All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Why Windows should be avoided.
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
Yes Win95 and 98 is built on top of dos NOT ME!!!! The DOS in that particular windows in emulated!
--- End quote ---
Are you smoking crack? DOS is not emulated in ME. It is tucked away so people can't access it without a boot floppy. The fact is that Windows ME does run on top of DOS. All Win9x varients do.
IT runs on top of Dos 8.00 as a matter of fact.
http://toastytech.com/guis/me5.html
It can even be hacked to where you can access DOS by normal means(like any other Win9X OS). The hack pretty much unhides what MS originally hid.
http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/
quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
So your saying 9x cann't run past 512MB? Bullshit!!!! It actualy CAN, what you have is bad hardware!!! Windows can't run on bad hardware no matter WHAT version it is. Check to see if your hardware is working properly BEFORE you bitch....
--- End quote ---
You can run ovr 512MB in a Win9x stabily if you modify your VCache to limit it@512MB. That makes your extra Ram useless. Win9x is not designed to run with over 512MB. Microsoft even has Knowledge Base Articles about this. Get your facts straight before you post. This is the second time in this post that you have been proven not to know what in the fuck you are talking about.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q253/9/12.ASP
quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
Its great to see, when people who use windows OS say, that if you use this file system, you'll get less crashes blah blah blah............
No matter what version its GONNA CRASH!!! I've seen windows millenioum out perform windows XP, expecialy when it comes to network security and ease of use. The fact is 9x will let you do more while newer M$ OS'es try to constrain what you do.
But thats justs M$ buissness modle
--- End quote ---
Filesystems make a world of difference when it comes to reliability and stability of an OS. Especially when you are comparing a journaling filesystem with security enhancements, index and structure protection, better cluster handling, better slack, etc. to a basic, non-journaling filesystem with no security, no structure protection, terrible cluster handling, etc.
It is a known fact that FAT scatters clusters of data all over the drive every time you add data to it. NTFS tends to keep clusters of data as close to each other as possible eliminating the need to defrag every time you install a game, copy a large file to it, etc.
Here is a little summary of things that NTFS has to offer that FAT doesn't. The only thing FAT is good for is it works with old, shitty legacy OSes that need to be killed off. You have mis-perceptions about NT based OSes. You are un-eductaed and you don't know what in the fuck you are talking about. Please don't come back bitching at me until you have some facts.
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63
[ September 26, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
M51DPS:
quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
The only difference you find with each linux distrobution is the way the package it.
The target certain users with a set of skills, it all depends on what distro your going for and what will work for you.
--- End quote ---
That seems to be one of the great things about Linux, there's a distribution for just about everybody. And if you can't find a distribution that you like and you have enough know how, you can just make your own because it's open source.
mushrooomprince:
I regret the name I gave to this thread.
>.<
hm_murdock:
I don't because I'm a robot
I'm gonna shoot windows with some BIG GIANT MEGA LAZORS
solarismka:
quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Filesystems make a world of difference when it comes to reliability and stability of an OS. Especially when you are comparing a journaling filesystem with security enhancements, index and structure protection, better cluster handling, better slack, etc. to a basic, non-journaling filesystem with no security, no structure protection, terrible cluster handling, etc.
It is a known fact that FAT scatters clusters of data all over the drive every time you add data to it. NTFS tends to keep clusters of data as close to each other as possible eliminating the need to defrag every time you install a game, copy a large file to it, etc.
Here is a little summary of things that NTFS has to offer that FAT doesn't. The only thing FAT is good for is it works with old, shitty legacy OSes that need to be killed off. You have mis-perceptions about NT based OSes. You are un-eductaed and you don't know what in the fuck you are talking about. Please don't come back bitching at me until you have some facts.
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63
[ September 26, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
--- End quote ---
Hmm interesting you claim me to be uneducated when you are the one bitching and whinning about 9x this but NT is that. It really doesn't make a difference, that simply is the bottom line.
Idf it had then why is it that I see XP crash just as much as any other windows OS, why is it that even with the amount of time M$ has been around, it STILL gets infected with virii and usless old exploits???
Its because of the whole buisness modle M$ has. Whether its XP or 9x it really DOES NOT change!!!
You still have to deal with a crappy registry, poor security and incomapatibility! And on to of all that MORE spyware thats now introduced at the OS level, If you like XP
hay thats fine, but stop preaching your bullshit. Just because we are not as stupid as you to think that M$ is so wonderful and great! That it really has improved when its the same damn thing with a Fisher Price GUI!!!
But someone like you needs such a thing. Other wize you'd be lost.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version