|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I've tried yesterday a couple of times and just now to get into the Omega
website and this is all I get:
HTTP/1.1 Server Too Busy
Anyone else experience the same?
~Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Wynne <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: scheier@xxxxxxxxx <scheier@xxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Win2k & ts4 /was Re: windows millenium & ts4
>>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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|