|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2009 05:56:26 PM · #76 |
Based on a work envioronment, I would say Windows NT would be the overall best. My experiences with Win 95&98 were based on home use, which is why I cannot understand the issues(obviously based on a work environment). 95 & 98 were very simple and small programs that allowed you to do what you had to do. It has gotten so complex now, that I feel it's out of hand. Why should the general population not be able to re-install their os like with 95&98? For xp, you need to know a little more than the basic home user. For Vista, I don't even want to talk about it. It has reached the point that it is just as expensive to buy a new computer than it would be to have someone re-install the software. I just think that is foolish. There is no need for this to have come so out of hand.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Skid,
Let me tell you something Beavis,
VISTA SUCKS DONKEY DOO!!!!...This has been going down since they integrated DOS into Windows. DOS RULES cd\ !!! Windows 7 is probably just a Vista update with a lot of fixes. |
Ooooo-key-dokey then.
Just pointing out that your experiences are just about the precise opposite of every business IT department I've ever interacted with, and my own personal experience building my own boxes since the '90s. Ask any IT professional if they would even consider trying to support Win9X and they would laugh in your face. Better yet ask some of the ones who had to support it "back in the day."
A little history lesson for you:
Microsoft and IBM partnered to develop a GUI-based OS, but they fell out of bed, and the lawyers got involved. IBM won the fight, and got all the modern code. Microsoft got the garbage. IBM launched OS/2 based on the code they won, which was a *very* sophisticated OS for its day, true multitasking. Win3.x was a cheezy GUI plastered on top of DOS. Win 9X was a prettier GUI plastered on top of DOS. The only stable, reliable Microsoft OS prior to XP (2001) was WinNT 4.X, which many businesses did in fact use, when they weren't running Unix-based workstations for engineering applications.
What happened to OS/2? Shitty marketing and lack of capable hardware killed it off. Some industrial equipment ran OS/2, and it was rock solid stable, but no one knew the OS, few hardware manufacturers wrote drivers to support it, and it just died off. Just as Betamax was technically superior to VHS, OS/2 was far superior to Windows, but Windows won the mass market.
Fast forward to today, the landscape is quite different. The hardware is capable, and Windows is the incumbent. Linux, good as it is, still does not have the application support to be the desktop choice for business and consumers. Market reality. Win7 is not perfect, Vista was not perfect, but they are both good operating systems. Win7 seems to be a *very* good OS, but I'll have to beg off, since I have but one day's experience, and that not with a released copy.
Notice that I didn't resort to "XXX sucks donkey doo". O wait, that was supposed to be all-caps. :-P |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2009 05:59:46 PM · #77 |
Only a hardcore Win 3.1, 98, and XP. No way I will climb aboard until this Windows has proven itself. I like to control what my computer can do without having to take classes to teach me how to. That is why I like what I like. I have the control, and it is pretty self explanatory on how to adjust it to get the control.
Originally posted by dknourek:
Originally posted by kenskid:
With all of these possitive reviews, maybe Rugman1969 will even climb aboard ! |
LOL I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, being the hard core fanboy user of Winblows 98' that he is I think there is a better chance of him going to a mac first :P |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2009 06:14:10 PM · #78 |
Windows ME?
Can I say sucked ass? without getting in trouble?
Originally posted by dknourek:
Originally posted by soup:
oh wait - i better shut up or she who should remain unnamed is gonna rip me a new OS ! :) |
 niiiiiice :)
I would love to hear Rugman's views on Windows "Me" considering hes quite the 95'/98' fanboy
and for the record Vista has its faults like any OS but as long as its properly configured and your hardware wasnt bought out of the back of a van down in the Quickie Mart parking lot then you should be alright...
Im currently running on my own personal network: Windows 2000, XP Pro, XP Pro 64bit, XP MediaCenter Edition, Vista Ultimate, Vista Ultimate 64bit and Vista Home Premium and they are all running FAR better than 98', 95', Me, 3.11, 3.1 EVER did...
-dave
*ETA* Running windows7 64bit now as of this afternoon :) |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2009 07:24:08 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Only a hardcore Win 3.1, 98, and XP. No way I will climb aboard until this Windows has proven itself. I like to control what my computer can do without having to take classes to teach me how to. That is why I like what I like. I have the control, and it is pretty self explanatory on how to adjust it to get the control.
Originally posted by dknourek:
Originally posted by kenskid:
With all of these possitive reviews, maybe Rugman1969 will even climb aboard ! |
LOL I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, being the hard core fanboy user of Winblows 98' that he is I think there is a better chance of him going to a mac first :P |
|
NT was good in its day but its pretty much a dinosaur now...
Actually the control and functionality is still there in Vista as it was in XP, they just moved a few things around. A few easy google searches on what you want to do with it and you are golden. As for windows7 the install is lighter than normal and seems to be handling system resources and RAM much better than Vista and or even XP :)
But Ill know more when I can start really stressing out the OS with the software I use... |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 08:17:22 PM · #80 |
Well I have been a diehard mac user since Vista was released. I threw a copy of the new Win 7 on a 6 year old Dell laptop that I mess with every now and again and I must say that I am quite impressed. Simply put, they simplified the interface and from what I can tell, it uses less system resources. My computer is actually running faster with Win 7 than it did with XP professional. Honestly, I only have 2 gigs of ram on this computer and Win 7 has been running very smoothly. Anyway, just my 2 cents, mileage may vary...
Message edited by author 2009-05-08 21:53:34. |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 08:46:17 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Well I have been a diehard mac user since Vista was released. I threw a copy of the new Win 7 on a 6 year old Dell laptop that I mess with every now and again and I must say that I am quite impressed. Simply put, they simplified the interface and from what I can tell, it uses less system resources. My computer is actually running faster with Win 7 than it did with XP professional. Honestly, I only have 2 gigs of ram on this computer and Win 7 has been running very smoothing. Anyway, just my 2 cents, mileage may vary... |
Aaaaaaand another has fallen...
New line for Windows 7: "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile" :P |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 12/25/2025 09:00:33 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/25/2025 09:00:33 PM EST.
|
niiiiiice :)
