Re: [OT] (floppy?? and win 95) two questions
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Kent West wrote:
> > opperating system is much slower and more "buggy". I have plenty of
> > RAM and hd space for win 98 but like the idea of the smaller footprint
> > of win95. Any thoughts?
>
> I prefer Win95 to 98, but that's just a personal preference.
I've found Win98 to be much more "stable" (if that's the right word) than
Win95. YMMV. If you have the space, try NT4. A little more installation
overhead, but more stable than the 9x's and more proven than 2K. There is of
course the issue of application support, but if you're running only limited
apps under Windows, that shouldn't be a problem.
The biggest concern that I would have with a dual-boot system is that you
won't be able to get insane uptimes. I had 168 days until a rolling blackout
drained my UPS. (I hate California.)
> > 2) I'm thinking of not installing a floppy drive. I have a rewritable
> > cd drive and rarely use a floppy drive. I am thinking less wattage
> > less heat, more open space in the case. Any thoughts?
>
> If you don't ever use one, you don't need one. It won't save much
> wattage/heat, but it will open up a drive bay for other purposes.
Correct, the drive only draws noticeable power when in use. I don't know what
else you'll use the 3.5" drive bay for though. A tape drive maybe? A floppy
drive only costs about $15, and it's really nice to be able to make boot
disks in case Windows or Linux get a little wonky on you.
-B
--
Brandon High armitage@freaks.com
War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. AOL is the Internet.
Reply to: