I don't know about you, but don't u think microsoft is bleeding its os for all its worth to make lots of dollars? I mean windows 3x was great and 95 was a great step forward then came 98 which is to date arguably the most stable and best running windows out for the price especially. But then came win me which was crap, there were no cosmetic improvements (granted 98 didn't have any over 95 but that was then when PC's werent as powerful media machines as they where in 2000) whatsoever, ran crapper than win 95 and was scarce of anything innovative or even new... IMO windows me should have been what windows xp is now and longhorn should have been what is now windows xp and blackcomb should be something that would truly revolutionise the day to day use of the PC...
Longhorn: Too little too late
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
OK... first off. Windows98 was good to 3.1, 95, ME... But it pales in comparison to 2000 or XP. Alot of people argue that XP is just 2000 with a little extra bloat but i disagree. 2000 was much more difficult to install to begin with and second of all XP was made to be a desktop OS. It's perfect for basically anything... Ironically though XP does what 95 claimed to be able to do on the box and advertisements :emb: But longhorn will sell. In this coming year your going to be seeing motherboards being sold with better integrated GPUs to handle Longhorns graphic intensive display.. Windows2000 has officially ended normal mainstream support so there's bound to be people looking to upgrade... especially the poor saps with Pentium2 Computer and NT4 (buisnesses)... Home users and enthusiasts will get it "just because".. Microsoft will make more money on ANY OS it releases than i think every active member on this forum will collectively see in their lives.
culubalo said:
Joined
·
6,284 Posts
You sir, have no clue of what you're talking about , Win95 was exactly what Longhorn is today, a massive project ended seeing half of it planned features being removed. Technically, Win98 is what Win95 was planned to be, WinXP is what 2000 was planned to be. BUT, there is a difference with Longhorn, instead of removing the features and putting them into the next OS, they decided to delay them (well, the ones that needed to be) and they'll most likely come with the first Service Pack. All in all, Longhorn in itself isn't what it was all supposed to be, but a few months after its release, it will be.
I'm not questioning the advertisements. I am suggesting that microsoft may not be building their operating systems to there full potentiols on the desktop PC but rather slowing its progress down to make money. ITs like discreet and their once industry standard 3D editing software: 3Ds max...
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
I'm just afraid Microsoft will integrate DRM into everything. Otherwise, I don't think Longhorn will be too bad at all, but it's still too early to tell.
Joined
·
6,964 Posts
Actually Blackcomb is the codename of the Windows to follow Server 2003. Windows 98 is definately NOT the most stable and best running OS. It may be cheap to buy nowadays, I know places where it can still be purchased. Even before Windows 98 came out there was Windows NT4. NT4 was a most excellent OS and still is to this day. It only really lacks modern Directx and USB support. But then again it was never designed for that.
Windows 2000 more difficult to install? I think not. 2000 is just as easy to install as any other Microsoft OS. All it really is, is clicking next a few times and typing a bit of information in. The install does the rest for you.
Windows 2000 more difficult to install? I think not. 2000 is just as easy to install as any other Microsoft OS. All it really is, is clicking next a few times and typing a bit of information in. The install does the rest for you.
Joined
·
26,303 Posts
98 had ingherenat flaws due to the way it was built, not least of all were memory leaks. If you leave you machine on for prolonged periods of time, that becomes an issue. The 9x core bolted on top of DOS is just generally not stable. That's not to say that you can't have a decent experience with it, it's saying that there is a high likelihood compared to the NT O/Ses that it'll keel over and die.
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
As a side note, when you have to to defend yourself multiple times in a thread it usually means you're the minority and I think every dev out there is with me when I say XP is the best developping platform yet.
But Win98 is pretty good if you minus the complete disfuntionability of End Task, its growing stability as your HDD fills up, vunurability to viruses, annoying errors, software issues, missing drivers, dodgy plug-and-play and solitaire.
But Win98 is pretty good if you minus the complete disfuntionability of End Task, its growing stability as your HDD fills up, vunurability to viruses, annoying errors, software issues, missing drivers, dodgy plug-and-play and solitaire.
. You really are desperate for finding flaws aren't you?no, ever since I installed xp I had to system restore like 50 times. I can't explain it in terms software/hardware but heck whatever.
Anyway IMO windows xp is the flaw, and can be fixed with a migration to linux, but thats too scary for me cos I have no clue how linux runs or anything...
Anyway IMO windows xp is the flaw, and can be fixed with a migration to linux, but thats too scary for me cos I have no clue how linux runs or anything...
If you enjoy continuously changing interfaces and hundreds of libraries to choose between that do the same thing (and might be abandoned at any moment). Don't forget the primitive GUI building/code generating tools (glade), stripped libraries (so you can't debug anything), poor (usually outdated and incomplete) developer documentation, and lack of a consumer desktop market for your software.culubalo said:
Compared to Mac OS X with Xcode (plus its NextStep heritage), and even Windows with Microsoft's developer tools (albeit, at high cost), Linux only excels at providing lots of different languages, libraries, and tools to play around with. Good for learning programming, but not as great for getting actual work done.
Granted I still use GNU Emacs for a lot of things (especially Lisp development), but I don't use Linux as my main development platform.
Anyway, it's hard for large companies to innovate. Even Apple has to buy out smaller companies with new ideas to create many of its "innovations" (e.g. iTunes is just a modified version of an earlier third-party product). It also takes years for new software projects to mature, especially when you add drastic new requirements to them (like adding multimedia features to Windows NT to eventually make XP).
It took five years for Mac OS X to mature into Mac OS X Tiger. That's with some of the brightest software developers working with an already complete and very high quality base of code from the NextStep OS.
Don't start making conspiracy theories about Microsoft just because you don't understand the nature of software development.
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Join the discussion
