Whats the best OS of microsuck?

[Jens14]

Well I know, they all suck but if you had to pick one wich one should you take???

[Refalm]

GNU/Linux. Uh, maybe YellowTAB Zeta, because it might be going to kick ass. I also heard Mac OS X is good.

[EDIT]Oh wait, you meant "Which piece of shit that Microsoft brought out, would you choose if your family where held hostage until you install a Microsoft operating system on your computer?"

Well, I'd say Windows 98 SE. It's good for games, but that's it. Windows 95 OSR2 makes a half decent OS if you remove Internet Explorer.[/EDIT]

[ June 23, 2003: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[Doctor V]

Well, all winblows OSes from the 98 line are very unstable and prone to crashing. So count out 3.1, 95, 98, and Me.  NT is a step up from them, as it is much more stable.  And 2000 is a bit stronger than NT.  XP takes a step back from Win2K in the stability department, and it goes further by includeing many features that are actually to the detriment of the customer, such as product activation.  XP does not crash alot, but if you let it run for long, performance takes a hit.  So Win2K, a 3 year old OS, is the winner.  And from the looks of it, Longhorn is going to be even worse, its going to set aside a part of your computer that only runs if it is authorized to by other people, thats right, not you, other people, such as Entertainment companys and only if you pay them for it.  Of course, in the 3 year Microshit spent developing an inferior OS, Linux and Mac have both come to surpass Windows in quality by a LONG SHOT!

V

[Laukev7]

Microsoft BOB RULEZ!!!            

Just kidding!

I guess it would have to be Microsoft Xenix, then.  

[Kupotek]

You must be confused..  Microsoft never made an OS did they? I thought they just stole OS's.. oh well...

[avello500]

quote:Originally posted by Emiko:
You must be confused..  Microsoft never made an OS did they? I thought they just stole OS's.. oh well...

your right. i think it is a trick question.

[Stryker]

Microsoft makes operating systems? I mean... sure, they can make a computer bootable. They can run some software and enable some of my hardware (I have to download lots of drivers...), but does it actually operate? It doesn't do anything I need it to do. In my sense, it is not operational. When you turn it on and it crashes 15 minutes later... while you are looking at the screen that told you it crashed (if you are lucky enough to see one) does that point in time count as operating? Do the events that it performed to lead up to that point count as operating if it is being counter-productive? If it were to operate shouldn't it maintain stability, if not increase, stability rather than minimize it to the point where it stops and give you no information as to why except the address in an executable and the proc's register values? It isn't at all usefull to me, as I dont have the source code. Micorosft has been known to make various counter-operative systems... but an actual operating system, I have yet to see one.

But to answer the original question, pending the above qualifies as an operating system, I would have to say dos. As I haven't seen many crashes, but that's probably because it doesn't multitask.

[cahult]

I agree with the two above, it

[Kupotek]

To  correct Stryker, Microsoft did not  create  DOS, the disk operating system, they bought it from a fellow programmer for $50,000, and made million off of it.

Microsft did not create DOS.

[LordWiccara]

Windows 2000.  Its the only Microsoft OS that is even worth looking at.  Still, its not that great, but its a LOT better than the 95 series and XP.  The older NTs are (from what I've heard) are ok, but still 2000 tops them.

[Siplus]

are the newer versions of windows actually considered operating systems? i know that 3.1, 95, 98, and ME all run from dos, thus making the early windows just a gui shell. what about now? i haven't really seen any direct connection with dos, so would windows [2k/xp] be considered it's own stand alone os?

[Fett101]

OS:
Software designed to control the hardware of a specific data-processing system in order to allow users and application programs to make use of it.

It's certainly not Dos and Dos alone that could and did run 95,98, and Me.

[Kupotek]

I think the  premise is as follows:

Bill Gates buys DOS from a  fellow programmer for $50,000

Uses it and copied code from Apple against  good faith, and pirated from Xerox, as the foundation for IBM's PC, makes millions.

Windows 3.1, 95. 98, Me are all founded on DOS.

Windows XP uses a  NT kernel  instead of the kermel32 and no longer uses the DOS foundation, but a NT kernel over an NTFS handler.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Emiko:
To  correct Stryker, Microsoft did not  create  DOS, the disk operating system, they bought it from a fellow programmer for $50,000, and made million off of it.

Microsft did not create DOS.

I know. And it was a very smart move. but the question was "what is the best of os microsuck[microsoft]?" DOS is of microsoft, as they have purchased all rights to it. I'm not giving them credit at all, but it is theirs.

[cahult]

quote:Originally posted by fett101:
OS:
Software designed to control the hardware of a specific data-processing system in order to allow users and application programs to make use of it.

It's certainly not Dos and Dos alone that could and did run 95,98, and Me.

Did it run you? What is running you now?