Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Link21

Recent Profile Visitors

629 profile views
  1. Wrong!! Windows XP is a very good OS. It is 98SE that sucks and it is a great thing that there is no support for it!! XP should be supported for a long long long time to come as it is already a good OS.
  2. That's only because applications many people use are only written for Windows. So if you like any of those applications, you are forced to use Windows or be without them. There are lots of people who would dump Windows in a flash if they could have native OS binaries of all the games and applications they use for MAC OS X or Linux. People don't use Microsoft operating systems because they are the best. They use them because I would guess 98% of all software is written for only for Microsoft operating systems.
  3. Most people wouldn't say that. The only people who would say that are the Windows 98SE fanatics who blindly believe that Windows 98SE is better than Windows 2000 and Windows XP, when in reality it is significantly worse than Windows 2000 or Windows XP. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista I don't think is as big as some people are making it out to be. It is no where near as big as the upgrade from POS Windows 98/ME to good quality XP or at least 2000. The upgrade from Windows 98/ME to XP for home consumers was as big as an upgrade as it was from MAC OS 9 to MAC OS X. Another words, both weren'
  4. Link21

    Buh bye XP

    Yes with POS, I mean piece of sh*t. Both Windows 98 and Windows ME are piece of sh*t operating systems. Windows ME was slightly worse, but not much. The bottom line is, they both suck. Windows 2000 and Windows XP are light years ahead of Windows 98 and Windows ME, even for their respective times.
  5. Link21

    Buh bye XP

    XP will never be the next POS Windows 98. XP will always be a quality OS and leaps and bounds ahead of POS Windows 98/ME.
  6. DirectX 10 should be made for Windows XP SP2 and above and Windows Server 2003 SP1 and above. Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are good opertaing systems, so they should make DX10 for them. People have a right to complain by being forced to upgrade so fast if thewy are already running a good OS that deserves to be supported for a while like WIndows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1.
  7. Actually it does happen with RC7 and RC8 as well if I remove Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Note: I keep IECORE and WMP 6.4. It is really frusterating how it skips registering components and doesn't install Terminal Services. I don't select it for removal, but it skips installing it.
  8. When ever I use the latest version of nlite to remove components from Windows XP Pro SP2, the disc I make to install Windows XP Pro SP2 always skips the registerting components part of setup. As a result, Windows XP installation is borked with missing components and doesn't work very well. This doesn't happen with RC6 and 7, only with 1.0 final and 1.0.1.
  9. You seem to be a hardware manufacturer or an affiliate of one What I find most disturbing is the rate at which software efficiency is decreasing, and Vista is a perfect example of such a decline. Software efficiency does seem to be decreasing, but that does NOT mean that POS Windows 98/ME are more efficient than Windows 2000/XP. What it means is that Windows Vista is more innefficient than Windows XP. POS Windows 98/ME are much more inefficient, lower quality, much less capable than Linux, WIndows NT flavors, and OS/2 WARP. That is a fact!!!
  10. All I said is I want Firefox 3.0 to be a native Windows NT application. And all I did is reply to one thread started by Timeless that specifically mentioned me. I also replied with my opinion about a threrad regarding the support for Windows 98/ME being ended by Microsoft. I am just stating my opinion. And I am not the only one stating against Win9X. Jeremy also went in this thread and stated his opinion which didn't favor Win9X.
  11. That is only because Windows NT 3.5 and 4 were released earlier than Windows 98/ME and because of customer demand. But anything Windows 2000 or above has enough customer demand in comparison to Windows NT 3.5 and 4 and it is an NT based OS. Windows ME and Windows 2000 were released around the same time, yet Windows 2000 is so much better so it deserves to be supported a lot longer.
  12. Good joke! But if you repeat the same joke too often it is not soo good. Its not a joke. It is reality. I sure hope Firefox 3.0 won't work on Windows 98/ME. Heck, I hope Firefox 2.0 won't work with Windows 98/ME.
  13. Let Firefox 3.0 be a native Windows NT application for superior performance. I wish Firefox 1.0 were that way.
  14. Good quality operating systems such as Windows NT based deserve to get a much longer support period than low end lousy quality operating systems in Win9X based operating systems. It doesn't have to do with when the OS was released to the general public. It has to do with how old the technology of the OS is. Even though Windows 98 was released 8 years ago, it is based on ancient, inferior legacy echnology. Windows XP which was released nearly 5 years ago is based on modern technology. Windows 2000 which was released over 6 years ago, and it is still based on modern technology. Despite Wind
  15. It is just typo errors because I type fast to try and get my point across. You just spelled something wrong too. You said his instead of this.
  • Create New...