Is there a stable version of Windows? 2

[miner00]

At work, I run Windows NT and to this point, I have had no problems. My computer at home though runs Windows ME, I have had nothing but trouble. To this point, it has corrupted several programs that now need to be reinstalled and dies if I try to extrude a solid in Solidworks. Lately it has been freaking out with Word docs.

I am about ready to go out and buy Windows XP, but I thought I would ask around to see if there was a better option. This is a relatively new computer with a P3 933mHz and 128MB Ram. I will probably upgrade RAM as well, but 128 should be more than enough to run Word or extrude a solid without dying.

 

[abhio]

For starts, there's NO stable version of windoze, but Win 98 SE is the least of the evils for small systems. For anything bigger, you have to go to Win NT or Win 2000.

Also, it's funny how anyone can think that Linux has any catching up to do with Win. The system is great, fast and stable. The only thing is to get AFFORDABLE professional software on this great platform. The ball is in the developers' court, and they're not even looking at it. Abhijeet Oundhakar
Design Engineer
Rashid Al Owais Engg. & Consulting
Sharjah, UAE

 

[beercia]

Is there really a stable platform of Windows? It all depends. I have Win 98 SE but differently from what others say about it I had plenty of problems with it. Frequent crashes with the usual message "this program has performed an illegal operation and will close". My program is an original Windows copy but for some strange reason it starts giving problems just after I visit the Microsoft web site or after I register the program or after I install an Explorer or MSN upgrade and after some time it starts to get progressively corrupted. I have 512MB memory on my Pentium III 500 Mhz computer but it frequently freezes after some web navigating due to memory running out. I have antivirus programs and firewalls installed. I suspect that in some way Microsoft has something to do with all the Windows operational problems by means of a web based protection scheme that sometimes fails to recognize original copies (or that forces you to upgrade to the newer versions) and from there comes all the freeze-ups that beleaguer Windows (At least that might be my case). What I have done is to avoid the Microsoft Web Site like the plague and avoid to install any new software that Microsoft sometimes suggests (MSM Messenger and clock sofwtare). At least in this way I avoid the total loss of my data and the computer keeps responsive for a longer period of time. Eventually it will die with a blue screem but at least lasts longer. After the blue screen of death only formatting the hard disk to low level will cure the problem and the process will start again. I have done this several times since I bought and registered Windows 98 SE.

 

[GregLocock]

Yor problem may be that you have too much memory. I was warned against running 98SE with more than 256 Mbytes.

This machine runs NT4 on 128M and is rock solid, at work I use a mixture of W2000 on 1 Gig which is great, and HPUX which I loathe mildly. Of the three I'd say the NT4 machine is the most stable, but it also runs the least challemging software. I suspect the HP workstation has hardware issues, leastways I can make it reboot by thumping the desk! It's had a couple of visits to the hospital already.





Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Focht3]

An interesting question. I have several comments:

[ol][li]Win2k is the most stable - but drivers are an issue, particularly with respect to setting up less common hardware configurations like dual monitors on laptops, etc.

[li]XP - Pro or Home - is more stable than any version of Win9x. They are both built on Win2k.

[li]Win ME has the worst of both worlds: the underlying code is Win98SE, and the front end/graphics/drivers are from XP. It was a doomed product from the get-go.

[li]Windows - any flavor - has problems when a lot of programs have been installed and "properly" removed (I hate the term 'uninstalled.') If you test a lot of software, you will eventually have to wipe the hard drive clean and start over. You will have the least number of problems with a given PC by installing as few programs as possible on it.

[li]XP can be crashed - but it's a hell of a lot more stable than Win98SE.[/ol]If you plan on using your copy of Win98SE (or any Win9x, for that matter), then do yourself a big favor: set up a partition at the end of the hard drive to be used exclusively by the Windows swap file. (We now do this routinely on all our machines - even those running 2000 Pro and XP Pro.) When Win9x crashes, the OS can still try to write the swap file's contents to the hard drive, or write to the FAT, sub-directories, etc. This causes cross-linked files, scrambled sub-directories, etc. And the Win9x files can be corrupted, too. Re-installing the OS 'over' the existing install doesn't necessarily fix the problem, either. You have to install into a new folder, and reinstall all your programs.

All of our machines have at least two partitions. And they rarely crash; it's a 50-50 mix between Win2k and XP Pro.

Oh, and on the "whining" about the cost of extra memory, faster hardware, etc.: I'll be happy to sell you my Compaq "luggable" - it runs MS DOS 6.22 on a 7 inch monochrome CGA monitor, a 5.25 inch 360k floppy, a 44 Mb Miniscribe HD with 28 ms average access time. I have already installed Norton Utilities 8, WordPerfect 4.2, Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.0a, and MS FORTRAN 2 so it's ready to go. And it still works. Really.



Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[zdas04]

I just heard a report on the radio about the PC that Walmart is selling for $200 with Lindows (what a stupid name) installed. The report said that most programs tested would not run, and many locked the system up.

Lindows clearly is not ready for prime time, but what is it trying to be anyway. I was a PC "pioneer" (my first "laptop" was a Compaq Portable II much like Focht3 except the biggest hard disk you could put in it was 10 MB) and learned the misery of DOS, Unix, and Assembler. If you are not a programmer why would you want to go through that today? I use my computer do do stuff, not to write stuff for others to use. I want MathCad, AutoCad, a word processor, a spreadsheet, a presentation package, Internet, and e-mail. If I have to write a program to improve my personal productivity I use Visual Basic and it does good enough. Why would anyone want to have to write a mini-program just to link a Linix program to the resources it needs?

Windows XP does a really fine job at all of the things I need and I know that EVERY new version or new application will have been tested on an XP platform (it may not be currently bug free, but I know the vendor made a run at it) which may not be true on a Linix platform and most likely is not true on a Win9X platform. Anyone running ME, 95, or 98SE is just asking for more time dealing with crashes than productive work.

Complain about Gates all you want (I do too), but at the end of the day I have to know an awfully lot less about how a program talks to Windows XP than I did under DOS or Unix and I like it that way. The misery I used to go through just to change printers sitll gives me nightmares.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

 

[beercia]

Windows 98 SE has run out of memory on both 256 MB and 512 MB memory motherboards. I don't know if any of you using Win 98 SE have noticed a funny behavior ( at least on my computer) of the blue disk scan when Windows does not close normally: The progressive yellow bar backs off the scan almost at the end of it, the amount becoming progressively larger every time that the message " this program has performed an illegal operation" appears and I am forced to reset the computer. Any ideas on what might be causing this behavior? I suspect progressive file corruption.
I haven't upgraded to Windows XP for two reasons mainly: 1) I still use some DOS programs for which I have some technical applications and 2) I do not agree with a serialized program policy that matches the program to your machine and I don't agree in having to buy a new license when i decide to upgrade my computer's motherboard and/or processor. Those are unfair and bullish practices from Microsoft. When I'll decide to upgrade I'll probably do so to Linux and then maybe I'll upgrade the Windows platform to run only those Windows programs that require it within the Linux OS (just to have minimum web contact with Microsoft).

 

[gunsmith]

I have a THOSHIBA 3000-514 machine (1 GHz PIII, 512 MB Ram) with a Win 2000 Pro OS and a Solid Edge CAD-Program on it. It works perfect - CAD even on complicated 3d-parts like pistol-receivers etc. RAM (256 MB or higher) is most important on 3D-CAD.

I had some trouble with Win XP (always HD-activity in the background and long starting times on program execution) using the same Computer. I prefer Win 2000 Pro because I had no trouble during the last 15 month although the system is often pushed to its limit with interior ballistic calculation on Mathcad and 3d-solid-construction on Solid Edge.

Some parameters of the OS should be modified. Setting switches like "AlwaysUnloadDll" etc. and the parameter for 2nd-Level-Cache of the processor-type. I modified about 15 of such parameters. Go through the forums (like winhelpline etc.) to get the correct configuration. You can switch off some system services, too (to improve PC-performance). I don´t know which - but there are some professionels on this board to answer the question.

Good Luck

Andreas Nehme
mail@waffentechnik.com

 

[gerhardf]

"I haven't upgraded to Windows XP for two reasons mainly: 1) I still use some DOS programs for which I have some technical applications"

Most DOS apps will run under 2k and XP (possibly some that didn't run under 2k will run under XP; it seems that part has been improved, but don't quote me on that ). It's worth a try, anyway. Stay with 2k, if you don't like the activation "feature" out of principle. In real, it's not that much of a hassle.

The 9x platform plain sucks in terms of stability and productivity compared to the 2k/XP Pro versions. No way back for me. I do software development, do all kinds of odd stuff to my system, yet I can have it up without any problems for months at a time: no resource problems, no crashes, no nothing. This is unheard of in the 9x world.

 

[DickRussell]

XP will not run programs that use 32-bit DOS extenders, whereas all former versions will. Keep win2000 if you have it. Nothing is perfect, but it's a matter of finding the best match of imperfections to your particular situation.

 

[beercia]

I have an Smart Spreadsheet engineering applications that I would like to be able to run under DOS environment. You see, the DOS Smart spreadsheet (excluding the continous improvements for today's spreadsheets) is much better than Excel has ever been ( no calculating errors) and its logical programming feature is outstanding. So, I wouldn't like either to rewrite the spreadsheets to an Excel environment because they are large and would take considerable part of my time. So, if Windows XP is able to run Smart it would be sufficient for my purpose. Still I don't like the activation feature that it has (you see I'll be stuck with my computer for several years since I cannot migrate the operating system to a new one unless I buy another one, nice business for Microsoft Uh?)

 

[DickButkus]

ABAQUS runs very well on Linux. It's one of my favorites because it never seems to crash. Linux is also nice because of the clustering.

 

[Canoman]

At home, I run WinXP Pro on a machine with a PIII 800mhz with ~640mb pc133 RAM. The only problem I have had is when I tell the machine to power down, it just reboots itself instead of shutting off. Internet Explorer crashes occasionally, but it never affects the stability of the OS. I've run DOS, 3.1, 95, 98, 98se, 2000 and XP Pro. XP Pro seems the most stable of any system that I've run.

I just thought about it and I've been using computers in one form or another for 20 years (starting with a Commodore 64), and I'm only 24 years old.

 

[beercia]

In relation to Windows XP apparent stability I believe that this is due to the change in the copy protection and validation process compared to the one used by Microsoft in Windows 98. I wonder what would happen to the stability in Windows XP if the user , say, decides to change motherboard and processor?. Would it run at all? Anyone out there with experience on this? Sometimes this is something the unsuspecting user is not aware of but copy protection schemes are very subtle in nature and usually operate in the background without the user knowing it and acting, for some unknown reason (maybe not detecting originals correctly or maybe forcibly wanting the user to upgrade to a new version $$$) forcing crashes, "Illegal operation" messages and blue screens of death. The indications abound on your computer when the behavior of your equipment shows signs as if "someone else is making changes to your settings and the way your computer operates" i.e. disabling components (that curiously revive when you perform a clean install of the OS), changing the way your desktop wallpaper looks, etc (specially right after seeing those messages and blue screens). Wouldn't this has to do with Microsoft's refusal to open the source code for Windows due to security reasons? Curious Uh?
And that is in addition to the wars that Microsoft and different software manufacturers (i.e. Netscape that are competition to MS products) wage on your computer trying to disable each other's applications.
And please don't tell me that my problems are due to virus attacks ( I have used several up-to-date antivirus programs and none of them detects anything abnormal ever). The only virus that I would suspect is one coming out from a software protection scheme, either software based or software manufacturer's web based at time of registering your product and that normally won't be detected by any antivirus program.

 

[Focht3]

I won't address most of that post - not enough time in the day. But I can comment on the what would happen to the stability in Windows XP if the user , say, decides to change motherboard and processor? question.

Simply put, you have to reinstall the OS (Win2K, XP - both flavors.) "Repair" won't work. It apparently has to do with how the motherboard drivers are loaded.

This is a well-known issue; and does not appear to be related to ...the copy protection and validation process...




Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[DanTex]

OK. So you have to reinstall the OS ( Win2000 or XP ) upon change of motherboard. Just to clarify 100%... I assume that means you have to reinstall all other software from scratch??? ie.. A "clean" install is in order?

Dan

http://www.dtware.com

 

[Focht3]

Yes - but you don't have to wipe the drive. It's a real pain...had to do it three times now.



Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[beercia]

OK Focht3, if not a copy protection scheme that links your software to your hardware what is it? Please clarify or give your opinion on that. That's something always baffled me but I don't see any logical answer for this behavior except copy protection. Please enlighten me.

 

[Focht3]

As I understand things, all of the Win2k-based OS's (WIN2000, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Server, etc.) have a special boot file that loads motherboard-specific info during start-up. If hardware-specific calls return the wrong information early in the boot process, the OS craps out.

Incidedentally, this is one of the key reasons that Apple has so few motherboard designs floating around; the OS is crafted to very specific hardware. It results in much more reliable operation - and faster boots.



Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[beercia]

Focht3:

That would be a correct approach for a propietary architecture environment in hardware but Windows flies on an open architecture one with many, many different hardware combination possibilities and as such with many upgrade possibilities as new technologies and better perfomance components develop. So, the approach in Windows XP would limit enormously the number of component upgrades that the owner may make on his computer. So, who would benefit from this? The computer makers and/or software manufacturers of course, since you'll be forced to buy a new one or buy a new Windows license instead. The times that you can upgrade as many times as you wished are over. This being said I still think the reason behind it is copy protection, a cheap and a very clever one may I add. Has anyone given any thought to the possibility for software manufacturers to have access to the processor's serial number? I know that according to Intel the processor activation process is through the setup program but could any software manufacturer have access to this serial number through "a back door" (unknown to the user) that is very common in the programming world?

 

[NevarMaor]

I use Win XP Pro at work. Came with new computer and Win 2000 wasn't available any more (also companies are no longer supporting their programs on Win 2000 machines). Old computer had Win 2000. Side-by-side I would say that Win 2000 ran a little better. The XP has some very quirky things to it, and some video driver-related problems that I just can't seem to figure out. But in both cases Solid Edge (main program computers are used for) locks up regularly. The computer doesn't lock up but often it seems to become unstable and requires a reboot to get working right again. Again, more noticeable in XP than in 2000. And only takes a couple days of straight running to get that way. So I generally shutdown and reboot overnight, and sometimes in the middle of the day too.

As an aside, I thought the reason there were so few motherboard (and other hardware) options for Apple computers was because of the licencing fees Apple charges.