pmistry

thanks for the feedback

FAT or FAT16 was the original File System, and used 16-bit numbers to calculate partition sizes and stuff. [Or something to that effect] FAT32 came along to break the barriers by using 32-bit numbers. Isn't possible to use 64-bit numbering to drive partition sizes even higher and use low cluster sizes? Just a thought...

I have a dual with Windows XP and Windows 95B, YES, Windows 95. However, I initially had Windows 2000 which I upgraded to XP. I installed Windows 98 SE after installing XP and 98 SE did not overwrite XP's boot sector. I then deleted 98 SE but left the boot ini file alone and installed 95 into the same directory as 98 was installed before and it didn't overwrite. I found out this: To install 2000 or NT4 and XP, 2000/NT4 must be installed first since 2000/NT4 will overwrite with an older version of NTLDR and all of those other boot files. To install 98/98SE/ME with XP or 2000, you can install those 9x OSes after if you want, but you should put it on another partition. eg. Don't have the Windows XP install on C: in C:\Winnnt and install Windows ME to C:\Windows, keep the Windows directories on different partitions so the program files folders will be different. In fact Windows ME actually puts itself into the boot.ini file with the name Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition while Windows 98 and 98 SE add Microsoft Windows. However it is probably a better idea to install 9x first, but I am just mentioning that you can install it after without too much of a fuss, you can even slap it on the same partition but you may run into program files folder problems. If you wann triple- or quadruple boot- install 9x first and then go in order of old to new for the NT OSes.

Technically you can compare the NT kernel with the 9x one The NT Kernel is stable, well performing, and efficient at handling multiple tasks. The 9x kernel has strong compatibility but thats it and this is due to it allowing direct hardware access. If you use Windows 98/ME it would be for mostly gaming, email checking and MS Word. But Windows 2000 can do this too and it would be stable. Only if you have an older PC with 128 Megs of RAM and less than 500 Mhz I would go the 9x route. Forget Windows NT4, its dead now as is 95. In fact I would say Windows 98 is near death too, MS won't allow future DirectX releases to work on 98 anymore so it will kill 98 as a gaming platform. They did it to 95 with Direct X 8.1, I am betting Direct X 9.1 won't be 98 friendly.

Yeah I understand what you mean. Lately the Search function is fricking pissing me off. I wish I default it back to the original one in 9x/2k, you know where you type a file name in, I hate answering these dumb questions. And that dumb dog looks so gay, sorry but I had to say it, I got rid of him right away. Something about those eyes.

thanks for the suggestions. I will look for that NIC processor tweak and look into DMA for my Network card. As for the CPU usage it tops up when we transfer fairly large files/directories, 50 megs or higher. Network utilization is still low though, but CPU is high, strange...after I enabled full duplex it has been running a lot better with high CPU usage not showing up as much. The LAN speed is 100 mbs. My hard disk is ATA66, 7200RPM, but can run at ATA100 if I add an ATA100 card. All CD drives are DMA as well.

I am in the market for a new NIC. I am thinking Linksys LNE100TX, its fairly cheap and has good performance, also a Netgear FA311, anybody have good or bad opinions on these? What about a Cicero? BTW, the card must work with all versions of Windows. 95, 98/ME, 2K, and XP.

I bought the Belkin, and it runs great. Thanks for all the feedback.

Are you using NIC's or some parallel/serial/USB connection?

I may use it for my @Home service as my USB one is getting in the way. I may also use it to network my PC with my old PC which runs WIndows 95. I came across some other brands like D-Link and Belkin, any thoughts on these?

Yeah I do agree that FAT has hit its end. I was just wondering if it was possible to create a FAT64. Also NTFS is built off of the HPFS file system. I am not sure if it has roots in UNIX, but it was IBM's main file system for OS/2. NT 3.51 supported HPFS but that support was killed off in NT4.

I have the Altec Lansing ACS54 set. Cheaper than most expensive solutions like Klipsch but great value and comes from a good manufacturer. Its a 4 speaker set with great bass and clean sound, and comes with sub woofer. You can read a review and others speakers at http://www.3dsoundsurge.com Here's a review link: http://www.3dsoundsurge.com/reviews/ACS54/ACS54.html

Yep, thats I why said that NT4 was decent if your needs were heavy computing. Back then I played more games and only used Excel, Word, Publisher, and Filemaker Pro, so 9x was more than enough. I did dual NT4 with Windows 95 for a long time. I was interested in this whole NT thing and fiddled with it a lot back then. After that I moved to Windows 98 and used it only for awhile, then went to 2000/98 dual and then 2000/ME dual. Now running XP/98 dual, just need the DOS right now, so 98 is in.

I replaced my Panasonic 12x with a new LG 52x, no problems with either. The 12x was just getting slow. I also have a Sony 4x that still works too.

Might be a silly question, but I just want to know. On my Athlon system I still use a Honeywell 101-key [no fancy Windows button, speaker/volume, browser, right menu buttons on mine] AT keyboard which I had first had with my 486, then used it with my Pentium, and now I am using it my Athlon. I have to use an AT to ATX/PS2 adapter to hook it up. The thing is, is that this keyboard is great. Love the buttons, easy to tap, solid construction, the right cursor arrow is starting to press down more, but still works fine. I really dislike some of the newer ones out there, but if this one dies I have a spare Packard Bell 104-key one with the Windows key and the right menu ones. 8 years and counting.

Yes I can. XP is better in terms of design over 9x. But 9x had less baggage included with them and more options to uninstall components. But this due to MS being more aggressive. XP is better than NT4 as well. I liked 9x more than NT4, NT4 was for too limiting for me, but those that ran pure business applications, NT4 was good. Its just that lack of FAT32, Full DirectX, USB/Firewire, poor DMA, made NT4 less appealing. XP vs 2000: 2000 was better for me, for others the opposite is true, for some they are the same.

pimpin_228, thats a long time, I hope my keyboard can survive that long, just 10 more years, but by then I may need some sort of AT to Firewire Supreme/USB Ultra connector to hook it up. That is if we still use keyboards.

Here are a couple of things I like with Windows XP: 1. The integration of the MS Knowledge Base in Help. That is freaking useful. 2. Compatibility with some 9x exclusive games, like Need For Speed: High Stakes, too bad my game performance went down a tad. 3. Support for VIA chipsets out of the box is nice. But I needed the PCI Latency Patch to fix the lag problems with my mouse and graphics. 4. The classic interface is upgraded, with a start menu icon, and high color icons can now be used in the taskbar/system tray.

It is a cool idea what Lindows is proposing, and I certainly will give it a try. It reminds of Odin, this program was supposed to convert Win32 programs into native OS/2 programs [i think] so you could run them in OS/2. Now there is a dead OS, although still has some presence here and there. It seems like everyone wants to run Windows applications but not on a Windows OS. Even Mac has MS Windows emulators. Second point, I am not MS's biggest fan, but their online knowledge base is freaking amazing. Add the fact that it is built into the XP help system is even better.

But he says no OS will recognize the drive and assign it a drive letter. I was thinking what you replied, but from what he says it seems impossible.

I think it may be impossible, when a drive's MBR is corrupted like that. If no OS can read it you are in trouble, sorry man, I know the feeling. A search for some data recovery tool could be an option.

Yeah I agree what the heck happened to "OPTIONAL COMPONENTS" I dislike the integrated CD Burning. I use Nero, its more functional. I dislike MSN Explorer, complete and utter bloatware. I uninstalled it, but I should have had the option to not install it in the first place. AND it should have been with a menu similar to 9x/NT4 setup. I dislike Windows Media Player 8, I hate it, its big and ugly, and consumes resources. I like Winamp for my audio, and video I like the old Media Player. I don't need Windows Movie Maker, and Imaging, Address Book, and Netmeeting. But there is no way to get rid of them easily from the Add/Remove applet. I HATE Windows Messenger, its crap, and loads everytime up on startup. Had to disable it, but again I shouldn't have to have it at the beginning. Opens itself after launching OE. I like Internet Explorer but I have no USE for Outlook Express. I know most people use Outlook Express but I hate it, I use a Web based service so OE is just extra crap for no reason. I agree that the autoplay feature is way overdone. I hate integrated ZIP support. Also I dislike the FACT that you need 2 administrator's. I only want 1 account on the damn PC.

Antoine de Rorthais, amazing line of successful ATI cards, not for me though, I went from ATI VGA Wonder > ATI 3D Xpression [Rage 1] > ATI Xpert 98 [Rage Pro], ATI Xpert 2000 PRO [Rage 128 PRO] all were crap, and poor driver support, the cards had potential with lots of room for improvement but got abandoned once ATI focused on a new card. The Radeon 8500 like others say has ROOM to grow, but won't when ATI tries to compete with GeForce 4 coming up. The Radeon 8500 will get abandoned like the rest.

Great stuff Deviant, it does run quite fast under XP over 9x.

Under NT4 and 2000 you could create a rescue disk and backup the registry can I still do this in XP? I checked Administrative Tools and Backup and couldn't find it.