|
|
Posted by tornado.shanks on 10/16/47 11:41
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:46:12 -0600, Idiot <none@again.com> wrote:
>2000 and xp which are I believe plug and play.Many people such as myself
>continue to use W98/SE because we like it.XP I'm told is more of a resource
>hogg,I'm using a computer with a pentium 3 which is about 6 years old and
>running perfectly well and to my liking.I'm under the impression XP will slow
>my box down.I'm pretty damn sure alot of peeps are still using Windows 98.So
>why should I be kidding?Yes there is a patch out there for running an Ipod on
>W98 though its hit and miss getting it to work on your computer.The whole
>purpose of my post was to get advice from others who presumably still use w98
>upgraded to se and run an mp3 device without problems of which Im sure their
>are many.Clearly you run XP and have no time for those that run w98 so you have
>nothing to offer in reply to my post!
I'd give some thought to running win2k. It's compatible with just
about all hardware and software out there today, will run just fine on
your machine, isn't a resource hog like xp, and is more stable than
win98. You should have made that switch a long time ago. I've been
running it since '00. Windows 98 is pretty much on the end of it's
legs so you'll be hard pressed to find help with things like this
seeing how machines that run xp have been the norm for several years
now. The only reason 2k is still supported so well is because
businesses use it, but even that is on the wane now.
Face the music... Sooner or later, you'll have to spend a couple
hundred bucks on 2003's technology and upgrade your computer. That's
life in the fast lane.
________________
¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø°º¤ø...tornado shanks
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|