mattpower3000
New Member
as if sum1 sed 2000, honestly...
POLL : The worse Microsoft OS ever made....
- Thread starter Drastik
- Start date
SearchEnDie
New Member
I vote that M.E is the badest because I had a window m.e computer and it had so much errors plus it was slow. So I recently changed it to xp.
NeuromancerWGDD'U
New Member
Woah! Unstable!? It's a similar situation as to Linux, just to a much lighter degree. If you know what you're doing Windows 9X works like a dream. I've never had a problem that has persisted for more than an hour, and I've been running 98 since I was about 8 years old. All that's changed from 98 to NTFS systems is some serious idiot-proofing, and a loss of DOS compatibility. Granted, a lot of backwards compatibility is baggage, as Praetor stated, but look at Linux. Linux is, with a little tweaking, backwards compatible with just about anything. It's also much much faster than Windows OS's. If backwards compatibility is being sluffed off of new Windows OS's to increase performance, why is Linux able to handle it no problem? Simple. Idiot-proofing. If Windows were to make an advanced user OS, they wouldn't have to worry about spending 40% of their time coding to prevent dipwads from deleting system files.Byteman said:
SearchEnDie
New Member
WOw.... nice post.. And It seems like that windows 95 is the best os in the list:S
Well you will also know then that in a pre-2K environment you can write programs that fck with hardware directly ... which is stupid ... just stop and think about that
Ill go easy on you cuz yer only 15 and say simply that, that was not the only change.
Yes but development under a linux platform, efficient or otherwise is a pain whereas Windows development is heavily supported and if the community wants stuff badly enough, APIs get made
Yes but linux, based on Unix is a lot older than windows. One would expect nothing less. Furthermore, id like to see linux run -- straight out of the box, an arbitrary application, selected from a list of every single x86 application.
And then people wouldnt use computers meaning there wouldnt be nearly the same market as there is now... meaning less hardware devlopment....
Yes but unleash those same dipwads on a unix based system and you'll have some serious issues. The OSs are targeted at a different user base, claiming an advanced user OS would prevent dipwads from deleting stuff is crazy, dipwads are, by denfinition, dipwads and will bugger up any and everything they can
NeuromancerWGDD'U
New Member
True enough. More or less the point of my post was more to the effect that if Microsoft would gear a small portion of their efforts to providing an advanced user operating system, they would have a handhold in the advanced user market. Advanced users tend to be much more committed to IT, and if they created an advanced user OS, as well as a series of advanced user applications, they would be able to offer a system that can handle, with great efficiency, not only backwards compatibility, but additionally security functionality, graphical editing capabilities, multi-tasking, and a host of other features that are generally lacking (or that could use improvement).Cromewell said:
I'm by no means an advocate of Microsoft products, I'm just amazed that they've let the advanced user market pass them by.
Not only would they have a hand-hold in the advanced user market, but if those same dipwads decided to use the advanced user OS, it could only mean profit for Microsoft
. For MS, it's a win/win.
Last edited:
winxp_hater
New Member
I'd have to say that since I run 4 comp's here at the house and laptop for mobile office work each likes a different operating system.
My Gateway has tried all the operating systems and with it's 600 celeron processor it runs best on windows xp pro.
My dell with the 2.0 gig p4 hates everything but Linux Turkix.
My amd with it's 1.8 runs great on 2000.
Laptop likes 98 s.e. Probably because its a 133 mhz.
The compaq runs win xp pro fine as well on its 600 celeron as well.
Notice never mentioned 95 or 98 except for s.e.
IMHO it's not which operating is best it's what the machine readily runs the best.
as far as backwards compatiblity if it didnt have that feature avail why would you want it? Seems like all the software I have I paid dearly for it.
My Gateway has tried all the operating systems and with it's 600 celeron processor it runs best on windows xp pro.
My dell with the 2.0 gig p4 hates everything but Linux Turkix.
My amd with it's 1.8 runs great on 2000.
Laptop likes 98 s.e. Probably because its a 133 mhz.
The compaq runs win xp pro fine as well on its 600 celeron as well.
Notice never mentioned 95 or 98 except for s.e.
IMHO it's not which operating is best it's what the machine readily runs the best.
as far as backwards compatiblity if it didnt have that feature avail why would you want it? Seems like all the software I have I paid dearly for it.
Last edited:
Hairy_Lee
VIP Member
Windows 2000 was my first taste of a reasonably stable microsoft OS. I never really liked 98 SE so when i got fed up with ME crashing cos i had too much RAM there was only one choice that i was willing to make... didn't have many drivers straight out of the box but once it was all set up i never looked back
winxp_hater
New Member
Tweaker nothing really just thought it made for a good name. O.K I b.s'ed a lil . I have the file hang up thing other then that thought it has proven itself as great. Best thing is no blue screen of death ......................