Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post
- Thread starter The Ancient Mariner
- Start date
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
So, there are versions of SIT and POM with special features that you can see on a computer?
Mosh said:
Actually, XP still looks new to me. With all those flashy colours and buttons and easy-to-use features, it just doesn't represent my idea of an operating system. A classic OS is straight business, with no fancy cartoony extras.
I've got it installed on my laptop right now, because it is the only Windows that will run on it that supports everything I want to do. I kind of miss Vista, which, after all its bugs got removed, actually became a quite decent OS. I've used 7 on the university computer pools, and it's just too fancy for me.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Windows' GUI shell is one big piece of shit. Unfortunately, that's what most of you are used to, like big majority of the people around the globe. Besides, functionality and looks are totally different thing.
Microsoft reverted the industry back for 10 years, they haven't innovated anything, and if situation remained like it was in 1990, only god knows what kind of monster personal computers we'd have today . Example;
This is a 386 based PC from 1990. It's running a single-user, single-task 16-bit operating system with a graphics shell add-on. It's among the top of Intel/Microsoft based computers of the time;
Now, this is a NeXT workstation, also from 1990. It's running a high-performance multi-user, multi-tasking UNIX-os, with a object oriented graphics shell. World Wide Web was invented at CERN on these machines;
As you can see, it's perfectly capable of running tons of processes, note the modern website surfing (Slashdot), among everything. While Intel/Microsoft PCs of 20 years ago aren't capable of doing any modern task, and people keep them for nostalgia reasons (like me), UNIX workstations of 20 years ago can still pull off a few tricks, even today.
If you need to know why Microsoft prevailed, it's because all the big UNIX players like Digital, HP, Sun, NeXT went battling each other for standards that should be introduced on personal computer market, while MS took market share year after year. Rest is history.
And, don't ever judge operating systems by their looks.
Microsoft reverted the industry back for 10 years, they haven't innovated anything, and if situation remained like it was in 1990, only god knows what kind of monster personal computers we'd have today . Example;
This is a 386 based PC from 1990. It's running a single-user, single-task 16-bit operating system with a graphics shell add-on. It's among the top of Intel/Microsoft based computers of the time;
Now, this is a NeXT workstation, also from 1990. It's running a high-performance multi-user, multi-tasking UNIX-os, with a object oriented graphics shell. World Wide Web was invented at CERN on these machines;
As you can see, it's perfectly capable of running tons of processes, note the modern website surfing (Slashdot), among everything. While Intel/Microsoft PCs of 20 years ago aren't capable of doing any modern task, and people keep them for nostalgia reasons (like me), UNIX workstations of 20 years ago can still pull off a few tricks, even today.
If you need to know why Microsoft prevailed, it's because all the big UNIX players like Digital, HP, Sun, NeXT went battling each other for standards that should be introduced on personal computer market, while MS took market share year after year. Rest is history.
And, don't ever judge operating systems by their looks.
Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
I agree with that - but for most users that is their perception of it as that is all they see. An example is that we have an iSeries at work that has a far more reliable and resilient OS than any MS server we have but everyones interface with it is through "green screens" - a 5250 session with only 8 colours. No graphics, just text.Zare said:
We get called the teletext boys!
NeXT went on to become Mac OS X anyway - the finest consumer-based OS out there today. Though Ubuntu is giving it a run for its money, and I don't mind Windows 7.
The first thing I do when I install 7 on my rigs is turn the fancy GUI shit off. I don't need windows that fade in and out. It's functional, and it's the best Windows drop since 3.11. A straight-up solid OS. That being said? If I could get away with it, I'd switch to Ubuntu.
The first thing I do when I install 7 on my rigs is turn the fancy GUI shit off. I don't need windows that fade in and out. It's functional, and it's the best Windows drop since 3.11. A straight-up solid OS. That being said? If I could get away with it, I'd switch to Ubuntu.
I only had XP for a year, and to me that is the turning point from "old" to "new". I agree on your definition of classic OS, and XP isn't like that, but to me a modern OS has the transparency (which I happen to like) taskbars and things like that, which XP also doesn't have. It's just kind of in the middle.Perun said:
I got windows 7 in January, and I like it a lot, I don't find it to be too fancy, and haven't encountered any problems. LC, what is "GUI"?
The only things I miss in Win7 are Outlook Express and Advanced Tag Editor for WMP11.
I think most people consider GUI to be the "point and click" icon set up vs a command line interface. I'd guess LC is talking about turning Aero off, which has to do with the transparent screens and such (IIRC)
Correct.
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
I watched the Rush documentary Beyond The Lighted Stage. That was awesome!
DJ James
A coma stole my name.
I still haven't got a hold of Flight 666, I heard it was awesome though.
Well, I'm about to do a three page report on 'Up the Down Staircase' that I was suppose to do over the summer, the only I didn't do it was because I was too busy getting into Maiden. Wish me luck on this thing.
Well, I'm about to do a three page report on 'Up the Down Staircase' that I was suppose to do over the summer, the only I didn't do it was because I was too busy getting into Maiden. Wish me luck on this thing.