modem probs

T

thyonlyone

Geek Trainee
aarrggghhhh. I get the message that it isnt there while trying to install sympatico dial up then when i go into settings it say that it is there and no conflicts but then when i run the test it ends up telling me that the modem is disabled. its the sound4 us robotics atleast thats what my computer keeps telling me that it is. And I am running windows 98 , but the computer has also got an ethernet card connected to it so i dont know if it is having some sort of conflict there but just isnt realizing that it is having a problem.
 
You should not have any problems with conflict between the two cards. As long as one or the other is not online at the same time you should be fine. It also might think you are just using your ethernet instead of using the dail up. Try and disable the ethernet card before you try to connect to with the dial-up.
 
Hey i wish the hole world had only XP it makes life so much better when istalling somethings. Win 98SE was still asome it was one of the best things windows came out with.
 
XP really isn't that great. Its good for the average joe who doesn't really care about performance or rock solid stability but linux is better in many ways.
 
That is very true my linux comp dose do alot. But it also takes some time to get to know and how to use. But yeah linux is very good and is very very good as a sever. But if you want something a little more functional then i think XP is one of the better ones.
 
evanjanis said:
That is very true my linux comp dose do alot. But it also takes some time to get to know and how to use. But yeah linux is very good and is very very good as a sever. But if you want something a little more functional then i think XP is one of the better ones.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I do a lot of stuff in *nix I can't do in XP at all. But, even if you must use Windows for some reason (i.e. proprietary software), Windows 2000 pro (NT5.0) is the same operating system as XP (NT5.1), except more stable and you can get it for around $40+ (legally!). XP Pro is more like $200+, and it's less stable, so....
 
evanjanis said:
That is true 2000 is a rock soild operating system.
Click to expand...
Well, at least compared to other Microsoft operating systems. Any Unix-like operating system will be more stable by design.
Here's some interesting data based upon a recent university study:
Windows failure rates on a per-session basis:

Windows NT4.0, SP6a: 4%
Windows NT5.0, SP4 (2000 Pro): 8%
Windows NT5.1, SP2 (XP Pro): 16%
Click to expand...
As you can see, the ancient NT 4.0 is the most stable by far, having only a 4% probability of failure per session. Unfortunately, it's too outdated to be very valuable in this day & age. In addition, NT4 did not come equipped with defragmentation tools, so this figure is likely to degrade with time & use.

2000 Pro sports an 8% failure rate. Still a fairly low figure, unless we are talking about important servers where every second of downtime counts. This figure probably changes less over time than does NT4, since 2000 Pro does have native defragmentation tools and some self-healing capabilities.

Finally, XP Pro is by far the worst concerning stability, having a surprisingly high 16% probability of failure per session. This despite the fact that it, like 2000, includes defragmentation and self-healing capabilites. It is comparitively twice as unstable as 2000 Pro, and four times moreso than NT4!

P.S. - Microsoft's own resarch produced more favorable results, 3%, 4%, and 12% respectively. Also, I'd be interested in seeing figures relating to the older 9x family -- anyone know of any studies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top