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 324630
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"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

Soulbender Member since:

However, compared to no multitasking at all, it was good.

Right, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about running DOS apps and for that Windows 3.x sucked big time.

Reply Parent Score: 2