Windows ME --- Socket 939

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Stumps
yeah Win98SE is a nice OS...very pleasant to use, no real issues, although getting more than 512mb ram to work is a bit of a pain..but it's worth it.

Careful, you'll poke another hole in POS link19s theory...
Interesting that one could even reach 512mb at all if only 16bits of address space were available.

It can address 512MB of memory, but not well. It can do so because of the 32-bit extensions. The 32-bit extensions on top of a native 16-bit arcitecture is what enables it to address 512MB of memory.

POS WIndows 98/ME cannot even see more than 1GB of memory. They are POS opertaing systems. Enough said. And when I say POS, it stands for Piece of Sh*t, NOT Point of Sale!!

OMFG you are such a fvcking hopeless piece of sh!t(not POS which means Point of Sale, retard) try having a look on Microsofts website, they clearly have help documents on how to get win95/98/98SE/ME to use more than 512MB.

this just proves that you have no idea what you're on about and should just stay away from PC's.

I really wish the Mods would hurry up and give you a flogging with the ban stick.

I never said you can't have it recognize more than 512MB. All I said was that the OS is a piece of sh*t and cannot efficiently use large amounts of RAM well at all. Heck, it can't even use more than 128MB of RAM efficiently. I repeat, I said it can't do it efficiently, I did not say it coudn't easily recognize more than 128MB of RAM.

 

[Stumps]

no you didn't you little fvcked up turd, it's clearly written in your post POS WIndows 98/ME cannot even see more than 1GB of memory

you mention nothing about effeciency or any crap like that...damn you are a fvcking tool.

As usual you are talking out of your ass again and when the mods ban your retarded ass I will be laughing the hardest(maybe Soviet as well).

come to think of it the above post like all of your posts makes absolutely no sense at all.

STOP POSTING RETARD.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Stumps
yeah Win98SE is a nice OS...very pleasant to use, no real issues, although getting more than 512mb ram to work is a bit of a pain..but it's worth it.

Careful, you'll poke another hole in POS link19s theory...
Interesting that one could even reach 512mb at all if only 16bits of address space were available.

It can address 512MB of memory, but not well. It can do so because of the 32-bit extensions. The 32-bit extensions on top of a native 16-bit arcitecture is what enables it to address 512MB of memory.

POS WIndows 98/ME cannot even see more than 1GB of memory. They are POS opertaing systems. Enough said. And when I say POS, it stands for Piece of Sh*t, NOT Point of Sale!!

OMFG you are such a fvcking hopeless piece of sh!t(not POS which means Point of Sale, retard) try having a look on Microsofts website, they clearly have help documents on how to get win95/98/98SE/ME to use more than 512MB.

this just proves that you have no idea what you're on about and should just stay away from PC's.

I really wish the Mods would hurry up and give you a flogging with the ban stick.

I never said you can't have it recognize more than 512MB. All I said was that the OS is a piece of sh*t and cannot efficiently use large amounts of RAM well at all. Heck, it can't even use more than 128MB of RAM efficiently. I repeat, I said it can't do it efficiently, I did not say it coudn't easily recognize more than 128MB of RAM.

so, XP can't use over 2GB efficiently, it's a POS and Microsoft should cancel support for it as soon as vista RC2 comes out!!1!!

Stupid POS XP!

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Stumps
yeah Win98SE is a nice OS...very pleasant to use, no real issues, although getting more than 512mb ram to work is a bit of a pain..but it's worth it.

Careful, you'll poke another hole in POS link19s theory...
Interesting that one could even reach 512mb at all if only 16bits of address space were available.

It can address 512MB of memory, but not well. It can do so because of the 32-bit extensions. The 32-bit extensions on top of a native 16-bit arcitecture is what enables it to address 512MB of memory.

POS WIndows 98/ME cannot even see more than 1GB of memory. They are POS opertaing systems. Enough said. And when I say POS, it stands for Piece of Sh*t, NOT Point of Sale!!

OMFG you are such a fvcking hopeless piece of sh!t(not POS which means Point of Sale, retard) try having a look on Microsofts website, they clearly have help documents on how to get win95/98/98SE/ME to use more than 512MB.

this just proves that you have no idea what you're on about and should just stay away from PC's.

I really wish the Mods would hurry up and give you a flogging with the ban stick.

I never said you can't have it recognize more than 512MB. All I said was that the OS is a piece of sh*t and cannot efficiently use large amounts of RAM well at all. Heck, it can't even use more than 128MB of RAM efficiently. I repeat, I said it can't do it efficiently, I did not say it coudn't easily recognize more than 128MB of RAM.

so, XP can't use over 2GB efficiently, it's a POS and Microsoft should cancel support for it as soon as vista RC2 comes out!!1!!

Stupid POS XP!

Hell yeah!! Vista is what XP should have been. If it wasn't for the fact alot of users still run Windows XP, XP would have died a long time ago. XP is such a POS operating sytem.. any modern operating system should be able to use over 2GB of memory efficiently.. XP can't since its 32-bit code on top of 32-bit architecture

Vista is far superior over XP! XP POS DIE!





/sarcasm

 

[Stumps]

does that mean that WinXP-x64 is "pseudo" 64 bit code on top of 32 bit architecture....oh wait it is, my bad

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: darincm
wow....
read this:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part6/wrkc28.mspx?mfr=true

some key points:

"Like Windows 95, Windows 98 is derived from the Windows 3.1 platform and includes the following features:

? A complete 32-bit kernel, including memory management, and preemptive multitasking and multithreading support.

? A fully integrated 32-bit, protected-mode file system, which eliminates the need to rely on a separate copy of MS-DOS once the system boots up.

? 32-bit installable file system drivers supporting FAT, FAT32, ISO 9660 (CD-ROM), ISO 13346 (Universal Disk Format/Digital Video Disc [UDF/DVD]), network redirection, and high performance. These file system drivers also support the use of long file names and an open, modular architecture to handle future expansion.

? WDM support, which allows a WDM-supported device to run under both Windows 98 and future versions of Windows NT using the same driver.

? Improved system-wide robustness and "cleanup" after an application or driver fails. This delivers a more stable and reliable operating environment.

? A dynamic hardware and environment configuration, which reduces the need for users to adjust and restart their systems manually.

of course I'm sure you'll say its a microsoft conspiracy

If you must insist on making a point, do a little research before you make yourself look like a total idiot. Pointing us to a forum post is not proof, a technical architecture document from Microsoft is!

and btw...finding that took less than 30 seconds

Very nice find there darincm!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: bigdaddy51
One look at a Vista screensaver, will show you why 98 is dead and buried...<snip>...

Or one look at the date on your calendar.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: bigdaddy51
One look at a Vista screensaver, will show you why 98 is dead and buried...<snip>...

Or one look at the date on your calendar.

98? Mine says 9 12.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: bigdaddy51
One look at a Vista screensaver, will show you why 98 is dead and buried...<snip>...

Or one look at the date on your calendar.

98? Mine says 9 12.

9/12/1999?

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Stumps
yeah Win98SE is a nice OS...very pleasant to use, no real issues, although getting more than 512mb ram to work is a bit of a pain..but it's worth it.

Careful, you'll poke another hole in POS link19s theory...
Interesting that one could even reach 512mb at all if only 16bits of address space were available.

It can address 512MB of memory, but not well. It can do so because of the 32-bit extensions. The 32-bit extensions on top of a native 16-bit arcitecture is what enables it to address 512MB of memory.

POS WIndows 98/ME cannot even see more than 1GB of memory. They are POS opertaing systems. Enough said. And when I say POS, it stands for Piece of Sh*t, NOT Point of Sale!!

OMFG you are such a fvcking hopeless piece of sh!t(not POS which means Point of Sale, retard) try having a look on Microsofts website, they clearly have help documents on how to get win95/98/98SE/ME to use more than 512MB.

this just proves that you have no idea what you're on about and should just stay away from PC's.

I really wish the Mods would hurry up and give you a flogging with the ban stick.

I never said you can't have it recognize more than 512MB. All I said was that the OS is a piece of sh*t and cannot efficiently use large amounts of RAM well at all. Heck, it can't even use more than 128MB of RAM efficiently. I repeat, I said it can't do it efficiently, I did not say it coudn't easily recognize more than 128MB of RAM.

so, XP can't use over 2GB efficiently, it's a POS and Microsoft should cancel support for it as soon as vista RC2 comes out!!1!!

Stupid POS XP!

Hell yeah!! Vista is what XP should have been. If it wasn't for the fact alot of users still run Windows XP, XP would have died a long time ago. XP is such a POS operating sytem.. any modern operating system should be able to use over 2GB of memory efficiently.. XP can't since its 32-bit code on top of 32-bit architecture

Vista is far superior over XP! XP POS DIE!





/sarcasm

Totally! Screw XP, it seriously just blue screened on me 5 mins ago for no apparent reason. It never even let me READ the bluescreen, windows 98 always used to sit and wait for my approval before it would restart itsself, XP just does its own dang thing. Now ill never have any idea of what caused that or if it will happen again, first time its did that since i built this rig.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Stumps
does that mean that WinXP-x64 is "pseudo" 64 bit code on top of 32 bit architecture....oh wait it is, my bad

No Windows XP Professional x64 and Windows Server 2003 x64 are both true 64-bit operating systems. They are not just 32-bit operating systems with 64-bit extensions.

So they are great solutions for true 64-bit computing needs of Windows applications.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Hell yeah!! Vista is what XP should have been. If it wasn't for the fact alot of users still run Windows XP, XP would have died a long time ago. XP is such a POS operating sytem.. any modern operating system should be able to use over 2GB of memory efficiently.. XP can't since its 32-bit code on top of 32-bit architecture

Vista is far superior over XP! XP POS DIE!


/sarcasm

Totally! Screw XP, it seriously just blue screened on me 5 mins ago for no apparent reason. It never even let me READ the bluescreen, windows 98 always used to sit and wait for my approval before it would restart itsself, XP just does its own dang thing. Now ill never have any idea of what caused that or if it will happen again, first time its did that since i built this rig two days ago.

fixed

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps
does that mean that WinXP-x64 is "pseudo" 64 bit code on top of 32 bit architecture....oh wait it is, my bad

No Windows XP Professional x64 and Windows Server 2003 x64 are both true 64-bit operating systems. They are not just 32-bit operating systems with 64-bit extensions.

So they are great solutions for true 64-bit computing needs of Windows applications.

I'm pretty sure you don't even know what "64-bit extensions" or "32-bit extensions" or "pseudo 32" even means.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps
does that mean that WinXP-x64 is "pseudo" 64 bit code on top of 32 bit architecture....oh wait it is, my bad

No Windows XP Professional x64 and Windows Server 2003 x64 are both true 64-bit operating systems. They are not just 32-bit operating systems with 64-bit extensions.

So they are great solutions for true 64-bit computing needs of Windows applications.

goes to show what you know retard, and FYI WinXP-x64 is a steaming pile of crap, just like you are ******.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps
does that mean that WinXP-x64 is "pseudo" 64 bit code on top of 32 bit architecture....oh wait it is, my bad

No Windows XP Professional x64 and Windows Server 2003 x64 are both true 64-bit operating systems. They are not just 32-bit operating systems with 64-bit extensions.

So they are great solutions for true 64-bit computing needs of Windows applications.

goes to show what you know retard, and FYI WinXP-x64 is a steaming pile of crap, just like you are ******.

WIndows XP x64 is a very nice OS. It is true 64-bit, not just a 32-bit OS with 64-bit extensions. It is very stable and extremely fast, provided therer are drivers for all your hardware.

16-bit based Windows 98SE/ME are pieces of junk just as you are retarded Stumps.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a great OS. We just need more true 64-bit applications that can utilize a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit CPU.

 

[Stumps]

resorting to name calling now hey moron...run out of BS to spread?

oh well, wont be long and you'll be a thing of the past...long forgotten, if you catch my drift.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Stumps
resorting to name calling now hey moron...run out of BS to spread?

oh well, wont be long and you'll be a thing of the past...long forgotten, if you catch my drift.

You're the one who started the name calling!! So I wouldn't be talking!!

 

[Stumps]

yeah, but that's expected from me, you on the other hand just thread crap and ruin perfectly Legitimate threads.

you bring nothing to these forums and as everybody else agrees, need a severe flogging with the ban stick.

 

[stash]

Ok, after six pages of this crap, I think we've had enough. Link19 is not the only one behaving badly in this thread.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Link19
16-bit based Windows 98SE/ME are pieces of junk just as you are retarded Stumps.

Windows 98SE/ME are 32bit.



Did you even read the ass kicking that darincm just issued you or are you illiterate and having someone type these posts on your behalf?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Link19
16-bit based Windows 98SE/ME are pieces of junk just as you are retarded Stumps.

Windows 98SE/ME are 32bit.



Did you even read the ass kicking that darincm just issued you or are you illiterate and having someone type these posts on your behalf?

They are based on 16-bit code, but have 32-bit functionality. They are not 32-bit in the same way Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are.

 

[darincm]

you keep telling us this, but supply us with some proof. I am not an expert, I simply did a little research. Show me the data that backs up your claim & I will gladly admit I am wrong - and don't point us to a post in a forum - show us some technical documentation from a reliable source. Just do this

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Link19
16-bit based Windows 98SE/ME are pieces of junk just as you are retarded Stumps.

Windows 98SE/ME are 32bit.



Did you even read the ass kicking that darincm just issued you or are you illiterate and having someone type these posts on your behalf?

They are based on 16-bit code, but have 32-bit functionality. They are not 32-bit in the same way Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are.

The statement "based on 16-bit code, but have 32-bit functionality" is a contradiction and makes no sense.

Although the architecture is different than NT, the 9x Kernel is 32 bit, Link. It cannot execute on a 16 bit processor. The minimum is a 32bit 386 with math coprocessor (386dx) for Windows 95.

You are wrong POS Link19. Windows 98SE/ME are 32bit.


You will NEVER prove otherwise as long as you live. Please keep trying though. I enjoy picking on you.

 

[kamper]

I don't think a ban is in order. The retro mod should just put a very pro-98 statement in his sig, remove the other crap and lock it so that he always to carry it around with him. Either the humiliation would be too great and he'd stop posting, or he would be just that much more entertaining

 

[rasczak]

seems link is reading this thread through rose colored glasses. please stop posting your win 98 nonsense. it's tiresome, it's idiotic, and you really are making yourself look more like a dope with every letter you type.

the link from Microsoft's own technet site proves your theory wrong. This comes from the source itself.

Clearly you do not have the balls to man up to the pwnage that was released on your forehead by darincm.

from here on out you are now considered poop and have been thus named anandtech's official windows 98 clown.

wear the hat with pride.