Go To Hell Microsoft

Starman Ghost · Post by **Starman Ghost** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:11 am

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008 ... ndows.html

The go through versions too fast. It'll probably be shit.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:28 am

Quibble: It's NT 7-point-WTF, but it's not the 7th version of Windows.

Hell, there's a dozen versions just counting the MS-DOS GUI Windowses... Windii... Windees... whatever.

It's not even the 7th major NT revision, since NT started at 3.1.

Post by **odditude** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:50 am

apparently, it's not even NT 7, but NT 6.1. maybe it's 7th if you count 3.1, 95, 98, me, 2000, xp, vista, 7..?

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:35 am

odditude wrote:apparently, it's not even NT 7, but NT 6.1. maybe it's 7th if you count 3.1, 95, 98, me, 2000, xp, vista, 7..?

1: 3.1
2: 95
3: 98
4: ME
5: 2000
6: XP
7: Vista
8: 7

Like that?

Omit 2000 and it works, but... it's iffy. Especially since XP is NT 5.1(2K is NT 5.0)
I'd also do 3.x, and score the whole 3 family, similar to 95+ and service packs.

alexz721 · Post by **alexz721** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:43 am

I think everyone would like to forget ME existed.

Post by **odditude** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:51 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
odditude wrote:apparently, it's not even NT 7, but NT 6.1. maybe it's 7th if you count 3.1, 95, 98, me, 2000, xp, vista, 7..?
1: 3.1
2: 95
3: 98
4: ME
5: 2000
6: XP
7: Vista
8: 7

Like that?

Omit 2000 and it works, but... it's iffy. Especially since XP is NT 5.1(2K is NT 5.0)
I'd also do 3.x, and score the whole 3 family, similar to 95+ and service packs.

wewps, meant to exclude 2000

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:58 am

haha winders

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:17 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:Omit 2000 and it works, but... it's iffy. Especially since XP is NT 5.1(2K is NT 5.0)
I'd also do 3.x, and score the whole 3 family, similar to 95+ and service packs.

You do know that NT 3.x, 4.x, Windows 2000, Windows server xxxx etc. are all Server Operating Systems and thats why they are not included? 3.11 is possibly a "server" O/S because it is designed for Workgroups, not for the home user >.>

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:40 am

franpa wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:Omit 2000 and it works, but... it's iffy. Especially since XP is NT 5.1(2K is NT 5.0)
I'd also do 3.x, and score the whole 3 family, similar to 95+ and service packs.
You do know that NT 3.x, 4.x, Windows 2000, Windows server xxxx etc. are all Server Operating Systems and thats why they are not included? 3.11 is possibly a "server" O/S because it is designed for Workgroups, not for the home user >.>

You do know that NT 3.x, NT 4.x, and Windows 2000 are all the direct predecessors of XP, Vista, and 7, right? That the 9x code base has been totally abandoned? That the entire world runs NT now?

Also: you mean business OS. The NT/2K-branded ones were also available in a workstation flavor(known as "Professional" in 2K), and 2K was a popular enthusiast OS.

Windows 3.11 also isn't an OS. Just like any other non-NT Windows before 95.

Are you through trying to nitpick me? Especially on a comment I never made?
I was just saying it wasn't the 7th version of Windows, and it's not the 7th version of Windows NT even though it carries the NT7 version number.

The closest I got was pointing out that if you score Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 as a collective 3.x, it becomes arguable that 2000 and XP should be treated similarly, as NT5 and NT5.1.

Post by **odditude** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:03 am

pedantic history lesson:

pre-split lines - 1.x, 2.x, 3.x

"consumer" - 95 (4.0), 98 (4.1), Me (4.9)

"business" - NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000 (NT 5.0)

post-split lines - XP (5.1), XP x64 (5.2), Vista (6.0), "7" (6.1, apparently)

server - NT 4.0, 2000 (NT 5.0), 2003 (5.2), 2008 (6.0), "2008 R2" (6.1 apparently)

DancemasterGlenn · Post by **DancemasterGlenn** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:39 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote: 1: 3.1
2: 95
3: 98
4: ME
5: 2000
6: XP
7: Vista
8: 7

Like that? :P

Maybe if we start the count at zero...? It's all straight over my head.

neo_bahamut1985 · Post by **neo_bahamut1985** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:09 am

It can't possibly be as bad as ME, as in "Mistake Edition". The more OSes Microsoft makes, the less compatible and less user friendly they become....I'm stopping at XP SP3 and won't get Vista. And yes, they do go through versions too fast and yes, it'll probably be crap. The other NT, etc OSes are even real OSes IMHO, and I still don't know how they call Windows 7 "the seventh version of Windows".

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:11 am

neo_bahamut1985 wrote:It can't possibly be as bad as ME, as in "Mistake Edition".

ME works a lot better if you have the right drivers.
The thing no one mentions is... it wasn't SUPPOSED to work with Win9x drivers. A lot of it's problems are tied to the fact that there's no ME drivers for hardware.

Though really, ME was always intended as a stopgap release. Had the compatibility layer feature been ready, MS had intended to roll 2K over and make it the consumer-level OS too. But it wasn't, so it wasn't.

The more OSes Microsoft makes, the less compatible and less user friendly they become....

Yup, that's right. Good ol' MS-DOS sure is user-friendly. Who needs silly inconveniences like GUIs and plug and play hardware?

That's really a somewhat absurd claim to make. Each OS supports a different RANGE of compatibility, but I can't think of one that's genuinely LESS compatible than another.

Maybe 2K/XP VS 9x, but really... what do you expect when you totally change code bases? The fact that most stuff worked was a testament to how well MS had planned the transition.

And just within Windows... the user-friendliness has been going up constantly, with Vista's paranoia being a minor setback.

I'm stopping at XP SP3 and won't get Vista. And yes, they do go through versions too fast and yes, it'll probably be crap.

Gee, and before Vista people were bitching about how XP was getting old and needed an update.

Let's compare:
XP came out in October, 2001. It was replaced by Vista in January 2007. That's 5 years and some months.
In that time, there have been four major revisions of MacOS(10.1 through 10.4).

And SIX Ubuntu releases. But Ubuntu didn't START until October 04. If we extrapolate that release schedule back to 2001, at 2 releases per year... that's a rate that would've generated TWELVE releases, if they had existed at the time of XP's launch.
Talk about going through versions...

So tell me... Windows goes through versions too fast as opposed to WHAT?

And there's still plenty of time for 7 to get delayed, though it's about time for the next big thing to come along.

The other NT, etc OSes are even real OSes IMHO, and I still don't know how they call Windows 7 "the seventh version of Windows".

All the NT releases are full OSes, yes.
As for whether anyone sane would choose NT 3.5 over XP, or even Vista...

ZH/Franky · Post by **ZH/Franky** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:23 am

The three best operating systems in the world are Linux (any decent distro), openbsd, and Windows XP.
Windows XP was Microsoft's last good OS. They fucked up with Vista, and I don't have much faith that Windows 7 will be any good either.

If you ask me, MS needs to ditch Vista, Windows 7, and go back to their current XP/2000 codebase, and improve upon that, rather than constantly reinvent the wheel.

If I'm still using Windows in another 10 years from today, I will still be using XP.

kode54 · Post by **kode54** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:32 am

Franky wrote:If you ask me, MS needs to ditch Vista, Windows 7, and go back to their current XP/2000 codebase, and improve upon that, rather than constantly reinvent the wheel.

You really think they start over from scratch with each release?

ZH/Franky · Post by **ZH/Franky** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:38 am

kode54 wrote:
Franky wrote:If you ask me, MS needs to ditch Vista, Windows 7, and go back to their current XP/2000 codebase, and improve upon that, rather than constantly reinvent the wheel.
You really think they start over from scratch with each release?

Well no, not really. But with each new release of Windows, there are things that get changed for the sake of changing them. Change is good, but only within reason.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:13 am

first, thank you gil for putting neo bahamut in his place.

and franky, shut up. xp had it's share of faults, including having internet explorer directly tied into the kernel, or something like that.

ZH/Franky · Post by **ZH/Franky** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:48 am

sweener2001 wrote:and franky, shut up.

yes mum

including having internet explorer directly tied into the kernel

yeah, nlite; http://www.nliteos.com
let's you remove ie completely, before you even install windows.

gllt · Post by **gllt** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:48 am

adventure_of_link wrote:haha winders

Demios · Post by **Demios** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:38 am

Starman Ghost wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008 ... ndows.html

The go through versions too fast. It'll probably be shit.

Waaaah hate the mega-corporation, waaaaah. There are alternatives, quit fucking whining.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:15 am

Franky wrote: If you ask me, MS needs to ditch Vista, Windows 7, and go back to their current XP/2000 codebase, and improve upon that, rather than constantly reinvent the wheel.

They... DID.
Vista is based on XP.

If I'm still using Windows in another 10 years from today, I will still be using XP.

And your hardware will be 8 years old, because anything newer isn't supported by XP. Awesome.

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:12 pm

uh, a few things:

1) glit, gil_hamilton was posting what to call windows so..

2) I thought IE was always integrated fully integrated into windows, at least since win98?

and 3) wasn't vista hugely re-written?

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:32 pm

Vista uses a newer revision to the same kernal as XP.

Post by **odditude** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:48 pm

adventure_of_link wrote:2) I thought IE was always integrated fully integrated into windows, at least since win98?

or win95 with ie4 installed. on the NT side, it started with 2k.

adventure_of_link wrote:and 3) wasn't vista hugely re-written?

franpa wrote:Vista uses a newer revision to the same kernel as XP.

...which, in turn, uses a newer revision of the same kernel in 2000, and then NT4, and then NT3.51, etc etc...

that doesn't mean it's not a significant rewrite, which it actually is. it's 6.0 and not 5.5 for a reason, folks - largely, microsoft is pretty good with their internal windows version numbering, even if the marketing folks blow it all to hell.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:49 pm

Franky wrote: yeah, nlite; http://www.nliteos.com
let's you remove ie completely, before you even install windows.

a third party tool that most people have never heard of doesn't count, moron

ZSNES board

Go To Hell Microsoft

Go To Hell Microsoft

Re: Got To Hell Microsoft