Author: Scott Gasch
Date: 16:13:37 04/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2001 at 00:50:46, Benny Ng wrote: >On April 05, 2001 at 16:58:43, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On April 05, 2001 at 16:14:10, Scott Gasch wrote: >> >>>On April 05, 2001 at 05:59:39, Jason Williamson wrote: >>>> >>>>As I do, but in general, most home users have no need for Win2k. >>>> >>> >>>That's a strange statement. I'd argue that anyone who doesn't like their >>>computer crashing has a need for win2k (or something else besides 9x/ME). You >>>know the next version of Windows for home users will be based on the NT kernel >>>(like Win2k). So apparently Microsoft has finally concluded that home users >>>need the stability and security of a serious operating system... >> >>My experience with Windows ME is that I've had one thing or another crash about >>everyday, it's helped to go into msconfig and remove a few things from startup >>(be very carefull!) but the thing still goes and bites me more often than I can >>stand. >> >>I've been considering upgrading it to 2000 for a while, but because of the cost >>I've avoided the thing so far (for me it's cheaper to crash). >> >>Does Windows 2000 have the ability to start into Dos without a boot floppy? >> >>Pete > >No! I'm using Win2k right now, and I'm very happy with it's performance. But no, >you cannot start into Dos without a boot floppy. And if you format your harddisk >using NTFS (not FAT/FAT32 like Win9x), you must use a "special" boot floopy to >start into Dos. > As Benny says, you can't "boot into DOS" as easily as you can with win9x. Why do you need to boot into a pathetic program loader that calls itself an operating system and should have died 15 years ago anyway?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.