Linked by David Adams on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 04:08 UTC
Windows If you had asked me, I would have guessed that this wouldn't be possible. One intrepid OS explorer has made a video wherein he not only installs every version of Windows since 1985's Windows 1.0, but proceeds to upgrade from one to another. The video, titled Chain of Fools: an Exploration of Windows upgrade procedures, shows how DOS and Windows are installed in a VMWare VM, and how a couple of DOS games were installed to see how newer versions of Windows handle backward compatibility. Similarly, various customizations were made to the Windows preferences to see how they survived the upgrades. Video embedded after the break.
Order by: Score:
Cool
by Drumhellar on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 04:38 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

I tried to do the same recently, starting with Win3.1, but I got hung-up moving from 95 to 98.

This motivates me to try again. Now, if only I could find a copy of Windows 1.0, as well as super-early versions of DOS...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cool
by David on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 04:39 UTC in reply to "Cool"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

This guy skipped Windows 98 and went straight to Win2000.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool
by umccullough on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

This guy skipped Windows 98 and went straight to Win2000.


Not having seen the video, that means he skipped NT 3.x/4.0 as well... sad, because going from Windows 3.11 to NT 3.x was my preferred route ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cool
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This guy skipped Windows 98 and went straight to Win2000.


Actually, he skipped Windows ME, which means he cheated ;) I think the proper route should've been 95/98/ME/XP, since NT and Win2k were not consumer flavors. If yer gonna start with workstations/business-class flavors, then you do NT 3.x/4.x/2000/XP Pro/etc.

Edited 2011-03-03 05:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cool
by RichterKuato on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

Actually, he skipped Windows ME, which means he cheated ;) I think the proper route should've been 95/98/ME/XP, since NT and Win2k were not consumer flavors. If yer gonna start with workstations/business-class flavors, then you do NT 3.x/4.x/2000/XP Pro/etc.

Well he did have a choice between 2000 or ME but he choose 2000 since chronologically it was next. But you're right he should've choose ME since he wasn't doing server flavors.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Cool
by Drumhellar on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cool"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Meh. I went from 98 to 2000 at home. I always found 2000 to be extremely easy to use and setup. Maybe things were slightly simpler with the 9x lineage, but the fact that 2K just worked like it was supposed to went a long way.

Plus, all my DOS games worked in 2K, better than in XP in my experience. Odd that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Cool
by Dryhte on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cool"
Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

Same goes for me. I actually went from 98SE to 2000 in the year XP was released, and held off from XP until right before the release of SP2 ;)

win2k ruled as far as gaming was concerned... Only Win7 is more stable in my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Cool
by Carewolf on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cool"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Windows 2000 wasn't just a server OS, it was also a workstation OS. In fact it was the first attempt at merging the home and server versions of Windows, the second attempt was XP.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Cool
by Lennie on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cool"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What about NT4 ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Cool
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cool"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Win 2000 was released 2000-02-17

Win Me ( the last of the Dos based) was released a few months later 2000-06-19.

WinXp was the first attempt to merge the more stable NT line with the legacy dos based 9x line.

At least that, thats what I though you were trying to say. Win NT had always had a workstation version, from the very beginning.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cool
by mappy on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool"
mappy Member since:
2010-06-02

ME was released after 2000, but it was built on the old 98 line, so afaik you couldn't update between the two. He had the option of choosing 98->2000->XP or 98->ME->XP.

But yes, it would have been interesting to see him update through the early NT line. Maybe that's cause for a sequel..

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool
by martini on Fri 4th Mar 2011 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
martini Member since:
2006-01-23

yes, it should be Win 95 - Win 98 - Win Me and Win 2K just for the fun of it ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool
by computrius on Sun 6th Mar 2011 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

No, no he didnt. He skipped me and went to 2000.

Reply Score: 2

v Where is the Video?
by bbjimmy on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:10 UTC
RE: Where is the Video?
by umccullough on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:13 UTC in reply to "Where is the Video?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

So, just exactly where is this video? Do I have to boot into Windows to see it? Come on, you should have a link to the file so that I can see the video while running HAIKU.


It's a youtube vid... so, you know how that works :/

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where is the Video?
by bbjimmy on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the Video?"
bbjimmy Member since:
2006-03-25

We need a gnash thar really works in HAIKU. Off to Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where is the Video?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the Video?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

We need a gnash thar really works in HAIKU.


Cool. Once you get that working, could you port that working version of gnash back to linux?

(... says the former gnash hacker as he looks down and kicks the dirt ashamedly and mumbles to himself about f-king macromedia. )

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Where is the Video?
by FunkyELF on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the Video?"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

If Haiku has Firefox, get the Video DownloadHelper add-on. You can download it from youtube and watch it in mplayer / vlc or whatever the hell runs on your silly OS

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Where is the Video?
by TheGZeus on Sat 5th Mar 2011 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Where is the Video?"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

If is has FF 3.6+ one can use Conkeror's media scraper, but I think that it may have been broken by recent YouTube obfuscations...t
There's get_flash_videos, which is just perl...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Where is the Video?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 09:58 UTC in reply to "Where is the Video?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, just exactly where is this video? Do I have to boot into Windows to see it? Come on, you should have a link to the file so that I can see the video while running HAIKU.


Just for you, I changed the article to YouTube's new embed code. You should get HTML% video now if you're in their beta.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Where is the Video?
by righard on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the Video?"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Now it crashes my browser (konqueror) you must change it to something else for me also (joking ;) )

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where is the Video?
by umccullough on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the Video?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Just for you, I changed the article to YouTube's new embed code. You should get HTML% video now if you're in their beta.


Which WebPositive (Haiku's webkit-based browser) doesn't yet support ;)

Hopefully once the media player supports streaming, that won't be far behind.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Where is the Video?
by sorpigal on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the Video?"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

HTML%, that sounds pretty advanced.

JOKE MODE OFF, PRAY WALK ON.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Where is the Video?
by Beta on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 10:02 UTC in reply to "Where is the Video?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

See http://www.youtube.com/embed/vPnehDhGa14

Does Haiku natively support WebM yet?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Where is the Video?
by Kochise on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the Video?"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Obviously Haiku is nowhere near being an usable OS if it cannot display correctly a video (where is the BeOS legacy ?) /troll

Kochise

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Where is the Video?
by Beta on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the Video?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Obviously Haiku is nowhere near being an usable OS if it cannot display correctly a video (where is the BeOS legacy ?) /troll

Kochise


Not sure how that’s a reply to me, but ok..

It’s been usable for years, I would know, I have contributed to it. But all these FOSS operating systems need to share common goals - and one of those is RF media imo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Where is the Video?
by bbjimmy on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the Video?"
bbjimmy Member since:
2006-03-25

HAIKU can surely play the video. The problem is that there is no software yet that will stream the file. If I had a download link for the flash file, I could play it perfactly using VLC, but VLC won't stream the file from a flash link.

Edited 2011-03-03 16:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Where is the Video?
by drcouzelis on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 17:09 UTC in reply to "Where is the Video?"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

I have Haiku installed and am using it. I download YouTube videos using the "youtube-dl" script.

As for playing it, the excellent "MediaPlayer" Haiku application will play almost anything.

...on a mildly unrelated note, it seems like as soon as YouTube came out, people don't want to watch a video unless it's streaming. What's up with that? People download and view photos and people download and listen to MP3 files. Is downloading and watching a video too old fashioned or something?

Edited 2011-03-03 17:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Where is the Video?
by Drumhellar on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the Video?"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Is downloading and watching a video too old fashioned or something?

Yes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where is the Video?
by riha on Sat 5th Mar 2011 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the Video?"
riha Member since:
2006-01-24

Well, the difference between downloading a video compared to a MP3 or a picture, is that the video might be fun watching ONCE and therefor the streaming is a better choice.
Second, a video is often heavier (in Kb/Mb/Gb) compared to a picture or a mp3.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where is the Video?
by TheGZeus on Sat 5th Mar 2011 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the Video?"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Well, for the record H264/flv is saved to your hard drive while you're watching it, then deleted from the cache when you leave the page on which it's shown. It's not actually 'streamed'.
Flash has been crashing my browser fairly regularly for about a week, so I've taken to doing that manually. I should really script that...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by AnythingButVista
by AnythingButVista on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:13 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

The only reason this was possible is because it was done on a virtual machine. Windows 95 can't handle today's hardware - it won't even start in Standard VGA mode!

The guy skipped Windows ME - the fastest Windows to start but also the fastest to crash on real hardware. I wonder if Windows ME would've had better luck on a virtual machine. He also skipped the mother of all bureaucracy... Windows NT 4.

Now, watching this video has motivated me to set up a virtual machine, not for installing older versions of Windows. I'm going to dust off my OS/2 Warp 3.0 retail box (on floppies!) and see if it installs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by AnythingButVista
by Morgan on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 06:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by AnythingButVista"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I've had a good experience putting Warp 4.0 on VirtualBox, but it required a processor with virtualization extensions. My old Core2Duo was one of the very few Intel processors from that era that did not have the VT-X feature, but my current machine with an Athlon 64 X2 does.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by AnythingButVista
by t3RRa on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by AnythingButVista"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

You mean Pacifica (or AMD-V) but VT-x which is the name for the hardware virtualization technology from Intel.

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Thank you, I couldn't recall the name of AMD's version. But yes, I meant my current AMD processor does have virtualization extensions, and OS/2, QNX and BSD under VirtualBox require it.

Reply Score: 2

ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

That's actually one of the reasons my current processor (several years old) is an AMD one.

I'm not sure about now, but at the time, Intel had a love affair with WinVista-style "release a model for every combination of marks on the feature matrix so we can charge people for exactly what they need" product line design.

Hassle aside, I still don't approve of that kind of behaviour.

Reply Score: 2

t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

I recall that there was a news regarding that intel was thinking another of that kind of product line. But still I prefer Intel over AMD (Please shall we cut off flamewar, since it is only my preference (: ) Anyway I wonder what happened to that..

Reply Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

That's still the case. The product feature matrix for Intel CPUs is still several screens wide, and many screens high. It's insane.

The AMD method is much simpler: only the amount of cache, number of cores, and frequency changes. All other features are the same (within a single processor family).

It's very easy to figure out which Opteron, Phenom, Athlon64, or Sempron CPU you want.

Reply Score: 2

t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

I understand. It is a diverse universe with all sorts of confusing and complex namings!

Reply Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Most people list it as SVM for AMD, as that's the name of the feature in the BIOS (Secure Virtual Machine).

And VT for Intel.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by AnythingButVista
by Skai on Fri 4th Mar 2011 15:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by AnythingButVista"
Skai Member since:
2010-08-19

Win ME was my favorite OS inside VMware. Light and fast to boot. Not that many crashes inside the VM.

Never seen it on real hardware though.

that was ... 8 years from now.

Reply Score: 1

Skipped WinMe
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 05:25 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Such a glaring admission makes me think he works for microsoft ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Skipped WinMe
by Drumhellar on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 06:24 UTC in reply to "Skipped WinMe"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Or, he has both halves of his brain.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Skipped WinMe
by Morgan on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Skipped WinMe"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm sure he wanted to avoid early baldness due to tearing out his hair.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Skipped WinMe
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Skipped WinMe"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I'm sure he wanted to avoid early baldness due to tearing out his hair.

Actually, as much as I hate Windows ME, it would've been a breeze for what this guy was doing: upgrade/install, check a few settings and previously-installed programs, and upgrade to something else. The nightmares came when trying to run this unstable, annoying and bloated disaster of an OS for an hour or more after getting it set up to run all your usual programs and hardware drivers... but running a quick test of an already-installed Doom II and Monkey Island before almost immediately upgrading wouldn't have been too bad.

In fact, the two games--being already installed--removes one point of failure: the installer. Who knows, maybe the installer(s) would have crashed, but the games didn't, leaving the OS actually looking better than it actually is. ;) [Okay, this part is sort of a joke, because I have unfortunately had the displeasure of owning a computer that came with Windows ME, and while it had some serious flaws with stability and bloat... its DOS and earlier Windows program compatibility was still quite good. Even though it got rid of--and I missed--rebooting into real-mode DOS.]

Needless to say though, I quickly and desperately "upgraded" this POS OS to the much better XP the first chance I got. Still bloated, still horribly insecure until SP2, still annoying with all the popups and tips and warnings that were introduced with Windows ME, but XP was much more stable for daily use. Well, except for SP1 or SP1a (can't remember which), during which I had to keep the previous version installed and wait for the next service pack, since a bug with the network card driver caused an immediate BSOD when heavily stressing the card, usually with BitTorrent...

Reply Score: 2

sc3252
Member since:
2005-09-06

I would have liked to see him install native windows 95 applications and some windows 2000 applications to see if they still worked since Dos seems to have some of the easiest applications to emulate.

Reply Score: 2

Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

Word for Windows (from the Windows 3.1 era) and an early Windows game would have been interesting.

Reply Score: 3

benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

A fun video, thanks for posting it.

I don't think one can really draw any conclusions from it regarding applications compatibility and display settings. After all, due to hardware incompatibilities and the system requirements of different Windows versions, the upgrade sequence shown here could not really occur in real life. It could only be implemented using a virtual machine environment -- which didn't become widely available until several years ago.

Reply Score: 2

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Actually, it could occur in real life.

The 9x and older lines were tolerant of hardware changes, unlike the NT line.

So, this is actually a plausible scenario...

Buy a Deskpro 386, install Windows 1.0 on it.

Install Windows 2.0 or 2.1/386 on it.

Install Windows 3.0 on it.

Install Windows 3.1 on it.

Decide it's getting a bit long in the tooth, get a loaded Pentium box, XCOPY the entire hard drive over.

Install Windows 95 on it.

Install Windows 98 on it.

You know, a Pentium II would be nice... XCOPY is your friend again.

Install Windows 2000 on it.

Install Windows XP on it.

Damn, that's slow. Stick a 1.4 Tualatin Celeron on a Slocket.

Now, this is getting into the absurd, but it's still plausible...

Install Vista. (If your P2 system was sufficiently beefy to begin with, you can even upgrade it to the point where it's "Vista Premium Ready".)

Install Win7.

Reply Score: 1

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

It wasn't too difficult to move a Win2k from one system to another.

I started with Win2k on a Pentium 200MHz MMX, moved the drive to a dual celeron system I was borrowing, and when upgraded to an Athlon 750Mhz of my own, moved the drive again, all without reinstalling.

The secret is erasing HKLM/System/CurrentControlSet/Enum from the registry before you move the drive. Do that, Win2k re-detects all hardware at boot, and has no memory of missing hardware.

Reply Score: 2

How about MacOS?
by harcalion on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 11:36 UTC
harcalion
Member since:
2005-07-12

I would love to see it skipping from architectures, minor versions, major versions and all that ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE: How about MacOS?
by Lennie on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 12:26 UTC in reply to "How about MacOS?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

That sounds like a complicated ordeal.

I think just installing the old applications is a problem for the latest Mac OS X versions because it does not support the old architectures anymore ?

Reply Score: 2

Windows 1.0 question
by gan17 on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 14:13 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

I started out my computing with Apple, so my fist experience with MS was rather late (DOS 6.0, Windows 3.1)

I read somewhere that Windows 1.0 defaulted to tiling rather than floating/stacking. Is this true?

If so, then Windows has gone backwards ever since. =P

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows 1.0 question
by christian on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 14:35 UTC in reply to "Windows 1.0 question"
christian Member since:
2005-07-06

I started out my computing with Apple, so my fist experience with MS was rather late (DOS 6.0, Windows 3.1)

I read somewhere that Windows 1.0 defaulted to tiling rather than floating/stacking. Is this true?

If so, then Windows has gone backwards ever since. =P


For a modern 1600x1200 display, tiling is indeed a good idea for many people.

But try tiling on a 640x350 display, then report back with your findings.

Yes, it is true, as Apple was asserting patents over "overlapping windows". Absurd, and eventually thrown out IIRC.

Reply Score: 3

Awesome !
by TBPrince on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 19:47 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

LOL! And someone still wonders why Windows still is the leader. And by far ;-)

I would like to check the same stuff with other major OSes.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Awesome !
by joekiser on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 20:21 UTC in reply to "Awesome !"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

Such a feat should be possible with FreeBSD, but it would take forever to compile and not look nearly as pretty.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Awesome !
by ruinevil on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome !"
ruinevil Member since:
2009-01-08

You'd have to wipe /etc and /var a few times.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Awesome !
by phoenix on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome !"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Why compile it?

The Windows version did binary upgrades via install floppy/CD. You can do the exact same thing using the FreeBSD install CD for each version.

What won't work, though, is binary compatibility for applications between versions. At least not automatically.

You'd have to manually install the needed misc/compat* port for the previous version(s) before you can run an already installed app.

Would be an interesting exercise, though. Any takers? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Awesome !
by joekiser on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awesome !"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

Hah, I didn't even think about binary upgrades! I was thinking more along the lines of installing the first available FreeBSD, then pulling the source for the next major release, compile, mergemaster, and so on until 9-CURRENT. If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not on BSD at the moment), you can still compile COMPAT4x, which is over a decade of binary compatibility.

In addition to showing application compatibility, I think part of the exercise was to show how the GUI has changed over the past quarter century. With FreeBSD, or pretty much any UNIX, that depends on how often you change your window manager. Certainly people are still using heavily customized twm and fvwm setups even on quad core machines with whatever video card is top of the line supported (probably an nVidia).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Awesome !
by phoenix on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Awesome !"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Hah, I didn't even think about binary upgrades! I was thinking more along the lines of installing the first available FreeBSD, then pulling the source for the next major release, compile, mergemaster, and so on until 9-CURRENT. If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not on BSD at the moment), you can still compile COMPAT4x, which is over a decade of binary compatibility.


Yeah, that's the oldest compat port still in the tree, and the GENERIC kernel includes the COMPAT_FREEBSD4/5/6 options. So you could install FreeBSD 4.something, install an app via the ports tree, then do the upgrades. Manually installing the compat4x, compat5x, compat6x, and compat7x as needed.

In addition to showing application compatibility, I think part of the exercise was to show how the GUI has changed over the past quarter century. With FreeBSD, or pretty much any UNIX, that depends on how often you change your window manager. Certainly people are still using heavily customized twm and fvwm setups even on quad core machines with whatever video card is top of the line supported (probably an nVidia).


Yeah, I guess showing the different terminal login screens for each version of FreeBSD wouldn't be too exciting. Look, the version number changed ... and that's it. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Awesome !
by Soulbender on Sun 6th Mar 2011 03:07 UTC in reply to "Awesome !"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

LOL! And someone still wonders why Windows still is the leader. And by far ;-)


I still wonder that every time I have to work on a Windows system, which is unfortunately pretty much every day.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Awesome !
by TBPrince on Sun 6th Mar 2011 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome !"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Then you're not fair to yourself ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Awesome !
by Soulbender on Sun 6th Mar 2011 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awesome !"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

True, working on Windows every day is being unfair to yourself but hey, it's money in the pocket.

Reply Score: 1

Haiku OS Take Note
by kvdman on Fri 4th Mar 2011 15:07 UTC
kvdman
Member since:
2006-04-28

How Windows kept their users happy after 23 years with respect to application compatibility.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Haiku OS Take Note
by Soulbender on Sun 6th Mar 2011 03:08 UTC in reply to "Haiku OS Take Note"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There are happy Windows users?

Reply Score: 1

FAT?
by martini on Fri 4th Mar 2011 20:50 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

Does it means that at the end the VM will be running Win 7 on a FAT partition? or Windows offers to upgrade the partition type on some point?

Reply Score: 1

RE: FAT?
by phoenix on Fri 4th Mar 2011 21:03 UTC in reply to "FAT?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I don't remember if XP offered to "upgrade" the filesystem to NTFS automatically or not, but there was an option to run it manually after the OS was installed. Open a command prompt and run "convert /?"

Reply Score: 2

RE: FAT?
by drstorm on Sat 5th Mar 2011 01:57 UTC in reply to "FAT?"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

Win 95 (optionally) converts FAT to FAT32. Win 2k converts FAT32 to NTFS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: FAT?
by joekiser on Sat 5th Mar 2011 02:04 UTC in reply to "FAT?"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

Pretty sure Vista and above require NTFS to install.

Reply Score: 2

Trolling
by Ultimatebadass on Fri 4th Mar 2011 22:01 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

Ha! Try that with ubuntu ! *ducks*

Reply Score: 5

RE: Trolling
by TheGZeus on Sat 5th Mar 2011 03:37 UTC in reply to "Trolling"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Try to do _anything_ with Ubugtu...
Debian.

Reply Score: 2