Welcome guest. Before posting on our computer help forum, you must register. Click here it's easy and free.

Poll

Which was your worst Windows?

Windows 3.1
1 (4.3%)
Windows 95 (a or b)
0 (0%)
Windows 98 (inc SE)
1 (4.3%)
Windows ME
6 (26.1%)
Windows NT 4.0
0 (0%)
Windows 2000
1 (4.3%)
Windows XP
0 (0%)
Windows Vista
13 (56.5%)
Windows 7
1 (4.3%)
Other (Must be Windows)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Author Topic: Worst of a bad bunch  (Read 16051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fleexy



    Intermediate

  • OW NEXT TIME I SHOULD TURN IT OFF BEFORE SERVICING
  • Thanked: 2
    • Yes
    • Yes
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows XP
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2010, 11:34:45 AM »
Windows Vista, blech.  Windows ME second.  "Miserable Edition"

Did you hear that it blue screen'd right behind Bill Gates as he was saying it was the most stable OS yet? :rofl:
I love .NET!

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1108
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2010, 11:40:51 AM »
Did you hear that it blue screen'd right behind Bill Gates as he was saying it was the most stable OS yet? :rofl:

I think that was windows 98 First Edition, and a prerelease version at that.
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

Azzaboi



    Apprentice
  • Aaron's Game Zone
  • Thanked: 37
    • Aaron's Game Zone
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2010, 11:02:12 PM »
Microsoft's most successful program is the Blue Screen of Death! Can't diss them on that one.
Can you guess what Bill Gates favourite colour is? BLUE! Gotta show it off.

Bill Gates, Windows 98, Blue Screen of Death:
Quote
During a showing of a Windows 98 beta by Bill Gates at COMDEX in April 20, 1998 an incident occurred in which a BSoD displayed in front of the public. The demo computer crashed with a BSoD when his assistant (Chris Capossela, who is still working for Microsoft as Corporate VP in the Information Working business unit) connected a scanner to the PC, trying to demonstrate Windows 98's support for Plug and Play devices. This event brought applause from the crowd and Gates replied after a pause: "That must be why we're not shipping Windows 98 yet."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW7Rqwwth84  ;D

Can anyone say 'Plug n Pray' ?
Aaron's Game Zone
The best free online flash games: http://azzaboi.weebly.com

Play Games - Play free games at Play Games Arcade

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1108
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2010, 11:21:43 PM »
That was still pretty good, Considering Windows was the only PC Operating System to support USB at all until 2002 (that means, that windows had full USB support for nearly 4 releases ( 98, 98SE, ME,2000,XP)- (and, that's not counting 95 OSR2) before anybody else had even basic functionality, when Linux devs finally decided it might be "fun" to write the driver (since that seems to be the main thing they consider when adding new feature, how fun it will be to write... not that I blame them, they don't usually get paid for their volunteer efforts). At which point it became possible to maybe get USB working if you were very lucky and were well versed in managing core kernel modules.

Just hope you didn't have a conflict with another driver, or else you get the fun "kernel panic"

Of course, you don't hear as much about the Linux Kernel Panic as you do the BSOD, even though they are both caused by the exact same conditions- That's because  people using Linux are well aware that it's caused by a driver or hardware device.

That being said, the USB and other plug and play features of both Windows and Linux are nearly the same these days.
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

Cityscape



    Adviser

  • Running Debian 8, Linux Mint and Windows 10.
  • Thanked: 15
    • Yes
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Linux variant
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2010, 12:49:24 AM »
That was still pretty good, Considering Windows was the only PC Operating System to support USB at all until 2002 (that means, that windows had full USB support for nearly 4 releases ( 98, 98SE, ME,2000,XP)- (and, that's not counting 95 OSR2) before anybody else had even basic functionality...
Windows 98 (first edition) did not have full USB support. It had the same support as 95 OSR2. Windows 98SE added full USB (Plug & Play) support.

But yah they did have upper hand back then with the USB support.

when Linux devs finally decided it might be "fun" to write the driver (since that seems to be the main thing they consider when adding new feature, how fun it will be to write... not that I blame them, they don't usually get paid for their volunteer efforts). At which point it became possible to maybe get USB working if you were very lucky and were well versed in managing core kernel modules.
Hmmm, and why would they be so far behind in adding USB support. The answer is simple: Linux was not a mainstream OS in the 90's. It was an OS for geeks and computer hobbyists. It was only near 2000-2002 that the average users actually began seeing Linux as an alternative to Windows.

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1108
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2010, 12:57:02 AM »
Windows 98 (first edition) did not have full USB support. It had the same support as 95 OSR2. Windows 98SE added full USB (Plug & Play) support.

Yes, Actually, it did. you just needed a driver for most devices, and it didn't support all the class-based devices at first. The only reason most devices don't work on 98 FE and 95 OSR2 is simply because it added another scenario for manufacturers to test. Aside from that, both the original release of win98 as well as 95 OSR2 had a fully functional USB stack and drivers for OHCI bus devices.

Quote
Hmmm, and why would they be so far behind in adding USB support. The answer is simple: Linux was not a mainstream OS in the 90's. It was an OS for geeks and computer hobbyists. It was only near 2000-2002 that the average users actually began seeing Linux as an alternative to Windows.
umm...

Excuses. First, I'm pretty sure computer geeks and hobbyists would be the <first> type of user who would want to see and use a new connection technology.
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

Fleexy



    Intermediate

  • OW NEXT TIME I SHOULD TURN IT OFF BEFORE SERVICING
  • Thanked: 2
    • Yes
    • Yes
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows XP
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2010, 01:42:23 PM »
Looking at related videos, I DID know about that 'secret' clock video (C:\WINDOWS\clock.avi).  What were they going to use it for? ???
I love .NET!

Azzaboi



    Apprentice
  • Aaron's Game Zone
  • Thanked: 37
    • Aaron's Game Zone
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2010, 03:08:32 PM »
They use c:\windows\clock.avi in the demonstration tutorial:
HOWTO: Play an .AVI Video File in Full Screen in Visual Basic
Aaron's Game Zone
The best free online flash games: http://azzaboi.weebly.com

Play Games - Play free games at Play Games Arcade

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1108
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2010, 03:29:23 PM »
Looking at related videos, I DID know about that 'secret' clock video (C:\WINDOWS\clock.avi).  What were they going to use it for? ???

it's a short demonstration of VFW (Video For Windows). It was included with the "Video for windows" package for windows 3.0 and 3.1, IIRC.

I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

Accessless

    Topic Starter


    Adviser
  • Thanked: 14
    • Yes
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #39 on: June 23, 2010, 02:43:35 AM »
Is that clock.avi still on modern windows? The last time I saw it was Win98 I think.
Back on good old fashioned Air cooling again.

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1108
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #40 on: June 23, 2010, 03:08:09 AM »
Is that clock.avi still on modern windows? The last time I saw it was Win98 I think.
Doesn't seem to be in the default installs of most Windows Operating Systems:

Windows 95: Not Present.
Windows 98SE: Not Present.
Windows ME: Not Present.
Windows 2000 SP4: 12/07/1999 5:00 AM 82,944 bytes
Windows XP: Not Present.



Not sure why it's only on the w2k install. I think I installed and uninstalled Office 2000 on that VM, but I'm not sure. My 7 install on my desktop has several older AVI files in the C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\COMMON\GRAPHICS\VIDEOS folder, and some of them count down and up, but none of them look like clock.avi.

I'm fairly certain it's a sample that came with some set of multimedia drivers or a package- like the skiing video that came with windows 3.1's VFW package. (maybe that had clock.avi, I dunno)

I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

m-m-mr_v

  • Guest
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2010, 07:10:17 PM »
I really do hate the new interface in Vista-7

I don't see why the hating on ME, I LOVED ME it was my favourite win OS of all time it really seemed stable on my system, and at the time had amazing eye candy. Took me til '05 to use XP.

Right now, I use XP with a uxtheme patch and luna element 5 black, which IMO is more stylish than Aero by miles. I always hateed Vista and refuse to upgrade because I have used windows since 3.1 at age 10 and in that time there never seems to have been a bigger jump in the GUI!

I know both DOS and the old 9x inside out and know XP to an expert level, why change the UI at all?

Vista IMO is awkward and 7 is plain ugly! How is it an OS released in '01 can still, to this day, be made to look better?!?!?

Look at the taskbar in 7, is it me or is that an awful, awful step back?

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1108
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2010, 07:40:58 PM »
I really do hate the new interface in Vista-7
here have a gold star.

Quote
I don't see why the hating on ME, I LOVED ME it was my favourite win OS of all time it really seemed stable on my system, and at the time had amazing eye candy. Took me til '05 to use XP.
ME is windows 9x made to pretend it's not based on DOS. it takes the best thing about 9x (the fact that you can boot to DOS to fix major issues) and removes it for no good reason. Aside from that, it's pretty much Windows 98SE with a few accessories thrown in. 95/98/ME are hardly "stable" unless you restart them at least once a day.

Quote
Right now, I use XP with a uxtheme patch and luna element 5 black, which IMO is more stylish than Aero by miles.
Of course you are allowed your own opinion. Never seen Luna element 5 black *does image search*..

Now I am truly confused. Luna Element 5 is clearly emulating the Aero Basic style, and yet you say it's more stylish then it. It's certainly less customizable, either way.

Quote
I always hateed Vista and refuse to upgrade

That's like saying, "I hate the ukraine and refuse to live there" you have no barometer to hate an Operating System if you don't use it on a daily basis. using it for an afternoon or for ten minutes in a year is hardly a sound statistic.

Quote
because I have used windows since 3.1 at age 10 and in that time there never seems to have been a bigger jump in the GUI!

1. DOS->Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.1 to Windows 3.0
3. Windows 3.1 to Windows 4.0 (95). the same style is used in windows 95, 98, 98se, NT 4, NT5 (2000), and XP.
4. -> XP's "Luna" which is just uxtheme.dll. It doesn't actually revamp very much, just seems to like putting gradients everywhere and pissing people with 4-bit displays off.


Quote
I know both DOS and the old 9x inside out and know XP to an expert level
I've programmed for DOS, windows 3.1, 9x, and NT. The "shifts" in programming each environment hardly match with visble changes.

DOS-> Windows was of course at it's core a paradigm shift. from "program determinate state" (program tells you what you can do) to "user determinate" (push a button, and you receive a message).

Switching from 16-bit to 32-bit windows was rather simplistic, just a few name changes, and a few minor caveats.

The biggest shift ever was switching to NT. function names were changes, some were removed. Core process enumeration and other functions were completely changed at the base level. Security was enhanced so your program couldn't just stomp about in memory as it pleased.

The Switch from XP to Vista/7 was pretty simple. For me I just add a manifest to my programs and forget about it. poof, magical NT6 compatibility. That and a small class for dealing with UAC and requesting elevation for those actions that require it.

Quote
why change the UI at all?
Because people have been complaining about it for years.


Quote
Vista IMO is awkward and 7 is plain ugly! How is it an OS released in '01 can still, to this day, be made to look better?!?!?
That is all in your opinion.


Quote
Look at the taskbar in 7, is it me or is that an awful, awful step back?

It's just you. I don't see how anybody who understands windows history could claim it was a step back. it looks nothing like the windows 9x taskbar which is what you imply by saying that.
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

BluerjB



    Hopeful

  • Windows 7
  • Thanked: 6
    • Yes
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2010, 10:53:12 PM »
Vista... But it's not really that bad because after some tweaks vista can work flawlessly too. Downside is that most people don't know how to do this so yeah.

Azzaboi



    Apprentice
  • Aaron's Game Zone
  • Thanked: 37
    • Aaron's Game Zone
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Re: Worst of a bad bunch
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2010, 01:39:17 AM »
Yeah, after some major tweaks anything can work flawlessly - I couldn't agree with you more!
Just rip half of it out and entirely recreate the core and your got yourself one awesome gaming Vista OS!  ;D
Aaron's Game Zone
The best free online flash games: http://azzaboi.weebly.com

Play Games - Play free games at Play Games Arcade