__/ [ Kier ] on Tuesday 11 July 2006 21:02 \__
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:44:33 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Tuesday 11 July 2006 17:34 \__
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:36 \__
>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5165528.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>>> The week that "they" terminate W98, the BBC re-load W98, and guess
>>>>> what?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Despite Microsoft's claims that Windows 98 makes using the net easier,
>>>>> finding a browser that worked with the raw operating system was a
>>>>> challenge"
>>>>> "Internet Explorer 4.0 is now obsolete and it proved impossible to
>>>>> download a newer version of the browser from the Microsoft site using
>>>>> the old software"
>>>>> "The only browser I could get working straight off was Opera - once I
>>>>> had that working updating other components got easier"
>>>>>
>>>>> There must be a lesson there somewhere:-)
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure about this (speaking from memory without verification),
>>>> but I believe that Mozilla Firefox is dropping Windows 98 support as
>>>> well. This includes security patches. Yet another reason to depart from
>>>> Windows 98 and upgrade the O/S without buying new hardware. And voila!
>>>> No need to download and install Firefox, under many/most circumstances.
>>>> No rusty OE, either, to make matters better.
>>
>>
>> ^
>> Sloppiness and typos tidied up
>>
>>
>>> As someone mentioned a while ago, it would've been good if there'd been
>>> a liveCD ready to run on such machines. Perhaps a knoppix one, or maybe
>>> we should point users to debian?
>>
>>
>> The issue is one: RAM. A Live CD needs a good lump of RAM in order to be
>> responsive and give the prospective user a positive impression. Even when
>> the user is warned in advance, this 'marketing CD' (most likely not just a
>> distro 'testing CD' in this case) will make a weak argument. My bet is
>> that many current Windows 98 users will raid on-line forums asking for
>> help. Not all can afford or interested in purchasing new hardware.
>
> Slax is pretty fast on most average-normal hardware, and if you have 256
> or above RAM (I think that's the limit) you can load it all into memory
> and have it run even quicker.
On my Windows 98 laptop I had no more than 32 MB of RAM. This can be a peril
and a pain, not just to Live CD's, but to installers as well.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz)
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 20.1% user, 3.5% system, 14.6% nice, 61.8% idle
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
