Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old
-
I was running Windows 98 and tried to upgrade to Windows 2000. Everything worked fine, except my ethernet port. Couldn't connect to my router.
Revert back to Win98 so I can search the Interwebs for a solution. No luck. Try installing Windows 2000 again, same problem. Lather, rinse, repeat.
After quite some time, I finally stumbled across the solution to the problem. At some some point in the past I had gone into the BIOS and disabled the USB ports, since I wasn't using any USB devices (back then they were a lot more rare than today). Re-enabling the USB ports fixed the problem and Windows 2000 could now connect to the network.
Because, obviously, disabling the USB ports should also disable the ethernet port.
-
@el_heffe said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
At some some point in the past I had gone into the BIOS and disabled the USB ports, since I wasn't using any USB devices (back then they were a lot more rare than today).
... why?
Like... even if you're not using the USB ports, what did you think you'd gain by turning them off entirely?
-
@blakeyrat said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@el_heffe said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
At some some point in the past I had gone into the BIOS and disabled the USB ports, since I wasn't using any USB devices (back then they were a lot more rare than today).
... why?
Like... even if you're not using the USB ports, what did you think you'd gain by turning them off entirely?
I never said I was smart.
-
But, I don’t get it… shouldn’t disabling something in the BIOS make it “invisible” for the OS? Why could it possibly have worked with W98 but not with W2k?
-
The first rule of preventing computer problems: stay as close to the default configuration as you can. Every option you touch is a chance for something seemingly unrelated to break many years down the way.
-
@kt_ said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
But, I don’t get it… shouldn’t disabling something in the BIOS make it “invisible” for the OS? Why could it possibly have worked with W98 but not with W2k?
The wonderous mysteries of Windows.
-
Windows is only 31 years old!
-
@el_heffe Let's be fair here: Windows and the incredibly hacky BIOSes (and various internal protocols that hardware uses).
-
@medinoc said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
Windows is only 3.1 years old!
-
@anonymous234 said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
The first rule of preventing computer problems: stay as close to the default configuration as you can. Every option you touch is a chance for something seemingly unrelated to break many years down the way.
LOL I probably
todo everything but this.
-
@karla said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
LOL I probably <verb of choice> to everything but this.
Sing?
Dance?
-
@no_1 said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@karla said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
LOL I probably <verb of choice> to everything but this.
Sing?
Dance?Strip
-
@karla said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@anonymous234 said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
The first rule of preventing computer problems: stay as close to the default configuration as you can. Every option you touch is a chance for something seemingly unrelated to break many years down the way.
LOL I probably to everything but this.
I've gotten out of the habit, but when I built myself a gaming computer some 10 years ago I made a point to write down every little configuration change I made in the BIOS and certain parts of the OS. If I started seeing blue screens and other bad stuff, I could refer back to the log and see where I might have gone wrong.
It actually came to good use a few times. Obviously if you have a store-bought computer you're not as apt to mess with the BIOS settings as much but a custom rig sometimes invites some more tweaking that could really cause some damage.
-
-
@anonymous234 said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
The first rule of preventing computer problems: stay as close to the default configuration as you can. Every option you touch is a chance for something seemingly unrelated to break many years down the way.
I learned the Dvorak keyboard layout only to realize that that rule makes learning the Dvorak keyboard layout useless.
I mean, it's great if you can guarantee you'll only ever use one keyboard in your entire life. But most people can't.
-
@blakeyrat said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
Like... even if you're not using the USB ports, what did you think you'd gain by turning them off entirely?
IIRC there had been a minor fuckup in the low-level way the USB interface presented itself to the OS, which could cause spurious memory corruptions in USB-unaware, previously unaffected OS's (and god knows how many DOS drivers!). So disabling the whole controller thing was a plausible action at the time. Can also explain why the Win98 driver could better handle the, back then, probable 'USB controller missing or disabled' case.
-
@blakeyrat said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@anonymous234 said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
The first rule of preventing computer problems: stay as close to the default configuration as you can. Every option you touch is a chance for something seemingly unrelated to break many years down the way.
I learned the Dvorak keyboard layout only to realize that that rule makes learning the Dvorak keyboard layout useless.
I mean, it's great if you can guarantee you'll only ever use one keyboard in your entire life. But most people can't.
Besides, Dvorak isn't designed very well.
-
@pie_flavor said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
Besides, Dvorak isn't designed very well.
Keyboard layouts have been designed to minimise the hammers of a mechanical typewriter getting stuck together
-
@timebandit said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@pie_flavor said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
Besides, Dvorak isn't designed very well.
Keyboard layouts have been designed to minimise the hammers of a mechanical typewriter getting stuck together
That's utter bullshit
https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/139379/1/42_161.pdf (text to remove the stupid nonebox)
-
@bugmenot said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
Can also explain why the Win98 driver could better handle the, back then, probable 'USB controller missing or disabled' case.
-
@blakeyrat said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@el_heffe said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
At some some point in the past I had gone into the BIOS and disabled the USB ports, since I wasn't using any USB devices (back then they were a lot more rare than today).
... why?
Like... even if you're not using the USB ports, what did you think you'd gain by turning them off entirely?
-
@pie_flavor said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@timebandit said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@pie_flavor said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
Besides, Dvorak isn't designed very well.
Keyboard layouts have been designed to minimise the hammers of a mechanical typewriter getting stuck together
That's utter bullshit
(text to remove the stupid nonebox)
Clearly the producer was a believer in permanent URLs...
-
@tsaukpaetra DOIs are “easy” to read:
10.14989indicates the publisher, and139379the individual item. The link resolves to a metadata page and links from there to the actual content (depending on a bunch of conditions). The big difference from a normal URL is in what happens later: DOIs will continue to resolve for a long time, even past the publisher changing how it internally arranges their files or the publisher going bust, as there are agreements with repository institutions (e.g., Library of Congress) to keep them going, and will even survive if we stop using HTTP and HTTPS and so on.Properly a DOI is a URN and not a URL:
doi:10.14989/139379. The servicedx.doi.orgis nothing like as important, but provides a simple way to do the resolution with current browsers.
-
@dkf said in Re: How Windows broke my computer at 42 years old:
@tsaukpaetra DOIs are “easy” to read:
10.14989indicates the publisher, and139379the individual item. The link resolves to a metadata page and links from there to the actual content (depending on a bunch of conditions). The big difference from a normal URL is in what happens later: DOIs will continue to resolve for a long time, even past the publisher changing how it internally arranges their files or the publisher going bust, as there are agreements with repository institutions (e.g., Library of Congress) to keep them going, and will even survive if we stop using HTTP and HTTPS and so on.Properly a DOI is a URN and not a URL:
doi:10.14989/139379. The servicedx.doi.orgis nothing like as important, but provides a simple way to do the resolution with current browsers.Holy crap Google is watching the forums like a hawk!
