> > *** Nothing is cheaper than dial-up here in Halifax: $25
> > a year (yes, a *year* !)
> That's pretty good!
*** That price is for the absolute basic service:
500 kB of Webspace
500 MB Mailbox (It might be 2 GB, now)
One can pay $120 a year and get full graphic service, plus all of the
above, but with larger webspace and mailbox. In addition, if one is in the
south end of Halifax, one can have wireless broadband included in the
$120. I think the top speed is 10 Mb/s.
Quote:> > As for Win 95, I got tired of constant blue screens,
> > blockage of what I wanted to do, and with the reinstalls.
> It took me years of tweaking to get it to run right, but once I
> did, I never got a BSOD unless I did something really stupid.
*** As I remember, my bluescreens seem to come from me trying to do the
full amount of what DOS allowed me to do under WIN 3.1.
Quote:> It's really a pretty good OS. Before they started improving
> it... And since I have the OEM version (they built me a computer
> in '97), I had FAT32 from the start. It still runs like a charm.
*** Hey, if it's not broken, don't fix it.
(Re: Windows 98)
Quote:> > *** It was better, but when a third reinstall loomed, I
> > dumped it in favour of DR-0DS and have never looked back.
> I could NEVER use it (Active Desktop? Thanks, but no thanks...
> Show everything as web page? Where is my gun?) if not for the
> Lite customizer (visit www.litepc.com if you are not familiar
> with it - essentially, it replaces 3 main system files with 95B
> versions, eliminating the worst annoyances of 98/98SE and
> speeding things up).
*** By the time I got to a point where I might want to do that, I was
fed up. As the cleaning lady says: "I don't do windows!" I upgraded to
DR-DOS in 1999 and my only complaint is that I can't get all the software
I'd like for it.
(Re: Windows XP)
Quote:> > *** The virus issue aside, I think if you spent more time
> > with it, you might achieve the customisation you desire.
> I have posted, researched, etc. Apparently there is no way to
> get rid of the multiple accounts, and the copies of sys files
> all over the place. Nor is there a way to have a normal start up
> menu - you just have to live with what the damn OS creates,
> since checking which of the countless and idiotically redundant
> directories (excuse me, folders X-( ) a program's settings are
> in is beyond anyone's patience. There are 3rd party utils (like
> FastLauncher) which allow you to NEVER use the idiotic start
> menu AT ALL, but you still have to have it there - it's like
> knowing there's a rabid skunk hiding in your closet.
*** It would be nice for my preferences to never see any Start Menu and
never have to click on anything to launch a program, do file maintenance,
see a picture, etc. Oh wait! I have that *now*!
Quote:> > On the other hand, I could never customise Windows to do
> > the one big thing that I wanted: Get rid of the GUI interface.
> I am not sure, but I /think/ I read somewhere you could come
> pretty close... There are quite a few shells available... But I
> could just be dreaming...
*** Shells or not, the slowness and general rigamarole associated with a
GUI operating system just does not cut it for me.