipment. Memory
is cheap, just add some.

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old
equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main
factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to
run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to
cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

PHucker will probably accuse you of doing exactly that at some point!

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific. What do you find it takes longer dto do? I have not yet found anything that is slower. I have found several operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I would expect it to be slower if anything.

and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB.

That's three times the memory, not twice.

Who said "twice"?

It's the same speed in use.

Thank you for making my point, You used three times (vs twice) the
memory to get right back where you started.

Why do you keep saying "twice"? And I'm not where I started, it's the same speed, but better.

And in fact starts twice as fast.

I guess throwing up a splash screen works for you but I judge load
times by when things become fully operational.

From pressing the power switch to the network logon prompt is considerably faster. From the network logon prompt to everything being loaded and at full speed is about the same.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural.

You mean 'looks pretty'.

Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

That's a stupid question because there's nothing about a GUI that
'requires' transparent window borders.

A GUI is there so you're not staring at a boring text screen. The nicer it looks the better.

and less bugs.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

Then you either don't know as 'many' people as you claim or they only
use the limited software set you do but compatibility problems with
Vista are legion and that's one reason, in addition to all the
hardware incompatibilities, why MS has their 'Vista Upgrade Advisor."

Things have gotten better as vendors struggle to patch and 'upgrade'
their products to work with Vista but that doesn't solve everyone's
problem, especially if they're on an older version where their only
choice might be to buy the latest release or do without.

List a few things that have compatibility problems then. For christ's sake I don't even have many problems with games, and they're usually the worst offender.

And you do people a disservice by claiming they can upgrade and
'everything' except "perhaps the odd third party freebie utility" is
going to work just fine afterwards.

Haven't had a complaint yet.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

;.
; `.
; :
:',:.`.
::;`:::
::' `::
:: ::
`: ::
'. .'
'.'
_`'_____
|'____| `'-.
|||||| ## ]
,||||||_____|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
'-----------'

 

[ian field]

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.ul5yzae34buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't
any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific. What do you find it takes longer dto do? I
have not yet found anything that is slower. I have found several
operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much
better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for
example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old
equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main
factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to
run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to
cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I
installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I
would expect it to be slower if anything.

Isn't a 64 bit OS to fully utilise a 64 bit architecture - which shifts more
bytes at a time to go faster?

 

[Eeyore]

ian field wrote:

Isn't a 64 bit OS to fully utilise a 64 bit architecture

I doubt it in Microsoft's case.

But there was 32 bit DOS and that FLEW.

Graham

 

[Zootal]

"Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:493dbee1$0$4915$607ed4bc@cv.net...

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news5uoj4tu7o2b230udcf3b7uu7bi75pci64@4ax.com
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it was
exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't really
make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Zootal" <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpGdneb-F_XVStjUnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

"Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:493dbee1$0$4915$607ed4bc@cv.net...

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news5uoj4tu7o2b230udcf3b7uu7bi75pci64@4ax.com
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that
crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only
a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it
was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't
really make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.

I'm not sure that is strictly true. All of those versions were fine, if they
were just left alone. You have to remember that in those early days of
'home' computing, people weren't as savvy as they are now, and their home
computer was used for little else than word processing and perhaps some
e-mail activity. That is the only expectation that most had, and it's what
MS addressed with those early versions. It allowed simple folk whose only
concept of a computer was something they had seen in the movies, to
interface with what was, after all, a complex item. It simply wasn't
designed to be 'tinkered' with by average users who wanted to start changing
hardware in their machines all the time, or adding software.

Even given those limitations, I still think that most 'proper' applications
that were actually written for those platforms, ran pretty well, and trouble
free for the most part. Over the years, I have run many third party
applications and my son has run every game known to man, largely without
incident, on every version of Windows that there has been (excluding Vista,
so far ... !! )

For sure, XP seems to be the most versatile version that there has been, but
then I think that migrated down from the pro end, and was adapted for the
home market, wasn't it ? There was a need for an OS that could tolerate the
foibles of the 'modern' user, and XP was it.

It must be a terribly difficult balancing act for them to continually
produce and maintain and OS that has the performance and facilities of a jet
airliner, yet 'drives' like a Ford Escort.

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments
where it was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software.
Microsoft didn't really make a stable and versatile OS until XP
came out.

I've been running W2K for over seven years, and it has been extremely
stable. I can't remember the last cras. And the few crashes I did have were
Word lockups -- which I also haven't seen in several years.

The consensus is still that W2K is the most-stable version of Windows.

I can't comment as to versatility, but W2K was around for some time, and
drivers for almost everything are available.

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:52:54 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Zootal" <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpGdneb-F_XVStjUnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

"Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:493dbee1$0$4915$607ed4bc@cv.net...

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news5uoj4tu7o2b230udcf3b7uu7bi75pci64@4ax.com
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that
crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only
a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it
was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't
really make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.


I'm not sure that is strictly true. All of those versions were fine, if they
were just left alone. You have to remember that in those early days of
'home' computing, people weren't as savvy as they are now, and their home
computer was used for little else than word processing and perhaps some
e-mail activity. That is the only expectation that most had, and it's what
MS addressed with those early versions. It allowed simple folk whose only
concept of a computer was something they had seen in the movies, to
interface with what was, after all, a complex item. It simply wasn't
designed to be 'tinkered' with by average users who wanted to start changing
hardware in their machines all the time, or adding software.

Even given those limitations, I still think that most 'proper' applications
that were actually written for those platforms, ran pretty well, and trouble
free for the most part. Over the years, I have run many third party
applications and my son has run every game known to man, largely without
incident, on every version of Windows that there has been (excluding Vista,
so far ... !! )

For sure, XP seems to be the most versatile version that there has been,

Mainly because things generally improve over time,

but
then I think that migrated down from the pro end, and was adapted for the
home market, wasn't it ? There was a need for an OS that could tolerate the
foibles of the 'modern' user, and XP was it.

As is usually the case, it's not that simple and Windows NT, the
'family' XP is a sibling of, predates Windows 95.

People act as if Microsoft always 'ran everything' but they started
off as a hole in the wall group writing software for other people,
like IBM (DOS. OS/2, etc) and Apple (Word, Office, etc) They also had
the foresight to retain rights to what they wrote.

Their first big break was keeping rights to DOS on non IBM machines,
of which there weren't any... for about 15 minutes till the clones
came out. Oops (for IBM). Actually, IBM didn't really care all that
much about DOS, and OS/2 for that matter, as they considered it more
of a necessary evil to sell hardware than a money maker in it's own
right. It was the clones they hated.

But, back to the 'Windows' O.S., they were for different purposes. As
I mentioned, MS retained rights to Office on 'non apple' products and
I suppose Apple figured why not? since that's all it would run on.
'Windows' (for DOS) was originally developed so that Office could run
on x86 computers. Oops (for Apple).

But, back at the IBM barn, MS was working on OS/2 when Windows 3.0
turned out to be an actual 'hit' (meaning they finally had a version
that worked) so MS wanted to incorporate more of the Windows API into
what was then called "NT OS/2" but IBM had different ideas so they
split and MS's work went on to be Windows NT. (IBM would later change
directions and advertise that OS/2 can run Windows apps too but why
not get 'the real thing'?)

DOS based Windows was to simply 'run programs' (and multimedia) while
NT was to be a multi-user, fully pre-emptive multitasking system
portable across multiple platforms while being both OS/2 and POSIX
complaint... as well as, of course, Windows (API). The holy grail in
those days was "transportability" and that's where HAL, the "Hardware
Abstraction Layer," comes from. It sits between the hardware and
everything else so you need only rewrite the rather small HAL and the
rest is none the wiser, or so the theory went. DOS Windows has no such
need because it's only job is to run on x86 machines.

In some ways DOS Windows was functionally 'ahead' of NT in that it
(GUI) was first out of the chute and got the consumer oriented
'multimedia' stuff. NT first got the Windows 3.x GUI and then, after
Windows 95, that GUI migrated to NT but, for a while, people had a
kind of "Back to the Future" experience going from their nifty looking
Windows 95 home computer to the office 'super duper OS' NT system with
the 'old fashioned' Windows 3.x GUI.

NT was the 'business' OS, where multi-user and multitasking was
needed, and didn't get the full multimedia treatment till XP.

This, of course, isn't everything but it hit on a few of the major
points.

It must be a terribly difficult balancing act for them to continually
produce and maintain and OS that has the performance and facilities of a jet
airliner, yet 'drives' like a Ford Escort.

Arfa

 

[Zootal]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gi5ieq$d19$1@news.motzarella.org...

Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments
where it was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software.
Microsoft didn't really make a stable and versatile OS until XP
came out.

I've been running W2K for over seven years, and it has been extremely
stable. I can't remember the last cras. And the few crashes I did have
were
Word lockups -- which I also haven't seen in several years.

The consensus is still that W2K is the most-stable version of Windows.

Many people share your experiencences, myself included. And in every case
I've personally seen, those who run it with few or no crashes do so in a
limited and controlled environment. I had a few W2K workstations that I used
for 2 or 3 years that never crashed. It was in a controlled environment, the
hardware never changed, and only limited software was allowed on it.

Back in the SP1 or so era, I found W2K to be unusable on a few of my boxes
because of the lack of drivers for some of my hardware. Specifically, I had
ATI Rage Fury cards in my box, and ATI was unable to provide stable drivers
for these cards. I had to abanodon it and go back to Win98 on those boxes.
Other compability issues prevented me from using Win2K until later service
packs came out.

Take it outside of the rather small hardware and software box that Microsoft
designed it for, and you have crash city.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:30:04 -0000, William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"ian field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:j2C_k.26717$Nq1.14140@newsfe10.ams2...

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ghefab$g7g$1@news.motzarella.org...


I think the capacitors have sharted ...

Is that a portmanteau word? Perhaps a mixture of "shorted" and
"farted"...

You obviously haven't smelled one after its vented.

Oh, yes I have. Not just vented, but exploded...

8 of them today in fact, in PC power supplies. Ever connected to another phase instead of neutral? And no it wasn't me. But he's gonna pay for it.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A pack-a-day smoker will lose approximately 2 teeth every 10 years.

 

[ian field]

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.ul7xzfa54buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:30:04 -0000, William Sommerwerck
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"ian field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:j2C_k.26717$Nq1.14140@newsfe10.ams2...

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ghefab$g7g$1@news.motzarella.org...


I think the capacitors have sharted ...

Is that a portmanteau word? Perhaps a mixture of "shorted" and
"farted"...

You obviously haven't smelled one after its vented.

Oh, yes I have. Not just vented, but exploded...

8 of them today in fact, in PC power supplies. Ever connected to another
phase instead of neutral? And no it wasn't me. But he's gonna pay for
it.

Yet another of PHucker's fantasies!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:52:54 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Zootal" <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpGdneb-F_XVStjUnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

"Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:493dbee1$0$4915$607ed4bc@cv.net...

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news5uoj4tu7o2b230udcf3b7uu7bi75pci64@4ax.com
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that
crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only
a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it
was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't
really make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.


I'm not sure that is strictly true. All of those versions were fine, if they
were just left alone. You have to remember that in those early days of
'home' computing, people weren't as savvy as they are now, and their home
computer was used for little else than word processing and perhaps some
e-mail activity. That is the only expectation that most had, and it's what
MS addressed with those early versions. It allowed simple folk whose only
concept of a computer was something they had seen in the movies, to
interface with what was, after all, a complex item. It simply wasn't
designed to be 'tinkered' with by average users who wanted to start changing
hardware in their machines all the time, or adding software.

Even given those limitations, I still think that most 'proper' applications
that were actually written for those platforms, ran pretty well, and trouble
free for the most part. Over the years, I have run many third party
applications and my son has run every game known to man, largely without
incident, on every version of Windows that there has been (excluding Vista,
so far ... !! )

For sure, XP seems to be the most versatile version that there has been,

Mainly because things generally improve over time,

but
then I think that migrated down from the pro end, and was adapted for the
home market, wasn't it ? There was a need for an OS that could tolerate the
foibles of the 'modern' user, and XP was it.

As is usually the case, it's not that simple and Windows NT, the
'family' XP is a sibling of, predates Windows 95.

People act as if Microsoft always 'ran everything' but they started
off as a hole in the wall group writing software for other people,
like IBM (DOS. OS/2, etc) and Apple (Word, Office, etc) They also had
the foresight to retain rights to what they wrote.

Microsoft started under a different business name, building
electronic vehicle counters that were used to audit the traffic on a
road. Then they wrote one of the first BASIC interpeters for the early
kit computers under their new Microsoft name.

Their first big break was keeping rights to DOS on non IBM machines,
of which there weren't any... for about 15 minutes till the clones
came out. Oops (for IBM). Actually, IBM didn't really care all that
much about DOS, and OS/2 for that matter, as they considered it more
of a necessary evil to sell hardware than a money maker in it's own
right. It was the clones they hated.

But, back to the 'Windows' O.S., they were for different purposes. As
I mentioned, MS retained rights to Office on 'non apple' products and
I suppose Apple figured why not? since that's all it would run on.
'Windows' (for DOS) was originally developed so that Office could run
on x86 computers. Oops (for Apple).

But, back at the IBM barn, MS was working on OS/2 when Windows 3.0
turned out to be an actual 'hit' (meaning they finally had a version
that worked) so MS wanted to incorporate more of the Windows API into
what was then called "NT OS/2" but IBM had different ideas so they
split and MS's work went on to be Windows NT. (IBM would later change
directions and advertise that OS/2 can run Windows apps too but why
not get 'the real thing'?)

DOS based Windows was to simply 'run programs' (and multimedia) while
NT was to be a multi-user, fully pre-emptive multitasking system
portable across multiple platforms while being both OS/2 and POSIX
complaint... as well as, of course, Windows (API). The holy grail in
those days was "transportability" and that's where HAL, the "Hardware
Abstraction Layer," comes from. It sits between the hardware and
everything else so you need only rewrite the rather small HAL and the
rest is none the wiser, or so the theory went. DOS Windows has no such
need because it's only job is to run on x86 machines.

In some ways DOS Windows was functionally 'ahead' of NT in that it
(GUI) was first out of the chute and got the consumer oriented
'multimedia' stuff. NT first got the Windows 3.x GUI and then, after
Windows 95, that GUI migrated to NT but, for a while, people had a
kind of "Back to the Future" experience going from their nifty looking
Windows 95 home computer to the office 'super duper OS' NT system with
the 'old fashioned' Windows 3.x GUI.

NT was the 'business' OS, where multi-user and multitasking was
needed, and didn't get the full multimedia treatment till XP.

This, of course, isn't everything but it hit on a few of the major
points.

It must be a terribly difficult balancing act for them to continually
produce and maintain and OS that has the performance and facilities of a jet
airliner, yet 'drives' like a Ford Escort.

Arfa

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.