why is it that apple did not have this problem? i don't know why i fell for d mswindows media hype & shifted to an inferior os. going back to apple would be extremely costly. ain't trying xp yet. is it really as good as it is claimed? thanx & regards, jzz

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Do you actually have a problem or are you just seeing some low numbers? And what exactly are the numbers?

Bob Sturtevant  http://home.adelphia.net/~bobstur/
Please reply in the forum and let us know.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I agree, Windows (and the associated hardware) is extrememly inferior to a Mac. The 
Mac OS has much more control over the programs that run in it (as does UNIX), and 
it is only Windows that allows programs to have their own way, and inevitably cause 
the morass of problems for users (and existence of sites like this one).

MS built Windows from a product called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) via 
DOS and a product that ran on top of DOS (Windows 3.x). It wasn't until Northern 
Telecom disassembled and rebuilt a copy of Windows 3.11 to create the forerunner 
of Windows NT that things changed for the better.

Unfortunately, the numbers that you are talking about are not representative of anything 
that can be quantified in a way that is meaningful. The numbers don't have to be 
100% (as logic would seem to dictate) for the machine to run well; if they are reasonably 
high there is no problem. Post the values back and I'm sure someone will comment 
on them.





On Wednesday, February 6, 2002 at 2:58 am, jazz wrote:
>why is it that apple did not have this problem?  i don't know why i fell for d mswindows 
>media hype & shifted to an inferior os.
>
>going back to apple would be extremely costly.
>
>ain't trying xp yet.  is it really as good as it is claimed?
>
>
>thanx & regards,
>
>jzz

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The Windows OS that are built on the NT platform allow for changing a limited area of pointers (called gdi and user resources) which help eliminate the dreaded low system resources. Win 9x are limited since they cannot change the size of that part of the resources (limited to 64k I think). You can have all the memory and powerful CPU you want and you would still run out of these particular resources. Switching to an NT platform such as NT 4.0, 2000 or XP should help eliminate this. I don't like XP always wanting to call home so I installed 2000. Hope this helps.


On Wednesday, February 6, 2002 at 2:58 am, jazz wrote:
>why is it that apple did not have this problem? i don't know why i fell for d mswindows
>media hype & shifted to an inferior os.
>
>going back to apple would be extremely costly.
>
>ain't trying xp yet. is it really as good as it is claimed?
>
>
>thanx & regards,
>
>jzz

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum