People used Windows 98 because it was cheaper and compatable with Win95 stuff, and they were familar with Windows.
People used Windows 95 because it was cheaper and compatable with Win 3.xx stuff and dos, and they were somewhat familar with windows and MS-DOS.
People used Windows 3.xx because it ran on their dos machines.
People used Dos because it came with their PC's.
People used PCs because it was the cheapest possible computer you could find and still have it usefull for business.. Also it had IBM backing it.
That's realy about it. Realy.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
It had a hell of alot more advantages than that.. lets see.. higher than DirectX 3 support.. official USB support, improved plug & play support (better than 95 at least)..
lets see.... It was significantly cheaper to purchase than NT 4.0
That's only because the technicians at MS were morons back then and decided not to build those features into Windows NT 4. It had nothing to do with Windows 98 actually being a more capable OS.
NT sucked. Sure it was better then Win95, but that's not saying much. I remember the hell of installing the stupid thing and having to figure out what service pack I needed for this thing and what hardware to use and I'd do 3-4 installs and have it fail utterly, but then all of a sudden work on the 4th time. Horrible experiance.
NT was designed as a server or workstation operating system. It was designed to compete with Unix (which it wasn't even close to the same leauge as most commercial Unixes) and the features that you mentioned simply did not matter at the time. They had a job to do and making it suitable for the desktop was not part of it.
The security of the system reflects it. It's NT and has the same basics for security that Win2k/WinXP/Vista offers that Win9x machines lacked completely. (good file system ACLs for instance) But none of that stuff was used to help secure users or anything like that. It was all about file sharing, and other limited network services. At least from what I remember.
I agree. Windows NT 4 was pretty mediocre at best OS, but it was still better than the piece of crap Win95/98/ME always were and still are.
I think it is very fair to say that any Microsoft OS prior to Windows 2000 has no place for existence in today's IT infrastructure.
He's telling the truth and so am I. That is why he sides with me. We both know how awful and what a load of crap Windows 9X was and still is.
finally he says something that makes sense...just a pity about the crap it followed.
you see link19 you need to look at it like this, as a business/enterprise class OS, you are right Win9x based OS'es aren't suitible...and thats why WinNT and the like exsisted.
but as a home/small business OS...the Win9x based OS'es(espically Win98SE)couldn't be beat, they were cheap,had a wide range of compatibility, easy to use and generally worked good for 99.99% of people that used them...these people(including myself)didn't require an OS that could be left running for months at a time with out restarts or advance sercurity features.
IIRC Win2K wasn't even created as a home OS...but after a few service pack upgrades it became very suitible for the job(I used it for a few years till WinXP SP1) mind you that was because WinME suck more donkeys balls than Link19(which is pretty hard to do).
If Microsoft had of just stopped after Win98SE and went to Win2000 all would have been fine and the Win9x based OS'es would have ended on a good note.
How is link19 not banned yet?! He ruins just about every OS thread these days.
BTW, I about died laughing when I read Stumps sig:
Link19 isn't even a real man. He is a pseudo man on top of a native Girly-man architecture.
BTW, I about died laughing when I read Stumps sig:
Link19 isn't even a real man. He is a pseudo man on top of a native Girly-man architecture.
The first time I read a link19 thread I thought it was some kind of bizarre, but fundamentally brilliant, webforum performance piece.
Now that I see how some people are reacting to him, I think he might just be doing a masters thesis in online sociology.
Now that I see how some people are reacting to him, I think he might just be doing a masters thesis in online sociology.
I donno. I was just giving you the principle reason why Windows 9x succeeded over OS/2.
Because that is pretty much what I said directly after the portion you quoted. I thought you missed it the first time, or something. So I repeated myself.
I guess I was just confused about what your talking about then, and I still am I guess.
Rangoric
Senior member
- Apr 5, 2006
- 530
- 0
- 71
I was more focusing on the fact that without hardware and software support, OS/2 died.
Something else may have caused this to be so. But in the end, OS/2 stopped being supported/used because stuff didn't work with it.
Linux works with stuff, so its still around. Unix Works, so its still around. Mac OS works, so its still around. Windows works with stuff, so its still around. Have no doubt, that if one of those OSes stopped working with stuff, it too would die, just as OS/2 did.
And no matter how much that OS rocked in terms of what it did/could do. I would call it a bad OS because the main thing an OS is supposed to do is work. I really had no care of the "Whys" of OS/2 not working. There was never anything I would have used at the time that worked on OS/2.
In you list of points you say its cheaper then alternatives that where available, and it worked with stuff.
I only care about the stuff. Not the cost, or the general availability. Keeps it simple, and also shows what OS/2 needed most. As alot of the other points you have are just bylines to having a high volume. (Namely price).
Its the reason a General Computer Book will be $20-$40, and a more technical treatment of the same subject (Same page/word count), would be $50-$60.
Or a better example being a regular print version of a book for $25, while the Large Print Version will be $35, while sometimes even being of lower quality.
I think you'll find its him/her doing the reacting. In a very irrate way.
Its that reaction which then makes others continue to wind him/her up more and lay down more bait, which he/she always takes.
Its very repetative though and he/she just keeps spouting the same old crap.
Were do you get this 'OS/2 not working' stuff from?
It worked well back then and it still works. And it had a crapload of stuff aviable for it, mostly because it was very compatable with Windows stuff. I know a guy that still uses it to-this-day and utterly refuses to use anything else and it runs all the software he needs to do his job.
And software costs don't have 'high volume' things associated with them like other things.
It's entirely unlike a book. In fact exactly unlike a book.
It costs exactly the same to make one copy of a operating system as a hundred thousand. And I suppose you can say it's easier to spread the costs out.. but Microsoft didn't. That's why they are so rich... Even if the roles were reversed and OS/2 'won' and Microsoft sold as many copies of Windows as IBM did of OS/2 they'd still be rich.
The costs associated with large scale software is more of a support thing then quality of code or development. That's why Microsoft only makes a 300% profit on each copy of Windows or Office sold. (or something like that, I don't know the exact figures.. and MS has made it difficult to track that sort of thing) I mean they are simply raking in the cash on this stuff.. it's almost like a license to print money. That's how they can afford to simply just throw away millions and millions of dollars on unprofitable things like the Xbox just to keep other companies from threatening them and buying out other propriatory software companies just to put them out of business. (of course in a year or two they will probably manage to make their profit on the xbox360 if the PS/3 is a flop).
At the time Windows 98 released there were other operating systems that were very technically superior, either in speed, ui design, or quality of code. BeOS, MacOS, and OS/2 (respectively).
Also it's not like you could go into a store and buy any of those operating systems though. They suffer from the same issue that Linux does now...
That is the only computers you can buy have Windows pre-installed on them. You simply CANNOT go into a store and NOT buy Windows if you want a PC. It's impossible. You have to go online with small whitebox vendors or build it yourself. Back then they called it predatory and eventually convicted them of anti-trust violations and stuff like that, but nowadays it's just normal.
Windows, I suppose, if you want to look at it was a better OS for most people..
It was aviable. People were already familiar with MS-isms from DOS-days and previous computers that they've own. But it's definately not due to being a superior OS due to technical reasons.
You do realize that this "most people" you speak of are 99.9% of the world population. People want an operating system that works, and has a known brand name. You and all other OS/2 backers, and Windows 98 bashers, and others than hang out on hardware discussion forums are a SMALL minority.. and I mean.. tiny...
Software either lives or dies.. if you can't hang with the big boys.. then eventually your product will vanish.. thats the way it is.. Apparently, OS/2 didn't offer to the 99.9% of the "other" people what they wanted, even though you OS/2 fanboy, hardware geeks insist on claiming it had superior support... If it was so damn great, it would have caught on mainstream..
I think we do need to get this thread back on track...IIRC this thread actually has nothing to do with Win98 or OS/2.
come on people, forget about that little girly man...
come on people, forget about that little girly man...
I am a real man
However, Windows 98/ME are NOT real 32-bit operating systems. They are pseudo 32-bit operating systems.
However, Windows 98/ME are NOT real 32-bit operating systems. They are pseudo 32-bit operating systems.
windows 2003 feels faster because majority of the services are turned off by default. please don't compare a server OS with a workstation OS.
as far as performance goes, i prefer XP. i do like the simple look of 2000 however.
as far as performance goes, i prefer XP. i do like the simple look of 2000 however.
Rangoric
Senior member
- Apr 5, 2006
- 530
- 0
- 71
Yes it does.
Volume Pricing vs. Individual.
And thats a basic example.
And? Thats no better then saying Windows 98 is the best, cause I know this guy who still uses it.
Um its the original quote I was working from Link19
Which you left out when you started in on me. Maybe you should berate Link19 for spreading the false information?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter