Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Question about 'Making Sure the Correct HAL is Installed' Friday, November 9, 2001 at 9:29 pm Posted by Curt R (1315 messages posted) If you mean the programs will have to be installed to 2000, certainly. It's a new operating system and doesn't know those programs exist. They should all still work in whatever other operating system you have installed (you didn't mention that but I'm forced to assume from the post it's a dual boot since you don't get the boot manager in a single OS install) When a program installs, it writes to the registry telling the PC what components to start in what order etc. Without that information, most programs won't run so you can't simply make a shortcut to the .exe file either with a new install of 2000. On Friday, November 9, 2001 at 4:04 pm, Aaron wrote: >After reinstalling Windows 2000, not only do I have a boot menu, but I have a fresh >installation of 2000. All my data is there, but all the programs need to be reinstalled. >This is not an acceptible solution to the problem. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'Making Sure the Correct HAL is Installed' Friday, December 21, 2001 at 3:57 pm Posted by Peter (31 messages posted) This author is correct. This is a completely unacceptable problem provided by Microsoft's inadequate operating systems and software. This a complete failure of Microsoft to anticipate and work with the needs of it's users. Upon any of my unix systems (OpenBSD, Linux) I can compile a new kernel and do anything I want. I control the operating system, not the company who made the operating system controlling it. Microsoft fails. Try a BSD or Linux distribution. Also check out other things like SkyOS. I can only pray that Apple will release OSX with a kernel for i386. This would knock Microsoft onto their ass overnight. On Friday, November 9, 2001 at 4:04 pm, Aaron wrote: >After reinstalling Windows 2000, not only do I have a boot menu, but I have a fresh >installation of 2000. All my data is there, but all the programs need to be reinstalled. >This is not an acceptible solution to the problem. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'Making Sure the Correct HAL is Installed' Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 10:28 am Posted by Laurie Clark (3 messages posted) Now now Peter, Don't be trashing Bill and Co. They have enabled millions around the world to buy a PC and make the lives of tech support personell everywhere, a living hell! Yes, open source is wonderful, providing you have the training to compile your own kernel, etc., etc., etc. For those of us that are inept at such niceties then Microsoft is the answer, for now. Personally I find WIN 2000 to be very easy to use and quite stable - light years ahead of WIN 98! have a good day On Friday, December 21, 2001 at 3:57 pm, Peter wrote: > >This author is correct. This is a completely unacceptable problem provided by Microsoft's >inadequate operating systems and software. This a complete failure of Microsoft >to anticipate and work with the needs of it's users. Upon any of my unix systems >(OpenBSD, Linux) I can compile a new kernel and do anything I want. I control the >operating system, not the company who made the operating system controlling it. > >Microsoft fails. Try a BSD or Linux distribution. Also check out other things like >SkyOS. > >I can only pray that Apple will release OSX with a kernel for i386. This would knock >Microsoft onto their ass overnight. > > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'Making Sure the Correct HAL is Installed' Saturday, September 17, 2005 at 1:46 pm Posted by Manta (1 messages posted) To ALL you hobbiests out there. I too am not particularly fond of MS, however I dumped AMIGA the best of them all when it became obsolete. UNIX, LINX, OSx are all better more stable. BUT... I will stay with Windoze until the lot of you can brag as large a software selection, and as wide a platform compatability. There is nothing I can't do with my three OSs (personal machine = Win98SE, Entertainment server for my home = Win XP Pro 64bit w/ 1 terrabyte, Internet Server = Windows 2K Server Pro running out web access, ftps, sql databases, streaming video and audio.) I also write plenty of custom applications and software for our systems and I must say to EVERYONE (including the MS usres), Most of you give Microsoft a bad rap due to your own incompetence to correctly operate and administrate computer systems. I don't say ALL, but a lot. Whenever people can't make something work on there puter it automatically gets blamed on MS. I have an installation of '98 on my personal machine that has been running stable for over 3 yr's (editing video, creating graphics, compiling music, creating new programs and applications. It serves as my TV and does all of this in a fully stable crash free multitasking environment). The only time it gets rebooted is by act of GOD (so much for the myth of '98 needs to be rebooted all the time). Many of you could do well by reading computer science 101 and possibly learning at least the basics of a programming language or 2, and the latest volume of QUE's book on computer repair. You just might find that most of your problems are caused by lack of understanding. I stopped by here from a search engine whilst doing some research for the company I do R&D for. I doubt that I will stop by again since most of the posts seem to deal with the lamest of issues and most of those have replies that seem to be written by people with no more first hand knowledge than those who posted the question in the first place. Sorry if this seems flaming, but MOST computer users should remain just that, computer USERS! Leave the upgrades, repairs, and tinkering with the OS, to qualified people who put in the time to actually read the volumes of text books it takes to be good at it. As for the enthusiasts that love the alternate OS'? GREAT, there is nothing wrong with any of them, but most people can barely run a windows environment let alone spend days trying to recompile the popular and not so popular software to run on a OS that has little more place in the world at this time than being a hobby. LINX and UNIX can make some nice servers, but until people can go to Fry's or Best Buy, or Cosco and buy what they need off the shelf and bug free, they have no place in homes as a standard. Perhaps you UNIX and LINX people should concentrate your efforts on filling those shelves and less time slamming a standardized (no matter how inferior) OS that just about any kid and operate. Well, at least it will operate until they start monkeying with the way it runs. This of course is the only real flaw I will fault Microsoft for. They should have made it impossible for amateures to do anything at all to the computer, other than use it. In conclusion: If you have no more knowledge than that of the common USER, remain a USER until you are willing to invest the time to truly understand what you are doing, what the machine expects, and how to not make the machines as insane as ourselves! On Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 10:28 am, Laurie Clark wrote: >Now now Peter, >Don't be trashing Bill and Co. They have enabled millions around the world to buy >a PC and make the lives of tech support personell everywhere, a living hell! Yes, >open source is wonderful, providing you have the training to compile your own kernel, >etc., etc., etc. For those of us that are inept at such niceties then Microsoft is >the answer, for now. Personally I find WIN 2000 to be very easy to use and quite >stable - light years ahead of WIN 98! have a good day > > > [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum