All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
win9x/NT
<Z3k3>:
DOS 6.2 = 3
Windows 1.0 = 5
Windows 3.11 = 1
Windows 95 = 3
Windows 98FE = 0
Windows 98SE = 0
Windows NT 4 = 1
Windows 2000 = 2
Windows XP = -inf
Linux = +inf
If you run any Windows O/S and would like
to make it go away in a hurry type the following:
C:>@echo /y | format c: /q /u
IHateMacsToo:
Win 9x.....
95: -inf yuck
98: 2
98 SE: 5 (I think it's the most stable for compadiblity of windows if that's possible... uhhh I got a 5 day record uptime :D )
Win ME -inf ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww goddamn new computer came with that
WinNT: -inf
Win2000: -inf (wouldn't you know the most stable windows is one that doesn't let you run anything?)
XP: -inf (I was expecting better.... it's prolly better than 2k though)
<Emjarrh>:
Good grief, what a bunch of complainers! First of all, MS DOS 3.1 ruled... it kept on getting better all the way up to 6.22 and 7.0 (Win95's "DOS")... Windows 98 SE was awesome, and Windows XP is probably the most stable OS I've seen since DOS, besides the fact that it's powerful. What, you guys can't afford to buy a real OS? Sure, MS has come up with some crap (Win95, Win98 First, ME), but you have to admit that they've got some quality products out there. And if you don't, maybe it's time to ask mommy and daddy to buy a real OS for your birthday instead of a tricycle so you know what all the ADULTS in the world are using... grow up, people!
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by <Emjarrh>:
Good grief, what a bunch of complainers! First of all, MS DOS 3.1 ruled... it kept on getting better all the way up to 6.22 and 7.0 (Win95's "DOS")... Windows 98 SE was awesome, and Windows XP is probably the most stable OS I've seen since DOS, besides the fact that it's powerful. What, you guys can't afford to buy a real OS? Sure, MS has come up with some crap (Win95, Win98 First, ME), but you have to admit that they've got some quality products out there. And if you don't, maybe it's time to ask mommy and daddy to buy a real OS for your birthday instead of a tricycle so you know what all the ADULTS in the world are using... grow up, people!
--- End quote ---
I sense a troll.... but I like killin' trolls. When you say ADULTS you must be referring to the adults in the homes wearing the diapers. Windows XP is obviously targeted to those and children who are still in diapers.. They should have called it Windows FP (Fisher Price). I have used all of the so called OSs that you mention and any stability that any of them may exhibit directly correlate to their lack of functionality. DOS was not a multitasking OR a multiuser OS like UNIX had been for a decade before DOS ever graced us with it's presence.
Then Win95 graced us with it's presence 15 years after UNIX where they introduced somewhat of a multiuser environment but still had not one bit of filesystem or user security. Of course WinNT 3.1 and WinNT 3.5 came out in '94 which did have filesystem security and multiuser (sort of) capability (it took them 13 years to figure out someone might want security???).
To this day multiuser does not really exist on any MS operating system. Microsoft's version of multiuser is multiple users connecting to a server with file/print sharing (at least up until Terminal Server came out). Sure you can install the telnetd on an NT server and multiple people can really log into it but what can you really do on an NT machine from a command prompt? Most of the apps and administration functionality are graphical. In UNIX this is not a problem as you can still run a graphical app on a remote server and have it display it's UI on your local machine.
Microsoft still has little concept of security and that is scary when it is making it's way into more sensitive areas. You obviously have only used MS products so you don't have any experience with a REAL OS. But I'll try not to be too hard on you because you are probably one of those who wear diapers.
C'mon, let these kids open their minds so they can turn this runaway train around. When they get out into the real world maybe they can make some good decisions instead of being a mush-for-brain mid/upper level IT manager like most that are in place today .
[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
Fabricated:
Win 3.1x = 2 ;It wasn't THAT bad.
Win95 = 1 ;YACK.
Win98 = 3 ;A bit of an improvement.
Win98SE = 5 ;Not stable at all, but at least it's not XP, or ME, or MacOS. I'm a gamer at heart, so this is pretty much the only OS for me, god save me.
WinME = -inf ;Worst OS of all time.
WinXP = -inf ;Worst OS runner up.
SuSE Linux = 2 ;Pretty...pretty useless, choked on my soundcard and graphics card, refused to work properly even after I recompiled the kernal and NVidia's and Creative's drivers. The Slashdotters can kiss my ass.
MacOS9.x = -inf ;And you think Microsoft doesn't let you fuck with settings?
MacOSX = 3 ;A major improvement, but with all the ugly ass visual fluff, it reminds me of XP.
P.S. Blocking IE is retarded, took me 2 minutes to get around it. It's not my fault no other browser outside of Opera can display fucking pages correctly.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version