Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Jens14 on 23 June 2003, 18:48
-
Well I know, they all suck but if you had to pick one wich one should you take???
-
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 ]
-
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
-
Microsoft BOB RULEZ!!! :D :D :D
Just kidding!
I guess it would have to be Microsoft Xenix, then. ;)
-
You must be confused.. Microsoft never made an OS did they? I thought they just stole OS's.. oh well...
-
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.
-
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.
-
I agree with the two above, it
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :D ;)
-
i remember a show from about 1994 or so.
they interviewed the man who wrote what was stolen and sold as dos.
first ibm cam to him but he was a hippie type and didnt trust the suits.
then billy and a freind went to see him. he was considering to deal with them until they said they were affiliated with ibm.
he promptly threw them out.
the friend billy brought assembled what he could remember of code and thinking and labeled it qdos,quick and dirty operating system.
bill gates had nothing at all todo with dos.
im sure there is evidence out there to back me up if im wrong it isn't by much.
still say its a trick question. ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by cahult:
Did it run you?
Yes it ran me. Ohhh... it ran me good.
-
Microsoft doesn't create Operating systems, they create bugs, which require patches which are bugs which require more patches, ad nauseum.
Coding is going thru a revolution.
Look at the clean coding styles of mozilla firebird, and you see what I mean.
Coding an OS should be about making the best product. BillGates has never been about getting good product out there.
Remember when IBM created dr dos and OS/r2 which blew DOS away, and BIll Gates threatened to pull licensing on DOS if they did go ahead onthe product, and IBM backed down? Well, that sure wasn't about getting good product to the public, it was about Billgates intimidating and manipulating, something he is very very good at, and while Gates got more rich, the public missed out on great technological advancees..
think where computers would be today if it weren't for Bill gates?
Yo0u have no idea ^_^
-
Windows 2000!
-
a mozilla OS would be interesting.
maybe it could use magnetic crystals.
http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20030625S0025 (http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20030625S0025)
-
quote:
Originally posted by avello500:
a mozilla OS would be interesting.
maybe it could use magnetic crystals.
http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20030625S0025 (http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20030625S0025)
this would be interestring...id try it out. mozilla is stable as all hell.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jens:
Well I know, they all suck but if you had to pick one wich one should you take???
the one they never made.
-
quote:
think where computers would be today if it weren't for Bill gates?
sorry to say, but if it weren't for bill gates, computers would not be as commonplace as they are now. it is reality, i know that i don't like it and you won't either.
yes, we would have better technology, but it would not be mainstream. people would probibly have kept their distance from computers for years to come.
this doesn't mean, however, that what bill gates did/is doing is right. he is inhibiting the modern technology growth, and selling flawed products.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Siplus: *Capitalist*:
sorry to say, but if it weren't for bill gates, computers would not be as commonplace as they are now. it is reality, i know that i don't like it and you won't either.
yes, we would have better technology, but it would not be mainstream. people would probibly have kept their distance from computers for years to come.
this doesn't mean, however, that what bill gates did/is doing is right. he is inhibiting the modern technology growth, and selling flawed products.
not necessarly. there were plenty of DOS oss that bill put out of buisness. one of them could have sprouted up and because a better microsoft. we might have better technology that is more stable than windows, and is mainsteam. on the other hand, it could have been worse. just because bill got lucky does not mean that someone else couldnt have.
-
Computers being mainstream was not a result of Bill Gates' business practices, but rather a movement he took advantage of. If computer manufacturers had had the choice to install an OS other than MS-DOS or Windows, the same amount of computers would have been produced, except that the computers would have been popularised by a growth of many competitors. If Apple, Commodore, Acorn and others had gone on unhindered, they would have contributed their part of publicity, and the result would have been the same, if not much better. They would have done a much better job of providing computers to the masses, especially Apple (for the US market) and Acorn (for the UK market).
-
quote:
Originally posted by ArmTheHomeless:
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.
My thoughts exactly
-
quote:
Originally posted by usr/bin/maniaman:
My thoughts [that 2000 is the best M$ Operating System] exactly
I am inclined to agree, although NT 4.0 is okay for a MSOS. although for M$, Xenix is pretty good
GNU/Linux still 0wnz it though
[ June 29, 2003: Message edited by: [root@localhost /]$ ]
-
no shit
-
I have to agree with some of the other posters, Windows 2000 probably was Microsoft's best creation. I'm an OS X and Linux guy, but sitting down at a Win2k workstation isn't a completely horrific experience -- well, unless the install is more than a year or two old, then it starts acting goofy, or not functioning at all.
The problem is, M$ will eventually quit supporting 2000, so people comfortable with it will be forced to upgrade to whatever the latest offering is -- which will probably be DRM hell.
Let us not forget though that Win2k's stability isn't necessarily attributed to M$, but to Digital's VMS, which contributes a great deal to the foundations of Win2k.
Oh, and to the poster that credits Bill Gates for widespread computer adaptation, I think that's totally off base. If anything at all prompted the average individual to buy a computer it was the Internet, something that Gates had nothing to do with. In fact, there's the infamous quote of Gates where he essentially brushed off the Internet as nothing major.
The Internet aside, I'd give Commodore, Apple, and to a certain extent Atari credit for the introduction of PCs in households. They were the first to present friendly machines at reasonable prices, that easily did tasks the average consumer needed. The c64, to this day sold more units than any other system in the world. In the 80's, Gates could give a shit about making computers friendly; his whole "computer in every home" campaign was PR and nothing else. Gates' nose follows the scent of money wherever it may lead, and providing services to businesses makes much less money than controlling every home in America.
-
IMHO what put a computer in most homes where three things.
1: porn
2: aninimity (sp?)
3: internet commmerce
once businesses saw that there was a potential to earn money online, they began the media blitz. it didnt matter what os was being used, as long as the consumer was made to open their wallet.
actually come to think about it, porn is what made the in-home video industry explode.
mmmmmmmm porn. :D
-
I have tried Windows 2000 to see how much it improved since the 9x series. I must say, it is the best Windows OS made by Microsoft. Not great, but it's their best shot nonetheless; at least the interface isn't as revolting as Luna or Plex. It doesn't cooperate well with other systems, though, and I've had to reinstall it twice because my Linux/FreeBSD bootloaders keep erasing the ntldr.
Another thing is that when you install it, you have to insert four bootdisks before you insert the CD. How ridiculous is that? And there's no way to make an emergency boot disk unless you can boot to Windows 2000, so I was messed up when Grub erased my bootloader the first time. The second time, I tried it, and the bootdisk couldn't repair it (and it was designed to restore the bootloader in emergency cases). I tried countless times to boot with the same four diskettes over and over again, trying to log in through an emergency commandline (which didn't work because Windoze didn't recognise my password).
Clearly, Windows 2000 does not have the flexibility of a UN*X OS, so there's not much you can do if something goes wrong.
-
I'm glad that I've only had to use 2000, and now I know the difference between just getting the job done and doing it well.
-
We heard you, M51DPS.
-
If you want to read all about how MS aquiried DOS here it is.
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/COMPLAIN.HTM (http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/COMPLAIN.HTM)
Lots of info on Gary Kildall the man who wrote DOS, follow the link to DR.
http://www.maxframe.com/ (http://www.maxframe.com/)
-
I would also have to agree on windows 2000 as the only microsoft operating system i would be caught dead with.
The only thing Microsoft holds over us is compatibility. They can't shake a stick at us with anything else.
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
The only thing Microsoft holds over us is compatibility. They can't shake a stick at us with anything else.
Everytime I hear that it pisses me off. It's not linux that isn't compatible with the hardware, it's the hardware that isn't compatible with linux. Bitch at the manufacturers about it. That's like microsoft saying, "haha, hardware manufacturers only make stuff for us, so you must suck". That's basically what they are doing. I still have to say that dos is my favorite... but it doesn't support much hardware. In fact, I think everything that works in dos works in linux. (correct me if i'm wrong).
-
Whats the best MS OS ..........I have an old 98 update CD that I accidently cracked in half so now it's the best one I've so far
-
Im forced to use Windows XP at my school.
I sware most of us are living in software communism
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
Im forced to use Windows XP at my school.
I sware most of us are living in software communism
:confused:
-
My point is that when anyone goes out to get a Dell/Gateway/HP/Compaq/Sony computer they are pretty much forced to purchase it with a Windows Operating system.
Thats what i ment by software communism.
You know ? Like how in a communist country you have little or no choices on anything because of the way the government is set up ?
-
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...
hahaha yeappp
-
Bill got lucky and outsmarted all of us. He took advantage of all the chances he had. Please continue reading so you will get mad. So, there is no chance of everyone switching to another operating system because consumers and business have already invested so much in it and their software would be uncompatible and even more buggy if they switched. Plus there is very little game or any other development going on for any other operating system so no regular consumer is going to switch to something they dont understand. This means all of you are wasting your time while you are having no effect in your rambling. Also, you might as well boycott intel,amd,compaq,ibm,gateway,dell,falcon,ibuypoweremachines,nvidia,ati,toshiba,sony(makers of the playstaion 1&2),yahoo,google,THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and every other country, state, city, county,province,company,person,and yourselves because they and billions more support microsoft software. I hope you are mad someone on your website .001 percent agrees with you. Continuing the Xbox is more powerful has more good games(halo,halo 2,brute force,xsn sports lineup,sudeki,amped,armada 2,capcom vs snk,dead or alive 3,jet set radio future,marvel vs capcom2,midtown madness 3,panzer dragoon orta,quantum redshift,star wars,tao feng,true crime streets of LA,and the upcoming title Conker live and uncut)than any other console. You tell because Xbox sells more games per console than Gamecube and Playstation 2 combined. Xbox has a 733 mhz processor. Gamecube has a 400. Playstation has a 175. Xbox live is the best online system ever created except for the subscription fee and you cant get on the internet.
I have not even said even half of what I could have said but I am going to leave you all alone for now. Exspect me to return again later.
-
If Microsoft software was backward compatible,stable and met your individual needs. Would you buy it?
[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: bigmicrosoftlittleothers ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by bigmicrosoftlittleothers:
Bill got lucky and outsmarted all of us. He took advantage of all the chances he had. Please continue reading so you will get mad. So, there is no chance of everyone switching to another operating system because consumers and business have already invested so much in it and their software would be uncompatible and even more buggy if they switched. Plus there is very little game or any other development going on for any other operating system so no regular consumer is going to switch to something they dont understand. This means all of you are wasting your time while you are having no effect in your rambling. Also, you might as well boycott intel,amd,compaq,ibm,gateway,dell,falcon,ibuypoweremachines,nvidia,ati,toshiba,sony(makers of the playstaion 1&2),yahoo,google,THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and every other country, state, city, county,province,company,person,and yourselves because they and billions more support microsoft software. I hope you are mad someone on your website .001 percent agrees with you. Continuing the Xbox is more powerful has more good games(halo,halo 2,brute force,xsn sports lineup,sudeki,amped,armada 2,capcom vs snk,dead or alive 3,jet set radio future,marvel vs capcom2,midtown madness 3,panzer dragoon orta,quantum redshift,star wars,tao feng,true crime streets of LA,and the upcoming title Conker live and uncut)than any other console. You tell because Xbox sells more games per console than Gamecube and Playstation 2 combined. Xbox has a 733 mhz processor. Gamecube has a 400. Playstation has a 175. Xbox live is the best online system ever created except for the subscription fee and you cant get on the internet.
I have not even said even half of what I could have said but I am going to leave you all alone for now. Exspect me to return again later.
Nice try.
Have you been keeping up with the news? More & more BUSINESSES & GOVERNMENTS are switching to linux. Windows is losing the battle. The xbox is a joke. More powerful? more powerful than what? certainly not the game cube. or even the playstation 2. How could th xbox even compete? It isnt even designed to be a gaming machine. it is a cheap ass computer built with cheap ass parts. As for game selection. all of the games i want are available for playstation2 & game cube. More people are using open source techs now. And the trend is growing. as you are a troll (well, on your way to becoming a troll) i do Exspect you to return. Gates didn't outsmart "us", he stole ideas and took advantage of people to get where he is. He is someone i have no repsect for, and have no quips about boycotting. Fuck bill gates. Fuck microsoft. They offer product that is below average and buggy. they care nothing for the advancement of coomputers, they want money. and lots of it. Fuck those greedy bastards. I do not share their goals. You have def shown yourself to be a sheep. or a cow, as their next os implies. go ahead, keep grazing on their asses, do what your told. I for one, have my own mind and can actually make choices myself. I do not need a Corporation to tell me what is good and bad.
-
quote:
Originally posted by bigmicrosoftlittleothers:
If Microsoft software was backward compatible,stable and met your individual needs. Would you buy it?
[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: bigmicrosoftlittleothers ]
No. not when i can get Red Hat linux for FREE.
-
quote:
bigmicrosoftlittleothers: intel,amd,compaq,ibm,gateway,dell,falcon,ibuypoweremachines,nvidia,ati,toshiba,sony(makers of the playstaion 1&2),yahoo,google,THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and every other country, state, city, county,province,company,person,and yourselves because they and billions more support microsoft software.
Intel: made their processor have support for Linux because many servers run it. Their Intel Xeon processor is known to run best on Linux.
AMD: Has worked with Linux development to make their processors compatible with Linux and vice versa. They want to compete with Intel in stable 64-bit Linux servers.
Compaq: Is now HP. HP has equipped their latest desktop PC's with Mandrake Linux.
IBM: Is known for advertising their Linux servers, which is their main focus.
Gateway: I agree, they're Microsoft's bitch. They copy design from Apple, and do it poorly too.
Dell: Install's FreeDOS instead of Windows at default, because they want to keep the price low.
nVidia: Has very good Linux and FreeBSD drivers for GeForce and nForce.
Ati: Their drivers for Linux are shit, but so are their Windows drivers.
Sony: Turned againts Microsoft when they released the Xbox.
Yahoo!: Is using FreeBSD to drive their websites.
Google: See this (http://www.google.com/linux). Google has also stated that they are much better than MSN Search.
More countries and city's in Europe are starting to install Linux. Computer-makers in Asia are putting Linux on their PC's, because Microsoft's foreign ones are crappy and undertranslated.
[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: Refalm ]
-
why is this in the windows forum? is it because yyou use windows?
-
quote:
Originally posted by jens:
Well I know, they all suck but if you had to pick one wich one should you take???
microsoft bob.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
Intel: made their processor have support for Linux because many servers run it. Their Intel Xeon processor is known to run best on Linux.......................................................................................................................
More countries and city's in Europe are starting to install Linux. Computer-makers in Asia are putting Linux on their PC's, because Microsoft's foreign ones are crappy and undertranslated.
[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: Refalm ]
absolutely
-
I did some reading on that "Bob" thing... man, that's freaky stuff! And they expected you to pay $100 to use that crap? Now wonder it flopped. Besides, the name is too simple; instead of sounding user-friendly, it sounds creepy (Come on, everyone, don't you want BOB installed on your computer? BOB will make everything just fine... yesss... BOB...)
-
The Best M$ OS I Own Duderz!! (http://www.ecsyle.com/pictures/xpCDs/xpCD3.jpg)
-
That's twice you've shown that man! perhaps more....
Tell you what though, thats art ;) (understand I'm talentless though)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zardoz:
That's twice you've shown that man! perhaps more....
Tell you what though, thats art ;) (understand I'm talentless though)
well. if i had ore windows cds, i would show some new ones... huhm. maybe its time to make a new image ;)
-
I think after a thread has been around for a few weeks it needs to be trashed.
-
I'm a month late to the party, but who gives a damn. If I had to choose, I'd have to pick DOS 6.22 with WFW 3.11. Nothing else. My wife is running W2K and it blows. Not much better than the Win 9x/ME crap. Don't get me started on WinXP! She's been running W2K for a couple years now. It blows. Overly complicated, butt-ugly, and buggy. With Linux, on our server, I edit 5 files (1 of which is on the client -- /etc/fstab) and I have Samba and NFS working (Samba for the wife's crap W2K partition). And everything automounts. Wonderfully simple. I got the wife dual booting with Linux (she prefers SuSE, I prefer Mandrake, go figure). So, on second thought, pi$$ on it, I don't want anything M$. Gimme an abacus.