Printable View
That struck me as rather funny...technically, didn't someone else create DOS, not Microsoft? If so, then Microsoft has yet to build a very stable OS...Quote:
Originally posted by Illuminati@17 June 2003 - 21:52
...But yeah, I don't really know an OS that Microsoft have built that's significantly stable...apart from MS-DOS...
Well Said!Quote:
The day that Microsoft produce a product that does not suck is the day they produce a vacuum cleaner.
It amazes me that members of this forum(with all the information that's here) still think that piece of spyware/adware longhorn crap is a good OS.
OMG!
With Pavlovian attitude's like ones I'm reading here towards Microsoft products they aren't going to have much of a problem implementing this evil software called Longhorn.
XP lovers:
Did you know that XP sends out all kinds of info about you (without asking your permission) unless you stop it via a firewall or something.
Chances are you won't even be aware of it unless your running a firewall.
:rolleyes:
WUTEVER U DO DUNT GO TO LONGHORN BETA....i had it for one day HAS LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTS OF BUGZ IN IT and if u wana go back to windows xP...welll itz complicated...the xp cd thinks u hav a better version of windows so u cnat install it so u hav to change ur compatibility to win 2000 but if u do that ur folders and evrthing gets fuked so i HIGHLY reccomend u dunt get longhorn.... ;)
You know what would make me really happy, would be if Microsoft would swallow some pride and just write the next windows from the ground up instead of writing ontop of the previous peice of sh*t. I mean yeah I like XP, but it is written ontop of 2000 (another good OS) but that was written ontop of ME which is a peice.
I am no expert on this kinda stuff, but it just makes sense the the bugs from 3.1 still exist in operating systems that have been written ontop of it.
buddy u need to no whts going on outside ur own little world and for ur message title no u cant type whatever u want in here. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by ultimatejester+19 June 2003 - 16:20--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ultimatejester @ 19 June 2003 - 16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cl1mh4224rd@19 June 2003 - 07:50
Beta? Hell, it was still an alpha version the last time I checked...
Yeah, umm... as was said before: Proof, please.
I may be in my own world, but I don't take some lamer's misuse of the word "beta" as official Microsoft confirmation. Maybe I'm not the one who needs to know what's going on... ;)
Oh, and... you sooo fuuunnnyyy... *giggles* :rolleyes:
Umm... Windows ME came out after Windows 2000 (I believe).Quote:
Originally posted by toddiscool@21 June 2003 - 06:47
I mean yeah I like XP, but it is written ontop of 2000 (another good OS) but that was written ontop of ME which is a peice.
Windows 2000 is based off of the NT kernel. Windows XP is a further advancement of the NT family.
Windows ME is based off of the Windows 9x kernel, which is being put to rest.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistor...ProGraphic.mspx
Windows 2000 wasn't in any way related to Windows ME.
NT was released in 1993, long before even windows 95 had been heard of. It was in no way compatable with desktop windows in it's early days.
Despite growing pains, it's still a very viable OS obviously as all future builds of windows are based on it. The next server version will be Blackcomb ( in keeping with the pisstank developers love of the Whistler B.C. resort area ). No release date yet.
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO - Oct. 27, 1998 - Microsoft Corp. today announced at a press conference in San Francisco that the next major release of the Microsoft® Windows NT® operating system line of products - the most significant update to Windows NT ever - will be named Windows® 2000. This announcement reflects the continuing and substantial marketplace momentum driving Windows NT-based products into the mainstream for millions of business customers worldwide.
Quote:
Windows NT was first released five years ago as a specialized operating system for technical and business needs,
Quote:
Microsoft formed what was to become the development team for Windows NT in 1988 with the goal of developing a thoroughly modern, fully 32-bit, robust, multipurpose operating system. The first versions of Windows NT - Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1 - were released in July 1993. Those first products featured a new micro-kernel operating system architecture, pre-emptive multitasking scheduler, the fault-tolerant file system of Windows NT, multiprocessor support, the 32-bit Windows-based architecture, powerful domain-level security, file and print services, and more.
All the microsoft OS's were written one on top of the other (I do conceide that I know very little about kernels, and about software writing, hell I even got the order they came out in wrong) but point remaining that everythin is written on top of the one before it. If it were taken from the ground up I fell that even microsot could build stable, and attractive OS.
Forgive me if this discussion is out of my League (I do concede that this is not my forte) but just what I have gathered with little research.
I don't suppose any one would have a link handy for that windows v1.0 pictured in the link above?
Prefferably on cassette tape lol !
With a product key sticker still on it would be even better!
I've only ever seen a picture of the beast once.
Here is Windows 1.01. It's a 1.44MB image file that boots to Win1.
http://toastytech.com/guis/win101logo.gif
(edit: typos)