Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spots who wrote (843)	5/25/1998 8:17:00 PM
From: Dave Hanson	Respond to of 14778

My 2c on NT stability: I agree with Spots. I've been running NT for about a year now, with similar results--blue screens when the larger configuration is unstable, and otherwise very solid stability. I also find it much less rocky than I did Win 95. As I mentioned earlier, Drive Image insulates me from the re-install effort that Spots rightly notes. I'd also add that IMHO, the list of reasons for serious traders/computer users to move to NT is growing, despite 98's impending release--provided that you need not run a legacy application or hardware that isn't compatible with it. Among the most notable: --it makes much better use of extra memory than W98 and especially W95, because of its better multithreading and sophisticated disk caching. Since memory is becoming dirt cheap, and many of us are increasingly doing multiple simultaneous applications, this is a real plus. --its architecture is the future. MS has announced that W98 will be the last non-NT kernal based version of windows. After that, its NT 5, then a home-user version of NT 5, probably in 2000. Getting familiar with it now seems well worthwhile. --NT 4 is mature and, if properly configured, consistent and reliable. 95 comes in too many flavors (95b, OSR2, etc.) and has lots of other shortcomings, and 98 will need some time before it's mature.

To: Spots who wrote (843)	5/25/1998 9:52:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14778

Backups... System Recovery...Blue Screens...Software Design My intent is to plan ahead. The amount of time it takes to restore can be significant. Larger hardrives with multiple GB's and advanced configurations make backup and restoration procedures more significant. We have been talking about a lot of different scenarios and I can see how it is confusing. I do not think this post will clear anything up BTW! The "Blue Screens" I have been experiencing lately, and that Zeuspaul has never seen (though I think he's lying myself <GGG>) are the results of RECOVERABLE crashes. That is, you reboot and you're back in business. When I refer to a screen of "death" I mean a problem that a cold boot will not fix. When I refer to total system failure I mean my own inability to restore. It may be a simple process for someone who knows how. I have encountered recoverable crashes in NT. I have yet to experience a total system failure in NT. I also use my NT machines far less than the Win95 machines. This is due to the fact that some of my core applications do not run in NT. I am in the NT camp IF your software and hardware will allow it. I encounter "freezes" in my Win95 machines on a regular basis. If I can boot and the system restores no harm done. If this were a trading machine I would be concerned as time to reboot can be rather long especially if I have to go through the process twice as is often the case. System Restoration The options provided by the manufacturer are poor at best. I have a Compaq Presario (1 yr old+) and an IBM Aptiva(3 yrs old +/-) at home. Both machines are Win95 and came with a full software load. The operating system restoration process provided by the manufacturer and Microsoft includes reformatting the harddrive and a complete load of all the junk software included in the package. Everything is lost in the process as the format command is used. The Win95 disc included in the package is a companion disc, not a complete OS. Software Design I will not buy another machine with combined OS and software on one CD (hopefully). Some first time buyers may find all of the limited edition software of some value. It should be included on a separate CD. If possible avoid the preloads altogether. Buy your own software on a separate CD. I am looking forward to my next machine. Probably more from the software point of view than new hardware. One key component will be a stand alone OS. It will not say "quick restore" or "upgrade" anywhere. I concur with Spots and Dave. There should be a partition ( what size? 2GB, with all of the junk Bill includes with his OS I wonder if that is big enough) that is just for the OS or multiple OS's. I am inclined toward a separate 4 GB drive rather than a partition. I still like the idea of a second harddrive with a ready to go backup. In addition I like the Power Quest option. Use each solution as needed. I would like to do it without "cracking the case". Maybe external removable bay as Dave mentioned. If the drives are SCSI can one change the drive sequence in the SCSI BIOS? Win95 and NT also seem to be in order as they both have clear advantages. Win95 for multimedia applications and NT for stable network configurations. With allocated space for the OS and all applications and operating systems on separate CD's the restoration process provides more options. If my system were designed as such I would not be in a position of losing so much when I have to restore. We can debate the hardware components but the software design and recovery be it partial or full is also a major consideration. Zeuspaul