| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| RugalBernstein 3001th Post
 
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
    
    
    
    
     
|  "Re(2):Rave and Rant about Mandrake Linux & Sn"
, posted Fri 6 Dec 13:51
quote:
I would like to be as optimistic as you are about SvC, but I have a strong feeling that I would better continue may pray for a CvS3...
I think this game (CvsS3) is pretty likely, too. BTW, just as a comment, Playmore re-absorbed Brezza a month or so ago, so they've essentially re-hired a lot of SNK's former employees now.Besides, everyone is always ranting about how good 2002 is... but yes, Capcom's side was just as " screwed " as SNK's side. I wish people would stop bitching about how " screwed " SNK was; many of the characters on SNK's side are quite powerful, you just CAN'T play them like you do in an SNK game, you have to " re-learn " them... wait, it isn't an SNK game! Oh, it all makes sense now...
|
| kaepora
77th Post
Occasional Customer
| "Re(4):Another roster shakeup" , posted Fri 6 Dec 18:26:
quote:
Why? What's wrong with WinME?
It's not so much a matter of what's wrong with ME, it's more a matter of what is better about the other versions. ME tried to be a mix between Windows 98 and Windows 2000, but it ended up having nothing really usefull that you couldn't get with either of the other two. In particular, the base code of ME tried to be a mix of the two, resulting in an OS that doesn't have 100% compatibility with either 98 or 2000.
Windows 98 generally takes up less resources, has a slightly better compatibility rate with hardware (since it is closer to the way Windows 95 is than ME is to 95/98), and has the necessary support for most of today's stuff (USB, FAT32, Windows Update, etc.). Second Edition is the recommended one here, although there really isn't much difference between the two once you've patched everything. It's probably worth noting that if you have a newer machine, you probably won't benefit enough from the slightly smaller resource useage 98 offers you anyway.
Windows 2000 is built off the NT code, which makes it less crash-prone than Windows 95/98/ME as well as giving better performance with higher-performing hardware. Actually, most systems with lower-end hardware running ME perform roughly the same as the same systems running 2000, so why not run the mre stable one? 9x/ME doesn't deal with more than 256MB RAM near as well as 2000 does, and it is actually a practical option to leave your system on 24/7 without worrying about resource loss.
Most everything you can buy today has support for 2000, so there isn't near the number of issues that there were initially. A lot of people recommend this version over XP since it doesn't have the "bloat" of XP's newer graphic interface. However, the interface in 2000 can still intimidate basic users since it doesn't let you do as many things as simply as 9x/ME do. It's still more of a workstation OS, although it's very much ueable for home systems (once you know how it works).
Windows XP is the newest one, and it has support for most all hardware out there. At least, the important stuff. XP is similar enough to 2000 that most 2000-compatible stuff works fine in XP, yet different enough that there will be a point in the future where things become only XP compatible. I find the new look to be very nice, but you can disable it and get almost the same performance out of it that you'd get with 2000. XP is also a little easier for basic users to do things with thanks to the multitude of Tooltips, custom folders, and Wizards that Microsoft added in. It's like the mix of 98 and 2000 that ME tried to be.
That said, there isn't anything really wrong with ME. Nothing moreso than there is with 98, at least. I used it for a while and never had any problems. I'd use it over 98, but I'd guess I'm alone in that respect. However, I prefer 2000 over ME (since it's more secure), and XP over 2000 because I like the newer interface.
[Edit: Grammatical correction]
[this message was edited by kaepora on Mon 9 Dec 20:03] |
| Makondo99
101th Post
Regular Customer
| "Re(5):Rave and Rant about Mandrake Linux & Sn" , posted Mon 9 Dec 19:52
quote:
It's not so much a matter of what's wrong with ME, it's more a matter of what is better about the other versions. ME tried to be a mix between Windows 98 and Windows 2000, but it ended up having nothing really usefull that you couldn't get with either of the other two. In particular, the base code of ME tried to be a mix of the two, resulting in an OS that doesn't have 100% compatibility with either 98 nor 2000.
Windows 98 generally takes up less resources, has a slightly better compatibility rate with hardware (since it is closer to the way Windows 95 is than ME is to 95/98), and has the necessary support for most of today's stuff (USB, FAT32, Windows Update, etc.). Second Edition is the recommended one here, although there really isn't much difference between the two once you've patched everything. It's probably worth noting that if you have a newer machine, you probably won't benefit enough from the slightly smaller resource useage 98 offers you anyway.
Windows 2000 is built off the NT code, which makes it less crash-prone than Windows 95/98/ME as well as giving better performance with higher-performing hardware. Actually, most systems with lower-end hardware running ME perform roughly the same as the same systems running 2000, so why not run the mre stable one? 9x/ME doesn't deal with more than 256MB RAM near as well as 2000 does, and it is actually a practical option to leave your system on 24/7 without worrying about resource loss.
Most everything you can buy today has support for 2000, so there isn't near the number of issues that there were initially. A lot of people recommend this version over XP since it doesn't have the "bloat" of XP's newer graphic interface. However, the interface in 2000 can still intimidate basic users since it doesn't let you do as many things as simply as 9x/ME do. It's still more of a workstation OS, although it's very much ueable for home systems (once you know how it works).
Windows XP is the newest one, and it has support for most all hardware out there. At least, the important stuff. XP is similar enough to 2000 that most 2000-compatible stuff works fine in XP, yet different enough that there will be a point in the future where things become only XP compatible. I find the new look to be very nice, but you can disable it and get almost the same performance out of it that you'd get with 2000. XP is also a little easier for basic users to do things with thanks to the multitude of Tooltips, custom folders, and Wizards that Microsoft added in. It's like the mix of 98 and 2000 that ME tried to be.
That said, there isn't anything really wrong with ME. Nothing moreso than there is with 98, at least. I used it for a while and never had any problems. I'd use it over 98, but I'd guess I'm alone in that respect. However, I prefer 2000 over ME (since it's more secure), and XP over 2000 because I like the newer interface.
Thanks for the answer, Kaepora
|
| Grave
3th Post
New Customer
| "Re(5):Another roster shakeup" , posted Thu 2 Jan 12:56
quote:
Now that I'm rereading that, I should also mention that some older software that runs in 9x/ME isn't compatible with 2000/XP. Mostly games, old DOS programs, and some programs that integrate themselves into the Windows interface.
For example, Final Fantasy VII, Worms Armageddon, and MechWarrior 2 aren't guaranteed to work in 2000 or XP. Grand Theft Auto 2 works in 2000 but is crash-prone in XP.
ME's game compatibility isn't so hot, either. It seems stuck somewhere between 98 and 2000. When my mom and my sister wanted to play their old DOS games, I had to install Win98 on their machines.
Though, Connectix now makes Virtual PC for Windows. Theoretically, you could run Win98 or DOS on top of ME, 2k, or XP, and then get your games. Or you could dual boot, or...
Personally, I just use a Mac and keep my games on consoles. 
|
|
|
"Rave and Rant about Mandrake Linux & SnkVsCap" 
reborn for a new generation
