Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 ... Last
[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 13:59:13 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I'm starting to forget...

There's Windows for Workstations, the shell around MS-DOS. I can't recall the official version for that.

Then there's Windows 3.(something? 5?) that was Windows NT with the Windows for Workstation appearance. It was really, really weird.

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 14:03:55 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Wikipedia says the 16-bit abomination was Windows 3.1 and 3.11.

There was also a 3.2, oddly, but I never saw it.

And, just to keep things confusing, there was a Windows NT 3.1, which is what I was thinking about. No wonder I had trouble remembering this. There were also 3.5 and 3.51 versions of this as well. I remember working with one of these.

So, I've worked with the 16-bit shell Windows, and the look-a-like NT version.

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 15:05:56 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Windows for Workgroups is what you're thinking of. That was version 3.11. It differed from 3.1 only in improved networking support (it could act as a lightweight file/print sharing server) and may have been the first version with virtual memory as well.

All of the Windows NT 3.x versions looked a lot like Windows 3.x, with the same Program Manager / File Manager interface dynamic duo. (Heh.) Of course NT had all the additional NT tools we've come to know and hate, like the "Administrative Tools / Services" ...

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 15:07:16 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Oh, it wasn't the first version with virtual memory, I guess, but it was the first version to *require* a 386, says the Wiki.

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 16:21:49 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nothing about Windows94? Apparently it was too buggy even for Microsoft.

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 16:29:47 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I wish I could find or remember the old saying about Windows 95.

'Windows 95 is a 16 bit graphical user interface based on an 8 bit operating system that was hacked from 4 bit
code by a 2 bit company that doesn't give 1 bit about their customers.'

That is close.

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 16:32:55 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Found it: (buried in a google search when I finally used the correct terms)

Windows 95: n.
32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a
4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 16:51:33 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Windows for Workgroups is what you're thinking of. That was version
3.11. It differed from 3.1 only in improved networking support (it
could act as a lightweight file/print sharing server) and may have been

the first version with virtual memory as well.

WfW 3.11 is where they dropped support for "Standard Mode" (which ran in 16-bit protected mode and was capable of operation on a 286). Beginning with WfW 3.11, only "386 Enhanced Mode" was available, which ran the CPU in demand-paged virtual memory mode, and therefore required a 386.

(And it still had the stability of DOS ... fell over and died if you even looked at it funny)

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 16:52:17 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Then there's Windows 3.(something? 5?) that was Windows NT with the

Windows for Workstation appearance. It was really, really weird.

The very first version of Windows NT was called Windows NT 3.1. Just marketing douchebaggery on their part.

[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 19:00:57 EDT from Ladyhawke @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Zoinks, all of those were nightmares!  Especially to the "on call family technical support person".   What a way to break a day.....



[#] Wed Jul 17 2013 21:59:41 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


The time I had to deal with Windows NT 3.1, I encountered this graphic:

http://www.funpic.hu/en/categories/bill-gates-microsoft/3603_fuck-the-skull-of -ms

(NSFW)

[#] Thu Jul 18 2013 00:27:28 EDT from Sig @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

XP, though we didn't fully realize it at the time, was a serious
milestone. It's easy to forget just how painful it was keeping 95/98/ME
running. Though XP certainly had its horrid flaws and weirdnesses,
after a few service packs it became perfectly usable.

Hell, just running a Windows version for more than a year without
nuke/paving it was a novelty. My netbook has the original XP load on it
from 2009. It even goes to sleep and wakes up without complaint.

[#] Thu Jul 18 2013 11:18:55 EDT from triLcat @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I must say - I have few complaints about XP or Win7.

I'm even almost ready to believe windows isn't evil *gasp*



[#] Thu Jul 18 2013 11:20:33 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hell, just running a Windows version for more than a year without
nuke/paving it was a novelty. My netbook has the original XP load on it


I ran Win98SE on my main workstation from the day SE was released through and including April 2010.

Yes, that is twelve (12) years, during which it ***never*** nuked itself or required a re-installation.

Only one time did I have to reinstall Windows on that machine, and it was because of a massive boot-drive physical failure. Absolutely not Windows98SE's fault in the least. And if I knew then what I know now about "ghosting" and hard-drive bit images I just might have been able to get away without having to re-install 98SE then!!

No, I understand there are a lot of folks that had, for whatever the reason, many problems with 98SE.

I guess I was just lucky, but I never did. And would still be running it today except critical hardware is no longer available for the motherboard that was on that machine - so it is now in the computer graveyard.

Running XPPro SP3 now. It's ok and stable enough. But in many ways I miss the "legacy-ness" of 98SE. One day I'll actually figure out why that is...

[#] Thu Jul 18 2013 15:59:49 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


XP was indeed a major milestone. Very stable. So were most of the previous NT kernel based versions, of course, but you couldn't use them if you were migrating from consumer 95/98 apps; the NT kernel based versions didn't have good backwards compatibility until XP finally rolled out.

Eventually, Bethesda Softworks figured out to reliably crash my video driver on XP, which was the reason I finally migrated to Vista(!)...

[#] Thu Jul 18 2013 19:22:48 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Likewise, really. I preferred 2000, actually, as the most stable of Windows operating systems. XP got there in time, but I don't feel it started out that way (and I'm still not sure about the whole gumdrop interface thing).

Mostly, Microsoft keeps shifting things around, making it hard to track where you're suppose to do this, that, or the other. This is rather frustrating.
Change it too much, and you may as well learn Linux instead of dealing with Windows anymore.

[#] Thu Jul 18 2013 19:44:05 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Likewise, really. I preferred 2000, actually, as the most stable of

Windows operating systems. XP got there in time, but I don't feel it

started out that way (and I'm still not sure about the whole gumdrop
interface thing).

From a photography perspective - it looked unnatural, the covers oversaturated - doubly so when coupled with the default desktop background. The first think I always did was change to an old-style theme, on every installation I ever used.

[#] Fri Jul 19 2013 03:09:06 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

does anybody remember the shell-replacement for windows nt 3.51? it would install the explorer as shell on the old micro kernel architecture...

I actively used windows as main os in the 3.11 days, coming from GEM in advance.

I switched to os2 then, and from that to linux in the 1.2x kernel days.

did 2 years of work on windows nt4 in 98/99/00 but my home machines always were linux ones, and from 00 on also my workstations / company laptops.

for half a year at my current company I used windows as workstation, then repartitioned, installed linux (against all "you have to run windows" commands from $boss) and eventually didn't boot that windows partition for the following 5 years until I needed the disk space and flushed it.

Two years ago I was given a laptop with XP, as long as I could use our local mail service I only turned it on occasionaly. Now it runs outlook & lync, and maybe a bunch of puttys if I need to work in special network segments..  My productive work is still done on that 6 years old workstation under my desk awaiting its death.

And yes, whenever I use windows I feel it realy fucking sucks - even if it doesn't crash.

 



[#] Fri Jul 19 2013 13:42:44 EDT from athos-mn @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Tutorial for Microsoft Bob: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5teG6ou8mWU



[#] Fri Jul 19 2013 17:36:36 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jul 18 2013 8:18am from triLcat @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
I must say - I have few complaints about XP or Win7.

I'm even almost ready to believe windows isn't evil *gasp*


Heh. You should have a look at "Windows 8"....

That crap sets a new bar for Operating System From Hell.

Go to page: First ... 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 ... Last