Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
In article <01c19504$ea4717a0$9865fea9@salisbury>, Dave Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >- Original Message - >From: "Malcolm Cadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:47 PM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea >rned) Love Live QLs > > >> >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do >not >> >interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably >faster >> >than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I think >Win2K >> >makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. >> >> Trust you to have the luxurious hardware, Dave :-) > >It is work that gives me a decent spec laptop (and it is not that speedy at >only 600MHz). My home machine is sigificantly better and has a larger >monitor attached which is great for running QPC2. > >> >> When are you going to attend a London Quanta Group meeting, we would >> love to see you with your speedy laptop ? >> > >I have now put the London Quanta dates in my diary (since Novemeber) and it >is just a case of whether when the day arrives another conflicting >appointment is on it. I play a lot of bridge - and in the last few months >these have co-incided with London Quanta meetings. Excellent ! We can look forward to seeing you at sometime in 2002. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
- Original Message - From: "Malcolm Cadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs > >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do not > >interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably faster > >than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I think Win2K > >makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. > > Trust you to have the luxurious hardware, Dave :-) It is work that gives me a decent spec laptop (and it is not that speedy at only 600MHz). My home machine is sigificantly better and has a larger monitor attached which is great for running QPC2. > > When are you going to attend a London Quanta Group meeting, we would > love to see you with your speedy laptop ? > I have now put the London Quanta dates in my diary (since Novemeber) and it is just a case of whether when the day arrives another conflicting appointment is on it. I play a lot of bridge - and in the last few months these have co-incided with London Quanta meetings. Dave
Re: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
Dave Walker writes: > My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then Win2K outperformas any of the Win9x variants. I agree (apart from booting and shutdown which are annoyingly slow) It is also much more stable than any other variant of windoze Ive tried. W95OSR2 cant be bought for love or money so its down to W98SE or Me (but I couldnt even install Me on one of my machines..) Pity QPC cant do proper sounds on W2k/NT, but otherwise its as 'great.' as these things go.. Besides memory is dirt cheap at the moment, and if you only use windoze for QPC a 20Gig HD youll still have more than 19+Gig or so for QPC ;) Per
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? >Win956 is way too flakey for anything - 'real' Windows programmers refer to >it as Windows Play Station due to its inability to be used for anything >other than games. > >Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? >We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. I totally agree with this. All versions of the 9x code are just dreadful and 95 was the worst. W2K is stable at least. Since all versions of Windoze have more bugs than a compost heap you may as well use the one that keeps working longest. The primary problem with all versions of w9x is memory fragmentation and only since I changed to W2K have I been able to throw Memturbo away. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 381577 Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
In article <20020103182853.UAJA1008.fep02-svc.ttyl.com@localhost>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes >> From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT >> To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea >rned) Love Live QLs >> >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: >> >> > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? >> >> Apart from being slowest than Win95, > >My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then Win2K >outperformas any of the Win9x variants. > >> more bloated (if at all >> possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on >> desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >This point I have to give you! > >> >> > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? >> > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. >> >> It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage >> of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds >> of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the >> speed difference... > >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do not >interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably faster >than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I think Win2K >makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. Trust you to have the luxurious hardware, Dave :-) When are you going to attend a London Quanta Group meeting, we would love to see you with your speedy laptop ? -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > >> Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? > >Apart from being slowest than Win95, more bloated (if at all >possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on >desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >> Win956 is way too flakey for anything > >95 OSR2, once patched appropriately with all bugfixes available >from Microsoft site, is CERTAINLY more stable than 98 or 2K, >stable enough anyway to run QPC2 (which is the ONLY reason why >I keep Win95 on my laptop knowadays... if only QPC2 could run >under Linux !!!). I can confirm that QPC2 is solid with Win95, or is that the other way around ? -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
At 06:28 ìì 3/1/2002 +, you wrote: > > > > From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT > > To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be > lea rned) Love Live QLs > > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > > > > > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? > > > > Apart from being slowest than Win95, > >My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then >Win2K outperformas any of the Win9x variants. True 100% (And I do have 256 Megs) > > more bloated (if at all > > possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on > > desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >This point I have to give you! Not true since NT/2K really allows you dual booting on the same drive with REAL dos (even FreeDos) which is by far better than the pi**ing around they call dos under Windows 9x > > > > > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? > > > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. > > > > It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage > > of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds > > of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the > > speed difference... > >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do >not interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably >faster than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I >think Win2K makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. You GOT to see the DOS C68 version compiling under CMD ;-)) >Dave Walker > > > >___ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.312 / Virus Database: 173 - Release Date: 31/12/2001
Re: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
> > From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT > To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) >Love Live QLs > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > > > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? > > Apart from being slowest than Win95, My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then Win2K outperformas any of the Win9x variants. > more bloated (if at all > possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on > desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... This point I have to give you! > > > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? > > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. > > It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage > of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds > of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the > speed difference... My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do not interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably faster than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I think Win2K makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. Dave Walker ___ Never pay another Internet phone bill! Freeserve AnyTime, for all the Internet access you want, day and night, only £12.99 per month. Sign-up at http://www.freeserve.com/time/anytime
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? Apart from being slowest than Win95, more bloated (if at all possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > Win956 is way too flakey for anything 95 OSR2, once patched appropriately with all bugfixes available from Microsoft site, is CERTAINLY more stable than 98 or 2K, stable enough anyway to run QPC2 (which is the ONLY reason why I keep Win95 on my laptop knowadays... if only QPC2 could run under Linux !!!). > - 'real' Windows programmers Beware, with the "real" word, under Windoze (and more exactly with Intel CPUs), this word has several "unreal" meanings... ;-) > refer to it as Windows Play Station due to its inability to be > used for anything other than games. This is perfect then, because this is exactly for what I use Win95 on my desktop computer ! > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the speed difference... Well, let's go back on topic (QDOS/SMS stuff for those who forgot what the topic was ;-), my wish list for 2002 is: - for Marcel: QPC 2 (or 3, or 4...) for Linux. - for Peter : a Q60/100MHz laptop. And YES, I still believe in Santa Claus ! ;-) QDOS/SMS forever ! Thierry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
RE: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
>> Win956 ? I think I miss something ;-) Oops, my typo :o( Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
Win956 ? I think I miss something ;-) I run QPC2 on WinME now and I have no more problems than with W98 (that is far lesser than with virii from Internet). Why WME got such a bad reputation ? Upgrading PC from end user like me includes getting the OS onboard (and there is no more genuine CD, only machine specific software, only for that make) and this is the only way to get more speed : and Athlon 1.2 gives me under QPC 4 times the speed of previous K6/300, as expected, more memorys and huge disk space allowing QXLwin backup directly on disk or on CD Claude -Message d'origine- De : Norman Dunbar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 3 janvier 2002 16:28 À : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Objet : RE: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? Win956 is way too flakey for anything - 'real' Windows programmers refer to it as Windows Play Station due to its inability to be used for anything other than games. Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. Puzzled or Bradford :o) Norman.
