Fastest Stable MOBO with certified Win ME drivers?

[Greegor]

See old thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.windows-me/browse_frm/thread/d6e14c203e3ff2a0?hl=en#

Crossposted to:
microsoft.public.windowsme.general, alt.windows-me

In searching for the fastest main board with certified drivers FOR
WinME
I found myself drawn to the Asus A7N8X family of Socket A main boards
(AMD).
The A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2 with 400 MHz FSB (Rev 1 is 333FSB) with an
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ is actually the fastest Socket A chip they made.

This is "7th generation" 32 bit processing technology, new in 2003.

Original CD's even include drivers for SATA drives under WinME.
Original CD's for the A7N8X Deluxe main board also have DVD player
software.

That family of main boards was VERY popular with gamers and
overclockers
because the overclocking could all be done from the BIOS software.

The AMD XP 3200+ CPU still has an amazing level of demand for
4 year old technology that is no longer manufactured.

The next jump up from Athlon XP 3200+ Socket A 32 bit processors
would be Athlon XP 64 xxxx+ 64 bit processors right?

WinME won't run on 64 bit processors will it?

Even people wanting WinXP need to get a special 64 bit version of that
don't they?

Are there any 8th generation processor/main boards that have WinME
drivers?

Is that where direct operation of WinME ends and Virtual machine
begins for WinME?

 

[Greegor]

On Nov 14, 8:08 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> See old thread:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.windows-me/browse_frm/thread/d6e14...
>
> Crossposted to:
> microsoft.public.windowsme.general, alt.windows-me
>
> In searching for the fastest main board with certified drivers FOR
> WinME
> I found myself drawn to the Asus A7N8X family of Socket A main boards
> (AMD).
> The A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2 with 400 MHz FSB (Rev 1 is 333FSB) with an
> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ is actually the fastest Socket A chip they made.
>
> This is "7th generation" 32 bit processing technology, new in 2003.
>
> Original CD's even include drivers for SATA drives under WinME.
> Original CD's for the A7N8X Deluxe main board also have DVD player
> software.
>
> That family of main boards was VERY popular with gamers and
> overclockers
> because the overclocking could all be done from the BIOS software.
>
> The AMD XP 3200+ CPU still has an amazing level of demand for
> 4 year old technology that is no longer manufactured.
>
> The next jump up from Athlon XP 3200+ Socket A 32 bit processors
> would be Athlon XP 64 xxxx+ 64 bit processors right?
>
> WinME won't run on 64 bit processors will it?
>
> Even people wanting WinXP need to get a special 64 bit version of that
> don't they?
>
> Are there any 8th generation processor/main boards that have WinME
> drivers?
>
> Is that where direct operation of WinME ends and Virtual machine
> begins for WinME?

WinME operates with a mixture of 16 and 32 bit applications on
AMD K6 and K7 level processors but does this word size
"step down" arrangement happen if using a K8 64 bit processor?

It's my understanding that MOST software people are running on
64 bit processors is not written to fully use a 64 bit processor
anyway.

Most people running WinXP are NOT running the x64 version
even if they have a 64 bit processor.

Can WinME run in a 32 bit mode on a
64 bit processor in the same way that
standard Win XP runs in 32 bit mode
on a 64 bit processor?

 

[John John]

Greegor wrote:
> On Nov 14, 8:08 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>See old thread:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.windows-me/browse_frm/thread/d6e14...
>>
>>Crossposted to:
>>microsoft.public.windowsme.general, alt.windows-me
>>
>>In searching for the fastest main board with certified drivers FOR
>>WinME
>>I found myself drawn to the Asus A7N8X family of Socket A main boards
>>(AMD).
>>The A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2 with 400 MHz FSB (Rev 1 is 333FSB) with an
>>AMD Athlon XP 3200+ is actually the fastest Socket A chip they made.
>>
>>This is "7th generation" 32 bit processing technology, new in 2003.
>>
>>Original CD's even include drivers for SATA drives under WinME.
>>Original CD's for the A7N8X Deluxe main board also have DVD player
>>software.
>>
>>That family of main boards was VERY popular with gamers and
>>overclockers
>>because the overclocking could all be done from the BIOS software.
>>
>>The AMD XP 3200+ CPU still has an amazing level of demand for
>>4 year old technology that is no longer manufactured.
>>
>>The next jump up from Athlon XP 3200+ Socket A 32 bit processors
>>would be Athlon XP 64 xxxx+ 64 bit processors right?
>>
>>WinME won't run on 64 bit processors will it?
>>
>>Even people wanting WinXP need to get a special 64 bit version of that
>>don't they?
>>
>>Are there any 8th generation processor/main boards that have WinME
>>drivers?
>>
>>Is that where direct operation of WinME ends and Virtual machine
>>begins for WinME?
>
>
> WinME operates with a mixture of 16 and 32 bit applications on
> AMD K6 and K7 level processors but does this word size
> "step down" arrangement happen if using a K8 64 bit processor?
>
> It's my understanding that MOST software people are running on
> 64 bit processors is not written to fully use a 64 bit processor
> anyway.
>
> Most people running WinXP are NOT running the x64 version
> even if they have a 64 bit processor.
>
> Can WinME run in a 32 bit mode on a
> 64 bit processor in the same way that
> standard Win XP runs in 32 bit mode
> on a 64 bit processor?

Sure, the crop of widely available 64-bit processors are not pure 64-bit
processors, unlike processors like the pure 64-bit Itanium these
mainstream AMD/Intel EMT 64-bit processors can also run in 32-bit mode.
Some people have successfully installed Windows 98 on boards with
these new processors. The problem is not in the processor itself, it is
usually that chipset and motherboard drivers are often not available for
Windows 9x/ME.

I am not one who advocates changing or upgrading operating systems
simply for the sake of change or to line other peoples pockets with
one's hard earned cash, but there has been some almost monumental
changes in computer hardware in the last few years, the changes now are
almost as monumental or greater than they were when PC's moved from the
8088 to the x86 architecture. In my opinion it is time to move on, the
Windows 9x line of operating systems has run it's course, it served its
purpose and for most parts served the consumer/home user market well,
but it is now becoming increasingly difficult to properly maintain these
operating systems, many of the hardware manufacturers have simply
abandoned the platform and device drivers for new hardware are often not
available.

There are instances where moving to a newer operating system is just not
an option, some specialized older software or very expensive hardware
may simply not run on the newer operating systems. Some users are die
hard enthusiasts of the W9x line or some have old games or applications
that they want to keep on using. For these folks with specialized
equipment or software and for "hobbyists" it may make sense to try to
install the old operating system on new hardware but for most others it
just doesn't make much sense to try to keep these old operating systems,
the effort needed and the degree of difficulty to keep up with it may
just not be worth it. For many who need W9x to keep on running
expensive hardware or software it is often a better alternative to buy
good, older second hand computers than it is to try to install on new
hardware.

If you have a $50,000 special software program or a $100,000 medical
imaging gizmo that can only run on W98 then I strongly recommend that
you find a lot of good second hand machines and buy many of them, then
just keep them in storage and bring them out if you need to replace a
failing machine or if you need parts. For almost everybody else its
time to move on.

John

 

[webster72n]

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OpeWaQdMIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Greegor wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 8:08 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>See old
thread:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.windows-me/browse_frm/thread/d6e14
....
> >>
> >>Crossposted to:
> >>microsoft.public.windowsme.general, alt.windows-me
> >>
> >>In searching for the fastest main board with certified drivers FOR
> >>WinME
> >>I found myself drawn to the Asus A7N8X family of Socket A main boards
> >>(AMD).
> >>The A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2 with 400 MHz FSB (Rev 1 is 333FSB) with an
> >>AMD Athlon XP 3200+ is actually the fastest Socket A chip they made.
> >>
> >>This is "7th generation" 32 bit processing technology, new in 2003.
> >>
> >>Original CD's even include drivers for SATA drives under WinME.
> >>Original CD's for the A7N8X Deluxe main board also have DVD player
> >>software.
> >>
> >>That family of main boards was VERY popular with gamers and
> >>overclockers
> >>because the overclocking could all be done from the BIOS software.
> >>
> >>The AMD XP 3200+ CPU still has an amazing level of demand for
> >>4 year old technology that is no longer manufactured.
> >>
> >>The next jump up from Athlon XP 3200+ Socket A 32 bit processors
> >>would be Athlon XP 64 xxxx+ 64 bit processors right?
> >>
> >>WinME won't run on 64 bit processors will it?
> >>
> >>Even people wanting WinXP need to get a special 64 bit version of that
> >>don't they?
> >>
> >>Are there any 8th generation processor/main boards that have WinME
> >>drivers?
> >>
> >>Is that where direct operation of WinME ends and Virtual machine
> >>begins for WinME?
> >
> >
> > WinME operates with a mixture of 16 and 32 bit applications on
> > AMD K6 and K7 level processors but does this word size
> > "step down" arrangement happen if using a K8 64 bit processor?
> >
> > It's my understanding that MOST software people are running on
> > 64 bit processors is not written to fully use a 64 bit processor
> > anyway.
> >
> > Most people running WinXP are NOT running the x64 version
> > even if they have a 64 bit processor.
> >
> > Can WinME run in a 32 bit mode on a
> > 64 bit processor in the same way that
> > standard Win XP runs in 32 bit mode
> > on a 64 bit processor?
>
> Sure, the crop of widely available 64-bit processors are not pure 64-bit
> processors, unlike processors like the pure 64-bit Itanium these
> mainstream AMD/Intel EMT 64-bit processors can also run in 32-bit mode.
> Some people have successfully installed Windows 98 on boards with
> these new processors. The problem is not in the processor itself, it is
> usually that chipset and motherboard drivers are often not available for
> Windows 9x/ME.
>
> I am not one who advocates changing or upgrading operating systems
> simply for the sake of change or to line other peoples pockets with
> one's hard earned cash, but there has been some almost monumental
> changes in computer hardware in the last few years, the changes now are
> almost as monumental or greater than they were when PC's moved from the
> 8088 to the x86 architecture. In my opinion it is time to move on, the
> Windows 9x line of operating systems has run it's course, it served its
> purpose and for most parts served the consumer/home user market well,
> but it is now becoming increasingly difficult to properly maintain these
> operating systems, many of the hardware manufacturers have simply
> abandoned the platform and device drivers for new hardware are often not
> available.
>
> There are instances where moving to a newer operating system is just not
> an option, some specialized older software or very expensive hardware
> may simply not run on the newer operating systems. Some users are die
> hard enthusiasts of the W9x line or some have old games or applications
> that they want to keep on using. For these folks with specialized
> equipment or software and for "hobbyists" it may make sense to try to
> install the old operating system on new hardware but for most others it
> just doesn't make much sense to try to keep these old operating systems,
> the effort needed and the degree of difficulty to keep up with it may
> just not be worth it. For many who need W9x to keep on running
> expensive hardware or software it is often a better alternative to buy
> good, older second hand computers than it is to try to install on new
> hardware.
>
> If you have a $50,000 special software program or a $100,000 medical
> imaging gizmo that can only run on W98 then I strongly recommend that
> you find a lot of good second hand machines and buy many of them, then
> just keep them in storage and bring them out if you need to replace a
> failing machine or if you need parts. For almost everybody else its
> time to move on.

Sounds like good advice to me, John, thank you. <H>.

>
> John
>

 

[Greegor]

John John:
Thanks, I get what you're saying about the newer tech, but
you didn't even mention that most people running 64 bit
processors are NOT using them in 64 bit mode even!

WinXP x64 is extremely rare.

Vista is pretty much a disaster, primarily BECAUSE
of leaving all of the software behind.

How much of the application software that runs
under Vista is running under 32 bit mode?

I'm trying to stay on topic about WinME, but
isn't there a bit of a charade going on about
the newer 64 bit technology, when it comes to software?


On Nov 28, 10:44 am, "webster72n" <webster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "John John" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:OpeWaQdMIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...> Greegor wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 8:08 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>See old
>
> thread:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.windows-me/browse_frm/thread/d6e14
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>Crossposted to:
> > >>microsoft.public.windowsme.general, alt.windows-me
>
> > >>In searching for the fastest main board with certified drivers FOR
> > >>WinME
> > >>I found myself drawn to the Asus A7N8X family of Socket A main boards
> > >>(AMD).
> > >>The A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2 with 400 MHz FSB (Rev 1 is 333FSB) with an
> > >>AMD Athlon XP 3200+ is actually the fastest Socket A chip they made.
>
> > >>This is "7th generation" 32 bit processing technology, new in 2003.
>
> > >>Original CD's even include drivers for SATA drives under WinME.
> > >>Original CD's for the A7N8X Deluxe main board also have DVD player
> > >>software.
>
> > >>That family of main boards was VERY popular with gamers and
> > >>overclockers
> > >>because the overclocking could all be done from the BIOS software.
>
> > >>The AMD XP 3200+ CPU still has an amazing level of demand for
> > >>4 year old technology that is no longer manufactured.
>
> > >>The next jump up from Athlon XP 3200+ Socket A 32 bit processors
> > >>would be Athlon XP 64 xxxx+ 64 bit processors right?
>
> > >>WinME won't run on 64 bit processors will it?
>
> > >>Even people wanting WinXP need to get a special 64 bit version of that
> > >>don't they?
>
> > >>Are there any 8th generation processor/main boards that have WinME
> > >>drivers?
>
> > >>Is that where direct operation of WinME ends and Virtual machine
> > >>begins for WinME?
>
> > > WinME operates with a mixture of 16 and 32 bit applications on
> > > AMD K6 and K7 level processors but does this word size
> > > "step down" arrangement happen if using a K8 64 bit processor?
>
> > > It's my understanding that MOST software people are running on
> > > 64 bit processors is not written to fully use a 64 bit processor
> > > anyway.
>
> > > Most people running WinXP are NOT running the x64 version
> > > even if they have a 64 bit processor.
>
> > > Can WinME run in a 32 bit mode on a
> > > 64 bit processor in the same way that
> > > standard Win XP runs in 32 bit mode
> > > on a 64 bit processor?
>
> > Sure, the crop of widely available 64-bit processors are not pure 64-bit
> > processors, unlike processors like the pure 64-bit Itanium these
> > mainstream AMD/Intel EMT 64-bit processors can also run in 32-bit mode.
> > Some people have successfully installed Windows 98 on boards with
> > these new processors. The problem is not in the processor itself, it is
> > usually that chipset and motherboard drivers are often not available for
> > Windows 9x/ME.
>
> > I am not one who advocates changing or upgrading operating systems
> > simply for the sake of change or to line other peoples pockets with
> > one's hard earned cash, but there has been some almost monumental
> > changes in computer hardware in the last few years, the changes now are
> > almost as monumental or greater than they were when PC's moved from the
> > 8088 to the x86 architecture. In my opinion it is time to move on, the
> > Windows 9x line of operating systems has run it's course, it served its
> > purpose and for most parts served the consumer/home user market well,
> > but it is now becoming increasingly difficult to properly maintain these
> > operating systems, many of the hardware manufacturers have simply
> > abandoned the platform and device drivers for new hardware are often not
> > available.
>
> > There are instances where moving to a newer operating system is just not
> > an option, some specialized older software or very expensive hardware
> > may simply not run on the newer operating systems. Some users are die
> > hard enthusiasts of the W9x line or some have old games or applications
> > that they want to keep on using. For these folks with specialized
> > equipment or software and for "hobbyists" it may make sense to try to
> > install the old operating system on new hardware but for most others it
> > just doesn't make much sense to try to keep these old operating systems,
> > the effort needed and the degree of difficulty to keep up with it may
> > just not be worth it. For many who need W9x to keep on running
> > expensive hardware or software it is often a better alternative to buy
> > good, older second hand computers than it is to try to install on new
> > hardware.
>
> > If you have a $50,000 special software program or a $100,000 medical
> > imaging gizmo that can only run on W98 then I strongly recommend that
> > you find a lot of good second hand machines and buy many of them, then
> > just keep them in storage and bring them out if you need to replace a
> > failing machine or if you need parts. For almost everybody else its
> > time to move on.
>
> Sounds like good advice to me, John, thank you. <H>.
>
>
>
>
>
> > John

 

[John John]

Hardware is always several steps ahead of operating systems and
software. I remember when Dell were shipping computers with the then
exciting, new USB technology. The computers were shipped with Windows
95B installed and Dell was touting the virtues of USB, never mind that
you couldn't run anything USB with Windows 95B, only with the release of
Windows 95C could USB be used and even then it was more of a hit and
miss thing than anything else. The first release of Windows 98 wasn't
too hot on USB support either, only with Windows 98SE did USB support
begin to be a usable option. At about the same time as Windows 95C was
shipping we bought some Dell Optiplex machines and there too Dell was
boasting about USB, we bought the machines loaded with NT4 and, you
guessed it, NT4 does not natively support USB, it was only with the
release of Windows 2000 in 1999 that mainstream USB support became
available on the NT family of operating systems.

It is much the same now with 64-bit processors. At the present time
there isn't all that much hardware support and drivers for it and there
aren't all that many programs written to run on it, especially not for
the home/consumer market. But on the business side, in the high end
workstation or server market, there are definitely some hardware and
software vendors who are aggressively developing and shipping products
that run on 64-bit. CAD/CAM, drafting, graphic and database
applications are examples of markets where 64-bit is making solid gains
and where there is a strong customer demand for 64-bit products. It
won't be too long and the gaming market will begin to push heavily into
the 64-bit arena and then 64-bit technology will be more mainstream for
the home/consumer market.

If you think that 64-bit processors are a bit of a charade keep this in
mind:

The first Intel 32-bit processor, the 386, was introduced in 1985, the
486 was released in 1989 and the Pentium was released in 1993. Windows
3.1 or WFW 3.11, the first Microsoft operating systems which had a wisp
of 32-bit functions, were only released in 1992-1993. One could say
that only with the release of Windows 95, a full ten years after the
introduction of the Intel 386, did 32-bit computing for the home market
become mainstream, but even then these W9x operating systems are not
true 32-bit operating systems, they are 16/32 bit hybrids.

On the business side of things (Unix aside) true 32-bit computing on
Microsoft operating systems only came to be with the release of Windows
NT in 1993, a full 8 years after the introduction of the 32-bit Intel
386! So, it begs the question, from 1985 to about 1995, a full ten
years worth of 32-bit chip/computer sales and shipments, what exactly
was it that people were running on these 32-bit 386/486/Pentium
processors? Why, 16-bit MS-DOS and 16-bit programs of course! What else?

Don't worry, 64-bit will soon be mainstream and 32-bit will fall by the
wayside, the same as 16-bit pretty well all but vanished so too will
32-bit. It will have to because the next Windows release will probably
need 42 gigabytes of RAM just to boot and run Notepad!

John

Greegor wrote:
> John John:
> Thanks, I get what you're saying about the newer tech, but
> you didn't even mention that most people running 64 bit
> processors are NOT using them in 64 bit mode even!
>
> WinXP x64 is extremely rare.
>
> Vista is pretty much a disaster, primarily BECAUSE
> of leaving all of the software behind.
>
> How much of the application software that runs
> under Vista is running under 32 bit mode?
>
> I'm trying to stay on topic about WinME, but
> isn't there a bit of a charade going on about
> the newer 64 bit technology, when it comes to software?
>
>
> On Nov 28, 10:44 am, "webster72n" <webster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "John John" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:OpeWaQdMIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...> Greegor wrote:
>>>> On Nov 14, 8:08 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> See old
>> thread:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.windows-me/browse_frm/thread/d6e14
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Crossposted to:
>>>>> microsoft.public.windowsme.general, alt.windows-me
>>>>> In searching for the fastest main board with certified drivers FOR
>>>>> WinME
>>>>> I found myself drawn to the Asus A7N8X family of Socket A main boards
>>>>> (AMD).
>>>>> The A7N8X Deluxe Rev 2 with 400 MHz FSB (Rev 1 is 333FSB) with an
>>>>> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ is actually the fastest Socket A chip they made.
>>>>> This is "7th generation" 32 bit processing technology, new in 2003.
>>>>> Original CD's even include drivers for SATA drives under WinME.
>>>>> Original CD's for the A7N8X Deluxe main board also have DVD player
>>>>> software.
>>>>> That family of main boards was VERY popular with gamers and
>>>>> overclockers
>>>>> because the overclocking could all be done from the BIOS software.
>>>>> The AMD XP 3200+ CPU still has an amazing level of demand for
>>>>> 4 year old technology that is no longer manufactured.
>>>>> The next jump up from Athlon XP 3200+ Socket A 32 bit processors
>>>>> would be Athlon XP 64 xxxx+ 64 bit processors right?
>>>>> WinME won't run on 64 bit processors will it?
>>>>> Even people wanting WinXP need to get a special 64 bit version of that
>>>>> don't they?
>>>>> Are there any 8th generation processor/main boards that have WinME
>>>>> drivers?
>>>>> Is that where direct operation of WinME ends and Virtual machine
>>>>> begins for WinME?
>>>> WinME operates with a mixture of 16 and 32 bit applications on
>>>> AMD K6 and K7 level processors but does this word size
>>>> "step down" arrangement happen if using a K8 64 bit processor?
>>>> It's my understanding that MOST software people are running on
>>>> 64 bit processors is not written to fully use a 64 bit processor
>>>> anyway.
>>>> Most people running WinXP are NOT running the x64 version
>>>> even if they have a 64 bit processor.
>>>> Can WinME run in a 32 bit mode on a
>>>> 64 bit processor in the same way that
>>>> standard Win XP runs in 32 bit mode
>>>> on a 64 bit processor?
>>> Sure, the crop of widely available 64-bit processors are not pure 64-bit
>>> processors, unlike processors like the pure 64-bit Itanium these
>>> mainstream AMD/Intel EMT 64-bit processors can also run in 32-bit mode.
>>> Some people have successfully installed Windows 98 on boards with
>>> these new processors. The problem is not in the processor itself, it is
>>> usually that chipset and motherboard drivers are often not available for
>>> Windows 9x/ME.
>>> I am not one who advocates changing or upgrading operating systems
>>> simply for the sake of change or to line other peoples pockets with
>>> one's hard earned cash, but there has been some almost monumental
>>> changes in computer hardware in the last few years, the changes now are
>>> almost as monumental or greater than they were when PC's moved from the
>>> 8088 to the x86 architecture. In my opinion it is time to move on, the
>>> Windows 9x line of operating systems has run it's course, it served its
>>> purpose and for most parts served the consumer/home user market well,
>>> but it is now becoming increasingly difficult to properly maintain these
>>> operating systems, many of the hardware manufacturers have simply
>>> abandoned the platform and device drivers for new hardware are often not
>>> available.
>>> There are instances where moving to a newer operating system is just not
>>> an option, some specialized older software or very expensive hardware
>>> may simply not run on the newer operating systems. Some users are die
>>> hard enthusiasts of the W9x line or some have old games or applications
>>> that they want to keep on using. For these folks with specialized
>>> equipment or software and for "hobbyists" it may make sense to try to
>>> install the old operating system on new hardware but for most others it
>>> just doesn't make much sense to try to keep these old operating systems,
>>> the effort needed and the degree of difficulty to keep up with it may
>>> just not be worth it. For many who need W9x to keep on running
>>> expensive hardware or software it is often a better alternative to buy
>>> good, older second hand computers than it is to try to install on new
>>> hardware.
>>> If you have a $50,000 special software program or a $100,000 medical
>>> imaging gizmo that can only run on W98 then I strongly recommend that
>>> you find a lot of good second hand machines and buy many of them, then
>>> just keep them in storage and bring them out if you need to replace a
>>> failing machine or if you need parts. For almost everybody else its
>>> time to move on.
>> Sounds like good advice to me, John, thank you. <H>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> John

 

[Greegor]

John John:
I feel like you made my point better than I did!
I posted once before that my main applications
are browser, Wordpad, AntiVirus and spyware killer.
AntiVirus, Security and maintenance are the most
demanding things that I run.

CAD/CAM has never really driven mainstream PCs.

Gamers probably drive the mainstream more.

Wouldn't many of them still like to be able to
run their shelves full of old software, where
WinME would come in handy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/columns/engcol8.html
Is planned obsolescence socially responsible?




On Nov 29, 5:57 pm, John John <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Hardware is always several steps ahead of operating systems and
> software. I remember when Dell were shipping computers with the then
> exciting, new USB technology. The computers were shipped with Windows
> 95B installed and Dell was touting the virtues of USB, never mind that
> you couldn't run anything USB with Windows 95B, only with the release of
> Windows 95C could USB be used and even then it was more of a hit and
> miss thing than anything else. The first release of Windows 98 wasn't
> too hot on USB support either, only with Windows 98SE did USB support
> begin to be a usable option. At about the same time as Windows 95C was
> shipping we bought some Dell Optiplex machines and there too Dell was
> boasting about USB, we bought the machines loaded with NT4 and, you
> guessed it, NT4 does not natively support USB, it was only with the
> release of Windows 2000 in 1999 that mainstream USB support became
> available on the NT family of operating systems.
>
> It is much the same now with 64-bit processors. At the present time
> there isn't all that much hardware support and drivers for it and there
> aren't all that many programs written to run on it, especially not for
> the home/consumer market. But on the business side, in the high end
> workstation or server market, there are definitely some hardware and
> software vendors who are aggressively developing and shipping products
> that run on 64-bit. CAD/CAM, drafting, graphic and database
> applications are examples of markets where 64-bit is making solid gains
> and where there is a strong customer demand for 64-bit products. It
> won't be too long and the gaming market will begin to push heavily into
> the 64-bit arena and then 64-bit technology will be more mainstream for
> the home/consumer market.
>
> If you think that 64-bit processors are a bit of a charade keep this in
> mind:
>
> The first Intel 32-bit processor, the 386, was introduced in 1985, the
> 486 was released in 1989 and the Pentium was released in 1993. Windows
> 3.1 or WFW 3.11, the first Microsoft operating systems which had a wisp
> of 32-bit functions, were only released in 1992-1993. One could say
> that only with the release of Windows 95, a full ten years after the
> introduction of the Intel 386, did 32-bit computing for the home market
> become mainstream, but even then these W9x operating systems are not
> true 32-bit operating systems, they are 16/32 bit hybrids.
>
> On the business side of things (Unix aside) true 32-bit computing on
> Microsoft operating systems only came to be with the release of Windows
> NT in 1993, a full 8 years after the introduction of the 32-bit Intel
> 386! So, it begs the question, from 1985 to about 1995, a full ten
> years worth of 32-bit chip/computer sales and shipments, what exactly
> was it that people were running on these 32-bit 386/486/Pentium
> processors? Why, 16-bit MS-DOS and 16-bit programs of course! What else?
>
> Don't worry, 64-bit will soon be mainstream and 32-bit will fall by the
> wayside, the same as 16-bit pretty well all but vanished so too will
> 32-bit. It will have to because the next Windows release will probably
> need 42 gigabytes of RAM just to boot and run Notepad!
>
> John