Originally posted by: Link19
Actually that does kinda piss me off...not because Win98se was released..but because it cause you to infect this forum with your bullsh!t that you constantly have spilling out of your arse(since you seem to do a lot of talking out of your arse).
If those OS'es were REALLY any good(I have used OS/2 warp and linux)then they should have been able to make it in to the mainstream on their merits....I remember seeing plenty of IBM OS/2 Warp advertisements when I was younger...so it isn't like they were just hidden from the market.
It makes me laugh that you keep trying to compare OS'es that were NEVER designed for the home user, to a OS that was, Win9x success was because it was easy to use(You must be really retarded if you had difficulties using these OS'es)and had lots of industry support(it's only just starting to die off now....years after WinNT, OS/2 etc were buried)
I think you really just need to shut your mouth and accept that MILLIONS of people used and still use(Like myself) the Win9x based OS'es...you can't change the past so there's no point crying over it everytime somebody mentions Win98
It wa only because Microsoft had the control in the market place that no one else had.
It had nothing to do with Widnows 98 being such a good OS. OS/2 WARP and Linux would have kicked the sh!t out of Windows 98/ME any day. If only it weren't for Microsoft's predatory practices.
Also, part of it was that most of the population who knew nothing about computers believed that any OS that didn't have the name Windows must not have a GUI and be hard to use. That was not at all true.
An easy to use interface could have easily been developed for OS/2 WARP and Linux, had it been given the chance in the market place, and not just rejected simply because it didn't conatin the name Windows.
The best OS would have been something named Windows that used the Linux or OS/2 WARP code base with an easy to use GUI.
Anyone who says that the classic legacy DOS based Windows dominated the market back then because it was technically the best thing available
doesn't know what they are talking about. It was all a marketing issue that forced an inferior OS to become mainstream in the market place. That is a fact!! Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not know what they are talking about. Because it is a technical fact that OS/2 WARP was far superior to that pie3ce of sh*t classic based Windows OS. OS/2 WARP should have become the dominating force in the market place back in 1995.
The technical fact remians that OS/2 WARP was a far superior OS to that piece of sh*t Win98/ME architecture.
The only problem was that there weren't many applications written for it because Microsoft forced an inferior OS to dominate the market place by using predatory practices.