- Status
n3ard3ath
Distinguished
- Dec 11, 2008
- 270
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]TheCapulet[/nom]Who's the moron neg'ing every comment that promotes windows?[/citation]
Me. Here's some good Win95 'promotion'.
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=windows+95+blue+screen&hl=en&emb=0#
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]are you smoking crack .. win 95 was actually oen of MS's better Oses gratned they did improve it for 98 se but i would hardly call it crap , win 95 is after all the SOLE reason why windows dominates the OS market sayign they can't design a good OS is also retarded. they set out tod esign an OS that every one including your grandma coulde ventually learn to be comfortable with, I would say they acheived thier goal in general that is why computers became so main stream , with out MS's OSs the main stream explosion of Comptuers would not have happened , because the simple fact is MOST consumers want thier products as simple (inter face wise) as possible .. and MS did that win win 95 as well as win 98 and XP, cant say that vista has been as user freindly though cos i ahve heard driver night mare stories with it. point being saying that MS can't design a good OS is about the dumbest thing i ever heard any one say ... perhaps i'd take you as credible if you had said they arn't good at designing a stable secure OS, becuae windows has enver been the most stable or secure .. but design wise it is Definitely more user freindly than other peoples efforts usually , and from that perspective i'd say MS usually achieves thier target goal with OS design.[/citation]
Reading you without even taking the actual meaning of the whole thing into account is enough to notice you're the one smoking crack. Then, after taking the meaning of the 'words' into account, we clearly see you're not only a crack smoker, but a ignorant crack smoker. Windows 95 was the worst Microsoft OS for it's time after ME. XP is the best. And what you're trying to articulate to convince 95 was the best OS out there is ludicrous. Not because 95 was the first MS real multithreading OS that it was the best thing out there. BeOS was actually superior. MS dominated cause of business and marketing moves, and not because of a superior technicality.
Me. Here's some good Win95 'promotion'.
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=windows+95+blue+screen&hl=en&emb=0#
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]are you smoking crack .. win 95 was actually oen of MS's better Oses gratned they did improve it for 98 se but i would hardly call it crap , win 95 is after all the SOLE reason why windows dominates the OS market sayign they can't design a good OS is also retarded. they set out tod esign an OS that every one including your grandma coulde ventually learn to be comfortable with, I would say they acheived thier goal in general that is why computers became so main stream , with out MS's OSs the main stream explosion of Comptuers would not have happened , because the simple fact is MOST consumers want thier products as simple (inter face wise) as possible .. and MS did that win win 95 as well as win 98 and XP, cant say that vista has been as user freindly though cos i ahve heard driver night mare stories with it. point being saying that MS can't design a good OS is about the dumbest thing i ever heard any one say ... perhaps i'd take you as credible if you had said they arn't good at designing a stable secure OS, becuae windows has enver been the most stable or secure .. but design wise it is Definitely more user freindly than other peoples efforts usually , and from that perspective i'd say MS usually achieves thier target goal with OS design.[/citation]
Reading you without even taking the actual meaning of the whole thing into account is enough to notice you're the one smoking crack. Then, after taking the meaning of the 'words' into account, we clearly see you're not only a crack smoker, but a ignorant crack smoker. Windows 95 was the worst Microsoft OS for it's time after ME. XP is the best. And what you're trying to articulate to convince 95 was the best OS out there is ludicrous. Not because 95 was the first MS real multithreading OS that it was the best thing out there. BeOS was actually superior. MS dominated cause of business and marketing moves, and not because of a superior technicality.
ohim
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2009
- 1,195
- 0
- 19,360
W95 was a very faulty product but it came with many inovations from previous versions and was above the competition for casual consumers. They didn`t have to know command lines to complile stuff to run some shit on their computers, buggy but easy to use, in time their producs got better and better and since windows 2000 only Vista pre SP1 was a similar mistake.
n3ard3ath
Distinguished
- Dec 11, 2008
- 270
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]P.S. and yes i'm old enough to remember the win 95 release, a small select group of open source geeks and nerds, said it was terrible. but the vast majority of the industry said it was the best thing that ever happened to computers. i really wish linux jockeys would quite tryign to rewrite history by saying that every one though win 95 was crap when it came out LOL cos seriopusly most every review on win 95 said this OS will make comptuers main stream ... and it DID ![/citation]
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]i'm really sick of eharing about windows 7 now .. this news site has become as much an advertisement for it as the site is a news site. I'm also of the midn that best widnows ever was XP with teh exception of the 64 bit version which i heard sucked big time, only reason i see for ever updateing is for 64 bit , I'l skip vista for this and perhaps 64 win 7 will avhe things right ... but for god sakes i don't need another TH adervtisement about win7 it wont afect my desicion to upgrade ( unless i get so sick of hearing it i decide to never upgrade on this comp LOL , which in that case TH win7 ad wil only effect my decision negatively) LOL[/citation]
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=bling+bling&www_google_domain=www.google.ca&hl=en&emb=0#
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]i'm really sick of eharing about windows 7 now .. this news site has become as much an advertisement for it as the site is a news site. I'm also of the midn that best widnows ever was XP with teh exception of the 64 bit version which i heard sucked big time, only reason i see for ever updateing is for 64 bit , I'l skip vista for this and perhaps 64 win 7 will avhe things right ... but for god sakes i don't need another TH adervtisement about win7 it wont afect my desicion to upgrade ( unless i get so sick of hearing it i decide to never upgrade on this comp LOL , which in that case TH win7 ad wil only effect my decision negatively) LOL[/citation]
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=bling+bling&www_google_domain=www.google.ca&hl=en&emb=0#
jerreece
Splendid
- Sep 7, 2006
- 3,960
- 0
- 23,160
Sometimes I actually miss the days of DOS. I loved having to make a boot disk and manipulate the memory settings for EVERY PC game I ever purchased. It was so awesome spending 30 minutes rebooting and tweaking settings on my boot disk to get games to run. 
At least these days, Microsoft has built an OS which is stable enough that you can install virtually any PC game you want without fear of constant errors in the game.
It would be nice though, if Microsoft wouldn't charge so much money for their products. Be it one of their OS's, or their XBOX line. They simply get to much money for their products in my person opinion.
At least these days, Microsoft has built an OS which is stable enough that you can install virtually any PC game you want without fear of constant errors in the game.
It would be nice though, if Microsoft wouldn't charge so much money for their products. Be it one of their OS's, or their XBOX line. They simply get to much money for their products in my person opinion.
ohim
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2009
- 1,195
- 0
- 19,360
[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]Sometimes I actually miss the days of DOS. I loved having to make a boot disk and manipulate the memory settings for EVERY PC game I ever purchased. It was so awesome spending 30 minutes rebooting and tweaking settings on my boot disk to get games to run. At least these days, Microsoft has built an OS which is stable enough that you can install virtually any PC game you want without fear of constant errors in the game.It would be nice though, if Microsoft wouldn't charge so much money for their products. Be it one of their OS's, or their XBOX line. They simply get to much money for their products in my person opinion.[/citation]well there are lots of monney invested into developing something if you sell your product for too low you won`t be able to have monney to develop the next thing ofc they do make big moneys for their pockets but that was the ideea behind any company ... to make monney . I bet if you start a company now you won`t sell your products at a price where what you invest you get out... you`ll go bankrupt very fast. And havin such huge ammounts of monney behind helps you get out of a crysis situation where you might invest a huge ammount of monney and you won`t sell your product because it`s faulty.
ofc they do make big moneys for their pockets but that was the ideea behind any company ... to make monney . I bet if you start a company now you won`t sell your products at a price where what you invest you get out... you`ll go bankrupt very fast. And havin such huge ammounts of monney behind helps you get out of a crysis situation where you might invest a huge ammount of monney and you won`t sell your product because it`s faulty. [citation][nom]cruiseoveride[/nom]Windows looks like OSX and Linux more and more everyday[/citation]That's not a valid comparison. Linux is just the OS kernel. If you want to make a comparison at that level you need to compare it against the Windows kernel and OS X Darwin using I/O and other benchmarks, relative costs, and CPU architectures supported. If you want to compare "looks" then it's Windows Explorer vs. Windows Aero vs. OS X Aqua vs. Gnome vs. KDE vs. XFCE, etc.
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]P.S. and yes i'm old enough to remember the win 95 release, a small select group of open source geeks and nerds, said it was terrible. but the vast majority of the industry said it was the best thing that ever happened to computers. i really wish linux jockeys would quite tryign to rewrite history by saying that every one though win 95 was crap when it came out LOL cos seriopusly most every review on win 95 said this OS will make comptuers main stream ... and it DID ![/citation]
Sorry, but you are the one that is trying to rewrite the history. Here is my personal history:
I was the biggest supporter of Microsoft when they introduced NT3.1 and most noticeably NT3.51. Then we start waiting for the Win95 and yes it was huge disappointment. I still remember sleepless nights rolling back to NT3.51 for all of my clients. That how I got the lesson not to install the newly released OS. Because that bad experience I start exploring for alternatives and 'discover' UNIX and later Linux, but I did not switch I stayed with MS. The Win95 had two big problems. First was terrible mixture of real-time 16bit processes and 32bit protected mode processes. The second was the PnP, it never worked. I had to disable it in order to make computer stable and not to "break" after restart. Finally with release of NT4.0 Microsoft made great OS that help them to win corporate market and establish their monopoly on the PC market. Win95 was re-released many times, I don't remember how many times a, b, b2, c ..., but it never becomes stable OS. Only when they clean-up the kernel and almost removed the MS-DOS in Windows 98 their consumer OS become more usable. At the same time Win95 was not the worst. I think Win ME was big disaster. Unfortunately Vista could become the worst OS if Win7 be come good OS and everyone quickly moves to Win7. The Vista is the trigger that forced me to switch to Linux. If you really interested to find out what is going on under the 'slick' GUI, go read this: Strategy Letter V, and How Microsoft Lost the API War by Joel Spolsky. Also click on "About" link to find out who Joel Spolsky is.
Personally, I am not switching back to Windows in near future, but I really want Windows 7 to be success. Linux need strong competition to succeed and I don't want MS to fail as Software Company and to become patent troll. That will be real tragedy for the world.
Sorry, but you are the one that is trying to rewrite the history. Here is my personal history:
I was the biggest supporter of Microsoft when they introduced NT3.1 and most noticeably NT3.51. Then we start waiting for the Win95 and yes it was huge disappointment. I still remember sleepless nights rolling back to NT3.51 for all of my clients. That how I got the lesson not to install the newly released OS. Because that bad experience I start exploring for alternatives and 'discover' UNIX and later Linux, but I did not switch I stayed with MS. The Win95 had two big problems. First was terrible mixture of real-time 16bit processes and 32bit protected mode processes. The second was the PnP, it never worked. I had to disable it in order to make computer stable and not to "break" after restart. Finally with release of NT4.0 Microsoft made great OS that help them to win corporate market and establish their monopoly on the PC market. Win95 was re-released many times, I don't remember how many times a, b, b2, c ..., but it never becomes stable OS. Only when they clean-up the kernel and almost removed the MS-DOS in Windows 98 their consumer OS become more usable. At the same time Win95 was not the worst. I think Win ME was big disaster. Unfortunately Vista could become the worst OS if Win7 be come good OS and everyone quickly moves to Win7. The Vista is the trigger that forced me to switch to Linux. If you really interested to find out what is going on under the 'slick' GUI, go read this: Strategy Letter V, and How Microsoft Lost the API War by Joel Spolsky. Also click on "About" link to find out who Joel Spolsky is.
Personally, I am not switching back to Windows in near future, but I really want Windows 7 to be success. Linux need strong competition to succeed and I don't want MS to fail as Software Company and to become patent troll. That will be real tragedy for the world.
[citation][nom]smlong[/nom]Ok - I read that article by Joel Spolsky. It was OK for an opinion column, although, like most opinions, it wasn't substantiated very well.[/citation]
Hi smlong,
Yes it is opinion, but it matches in big part with mine. Do you disagree with him/me? Could you kindly share your opinion with me/us?
Thank you.
Hi smlong,
Yes it is opinion, but it matches in big part with mine. Do you disagree with him/me? Could you kindly share your opinion with me/us?
Thank you.
Is MS finally abandoning 32 bit ?
I think it would be great if windows 7 was 64 bit only;
is there any reason to have 32 and 64 bit versions ?
and on top of that a "home basic", "home premium", "professional" and "enterprise" version of each ?
please just two versions, 64 bit home, 64 bit business
I think it would be great if windows 7 was 64 bit only;
is there any reason to have 32 and 64 bit versions ?
and on top of that a "home basic", "home premium", "professional" and "enterprise" version of each ?
please just two versions, 64 bit home, 64 bit business
It looks to me like ever since Vista, MS developers have been downloading the source code for KDE and re-writing it as .NET code. Not really that far fetched if you look at how Mac OSX and much of Apple's other software leaches off of the open-source community.
[citation][nom]jamesl[/nom]Is MS finally abandoning 32 bit ?I think it would be great if windows 7 was 64 bit only;[/citation]
Hi jamesl,
I am sure that all programmers in MS would be happy if they can drop the 32bit support, but this action will brake 80%-90% of the applications in use today. Many apps now have 64bit version, but users have to spend billions of cash to replace their 32bit version with 64bit. In this economic times this will be suicide move from MS to force the switch. That is the dark side of MS success. They have huge client pool to support and they have to spend huge amount of cash to do so, or spend the same amount of money to support the switch. So until the cost of support is lower then the cost of switch MS will not fore the 64bit switch. At least MS have learn the lessons from Win95/98. They are offering two separate versions (32bit and 64bit).
Hi jamesl,
I am sure that all programmers in MS would be happy if they can drop the 32bit support, but this action will brake 80%-90% of the applications in use today. Many apps now have 64bit version, but users have to spend billions of cash to replace their 32bit version with 64bit. In this economic times this will be suicide move from MS to force the switch. That is the dark side of MS success. They have huge client pool to support and they have to spend huge amount of cash to do so, or spend the same amount of money to support the switch. So until the cost of support is lower then the cost of switch MS will not fore the 64bit switch. At least MS have learn the lessons from Win95/98. They are offering two separate versions (32bit and 64bit).
really ?
I guess I'm not an average user then
I've had vista 64 on my pc ever since it came out and I've had no problems
I play Warhammer online, world of warcraft, diablo 1 and 2, various flash games, run excel 2003, ms access 2003 and word 2003, do email, surf the web, watch a lot of youtube
granted, I don't do video or photo editing, I don't even burn dvds, but I do watch dvds
my only real problem is running old visual basic 6 exees, I can never find all the old dlls and controls needed
eventually they're going to have to go all 64 bit, just like when they moved from 16 to 32
oh well, hopefully sooner than later
I guess I'm not an average user then
I've had vista 64 on my pc ever since it came out and I've had no problems
I play Warhammer online, world of warcraft, diablo 1 and 2, various flash games, run excel 2003, ms access 2003 and word 2003, do email, surf the web, watch a lot of youtube
granted, I don't do video or photo editing, I don't even burn dvds, but I do watch dvds
my only real problem is running old visual basic 6 exees, I can never find all the old dlls and controls needed
eventually they're going to have to go all 64 bit, just like when they moved from 16 to 32
oh well, hopefully sooner than later
I *think* you guys are talking about two different things----Sal seems to be referring to the 32bit WOW layer in 64bit vista and james is referring to dropping the 32bit KERNEL version of vista/7.
The concern MS has about dropping 32bit KERNELS altogether is those large number of notebooks with the first core duos (core 1 not core 2) that do not have 64bit support.
The concern MS has about dropping 32bit KERNELS altogether is those large number of notebooks with the first core duos (core 1 not core 2) that do not have 64bit support.
gnesterenko
Distinguished
- Dec 23, 2008
- 150
- 0
- 18,680
Your original beta will likely expire. However, you can very easily do an "inplace upgrade" on your current build with the new build. The original beta keys distributed by MS at the start will work as well.
As with any time you are messing with your OS, make a back up of anything you care about.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
JonnyDough
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2007
- 2,235
- 3
- 19,865
[citation][nom]zingam[/nom]Is anyone of you old enough to remember the Win95 craze which was very similar to what I observe now? And how Win95 turned out to be a crap?MS might not be able to design and develop a really good OS but they surely do know how to make media fuzz and stir interest.[/citation]
Win95 was crap? Could've fooled me. I think it was nothing short of a small evolutionary step for the PC. A GUI you could actually get things done with, and a kernal that could run all sorts of programs and games...
Win95 was crap? Could've fooled me. I think it was nothing short of a small evolutionary step for the PC. A GUI you could actually get things done with, and a kernal that could run all sorts of programs and games...
JonnyDough
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2007
- 2,235
- 3
- 19,865
[citation][nom]n3ard3ath[/nom]Windows 95 was the worst Microsoft OS for it's time after ME. XP is the best.[/citation]
Wow kid. Windows 95 came years BEFORE Windows ME. Who's smoking crack now?
Wow kid. Windows 95 came years BEFORE Windows ME. Who's smoking crack now?
JonnyDough
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2007
- 2,235
- 3
- 19,865
I have two copies of XP Pro x64 and they both work fine...I'm not sure what you're talking about demonhorde. The only issues I ever had with the OS was companies not writing proper drivers for them. The builds themselves were near perfect, written for businesses more or less. A lot of businesses had to pay someone to write drivers for the OS, but 64 bit computing let some companies jump on the new tech early. Because of that, they're sitting in a better place with Vista x64 today. Some companies need new tech, some fear it and wait for it to mature. Your hardware/software needs depends on WHO you are and what you want to do. Not what idiots on the internet THINK they should be.
techmaniac
Distinguished
- Feb 28, 2005
- 50
- 0
- 18,630
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram