Microsoft phases out Windows 98.

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Are there companies who support their operating systems for longer than that?

Linux (at least the kernel) is supported for "as long as there's an interest."

As for phasing out 98...that's kinda good in a way, after all 98 is like the worst one ever.     Execept maybe ME.

[rklesla]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:
As for phasing out 98...that's kinda good in a way, after all 98 is like the worst one ever.      Execept maybe ME.

I think Win 95 and Win 95a were worse than ME...

They should discontinue XP and have 2000 there main focus.

[Refalm]

quote:Microsoft's Caretaker: I think Win 95 and Win 95a were worse than ME...    

They should discontinue XP and have 2000 there main focus.

Are you braindead? Windows 95 OSR2 was the best thing Microsoft ever did. They actually listened to what users wanted, and you got a half-decent OS without Internet Explorer.

After that, they fucked things up real bad when they released Windows 98, and it's been really bad ever since. And looking at "Longhorn", I predict it will get only worse.

 

quote:Laukev7: By getting a real computer.

By selling my PC for a really expensive plastic case with a PPC processor inside? No thanks.

[ January 05, 2004: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[Pantso]

Well, I am both an OS X and a GNU/Linux user, so I have my 'feet' in both camps, if I may use that term.

OS X is what every computer user would want to use. It is easy, functional, stable, secure, it uses an advaced microkernel and IMHO is the most advanced (in technical terms) Operating System today.

BUT, there are a few things that OS X does not have. It is not a Free Operating System, in the sense that eventhough the underlying core may comply with the GPL and I mean the APSL under which Darwin is released, the overlying code is still proprietary and will probably remain so.

On the other hand we have GNU/Linux. A fully-featured, stable and secure Operating System, based on the notion of Freedom, with a capital F. Freedom to share, modify and join an ever-growing community of users, developers and activists.

On the technical side of things, Linux (and I am refering to the kernel here), is monolithic and that alone is a major drawback. Furthermore, the X Windows implementation that ships with virtually every GNU/Linux distribution is crappy (forgive the language   ), and the recent dismemberment of the core team goes out to prove that those who were behind it were really slow into adopting changes and keeping up with them.

So, there is a + side to every OS, as there are -es as well. Please, do not ask me to comment on Windows  

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by Refalm:
Are you braindead? Windows 95 OSR2 was the best thing Microsoft ever did. They actually listened to what users wanted, and you got a half-decent OS without Internet Explorer.

Yeah I run 95 OSR2 on an old machine...it's not as unstable as some contend. However, 95a IS as unstable as some contend.  

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:


Yeah I run 95 OSR2 on an old machine...it's not as unstable as some contend. However, 95a IS as unstable as some contend.    

I thought win95 OSR2 was better overall than 95a and certainly ME.  The only real problem I see is the lack of USB support... yeah is a downloadable supplement but I have yet to be able to use a single USB device, even a mouse, with it.

[Xeen]

WinME was a piece of bloated shit. It BSOD'ed on me the very first boot after the installation on a brand new formatted hard drive and a computer with  THE best specs back then. I formatted it again 2 days later, installed 2000, and never looked back.

[Unforgiven1]

this debate never ends...if it isn't windows vs. Mac, it's Mac vs. Linux...the Mac and Linux people should unite to destroy M$, and then bicker over who's OS is better *cough*(linux)*cough*