Why Windows NT based operating systems are so much better than piece o

[Link21]

9x is junk. I heard Vista removes support for 16-bit setups... woohoo! Don't get me started on how even the mighty Mozilla still programs Firefox et al for DOS because of their lack of use of Long Filenames. Other programs simply don't work because of unquoted paths (Paint Shop Pro 9 comes to mind, you can't be in a folder with a long filename and launch an image with PSP). That's all if 8.3 name creation is disabled for NTFS.

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

Edited March 14, 2006 by Link21

[cluberti]

Windows 98/ME have next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP

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.

[Link21]

Windows 98/ME have next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP

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.

[cluberti]

Tell us how you really feel .

[Link21]

Tell us how you really feel .

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.

[RJARRRPCGP]

9x is junk. I heard Vista removes support for 16-bit setups... woohoo! Don't get me started on how even the mighty Mozilla still programs Firefox et al for DOS because of their lack of use of Long Filenames. Other programs simply don't work because of unquoted paths (Paint Shop Pro 9 comes to mind, you can't be in a folder with a long filename and launch an image with PSP). That's all if 8.3 name creation is disabled for NTFS.

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

I would understand if it was Calmira XP. LOL!

Someone modded Windows 3.1 so that it has long file name support and Windows XP-style taskbar!

[Daemonforce]

words

words

words

words

Nice pyramid...

I agree that I like WINNT/LanManNT over 9X. In fact, when I started this multiboot project 6 months ago(wow it's been THAT long?! o_O), I swore that I would never add any legacy operating systems. Which means no 9X support. Sure there are old PCs that can't even boot CDs...Or support NTFS without a LLF or overlay...But that doesn't mean they'll reject NT.

That's right. The oldest operating system I support is Windows NT Server. It's retired but I continue to support it because it's NT and it's possibly the smallest Windows NT footprint I've ever seen. Find me a copy of Windows NT business and I might change my mind on that.

The bottom line is legacy. Legacy hardware stays while legacy software needs to go. Do you remember PDC03? Why was VisiCalc of all things running on Longhorn? I know we've come a long way and don't get me wrong, VisiCalc is great....But things like 16-Bit apps and old hardware like floppy drives are just something you wouldn't expect on a modern computer. Why? Because they don't belong there!

Have you ever seen NTVDM and what it does? On second thought don't get me started on that. Simply, 16-Bit support needs to go. NOW! >.<'

I'm starting to look at XP v64 and Vista and wonder...Oh wow...64-Bit binaries...Shweet. o_O

Once again we're at that stage!

Remember when the AT formfactor was taken over by ATX?

Remember when 32-Bit chips took over the old 16-Bit hardcore computing?

Now 64-Bit is coming through strong and I already see instances where I need a 64-Bit chip(emulation).

Before you know it, 32-Bit binaries are going to be obsolete. Maybe a computer's POST screen will double in size soon? All kinds of stuff are about to change and it's all because we can now use something awesome. But where is Win9X in all this mess? Gone. We don't need that unstable crap that rejects our hardware. Yay for NT!

[Tomcat76]

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!!

Uh... the DX9 package contains files specifically for 9x, files specifically for 2K, files specifically for XP and files specifically for 2K3. It's not all "common".

I'm starting to look at XP v64 and Vista and wonder...Oh wow...64-Bit binaries...Shweet. o_O

Once again we're at that stage!

I hate to bring you this sad news, but... Linux was at that stage 15 years ago....

[RJARRRPCGP]

The problem is that Windows NT-based Windows versions has quirks that Windows 95-based versions don't have:

If I just plug in a hard disk drive, even when I can use it and it detected it properly, it wants me to reboot!

It wants me to reboot again if it sees an added hard disk drive, even when it can be used.

It basically wants me to reboot twice, with every hard disk drive detection!

It has a tendency to take RAM for itself more than a Windows 95-based Windows would!

On one PC, even with at least 256 MB or RAM, (that's kind of small) the HDD was cranking more under Windows 2000 than when under Windows 98 SE while running Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban.

The hard disk drive was working less hard when running the same game under Windows 98 SE!

Also, I doubt that people gonna want to get 4 GB of RAM just for Windows!

Also, Windows NT-based Windows versions seem to force virtual memory (page file) on users that don't require virtual memory! Or they at least try to force virtual memory on users.

Also, it appears that Windows Vista, which hasn't been released don't like legacy hardware at all!

It appears that it will refuse to continue running if the motherboard don't have APIC!

This means that motherboards manufactured in 2002 or later probably are required!

[Link21]

The problem is that Windows NT-based Windows versions has quirks that Windows 95-based versions don't have:

If I just plug in a hard disk drive, even when I can use it and it detected it properly, it wants me to reboot!

It wants me to reboot again if it sees an added hard disk drive, even when it can be used.

It basically wants me to reboot twice, with every hard disk drive detection!

It has a tendency to take RAM for itself more than a Windows 95-based Windows would!

On one PC, even with at least 256 MB or RAM, (that's kind of small) the HDD was cranking more under Windows 2000 than when under Windows 98 SE while running Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban.

The hard disk drive was working less hard when running the same game under Windows 98 SE!

Also, I doubt that people gonna want to get 4 GB of RAM just for Windows!

Also, Windows NT-based Windows versions seem to force virtual memory (page file) on users that don't require virtual memory! Or they at least try to force virtual memory on users.

Also, it appears that Windows Vista, which hasn't been released don't like legacy hardware at all!

It appears that it will refuse to continue running if the motherboard don't have APIC!

This means that motherboards manufactured in 2002 or later probably are required!

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!!

[tommyp]

Dumb questions. Q1. What year did NT come out? Q2. Is the purpose of this thread to bash an OS that was released 16 years ago by comparing it with today's OS's?

On a sidenote, my old car worked great when I had it. Heck, it had tons more features than my bicycle. But my newer ride is better, more reliable and has more features than my old one. Should I bash my old car that I don't have anymore? Point is, technology is getting better. Change is good, well, most of the time anyway.

[Link21]

Dumb questions. Q1. What year did NT come out? Q2. Is the purpose of this thread to bash an OS that was released 16 years ago by comparing it with today's OS's?

On a sidenote, my old car worked great when I had it. Heck, it had tons more features than my bicycle. But my newer ride is better, more reliable and has more features than my old one. Should I bash my old car that I don't have anymore? Point is, technology is getting better. Change is good, well, most of the time anyway.

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!!

Edited March 16, 2006 by Link21

[Link21]

Windows 98/ME should be trashed already!!

[Link21]

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.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Link21

[Dels]

so...

nice to have Microsoft "stealed" technology from OS/2 here as Windows NT, with NT Based Kernel not DOS Based Kernel

and how about ReactOS anyone heard it? www.reactos.org , it's claimed as 1/2 Windows and 1/2 Linux, an operating system desain to be compatible with Windows NT 4 (maybe later with Win2k and up), some of Windows programs have reported to works. and maybe 5-10 years later this os will be the free alternative to M$ Windows (gee its when everybody got Vista on their desktop pc )