Originally posted by: Smilin
haha I just saw this in your sig:
Windows 98/ME aren't even real 32-bit operating systems. They are pseudo 32-bit code on top of a native 16-bit architecture!!
hahaha. you are such a monkey. Sure 9x is a POS but you don't know why!
What does all this 9x crap have to do with DX10 again?
No, what is true is that you haven't a #$%&ing clue about CPU architecture or programming (particularly re: "pseudo 32-bit code"). There are plenty of people who would love to help you understand this; the lack of comprehension on your part is simply due to willful ignorance (e.g. being stupid on purpose).Originally posted by: Link19
What I have in my signature is the plain old truth!!
Originally posted by: ProviaFan
No, what is true is that you haven't a #$%&ing clue about CPU architecture or programming (particularly re: "pseudo 32-bit code"). There are plenty of people who would love to help you understand this; the lack of comprehension on your part is simply due to willful ignorance (e.g. being stupid on purpose).Originally posted by: Link19
What I have in my signature is the plain old truth!!
Originally posted by: Link19
Originally posted by: kobymu
No no no, this is exactly the problem.Originally posted by: Canterwood
Can I suggest that the OP seriously needs to get laid.
One day when link was left alone in his room by his parents after bed time, he started to "tinker" with his windows98 when all of a sudden windows.... "touched" him.
Ever since every time link tries to get laid he gets a flashback and run over here and post his "pos os" in the attempt to do some os therapy.
Poor boy
No, the problem is that compared to what we could and should have had in OS/2 WARP, Windows 98 was a piece of sh*t operating system. Far better operating systems existed back then, its just that Microsoft and other market forces made it so that almost all applications were designed for the most inferior OS Win9X kernel at the time.
Windows 95/98/ME were by far the worst opertaing systems made since 1994. That is a technical fact!!
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Originally posted by: Link19
Originally posted by: kobymu
No no no, this is exactly the problem.Originally posted by: Canterwood
Can I suggest that the OP seriously needs to get laid.
One day when link was left alone in his room by his parents after bed time, he started to "tinker" with his windows98 when all of a sudden windows.... "touched" him.
Ever since every time link tries to get laid he gets a flashback and run over here and post his "pos os" in the attempt to do some os therapy.
Poor boy
No, the problem is that compared to what we could and should have had in OS/2 WARP, Windows 98 was a piece of sh*t operating system. Far better operating systems existed back then, its just that Microsoft and other market forces made it so that almost all applications were designed for the most inferior OS Win9X kernel at the time.
Windows 95/98/ME were by far the worst opertaing systems made since 1994. That is a technical fact!!
OS/2 is $hit. Was there any hardware or driver support for it? What the fvck could you actually do with OS/2? Nada damn thing.. that is why its dead. It died LONG before Windows 98 will die.
Originally posted by: Link19
Umm...dickhead, you seem to forget that DirectX was orginally written for the Win9x Kernel not the NT kernel...other than allowing for more advanced features to be incorporated in software that uses directx..it hasn't changed from the original Win9x version...so naturally DX9 works on the Win9x kernel...because that is what it was designed for.
IIRC DirectX was backported to the NT kernel...just so WinNT could run "some" of the software that Win9x was capable of running.
once again you open your mouth and only sh1t dribbles out as usual...do you have ANY clue what you are babbling about...I don't think so.
Sp what?? Doesn't matter at all. DX9 shoudl have still be written for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!!
DX was only originally written for Windows 9X because Microsoft choose to do it that way. It has nothing to do with the fact that Windows 9X was more suited for that kind of stuff because it was NOT!! It was all part of what Microsoft choose to do which was a big mistake!! Enough said.
Windows 98/ME were piece of sh*t operating systems. OS/2 WARP, Linux, Solaris, BSD would all kick the pants out of Windows 98SE any day. If only there were native Linux and OS/2 WARP binaries for all the same applications written for the piece of sh*t classic based Windows OS, the whole IT industry would have been so much better off the last 10 years. Enough said.
Originally posted by: MrChad
Let's stop feeding the troll, folks. Let this thread die.
Originally posted by: mchammer
Wow Link19 really is insane
Originally posted by: cubby1223
[
How did this whole thread continue on....
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
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.
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.
If it was so superior, then applications would have been developed for it and there would have been more support for it.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
If it was so superior, then applications would have been developed for it and there would have been more support for it.
Not necessarily, the better technology usually loses to whatever's advertised better.
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
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.
Umm.. Link19.. you are a fvcking idiot. If it was so superior, then applications would have been developed for it and there would have been more support for it. Microsoft game consumers what they wanted; an operating system that was easy to use, had hardware support and the application support they needed to get the job done.
What is this "technical fact" you speak of regarding OS/2? You don't have a freaking clue.. all you keep saying, "technical fact it was better" .. blah fvcking blah.. Show me proof.. or can you?
Originally posted by: Link19
Originally posted by: Nothinman
If it was so superior, then applications would have been developed for it and there would have been more support for it.
Not necessarily, the better technology usually loses to whatever's advertised better.
Exactly!! Finally someone comes in to show they know what they are talking about.
Originally posted by: Stumps
Originally posted by: Link19
Originally posted by: Nothinman
If it was so superior, then applications would have been developed for it and there would have been more support for it.
Not necessarily, the better technology usually loses to whatever's advertised better.
Exactly!! Finally someone comes in to show they know what they are talking about.
Its just a pity you still have no idea what you are talking about ,fuckwit