"Pointless facts? Do you even know what the FSB is on a computer? Do you even know how a computer works.. How old are you?"
The thing is that most of what you say sounds as if it were FUD from one's typical Linux zealot. For example: "Could it be Microsoft made a deal with the government to implement spy ware? This would explain the sudden rash of viruses and why entire countries are avoiding using Windows now." Considering how baseless that is, that really threw away any credibility you had with me.
"We should grow up a little here.. There are Win9x users who love to customize their system and can't afford a new machine."
The thing is that you shouldn't expect to run the newest software if you're using outdated technology. If I only have a Pentium and Windows 95, I can't expect to run Unreal Tournament 2003 adequately.
"Which Windows apps have security flaws?

IE
Outlook
MSN
Media Player

Correct? Why can't you remove them? Won't that make your OS safer? Isn't that a logical solution to someone like my mom who just wants to use her computer and not worry about viruses?
Am I asking too much to remove this software?"
Surely somebody with your 1337ness could find a way to remove them on Windows XP. Why wait for the PCLite gang to do the work for you? Seeing as how I don't use Outlook Express or MSN, I don't know why I should worry about security issues with using those programs. For a developer, I don't understand why you feel that you're forced to use those programs.
"And am I wrong for saying Win98exploreRPG! is better because it gives me this freedom? To me this freedom is more important than *ANYTHING* WinXp has to offer."
Can you delete IE from Windows 98-ME without using 98Lite?

We need a better quoting system.

It is pretty amazing that someone who claims to be technical would seriously compare the security of an NT based OS with a Windows 95 based OS.

Incidentally, I don't see much hope for Linux on the desktop. I'll pay for Windows XP any day over using Linux for free as my desktop OS.

I'm not at all affiliated with the 98Lite (now litePC) folks. But they do have products for those wanting to unBorg some of the MSBorg aspects of their OS. Some people swear by 98Lite. Now they're working on a similar product for W2K and XP (you know, achieving what MS told the judge simply could not be done.) This isn't for everyone, but it's good to have options for those who want them.

I was 'told' that 98 wouldn't efficiently handle RAM over 128megs, and ME wouldn't efficiently handle it over 256. True?

IIRC 512 is the recommended max 98 and ME. Problems could result with more than that. I noticed an improvement when I put 256 in my old 98 PC. Do either one handle memory efficiently compared to the NT family? Not that I'm aware of.

http://www.aumha.org/a/memmgmt.htm

Well, I still like the old DOS systems. Once you learned the language you were in and it almost never crashed and when it did, it was east to fix. I don't have enough credentials to compare with anyone. Did program for a univac 1005 back in the early 70's. Did I lighten up the place. Hope so.

I had 256 and the geeky lookin dude at CompUSA told me that 98 and ME wouldn't defrag ram past a certain point(128/256 respectively), making the ram past that point useless.

After about 5 minutes it was like "Derp de derp, derpty... derp?". You know how those creepy "I have hated computers since they invented the mouse" people can be....

Kinda poisoned me on 98, though, I didn't bother with more ram til I got win2k.

What happens if you use say a gig of ram on ME. I would be currious to know.

the cool part about this wonderfull object bar program that you keep reading about is that it can give you the xp start menu seemlessly, and it can use windowblinds to skin it.. so it will always match your skin pretty cool huh.. just found that out a few days ago... too bad I have xp, or I'd be having a field day with that...

Silly people..

bakerstreet:

"I'm 32, and have owned computers since I was 12. I don't buy machines, I build them. 3 of which are within arm's reach, each running 3 entirely different OS. It is easy for little 'ole me to see how goofy you are, and Frogboy is eons past me in expertise.

Anyone spouting slashdot propaganda while using ME is in serious need of help. I suggest finding yourself a linux board and duking it out with people who are more anxious to have the kind of conversations you are attempting. "

For someone who is 32, you sound immature. Consider this, what if I purchased ME, and waqs satisfied? Maybe I've never had the problems other people had... Maybe I've developed an software game engine & editor in the OS and never experience the inconsistent transparent BLT redraws that I've seen in WindowsBlinds.

*BUT YOU ARE TELLING ME, I HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE MY OS WORKS.*

In all honest, Win9x & WinME should get the same respect & support as WinXP users. I think many of you are out of touch..

On building machines....I have 4 computers I build 3 and the 4th is my laptop. (big whip... are we gonna compare d!ck sizes next?)

My major concern is not with your opinions of me.. I am just trying to help spot bugs in these applications. I'm not *bashing* the application, just simply explaining my system and what happen. As soon as I post WinME, some idiot says, "Thats your problem."

But did any of you WinXP,Win98SE users discover the duplicate registry Key bug? ObjectBar & Component Tray create duplicate keys..

In my opinion you guys are too busy flaming WinME users and not spending enough time trying to improve the programs.

Here's another bug:

SkinsStudio gets a runtime error when it exists. But I guess this is WinME, right? - Wrong. Its looks classic VB error, but I doubt if its the OS.


Fuzzy Logic..

Piss Off.. The "spoiled children" here are the XP users. Maybe you need to read how an *every* single bug reported is attributed to the OS. (Like the developer *never* makes a mistake.)

Man, if I had guys like you supporting my game engine I would have *never* got the bugs fixed. Personally, I don't pass the buck, I research *every* bug to insure I have a good product. (And as if WinME is as bad as you say, If my game engine runs on WinME it will run on anything.)

Frogboy,

I don't care what your credentials are. My initial post was simply point out that Microsoft is not perfect. Use WinXP, if you like.. I'll use WinME or 98.. Don't question my talent, ability or credentials. You assumed things about me, and you looked like an ass.. Let it go.. You may not agree with what I said, but try being an adult and agree to disagree.


"I had 256 and the geeky lookin dude at CompUSA told me that 98 and ME wouldn't defrag ram past a certain point(128/256 respectively), making the ram past that point useless."

bakerstreet,

I believe the limit is 512MB for the Win9x series..But listen to what you are saying.. Do you need a computer that can hold almost the storage of a COMPLETE CDROM in memory? Damn, I wrote a complete software game an I don't need that much space.

I think computer speed, and memory is moving to the point of lunacy. There are versions of Linux that still run under 4MB of RAM. But you want me to be impressed with WinXP and its HIGH system requirements.. Your a f*cking joke.

Programming is about making a BETTER program with every revision. Not pushing system requirements to force upgrades by creating a large BLOATED Operating System.

Consider this: There was a time where people used to upgrade their machine to get the latest & greatest software game to work on their PC. Now, idiots like you upgrade for the OS. (huh?) You upgrade just to get a START menu? You haven't even installed software & you are maxing out a CPU with a low FSB, Extreme hard drive, and outrageous memory..

I guess you process information for the Dept. Of Defense in your house.

Suckers..

exploreRPG!: you said "Your a f*cking joke"

No, You are clueless. I suggest you get yourself a copy of Photoshop, and load up a 24" by 36" image at 600-1000dpi with 15 or 20 layers, and then hold yourself back about 90 history states. Then come back and talk to me about RAM. I have more than a gig in my design machine, and if I had it to do over, I wouldn't have bought a board that held less than 2 gigs.

The people you are talking to USE their systems, not just for browsing pr0n or playing Diablo on some half-assed laptop. Talk to some of the folks here that design with 3D Max about resource use on Win98, and you'll see what a joke your point of view is. If you had actuially spent the time waiting as you compiled a real game engine of any size you would understand as well. Move on to the support page at Stardock where you should have gone in the first place and spare us the drek.

ExplorerRPG, if I weren't an "adult" I would have already exiled you from this site for being so obnoxious. It is my "adult"ness that allows you to have the ability to spout out your rather incomplete knowledge of operating system technology. Suspecting that you're a kid doesn't make me look like an "ass". I suspect most people would agree with me that guessing that you're a kid is a pretty good guess.

I don't think anyone here thinks Microsoft is perfect. But I think most reasonable people would agree that a newer version of a given software program is probably better than a previous version all things considered.

Windows 9x based OSes won't get the same "respect" because they are so unreliable when it comes to customization. Developers don't want to mess with debugging a problem where the cause is likely due to WinME/98 having run out of resources.

I don't agree with your concept of "bloat". I look at resource usage as a matter of cost, not in absolute terms. Specifically, in 1992 every megabyte of memory cost around $40. Windows 3.1 required about 4 megabytes of RAM to run. OS/2 required 8 megabytes to reasonably run.

Today, it's around 30 cents.

Windows XP requires around 256MB of RAM. That means it costs around $75 to get enough RAM for it.
By contrast, Windows 3.1 cost about $160 to get enough RAM for it.

Therefore my view is that operating systems have become less bloated. I could care less about how much a given program uses in memory in absolute terms. I care about how much it will cost me to use it.

Windows XP offers some pretty significant enhancements over Windows ME:
+ Much better stability
+ DLL caching
+ Remote Desktop
+ NTFS
+ REAL security
+ Better multitasking
+ Better visual APIs (CursorXP, WindowFX, and other enhancements that require these new APIs).

These aren't trivial things.

You sound like one of those old Amiga people that talked about how they could multitask with 512K of RAM. Goody for them.

A computer is a TOOL. And as a tool the best measurement IMO is how much it can do per unit of cost. Windows XP has a much better productivity per cost ratio than Windows ME.

Hey..

I don't pretend to know what you use your computer for..Just like I don't pretend to be knowledgable of your age and credentials.. (I've learned from watching you look like an ass, not to do that.)

Sure, you probably should be using an OS with better Memory management. WinXP is probably for you, but remember you are not the majority of computer users. You, Like me are a small percent of computer users so don't *attack* the 14 year old WinME user that just wants his WindowBlinds to work. It makes you look like a jerk, and you may to talking to an individual more than capable of handling, a person of your caliber in thread like this.

Your insults about my OS, Laptop, and computer use clearly prove your inability to stay on topic. Your computer use is specific to YOU. So don't try to force your needs on others.

Maybe I represent a low-end PC user. Fine I don't have a problem with that.

On 3DSM users..

I use Bryce.. I happen to like it and I under stand how intensive graphic applications can be. But if you start showing WinME users, everyone can benefit from this thread. Not just immature bickering about OS's.

On your Photoshop example..

I'm a developer, so are you aware that there are better, more efficient methods for handing large amounts of information than attempting to load the entire pic in memory. (Oh, we do seem primative..) Check out Microsoft TerraServer and then come back and talk to me about large scale image processing.

And more to the point, Write your OWN large scale image processor that doesn't require 2Gigs of ram.. Impress me..

Haha f*ckin joke..

"I'm a developer, so are you aware that there are better, more efficient methods for handing large amounts of information than attempting to load the entire pic in memory. (Oh, we do seem primative..) Check out Microsoft TerraServer and then come back and talk to me about large scale image processing."

No, you aren't developer, of that I have absolutely no doubt at this point. The last post has no relation to reality in image editing or development. I say ban this guy, he's a waste of time.

Frogboy,

"if I weren't an "adult" I would have already exiled you from this site for being so obnoxious. It is my "adult"ness that allows you to have the ability to spout out your rather incomplete knowledge of operating system technology. Suspecting that you're a kid doesn't make me look like an "ass". I suspect most people would agree with me that guessing that you're a kid is a pretty good guess."

I haven't expressed any knowledge of operating system technology. I'm merely expressing that there are Win9x users here that need support. Any "limits" that I may have are my own, and you have yet to determine.


WinXP requires about 256MB of RAM!!! Whoooahh.. I thought it was 190MB.. Thats worse than I thought.. I guess you think C++ is better than C, huh? OOP overkill at its finest..


"Windows XP offers some pretty significant enhancements over Windows ME:
+ Much better stability
+ DLL caching
+ Remote Desktop
+ NTFS
+ REAL security
+ Better multitasking
+ Better visual APIs (CursorXP, WindowFX, and other enhancements that require these new APIs)."

NTFS is a choice..
Security? - Can I *REMOVE* IE? Thats the security I'm looking for.

Visual APIs? Under slow GDI+ Yea.. Ok.
Stabiliy? Yes.. It does, its based on the NT frame.

But if you were paying attention, I NEVER said WinME was better.. You are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that there are Win9x users who need and deserve support.

Bugs reported by Win9x users are VALID bugs, not just "Its your OS. Upgrade to WinXP"

DLL caching.. Interesting..


"You sound like one of those old Amiga people that talked about how they could multitask with 512K of RAM. Goody for them."

Yea.. real good.. So you don't expect Microsoft to optimize their code? You are happy with the waste? Just wondering...

"Windows XP requires around 256MB of RAM. That means it costs around $75 to get enough RAM for it.
By contrast, Windows 3.1 cost about $160 to get enough RAM for it."

Oh, so because ram is cheaper lets waste it on BLOATED applications.. Check out this site.

www.powerbasic.com

They are some really talented guys in the war against BLOATWARE.

Look, I'm not trying to be rude but my bugs posts are real.. not a joke.

bakerstreet..

Here is an example of how a large image can be edited... I'm going to make a few assumptions to simplify my example.

Assume the image is a bitmap.

1 The image header is stored in the file and usually in RGB format. So you can calculate the number of horizontal bytes per scan line.

2 You can open the file read the header and create a virtual windows for reading the graphics data and displaying it on screen dynamically.

3 you Can write a routine to WRITE the image PAGE file back to the disk directly after it is editted on the screen.

And you can do this is UNDER 5MB of ram.

Unless you require something more, I don't see your point.

Where did you get the idea this was the place to post bugs? Is this the Stardock site? Is there a 'bug' forum? Anyway, where on this string did you try to report a bug?

If you need more info, I can provide it.. Remember the image file is nothing more than data on a disk.

There are government Databases that are managed which are larger than your image files. So You could, in theory make an large scale image editor or processor based on the same data retreival and update algorithms that is used to process databases.

But I'm not a developer so what do I know? If you like I'll write the routine in VB to satisfy your curiousity. (14 year old kids love VB!)

hehe lighten up... you guys are making this more personal than it should be.

Reminds me of the skit on SNL about The View with that woman who would always "I'm a lawyer..." when making some claim.

bakerstreet,

Maybe we got off the wrong foot... Let me apologize for insulting you..

I am just a Win9x user who is a programmer and needs support. My posts are not with some technical background. And Win9x is still a viable and useful OS. If every WinXP user flames Win9X user, this site will get a bad reputation.

I had a few kids who visit my gaming site complain that they can't get support here.

Again, I'm sorry.. I'm here to support and find bugs.. Not defend my choice of OS's.

But if you need that image processing app I can get write for you. I don't know the entire purpose of what you are doing, but there are methods for accessing images in parts and editing them instead of loading the entire image at once.

Furthermore there are methods for psuedo loading the entire image just to give you a general idea of what image looks like. While the program can perform the changes in the background.

A good developer can develop any situation to get the desired end result. So, claiming more memory is the only solutio is not always true. (if you are developer.)

ExploreRPG: The whole point is that this is NOT the place to expect support with Stardock related products unless it is the SkinBrowser. The place for that is news.stardock.com for the peer to peer support and [email protected] for specific support. However most 98/ME related 'bugs' turn out to be with other apps that leak resources and leak faster when something which causes more repaints is taking over their repaints. This is a fact and is not something Stardock can resolve. The workaround is to limit what WB tries to do to the app using exclusion settings or report the issue to the developer of the app that is leaking or has problems (good luck on that one in most cases). The alternative workaround (which people have mentioned) is to change to 2K or XP as that is not an issue due to different resource handling.

In reference to your comments on Photoshop. You mention the fact that it doesn't need to load it all into memory at once etc. Obviously if you are reading/writing from/to disk it will take longer than accessing the image in memory directly. When you are editing an image you don't want to find that your while painting little pauses are occuring while the program does it's efficient graphic accessing.

I should mention that Photoshop already can make use of a scratch disk to store data so it presumably is doing something like you mention. But it only needs to do this after it has run out of real memory to use. It is perfectly possible to use Photoshop on low amounts of memory (someone at work used it on 64MB) but there will be annoying slow downs as scratch disks are used. So the more memory the better.

exploreRPG!: no offense, but nothing you are saying has any relationship to a real image manipulation app. No one is talking about batch watermarking, file conversion, or applying filters.

Realtime painting requires the image to be loaded into memory, and anything that touches on disk access is painfully slow. Just ask anyone who falls back on virtual memory or scratch disk to supplement their RAM.

I feel for ya, I really do, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Your best bet is to follow pjpowell's advice on the bug problem, and in your off-time read up a bit more on how a paint-app works. Once you ahve a good basis for discourse, I'm sure any of us would be open to any ideas you may have.