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

[RJARRRPCGP]

gee this topic is really hot (hope it not become flame wars)

Yeah well I hope it does! RAwR!

btw

if other os than winxp is really crap, then where have you been before xp came out?a place where computers is a "sum of all crap's" and it's only just a piece of junk?or for simple, what os you use before xp came out?

Strangely enough, Windows 2000 was really awesome at the time. Somewhere down the line, XP was released...I started getting messenger popups(and nuked every one of these morons trying to bug me). Around the release of SP1 for XP I started getting svchost errors and couldn't figure out what was causing it. It turns out that blaster was the problem. I switched over to Windows .NET Server and that fixed it for a while. I couldn't update the OS, so that got me to go back to XP. After a year I went back to 2000 to see if the problem was still there and it was. Remember, this is a time when I only had one computer and it was on a dialup connection. Stupid networking flaws made me migrate to XP and has kept me from going to anything else since then.

gee don't blame anyone for making such a crap os, you should respect what it does (even you hated the creator, don't hate the os). if anyone could maybe each person will have their "own" os.

Welcome to the development lab...Where the OS you're working on is being compiled on an OS that should retire. When I go to a new OS, it's not because of the features in it, but the crap that it can keep out.

really i hate when people blame win 9x/me,nt/2000 or linux. we all have some good old days before xp came out

I never had any good days on Windows 95. The only thing good about it was that MSN Chat was free and spyware wasn't such a huge problem.

face it and maybe someday vista will be better than xp and then xp will be said as a big crap

I look at the real problems at hand on a zero network system and there are none. The introduction to the Internet is the only problem.

The Blaster virus was in 2003. I gotten that virus before just by forgetting to install a firewall.

That a****** crashed RPC.

Edited March 30, 2006 by RJARRRPCGP

[Link21]

I bet games like Battlefield 2, NHL 2006, NBA Live 2006, Madden 2006, NFS:Most Wanted won't stand a chance to even run on junker Windows 98/ME.

There is a reason those games are written for Windows 2000/XP only!! It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to piece of junk Windows 98/ME!!

[Dels]

There is a reason those games are written for Windows 2000/XP only!! It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to piece of junk Windows 98/ME

for xp maybe YES, but for win2k better say NO, lot's user having Virtual Memory issue on win2k (cause win2k never designed to play a game lol)

but still "i lov'in it" (no Mc Donald's Advertisement here)

the word "junk" is something funny, example :

we all know "junk food" was and it still "eat-able"

so the OS, when it is junk, doesn't mean it can't being use

[Link21]

There is a reason those games are written for Windows 2000/XP only!! It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to piece of junk Windows 98/ME

for xp maybe YES, but for win2k better say NO, lot's user having Virtual Memory issue on win2k (cause win2k never designed to play a game lol)

but still "i lov'in it" (no Mc Donald's Advertisement here)

the word "junk" is something funny, example :

we all know "junk food" was and it still "eat-able"

so the OS, when it is junk, doesn't mean it can't being use

Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on the same OS kernel, so both should run games well. Windows XP may run games better than 2K, but Windows 2K is still light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME when it comes to modern PC gaming.

I dare any of the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers to try and find out that the EA Sports 2006 games won't stand a chance to run on junker Windows 98/ME.

[RJARRRPCGP]

There is a reason those games are written for Windows 2000/XP only!! It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to piece of junk Windows 98/ME

for xp maybe YES, but for win2k better say NO, lot's user having Virtual Memory issue on win2k (cause win2k never designed to play a game lol)

but still "i lov'in it" (no Mc Donald's Advertisement here)

the word "junk" is something funny, example :

we all know "junk food" was and it still "eat-able"

so the OS, when it is junk, doesn't mean it can't being use

Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on the same OS kernel, so both should run games well. Windows XP may run games better than 2K, but Windows 2K is still light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME when it comes to modern PC gaming.

I dare any of the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers to try and find out that the EA Sports 2006 games won't stand a chance to run on junker Windows 98/ME.

But, that's probably because EA is lazy. Also, EA likely put an arbitrary OS check so that it refuses to run just because of the OS version being reported! LOL! Even GTA: San Andreas reportedly can work under Windows 98 SE! There probably was just a stupid OS check in the installer for the game. If you ask me, that's retarded! Just like when some installers refuse to continue just because you don't have Internet Explorer! LOL once again!

Also, with some games by Microsoft, (no major surprise) the package says that Windows XP is required! Says that it won't run even under Windows 2000! But it's likely an arbitrary OS check. It it's an arbitrary OS check, then it will run under Windows 2000 if you lie to it that the OS is Windows XP! Likely just by telling the application that the version number is 5.1.

It's likely that they refuse to let you play the game just because of the OS version number being reported being less than 5.1!

Edited March 28, 2006 by RJARRRPCGP

[Link21]

There is a reason those games are written for Windows 2000/XP only!! It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to piece of junk Windows 98/ME

for xp maybe YES, but for win2k better say NO, lot's user having Virtual Memory issue on win2k (cause win2k never designed to play a game lol)

but still "i lov'in it" (no Mc Donald's Advertisement here)

the word "junk" is something funny, example :

we all know "junk food" was and it still "eat-able"

so the OS, when it is junk, doesn't mean it can't being use

Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on the same OS kernel, so both should run games well. Windows XP may run games better than 2K, but Windows 2K is still light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME when it comes to modern PC gaming.

I dare any of the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers to try and find out that the EA Sports 2006 games won't stand a chance to run on junker Windows 98/ME.

But, that's probably because EA is lazy. Also, EA likely put an arbitrary OS check so that it refuses to run just because of the OS version being reported! LOL! Even GTA: San Andreas reportedly can work under Windows 98 SE! There probably was just a stupid OS check in the installer for the game. If you ask me, that's retarded! Just like when some installers refuse to continue just because you don't have Internet Explorer! LOL once again!

Also, with some games by Microsoft, (no major surprise) the package says that Windows XP is required! Says that it won't run even under Windows 2000! But it's likely an arbitrary OS check. It it's an arbitrary OS check, then it will run under Windows 2000 if you lie to it that the OS is Windows XP! Likely just by telling the application that the version number is 5.1.

It's likely that they refuse to let you play the game just because of the OS version number being reported being less than 5.1!

There are ways around the OS check. However, there is NO way any of those EA Games will run on junker Windows 98/ME because Windows 98/ME are so different from Windows 2000/XP. You can run Battlefield 2 on Windows 2000 even though it only supports Windows XP because Windows 2000 is still an NT based OS. In no way will it stand a chance to run on POS Windows 98/ME even if you circumvent the OS check because the binaries just won't run on a POS OS like Windows 98/ME.

[RJARRRPCGP]

There is a reason those games are written for Windows 2000/XP only!! It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to piece of junk Windows 98/ME

for xp maybe YES, but for win2k better say NO, lot's user having Virtual Memory issue on win2k (cause win2k never designed to play a game lol)

but still "i lov'in it" (no Mc Donald's Advertisement here)

the word "junk" is something funny, example :

we all know "junk food" was and it still "eat-able"

so the OS, when it is junk, doesn't mean it can't being use

Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on the same OS kernel, so both should run games well. Windows XP may run games better than 2K, but Windows 2K is still light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME when it comes to modern PC gaming.

I dare any of the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers to try and find out that the EA Sports 2006 games won't stand a chance to run on junker Windows 98/ME.

But, that's probably because EA is lazy. Also, EA likely put an arbitrary OS check so that it refuses to run just because of the OS version being reported! LOL! Even GTA: San Andreas reportedly can work under Windows 98 SE! There probably was just a stupid OS check in the installer for the game. If you ask me, that's retarded! Just like when some installers refuse to continue just because you don't have Internet Explorer! LOL once again!

Also, with some games by Microsoft, (no major surprise) the package says that Windows XP is required! Says that it won't run even under Windows 2000! But it's likely an arbitrary OS check. It it's an arbitrary OS check, then it will run under Windows 2000 if you lie to it that the OS is Windows XP! Likely just by telling the application that the version number is 5.1.

It's likely that they refuse to let you play the game just because of the OS version number being reported being less than 5.1!

There are ways around the OS check. However, there is NO way any of those EA Games will run on junker Windows 98/ME because Windows 98/ME are so different from Windows 2000/XP. You can run Battlefield 2 on Windows 2000 even though it only supports Windows XP because Windows 2000 is still an NT based OS. In no way will it stand a chance to run on POS Windows 98/ME even if you circumvent the OS check because the binaries just won't run on a POS OS like Windows 98/ME.

OK, but now I'm definitely p***** that people are planning to make applications refuse to run under Windows 2000! Also, Skype is crippled under Windows 2000! According to Skype, the video chat feature requires Windows XP! That sucks for people that like Windows 2000.

I'm testing Windows 2000 Pro with the FDV fileset on the PC I have with the most powerful processor. (A7N8X-X with Athlon XP Barton 3000+ OC'ed to around 2.4 Ghz) (I plan to go higher) It uses less resources than Windows XP, even when nLite'ed!

[prathapml]

Calm down everyone.

This topic never ends, NT -vs- 9x keeps on coming up repeatedly, its getting boring now!

[EchoNoise]

9x vs NT

Windows vs Unix

Windows vs Mac

Mac vs Unix

DRM vs no-DRM

Ketchup vs Catsup

Apples vs Oranges

Potato Potatoe

Tomato Tomatoe

LETS CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!!!!!!! B)

Edited March 29, 2006 by undeadsoldier

[Thunderbolt 2864]

No offense, I think this NT vs 9x crap is getting old. Of course, most people would say that the NT kernel has more advantages, no use to compare which one is better. 9x is old, of course it doesn't have much advanced features, why even bother criticising it. Personally I liked both kernels, but I prefer the NT kernel. Though the 9x kernel loads much faster, so both kernels has their advantages and disadvantages.

[Link21]

No offense, I think this NT vs 9x crap is getting old. Of course, most people would say that the NT kernel has more advantages, no use to compare which one is better. 9x is old, of course it doesn't have much advanced features, why even bother criticising it. Personally I liked both kernels, but I prefer the NT kernel. Though the 9x kernel loads much faster, so both kernels has their advantages and disadvantages.

Windows NT kernel is so much better than 9X you can't even compare the two. The 9X kernel is just a shell around 16-bit DOS with 32-bit extensions. The 9X kernel should have died a long long time ago. It was absolutely disgusting to see high end quality hardware like the GeForce 6XXX series video cards, the Radeon 9600 series and higher video cards, the NForce 3 chipset, and some high end games and other software support POS Windows 98/ME.

This is my own thread about how bad Windows 9X is, and I thought it was completely ok to bash it as long as it was in my own thread and I did not hijack a Windows 9X thread to do it?

Edited March 29, 2006 by Link21

[wizardofwindows]

You started your own thread just to bash 9x what a meathead.lol.who waisted their time worring about what os is better usually newbies do that.The latest os is always better because of support and we all know most appilication are tested and geared to run on the newest os if they choose to support 9x i guess they wanta get every dollar on the 8% of people still running 9x.if u use 98se and u just run apps that u like geared for 9x and surf i guess its all u need and if your a techo geek you alreay tryed vista 5432 ctp.besides eveyone knows that every new os outshines the past one so waisting your time preaching to 98 user that dont wanta change upgrade cause they dont use their pc much is just pointess,And you know a forums designed to help people not run down a os you are so lame.Go play your turbo grafix 16 and have a nice day . Edited March 29, 2006 by timeless

[Link21]

You started your own thread just to bash 9x what a meathead.lol.who waisted their time worring about what os is better usually newbies do that.The latest os is always better because of support and we all know most appilication are tested and geared to run on the newest os if they choose to support 9x i guess they wanta get every dollar on the 8% of people still running 9x.if u use 98se and u just run apps that u like geared for 9x and surf i guess its all u need and if your a techo geek you alreay tryed vista 5432 ctp.besides eveyone knows that every new os outshines the past one so waisting your time preaching to 98 user that dont wanta change upgrade cause they dont use their pc much is just pointess,And you know a forums designed to help people not run down a os you are so lame.Go play your turbo grafix 16 and have a nice day .

It is because I hate it that certain software still supports it. I want software to be native Windows NT only for better performance and stability.

[I_Broke_My_MHZ]

Link21 makes a dumb argument.

[Daemonforce]

It may be dumb but it remains valid. I laugh every time this thread gets bumped to the top. Every one of his posts remind me of the mighty Gene Ray.