XP and IE8 rebels

[sweenish]

Rubbish.... I am on Win98se with IE6 (MyIE2 in front) and I love it!! (98se is my favourite OS)

You are letting the mainstream BS fill your mind with garbage my friend,THAT IS WHAT IS NOT GOOD (Im not trying to make you mad,I am just saying)

So, the fact that XP ALWAYS stores its critical files at the same address in RAM is BS?

I had to keep the sasser worm update on a disk so that I could patch XP before ever going online. Otherwise, I had it about as soon as I connected.

Vista was a necessary upgrade, for security reasons alone. Dynamic memory allocations of critical files was one of the biggest security features that Vista brought, and it absolutely doesn't exist in XP.

Bring some facts to the table, or seriously stop talking. XP is not a safe OS today, and it wasn't even that safe by the time Vista came out.

 

[eliminatehumans]

I DONT CARE I HAVE SECURITY. sheesh

 

[eliminatehumans]

oh,,, your picking on dude. seems you dont know how to clean bugs.

i know , knew who distributed it an how. but sassy got nekid, good ole yahooo

 

[mikeymikec]

I DONT CARE I HAVE SECURITY. sheesh

oh,,, your picking on dude. seems you dont know how to clean bugs.

Computer security and job security aren't the same thing

 

[eliminatehumans]

nothing on mine of any interest or value. having such is just saying come an get it.

job security went the way of the horse an buggy. theres fifty lined up behind you an companies know this.

 

[Morbus]

nothing on mine of any interest or value. having such is just saying come an get it.

So you don't use email for work, or your bank website, do your taxes, or shop online at all?
Well, you might as well be using Windows 95. Security is totally pointless if you don't do those things.

 

[lxskllr]

So you don't use email for work, or your bank website, do your taxes, or shop online at all?
Well, you might as well be using Windows 95. Security is totally pointless if you don't do those things.

It would be interesting to run a Win95 honeypot. If might turn out that viruses in the wild don't support it anymore :^D

 

[eliminatehumans]

i would love to run 95, then i could load corel draw an have dos for my hc6811. ill do that later. have other priorities atm,

 

[nemesismk2]

i really enjoyed using windows 95 se and have never used a more reliable windows than that. windows xp has been fairly close but not quite at windows 98 se level,

 

[heymrdj]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but the new Chrome will no longer install on Windows XP. Firefox still supports XP though.

 

[mikeymikec]

i really enjoyed using windows 95 se and have never used a more reliable windows than that. windows xp has been fairly close but not quite at windows 98 se level,

Your experience with Windows/PCs over the last fifteen years must represent the mother of all train wrecks for you to honestly make a statement like that.

I sometimes wonder whether people actually remember what Win9x was like. I remember being amazed how different my initial experiences Windows NT 4.0 SP3 were (compared to other versions of Windows; I had been used to Win95 and Win98 up to that point), the fact that I could basically give it a load of work to do across a range of applications and it would get on with it. If a program crashed, the OS and other apps would carry on going 99% of the time. If the OS crashed, chances are that something serious needed investigating, rather than the standard-issue stiff breeze that would blow Win9x over the moment you gave it some real work to do.

 

[nemesismk2]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but the new Chrome will no longer install on Windows XP. Firefox still supports XP though.

google chrome will install on windows xp because google said last week that they will be supporting windows xp with google chrome until atleast the end of 2015. if the slow rate of windows xp users leaving windows xp continues even after windows 10 we will see how things turn out. anyway mozila have also said that they will support windows xp in 2015 and they have not even given an end date for firefox just yet.

 

[nemesismk2]

Your experience with Windows/PCs over the last fifteen years must represent the mother of all train wrecks for you to honestly make a statement like that.

I sometimes wonder whether people actually remember what Win9x was like. I remember being amazed how different my initial experiences Windows NT 4.0 SP3 were (compared to other versions of Windows; I had been used to Win95 and Win98 up to that point), the fact that I could basically give it a load of work to do across a range of applications and it would get on with it. If a program crashed, the OS and other apps would carry on going 99% of the time. If the OS crashed, chances are that something serious needed investigating, rather than the standard-issue stiff breeze that would blow Win9x over the moment you gave it some real work to do.

i have been using windows since msdos then windows 3.1, windows 95, windows 98 se, windows xp and windows 7. i have limited experience with linux with ubuntu 12.04, ubuntu 12.10, ubuntu 13.04 and ubuntu 14.05.

 

[heymrdj]

google chrome will install on windows xp because google said last week that they will be supporting windows xp with google chrome until atleast the end of 2015. if the slow rate of windows xp users leaving windows xp continues even after windows 10 we will see how things turn out. anyway mozila have also said that they will support windows xp in 2015 and they have not even given an end date for firefox just yet.

I am perplexed by it. The site says yes, the 8 XP machines I tried to put it on said no.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Your experience with Windows/PCs over the last fifteen years must represent the mother of all train wrecks for you to honestly make a statement like that.

I sometimes wonder whether people actually remember what Win9x was like. I remember being amazed how different my initial experiences Windows NT 4.0 SP3 were (compared to other versions of Windows; I had been used to Win95 and Win98 up to that point), the fact that I could basically give it a load of work to do across a range of applications and it would get on with it. If a program crashed, the OS and other apps would carry on going 99% of the time. If the OS crashed, chances are that something serious needed investigating, rather than the standard-issue stiff breeze that would blow Win9x over the moment you gave it some real work to do.

Yeah I found 98 se was horrible, random BSODs, lockups, general slowing down. I found it would get worse and worse over time and have to be reformatted all the time. 2000 was probably the most reliable. It was light weight like 98 but even more reliable than XP. When XP came out it was a bloated POS, at least till quad core and 1GB+ of ram became standard. OEMs were trying to sell it on PCs with like 256MB of ram and a single core processor, and it was bloody slow out of the box. Vista suffered the same issue.

 

[WT]

i really enjoyed using windows 95 se and have never used a more reliable windows than that. windows xp has been fairly close but not quite at windows 98 se level,

Win95 and USB = the start of problems. Seriously, it was a crapshoot whether your printer would work or not for a while. Win98 cleaned up most of the USB gremlins, but to say that Win95 was reliable would indicate a long term memory loss on your part.

I agree with RS - Win2k was by far the best OS for any user, even an average home user.

 

[eliminatehumans]

95 and pentium III (still have the chip hint hint) was awesome. you upgraders are good lil consumers. baa baa lil sheep follow the leader. not that anyone goes there any more but myspace totally rejects ie

Browser not supported.

Don't worry, there is an easy fix. All you have to do is click one of the icons below and follow the instructions. You'll be enjoying the new Myspace before you know it.

 

[ninaholic37]

Yeah I had Windows 95 on my 486/100MHz laptop and it worked great too. No complaints. I hear a lot of people saying 98SE is better nerr nerr... but eh, I liked Windows 95 myself. 98 was uglier for some reason, from what I remember.

 

[eliminatehumans]

accually have on a old 386 probly , found in pile of evivted renters junk. no room for 2 pcs though.
my 98 disc scratched to bad to load.

 

[cabri]

Your experience with Windows/PCs over the last fifteen years must represent the mother of all train wrecks for you to honestly make a statement like that.

I sometimes wonder whether people actually remember what Win9x was like. I remember being amazed how different my initial experiences Windows NT 4.0 SP3 were (compared to other versions of Windows; I had been used to Win95 and Win98 up to that point), the fact that I could basically give it a load of work to do across a range of applications and it would get on with it. If a program crashed, the OS and other apps would carry on going 99% of the time. If the OS crashed, chances are that something serious needed investigating, rather than the standard-issue stiff breeze that would blow Win9x over the moment you gave it some real work to do.

I started with NT 1.0 on a DEC Alpha system and loved the multi-process ability and stability.

At the time, I need a PC type system with an OS (OS2 was not cutting it) that I could port a FORTRAN program to. Used Watcom for the compiler.

Started with the Alpha and then put together a semi-custom dual 486 that was duplicating a $300K mini computer

Yeah I found 98 se was horrible, random BSODs, lockups, general slowing down. I found it would get worse and worse over time and have to be reformatted all the time. 2000 was probably the most reliable. It was light weight like 98 but even more reliable than XP. When XP came out it was a bloated POS, at least till quad core and 1GB+ of ram became standard. OEMs were trying to sell it on PCs with like 256MB of ram and a single core processor, and it was bloody slow out of the box. Vista suffered the same issue.

That was when the cycle started that OS & programs could become bloated because the next generation of H/W would be powerful enough to cover those deficiencies. And so, it has continued onward.

Notice how MS has always increased the specifications of the minimal H/w needed to run their next OS.
If you want an OS that has the latest bells/whistles; you will need to also upgrade your H/W to utilize it.

 

[mikeymikec]

Notice how MS has always increased the specifications of the minimal H/w needed to run their next OS.
If you want an OS that has the latest bells/whistles; you will need to also upgrade your H/W to utilize it.

Have you checked the specs of Vista, Win7, Win8, Win81 and Win10?

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/919183

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/products/system-requirements

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows-8/system-requirements

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/preview-faq-system-requirements-pc

That would constitute no systems specs changes in nearly ten years. The only exception that I can see is Vista Home Basic having a requirement of 512MB RAM despite the only difference I'm aware of being Aero, which doesn't require 512MB more RAM.

Furthermore, I would put down a decent bet that a machine running Vista would perform better on Win7 or Win81 (assuming the hardware is compatible, and comparing 32-bit versions or 64-bit versions rather than mixing).

 

[eliminatehumans]

mikey mikey why you talk down to every one,, talk to them ,,,ok??:biggrin:

 

[eliminatehumans]

did ya miss me ?_?

 

[cabri]

Have you checked the specs of Vista, Win7, Win8, Win81 and Win10?

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/919183

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/products/system-requirements

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows-8/system-requirements

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/preview-faq-system-requirements-pc

That would constitute no systems specs changes in nearly ten years. The only exception that I can see is Vista Home Basic having a requirement of 512MB RAM despite the only difference I'm aware of being Aero, which doesn't require 512MB more RAM.

Furthermore, I would put down a decent bet that a machine running Vista would perform better on Win7 or Win81 (assuming the hardware is compatible, and comparing 32-bit versions or 64-bit versions rather than mixing).

You have minimum specs vs what is acceptable for use.
An OS & interface can run; but slow/unresponsive/sluggish. But it will run:'(

 

[eliminatehumans]

Run, run, run, run
it better run all day
And run all night
And keep your dirty files
Deep inside. And if your
Takin' your files
Out tonight
You better lock the door and pull the blinds
'Cos if they catch you in the monitors light
Trying to pop your cork

They're gonna point and laugh
on the streets and in the stores
You better run