GPS FORUM

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:01:19 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:


Forget all the strawmen in the form of other OSs, this is a
straight Windows version comparison.


Youre quite wrong. Try it. XP requires more resources but
on any modern PC user applications run rather faster than
under any DOS-based Windows version for fairly obvious
reasons.



[snip]

Youre at it again ;-)

Simple: you boot DOS. Now back to the OPs problem:

1. The required SW doesnt work on 98SE.
2. The required SW does work on XP.
3. He has XP available but doesnt want to use it for some
unknown reason.

He isnt forthcoming about why he wants to continue to use
98SE despite the recommended switch to XP solving his
problem. People have offered opinions as to why thw switch
may be beneficial in other ways too.

Perhaps he really has a valid reason for his choice or maybe
hes just set in his ways. In either case its his choice -
but using the discussion as an excuse to soapbox about how
bad you believe XP to be isnt very productive either.

--
John Bean

On 2007-11-07, John Bean wrote:


Its not a straw man at all.


It also buggers around alot more than earlier versions of windows so
without trying it for an extensive period of time, and I dont think
either of us are going to do that, your certainty is misplaced.


Its not that simple if you dont want to run DOS all the time,
however it was just an example of the kind of reason why a pre-emptive
OS can be a PITA with some older hardware.


He wants to run it on 98 as its his main OS, with XP set aside for
occasional use. If he can get it to run on 98 then great, if not
then he can use XP. Hes said he keeps XP for this reason...


Why the hell should he?


Im not soapboxing. Youre very certain that youre right but
youve not bothered to look at whats said or think your answers
through.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!