Jump to content

Link21

Member
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    Mexico

Everything posted by Link21

  1. B.S. ! You're really cruisin' when you said "Windows 1.0". You are the one who is spouting BS. It is just a DOS extender. It is a pretty special and gignatic DOS extender, but that is really what it is at its very roots. Just try and delete any of the files MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS, CONFIG.SYS, and/or COMMAND.COM and let us know what happens. Also, try deleting user.exe and/or gdi.exe which are both 16-bit Windows files. gdi32.exe and user32.exe are the 32-bit Windows files. If you delete any of the following DOS or Windows 16-bit files, you can forget about using Windows 9X because it just won't run. Now, you could delete user32.exe and gdi32.exe and Windows 9X would still run. That should tell you that at its ver roots, it is a 16-bit OS and not a 32-bit OS. You just need to face the facts. Windows NT is better and it will always be superior to Windows 9X.' You are right, I am really cruisin when I say Windows 1.0 because it is the truth and I know what I am talking about here. Windows 9X was based on Windows 3.1 which was based on Windows 3.0 which was based on Windows 2.0 and etc... Windows Server 2003 is based on Windows XP which is based on Windows 2000 which is based on Windows NT 4 and so forth. Windows 1.0, WIndows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, WIndows 3.11, Windows 95 (4.0), Windows 98 (4.10.1998), Windows 98SE (4.10.2222), and Windows ME (4.9) are all based on the same OS heritage and just evolved stepo by step by improving the coding of the same based OS core over time. So thus, Windows ME is still native to Windows 1.0 Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, Windows NT 5.0 (2000), Windows NT 5.1 (XP), and Windows NT 5.2 (2003) are all based on and follow the same OS heritage and just evolved step by step by improving the code over time to get to Windows NT 5.2, which is Windows Server 2003. SO thus, Windows Server 2003 is still native to Windows NT 3.1. The Windows NT based OS has always been far superior to the POS ancient DOS dependent based Widnows versions.
  2. @RJARRRPCGP I'm sorry, but WIndows 98 is based on MS-DOS. It is just a huge extension of Windows 3.1. Windows 98 has much more in common with Windows 1.0 than it ever had with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 2000/XP have much more in common with Windows NT 3.1 than they ever did with Windows 98/ME. Read this thread over here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=34259&st=0 This was explained to you. Windows 9X is really just a DOS extender, Microsoft just did a good job of hiding it.
  3. I just got through with my first true experience of playing NHL 2006 and NBA Live 2006. The performance was so much better than any previous versions of EA Sports games ever released. Much of it has to do with the fact that they are not compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. Finally Windows 2000/XP only games from EA have become a reality!! It was about darn time!!
  4. I was just at a computer store and the manager said that it is flat out retarded to buy new hardware and use POS Windows 98/ME on it!! He said he had a customer hwo wanted to do this, and wouldn't help them because of how ignorant doing such a thing would be. Its a great thing that the NVIDIA GeForce 7XXX series video cards doesn't have drivers for POS Windows 98/ME.
  5. There is nothing wrong with older opertaing systems as long as they are not the Windows 1X-3X series and the 9X series. Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993. OS/2 version 2.0 was released in 1992. But I don't bash them even though they are really old. I just hate the fake OS versions of Windows that weren't a real OS, but rather pseudo 32-bit extended shell on top of ancient 640KB memory barrier limited DOS!! That is why you bash POS Windows 9X!!! It is not even a true OS!!! It is a 32-bit DOS extender!!! You don't bash older things. You just bash what was a fake non-real OS. All cars are real cars, so older cars are ok as long as they are good quality and still in good shape and well taken care of. Windows 9X was a complete and utter POS. It always was, and always will be, even for its time. Windows NT 3.1 was a fine OS for its time. So was OS/2 version 2.0 Windows 9X was not!!
  6. Wrong. Windows NT has always been better than POS Windows 98/ME. Its called the differences in the kernel and core OS technology. Sure, it may take a little bit more RAM, but it is still way better than POS Windows 98/ME!! Windows 98/ME aren't even true 32-bit opertaing systems. They are native 16-bit opertaing systems with 32-bit extensions. In no way do Windows 98/ME deserve to be considered 32-bit operating systems because by definition, they are not!! Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 WARP, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are all good quality 32-bit opertaing systems. Windows 95/98/ME are not!!
  7. Which most people would feel in this forum that Windows 9X is junk. Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 kick its butt. You actually work for MS, so would you favor that MS-spouted propoganda? I don't have anything to do with MS, nor do I favor their views, I just happen to believe Windows 9X is junk. But I also believe Linux is a great OS, and MS wouldn't aprove of that.
  8. Except the things borrowed from the 9x line that we take for granted in 2000/XP/2003/Vista, like plug and play and laptop battery support, for starters . I'll agree NT-based OSes are more stable and ultimately more viable as a desktop OS than Win9x ever was, but to say 9x was awful does it a bit of injustice. They were natively borrowed were they? Just the idea, but the Plug and Play software in WIndows 2000/XP/2003/Vista is completely different than it was in Windows 98/ME? The OS binaries are completely different and isn't it true that Windows 98/ME have much more in common at the OS root level with WIndows 1.0 than they ever did with Windows 2K/XP? Yeah, Windows 9X was certainly better than Windows 3.1 and below and all other pure 16-bit only opertaing systems. But compared to other 32-bit operating systems, it is flat out inferior.
  9. 9X is junk. Not only Mozilla, but also Microsoft. Internet Explorer 6 is compatible with piece of junk Windows 98/ME. And so is DirectX 9. It was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DirectX9 compatible with Windows 98/ME. A flat out huge mistake!! DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!! Performance would have been so much better that way. First off, Windows 9x does support long file names, second, Mozilla isn't 16-bit! Mozilla probably can support long file names. I dunno why it can't. Also, DirectX under Windows 2000 and Windows XP more likely wouldn't perform better by dropping support for Windows 9x. Why would it? Because Windows 98/ME have next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP. It would have been much better if DirectX 9 was for Windows 2000/XP only so it could have been focusued on making it better for the native NT based OS only rather than having to work so much harder to make an API designed to run the same software compatible with two completely different OS architectures!! Windows 95/98/ME were by far the worst core 32-bit operating systems ever made!! Linux, OS/2 WARP, Solaris, BSD, MAC OS X, and Windows NT flavored operating systems are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are sh*tty quality fake opertaing systems running on top of legacy 16-bit DOS which was native to ancient legacy MS-DOS 1.0
  10. Windows 2000 and Windows XP are so so much better than junker Windows 98/ME ever were. You can't even compare how Windows 98 was in its heyday to how Windows 2000/XP are today. I am not saying just how each OS is overall, but even each OS for its time!! Windows 2000 and Windows XP are so much tremednously better even for their time than Windows 98/ME ever were for their time. Its called the tremednous differences in the core OS technology and the fact one flavor is a real 32-bit OS while the other is not!! Anyone who compares how WIndows 98 was in its heyday to how Windows XP is now doesn't know what they are talking about. Windows 2000/XP easily blow Windows 98/ME away even for their time!! If the whole computing world was using Windows NT 4.0 or 3.51, or some other good quality real 32-bit OS back in the mid to late 1990s, than you could definitely compare how Windows 2000/XP are now to how the older versions of good quality true 32-bit opertaing systems were back in their heydays. Windows 95/98/ME don't even deserve to be considered a 32-bit OS, because by definition, they are not. They are a 16-bit DOS hacked with a large 32-bit extended shell!! Trash those piece of junk Windows 98/ME opertinag systems already!!! They should have been trashed at least four years ago!!
  11. There is no real DOS system code in Windows NT. What would IO.sys be for then? I thought IO.sys was for DOS based opertaing systems only. Anyways, lets here why Windows 9X is a piece of junk OS.
  12. That is because WIndows 2000 is still an NT based OS. They just didn't test it on 2000, so it said it wasn't supported. Now, I'm sure it won't stand a chance to run on Windows 9X. Do you know if games use different binaries with one binary set being for Windows 2000/XP and one set being for piece of junk Windows 98/ME?
  13. What about games that are compatible with noth Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP. How come they use the same files and installation program for the two completely different OS architectures? Why not one native version of the game for Windows 2000/XP and another native version for Windows 98/ME? For instance, C&C Generals should have been native for Windows 2000/XP only. So should have earlier EA Games like NFS: Underground 2, and the EA Sports 2003 and above series. I just cringed in disgust to see EA Sports games support all the way up to the 2005 series still support piece of junk Windows 98/ME. FInally the EA Sports 2006 series is Windows 2000/XP only!! It was about time!! Do games that run on both NT and 9X really have separate binaries, they just use the same installer and some of the same files to run on both, but also have separate binaries for both as well? Well, it is good to know that the newest games at least are Windows 2000/XP only. Games that come to mind that will only run on an NT based OS are Battlefield 2, NHL 2006, NBA Live 2006, Madden 2006, NFS: Most Wanted. That really sucks for Mozilla, because as much as I like the freedom of the Firefox browser, the performance would probably be so much better if it were written using binaries native to the Windows NT based OS.
  14. 9X is junk. Not only Mozilla, but also Microsoft. Internet Explorer 6 is compatible with piece of junk Windows 98/ME. And so is DirectX 9. It was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DirectX9 compatible with Windows 98/ME. A flat out huge mistake!! DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!! Performance would have been so much better that way.
  15. Well, since this is a Windows NT based operating systems forums, I thought it would be best to make this topic here. List reasons why Windows 98/ME are piece of junk operating systems and why support for them should have stopped a long long time ago. I can think of a few reasons. Firstly, Windows 98/ME have next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 98/ME have more in common with Windows 1.0 than they ever did with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 2000/XP have much moe in common with Windows NT 3.1 than they ever did with Windows 98/ME. Therefore, performance suffers when applications continue to support those opertaing systems. Since the release of Windows XP, the whole Windows OS market was meant to be shifted to the completely different Windows NT based OS. Therefore, applications should have been written to be native to Windows 2000/XP so performance would be much better. Also, they are not true 32-bit opertaing systems, but rather native 16-bit opertaing systems with 32-bit extensions. Many technicians would consider Windows 95/98/ME to be a flat out piece of junk compared to other native written 32-bit operating systems. I would agree with them. People who consider Windows 95/98/ME to be by far the worst core 32-bit operating systems are NOT necessarily spouting off MS propoganda!! They are spouting off technical facts. In fact, I think Linux is a great OS and maybe even better than Windows 2000/XP. Now, would Microsoft say that? Of course not. I hate Windows 9X for what it was. It wans't even a real OS. It was a complete and utter POS. It always was, and always will be, no matter how you look at it, nor no matter how stable someone claims they can get it to run. Linux, OS/2, and MAC OS X are all very good operating system cores. Windows NT flavors are also fine and respectable. So, this a thread to praise Windows NT based operating systems. I praise Windows NT based opertaing systems just compared to POS Windows 9X/ME. It is because Windows NT based operating systems are the only operating systems ever produced by Microsoft that I find respectable and halfway decent, even though I am not a big fan of MS. Now to take it a bit offf topic, I had to decide whether to post this topic in this forum or the Windows XP forum. Why isn't Windows XP included in this forum? It is also an NT based OS after all, so why does it have its own forum which is separate from the Windows NT/2000/2003 forum. I think Windows 2000/XP/2003 would make the most sense to group together.
  16. I bet NHL 2006, NBA Live 2006, Madden 2006, Battlefield 2, and NFS: Most Wanted won't run on junker Windows 98/ME. There is a reason those games were made for Windows 2000/XP only. It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to junker Windows 98/ME!! Windows 98/ME have next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP. Windows XP has much more in common with Windows NT 3.1 than it ever did with Windows 98SE/ME. Heck, Windows 98SE/ME has more in common with Windows 1.0 than they do with Windows 2000/XP. New games like the ones I mentioned above are most likely written for the native Windows NT based OS and thus won't run at all on Windows 98/ME.
  17. The point is support. Hell I would go back to OS/2 if it could support everything I want. =/ Windows 2000 needs to retire like NT. Windows XP has been out for so long that it's reaching the mid-point of its life. Windows Server 2003 is still going strong. I see what you're saying though. I used to have just one computer and it was full of legacy hardware. I still go back to it when something on this computer gets fubar'd. Vista p***es me off. Why not let Windows XP continue to be supported by all the latest hardware and software for a long long time?
  18. Windows XP 32-bit and Windows XP 64-bit are both already good operating systems. What is the whole point of Vista then? Who really needs it when Windows XP is already a good OS? At this point, Vista seems way overrated. It seems extremely bloated and will only take up signifcantly more system resources just for a more pretty GUI. That will suck for resource intensive foreground applications. I would just stick with Windows XP as it is already a good OS.
  19. I don't judge opertaing systems based on the age. I judge them based on the technology used in them and the kernel. Windows ME was released after Windows 2000, but it is far worse than Windows 2000. Windows 98 was released after Windows NT 4,0, but Windows 98 is worse than Windows NT 4.
  20. Results of this poll on on their way to turning in favor of trashing Windows 98/ME!! The votes are catching up!!
  21. get angry all you want, hehe, at this point i'd lay money on it. and as for copying music, i'm perfectly within my rights to rip my CDs to MP3s (for personal use) without the apps involved telling anybody else about it otherwise the function would hardly be included in WMP and be the basis for multiple companys to make money of MP3 players. as stated here it's legal in US and it's legal where i live too, it only becomes illegal if you have a copy of something you haven't bought. so suck it. It is perfectly in my right to use a legit copy of Windows XP Pro from the company I work for which has agreements with Microsoft for certain qualified employees to be given a free copy of some Microsoft software. It is also perfectly in my right to use that legit copy of Windows XP and choose to not use Windows Update. This has turned into the wrong discussion. This thread was about Why run Windows 98, not about legal use of software. Never the less, this thread can die because it has been beaten to death. Say what you want next Miko Smarta** , but liars don't mean anything to me.
  22. i stand by what i accused you of Link21 and i don't care what you think. i can't see why you'd have a copy of that OS a home when that's not what it's for, and i can't see why you wouldn't use windows update and why you'd be so informed about avoiding activation if you had nothing to worry about. these are, after all, some of the benefits of XP (current support) you've been espousing to us. i conclude that your using a pirate OS that would cost me over $500 to buy. so are you worth listening to ? no. and if you find that insulting i couldn't give two f***s, since you've been in essence calling us 9X users stupid since you started posting in here. PS. you know if you times the number of Link21s last post by 2 . . . arrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh STFU and stop spreading lies and accusing people of something they did not do!! How would you like it if I just assumed you did something just because you used different terminology!!!?!??!? You conclude your a** wrong SMART a**!! Miswell accuse Timeless and Jlo555 of using it too because they mentioned corporate as well and how they hate activation!! OH NO!!! Also, you miswell accuse Nuhi of using a piarted verison of Windows XP because in nlite, there is the option to remove WIndows Update and because he specifically lists in the help that unless you are using a Corporate verison of WIndows, you can't remove Out of the Box Experience. Oh NO. Nuhi used the word corporate version of Windows, which you say doesn't exist. So you must assume anyone that uses the word corporate edition or doesn't use Windows update is using a pirated copy!! Nothing but an arrogant smarta**!!!! to try and rub in mean arrogant such assumptions based on certain comments.Oh and BTW: Read your very own post here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44398&st=40 Why would you make such comment if you don't use pirated music and have nothing to worry about!!!!! I as such conclude you are using pirated MP3s!! If you weren't you wouldn't have made such a comment and you would have nothing to worry about!!! You accuse me of something I didn't do and just want to assume it because I don't like activation, you are going to get it shoved right back at your a**!!! I really get angry as heck when someone tries and accuses me of something I did not do!!
×
×
  • Create New...