|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>But several users have told me ts4 does not work under Win2k
Maybe they didn't read this:
http://omegaresearch.com/support/knowledge_base_full.asp?DocumentID=608
I posted this doc. a few days back. I'm not on win2k....yet, but all
accounts I've heard say it's the best set up for TS4 and TS2K.
Bill Wynne
Bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: scheier <scheier@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>CC: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Win2k & ts4 /was Re: windows millenium & ts4
>Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:50:42 -0400
>
>But several users have told me ts4 does not work under Win2k, and I'm
>unwilling to give ts4 up at this time. Is this correct?--or has someone
>created a patch or work around for ts4....
>
>MS
>
>Gary Fritz wrote:
>
> > > I went with WIN98se simply because I wanted an optical drive with
> > > a harware decoder, and there were no WIN 2000 drivers available for
> > > this vendor's hardware decoder's drives. If I had it to do over
> > > again though, I'd definitely go with WIN 2000....it sure couldn't
> > > be worse than 98.
> >
> > Win98 is just a dressed-up Win95, which is mostly just a cosmetic
> > update to Win 3.1, which is a pretty face on top of DOS. All of them
> > have fundamental flaws and weaknesses in their design that make it
> > extremely difficult to write solid and reliable applications.
> >
> > Win ME is basically Win98 with fewer options. To quote the estimable
> > Fred Langa, "It's Windows with training wheels. As such, it'll be
> > great for utter newbies because they won't be able to get themselves
> > into much trouble. ... any moderately experienced Windows user will
> > feel stymied and hemmed in by WinME's deliberate limitations."
> >
> > WinNT, on the other hand, has almost nothing in common with the Win9x
> > family. It was designed from the ground up as an honest-to-God
> > operating system, by people (NOT from Microsoft) who had actually
> > done that successfully in the past. It's far more bullet-proof than
> > Win9x ever dreamed of being.
> >
> > Win2k, as I understand it, is the next generation of WinNT.
> > Everything I've heard says it's better, faster, and more solid than
> > WinNT, even though it's barely out of the lab. It sounds as though
> > Microsoft learned from their betters and took NT to the next level of
> > functionality and reliability.
> >
> > If I wasn't already on NT, I'd absolutely upgrade to Win2K. IMHO the
> > Win9x platform is not suitable for mission-critical applications.
> > Since I already have a very stable platform, I'll give Win2K a few
> > releases to get even more solid & get some more drivers &etc, but I
> > will eventually move. Win2K is obviously the future of Windows.
> >
> > Gary
>
|