Evolution of an OS?

[Pavachek01]

Windows XP? Day in and day out, I hear friends and strangers extolling the
virtues of Microsoft's newest addition to their family of operating systems. To
hear them, you would thnk that XP had descended from the heavens on a ray of
the holiest light. But I am not pleased. As a gamer living in the age of the
Beast XP666, I find myself sorely pressed to find positive things to say about
it. Has no one else found that the games you have enjoyed for years are
suddenly unplayable just because you've upgraded your OS? Or that your
quicker-than-thought internet connection has suddenly come to resemble a 14.4?

If this is the next logical step in the evolution of a technology then I am
prepared to return to the days of the stylus and clay tablet. Are there more
people out there like me or am I simply stranded in some personal Dark Age
where '98 was good enough?

[Maarten W.G. Andriessen]

"Pavachek01" <pavache...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020219004118.16883.00000465@mb-fu.aol.com...

Windows XP? Day in and day out, I hear friends and strangers extolling the
virtues of Microsoft's newest addition to their family of operating
systems. To
hear them, you would thnk that XP had descended from the heavens on a ray
of
the holiest light. But I am not pleased. As a gamer living in the age of
the
Beast XP666, I find myself sorely pressed to find positive things to say
about
it. Has no one else found that the games you have enjoyed for years are
suddenly unplayable just because you've upgraded your OS? Or that your
quicker-than-thought internet connection has suddenly come to resemble a
14.4?

If this is the next logical step in the evolution of a technology then I
am
prepared to return to the days of the stylus and clay tablet. Are there
more
people out there like me or am I simply stranded in some personal Dark Age
where '98 was good enough?

Almost all DirectX based games can be made to work in Windows XP (thats why
people were NOT giving up on the Windows version of TTDLX), it is the DOS
based games that have problems. Go to a gameshop today, and probably 99% of
the games released in 2000, 2001 and 2002 will work with no problem in
Windows XP, and I think over 80% of the games released in 1997, 1998 and
1999 will also work in XP.

DOS has been totally removed in XP, and XP does not allow direct hardware
addressing so that DOS games cannot directly address the graphics and sound
boards in your machine.

Is it evolution? Yes it is.... it was about time we left the world of DOS
behind, and moved on to a pure 32-bit Windows OS. You can't stay stuck with
the past forever.

On the other hand... no-one forced you to upgrade. Windows XP does not give
you any more functionality then what you can achieve with Windows 98. You
can write your letters, do your taxes, work your spreadsheets, and edit your
phonenumber database.

I use both Windows 2000 (laptop) and Windows XP (main machine) and I will
never again go back to Windows 9x based computing....

Maarten

[Rick McGreal]

Maarten W.G. Andriessen <nos...@nospam.dutchusa.com> wrote in message
news:a4st4h$hr0$1@news.kabelfoon.nl...

Almost all DirectX based games can be made to work in Windows XP (thats
why
people were NOT giving up on the Windows version of TTDLX), it is the DOS
based games that have problems. Go to a gameshop today, and probably 99%
of
the games released in 2000, 2001 and 2002 will work with no problem in
Windows XP, and I think over 80% of the games released in 1997, 1998 and
1999 will also work in XP.

*sigh*
Then....AS usual....I manage to pick up the 1% of games that don't
work....B-(

DOS has been totally removed in XP, and XP does not allow direct hardware
addressing so that DOS games cannot directly address the graphics and
sound
boards in your machine.

Why do this?

Is it evolution? Yes it is.... it was about time we left the world of DOS
behind, and moved on to a pure 32-bit Windows OS. You can't stay stuck
with
the past forever.

Hmm...call me old fashioned...But I'd like both thank you....I don't want
Bill Gates telling me I shouldn't be playing games less than 3 years old...
Particularly when most games out now have no staying power....

On the other hand... no-one forced you to upgrade. Windows XP does not
give
you any more functionality then what you can achieve with Windows 98. You
can write your letters, do your taxes, work your spreadsheets, and edit
your
phonenumber database.

Yes.....In that case I really don't see why anyone upgraded....

I use both Windows 2000 (laptop) and Windows XP (main machine) and I will
never again go back to Windows 9x based computing....

*shrug*
Each to his own

[DJTB]

DOS has been totally removed in XP, and XP does not allow direct
hardware
addressing so that DOS games cannot directly address the graphics and
sound
boards in your machine.

Why do this?

Stability.

Is it evolution? Yes it is.... it was about time we left the world of
DOS
behind, and moved on to a pure 32-bit Windows OS. You can't stay stuck
with
the past forever.



Yes.....In that case I really don't see why anyone upgraded....

Better support for new hardware.

[Rick McGreal]

DJTB <i.am....@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3oc8.35746$ql6.2873891@zwoll1.home.nl...

Why do this?
Stability.

Ok...Not knowing about the coding behind it all I'll not argue....But 98 and
95 are very stable (For me anyway)
And they have DOS

Yes.....In that case I really don't see why anyone upgraded....
Better support for new hardware.

What better support?
Plug and play worked fine with 98....
Am I missing something?

[DJTB]

Yes.....In that case I really don't see why anyone upgraded....
Better support for new hardware.

What better support?
Plug and play worked fine with 98....
Am I missing something?

New OS benefit from faster CPU's, harddisks, etc.

For Example:

I'm an audio producer, I use large programs (such as Cubase VST, SoundForge
etc).
Cubase VST requires a very fast processor, fast harddisk etc.

In Windows 2000/XP (based on NT kernel) the performance (amount of
audiochannels, VST plugs, etc) is *much* better than Cubase VST + the same
hardware config and Windows 98.

My studio audiocard has a lower latency in Windows 2000/XP with the same
drivers than in W98.

[Maarten W.G. Andriessen]

"Rick McGreal" <tri...@mynock.com> wrote in message
news:a4t3gf$2rpcl$1@ID-26322.news.dfncis.de...

DJTB <i.am....@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3oc8.35746$ql6.2873891@zwoll1.home.nl...
Why do this?
Stability.

Ok...Not knowing about the coding behind it all I'll not argue....But 98
and
95 are very stable (For me anyway)
And they have DOS

Yes.....In that case I really don't see why anyone upgraded....
Better support for new hardware.

What better support?
Plug and play worked fine with 98....
Am I missing something?

Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon XP support for instance. Windows 98 is slower on
these systems because it does not support the advanced instructions these
CPU's can process.

Windows 98 also does not support some of the newer chipsets, which could
also give a slight performance decrease beacuse it loads default drivers
when installing Windows 98. If your not a techie, you will probably never
realize this, and go with it.... Windows 98 works just fine, just not with
the best performance.

Further, Windows 98 does not support ATA100 by default. Many modern
mainboards just tell Windows 98 it is an ATA33 or ATA66 controller, which
will work, but you are not getting the best harddisk performance.

All of these issues can be resolved by downloading and installing the proper
drivers, but again.... you need to be somewhat of a techie to even realize
that newer drivers could help improve your OS. AFAIK there are no drivers
for the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP processors which means Windows 98 will just
see it as a really fast PIII.

The most important thing is probably stability though. XP is based on the NT
kernel. Yes it has lost DOS, but you get a really stable OS in return. XP
really closes in on the stability of Linux, and I must give Microsoft credit
for their achievements.... since Windows 2000 the world of stability got a
whole lot better.

Another thing is the network support in XP. The TCP/IP stack in Windows XP
is based on the NT one, and reports everywhere clearly say that XP *does*
have a faster internet connection then Windows 98. Tests show that XP is
faster on average, using the same equipment. In the online-gaming community
XP is very populair because of lower ping times connecting to game servers.

A good site to get old games to work: http://www.ntcompatible.com

Maarten

[Mr. ChiRho]

DOS has been totally removed in XP, and XP does not allow direct hardware
addressing so that DOS games cannot directly address the graphics and
sound
boards in your machine.

Why do this?

This makes it more stable how exactly?

Is it evolution? Yes it is.... it was about time we left the world of DOS
behind, and moved on to a pure 32-bit Windows OS. You can't stay stuck
with
the past forever.

It's what I like to call Niwradian evolution. It's a bit like
Darwinian evolution, just in reverse (DARWIN|NIWRAD)

On the other hand... no-one forced you to upgrade. Windows XP does not
give
you any more functionality then what you can achieve with Windows 98. You
can write your letters, do your taxes, work your spreadsheets, and edit
your
phonenumber database.

Yes.....In that case I really don't see why anyone upgraded....

Forced upgrades. I recently set up a dual boot on my PC (1mth old)
which came with XP *pre-installed* and *already set up*.

Just one of those things that people don't end up regretting until
they realise what they missed.

PS[OT] I have CD-RW and DVD-ROM drives. I seem to get all sorts of
read errors on the DVD-ROM, but never have any problems with the
CD-RW. I thought it could be dirty heads, but I've used the CD-RW
drive much more. Do they have better lasers on them or something?

--XP
http://www.chirho.i12.com/
The ChiRho Network - at last a good use for the letters "X" and "P"
BTW The feedback form now works!

[Hansjörg Malthaner]

"Mr. ChiRho" wrote:

http://www.chirho.i12.com/

You like counters, don't you!

And there is a planned section about programming on your page. What content
will be added there?

c.u.
Hajo

[Tom Cumming]

"Rick McGreal" <tri...@mynock.com> wrote in message
news:a4t3gf$2rpcl$1@ID-26322.news.dfncis.de...

Ok...Not knowing about the coding behind it all I'll not argue....But 98
and
95 are very stable (For me anyway)
And they have DOS

I know that Windows 95 and 98 *can* be pretty stable if you use good
software, memory and drivers, and you reboot it quite frequently, but
Windows NT, 2000 and XP are a *lot* better. When a program crashes it tends
not to bring the whole system down, and so you can leave your machine
running for days, weeks, months without rebooting.


--
Tom Cumming
tcummin...@yahoo.go.away.spambots.co.uk

[Phil Stewart]

"Mr. ChiRho" <softone_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff47dcd4.0202190836.7b91668e@posting.google.com...

DOS has been totally removed in XP, and XP does not allow direct
hardware
addressing so that DOS games cannot directly address the graphics and
sound
boards in your machine.

Why do this?

This makes it more stable how exactly?

It means that rogue apps can't just access the hardware and wreck some other
app and unhinge the OS. Also win9x leeks memory so fast that I've seen
systems sink faster than the Titanic on a good day. 2K / XP havemuch better
control over memory leakage.

--
From Phil

[Patchman]

Sorry, Phil Stewart, could you repeat that? I wasn't paying attention:

"Mr. ChiRho" <softone_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff47dcd4.0202190836.7b91668e@posting.google.com...
DOS has been totally removed in XP, and XP does not allow direct
hardware
addressing so that DOS games cannot directly address the graphics and
sound
boards in your machine.

Why do this?

This makes it more stable how exactly?

It means that rogue apps can't just access the hardware and wreck some other
app and unhinge the OS.

...unless you are logged in with administrator rights.

(which most people will be, because non-adminitrator accounts are too
crippled to be useful.)

--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | Email address is *valid*.
Carry a helium balloon. | Don't remove the "nospam" part.

[Maarten W.G. Andriessen]

It means that rogue apps can't just access the hardware and wreck some
other
app and unhinge the OS.

...unless you are logged in with administrator rights.

(which most people will be, because non-adminitrator accounts are too
crippled to be useful.)

It has nothing to do with wether you are logged on as an administrator. The
NT kernel (which XP is based on) is equipped with a HAL or Hardware
Abstraction Layer, which kinda serves like a "firewall" between a software
program and the hardware. This means that if a program sends a request that
would hang the computer (and I mean hang like freeze in a game) the request
will be denied. As a result, the application crashes and is closed down.

In Windows 2000/XP this is also known as the "crash to desktop" phenomenon
as it will return the desktop to you, and an error message from DrWatson.

In Windows 9x your system will either freeze, or present you with a blue
screen when this happens.

Of course, Windows 2000 and XP are not perfect, and crashes are still
possible, most likely due through bogus DirectX requests.

In Windows 9x the system is usually completely brought down, and a reboot is
often needed, even if something as simple as Internet Explorer crashes due
to a bogus Java or ActiveX request. In Windows 2000/XP you can safely
restart Internet Explorer like nothing has happened. If you have mucho
memory you won't notice that your crashed Internet Explorer actually
remained in the memory in Windows 9x, where in Windows 2000/XP its neatly
cleared out and a new session has started.

The 9x kernel can be "stable" because you are not aware of the memory leaks
it has.... but I can guarantee you that if you let your computer work for 48
hours (and my XP machine is often on for weeks at a time.... no reason to
reboot it) the Windows 2000 or XP machine will still work like a charm where
the Windows 98 machine is getting crippled more with every hour you use
it...

Maarten

[Jonathan Amery]

In article <a4vgps$93...@news.kabelfoon.nl>,
Maarten W.G. Andriessen <nos...@nospam.dutchusa.com> wrote:

In Windows 2000/XP this is also known as the "crash to desktop" phenomenon
as it will return the desktop to you, and an error message from DrWatson.

Dr Watson with then crash and take the system with it.

We never did track down that problem...

(All IMHE of course)

--
Jonathan Amery. Daughter of the Night, she walks again,
##### The ancient war, she yet fights.
#######__o Her new lover she seeks,
#######'/ Who will serve her and die, yet serve still. - R.Jordan.

[Marcin Grzegorczyk]

"Maarten W.G. Andriessen" wrote:

It means that rogue apps can't just access the hardware and wreck some other
app and unhinge the OS.

...unless you are logged in with administrator rights.

(which most people will be, because non-adminitrator accounts are too
crippled to be useful.)

It has nothing to do with wether you are logged on as an administrator. The
NT kernel (which XP is based on) is equipped with a HAL or Hardware
Abstraction Layer, which kinda serves like a "firewall" between a software
program and the hardware. This means that if a program sends a request that
would hang the computer (and I mean hang like freeze in a game) the request
will be denied.

If your program runs in the Ring 0 (device drivers generally do), it can
do whatever it wishes to do, including accessing random hardware ports,
trashing the global descriptor table, and/or resetting the machine. Of
course, if you're not logged on with admin privileges, the system will
deny your program access to the Ring 0 in the first place.

As for Win9x, it also intercepts some hardware accesses, even in DOS
virtual machines. The main problem with Win9x kernel is that some parts
of the memory are shared between all 16-bit Windows apps without being
properly protected.

--
Marcin Grzegorczyk

[Mr. ChiRho]

You like counters, don't you!
So far they all use the same images (less overhead)

And there is a planned section about programming on your page. What content
will be added there?
Dunno yet

Little snippets of VB code I've written (not very impressive ones, but
more than I could have done last year), and anything anyone wants to
send in. Few links, maybe a bit of C++ as I'm learning it. Might
improve the learning process.

c.u.
Hajo
BTW Even thoguh Simutrans is no match for TTD, it's still a great

effort. I especially like the realistic passengers. If I get on a
bus, I don't always just go to the next stop either. KIU

--XP
http://www.chirho.i12.com/
FAQ: 1. Why doesn't the feedback form work?
A. It does! It didn't used to, mind...

[Adam Kadlubek]

As for Win9x, it also intercepts some hardware accesses, even in DOS
virtual machines. The main problem with Win9x kernel is that some parts
of the memory are shared between all 16-bit Windows apps without being
properly protected.

And party becouse W9x/me boots one virtual machine for all windows
applications and one for each dos program. So when TTD will crash W9x will
safely close it (I never had to reboot a computer when after dos prog
crashed). When a windows prog crashes thet domino effect comes into play and
some (or all) of threads sharing "Windows" virtual machine my crash --> blue
screen (or is that just what Marcin said ).

--
Adam Kadlubek
TTD Site http://www.ttdlx.prv.pl
GG 1511994
There is no knowledge that is not power

[Adam Kadlubek]

Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon XP support for instance. Windows 98 is slower on
these systems because it does not support the advanced instructions these
CPU's can process.

Umm. If you say about SSE or 3D now that I must disappoint you. Neither
98/me/xp/2000 uses them. There are too many old computers (celerons, pIIs,
old athlons) that don't have those features and system must support them.
And there is no point in creating four optimisations (for standard IA32, for
SSE, For SSE2 and 3dnow!) when one of those (ia32) fits all.

Windows 98 also does not support some of the newer chipsets, which could
also give a slight performance decrease beacuse it loads default drivers
when installing Windows 98. If your not a techie, you will probably never
realize this, and go with it.... Windows 98 works just fine, just not with
the best performance.

And XP will not support new chipsets in somewhere around 1 year from now.
What is the point in buying new OS (200$) each two years? Especially when I
need only hardware support (drivers are for free btw). There are millions of
computers with 98 installed - chipset manufacturers cannot present any major
compatibility issues for such a large group of potential customers. You will
get 98 drivers for GeFerce 10 Pro Turbo Diesel Ultra Extra OverDriven Raw
Power as soon as Nvidia Releses it.

Further, Windows 98 does not support ATA100 by default. Many modern
mainboards just tell Windows 98 it is an ATA33 or ATA66 controller, which
will work, but you are not getting the best harddisk performance.

And XP will not support ata133 or serial ata or whatever standard will
emerge in two years from now. Get some drivers. Also whe you will much more
performance boost by pugging cd-rom/cd-rw/dvd-rom on the second channel and
system hdd on primary. Also difference between ata66 and ata100 is barely
noticable (unless you transfer 100 gigs of files every day - but then get
SCSI - much faster) on today's drives (and in two years - when this will
matter - there will be Windows New Generation with even more hardware
support).

All of these issues can be resolved by downloading and installing the
proper
drivers, but again.... you need to be somewhat of a techie to even realize
that newer drivers could help improve your OS. AFAIK there are no drivers
for the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP processors which means Windows 98 will
just
see it as a really fast PIII.

Ill better spend $200 on new os - cause I'm an idiot and cannot download
drivers (and also cpu type is not important, up to date directX will detect
what is needed (SSE, 3Dnow or whatever) and even 1400 penthlon III XP is
darn fast for MS WORD since "bad" detection does not cut down performance).

The most important thing is probably stability though. XP is based on the
NT
kernel. Yes it has lost DOS, but you get a really stable OS in return. XP
really closes in on the stability of Linux, and I must give Microsoft
credit
for their achievements.... since Windows 2000 the world of stability got a
whole lot better.

DOS support was not a problem with W98. It was basing windows
("open","multiuser","multithread system") on sigle thread, closed ancient os
that should be abandoned in the eighties. Also messing with 16 and 32 bit
code on a single machine is not a very wise idea.
Also - Xp is based on Win NT, not Me that is why it is so stable - but,
there were Rock stable systems in the eighties (OS/2, UNIX with it's
multiple clones (xenix, linux), more recent - BeOS). Stability is what you
should get LOOONG time ago. A credit for M$ for finally moving their asses
to work? Not likely...

Another thing is the network support in XP. The TCP/IP stack in Windows XP
is based on the NT one, and reports everywhere clearly say that XP *does*
have a faster internet connection then Windows 98. Tests show that XP is
faster on average, using the same equipment. In the online-gaming
community
XP is very populair because of lower ping times connecting to game
servers.

True, also XP is generally faster in most benchmarks. And it runs TTD now.
But I think I will stay with WIN 98 second error, umm, edition that is

--
Adam Kad³ubek
TTD Site http://www.ttdlx.prv.pl
GG 1511994
There is no knowledge that is not power

[Bob Cousins]

Adam Kadlubek wrote:

Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon XP support for instance. Windows 98 is slower on
these systems because it does not support the advanced instructions these
CPU's can process.

Umm. If you say about SSE or 3D now that I must disappoint you. Neither
98/me/xp/2000 uses them.

??? Oh yes they do.


--
Bob Cousins.

[Bill Hayles]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:37:59 -0000, "Tom Cumming"
<tcummin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

I know that Windows 95 and 98 *can* be pretty stable if you use good
software, memory and drivers, and you reboot it quite frequently, but
Windows NT, 2000 and XP are a *lot* better. When a program crashes it tends
not to bring the whole system down, and so you can leave your machine
running for days, weeks, months without rebooting.

Unless you're me, playing TTDX under XP using Josef's patch in full
screen mode. After 15 minutes or so, the system will spontaneously
reboot itself with no BSOD or warning.

OTOH, I can play in windowed mode for hours, so I'm not really
complaining.

--

Bill