G400 + Win95 No work why oh WHY!?

[Jorden]

Now we all keep wondering what Audio CD Himself was playing at that time ...
[list=a][*] Theme form the Muppets?[*] Theme from Star Wars?[*] Theme from Superman 3?[*] Theme from MURC?[/list=a]

Call your shot

Jord.

[Himself]

U2 actually. I don't think we have the same taste in music.

[Wombat]

I'm with Gurm completely (almost, you can get decent GUI's with UNIX now). And I've seen ppl's 3DMark scores jump by 30%+ after switching OS's.

[Gurm]

G400 + Win95 No work why oh WHY!?

HI! I have Windows 3.1 with all the latest patches. I refuse to upgrade to Windows 95 because I have heard that it sucks. Why can't I make Quake3 and TurboGL work on my system? I tried manually unpacking all the files, because the setup program refused to run. But then the driver wouldn't change. I am VERY upset. I REFUSE to pay $100 for a new OS when it has no new features that I want. This card and all games should work with my current OS!

DAMN YOU BILL GATES AND MATROX!

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Himself]

You were supposed to take your medication an hour ago.

[Himself]

That flea is getting mighty hungry, I just did an objective comparison on my system between the two operating systems using 3DMark2000. I have it listed on my home page, since I can't trust this forum software to do tables properly. Anyone with an Intel system, please feel free to do a similar comparison. Nothing worse than misinformation being spread around.
http://home.thezone.net/~bm/3dmark2k.html

[Brian R.]

It's likely that the people seeing a large difference between W95 and W98 when they upgrade would also see a large difference if they simply deleted W95 and reinstalled it. A change in speed is meaningless if there is no negative control. A negative control would be reinstallation of W95 to compare with an identical installation of W98. Resinstalling the OS is usually productive for obvious reasons.

[Bixler]

OK, OK...NOW I'm gonna flame this sucker right on over to the soap box!

LISTEN TO YOURSELVES You are sitting here arguing over the relative merits of two operating systems that are at the core just different versions of the SAME MONOPOLY PRODUCED BASTARD that is the biggest choke hold on this industry!!! This is like the 'regular' or 'ethyl' argument in the 1930's when everyone bought STANDARD Oil.
95--no--98! ---> Tweedledum--no--Tweedledee!

So what's the answer? BREAK THE BASTARDS UP! One company writes the kernel and API's and is forbidden by law to write software...they collect a royalty on every machine sold, and every one else goes to work 'playing' the instrument (kernel) through TRULY OPEN API's. 98 has an improved Kernel...YES. I had to buy it at an INFLATED price to resolve some problems with busmastering etc. that 95 could not and that the 95 patches didn't contain. (I took your advice GURM!) 98 runs faster--cause I've stripped the bloat...but it is still one of the cruelest ripoffs ever foisted on all of us who are nothing but a herd of helpless sheep who HAVE NO CHOICE!!. Himself--You are right too...Why repackage a bugfixed 0.1 upgrade and FOIST it off on us as something new?

BUST MICROSOFT UP let the software industry drive the 'innovation' that Gates constantly harps on. Then let's see what happens with all these conflicts, bugs, incompatibilities, and STUPID, TIMEWASTING ARGUMENTS!!! Microsoft is your problem...both of you!

GOD THAT FELT GOOD! Thanks Gurm and Himself. Hehehe!

[Jorden]

So Tim, when's mrs. Bixler coming back then??

You sure sound alot happier then...

Jord.

[Bixler]

Saturday Noon! Boy just wait! Hehehe!

[Himself]

30% faster at what? I haven't seen that here or know anybody else that experienced that myself, but it could be true, especially on Intel cpus. I suspect a badly configured Win95 myself, it's the more likely explanation to me. I am willing to run any benchmark you name, (obviously not going to download so god awful 100MB bit of crap though), I switch OS's rather frequently to test code, but I can tell you right now there is nothing to be seen that's worthwhile. Now, if you had said that performance was a big issue on the WinNT vs Win9x front I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but here, there is absolutely dick all difference between the two Win9x OS's performance wise, or stability wise for that matter, well actually Win98 tends to be less stable with the version I have here, gee, guess I have to patch it some more, so much for the have to patch Win95 excessively argument. Now if you analyze the subsystems independently I'm sure you'll find some differences, but the overall experience is no better, whatever MS makes faster they compensate for with more bloat. For MVP3 SS7 boards, both have to have the exact same 4N1 driver executable installed for the motherboard, (not that it takes a genius to do that, Win95 just takes two more steps, USBSupp and AMDUpdate, big deal), and there are bugs in both which require updates and patches if in different areas, IE 4 takes care of most of that.

What I find with Win98 is that the gui responds like I am pressing calculator buttons, folders are slow to open and seem to churn at the hard drive unnecessarily, where with Win95, folder behave themselves, open fast, and the gui respond more like a keyboard instead of an Atari 400 or something. Other than an additional bunch of crap to fight with with Win98, and a totally unacceptable GUI, there is little real difference.

(Oh, as for the API thing, it depends on what you are looking at, being of the same generation, Win95 and WinNT do have a lot in common, obviously WinNT is a different beast altogether in general, but for undocumented bad behaviour, it is more in tune with Win95.)