🚀 go-pugleaf

unless you want usb support i don't think i'd bother to upgrade at all.

if you want basically the same operating system with as few improvements
then you'd probably be best off with ME


please note that win2K is an upgrade for NT users and is not
a "home user" operating system...

but no matter which one you opt for...check hardware compatability
very closely as you may end up having unsupported hardware.
if you do try win2k...you will be given a dual boot option...
i'd highly recommend you dual boot...just incase you have problems.

Philo


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

You haven't given any compelling reason to upgrade. Do you need hardware, or
software support that your present OS can't provide? If your present OS does
everything you need doing, of what advantage is there to upgrading?

--
Bob B.
Please reply to the newsgroup

"N" <not_telling_@_you_.com> wrote in message
news:92lbou$a4h$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> I own a DELL Pii 266, 64mb ram, 6.4 GB drive
> STB 128 Velocity AGP 4mb video card, 17 inch ADI
> monitor.
>
> I run Win 95 OSR2.1, IE 5, OE 5
>
> The applications I use are CorelDRAW 9, AutoCAD Lt 97
> and MS Office, mainly Publisher.
>
> What should I upgrade to ?
>
> - Win 2000
>
> - Win ME
>
> - Win 2000 Pro
>
> Since I am a teacher I get very reduced rates for win 2k pro, �45
>
> Any ideas greatly appreciated
>
> Nick
>
>

"Philo" <philo565@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92ldl0$o71$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> unless you want usb support i don't think i'd bother to upgrade at all.

I alreay have USB Supplement to OSR 2 installed

> if you want basically the same operating system with as few improvements
> then you'd probably be best off with ME

What improvements ?

> please note that win2K is an upgrade for NT users and is not
> a "home user" operating system...

If it is more stable and better I want it !

Ta

Nick

"Bob B." <Windows_Rocks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92lltl$m29$1@murdoch.harvard.net...

> You haven't given any compelling reason to upgrade.

Okay

>Do you need hardware, or software support that your present OS can't
provide?

No

> If your present OS does everything you need doing, of what advantage is
there to upgrading?

I *thought* there must be a better  operating system.

What about linux ?

Nick

"N" <not_telling_@_you_.com> wrote in message
news:92n8u6$r6q$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Bob B." <Windows_Rocks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:92lltl$m29$1@murdoch.harvard.net...
>
> > You haven't given any compelling reason to upgrade.
>
> Okay
>
> >Do you need hardware, or software support that your present OS can't
> provide?
>
> No
>
> > If your present OS does everything you need doing, of what advantage is
> there to upgrading?
>
> I *thought* there must be a better  operating system.
>
> What about linux ?
>
> Nick

What about it? Very steep learning curve. Very little hardware support. Very
little software written for it. Its' memory resources are on par or greater
then Windows for decent performance. So, fine if you don't mind all of that.

Again, if you simply want to upgrade or change you OS just for the sake of
it then go for it. If you haven't any other reason then it is totally a
personal decision on your part, and there is no value to discussing it. If
you have a need, (hardware/software), for upgrading then you can get
different opinions on that.

Windows 95 has some inherent limitations, such as needing patches for AMD
processors over 350MHz, poor USB support, not supporting Media Player 7,
(for anyone that want it ;), poor handling of its' Vcache without tweaking
the vcache setting in system.ini, is no longer produced by MS, and will soon
be non-supported by them.

Windows 98, and ME are the newest line of the 9.x family. I PERSONALLY
prefer ME. It has many "features" in common with the Windows 2000 line,
including the WDM, and UI features. It is the newest in the line and as such
offers improvements in stability as all new models of an OS do, and is the
easiest upgrade path to the next line of Windows which will be based on the
NT Kernel, and will be available as a consumer version and a Professional,
(corp.), version.



--
Bob B.
Please reply to the newsgroup

95's USB support is very poor. 98 and above provide much better USB support.
Of course if you don't have any USB devices then.... : - )

--
Bob B.
Please reply to the newsgroup

"N" <not_telling_@_you_.com> wrote in message
news:92n8ou$hb1$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Philo" <philo565@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:92ldl0$o71$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > unless you want usb support i don't think i'd bother to upgrade at all.
>
> I alreay have USB Supplement to OSR 2 installed
>
> > if you want basically the same operating system with as few improvements
> > then you'd probably be best off with ME
>
> What improvements ?
>
> > please note that win2K is an upgrade for NT users and is not
> > a "home user" operating system...
>
> If it is more stable and better I want it !
>
> Ta
>
> Nick
>
>
>

"Bob B." <Windows_Rocks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92n1u5$vsl$1@murdoch.harvard.net...
> "N" <not_telling_@_you_.com> wrote in message
> news:92n8u6$r6q$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Bob B." <Windows_Rocks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:92lltl$m29$1@murdoch.harvard.net...
> >
> > > You haven't given any compelling reason to upgrade.
> >
> > Okay
> >
> > >Do you need hardware, or software support that your present OS can't
> > provide?
> >
> > No
> >
> > > If your present OS does everything you need doing, of what advantage
is
> > there to upgrading?
> >
> > I *thought* there must be a better  operating system.
> >
> > What about linux ?
> >
> > Nick
>
> What about it? Very steep learning curve. Very little hardware support.
Very
> little software written for it. Its' memory resources are on par or
greater
> then Windows for decent performance. So, fine if you don't mind all of
that.

Okay no linux for me.

> Again, if you simply want to upgrade or change you OS just for the sake of
> it then go for it. If you haven't any other reason then it is totally a
> personal decision on your part, and there is no value to discussing it. If
> you have a need, (hardware/software), for upgrading then you can get
> different opinions on that.

fair enough

> Windows 95 has some inherent limitations, such as needing patches for AMD
> processors over 350MHz, poor USB support, not supporting Media Player 7,
> (for anyone that want it ;), poor handling of its' Vcache without tweaking
> the vcache setting in system.ini, is no longer produced by MS, and will
soon
> be non-supported by them.

Any advice on tweaking Vcache ?

> Windows 98, and ME are the newest line of the 9.x family. I PERSONALLY
> prefer ME. It has many "features" in common with the Windows 2000 line,
> including the WDM, and UI features. It is the newest in the line and as
such
> offers improvements in stability as all new models of an OS do, and is the
> easiest upgrade path to the next line of Windows which will be based on
the
> NT Kernel, and will be available as a consumer version and a Professional,
> (corp.), version.

So is it worth upgrading to Win 2K Pro which I can get for under �100 as a
teacher
in Scotland, particularly if I buy another 64 Mb ram and buy a 32mb vid card
?

Nick

"N" <not_telling_@_you_.com> wrote in message
news:92t651$g94$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

> So is it worth upgrading to Win 2K Pro which I can get for under �100 as a
> teacher
> in Scotland, particularly if I buy another 64 Mb ram and buy a 32mb vid
card
> ?
>
> Nick

IMHO, yes. But first make sure your hardware is OK, you can check the HCL at
MS's site, www.microsoft.com/hcl Also make sure your applications are OK for
W2K. Most Windows 16 and 32 apps are fine and a lot of DOS apps work OK,
some anti virus doesn't, and some software needs updates for W2K. Again,
IMHO, I find W2K to be the best Windows ever. However, that being said I
would not recommend it for use at home by Joe Average. Within a year or so
MS will be releasing a version of Windows for home use which will be based
on the NT Kernel. If I were you, and your present OS is doing OK, I may hold
off for 12 - 18 months and see what's up :)


--
Bob B.
Please reply to the newsgroup

All valid points Rodger. Having used various flavors of LINUX, I can tell
you it ain't ready for primetime yet :)

--
Bob B.
Please reply to the newsgroup

"Roger Blake" <roggblake@inamme.com> wrote in message
news:slrn954grf.7hi.roggblake@linux1.linux.bogus...
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 08:37:59 -0500, Bob B. <Windows_Rocks@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >What about it? Very steep learning curve. Very little hardware support.
Very
> >little software written for it. Its' memory resources are on par or
greater
> >then Windows for decent performance. So, fine if you don't mind all of
that.
>
> A little oversimplified...
>
> The first is true, though there is a lot of support available out there
> for those interested in learning. Prospective Linux newbies should,
however,
> be prepared for many hours of study and head-banging. (I've used Unix
> and Unix-like systems for over 20 years and I still sometimes run into
> exasperating problems with Linux configuration.)
>
> Next two (hardware + software support) are not as good as with Windows,
but
> that is changing pretty rapidly.  A recent Mandrake 7.2 system I installed
> automatically detected and properly configured all system hardware;
including
> network, audio, and video. Of course this is old hat for Win9x systems,
but
> it's quite a feat for a Unix-based system.
>
> The biggest hardware issues are usually with Winmodems and USB.  It is
> possible to run a Lucent-based Winmodem on Linux since Bell Labs released
> a suitable module, and USB support is also available in some versions.
> So things are changing in the Linux world, but for the average user
Windows
> is still a better bet.
>
> BTW, as far as what hardware resources Linux needs, that depends on what
you
> want to do with it. Minimal Linux distributions will give you full-blown
> networking, routing, and multitasking capabilities on a 386 with minimal
> memory and disk (even diskless), but don't expect pretty pictures and
> sound effects.  Of course, X Windows (the *nix GUI) is something of a pig
> if you need the point-and-click stuff, though I've seen it run tolerably
> well on low-end systems if a lightweight window manager is used.
>
> Getting back to the topic at hand, the main reason I've seen for the
> Win95 --> Win98 upgrade is USB support. Win95, even with the so-called
> USB update, just doesn't cut it for running most USB devices.  Having
> said that, IMHO if a Win95 system is running well and the user doesn't
> need the new features of 98 or ME there is little or no reason to upgrade.
>
> --
>   Roger Blake
>   (remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email)

"Bob B." <Windows_Rocks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvP46.32398$1M.7194939@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> "N" <not_telling_@_you_.com> wrote in message
> news:92t651$g94$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

> IMHO, yes. But first make sure your hardware is OK, you can check the HCL
at
> MS's site, www.microsoft.com/hcl Also make sure your applications are OK
for
> W2K. Most Windows 16 and 32 apps are fine and a lot of DOS apps work OK,
> some anti virus doesn't, and some software needs updates for W2K. Again,
> IMHO, I find W2K to be the best Windows ever. However, that being said I
> would not recommend it for use at home by Joe Average. Within a year or so
> MS will be releasing a version of Windows for home use which will be based
> on the NT Kernel. If I were you, and your present OS is doing OK, I may
hold
> off for 12 - 18 months and see what's up :)

Thanks Bob

Nick