Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Rants
Topic: Micros~1 bashing
started by: Happyfish

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 03 2000,15:28

Why do some people really, truly hate Microsoft? Because they do what they do well?
I honestly think that Windows lately is VERY stable and is very easy to install and use.
So what's the problem? Just because MS has set a standard and has almost everyone's support (hardware vendors, software developers) we should hate them? I'm not saying I love MS, but there's no need to hate them.

Posted by Kolben on Jun. 03 2000,19:57

I don't hate Microsoft because they made windows. Windows is actually very good, but I hate them because of their marketing strategies. Promoting their products by threats and shit like that.

Remember the thing with Compaq for instance. Not that I like them either, but Microsoft ordered Compaq not to install netscape on the computers they sold. And if they didn't obey they wouldn't be allowed to install windows on them. It's that sort of things Microsoft has done that pisses me off. And there's alot of other stories like that.

Windows is still the most developed OS around. That actual humans knows how to operate. If I told my girlfriend to boot into linux she'd go crazy and start kicking the computer...But she can actually handle windows!

[This message has been edited by Kolben (edited June 03, 2000).]

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 03 2000,19:59

I agree 100\%, MS has become a symbol and all the people who are like "down with the man" and now saying down with microsoft...sure theyve done some bad things, but very few corporations as large as that haven't, The only company i can think of with a spotless reputation is Sony, they make good products that last and work well without overcosting you. Just about every other company has problems, just like just about every human being has problems. People needa shut up about it.

Posted by HaxoRus on Jun. 04 2000,00:44

Sony's rep has a spot! I was on a different site reading this review about some stupid band, and I think on one of the pics of the cover said something about being copyrighted by Sony. I can't really tell because it's tiny. I think this is the link, let me see if I can figure out how to do this again.

< http://www.zeromotion.com/puppy.shtml >

Posted by HaxoRus on Jun. 04 2000,00:44

damnit I feel smart for noticing that! and the link worked!

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 04 2000,07:36

Just because they produced a bad CD doesnt mean they have a spot, record contracts are about taking chances on groups who might not last, so you cant judge the recording company if the group sucks...now if the cd had broken apart or something, that would be an entirely different matter

Posted by HaxoRus on Jun. 04 2000,10:02

don't ruin my roll Sithee... I see your point. I was just kidding around mostly. But concerning Microsoft, I am sure it's hard to be a successful company when you have so many people after you, government and other companies and such.

Posted by Kolben on Jun. 04 2000,11:18

Yup! It's hard to get to be such a big company without stepping on peoples toes. I still don't like Microsoft for the stuff they did. But I like windows...

Posted by Teflon on Jun. 04 2000,12:38

Windows has NEVER been fucking stable for me. 3.1, 95, and right now 98 Second Edition have all screwed me over in some way or another. I would be running another platform but for fear of less game compatibility.

Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 04 2000,14:14

That's not likely to be the fault of the Windows operating system, the majority of problems people who have Windows machines experience are due to poorly written device drivers and software, not the Windows operating system. If you are careful about what software you install, and maintain your system well, and use hardware with good quality drivers, you aren't likely to have many problems. I keep my machine well maintained, and in the past month, I have had only one or two Illegal operations, one BSOD, and no system freezes. The BSOD was because I installed some new hardware and hadn't properly removed the old hardware drivers due to a poorly done uninstall program. While I don't condone some of Microsoft's tactics, it still is rather stupid to rant against them; they are only trying to make a profit like any other business, and it has nothing to do with being good or evil, just getting a larger profit margin.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Posted by Sithiee 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.

Posted by TeKno 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 :)

Posted by Kolben 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

Posted by jptech 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

Posted by Sithiee 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...

Posted by Kayy 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.

Posted by BM_Ray 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

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 06 2000,12:14

the reason that some programs in 311 would fail from the command line is that the drivers that supported them where not installed untill 311 started. (the start of the dreded dll file)

9x machines dont boot to dos. That is a fail condition. it is worthless without the rest of the files that 9x loads for its command line. this you can get around.

NT is more stable but you pay the price in flexability. Its like todays fighters. Very flexable and compleatly unstable.

NT5 is just a nightmare looking for a place to happen. It is just M$ way of making you buy all new M$ products because nothing you have works well on the new os. Its not stable enough as a server, yet, and it does not play well with others.
IMHO, it sucks.
Long live tux!

------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 06 2000,12:16

the reason that some programs in 311 would fail from the command line is that the drivers that supported them where not installed untill 311 started. (the start of the dreded dll file)

9x machines dont boot to dos. That is a fail condition. it is worthless without the rest of the files that 9x loads for its command line. this you can get around.

NT is more stable but you pay the price in flexability. Its like todays fighters. Very flexable and compleatly unstable.

------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)

Posted by jim on Jun. 06 2000,12:28

MicroSoft all the way baby! And Win2k Server, just kicks ass as a web server. Sure we are waiting on drivers, but the OS as a whole kicks serious ass!!!

------------------
jim
< Brews and Cues >

Posted by BM_Ray on Jun. 06 2000,12:50

"9x machines dont boot to dos. That is a fail condition. it is worthless without the rest of the files that 9x loads for its command line. this you can get around."

Not true, Wolfguard.
This is good old Dos as it once was. (somewhat) You can even rig up your machine to boot straight to dos by messing with your msdos.sys file.
While windows will give you errors out the wazoo if you simply delete your windows dir, when your PC boots up, The Dos prompt you have will still work perfectly fine. You won't be able to run any windows stuff, but that's because it's dos!

Porn For the Masses!

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 06 2000,13:44

somewhat

bout says it all.

------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)

Posted by kuros- on Jun. 06 2000,14:34

Personally my probelm with MS is the explorer shell - it truely sucks. Linux doesn't do anything for me so I've ended up running MS with Litestep.
Litestep even makes it faster and more stable as well for a bonus ?

Posted by Kayy on Jun. 06 2000,16:55

oh man, another LiteStep groupie.. I had that once, it crashed my pc as soon as my machine hit 100\% CPU usage (every time it booted, for example), the reason why? SysTray.

as soon as I disable SysTray, everything is fine and dandy, but how in all hell are you gonna do anything without a systray?
e.g. ICQ starts in the systray and not windowed, useless without the systray.
e.g. Sound settings cant easily be accessed because, quelle suprise, the quickest way is through the systray.

Need I go on?

-----

On another note, Jim, Win98 comes with PWS4, so you dont need to spend another 躔~ to get a "special OS" specifically for it.
Win98 is supported by most, if not all, hardware manufacturers for the PC.
Win98 has major game support, if you run NT, its highly likely you'll hardly get a game running, nevermind at the speed you want it to, even on your beast of a machine.

Once again, need I go on?

-----

The flaws are endless, yet the money still goes in M$'s pockets at the end of the day.

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 07 2000,00:24

First of all, I'm somewhat surprised so many people like microsoft! (or at least windows)
But anyway, I was just gonna say that I use, and recommend Windows Commander as a shell. (not a replacement GUI, just a file program)

It's kinda like a FTP client (and can be used as one as well). It also supports ZIP, LHA, ARJ, ACE, CAB files..etc. I rarely use DOS anymore because of it. Plus it's pretty easy to find a crack for it..

[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited June 06, 2000).]

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 07 2000,02:01

I have(had?) a book somewhere that explains how to use command.com as a shell replacement to explorer. So..the Kernel is running allowing full 32-bit DOS, long filenames etc. I think it may have had a way to multitask/task switch too...not sure.

Posted by Kolben on Jun. 07 2000,04:29

BM_Ray, you will still need some external dos programs, because win 9x-DOS /DOS 7+ installs it's program files in windows\command\

so if you delete the windows dir you won't be able to do anything. This means the format / deltree / fdisk

So only the native commands are usable. That's the copy / del / md / cd / : / rd and perhaps a few more.

Posted by Firefox on Jun. 07 2000,20:17

I agree that Microsoft is being picked on, to a certain extent. I wish that their OS'es were more stable, and didn't gobble up the amount of system resources that they do, but hey, whatcha gonna do, besides installing some difficult-to-use operating system that dosen't support a lot of software?

Aside from that, I really like most Microsoft products. Their productivity software (Word, Publisher) are good, their games are actually getting good (Age of Kings, Motocross Madness 2), and even their hardware is good (their Force Feedback stick is nice, and I still use my 3 year-old Sidewinder game pad. It's the best).

Sounds like it will be split into two pieces-the operating system as one company, and everything else as another. What do I see happening? Personally, I really think that someone will end up buying the operating system piece, possibly even the other half of Microsoft... although the government may forbid that from happening... meaning there will be a company immune to takeovers of any kind? How is that going to work? Won't that be against government "business equality" policies?

The government is opening up a can of worms. This could very well turn out poorly in the end.

-Firefox

-------------------------------------------
"This could very well turn out poorly in the end." -Firefox
-------------------------------------------

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 07 2000,21:13

that wont happen, bill gates will own one of em, most likely the OS, and after ten years, theyre gonna be allowed to re-merge, unless of course they win their appeal, which i hope they do. if microsoft goes down, its very likely so will most of the industry...jackson is a fucking dumbass....antitrust laws were for protection for things like steel industry....no matter what you do, steel is fucking steel, an OS is one of the most specific businesses there is, no one could make an os thats as easy to program for at the price and stableness...or if they could, they would have already...this judge needs to think about whats good for the industry as a whole.

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 07 2000,23:57

quote:
Originally posted by BM_Ray:
command.com is a new version Old DOS command interpreter, and windows 95/98 runs on top of that.

Sorry to be picky, but not quite true. Command.com is just a command interpreter, it's just the prompt ( C:\> )that you see and type stuff into, it's not DOS. But I'm sure you knew that. Plus Windows doesn't really run on top of it. Windows is 32-bit. DOS is generally 16-bit. Windows is it's own operating system, though it does 'clunk' down to 16-bit DOS calls when accessing files. I don't think that's true on a FAT 32 file system though. (Forgive me if I'm not quite accurate - rusty on the internal workings of Windows)

[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited June 07, 2000).]

Posted by BM_Ray on Jun. 08 2000,05:48

Of course you still need extrenal programs! Doesn't EVERY operating system need external programs? I mean, what's the point of having an OS if you don't have any software for it?

but these extrenal programs can be anything from an old partition magic to the original quake. my statement is that command.com is a new version Old DOS command interpreter, and windows 95/98 runs on top of that. You can delete your entire windows directory and DOS will still run fine. It won't run any better/worse because it's missing fdisk/format/sys/edit (though it would suck not to have these)

Posted by Kolben on Jun. 08 2000,09:34

Sithiee have you tried booting you computer up DOS-mode using win9x?? That IS DOS! And it comes with win9x, so they something to do with each other. It's called DOS 7.0 on my computer. And saying that the command prompt isn't DOS can be discussed. Maybe the routines are different, but it's still the same commands, and the same way of using it. And it's still M$, so I'd say that it's just another version of DOS. It's a bit like saying "workbench for the amiga emulator isn't workbench". Or Quake for linux isn't Quake. The command prompt is DOS for windows!

Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 08 2000,10:59

The dos mode that is supplied with Win98 is not a stand alone operating system, but you can have both DOS (the operating system) and Windows installed on the same machine.

Comparing the stability of a GUI based operating system with a command line operating system is like comparing apples with oranges. GUI's have many more device drivers that need to be loaded, hence much more chance of conflicts. If DOS had to load as many device drivers etc. as Windows, I bet it would crash just about as frequently.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 08 2000,11:20

im thinking that Bill owns the sorce code for everthing at M$. the doj will split the co but bill will still own the code so he wont lose any money. if anything he will make more. it will be like a stock split for him and there will be a new IPO for the new company. I just dont see the point of this.

How about names for the new company?
something like
Fuck you DOJ Inc.
suck this split you fuckers Inc.
you think the gov will get any breaks on software now you fucks Inc.

If i was bill i would use a name like one of the above.

------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)

Posted by Kayy on Jun. 08 2000,12:29

quote:
Originally posted by Hellraiser:
The dos mode that is supplied with Win98 is not a stand alone operating system, but you can have both DOS (the operating system) and Windows installed on the same machine.

Uhhh... Yeah, but On the win 9x variant of Windows, you need DOS before you can get to windows, thats why if you hit F8 when it says "Starting Windows..." you get a boot-menu, one of the options (usually 5) boots direct to the dos prompt, and it is DOS btw, not just an emulation of it.

As for NT, there is no boot-menu, there is no underlying DOS, not that I've been able to get to anyway.

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 08 2000,17:35

command.com just stored the commands you used in dos, they were stored in a file like that, and it was supposed to prevent people from fucking up their computers. 9x and NT do not run over dos, they have jack to do with it. when you get the command prompt, you are accessing a subroutine of 9x/NT. this is why a lot of dos games dont work so well on 9x/NT, and why when people started making games for 9x/NT, you couldnt run a lot in 3.1...thats the only reason i upgraded, after a while, there were no games for 3.1 anymore, and i still sorta wish i hadnt upgraded.

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 09 2000,01:17

If one really finds DOS necessary, just install 6.22 on another partition...or use freedos (no support for LBA drives)

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 09 2000,18:22

first, 6.22 was the last true dos, after that MS started ignoring it like a bastard child, its now called command prompt, and it is not standalone. you dont install windows 9x from dos, although you can if you want. when you install 9x, you install what some of you seem to think is DOS, but its just a part of windows, when you quit it, and it says "starting windows" it really means finishing, but that would confuse some of the less l33t users, although it seems to have confused people anyway. if you dont believe me, uninstall windows, and then try to load up DOS, it wont fucking work. let me sum up -
After 3.1x, windows was no longer run over dos, rather dos was run under windows, if you really dont trust my l33tness, you can fucking query MS about it. It does make sense though, considering the incredible loss of stability from 3.1x(over DOS) to 95(not over DOS)...

jesus people, look shit up

Posted by Kolben on Jun. 09 2000,19:15

Take a break Sithiee. I think you're overheating.

Why is DOS 7.0 not DOS? What is the thing on the startup disk you can create. What is in the files Msdos.sys and io.sys?

It's like saying Windows 95 is not Windows because it runs in 32 bit. And Windows 3.1 doesn't. DOS 7.0 is DOS. It's just another version. And DOS 7.0 is supplied with Win95.

I'm not saying that win9x needs DOS, I'm saying that DOS is a provided option. My old does games (those that doesn't work in the command prompt) are running fine when I boot my computer up in the DOS provided with Win9x. I don't really care what you think though. It works perfectly, and has never crashed on me once. It's perfectly stable. Why should they make it less stable than the previous one?

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 10 2000,03:27

my point was that 9x does not in any way run over DOS, and it doesnt run a true DOS, in the way that DOS was a completely independant OS. When windows ran over DOS, it was more stable, so when they changed, it was less stable.

i am sorta overheating today, ive been assaulted by so many stupid people today, it just hurts my brain. someone actually tried to convince me that there was no possible way at all a car would explode if hit in the side by a truck. his argument was "have you ever even seen a car crash?"...I HATE DUMB PEOPLE...sorry, wrong rant..bye

Posted by cycosis on Jun. 10 2000,03:29

i wanna know a few things. if microsoft release an os, don't they have the right to make it install anything they want by default? i admit that the way they did it wasn't the best possible way, but i am still unsure as to what they are done that would bring about an anti-trust lawsuit. however, if i ever want to become a |33+ $cr1p7 /<1dd13 hax0r3, i must take up an immediate opposition to everything microsoft, and install freebsd, spending my days looking at a shell prompt. no desktop environment for me...

[This message has been edited by cycosis (edited June 09, 2000).]

Posted by Dan on Jun. 11 2000,13:55

Windows 98SE is very stable for me. But i've spent a month or two a while back fucking with it. I screwed with the registry, a bunch of norton utilities and some other stuff. Now I almost never crash, the only crashes i'll experience are an occational application crash, but the OS stays up and running.

I've herd great things about both Windows 2000 and Windows ME. Maby Microsoft has got its act together?

Posted by BM_Ray on Jun. 11 2000,14:41

Two more of my cents...

I just read a whole bunch of comments, I don't remeber from who, but:

1 :) You say that the command.com isn't DOS...well how isn't it DOS? It can do anything that regular DOS can do.

2 :) To whomever said "it's just a command interpreter" then are you saying that a DOS 6.22 boot disk with only command.com isn't really DOS either, just a command interpreter.

3 :) Win 98 SE is stable as hell for me.

DAMN SMILEYS!

------------------
-Ray
4 1337 40L h4x0r

[This message has been edited by BM_Ray (edited June 11, 2000).]

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 12 2000,16:16

It is not a stand alone OS like dos 6.22 The good utilities are not there, it is completely stripped of anything dos-like. It can not do all the things old dos can do.

A dos 6.22 boot disk is just a command interpreter. It is not a full OS on a floppy. You are able to point to other things from the command line.

Win 98SE is fine for a box from the factory. When your machine has bolts sticking out of its neck it becomes a tricky thing at best. Ill stick with linux and VM ware. That way if my 98 throws up I just kill the process and restart.

Good luck to all you NT 5 people finding drivers for older hardware. I still run some old stuff and there are no drivers. I wont even go into trying to load it on a new laptop with the correct(hehehehe)drivers.

------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 16 2000,03:12

quote:
Originally posted by BM_Ray:

1 You say that the command.com isn't DOS...well how isn't it DOS? It can do anything that regular DOS can do.
2 To whomever said "it's just a command interpreter" then are you saying that a DOS 6.22 boot disk with only command.com isn't really DOS either, just a command interpreter.

command.com isn't DOS!
MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS is DOS
they load into memory (which you can see by typing 'mem/d/p')
command.com is simply the prompt that you see and type with. It interprets the command and calls the associated routine in MSDOS.SYS. It is the shell between you and DOS.

[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited June 15, 2000).]

Posted by Zamt on Jun. 18 2000,03:30

Gee, no drivers for old hardware in Win2K? Who would have thought that a brand new OS wouldn't have support for old crap? Win2K is not for home use in the first place. It is a server OS, so who gives a shit if it doesn't have support for your SB Pro 16. One of the reasons Windows can be so unstable is that they have support for every damn legacy POS hardware crap that people still use. Buy some new stuff or quit complaining that Win2K doesn't have any support for your Hercules Monocrome video card.

------------------
A day without sunshine, is like, you know, night.

Posted by Kolben on Jun. 18 2000,07:47

Wolfguard...the commands you refer to aren't commands. It's tiny little external programs. And they are located in the windows\command dir. The commands are exactly the same.

And if IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS is DOS then there IS DOS on my computer although I ONLY installed Win98. And it even runs .exe files just like DOS can do. And when trying to run DOS 6.22 specific stuff it says "Wrong version of MSDOS" (translated from danish)

Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 18 2000,09:32

win2k isn't just for servers. I'm uning it as my main OS.. yes driver support for my fairly aging hardware is there, but not excellent.. Chances are that is it's old enough that the manufacturer wont write a driver for win2k, then it's also old enough to be worth practically nothing...

There are some quirks with win2k, and some compatibility quirks, but it's stable as hell.

Posted by neotope on Jun. 18 2000,15:46

I love nothing more then talking to someone who is anti-microsoft and then asking them what OS they use. Of course it is some version of Windows.

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 19 2000,02:02

quote:
Originally posted by DuSTman:
win2k isn't just for servers. I'm uning it as my main OS.. yes driver support for my fairly aging hardware is there, but not excellent.. Chances are that is it's old enough that the manufacturer wont write a driver for win2k, then it's also old enough to be worth practically nothing...
There are some quirks with win2k, and some compatibility quirks, but it's stable as hell.

And slow as hell for running graphic intesive games..

Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 19 2000,06:51

quote:
Originally posted by Happyfish:
And slow as hell for running graphic intesive games..

Yeah.. But i think we'll pretty much have to suck that one down. All future MS osses after ME (but not including) will be based upon windows 2000.. so if there's a speed problem then there'll probably be the same speed problem on all future osses from MS, we we just have to upgrade to speed them back the hell up again..

Or maybe they'll chuck a load of new optimisations in Service packs or something..

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 19 2000,08:35

its not that slow for gaming, my friend runs it on a dual p3 450 system, and it runs really well with quake and UT and such (no, no geforce)

Posted by Happyfish on Jun. 20 2000,03:48

Yeah, but it'd run faster on win 98
Plus win2k likes dual CPUs.