[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

A new XP system comes with NTFS for a file system ( I thinks thats the spelling), which does give you files greater than 4gb (nice for video), and NOT FAT32

Actually, you have both options with XP. The first time I set up XP pro on my PC, I was using FAT 32. I eventually switched over to NTFS for security reasons. (on a network)

Quote:

I know many people who use XP and NTFS with games that have problems because of this file system. They are constantly rebooting their XP systems, or take a major effort to get them stable.

No offense menat to your friends but, perhaps they have something more going on than what OS they're using. I do gaming, and have NEVER experienced one crash or reboot with XP on either file system. Crappy video cards or even sound cards OR perhaps even power supplies, are most often the cause of crashes and reboots, NOT the OS. I have yet to experience one BSOD because of XP.

I actually used to be in your position. I loved 98 SE and wouldn't upgrade for anything. One day, a friend came over with his corporate copy and convinced me to try it. We backed up all my stuff, (well he did, since it was his project) and proceeded to upgrade. Long story short, I felt pretty stupid for being paranoid about the switch over. Shortly after that, I built my current rig which is home to XP pro. I wouldn't have it any other way. Gaming, video capturing, etc etc, everything you mentioned...and I don't understand why you think you'd have to use Microsoft software to achieve these tasks ? I don't know one person who uses MS inborn software for ANYTHING. Hell, aside from the OS, I pretty much despise any of their internal apps.

You say you have XP installed on your laptop and that you don't like it...I'm curious to know what you tried doing with it that you weren't able to ? Just seems very strange to me.

 

[illmatic]

But wait: even if the Zen battery is replaceable, how much does a battery cost?

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweet Spot Crappy video cards or even sound cards OR perhaps even power supplies, are most often the cause of crashes and reboots, NOT the OS.

do you work for Microsoft or something? because if not, you must be joking...

 

[raynman]

Quote:

you think that joystick'ed piece of plastic is better...

Ugh. I honestly can't stand this remark. You wonder why iPod owners get so defensive about people who bash the iPod due to their "disadvantages" yet you see some of them making statements like the one's above. Go figure.

Honestly, have you even used this "crappy" joystick? Have you ever held a console controller in your entire life? People who think joystick's are so complicated and uneasy to use need to be shot. It's just as easy to use it as the scroll wheel if you think about it really. It may not move "as fast" in response to the UI as the iPod scroll wheel, but that is a UI software difference and not a physical one. How much time do you actually spend on your DAP scrolling anyways? Face it, other people prefer the joystick or even the scroller found on the Dell than the scroll wheel. To say the scroll wheel has an advantage is but a slight exaggeration and preferential choice.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

do you work for Microsoft or something? because if not, you must be joking

Yes. I work for Mircosoft. And I have all the time in the world to engage in debates on audio forums. Let me tell you something man...in all the years I've owned, built and operated a computer, I've not encountered more than a couple of minor issues where the OS is concerned.

You need to take a look at yourself and those around you before you start making comments which are too often mimicked by the masses because they are too unaware of how to properly maintain a computer and its OS.

And no, I'm not kidding. If you're having problems which are only solveable by reformatting your HD or by returning your PC or any other such drastic measures, then it's something you weren't careful or aware of. I'm not saying that hardware incompatabilities and driver issues can't cause problems, but if one knows what they're doing, problems should be at a minimal and easily repairable by the user.

I've used many OS's, and they each have their faults, but with the proper handeling, they all can server one well depending on the intended uses.

You ever stop to think that it's not the OS but the person maintaining it ? And please, how about some proveable facts to back up yet another aimless statement ?

 

[philodox]

I work in IT tech support, and I can tell you that the AVERAGE user encounters problems quite frequently that are traceable back to the operating system... admitadly these users are abusing the OS... but with reason... is everyone suppost to be a master of all that is computing??? no... and here is where I come in... all I know is that operating systems like unix and other OS's based off of this (linux, osx) do not require a reboot every time something goes wrong...

now... with my computer, thats a different story, but I've been a computer geek my whole life and went to school for network support (a lot of good time wasted there)... you cant expect an average user... even an average gamer to understand everything that someone who does this for their living...

as an aside... its pretty funny that you do work for microsoft... not to knock the man... but that worked out well

 

[donkey_roxor]

I've used Windows 95, 98, and XP Pro, and XP is definitely the most stable out of all three. I would have to agree with Sweet Spot's statement that crashes in XP are *probably* due to hardware problems or old drivers.

 

[D-EJ915]

Well, on my computer I can say that out of...
Windows 3.0
Windows 95
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation
Windows 95 OSR2
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows XP Home
Windows Server 2003
Suse Linux 8.1 personal
RedHat Linux 7.0 Workstation
RedHat Linux 9.0 Personal

that XP Home is the most stable

, go figure.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Philodox !LOL I was being sarcastic ! I do not work for MS. But I've also woked as an IT tech and network engineer...My main focus is in the medical field. But since you and I know the deal...it's wrong to blame the OS and you know it.

Working a computer is not rocket science...The truth that you and I both know is that if the end user knew what they were doing, you (and I in the past) would be out of a job. Hell, how many times have you gone on a service call within the office and have said to yourself "my god...if these people only had half a brain". But in reality it's not their faults because IT techs/geeks LOVE to think they're the only people on the planet who "get it". Now days, kids are being pushed onto computers in grammar school...I didn't have such a luxury, and nor did most of the people whose problems you manage to solve.

Anyway, keep on truckin....Merry christmas, Happy Chanukah and have a fantasitc Quanza !

 

[blessingx]

I have a feeling how "minimal" OS issues are (and OS related issues including drivers which the OS maker isn't always off the hook)... depends an awful lot on experience and expectations. At least in my case it does. Not trying to be a Microsoft basher or Apple zealot, but my last year on the OS X side after (actually still running) 19 years on various Window platforms (3.1-XP), shows me people put up with a lot of unnecessary complications on a almost daily basis. .dll interactions with OS "core", dependent file overwrites, etc. are all things that are big issues. That fact that while I was on the PC side I stopped and thought if installing an application was necessary because of its possible impact on other progs, and always tried to have a relatively clean system to minimize "problems", seems insane now. While it's sort of a shame most Mac users don't know much about their computers (I was asked what color my box was when going to an Apple dealer for the first time

), it's partially because they don't have to. What I think this (and still running W2K and XP time) is we shouldn't be surprised there are disagreement about OS issues. I say it's a lot like an old car. If you expect to make repairs every couple months, it's not a "problem". As much as I think XP is superior to other MS OSs (with possible exception to W2K depending on hardware and use), I say your expectations may still be too low. And that's being said by a former NT admin/MS ASP programmer.

MS was responsible for my livelihood for awhile.

 

[davei]

Quote:

Originally posted by fredpb Sure MS does not put out updates for WIN98SE. I think it is stable enough. If you know the system, you can make it stable. I use Norton System Utilities for WIN98SE and that fixes many problems that can occur. I have a registry editor that works fine. WIN98SE is stable and great for me.

If you need to use two different programs and hack the registry just to keep your system stable... well, that speaks for itself.

 

[Sweet Spot]

You're pretty much right there blessing, but again, it sort of falls back on the level of computer knowledge a person has. Granted, it would be a far better thing if there was never a need for "IT support" on the OS side of things, but then again, I feel that having the knowledge only makes me more in touch with my machine..whether it be a PC or a Mac. And it's not like Macs don't suffer any issues...I've had my friends complain many times to me about how they can't get their deadlines met (graphic designers) because of their "stupid mac". I bet the problems were easily solveable, but then, that's my point....most problems are if you know what's going on.

Oh, and long gone are the days of .dll issues...haven't seen a .dll error message in years. Pretty damned refreshing !

 

[Tim D]

I've used many many audio players including foobar and Winamp of all versions.

If anything, ITunes makes me want the IPod even more. True it lacks the fine tailoring allowable by other software, but it has features and happens to do things "right" for me first time around without needing plugins or extra configuration. Plus it does mass file reorganization and tagging better than some stand-alone id3 taggers I've seen. I thought the "bulk" and graphical blandness of the player would turn me off but after using it for awhile, and enjoying being able to do things like dragging album art straight from a website onto a selected list of tracks...anyhow...(Quicktime which it is coupled with however is complete barf and I absolutely hate having it on my system).

But I will wait and see if they can get better battery life in the next generation.

As for OS's, you can take any OS and if you just use it for a very small set of activities with one tried and true configuration it can be pretty damn stable. Linux was/is often touted as being rock solid...but it should be given the knowledge base of the users, the hardware it is compatible with is not bleeding edge but tried and true, and its usage is typically a well-defined role as perhaps a server or something and not exactly "all-purpose".

It is how much abuse an OS can handle with the plethora of new misbehaving drivers, hardware, applications, and most importantly users that makes an OS good. You can't really point fingers if you are standing by an old OS and expect new hardware to work with it. Ipod's don't work on Apple IIe's either and its from the same company...the shame! Newer OS's are platforms for newer software and hardware. You have to eventually start dropping off compatibility with inundated software and hardware. Just like older OS's start dropping off compatibility with newer hardware and software. The issue here is really that Win98SE has crappy USB2.0 support.

And IMO USB 1.1 would be a LITERAL waste of time on even a 10 gig.

 

[scottder]

Quote:

Originally posted by D-EJ915 Well, on my computer I can say that out of... Windows 3.0 Windows 95 Windows NT 4.0 Workstation Windows 95 OSR2 Windows 98 Windows 98SE Windows XP Home Windows Server 2003 Suse Linux 8.1 personal RedHat Linux 7.0 Workstation RedHat Linux 9.0 Personal that XP Home is the most stable , go figure.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA...Ok XP is better than some of those other Windows releases (what isn't more stable than 98 or ME?). But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's more stable than say SuSE or Red Hat, but I guess it's a matter of differnet experiences and what you are using the OS to do.

Scott

 

[blessingx]

As much as I never understood Mac fans raving about OS8/9's superiority in a post Win98 world, I'm a little surprised (except for hardware costs), more people haven't given OS X a try. There's a ton of misinformation about it and most don't realize how different the code is from previous Appple OSs. I'll go as far to say it's vastly more hassle-free than even (from MS perspective) XP... and if you're so inclined you even have the BSD underbelly to play. Will see about Longhorn. But knowledge has a lot to do with it as you said, Sweet Spot. Out of my last four friends problems I've had to help out with, the OS X guy didn't know how to back up data (I know, I know, even wanted to burn a CDR in a regular CDROM), while one Windows user had the W32.Blaster.Worm, another had Netscape/Mozilla conflicts, and the last lost all audio output when installing Real (though fixed, still a mystery). Those Windows problems seem different than the OS X one (and my friends are about 40% Mac/60% PC, so many of each). I'm glad I have this computer knowledge/experience from past problems too, but if I had a crappier car I'd probably know much more about automobiles now also. I'm glad I don't have that car.