|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Sean
I go back a ways. My original Windows was version 1. something. I then
upgraded to 2 and then 3.0, then 3.1 and finally to 3.1.1. I then upgraded
to Win95. Now all of these upgrades required my keeping prior releases, and
being able to locate them. Sometimes, I just can't find them, like my old
original Norton Virus and Utilities, etc. Same thing happened to me with
DOS. I had the original DOS (as well as CP/M) and moved up to each 'new'
release as they appeared. Again, sometimes I had a problem locating my
original diskettes.
If I just needed the prior upgrade it would be one thing, but will that
work???
Some of my original software is on 5.25" diskettes and I don't have that
size diskette drive on any of the 4 systems in the house.
A lot of time, I'm successful in locating full versions of the software at
the local computer show or through the LA Times. My Office 97 Professional
complete version was cheaper than the upgrade. Paid $140.00 for it. Same
with VB 5.0. Bought it 2 weeks ago at the local computer faire for $49.
Complete VB 5.0 Professional edition (not a student version, either).
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 9:59 AM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Use Win NT, throw out Win 95
Guy,
There is no difference between the upgrade and the full version. I have
successfully installed the uprgade on a blank computer. It prompts you to
install your 95 CD to verify proper licensing and then proceeds with a full
install. So there is no reason to spend an extra $100 for the full version
versus the upgrade...
Sean
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 11:09 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Use Win NT, throw out Win 95
>
> Well, I'm planning on upgrading to Win98 sooner rather than later
> (to paraphrase our peerless leader) however my thought is to buy
> the complete version rather than the upgrade. For some reason, I
> don't like those upgrade versions as I'm not sure you really get
> 'everything'.
>
> One of my friends did all of the Alpha and Beta testing with
> Microsoft (they think he's a developer) and he claims that Win 98
> corrects, and here the memory is fuzzy, somewhere between 3,000
> and 5,000 know bugs, flaws, etc. in Win 95. Just that alone
> makes it attractive.
>
> I'm also going to upgrade to 192Mb RAM and possibly look at an NT
> installation on my 5.25Gb D: drive keeping the 8.4Gb C: drive
> Windows virgin.
>
> Guy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:animal@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Animal
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 6:40 AM
> To: 'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: Use Win NT, throw out Win 95
>
> One of the biggest issues with DOS programs and NT is when the
> DOS programs attempts to write directly to various interrupts,
> i.e. the video drivers. NT has a HAL kernel, Hardware
> Application Layer. Non-friendly DOS applications which bypass
> this layer can send the whole thing out-to-lunch. It is a
> "try-and-see" kind of thing. I have been installing Win98 lately
> and have found it to be much improved over Win95 while not having
> all the baggage related to NT. Don't know about Win98 and MS.
> It's on the list……
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Tann [SMTP:grtann@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 1:22 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Use Win NT, throw out Win 95
>
> Jan
>
> If I'm not mistaken, you can't run DOS MS on NT. I'm not sure if this is
> true, as I have no personal experience, but this is why I never switched
> over.
>
> I have a LAN here in the house, and we all share each others
> CD-ROMs, files,
> etc. With my 8 year old running a basic Win 95 Pentium 166 HP system for
> educational and gaming software, how compatible are we, in terms of his
> still being able to use Win 95 to share stuff? The 3rd machine is
> my better
> half's ThinkPad 560 which also runs Win95. What type of problems
> would you
> anticipate if I switched to NT? That's assuming I can still run
> MS for DOS
> (again because Equis, in switching to Windows managed to change their
> methodology in performing calculations and I haven't been able to make the
> transition to their Win 95 version. I do use their Downloader for Windows
> to update my data, but then switch to DOS to run my numbers. A real pain.
>
> Regards
>
> Guy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of J.W.E Roberts
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 12:57 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Use Win NT, throw out Win 95
>
> Hi Folks,
> Allow me a word to the Wise: *Don't* use Windows 31 bit! I used to have
> Win95 on the home-PC, and NT at the office. However, NT is so vastly
> superior to Win 95 that I can only urge everyone who uses his/her PC
> professionally to switch to Windows NT. The OS is secure, crash-proof
> (well, almost ;-), and nearly as fast as Win 95. So far I've *never* had
> Metastock quit on me yet!
> You just have to install a bit more RAM which is a dime a dozen today -
> 64 MB is the absolute minimum, 128 MB advisable (doubling RAM speeds up
> your PC much, much more than doubling the Herztes).
> Kind Regards & Happy Trading,
> Jan Willem Roberts
>
>
>
> michael wrote:
>
> > Thanks Penelope, Lionel, and Wacek
> > Thanks for your replies, though some of you second guessed me. I'm
> > happy with Win95 (well, sort of), but there's a study exercise that I
> > have to do for a course that requires the use of 3.1.1. Oh well, I
> > suppose I'll have to beg the use of a friend's computer (with 3.1.1
> > installed ;-). Thanks for your help, all.
> > Michael
>
>
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\winmail2.dat"
|