Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Jul 2008 22:04 UTC
Windows As someone who uses Windows Vista practically daily, I've always wondered where all the negativity in the media comes from. Sure, Vista isn't perfect (as if any operating system is), but I just don't see where all the complaints are coming from. It runs just fine on my old (6 years) machine, all my software and hardware is compatible, and it's stable as a rock. Microsoft has been wondering the same thing, and after a little test, they may have found out why people seem to dislike Vista so much.
Thread beginning with comment 324621
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I don't have an exclamation point after Win2k (Oooh!), but I feel it weas the height of the Microsoft OS, at least since DOS. I actually preferred DOS and Windows being separate, like the Unixish world. Dos apps were first-class citizens. I used Windows 3.1 as a nice app-launcher (it did pretty well with DOS apps). I believe it was a big mistake to glue it all into one "gooey" interface. C'mon back, Dos!! Only with long filenames, pre-emptive mulit-tasking, better memory management. That would rock, in my book.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I used Windows 3.1 as a nice app-launcher (it did pretty well with DOS apps).


I dont know wjat Windows 3.1x you used by the one I and everyone else I know used sucked pretty badly as a DOS-app frontend. That's one thing Win9x was actually better at.

C'mon back, Dos!! Only with long filenames, pre-emptive mulit-tasking, better memory management.


We already have that. It's called Unix.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

"I used Windows 3.1 as a nice app-launcher (it did pretty well with DOS apps).


I dont know what Windows 3.1x you used by the one I and everyone else I know used sucked pretty badly as a DOS-app frontend. That's one thing Win9x was actually better at.
"

Win 3.x was a big deal at the time, but of course in hindsight had some limitations. However, compared to no multitasking at all, it was good. However, you could always use DESQview or OS/2 instead, depending on how much you wanted to spend. WinNT was more stable, though, than Win9x (although less DOS compatible).

"C'mon back, Dos!! Only with long filenames, pre-emptive mulit-tasking, better memory management.


We already have that. It's called Unix.
"

No, we have DOSEMU + FreeDOS and DOSBox. Now if only the big distros would include 'em! For LFN and memory in native FreeDOS, use DOSLFN and JEMMEX (or just use DPMI apps, which usually can overcome any limitations).

(... gets back to helping FreeDOS 1.1 to be eventually released ...)

Edited 2008-07-25 22:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

obi_oni Member since:
2006-02-15

Tried FreeDOS recently? Maybe not with pre-emptive multi-tasking, but with long filenames and somewhat better hardware support for recent machines.

I must say, it brought a little smile to my face when I recently booted the FreeDOS installation CD in QEMU and partitioned a usb stick: there's people out there that still make somewhat elaborate DOS applications! Nice.

Reply Parent Score: 2