PDA

View Full Version : Windows... :lol:



Shippou
July 11th, 2008, 10:20 AM
I am subscribed to PCWorld.com, and I got this message:



Author : sparrownightmare
Profile : http://forums.pcworld.com/people/sparrownightmare

Message:
--------------------------------------------------------------

Well.. Having been through every OS that Micke*****h has put out since Windoze 286, I have to say that it is very reassuring to know that the company that Bill built has not changed much. First they came out with windows 3.0, then with minor teaks Win 3.1 and 3.11 for networks. Basically the same OS but sold as a totally new OS. Okay, then came Windows 95, and the world collectively said eegads what a memory hog. At the time that 95 came out, I was working for a large east coast ISP called TEAC, and you would not believe the calls we were getting from customers who suddenly could not connect after installing it... Okay, then Windows 98 came out and was sold as a new OS, a few bug fixes and some new bugs. Then Millenium, arguably the most despised OS ever released (Until Vista that is). Again, this OS was sold as a brand new OS and the world fell for it. Then XP. XP was actually a repackaged and prettied up version of Windows NT 4.0, just as Server 2000 was. It had a flashier interface, but that was about it. It took over two years for the OS to become really stable, and it was once again sold as if it had some ground breaking technology in it. Then Vista. Ah.. Vista.. The killer OS that Bill and Company was sure they would be able to market as a truly new OS, which coincidentally had almost the same core to it as XP. So much for innovation. I waited over a year to try it on a new box, to make sure it was relatively stable. The truth is that Microscoff hasn't seemed able to put out a truly innovative OS since Win 95. All of their major consumer and SOHO OS' have been fancy rehashes of old OS' that they have just remarketed. Microsoft seems to have a pretty predicatable cycle that keep the cash rolling in. It is as follows... In old Basic to help us old timers get a laugh.





10 Put out an OS with a ton of bugs.


20 Charge for support for it and slow down bug patching as much as possible, also make sure to discourage outside bug fixes.


30 After a few years, change the UI a bit, fix some more bugs, make sure it has some new bugs, add one or two features that 99% of people won't use and sell it as a brand new OS (see Win95, 98 and me).


40 Make sure to charge more for it and just toi help out the PC manufacturers, make sure it has an exponentially increasing list of minimum system requirements.


50 Last step, goto 10


Now personally I kind of like the Vista interface, and I haven't had any problems with it, but I built the new system I am running it on with Vista and 3D modeling in mind. While not bleeding edge, it is definitely in the high end category. I am sort of afraid to put it on either of my other two systems since; while not exactly obsolete; they don't have quite the oomph that the new box does.


Vista and ME are both the same in one respect. Their users either have a great experience and love them, or they don't and they loath them. I found a few annoyances such as the UAC system which was the first thing I disabled after repeated hassles cleaning out some older software. I do not like an OS that talks back. I have other less annoying security measures to keep out the riff raff. But all in all, I haven't found any software yet in my inventory which the system has any problems running.


A lot of the folks I chat with that seem to have problems with Vista, are running older Intel chip based machines with 1GB or less of RAM and usually have those junky Intel on the board video chipsets and/or built in sound chipsets. Storage can also be an issue because Vista eats up physical RAM faster than XP did, so it spends more time swapping in and out of the hard drive which HAS to be fast for Vista to work well.


I was heavily disappointed when MS indicated that they were dropping the new file system. Honestly my final opinion on Vista is this, It seems very stable to me, although not a lot more stable than XP. It has a flashier interface with Aero. It runs everything I need to run although not much faster than XP. It is pretty secure, but no more so than XP. It does have better multimedia features (I use Vista Ultimate 32 Bit). It's networking needs a revamp. I find that the old XP/NT networking interface as far as properties and settings goes was a lot less confusing and easier to use.


In short, had they not been planning on scrubbing XP soon, I would have stayed with XP Pro. The new Vista, while nice, really isn't a new OS, just a glossed over XP kernel and infrastructure. It takes way too much control away from the operator and second guesses him or her much more often. It simply isn't worth the overbloated prices that MS has set for it. If I had not gotten it as a bundle from the Ebay dealer I got my new motherboard from at a good price for the upgrade retail box, I would probably ended up keeping my old XP on it.


In case anyone is wondering what I have that actually works well with Vista, here are my system stats for an upper mid range Vista PC that works well.


AMD Phenom 9600 quad core CPU, MSI K9A2 Platinum motherboard, 4GB (3.5GB usable) RAM, ATI Radeon 365HG PCIE Video Card, SB Audigy 2zs sound card, 4 Seagate 500GB SATA II hard drives.Thermaltake swing case, Coolermaster CPU Fan. Samsung SATA II DVD-RW optical drive, Vioewsonic 22" widescreen display (Flatpanel LCD)





Those are my thoughts on it anyways. Have a great weekend, I'll be defragmenting 3TB of drives.... :(

lisati
July 11th, 2008, 10:32 AM
Whatever happened to Windows 1.0? I think I've got a 5.25" floppy of PC-DOS v2.01 somewhere.

Shippou
July 11th, 2008, 10:40 AM
Hello lisati! :)

If you have a copy of Windows 1.0, as well up to Windows 3.x, please send a copy to me (as an ISO file, if it's not so much trouble):

ardlexworld_90@yahoo.com

Well I just want to see how they look like. :)

Thanks in advance.

fatality_uk
July 11th, 2008, 10:44 AM
Hello lisati! :)

If you have a copy of Windows 1.0, as well up to Windows 3.x, please send a copy to me (as an ISO file, if it's not so much trouble):

ardlexworld_90@yahoo.com

Well I just want to see how they look like. :)

Thanks in advance.

Of course that wont happen now will it!!!

lisati
July 11th, 2008, 10:56 AM
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Windows 1.0. The earliest legal edition of Windows I have is of 98SE, and the earliest legal edition I have of MS-DOS that I can remember the location of at the moment is disguised as Windows 98SE.... ( I did have 3.3 or thereabouts on a machine that I no longer have)

(Don't ask too many questions about where you can try, my neighbour aleterted me to one place)
(http://the%20pirate%20bay%20#dot#%20org)

Shippou
July 11th, 2008, 10:56 AM
Of course that wont happen now will it!!!

Sorry. I didn't quite get what you meant.

Is it because this is illegal? Or is it because there are no existing codes of Windows 1.x to 3.x out there?

Just asking...

To the mods: I don't mean to break the rules here. But if you think my post is offending, please just delete it. :)
=

lisati
July 11th, 2008, 11:01 AM
There's one place I'd suggest, but I hesitate to do so, partly for legal reasons, and partly because the site I have in mind sometimes lists software that has malware loaded into it.