Jump to content
IGNORED

Favorite Operating Systems of all time?


Recommended Posts

Really? I always thought that 98SE was the "good one".

 

Yep. I wish I could remember what all the heck it was that bugged us about it. I just remember experiencing issues that 98 didn't have. It is possible that we were a little quick to get sour on it though. It's just that without being able to remember details it's hard to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yep. I wish I could remember what all the heck it was that bugged us about [Windows 98SE]. I just remember experiencing issues that 98 didn't have. It is possible that we were a little quick to get sour on it though. It's just that without being able to remember details it's hard to know.

 

It did support USB devices officially, but you still had to download & install the drivers manually unlike with current versions of Windows. Plus there were more programs coming out that "only" ran on XP (via artifical version checks), so it was getting long in the tooth by 2001. Plus like all DOS-based Windows 9x it occasionally BSOD but not as much as Windows 95.

 

I did purchase the SE upgrade to patch it up because I did NOT want to use Windows ME...now that was garbage!

 

Overall I liked 98 & 98SE as far as DOS-based Windows goes but they naturally got superceeded by the NT based versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Linux - Some Unix snobs like to denigrate Linux as some kind of a unsophisticated hillbilly cousin twice removed, but us Linux users know better. :) My current favorite is Linux Mint.

 

Whoa... a Unix snob?

Thats realllyyy up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Level of snobbiness per OS (READ DISCLAIMER):

1. Command-line Solaris

2. Command-Line Unix

3.Shell Unix

4 MacOSX

5.Windows (MSWinx64)

6.Windows (MSWinx86)

7. Solaris

8. Linux (CMD0

9. Linux (XWIN)

10. FreeDOS

11. PC-DOS (IBM)

12. MS-DOS (Microsoft)

13 Windows NT 3.x

(NOTE: Not at all accurate, just for fun/satire)

Edited by TheTIGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOS based windows run on top of the old MS-DOS based OS and the old FAT based disk systems. They include Windows 1 to 3.1 and Windows 95/98/98SE/ME.

 

Windows NT 3.1 introduced the NTFS file system and does not run on top of an MS-DOS based OS. Others include Windows NT 3.5/4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, etc.

 

Edit:

I always disliked the old interface in windows 3.1 and windows nt 3.5. I was happy to see the start menu in windows 95 and then windows nt 4.

 

When I first looked at Linux (can't remember the version), the mouse cursor movement was weird and I couldn't adjust it. It bugged me so much I found it unuseable. It seems normal now in current Linux; does anyone know what I'm talking about? I know there are lots of different variations of Linux but it was probably either Red Hat or Ubuntu.

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOS based windows run on top of the old MS-DOS based OS and the old FAT based disk systems. They include Windows 1 to 3.1 and Windows 95/98/98SE/ME.

 

Windows 95 and later do not run "on top of" DOS and do not require DOS to be installed. Even 3.1 has a virtualization of 16-bit DOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my favorite OSes :

 

Non PC:

 

  • GEM OS : It was fonctionnal and out of my way and for what I was doing with my 520STfm it was quite sufficient.
  • AMIGA OS : It was quite powerful with its multitasking but I found the workbench less user friendly than the GEM desktop. And beside, I never ever used the multitasking capability of the machine.
  • Atari Dos 2.5 : Nice menu driven interface compared to the C64 esotheric commands.

PC :

 

  • MS DOS 6 : It was he Apex of MS DOS
  • OS/2 Warp : I even was a member of the Montreal OS/2 fan club :-). I liked that it came with Rexx which I knew from my Amiga days (Arexx).
  • Windows 98SE : It replaced my OS/2 Warp machine and was the best 9x OS.
  • Windows 7 : Last of the classic windows shell and last to offer Windows Media Center which I loved to use with MediaBrowser 2.x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Windows 95 and later do not run "on top of" DOS and do not require DOS to be installed.

Wrong.

 

Win 95 system requirements: https://kb.iu.edu/d/aezf

A personal computer with a 386DX, 20MHz or higher processor, running the MS-DOS operating system version 3.2 or later, or running Microsoft Windows version 3.0 or later, or running OS/2 version 2.0 or later

 

 

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#Dependence_on_MS-DOS

As a consequence of being DOS-based

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Windows 95 and later do not run "on top of" DOS and do not require DOS to be installed. Even 3.1 has a virtualization of 16-bit DOS.

 

The first edition of Windows 95 ran on top of Dos 6.22 and used an addition to the Dos file system to support long filenames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Windows 95 and later do not run "on top of" DOS and do not require DOS to be installed. Even 3.1 has a virtualization of 16-bit DOS.

Windows 95 includes MS-DOS v7 and is installed at the same time as Windows. Windows 95 is a 32 bit system but at minimum the 16-bit MS-DOS component serves as a boot loader. The MS-DOS component also provides DOS compatibilty. Windows NT is completely different. [Windows 3.1 is a 16-bit add-on to MS-DOS, Windows NT 3.1 is a 32 bit operating system completely independent of ms-dos with the new ntfs file system]

 

MS-DOS was not a requirement of Windows 95 since it included a version of it. It was still needed to run Windows 95.

 

 

The first edition of Windows 95 ran on top of Dos 6.22 and used an addition to the Dos file system to support long filenames.

The dos that came with Windows 95 was ms-dos v7.

[Was there a different version of Windows 95?]

Edited by mr_me
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If memory serves Win 98 SE was the first version of Windows that did not require DOS.

The ms-dos that came with windows 98se was ms-dos 7.1. Windows ME came with ms-dos v8.

 

Unlike windows 3.1, windows 95/98/98se/me did not require dos because they came with and installed a version of ms-dos.

 

Windows NT v3.1 was the first version of Windows that did not boot through ms-dos. That version of windows evolved into windows 2000, xp, Vista, and current windows.

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DOS included with Windows 9x runs on an abstracted layer within Windows 9x protected-mode. I did OEM installs of Windows 95 back in the day; DOS is not required but Windows 95 can co-exist with an installation if DOS is already installed at the time. A Windows 9x system boots into real-mode, but once the kernal is loaded the systems changes into protected-mode and the real-mode components are run virtually in tandem.

 

From the same credible Wikipedia article, just a couple of paragraphs up, emphasis mine:

 

 

To end-users, MS-DOS appears as an underlying component of Windows 95. For example, it is possible to prevent loading the graphical user interface and boot the system into a real-mode MS-DOS environment. This sparked debate amongst users and professionals over the question of to what extent Windows 95 is an operating system or merely a graphical shell running on top of MS-DOS.

 

When the graphical user interface is started, the virtual machine manager takes over the filesystem-related and disk-related functionality. MS-DOS itself is demoted to a compatibility layer for 16-bit device drivers. This contrasts with earlier versions of Windows which rely on MS-DOS to perform file and disk access (Windows for Workgroups 3.11 could also largely bypass MS-DOS when 32-bit file access and 32-bit disk access were enabled). Keeping MS-DOS in memory allows Windows 95 to use DOS device drivers when suitable Windows drivers are unavailable. Windows 95 is capable of using all 16-bit Windows 3.x drivers.

 

 

The "MS-DOS based" is a poor choice of words. I am not trying to start a religious war or derail the thread into flames, I just thought this misconception was buried a decade ago.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 95 includes MS-DOS v7 and is installed at the same time as Windows. Windows 95 is a 32 bit system but at minimum the 16-bit MS-DOS component serves as a boot loader. The MS-DOS component also provides DOS compatibilty. Windows NT is completely different. [Windows 3.1 is a 16-bit add-on to MS-DOS, Windows NT 3.1 is a 32 bit operating system completely independent of ms-dos with the new ntfs file system]

 

MS-DOS was not a requirement of Windows 95 since it included a version of it. It was still needed to run Windows 95.

 

The dos that came with Windows 95 was ms-dos v7.

[Was there a different version of Windows 95?]

Yes there were a few releases of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there were a few releases of it.

yes but was there one that did not come with ms-dos 7.0; or what you were suggesting?

 

----------

Okay, I thought you might have been suggesting there was a version of Win95 that required you have ms-dos v6.22 seperately.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're missing the point of dropping DOS if we don't talk about the reason why it's important: protected memory. Prior to the NT kernel, the whole PC would crash if a program became unresponsive or stopped working. With WinNT on (including Windows 2000 and XP), you could kill a single task without rebooting the whole operating system. I think it's impossible to overestimate how important that is to anyone who relies on this goldarnged things to make a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I became a fan of protected memory from my time using the earliest Sun workstations. I became very used to the stability of UNIX, because of this feature.

 

It was something I really missed, with my Amiga (although I do realize, that given the 68000, and the lack of ability to mate a 68851 MMU to it, protected memory was simply not possible, so I let it slide, and trying to add protected memory to AmigaOS during the 68020/030/040 heyday would have made the OS unusable to a large number of their users..so...yeah...take a deep breath and let it go.)

 

The Atari ST I simply used for music production work, so I wasn't concerned with the lack of memory protection.

 

Although, I was forever angry at PC operating system manufacturers on both the hardware and software sides, for just how badly it was implemented, one abortion after another, until finally the 80386 gave us something that was....usable....I didn't have a decent operating system on my 80386 until Linux. (SCO Xenix/UNIX were horrifically expensive, BSDI also.. MINIX was $150, but it came with a great book as a crash course to operating systems design, 386BSD wasn't ready yet, and GNU was this long off dream, the HURD kernel still isn't usable today...god knows I've tried.), Plan9 was interesting, but very difficult to procure at the time....but I'm digressing.

 

-Thom

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At VCF-SE I was talking with a group of Amigans about what I feel the connection is with this particular computer. I noted that while we would often get very angry over an operating system crash of just about any other computer we might use (Mac, Atari ST, Windows PC, etc.,) it felt different with the Amiga. Rather than feel angry I often felt more apologetic or even jovial about it, very rarely every annoyed -- except the few times an errant program caused a reboot over-night while running some tasks like retrieving QWKs or GEnie messages and file downloads.

 

Almost a feeling of, okay, you are doing a lot for me and I asked one thing too many. We can try again and this time things will be better.

 

Oh, and speaking of badly implemented hardware and software, we have crappy driver developers to blame for the 4GB memory limitation in 32-bit Windows. The original release of Windows XP supported 36-bit PAE which remapped RAM under PCI I/O space at the top of the 4GB memory space allotted by 32-bit addressing. Microsoft found that a ridiculously large number of error reports sent from crashed Windows XP machines were caused by drivers which were confused by the remapped RAM and would just up-chuck. With one of the subsequent services packs (I believe SP1, but it could have been SP2) Microsoft re-instantiated the 4GB addressing limitation, and thus 32-bit Windows to this day (some server OSes excluded) never report a full 4GB of available RAM as the top of the space is taken by PCI I/O addressing and AGP aperture, as well as shared video RAM in some systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the same fond memories of Win98SE. Small size that removed lots of the problems from Win95. You could also fall back into to DOS. However, I also remember reinstalling it frequently and even developing strategies to be able to keep it on its own partition so I could wipe it out whenever I wanted. This doesn't really seem to be an issue with XP and 7. However, when the OS takes up like 300Mb even with all my stuff installed that makes reinstall a bit easier - lol.

 

The OS that I probably have the most experience with (professionally) is Windows Server 2003 which was the equivalent to XP on the server side. I don't really miss 2k3 except that I knew exactly where everything was. I would even install Server instead of XP on my machines where I did most of my work because I knew it so well. Since then, I tend to use a client OS as there are newer restrictions on the server OS.

 

Regarding the comment from Flojo about demo'ing the Cortana device with an iPhone (btw, I think that is a combined effort with Google): Even within MS the Windows Phone platform had died well before support was abandoned. Most MS employees HAD a winphone but gave it up years ago. This trend coincided with a very specific shift to enable MS customers to use software on whatever platform they want. This is why they gave away Win 10 upgrades and let you all use 0365 wherever you want for free (that was also mentioned by another user).

 

Regarding Win10. I haven't really had any big problems with it, but then again, I didn't upgrade ANY Win 7 machines to it. I did upgrade a Machine that came with Win 8 and it works perfectly fine on 10, however, I still do almost 100% of my windows gaming on Win 7.

 

I've never owned a Macintosh anything. I have used one and never really honestly noticed much difference between the OS and Windows except that I didn't know how to do things immediately like close windows or right click. Someone did ask me to work on their Mac once, and I was able to help them, but I never could figure out how to look at an OS error log. Basically, I have no opinion of Mac OS. Maybe it is better, but at this point, I will probably never know.

 

I have used Linux a bit, but I have no real reason to. I like Linux and my tendency is to generally want something that goes faster and takes fewer steps even if it means I have to enter a few command line instructions. However, I've just never had the need to switch, so I don't. The cost of learning fully about Linux is too high to push Windows out of the way for me. This is kinda the same reason that I haven't dropped cable TV yet . . .

 

Finally, if I have to pick a favorite, I think it is the Windows Phone 8.0 OS. That thing was great! It let you avoid installing individual applications to use Facebook and Twitter and fully integrated your contacts list in a seamless way. Once I got the 8.1 update (and eventually 10), I still liked it, but the original WinPhone 8.0 OS was truly a creative approach to integrating the most common activities you did on a phone with . . . wait for it . . . a Phone. It seems however that vision is now dead and will fall into a bucket with OSX or Geos. Nice ideas that people remember fondly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...