|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Sithiee 
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 1941
Joined: May 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 04 2000,14:30 |
|
   |
True that, in the 5 years i ran 3.1, i dont remember one time when it crashed, unless you count hitting the reboot button because im to lazy to do it right...95 was pretty unstable for me, but i was also running it on a bad machine...and ive never had 98 crash for no reason, sure it slows down from time to time, but technically its not smart to never restart your computer anyway. NT runs well, and 2000 is supposedly super-stable. I personally dont like Linux cause theres too many variations and not enough support, sure its stable, and its free, but its not what i would call user friendly. The government needs to get off MS' back, but then i suppose thats an entirely different rant.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
TeKno
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 04 2000,15:44 |
|
 |
Correct me if I'm wrong but Windows 3.x was not an operating system. It was like x-windows for linux, just a shell for DOS.The icons just ran DOS commands for you so idiots wouldnt have to read up on shit. You could delete Win3.x and your computer would still run fine, you would just have to use DOS prompt. Try deleting your Windows 9x/2000 directory and see whether your computer still runs?  Ahh the good old days of DOS. Sure times change, but I'd love to see today's Windows-loving citezens sit down and try write a basic batch file or edit their config.sys or autoexec.bat... ahh the good old days  ------------------
Why is Techno better than Alternative? Because Techno = Technology and if you dont move with the Technology you get left behind. Then again, you may enjoy your alternative lifestyle :)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Kolben
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 04 2000,16:48 |
|
|
DOS r0x0red! But still windows 3.1 had some drivers for running 32-bit programs. I remember I needed wing32 to be able run the warcraft2 map editor
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
jptech
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 04 2000,20:20 |
|
|
Win 2K is REAL stable... I've never run an OS as stable as it (yes, including RedHat, Debian, and Mandrake)
I hate 95, I hated 98, I REALLY hated 98SE. 2000 took a long time to get installed, and my DVD player won't work very well under it, but that's the only complaint.
I've had almost a month of uptime now, no great loss in performance (384MB of PC-133 is good for that too!). The only times I've been "required" to reboot is for software installs and when the power went out
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Sithiee
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 1941
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 04 2000,22:51 |
|
|
i dont know if 3.1 actually counted as an OS, but its not just a shell, its somewhere in between, not all things that ran in 3.1 could run in dos, and vice versa...and then when you think about it, DOS doesnt crash...but then again, Gates bought DOS for 50k...bet the writer of it felt pretty dumb later...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Kayy
DetVet
Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2000,18:06 |
|
|
Yeah, Win2k is stable, but it isnt a consumer OS. Win2k isnt the upgrade for the 9x series and was never intended to be, it's just NT5 with a snazzy name, thats why its so stable.NT has a habit of not letting anything directly access the hardware, thus meaning that crashes are few and far between. The consumer OS next on the market is WinME, otherwise known as Millenium Edition, the last upgrade of the 9x series before MS integrate NT and 9x into one mother of an OS that will hopefully be as stable and supported as it should be. The reason I mention support is thus - NT5/Win2K has a very annoying trait, that is of such magnitude that a lot of my friends and aquantences refuse to even look at it, the fact that it has a very limited driver support base, meaning that in most cases, a lot of your newer hardware wont have drivers currently released unless it was bought in the last 2-3wks. I've already explained the differences with 2k and ME to the point where I just dont see the point anymore, so thus, you wont get a post here from me covering the finer points. I will say this though, the NT5/Win2k kernel wouldnt even copy from the cd to my HDD on a clean install on an NTFS drive booted from a boot floppy made from the cd on another machine. Flawed, greatly. ------------------
When darkness calls and the pain and suffering begin again, you can guarantee that I shall be the instigator.
-
Kevin "Kayy" Beadle, The Proprietor and Innovator of Kayyos-Vx WebDesigns.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
BM_Ray
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2000,11:34 |
|
|
Bah! TeKno, You're wrong.True, Win 3.x or whatever required DOS to run, but it wasn't just a pretty little DOS GUI. Programs were written specifially for it, and if you tried to run them in DOS, they wouldn't work. And do you know what happens if you delete your windows (95 or 98) direcotries? You computer Boots up to good old Dos. Bah! (however since NT is a much better OS and doesn't run on top of DOS, you can't do that with NT. ------------------
-Ray
4 1337 40L h4x0r
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
|
|
|
