From: Bruce Markowitz (scosgt_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sun May 31 1998 - 19:47:46 EDT
Seems to me you (we) may need updated video drivers for W98. That may be
the cause of the video slowdown (remember the 75X series with the Western
Digital 90c24 video chip? WD never wrote a W95 driver for it, and the
driver included in W95 is a real dog!)
----------
> From: richard <rpritz_at_interport.net>
> To: toddlinn_at_csn.net
> Cc: Thinkpad Mailing List <thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu>
> Subject: Re: win 98
> Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 11:13 AM
>
> On Sat, 30 May 1998 16:57:01 -0600, "Todd A. Linn" <toddlinn_at_csn.net>
wrote:
>
> >Nor has MS *ever* said Win 98 was of limited value. That garbage comes
from
> >the magazines. Win 98 is a significant upgrade and a significant
> >improvement in every way. Chances are it will outsell Win 95, which is
the
> >largest selling piece of software in the universe.
> >
> >Yes it is an evolution, I don't think I sad anything to the contrary.
Its
> >faster, better and uses resources more efficiently. I was responding to
a
> >specific piece of misinformation that Richard had asked. What he heard
was
> >wrong.
>
> I installed Win98 yesterday. It seems to be slower than Win95, but not
by much.
> FWIW, benchmark speed (PCMag's Winstone 97) is virtually identical (Win95
= 18,
> WIn98 = 17.5). However, the system feels slower than before - pages draw
> slower, Internet Explorer on Win98 seems slower than Netscape Navigator
on
> Win95, switching between programs seems to churn the disk a bit more than
> before. At least on my TP560.
>
> Stability (after approx one day of use) seems the same. It takes up
about 100mb
> more than Win95.
>
> I have not had any problems with hardware compatibility. One software
program
> (Reachout) generates error messages about lack of compatibiltiy with
Win98.
>
> BTW, I brought up the issue of Win98 to help decide whether to use it on
my TP,
> not to debate the general utility of the OS or MS's legal position,
operating
> philosophies, etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:54:05 EST