Link21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Link21
-
-
So, in other words, you use Microsoft OS's because it gives you what you want. And that's why you don't use other OS's - because they don't give you what you want.
And that folks is the key to Microsoft's success - they give the customer what they want.
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.
0 -
Win95 was a very hated OS - and now most people will say that Win95 (or Win98) was the best OS produced by Microsoft. How time changes things...
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't just an upgrade, they were a change to a completely different whole new operating system.
Vista is still the next version of Windows NT based operating systems. There are some decent changes to it, but I don't think it is one of the biggest upgrades Microsoft has ever released of all time. It is a bigger change than from 2000 to XP, but no where near the change from NT 4 to 2000, let alone the largest change for home consumers from 98/ME to 2000 /XP.
0 -
If POS you mean Piece of s***, Windows 98 isn't anywhere near the POS WinME is.
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.
0 -
Ah, the XP prodigy.
XP will become the next 98, and yet 98 still surpases XP in certain ways!
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
You seem to be a hardware manufacturer or an affiliate of oneApparently if Vista suck's on your PC then you apparently have a piece of crap computer and it simply don't run good.
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!!!
0 -
Link21:
We have tolerated you way too long in these forums.
If you don't have anything contructive or useful to say, please refrain from hateful and flaming postings.
We already got the point you don't like Win9x OSes, but we don't care to see your hateful posts all over the place, every single day.
Next time I'll ask the mods to ban you from MSFN forums, and I bet I'm not the only one who doesn't like your inappropriate behaviour.
Thanks for listening.
I really hope you learn and grow up.
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.
0 -
Ohh no Link21 is here we are all going to get stupid ,just kidding!
When you say that Windows 9x operating systems don't deserve to get longer support time in comparision to NT based systems
because they are worse.
Why did then Microsoft stop support for Windows NT 4 and 3.5 if you say they are better than 9x?
Windows 98 rulez =) and I'm sorry to say it but Windows NT 4 sucks even Windows 95 had USB support *g* .
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.
0 -
Let Firefox 3.0 be a native Windows NT application for superior performance. I wish Firefox 1.0 were that way.
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.
0 -
Let Firefox 3.0 be a native Windows NT application for superior performance. I wish Firefox 1.0 were that way.
0 -
You've got it a bit wrong guys when you say that MS has been fair with it's 98SE/ME customers.
Just compare WinME and Win2000, both published the same year.
Is support ending for Win2000 ?
No it is not.
Has the 128 GB LBA adressing bug been fixed for Win 2000 ?
Yes with SP3.
Has the 128 GB LBA adressing bug ever been fixed for Win ME ?
Never.
Is there a limitation inherent to the 9x architecture that did prevent MS to fix it ?
No there isn't any.
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 Windows 98 being only 8 years old, it is based on technology that is over 30 years old. Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on technology that is only 10 years old.
Microsoft had every right to stop supporting that pile of crap Windows 98/ME early. Better quality operating systems get longer support life cycles. That is how it works.
As much as I don't like Microsoft, I applaud them on this move to get rid of piece of crap operating systems which comprise of the worst operating systems ever released since 1994. I think Microsoft should have stopped supporting piece of sh*t Win98SE/ME in January 2004 like they orriginally planned.
0 -
Does his guy hate Windows 9x or what? [smiley translates as "wacko", btw]
I have no business getting in the middle of this, but can this guy spell?
Quoted from his own post:
http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?catid=1&a...13#comment11709
"piece of crap Windows 98/ME opertaing"
Verbum sapienti satis est [Enough said]
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.
0 -
At least the NT series were more stable than 9x, so I'll stick to it. As I said, I rather use an OS that uses more RAM if its stable.
Exactly!! And besides, Windows 2000 and Windows XP run applications much faster and more efficiently when you have a decent amount of RAM. ENough said.
It would be interesting to see how others relate operating systems to automobiles, just like I did.
What kind of car would you compare Windows 98, WIndows XP, and etc... to?
0 -
Just leave this forum, no-one is forcing you to stay here and use Win9x!!!
Alright and let this topic die. Someone else started this topic and initiated me to join this debate.
0 -
Hmm, actually I think Link21 improved a little bit. He now accepts the fact that it is possible for people to "like" Windows 98. But Link, you realize that the amount of issues that Windows 98 had when it first came out can not even compare to the amount of issues that Windows XP had when it first came out. For instance, on my laptop I finally just disabled Automatic Updates because XP Pro found at least five new updates every single time I logged in.
Yeah right. Windows 98 was such a POS OS when it first came out. It still is a POS today in 2006. It is even more of a POS to run it on higher end hardware for running reltaively modern software. At best, it was acceptable for simple non-resource intensive 32-bit computing. IN NO WAY were POS Windows 98/ME accpetable for resource intensive 32-bit computing and long uptime.
Windows XP at least could always achieve high performance, even if it may have had a lot of bugs when it first came out. It could also achieve tremendous stability when it first came out, unlike junker Windows 98/ME.
It bothers me to see people running POS Windows 98/ME for the sole purpose of running software produced in the last four years on hardware produced in the last four years because it only convinced the hardware and software manufacturers to continue and support that POS OS which has only hurt performance and stability the last few years.
Sure, I admit that some people can like Windows 98/ME. Just like some people can like an AMC Pacer, even though both Windows 98 and the AMC Pacer were pieces of junk.
0 -
LOL, my laptop has two wifi adapters and zero problems with either of them under 98
Just like someone who is very lucky and never had problems with their 1978 AMC Pacer. It still wouldn't change the fact that an AMC Pacer was a cheap piece of crap car that had a lot of problems and didn't last long.
0 -
Windows XPx64 and Windows Server 2003 x64 are both true 64-bit operating systems. They are not just 32-bit operating systems with 64-bit extensions.
Yeah, unlike POS Win98SE/ME that are just POS 16-bit operating systems with POS 32-bit extensions.
Exactly!!
0 -
Linux? Good luck!
It's ok for e-mail and text editing on Open Office, beyond that, as soon as you need a special program, a special driver or a specific task, you end up dual boot with windows anyway.
Linux would be the best if only there were native Linux binaries for all the games and applications I use.
0 -
What do you think about Windows Vista link21 ?
I would say Vista is like a large truck. It is way too bloated and will swallow up all the resources. I'd rather just use Windows XP x64 or Windows Server 2003 x64 for true 64-bit computing needs of Windows applications. Windows XPx64 and Windows Server 2003 x64 are both true 64-bit operating systems. They are not just 32-bit operating systems with 64-bit extensions.
0 -
This is just propaganda what you write, not the truth. :-) You do not have to cite what Seve Ballmer said, we all know all these false claims. :-)
BULLSH!T!! Since when did I site what Steve Ballmer says. I stated in there how Linux is a great OS. Now would Steve Balmer who sponders MS spouted propoganda insist Linux (which is BTW a serious threat to Microsoft's business model) is a great OS. Microsoft hates Linux and I love it. So I am not spouting off MS propoganda.
Sure, maybe Windows 98 will feel fatser on a faster computer, just like Windows 3.1 will feel faster than any version of even Widnows 9X. It still doens't change the fact that the functionality is badly limited in Windows 98 as it can't take advanatge of high end resource intensive computing. It may be fast, but only for simple lower end applications that don't require a lot of computing power. Windows 2000/XP will always be faster for applications that require lots of computing power on a computer with lots of memory.
It is Windows 9X that sucks. Windows 2K/XP are respectable operating systems, but still not as good as Linux. Windows 95/98/ME are not respectable operating systems no matter how you look at it.
It is a technical fact that almost every OS released since 1994 is far better than that piece of crap in Windows 9X. So what if you can get Win98 to run stable. It still doesn't change the fact that Windows 98 is a cheap, low end, low performance operating system.
Saying that you have less problems with Windows 98 than you did with Windows 2000 or Windows XP would be like saying you had less problems with your Eagle Summit than your Lexus ES.
It still wouldn't change the fact that an Eagle Summit is a cheap, low end, low performance car, while the Lexus ES is a high end, much better quality, significantly higher performing car.
Comparing operating systems to cars with regrdas to functionality, performance, stability, capabilities, and features all rated together.
Windows 3.1 and prior would be like a low end cheap dirt bike that could carry only one person and nothing else and could only reach 50MPH top speed
Windows 95 is like a Yugo (Yugo was a cheap low end car brand that had so many quality problems)
Windows 98/ME are like an Eagle Summit (An Eagle Summit was a cheap low end car that had plenty of quality problems, but wasn't as bad as a Yugo)
Windows NT 3.X is like a Ford Escort
Windows NT 4.0 is like a Ford Taurus
Windows 2000/XP/2003 are like a Lexus ES
OS/2 WARP is like a Toyota Avalon(would have been comparable to something even higher end than a Lexus ES if only developement of OS/2 WARP was still alive and well today)
The latest Linux kernel is like a Rolls Royce.
0 -
It is not true - Windows 98 SE is much more responsive even on relatively faster systems - I have dual boot 98SE / XP on 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and it is big difference - in Windows 98 SE everything is quick, in Windows XP (optimized for speed) is everything sooo slooow....
It is not completely true. You don't have your Windows XP setup properly if that is what you are experieicning. Windows XP is so much faster on any halfway robust system with the bloat stripped out. Windows 98 may only be fast at first because of such a lite resource consumption, but it will slow to a crawl pretty darn fast because it is a low end, low quality, cheap, low performance OS that can utilize reltaively modern hardware efficiently!!
Windows 2000/XP PWNed the crap that is WIN98/ME by far!! Linux PWNed the crap that is Windows 98/ME even more so than 2K/XP. Linux is a great OS. OS/2 WARP is also a realy good OS. Windows 2K/XP/2K3 are solid. Windows 95/98/ME are pieces of junk.
0 -
If some of you people keep saying that Windows 98 is more superior than XP, then how so? Please explain. Some people keep saying that and don't give clear examples.
1. Superior DOS emulation. The DOS VM in XP is awful - for one, "close on exit" option is partially broken, secondly it's slow (setting ntvdm.exe to realtime priority doesn't help, just freezes the rest of the system too) and the speed fluctuates (run a small DOS program that just prints out a huge text file to the screen - at first it outputs quickly, then after approximately 10 seconds it slows down to a crawl). The DOS VM in 98se works well for almost all DOS programs that don't need exclusive control of the machine.
2. Can be booted to DOS to do tasks that can't be done otherwise, like swapping modified system files (XP complains afterwards even if you manage to swap kernels, for example - "system file protection") or deleting browser caches and other files that are normally in-use.
3. Faster. Simpler system architecture reduces overhead of system calls and results in better overall performance. You will notice that a minimal XP installation still lags slightly on fast hardware, while 98se has nearly instantaneous response time.
4. Fewer bugs and exploits. XP needs to be "updated" constantly (not to mention the annoying WGA and activation) - I'm not sure of the exact number, but probably several hundred "critical updates" have been issued since its release. 98se has a few critical updates, but nowhere near as many. A default install is also safer - 98se doesn't phone home to M$, nor does it have dozens of listening services waiting to be exploited.
5. Uses less system resources. An Operating System is not an application program. It should only provide basic services to application programs, not itself try to be an application program. Thus it should consume a minimum of system resources, and let the application programs use them instead. I've run 98se on a 386DX 25MHz with 16Mb of RAM and a 120Mb HDD, it doesn't need much but it still runs quite well. In comparison, the lowest hardware I've gotten XP to install on was a P166 with 64Mb RAM and 4Gb HDD, and even with lots of nLiting it still ran very sluggishly.
6. Overall Compatibility. 98se is the last OS that can support almost all legacy DOS as well as Win32 applications. Many newer programs will run on 98se, but not anything older.
#1 is the only statement that is totally correct. #3 and #5 are only partly correct. If you use Windows 98 on slower hartdware with small amounts of RAM, it will be faster than Windows XP and even Windows 2000. But on a relatively fast system with a decent amount of RAM, Windows 2000 is always faster and even Windows XP is faster.
#4 is only partially correct in that Windows XP has the annnoying activation and WGA BULLCRAP. However, IN NO WAY does it have more bugs. WIndows 98 has far more bugs and isn't even capable of being a good OS for modern computing like Windows 2K and XP are. Also, Windows 2K does not phone home, so use Windows 2K if you don't like how XP phones MS. It is also easy to remove the phone home junk from Windows XP and avoid installing WGA, and you will be fine with Windows XP.
As for #6, sure Windows 98SE is the best for compatibility with old legacy simplistic non-resource intensive poorly written applications. It is not good for anything else.
0
,just kidding!
Why move to Vista?
in Windows Vista
Posted
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.