All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
Microsoft to Drop Older Products
Xeen:
Windows and Windows NT < 4.0 aren't worth talking about. They were good for their time. They're useless now. They can't run shit or do anything we do nowadays. Forget them.
Windows 95: Pretty good. Not very bloated. Normal interface. Still usable but is pretty unstable if you decide to run newer applications and games.
Windows 98: Bloat. Integration. Monopolization. Unstable piece of shit. BSOD every hour.
Windows ME: One of the biggest embarassments to operating systems. Big piece of unstable, bloated, ugly shit. No wonder it sold for half the price of Win95 and 98. I remember I got a BSOD the first time it booted after the first time I isntalled it on a brand new PC. I formatted an hour later.
Windows NT: Very good OS. Still can be used unless you do a lot of newer multimedia stuff and games.
Windows 2000: The best Windows OS to use. Pretty darn stable, but very usable considering some bloat and IE.
Windows XP: The beginning of the end for Windows. Bloat is too numerous to count. Takes hours to set up and configure to make it bearable if you're gonna use that shit. User interface designed for and by total idiots (I'm talking about the huge start ass menu, the stupid dog, and the dumb task-based panes). Hogs enormous amounts of memory and CPU time, making it slow. Made for idiots who say they like XP because it has a green Start botton and blue or silver bars. FUCKING IDIOCY! And the way all those GUI enhancements are designed only makes them incredibly slow.
Server 2003: Had a very critical security bug discovered only 1 day after the US government made a $90 million contract with it. Need I say more?
Longhorn: Will create a police state of your computer. XP was 2000 (a good OS) with too much bullshit just thrown into it making it horrible. Well longhorn is just XP with even more shit. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Longhorn is not an operating system. It's a bootable Media Player designed for toddlers who cant get enough eye candy.
Fuck Microsoft and fuck idiots.
[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: xeen ]
WMD:
95 was good because it maintained most of the DOS limitations, like 64MB RAM. With 98 they stretched the DOS kernel far past its limits, so it sucked.
Xeen:
quote:Originally posted by WMD:
With 98 they stretched the DOS kernel far past its limits, so it sucked.
--- End quote ---
Getting rid of memory limitations is a bad thing??? :confused: :confused:
jtpenrod:
quote:
Getting rid of memory limitations is a bad thing???
--- End quote ---
You have to remember that we're talking about Microsoft here. Under normal circumstances, and normal soft, then your perplexity would be understandable. When M$ created Win 95, they had already stretched the capabilities of DOS way beyong its intended territory. By removing those memory limitations, they ended up making Win 98 and Win ME highly unstable, the extra memory capability did no good at all, as these latter iterations of Win 9x were no faster, or even slower, than Win 95.
As usual, they foulded it up. :eek:
____________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
If software can be free, why can't dolphins?
WMD:
quote:Originally posted by xeen:
Getting rid of memory limitations is a bad thing??? :confused: :confused:
--- End quote ---
Well the DOS kernel wasn't designed to handle all that memory. Plus, everything else up ^ there. :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version