Longhorn 2-3 years away!

[mc0282]

i tell yah this i give up on this war with microcrapshit, why ? well i have talk to people why do you use windows ? they respond "Well because is the only operating system i know" or "because i like how windows xp colors looks" or "because is easy to use" i could keep going what they have said, but is a long ass list..as long they accept this  common shit from microsoft, people is going to still go after windows.. they think a  system with worms,virus,spyware,adware,etc.. is common, all you have to do is get a program to get rid of it. who  end up winning ? microsoft, because bring business to symantec,mcafe,so on.. so this companies accept microsoft bullshit.

as for longhorn, umm.. people are going to accept  it, no matter what. again what do you see on longshit ?  more color, more nice themes,more easy access to program and again more colors..how about when a person buys a dell computer or whatever the system they buy from have the DRM feature ? "ERROR: you need permission from copyright holder, to able to copy this program" they problably accept it too, the sameway they accept the WPA shit..

so fuck microsoft and there windows, i use windows and mac os and linux slackware.. i use window more for games.. but i dont buy  windows product, that's truth and i wont denied it.

      microsoft

[ May 26, 2004: Message edited by: mc0282 ]

[Refalm]

quote:WMD: Win95 = MS's first operating system (except DOS)

Oh, I guess Windows 1, Windows 2 and Windows 3 never existed  :confused:

So what's this then:

[Laukev7]

A graphical shell.  

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Refalm:
[QB]

Oh, I guess Windows 1, Windows 2 and Windows 3 never existed   :confused:  

it's not like you to slip up like this refalm!

windows 1, 2, 3 and 3.1x were all application level software packages which were compiled for use under MS-DOS (various versions), my copy of windows for workgroups 3.11 actually is packaged with ms-dos 6.22 (the final standalone msdos version), dos is the OS, which you install first, then you can run it etc, and install applications and utiities, such as ms-windows. windows contains a selection of software, notably it contains a memory manager, which enables ms-dos to use more than 640k of RAM (amazing! who would have thought we'd ever need that much memory!   :rolleyes:  ), a graphical user interface, and a filesystem manager, not to mention GUI versions of many utilities such as text editor etc. With the addition of the newer open source package "calmira II", windows 3.11 actually has a really good desktop environment/window manager, which is kind of like icewm and dfm running together. in fact this windows runs even better if you use the latest free version of DR-DOS instead of the included OS, further showing that the OS and applications level software are two separate animals. Oddly, DR-DOS setects installed windows software when you install it and installs extra stuff, so the best idea is to install msdos, then install windows, then rename the DOS dir to something (so you can plunder it for exe files later) and install DR-DOS in the same location MSDOS was in before. works great.

Having said that the only reason i used to use windows 3 was because i was experimenting to see how much of it i could replace with open source stuff, like the GNU ctuff compiled for DOS, and the FreeDOS stuff.

oh yes, and back to the subject, this concludes the case showing that microsoft windows is not an operating system (i would be willing to say that 95, 98 and ME are all further hacks on the apps-under-DOS concept) and that microsoft windows NT is microsoft's first non-DOS operating system. not counting Xenix, which was actually just a rebranded version of SCO UNIX.

[Paladin9]

quote:Originally posted by Calum is NOT a moderator:
oh yes, and back to the subject, this concludes the case showing that microsoft windows is not an operating system (i would be willing to say that 95, 98 and ME are all further hacks on the apps-under-DOS concept) and that microsoft windows NT is microsoft's first non-DOS operating system. not counting Xenix, which was actually just a rebranded version of SCO UNIX.

I agree.  I think all windows versions up to me are just updates to the shell that sits on DOS.  NT is not a DOS OS at all(even though many poeple still seem to think it is DOS, probably becuase of the command line).

[Refalm]

OK, thanks for explaining it to me Calum!

Windows NT is really based on VMS, another thing that Microsoft bought.

Oh, and:
VMS
WNT

Look it up on Google  

[Laukev7]

quote: Windows NT is really based on VMS, another thing that Microsoft bought.

Microsoft did not buy VMS, nor is Windows NT based on it. They hired engineers from Digital to make an OS similar to that of VMS. NT is essentially a hodge podge of OS/2 code, Mac OS code (for the interface), BSD code. DOS and Windows 3.1 legacy code and perhaps some bits of VMS code.

Oh, and maybe a bit of their own crap as well.

[ May 26, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[KernelPanic]

The WinNT line isn't as bad as we make out. We are very prejudiced by DOS/9x.

Although NT=<4 was a major pain in the arse to maintain.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by Tux:
The WinNT line isn't as bad as we make out. We are very prejudiced by DOS/9x.

Although NT=<4 was a major pain in the arse to maintain.

Not really.  I find WindowsXP and windows2003 VERY poor!

meaning to say that, although win2k had kept simplicaty in the design and has better uptimes comepared to other windows3.  All versions still have tons of spy/malware, bloatware and other bullshit that really arn't supposed to be there at all.

If you kept any version of windows off line.  You will quickly find out that they all can be stable and 'secure.'  Put them all online and they have the exact same problems.  

[ May 26, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]

[Social Burn]

If I'm correct I believe that is Microsoft Bob.

You guys forgot about that hunk of shit. Microsoft's first attempt at a GUI.  

[WMD]

Bob came out in 94/95...LONG after Windows 1-3.  

[Refalm]

quote:Social Burn: If I'm correct I believe that is Microsoft Bob.

You guys forgot about that hunk of shit. Microsoft's first attempt at a GUI.  

I didn't forget Microsoft Bob. In fact, I ran Microsoft Bob on Windows XP once:

Screenshot 1 :: Screenshot 2

As you can see, I can start Duke Nukem 3D, GTA: Vice City and Winamp from BOB.

[enjoijeff]

quote: WMD:
Win95 = MS's first operating system (except DOS)
Win98 = bloated, buggier version of Win95 with higher RAM support
WinME = bloated, buggier version of Win98 with just more bundled software
-------------------------
WinNT 3.1 = new kernel with Win3.1 shell
WinNT 3.5 = newer version with almost nothing
WinNT 4 = Win95 with better kernel
Win2k = Win98 with better kernel and up-to-date IE and WMP (5.0 and 6.4 at the time)
WinXP - bloated, buggier version of Win2k with more bundled software

 

quote: Refalm:
Oh, I guess Windows 1, Windows 2 and Windows 3 never existed

Heh, I so remember running that a long time ago... Here's a site I found helpful on the history of Windows... just so no one gets their facts wrong again... http://www.computerhope.com/history/windows.htm