Jump to content

Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !?


Recommended Posts

Guest Horns
Posted

Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !?

 

I wish they'd send us XP or something to replace it. This PC came out with XP

when XP was new and had all the bugs. I couldn't do a thing with it so I went

back too 98se. Well seeing as how the system didn't come with an XP CD. there

was no way to ever upgrade or re-install it. Kind of like a recall on a

vehichle. Shouldn't thier be a replacement ?

 

"Bill in Co." wrote:

> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."

> >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

> >

> >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad

> >

> >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.

> I've

> >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or

> >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda

> bothers

> >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)

> >

> > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability

> > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.

>

> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32,

> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me,

> sometimes).

>

> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?

> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there,

> admitedly).

>

> >>Tips:

> >

> > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G

> >

> > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page

> > size for best virtual memory performance.

> >

> > There are other goodnesses to a small C:

> > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance

> > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:

> > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)

> > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption

> >

> > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD

> >

> > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing

> > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode

> > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.

> >

> > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker

> >

> > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,

> > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check

> > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it

> > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror

> > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.

> >

> > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account

> >

> > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of

> > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous

> > huge default TIF size.

>

> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".

>

> > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF

> > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file

> > system!

>

> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the

> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,

> just because I like to).

>

> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*

> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to

> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.

>

> > 5) Locate shell folders off C:

> >

> > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you

> > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky

> > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received

> > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be

> > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts

> > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.

> >

> > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool

> >

> > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in

> > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do

> > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte

> > clusters. BING from http://www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you

> > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.

> >

> > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!

> >

> > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a

> > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file

> > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to

> > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate

> > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the

> > system up as NTFS in the first place.

>

> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.

>

> > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G

> in size.

>

> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move

> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.

>

> > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some

> > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture

> > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming

> > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode

> > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.

> >

> > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,

> > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in

> > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you

> > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover

> > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might

> > choose NTFS for your data set as well.

> >

> > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)

> > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and

> > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both

> > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time

> > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.

> >

> >

> >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:

> > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the

> > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"

> >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -

>

>

>

  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days


×
×
  • Create New...