ID:275559
 
I just installed Win95. I feel really bad about it, but I miss BYOND, and I couldn't wait for my dad to bring home the 98 disk sometime this week.

Anyone else run 95?
95 is in the past, i wouldnt have anything less than xp at the moment, its just a whole lot better than anyother os. Dont tell me to use linux either, mainly because i dont want to set it up, and problems with compatability.
In response to Critical (#1)
XP < 2000
In response to Garthor (#2)
Ha ha, ha ha ha, ha. Very funny Garth Maul
In response to Scoobert (#3)
Well XP is for sureeee < Win 2003
In response to Garthor (#2)
XP.bugs > Win98.bugs
XP.bugs > Win95.bugs
XP.bugs > QDOS.bugs :-P

I use Windows 98, and the highest I'll go is 2000/ME because I personally hate XP. So there.

I've used Win95 several times in the past, and have had immense fun having to format my hard-drive to do a clean install of Win98. Seven times. Oh, well.
In response to Hazman (#5)
Hazman wrote:
XP.bugs > Win98.bugs
XP.bugs > Win95.bugs
XP.bugs > QDOS.bugs :-P

I use Windows 98, and the highest I'll go is 2000/ME because I personally hate XP. So there.

ME.bugs > *
ME.instability = 1.#INF
In response to Shun Di (#4)
How about: Geeky math = Stupid topic = More of a chance of getting locked.

o.o

Besides, if you can't use XP properly, of course your going to hate it. You have to customize it a bit, but with the customization comes a great OS. Better then all the other slow loading, bulky coded older OS's.
In response to Karasu Kami (#7)
Karasu Kami wrote:
How about: Geeky math = Stupid topic = More of a chance of getting locked.

o.o

Besides, if you can't use XP properly, of course your going to hate it. You have to customize it a bit, but with the customization comes a great OS. Better then all the other slow loading, bulky coded older OS's.

So you think XP is slow loading, bukly coded, and old? ;P
In response to Jon88 (#8)
Nope, I'm "sure" he's talking abour Linux ;P
In response to Jon88 (#6)
Jon88 wrote:
ME.bugs > *
ME.instability = 1.#INF

Amen to that. I used to have ME for a while because it's slightly better at networking than 98 first edition is. (Unfortunately, I don't have 98SE.) After a few months I ran away screaming and upgraded to 98. It's much, much, much better.
In response to Hazman (#5)
My Xp never crashes, i used to have windows 98 and after about 1 week i couldnt start anything without it crashing. Things get better over time remember, win 98 is in the past. Its not good anymore. Its not even supported by its own company.
In response to Critical (#11)
I have XP now, but do like win98.
In response to Jon88 (#8)
Karasu Kami babbled unintelligently:
Better then all the other slow loading, bulky coded older OS's.

you must be referring to all Windows distros prior to XP. I've never had an "out-of-the-box" WindowsXP distro beat an "out-of-the-box" Linux or Mac distro during boot up, unless the XP box was 150%-200% faster in clock speed. :p

I have a dual-boot WindowsXP/MEPIS Linux box, each with a 20GB partition. XP is at the front of the disk, so by default (assuming it is well defragged) it should take advantage of faster disk read/write/seek times. Both distros go through (pretty much) the same set of start-up processes and applications. Even after tweaking XP as much as possible, it *still* takes a good 5-7 seconds longer to boot than the Linux distro (which hasn't been tweaked at all yet). From what I can discern, the XP gui processes just slow the machine down during boot (not to mention suck up RAM).

:p
In response to digitalmouse (#13)
you must be referring to all Windows distros prior to XP.

Hit it right on the nail, yet you continue to "blab" (so you say) about how XP loads quickly, of course it does, it's the most recent.

I was talking about things below XP, you don't have to insult me to make yourself look intelligent, DM.

And to jon: Just ask, don't assume. Something like: "Are you talking about XP or things below XP?" Would have worked just fine.

Thanks for being rude guys, like usual.
In response to Karasu Kami (#14)
"Better then all the other slow loading, bulky coded older OS's." Read that out loud. Now tell me it doesn't sound like you are calling windowsXP slow loading and bulky. If you say something that can be took in a funny way, someone is going to point this out. So don't go on the defencive over something so small, just remember this leason and try again another day.
In response to Scoobert (#15)
I've had three computers in my lifetime: 1989-1992; Packard Bell with Win3.1, 1992-2003; Compaq Presario with Win98FE, 2003-Present; IBM with WinXP.

The Packard Bell with 3.1 was awesome (though by today's standards, slow and bulky); it never crashed, never had any problems of any sort, and the only reason we got rid of it was because my mom won $7k at the casino and bought the Compaq for $2200. That thing was the bane of my existance. It sucked up every megabyte of RAM for seemingly no reason, crashed at minimum twice a day, and to my knowledge, we performed fourteen formats on it because SOMETHING would occur that would render it useless. Christmas last year, it finally gave up for good, and we got this IBM. No problems whatsoever. It has the stability that 3.1 had with the massive technological advances that have appeared in the last fifteen years. I absolutely love this thing.

Case in point: WinXP r0x0rz your b0x0rz.
In response to Enigmaster2002 (#16)
Yes, comtrash has always been horrible, i don't know why, and i gave up on asking "Why" a long with never buying a compaq.
In response to Scoobert (#15)
Scoobert wrote:
"Better then all the other slow loading, bulky coded <font size="5">older OS's</font>." Read that out loud. Now tell me it doesn't sound like you are calling windowsXP slow loading and bulky. If you say something that can be took in a funny way, someone is going to point this out. So don't go on the defencive over something so small, just remember this leason and try again another day.

I read it loud and clear my ...acquaintance?
I installed 95 for nothing! I can't get my network to work.
Page: 1 2