Windows 3.1 was awesome, but you cannot really compare it to a modern OS. It is like comparing Pong on the Atari to Gears of War for the 360. They are just completely different due to being ages apart.
Windows 95 was ok, but 98 SE _is_ one of the best OS' ever made. There are security problems and bugs, however. Windows 2000 was also an awesome operating system, but along the lines of 98 SE, it had bugs, security issues and was not always the best for gaming.
Windows ME was plain junk. It is more flash than substance, and sucky flash at that. I do not believe it to be a true OS release so much as a rehashed 98 with more bugs.
XP was awesome and completed Microsoft's move to Internet/Intranet based everything. With .NET at the forefront, the GUI looked better, ran smoother and more secure. Sure there are still bugs and security issues, but even OSX has problems in this area. People who have problems with Windows are not protected; they probably do not know what Spyware is or what Anti-Virus software is. There have been lots of updates (two Service Packs) but this isn't really a problem to me since most other applications I use (ie, Games) need to be continuously patched. I have been running XP Pro since it came out and have only had a few minor problems which virus software has taken care of.
Vista is much like XP in that it revolves around connectivity and the internet (though not required to be connected lol). Look at gadgets for the sidebar: weather, daily news feeds, et cetera all thrive off of the internet. With .NET 3.0 on Vista developers have even more power; developing a GUI (Graphical User Interface) can be lots of fun in XAML (XML derived language used by Microsoft). The interface is now all hardware driven so switching and effects are much faster and smoother. Vista uses more RAM because it actually uses it correctly and it also enables the use of cache-able hard drives which can speed normal operation by some large, finite amount.
Vista also takes an insane attack against any previous security issue. It likes to tell me that an application needs my permission to run (online activex controls, etc). Certain programs do not have permissions to do certain things. I haven't really played around with normal user accounts (which are highly suggested) but I do believe that they require admin permission to install (at least) non-certified software. This is very similar to how Linux asks for the admin password to gain access to certain portions of the control panel.
Operating systems have become more bloated, they do not take up a simple 3 megabytes of hard drive space anymore. Then again, modern operating systems do a lot more than ones even 10 years ago. A lot of people think Vista is bloated purely for the fact that it requires faster spec'd computers; this is true for every operating system. Attempt to run OSX on a computer built 10 years ago... As time changes OS' require more space and more power, it is just how it goes.
There are lots of good things about Vista, but people do not take the time to actually look into the features of it before they dismiss it as a buggy and bloated operating system.
My name is John Sedlak, and I love my Windows PCs.
Windows 95 was ok, but 98 SE _is_ one of the best OS' ever made. There are security problems and bugs, however. Windows 2000 was also an awesome operating system, but along the lines of 98 SE, it had bugs, security issues and was not always the best for gaming.
wash your mouth out...how dare u mention 98 SE and Windows 2000 in the same sentence...let alone call 98 SE the best OS ever.
What drugs are you smoking ? Window 95, 98 SE and ME are the same unstable crap built onto DOS. If you had done your research correctly, you would know that Windows 2000 is the successor to Windows NT4, which was the successor to Windows NT 3.51. While the UI interfaces for these products looked very similar to their Windows 9x counterparts...they are worlds apart under the hood.
What drugs are you smoking ? Window 95, 98 SE and ME are the same unstable crap built onto DOS. If you had done your research correctly, you would know that Windows 2000 is the successor to Windows NT4, which was the successor to Windows NT 3.51. While the UI interfaces for these products looked very similar to their Windows 9x counterparts...they are worlds apart under the hood.
What in his post makes you think that he didn't know that? What the OS was built on is not necessarily the most important factor for usability. While 98 and 95 shared the same "foundation," lots of people (not just the guy you accuse of being on drugs) feel that 98SE was an excellent OS.
*sigh* I'll excuse myself from this thread now. I try not to get worked up in these debates (they're just operating systems, after all) - then someone like you comes along throwing insults at people and criticizing them for having opinions contrary to yours.
And please, save the faux-surprised "Calm down man, I was just kidding" post - we've all seen that one before.
What in his post makes you think that he didn't know that? What the OS was built on is not necessarily the most important factor for usability. While 98 and 95 shared the same "foundation," lots of people (not just the guy you accuse of being on drugs) feel that 98SE was an excellent OS.
this actually...
Windows 2000 was also an awesome operating system, but along the lines of 98 SE, it had bugs, security issues and was not always the best for gaming.
Hardly along the same lines..and at least Windows 2000 had security.
*sigh* I'll excuse myself from this thread now. I try not to get worked up in these debates (they're just operating systems, after all) - then someone like you comes along throwing insults at people and criticizing them for having opinions contrary to yours.
And please, save the faux-surprised "Calm down man, I was just kidding" post - we've all seen that one before.
it's ok, i wasn't kidding, but I was hardly insulting.
wash your mouth out...how dare u mention 98 SE and Windows 2000 in the same sentence...let alone call 98 SE the best OS ever.
What drugs are you smoking ? Window 95, 98 SE and ME are the same unstable crap built onto DOS. If you had done your research correctly, you would know that Windows 2000 is the successor to Windows NT4, which was the successor to Windows NT 3.51. While the UI interfaces for these products looked very similar to their Windows 9x counterparts...they are worlds apart under the hood.
Why did I say 98 SE was one of the best? Because when ran correctly it ran stable and fast. It was incredibly compatible, especially in the games market and especially compared to 2000. I know what they were both based on, and the both had there merits and problems. They were both awesome operating systems in my book that when ran correctly, were beautiful.
Maybe I am different than a majority of computer users because I am a nerd, but I have never been infected majorly by a virus or SpyWare. It has existed on my computer, but not enough to cause major problems with the OS. I have had the BOTD many times, but was not really anything problematic or annoying.
I am going to step out of this thread as well. I do not have to defend Vista or Microsoft, and I really do not care anymore. I have my reasons for using Microsoft's products and I have my reasons for why I think they are superior (though not in every way) and that is good enough for me.
Comments
Windows 95 was ok, but 98 SE _is_ one of the best OS' ever made. There are security problems and bugs, however. Windows 2000 was also an awesome operating system, but along the lines of 98 SE, it had bugs, security issues and was not always the best for gaming.
Windows ME was plain junk. It is more flash than substance, and sucky flash at that. I do not believe it to be a true OS release so much as a rehashed 98 with more bugs.
XP was awesome and completed Microsoft's move to Internet/Intranet based everything. With .NET at the forefront, the GUI looked better, ran smoother and more secure. Sure there are still bugs and security issues, but even OSX has problems in this area. People who have problems with Windows are not protected; they probably do not know what Spyware is or what Anti-Virus software is. There have been lots of updates (two Service Packs) but this isn't really a problem to me since most other applications I use (ie, Games) need to be continuously patched. I have been running XP Pro since it came out and have only had a few minor problems which virus software has taken care of.
Vista is much like XP in that it revolves around connectivity and the internet (though not required to be connected lol). Look at gadgets for the sidebar: weather, daily news feeds, et cetera all thrive off of the internet. With .NET 3.0 on Vista developers have even more power; developing a GUI (Graphical User Interface) can be lots of fun in XAML (XML derived language used by Microsoft). The interface is now all hardware driven so switching and effects are much faster and smoother. Vista uses more RAM because it actually uses it correctly and it also enables the use of cache-able hard drives which can speed normal operation by some large, finite amount.
Vista also takes an insane attack against any previous security issue. It likes to tell me that an application needs my permission to run (online activex controls, etc). Certain programs do not have permissions to do certain things. I haven't really played around with normal user accounts (which are highly suggested) but I do believe that they require admin permission to install (at least) non-certified software. This is very similar to how Linux asks for the admin password to gain access to certain portions of the control panel.
Operating systems have become more bloated, they do not take up a simple 3 megabytes of hard drive space anymore. Then again, modern operating systems do a lot more than ones even 10 years ago. A lot of people think Vista is bloated purely for the fact that it requires faster spec'd computers; this is true for every operating system. Attempt to run OSX on a computer built 10 years ago... As time changes OS' require more space and more power, it is just how it goes.
There are lots of good things about Vista, but people do not take the time to actually look into the features of it before they dismiss it as a buggy and bloated operating system.
My name is John Sedlak, and I love my Windows PCs.
What drugs are you smoking ? Window 95, 98 SE and ME are the same unstable crap built onto DOS. If you had done your research correctly, you would know that Windows 2000 is the successor to Windows NT4, which was the successor to Windows NT 3.51. While the UI interfaces for these products looked very similar to their Windows 9x counterparts...they are worlds apart under the hood.
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
What in his post makes you think that he didn't know that? What the OS was built on is not necessarily the most important factor for usability. While 98 and 95 shared the same "foundation," lots of people (not just the guy you accuse of being on drugs) feel that 98SE was an excellent OS.
*sigh* I'll excuse myself from this thread now. I try not to get worked up in these debates (they're just operating systems, after all) - then someone like you comes along throwing insults at people and criticizing them for having opinions contrary to yours.
And please, save the faux-surprised "Calm down man, I was just kidding" post - we've all seen that one before.
Hardly along the same lines..and at least Windows 2000 had security.
it's ok, i wasn't kidding, but I was hardly insulting.
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
Why did I say 98 SE was one of the best? Because when ran correctly it ran stable and fast. It was incredibly compatible, especially in the games market and especially compared to 2000. I know what they were both based on, and the both had there merits and problems. They were both awesome operating systems in my book that when ran correctly, were beautiful.
Maybe I am different than a majority of computer users because I am a nerd, but I have never been infected majorly by a virus or SpyWare. It has existed on my computer, but not enough to cause major problems with the OS. I have had the BOTD many times, but was not really anything problematic or annoying.
I am going to step out of this thread as well. I do not have to defend Vista or Microsoft, and I really do not care anymore. I have my reasons for using Microsoft's products and I have my reasons for why I think they are superior (though not in every way) and that is good enough for me.
Good day.