What would you do without Windows

[Win_98]

I mean what can you do without it.
Nothing much huh?
Do you know that dos is much faster then windows because it run at full speed while
windows only run at half speed.
windows uses time slices and it emulate multi-tasking OS like Mac.
I spend 24hrs a day trying to figure out windoze inside and out.
It is much more complicated then dos
sometime it windows fault causing lock up
causing program to crash etc.
If there a better program then Windows I would have switch over already but there isnt is there we all have to live with this
buggy OS or to some broken.
Dos game are much faster when run in pure Dos while windows game are so slow and jerky and horrible and chunk up a huge amount of resources and another excuses for getting faster CPU.
I mean just look at DOOM for dos, it run farely well in pure dos on 486 25mhz
but trying do that in windows dos prompt and you see a crawling game
so what does that tell you about windows
the bootup time in windows is also ridiculous
about 1 min while dos is about 10 sec?
Im also sick of this constantly rebooting
beause installing new driver etc, for VGA card, driver card etc, add this reboot,
add that reboot.
Im sure that this is the world of microsoft
they enjoy constantly rebooting 24hrs a day
what horror!
not to mention fix this, fix that, update this, update that a never ending nightmare.
microsoft don't deserve to be what they are today.

[alan]

i'd go back to dos,
i miss those days sometimes and feel quite....(drifts off to remember days with no reg errors, driver conflicts.)
alan

[CMonster]

Yeah, it is pretty neat how the Win9x scheduler balances between 16/32bit operations using both preemptive and cooperative multitasking in order to maintain optimum backwards compatibility - isn't it?

I'm using Linux at the moment, with the KDE windowing system, and with the exception of most games and edutainment software I can do much more than Win9x - and most of it for free. I find "Gimp" (a photo suite that comes free for Linux) an excellent photo editing program for my needs. While "Star Office" is a favorite of mine when it comes to free office software for Linux, I must admit that Corel's newest offering is tempting even at $149, including Corel Linux and a $40 rebate..total $109 (Now...How much is the full retail version of MS Office 2000??)

In addition, VMware is now available for Linux that allows you to run MS Windows 9x, NT, 2000, and their applications in a window under Linux.


But say what you will, I have found that Win 9x is still a very stable operating system enviroment for what it is, and what it does.



[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 05-21-2000).]

[Mlope]

I suppose DOS was ok.....
but I never could type

[Gene C.]

I don't know, I have and have used every ver. of windows there is from ver 1.03 that will run on a xt system.

all there was. when I started was DOS. there were no error's ect. but, there was alot of commends to learn. and it was, if you didn't know how. a little harder to set up systems,programs ect.

windows might have it's ups and down. and a few flaws ect. but, it is still the fastest way to do things and set up systems. and in todays time and workload put on people. it is the only way to go. I have all the other ver of o/s out there. but, haven't used them all.
but, I do know you can open up different programs. until you get tried of opening them with windows. and don't know if you can do that with the others or not????

the only problems I have run into here at the shop with windows ect. was not the programs fault. but, the user's fault. so like they say. there is always two sides to every story.

and I still use dos now. to delete stuff out of windows. that it other wise won't let me. for windows is useing them ect. but, once you crawl throu the window opening. it's hard to go back throu the dos door ect. he he

[Ultima]

I think I would go DOS!!!!

Probably I would first check out Linux too, to ease myself from windows to DOS!!!

I would then simultanious use Dos and Linux, untill I would be familiarised enough with dos, that I could didge Linux.

Pim

[Wilan Wong]

I would go back to DOS too... but I don't think it can support UT (joke)! and you can go to this excellent Message Board either... I like it much better in Win9x

[Ed_S]

MS-DOS had a lot going for it, & I miss those days, too. We may long for it's crash free apps, raw power, & easy file maintenance, but let's try not to forget the pains of hardware setup either!
But even that, once done, STAYED done!!

I still stubbornly hang onto a few dos apps, things that I absolutely positively MUST have working no matter what. Prefer to live with ancient versions that run in a 100% STABLE environment.

[M1pilot]

I'd go back to what I learnt computers on...DOS. It was a pain to learn all the commands, and setting up hardware and programs was a lot more difficult than with Windows (actually not always) but the equivalent to blue screens were almost unheard of. And the power....no Windows to hog up all the resources. Gotta admit though...once Windows is set up, and stable on a decent machine, it's very versatile and easy to use...I have'nt had a blue screen or had to reload it in just about a year now.

-M1pilot

[Biff]

I'd use dos, but I would look around and see what there was available as far as os.

[Mntsnow]

Well If We didn't have Windows I would be out of 1 job and I would have more time for Snowmobiling http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif But I would make alot less money http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif lol


Mntsnow

[wtp]

no windows?? well, you would have to say goodbye to all the windows 98/95 games and windows 3.1 (though) they suck. well you get the picture, no quake 3, no unreal, no tiberian sun. ahhh!!!! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

wtp http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

[buddmann]

I can't type very fast since high school so I prefer Windows,but my wife likes dos and does most of the commands on our systems,then again she syarted off using dos so she finds it easier to use than myself.
Since getting w2k,I have no qualms with windows now,but I would get frustrated in 95/98 as I would sc*w up the settings myself ,so I have no-one else to blame but myself for some of it's crashes.
BTW,I ahve a copy of Linux 6.2 but don,t have a clue as to how to set it up or use it yet


buddmann

[AuraEdge]

on my 486/33, I prefered DOS to Win 3.1, just cuz it was so slow. I still would...
Win95 totally blew both out of the water tho.
On my brand new Pentium MMX 200.
I really really hated Win 3.1 tho. Remember that DOS was made by Microsoft too!

I dont rip MS at all, like alot of other ppl....the reason they monopolize the OS market is because no one can make a solution that is as functional. Ive tryed everything from DOS to Redhat to BeOS, and out of everything Ive tryed, Ive only found one OS better than Win98...Win2k http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Theyve formed a very tight monopoly, which can potentially hurt consumers in overpriced stuff and things like that, so much that its one of the only products that people know more by brandname than by what type of thing it is. (If you say WINDOWS, almost anyone who owns a computer will know what your talking about..if you say OPERATING SYSTEM, many of them wont have the foggiest). People may know what you meen when u say kleenex, but people will also know what your talking about when u ask for a tissue. Windows is a whole nother beast. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
Kinda ranted..sorry bout that

[buddmann]

Ummm... Correct me if I'm wrong,but didn't Microsoft buy DOS.

buddmann

[mostly486]

From seatle computer someting for about $50,000 and made millions........But you got your computer to work,didn't you?

[AuraEdge]

Microsoft started with DOS, and went from there, for the first computer - hence MS-DOS. Pre-Microsoft, Gates (think it was Gates) offered 50,000 dollars to a man for his Disk Operating System. The man who developed DOS didnt think it was that huge of a thing, and gladly jumped on the 50k.

Then they worked with IBM so that they could use DOS in thier comps. Then they were saying how thier computers would be nothing but a blank screen w/o an OS, and starting then, Gates got greedy and upped his own royalties, and it ended up into the huge company it is today.

This is all from memory from the movie 'Pirates of Silicon Valley' that we watched in comp sci class, so Some of it may not be accurate.



[This message has been edited by AuraEdge (edited 05-21-2000).]

[Wiz]

1 word: linfrigginux =]

[jadison]

I'd like to know where to get free Linux progs, esp. office progs, PLEASE let me know, either by email or this thread
Thankx

-jd-

[CMonster]

www.sun.com/staroffice (http://www.sun.com/staroffice)

Star Office 5.1 is free for personal use - last I checked - you have to give some personal information to download it, almost all deluxe Linux distributions that you purchase will include a copy. Star Office also works in Windows and includes a built-in web browser - the web browser's Java support is better in Windows than in Linux.

[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 05-21-2000).]

[SoopaStar]

I would never go back to dos. Of course its faster! ITS OLD! Why nto go back to Windows 3.1x? I'm sure that will boot faster! But then you would have to find drivers for all your hardware etc! There is a free-dos program started that has GUI based applications like a web browser that you can get for it. I love Windows...Actually, I love a Windows Environment--whether its KDE, Windows 2k, Windows ME or BeOS 5. But, MS winodws just pulls out some advantages over the others. oh well.
Paul

[bhess]

I liked Dos. I used a program called norton commander. You typed the command (cd/doom.exe) and assigned it a hot key. I never had to type it in again.
It took me a while to go to win95 even though it came on my new computer I immediately formatted it and went to Dos.
i also like win98 if it didn't have so many bugs and force IE on you.

[Wiz]

Star Office is quite powerful, almost as much as office 2k. I also really like GIMP, what an amazing image manipulator.