9x Users

Problem with the site? Got a suggestion? Got feedback? Post here and the staff will discuss it with you.
Post Reply
Namronia

9x Users

Post by Namronia »

OBrasilo and me worried about that here are no real 9x fans anymore, everybody is just using and wanting longhorn here, obi's idea would be to split "Microsoft Operating Systems" into windows 95, 98, me, other 9x's and the rest NT's, we think many users dont even know about 9x anymore, which is sad because its so more better than longhorn...

@andy, if you like that idea please assemble it, we really need for 9x and less longhorn...

mdogg
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: My house

Post by mdogg »

Longhorn is more interesting than 9x. 9x has been around for a long time that it's gotten old and especially since Vista is the latest version of Windows, it's interesting to find how Microsoft got to Vista from XP.
Image

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

mdogg wrote:Longhorn is more interesting than 9x. 9x has been around for a long time that it's gotten old and especially since Vista is the latest version of Windows, it's interesting to find how Microsoft got to Vista from XP.
well, i was very intrested in longhorn first too, but 9x has much more stuff than you all guess, just read old osba threads and youll see what i mean

happy dude
Donator
Posts: 2461
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Post by happy dude »

Weve got way too many categories as it is

Also http://betaarchive.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4874

RentedMule
Donator
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by RentedMule »

The problem comes down to 9x was flawed by design. No one WANTS to remember those OS's. No security, horrible stability, memory leaks, you name it.

Daniel
User avatar
Staff
Posts: 2607
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Germany, Earth
Contact:

Post by Daniel »

You can't say Windows 9x is more interesting than Longhorn or other NT OS'es, since this is a subjective opinion - it's the same as if you would say Rock music is better than classical music...
Anyway, I don't like the idea to split the Windows forum; as Andy said there are already too much categories...

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

RentedMule wrote:The problem comes down to 9x was flawed by design. No one WANTS to remember those OS's. No security, horrible stability, memory leaks, you name it.
so longhorn alphas (wasnt it that what you all want..?) are the secure os and also stable like nothing else?

in what a world youre living?

RentedMule
Donator
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by RentedMule »

Namronia wrote:
so longhorn alphas (wasnt it that what you all want..?) are the secure os and also stable like nothing else?

in what a world youre living?
The best reply I have to that is *WOOSH*

Longhorn, while even in development phases, contain a security model. Whether it is working perfectly is for another day.

9x had NO file permissions. It had NO user levels. It had NO logical separation of kernel/userspace. Memory protection consisted of Blue Screening when something read/wrote to the wrong place in memory.

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

i still like windows 9x

the computer sitting next to me is running windows 95!

mdogg
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: My house

Post by mdogg »

We don't mean Longhorn is stable, we mean that Longhorn is more interesting. Windows 9x has been abandoned for a long time now and it's become old and boring. Longhorn is more interesting as it is cool to see how Microsoft got from XP all the way to Vista. I'm not saying that I would like an unstable beta version of Windows as my primary OS, I'm just saying that Longhorn is much more interesting right now.

In fact, I'm sure that we'll all be interested in Windows 7 betas once 7 is released as RTM.
Image

Ludacris
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Post by Ludacris »

Windows 9x is very boring, maybe your Betas and Alphas like the o*****, k*******, and other stuff isnt, but the stuff we have is.

teriaki 511
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:58 pm
Location: The Bermuda Triangle

Post by teriaki 511 »

im still a fan of the ms-dos/9x line, i prefer it over NT anyday, i'd still be using it if the games i have supported it.

that being said, compare computers then and computers now, back then high-end computers might have had 64-128 MB ram tops, 800x600 was a big screen, and they might have had a whopping 8 MB graphics memory, internet for home users was a luxury, and OS designers were working for functionality, not eye candy, so its not really surprising that 95/98/98se/ME were bland and lacked certain neccesary security features, it wasn't needed
Image

Frozenport
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"
Contact:

Post by Frozenport »

My best computer experiences were with Windows 98SE, I used very popular OEM hardware and had no problems.

I liked the Windows 9x approach because it was better suited for single users. It quite simply had less junk. Windows 95 could run on a computer with 8 megabytes of ram...

Really what killed them was the botched release of Windows ME.
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart

ddrmaxromance
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Post by ddrmaxromance »

Windows 9x marked a landmark for Microsoft as Windows 95 was what made the Windows Operating System become so popular. The Explorer Taskbar in 95 was so in genius it is STILL used to this date. To say that the 9x series should be forgotten is like abandoning Windows Vista, XP, and all the NT operating systems altogether. Personally, Program Manager was my favorite shell, but I don't want to get into that discussion.

Windows 98SE is byfar the one that stands out the most as I've used it most of my life. Now, I've probably used Windows 3.11 for Workgroups even more, but this is more of a 9x series. To this date, I still have the manual sitting right here at my desk of "Windows 98SE Getting Started" with its product key and genuine designs all over it. It's quite simply amazing to read it a few times here and there and see how well technology has evolved since my early days in the 90s. Hell, I remember bothering my parents to get the old LCII out just to use System 7 from Apple because of the memories!

So personally, a Windows 9x section would be interesting and I'd probably stalk the part of the forum a lot.
Since January 2005, I've been in the Operating Systems Prototype Community. I've enjoyed learning more these past four years about the development of the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, as well as learning of new user-based projects that optimize system performance.

mdogg
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: My house

Post by mdogg »

I never said Windows 9x should be forgotten or that it sucked. I mean, I like the classic retro look and feel of 9x. I just said that Longhorn was more interesting in a sense that we hadn't all used it before like we have with 9x.
Image

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 8161
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Post by mrpijey »

Splitting a forum won't make people more interested in a particular OS generation. You got to be pretty blind to not notice that Win9x exists, so if a member wants to find info about it here he/she will, without cutting the forum into even smaller pieces.

I have to agree tho, Win9x builds are pretty boring . Being the beta geek I am I still collect them, but the development and changes are so much more interesting and visible in Whistler/Longhorn builds than Chicago and Memphis builds. And any new member here getting struck by the beta fever will get and install those oldies anyway .
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Channels: Discord :: Twitter

wolfhunter3
FTP Access
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:20 pm

Post by wolfhunter3 »

9x is more stable but longhorn is more interesting. Longhorn has more features than 9x. I like the glass on longhorn but 9x gets boring. But this is just my opinion.

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

wolfhunter3 wrote:9x is more stable but longhorn is more interesting. Longhorn has more features than 9x. I like the glass on longhorn but 9x gets boring. But this is just my opinion.
well, you all think of "features" as design, thats really sad...

mdogg
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: My house

Post by mdogg »

Namronia wrote:
wolfhunter3 wrote:9x is more stable but longhorn is more interesting. Longhorn has more features than 9x. I like the glass on longhorn but 9x gets boring. But this is just my opinion.
well, you all think of "features" as design, thats really sad...
Actually, we don't think design is the most important part of Longhorn. Other things like the sidebar, the first instances of UAC, etc. make Longhorn a cool OS to test.
Image

Post Reply