why not make win9X clone?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx »

mjs wrote:
Phalanx wrote:DOS does not stand for Dirty Operating System for no reason. Just like 9x does not stand for out of 1990's for no reason.
DOS = Disk Operating System
I read somewhere that IBM never wanted it to become an OS - they just ment it as some kind of boot loader <g>

Regards,
Mark
opps, ya sorry. I mixed it up with what I call it for fun normally.
Stead
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:00 pm

windows 98 was good in its days!

Post by Stead »

windows 98 WAS a good os.

in my opinion you cannot compare windows XP to windows 98

and this is my reason, windows 98 came out a long long time ago, most of us still used original Pentium's, early amd's, even the cyrix chips, now if you go back in time, but you take your copy of xp with you, and you can still say that xp has a faster boot time than 98 on the same hardware, i think you need your head looked at.

i've tried xp on an old PII266 with 96mb of ram, that computer would be a supercomputer for win98 when it come out, xp on the other hand, well, i guess its like trying to play an xbox game on a gamegear assuming you could port it somehow :P

and about the mulituser opinon, what is this obession, it was desinged for home use as far as i can tell, how many *average* users login 15 times run internet servers, host high security transaction servers or whatever crazy thing you decide that windows 98 was not good for?

i have to agree, i have never seen an os boot as quick as 98, i had an old PIII 450 with 128mb built in 1999, running windows 98 se, it was well 6 years old now, and as of last week, it had 53 virus's on it, strangly enough only 2 spyware things, lots of missing shortcuts (the person who had it has no clue about computers), but it booted in half the time that my xp boots with a P4 2.8 HT 512mb, but then again, it was designed to run on much slower hardware, but then i'm sure xp's requirements are significantly less that what i run it with, i was tempted to try 98 on this, but someone on here i think said it won't run with a processor over 2ghz? that true? infact i still have my 98 cd around...
cyborg
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:27 pm

Post by cyborg »

There are few windowses which are quite good:

WIN311-W32 - the good old windows which really was a PROGRAM, not an OS, never called otherwise like a graphical DOS GUI, was great, because it was still user oriented in some way.

WIN95B - was awesome stable i think. had it running a year without problems. was stable if not used in networks i mean. *g*
win95a was only great because it ran under dos 6.22 too, or you could use win95a's DOS separately with win311.

WIN98SE. Well. This was the last one for quite a while. after win98a was really a great crap, and winME later on was even more unstable, win98SE was really a little bit reliable. it still is. use it under linux. good windows. maybe they realized it at ms and made winME because win98se was TOO stable and caused ppl not-to-upgrade.

Win2k was great too. you didnt have to restart that much. but if you had to, you waited until the end of time.
win2k and its worms were a disappointment. every month something new came out and destroyed your system. also win2k was a little bit disappointing about FAT support.
many people like win2k more than all the others. maybe the long startup time looks more professional?

WINXP isnt THAT bad I think. I use it still and it works great. You have to tweak it a lot (with tweak I mean: you have to stop using a lot of hidden who-needs-that features, like MSN Messenger, automatic restarting on failures, drwatson, stop using IE for surfing and so on) and have to calculate in soem explorer restarts and security issues. Well. If I think about it, WINXP is great if not used too much directly in the internet.
behind a NAT router it is great. then explorer only restarts sometimes if you click too fast somewhere. or maybe just because it is a good moment for it. but at least, not windows crashes, only explorer.

Win2k3 is crap again, so xp leads with win98SE for me. XP is more stable than most ppl say, however. it is in fact more stable than win2k. really. but also dependant on hardware. on an AMD64 explorer likes crashing even more than on my old duron.

If games would be developed for linux too, I wouldnt use that crap anymore.
User avatar
Jaix
Moderator Team
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Sweden, Växjö

Re: Win95 a nice minimalistic OS

Post by Jaix »

Radiomaan wrote:If your running something that old, you might want to consider freedos.
:-) Then I rather stick to win95 actually...
Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd »

Viri is correct. 2nd declension nouns end in:

-us
-i
-o
-um
-o

-i
-orum
-is
-os
-is

virus is a second declension noun, so vir-us; ergo, vir-i (virus is latin for poison). HOWEVER, since vir was a commonly used for man; virus as a noun was often considered an irregular noun and only used in the singular.

see this link: http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtplural.htm
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia
uniQ
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:58 am

Post by uniQ »

The word virus never had a plural form in Latin.

From (Probably already linked):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus

-uniQ
Coming on, coming up, let me help ROS and I'll be able to look @ a life well used.
GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by GvG »

If I promise to never use the plural of virus again, could we then please drop this discussion?
oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Quick and Dirty Operating System.

Post by oiaohm »

This was the first name of dos ie QDOS Bill Gates renamed it to sell it to Disk Operating System. Most History buffs of Os just don't except the OS rename and just drop the Q.
uniQ
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:58 am

Post by uniQ »

The point he was trying to make is that DOS is in many respects NOT an elegant OS and hence not something we want to be basing ROS on.

-uniQ
Coming on, coming up, let me help ROS and I'll be able to look @ a life well used.
Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan »

uniQ wrote:The point he was trying to make is that DOS is in many respects NOT an elegant OS and hence not something we want to be basing ROS on.

-uniQ
In essence, DOS is little more than a bootloader, a menu from which one can choose an application to run.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests