PC Building!

By Dreamraven : Forum Moderator
Published 28th November 2012 | Last comment 4th February 2013
Comments
I know Microsoft have made some mistakes over the years, but backwards compatibility isn't one of them. WOW64 (windows on windows) allows the 64bit machine to run 32bit apps. In the server world we found 64bit really useful as it could natively address memory > 4GB without using stuff like AWE (address windowing extensions).

NT wasn't bad apart from DirectX and USB support, miles better than 95, 98 or ME. I think XP was one of the best to come out of Redmond (and DOS 3.3). Not tried Windows 8 yet as quite happy with Win 7 on the laptop.

Not too sure about 7 atm either lol. spent about ten minutes arguing with it about which of my adsl accounts to connect to. I have a back up in place when my bandwidth runs out, and today it just blatantly refused. It listened to reason in the end though.

Workstation..... manually searching for peripherals to add them to the OS. Although, XP was also built on NT though, was just a lot more plug and play than the original NT, with a much better GUI, so I can understand where some of XP's stability came from. I can remember formatting hard drives using the NTFS system. Until I stopped using XP. Haven't had to format a harddrive yet. lol.

Even in my training, The furthest they went back was 95, and they only touched on it. They focussed mainly on Vista and XP, seeing it was the most used at the time. (Vista was still in its infancy though).

Thanks,
Dreamraven

the DOS stuff was handy for writing logon scripts but now with group policy you don't need to bother as much.

I quite like the history of computers, its interesting reading stuff on the Amiga and Acorn at the likes of old computers. Tried a few emulators but lost interest in it after a while. Perhaps things weren't as good as I remembered!

neil@camisonline

my earliest DOS experience was a commodore 64. Don't really think it was real dos though, but I had fun writing little programs in it. I have an old PC in my lab, that I wanted to set up running 3.1 and the like, but my floppy's are gone , was to experiment on how it would have worked etc. as its the only one I haven't dabbled with (besides 8). Ah well, time came and went, and I got my cert. so lol don't need it now I guess.

Computers were fun back then, playing with LOGO and getting bored making the turtle move forwards and backwards lol. But I guess I wouldn't swap them for the world. Good or bad, its an experience I'm glad I got hooked on

Thanks,
Dreamraven

Windows 3.1 was still in commercial use up to just a few years ago:

BBC NEWS | Technology | The end of an era - Windows 3.x

neil@camisonline

Windows 3.1 was still in commercial use up to just a few years ago:

BBC NEWS | Technology | The end of an era - Windows 3.x

'Tis not very advanced though, even the blog post warned against its vulnerability against attackers (assuming you could actually connect it to the net that is).

My eldest is taking a class at school called CAT. They're taught about computers, and seeing she has another 2 years left before she matriculates, she can learn a lot from that class. Her class was asked to bring a piece of technology to school to show off to the class. (Almost thought I would have to chain my desktop to my desk), but after some thought, she's taking my old microATX board (with CPU intact), a 1 Gig Ram stick, and one of the screws used to seat the board into the case. (ah, to be a fly on the wall tomorrow lol)

Its kinda odd though. Now days our kids are always in contact with a PC of some kind and from a really young age, so they have it easy in a way. In our times as a kid, sometimes the first time you get to see a PC is when you're in grade 6, and you're cursing that darned Turtle. It was for the privileged few (well this side in any case). Or, in my case lol a way to get your kid to stop climbing trees

Thanks,
Dreamraven

I think when something fulfils a purpose; there is little need to upgrade it. I guess not everything needs to connect to the internet and if a computer performs a rudimentary task, why bother replacing? I fitted a PC 15 years ago to monitor a clocking on system in a factory; I was very surprised to see that it was still there doing the same job last month. I think all that had been replaced was the power supply.

It

neil@camisonline

I think when something fulfils a purpose; there is little need to upgrade it. I guess not everything needs to connect to the internet and if a computer performs a rudimentary task, why bother replacing? I fitted a PC 15 years ago to monitor a clocking on system in a factory; I was very surprised to see that it was still there doing the same job last month. I think all that had been replaced was the power supply.

It

Thanks,
Dreamraven

Don't get me wrong it's good to build computers and I've enjoyed it, but I think from a large organisational perspective it often doesn't make much sense. I never liked my staff opening desktops in work as I didn

neil@camisonline

This Thread is now closed for comments