Screensaver problems

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 3 Oct 2002, 20:57

I was wondering if anyone else has this problem. Whenever I leave my computer for a while and the screensaver starts, Elma isn't runnable when I come back. It's just too laggy. Every other program works fine though.
The only solution seems to be to reboot.

So, does anyone recognise this?

PS. I'm running Win ME.

dz · Post by dz » 3 Oct 2002, 21:01

sorry i cant help you

btw, is there a specific reason to still use old win9x's?
im quite sure it wouldn't occur with nt based.

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 3 Oct 2002, 21:48

how about disabling the screensaver?

i never use screensavers, they use computer resources for nothing. and if u wanna save the screen u can turn it off :]

chux · Post by **chux** » 3 Oct 2002, 23:12

Agree!
I disabled my screensaver quite a while ago and I never realized how pointless they are! I say..."'low screensavers"

('low being slang (meaning allow) which is used when [you [dont need/want]/cant be bothered to do] something. eg. 'low that = 'I'm not gonna do that' etc.)

Antz · Post by **Antz** » 4 Oct 2002, 04:36

yep, i also took my screensaver away. i did have the monitor-off-turning thingy in the power setup but i took that away too, now i just turn the monitor off if i'm not doing nething with comp. and that's quite often, i've dl:d over 20G stuff (mostly movies) in the last 1Â½ months.

Post by **Abula** » 4 Oct 2002, 08:18

Antz wrote:i've dl:d over 20G stuff (mostly movies) in the last 1Â½ months.

Shame you, I do that same with my modem (ye I suppose you have faster connection).

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 4 Oct 2002, 11:33

chuck what's the point of saying allow screensavers? i see it means u dont use it but is it ironic or what?

and what do u guys download? the last week i downloaded some movies maybe 4 GB and mp3s but 20 GB takes a long time for me.. now back to topic.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 4 Oct 2002, 12:55

...:::BUY WINDOWS XP:::...

This is the best windows ever !!!!!!!!!!

jcl · Post by **jcl** » 4 Oct 2002, 13:28

Windows 2000 or NT4 are both much more reliable than XP.

Antz · Post by **Antz** » 4 Oct 2002, 14:46

i like xp most of what windows' i've tried.
hasn't crashed 10 times in a year. although, it has twice broken down somehow, so that i needed to reinstall win and there went everything in my personal folder.. (~2gigs of patches, movies and usefull programs..)

(abu, adsl is sw33t)

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 4 Oct 2002, 15:27

well my computer crashed a few times about a half year age, then I got WIN XP prof and the my copmuter hasn't crash afterwards

- Kopaka [cEp]

Post by **SveinR** » 4 Oct 2002, 15:59

Hey, everyone knows Windows 98 is THE most reliable windows of all time..

chux · Post by **chux** » 4 Oct 2002, 17:51

Win 98 may be most reliable, but...umm...I dont know how to finish that sentance...

Ribot: I know it's weird! Allow meaning dont allow...but I guess thats why its only derived from allow, its really 'low...jeez...Im confusing myself here

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 4 Oct 2002, 20:10

SveinR wrote:Hey, everyone knows Windows 98 is THE most reliable windows of all time..

It is NOT

This is WIN XP

only thing XP is bad on is when you are copying something over LAN

- Kopaka [cEp]

dz · Post by dz » 4 Oct 2002, 20:21

Kopaka wrote:only thing XP is bad on is when you are copying something over LAN

ya that's so true. we have 3 quite good 100mbps network cards and still with every set up the speed usually varies very much, sometimes its only 1-2mb/s, sometimes even 9mb/s. very annoying..

Post by **SveinR** » 5 Oct 2002, 14:36

I hope people saw I was being sarcastic...

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 6 Oct 2002, 00:01

Hey, nice relpys guys, but my original question was: Does anyone else have this problem?

Win ME was what came with my computer, and buying XP is too expensive. Does anybody really buy OS's anyway? It seems to me everybody just uses the OS their computers where shipped with, or gets it illegally.

And I really think ME is the best version of Windows. There's no point in having NT/2000/XP unless the computer is in a network. And even though ME tends to show the infamous "blue-screens" every now and then, I prefer an OS that crashes often but for no reason (just restart and the "problem" is gone), rather than an OS that don't crash very much but when it does, it f*cks up real good.

Antz · Post by **Antz** » 6 Oct 2002, 03:11

not 1 blue screen ever with xp. i hate crashing and if i cand get an os that doesn't do that and is good in many other ways too then i'll take it. also, winME can also crash really badly. i got xp professional from a friend before it was even published..

Win Ce + Win Me + Win NT => new Windows CeMeNT - "solid as a rock"

Post by **SveinR** » 6 Oct 2002, 10:05

To be honest, I think Windows 3.1 has to be one of, if not the, most reliable Windows. At least I've never experienced any crashes with it

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 6 Oct 2002, 13:23

Yes win 3.1 never crashed the time I had it

zworqy: Windows ME I didn't now were god. ALL (exept for you) syas that it's really Bad. Also my big brother had it ones but get tired of it

And I never buy OS, The WIN XP I have now is a copy from my big brother that have a copy from one of his freinds and so on...
2 times I have had an legally OS. This were OS my computers where shipped with....

- Kopaka [cEp]