M$ reneges on supporting Win98

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 10, 2006.

  1. you still got ripped off.. the software you have downloaded has bugs,
    Why did you accept being ripped off?
    Andrew Lambert, Jun 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'm not suggesting that M$ should support its OS for ever - just that it
    should support the current release and the release immediately previous to

    That means M$ should support XP, and its immediate successor - WIN4.9.

    That's supporting two releases only - the current and the legacy release.

    FreeBSD does that. Why can't Micro$oft?

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Would you care to explain how I was "ripped off"?

    In what way was I defrauded, and what was "ripped off" from me?

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 13, 2006
  4. what you said:

    No software should have bugs. if you are happy to accept anything less
    than excellence then you are ripping yourself and everybody else off!
    Andrew Lambert, Jun 13, 2006
  5. wasnt windows ME after 98?

    do they still support that?.. if so then its two releases before the current
    Andrew Lambert, Jun 13, 2006
  6. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Jennings Guest

    Bling lives in two worlds ....

    1) Fanatical hatred of microsoft software

    2) Fanatical obsession with OSS

    As you pointed out the logic he uses doesnt cross the boundary's of his
    two worlds.

    Jennings, Jun 14, 2006
  7. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Jennings Guest

    On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:58:12 +1200, Shane wrote:

    Only because your not running a complex GUI ...
    which is why the outcome is skewed, the outcome a forgone conclusion.

    Which is why i said to run Fedora core 3 on that pc of yours, but your too
    thick to grasp that at least you would be comparing two operating systems
    of a equivalent foot print.
    Windows is saddled with the overhead of a complex GUI, regardless of
    version / age while linux isnt, your comparisons are meaningless,

    Once VISTA arrives the ball game changes ... and then like Nathan said
    previously the footprint of the Vista server is a fraction of its former

    All you have is box thats good for smoothwall & minor services.

    Do you need crayons or something and little diagrams ?

    The GUI is the windows handicap, a handicap that your Linux setup doesnt
    have, bash your head repeatedly against your key board until this sinks in.

    No clueless one .. ive been saying your comparing a windows OS
    saddled with the over head of complex GUI versus your linux ( no gui )

    Now your babbling like lenier.
    Its not my fault your logic is fatally flawed, by comparing operating
    systems of hugely different foot prints.

    I just started using linux when you were wagging classes at intermediate
    so shoot me.

    Spell it out for you .

    I dont have any crayons .. this will have to do.

    windowsXP / windows200 + GUI <<<<< versus >>> linux with no GUI

    Which is going to have the less hardware requirements ... Duh !

    Why you present this is as some conclusive fact that Windows is crap seems
    to show your more interested in creating FUD about microsoft than giving
    any kind of rational comparisons between Linux and windows.

    If you say so ...
    Yep 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1

    Your argument this time is skewed , and flawed , its lennier quality.

    Your still seem pissy i have been using Linux longer than you.

    Btw that string hanging out of your mouth ,,, that could be an indication
    you put that in the wrong hole.

    Jennings, Jun 14, 2006
  8. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    Looks to me like youre making it up
    I was using Unix before you were a twinkle in your fathers eye.. look how
    easy it is to make things up
    (Oh and its a fact that I used Unix when you were still at school, because
    my mother was working for a .govt and I got to play on her workstation)
    I'll spell it out for you.. as you cant grasp the basics
    windows ... linux...
    One I cant cut right down to floppy size if I wish
    One.. Im stuck.. maybe you can show me how to cut it down to something
    Go on .. I know you cant
    You make all these claims, yet cant even tell the difference between linux
    and a distro.. and a desktop environment
    Still dont get it..
    Which one *CAN* I strip down to meet my hardware requirements???
    Umm no..
    what really happened is.. I dont think of a GUI as being core to an OS
    poor you do (boo hoo)
    Furthermore.. I am using up to date Operating systems on that hardware
    try as I might, the most up to date windows I can get on them is..95?
    But wait.. 98 isnt supported anymore.. so if I put that on... those machines
    will be security risks
    anyone can write what they like here
    oo Ive been using slackware since Linus first raved about it having a great
    Does that make it so?

    Considering you still havent grasped the basics..
    Since when is linux kde?
    Since when is linux gnome?
    I seriously doubt you are telling the truth
    Sounds like John Bilderbeck has been sticking something in you
    Shane, Jun 14, 2006
  9. OK - so I was ripped off in the sense that people are being forced to use
    an inferior product instead of a bug-free product.

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 14, 2006
  10. And of course that is entirely Micro$oft's own doing!

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 14, 2006
  11. Correct. And Win4.9 (which was marketed as "Windows ME" was indeed
    immediately succeeded by WinNT5.1 (marketed as WindowsXP)

    Nope - because I was mentioning Win4.9 - not Win4.1 .

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 14, 2006
  12. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Fred Dagg Guest

    Geez you're an idiot.
    Fred Dagg, Jun 14, 2006
  13. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Jennings Guest

    Ohhhhhh i know you make things up ..
    You have no idea when i went to school.

    You still cant quite grasp you need to compare the windows OS foot print
    with the approx same Linux OS footprint your using ... otherwise the
    hardware requirements are meaning -less !!

    Maybe one day you will get it ..

    I just tell the truth ... I have been using Linux since i bought red
    hat 6.1 and no it wasn't mummy` pc.

    You got caught making a stupid / very mis-leading claim comparing vastly
    different OS foot prints. then when you lost that argument you tried to
    save face by shooting off on some wild lennier / tangent about kernel
    , distro , desktop environment.

    We have all seen lennier do this a million times .. i guess you thought
    you would try it.

    Well you were rude so i just gave you it back. get over it

    Jennings, Jun 15, 2006
  14. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    Correction, I have no idea *that* you went to school
    Since when?
    Because you say so?
    Because I can fully administer machines without guis?
    Because I can be just as productive if not more so without guis?
    Should it be a fair comparison because I get a web server, an email server,
    a dns server, an nfs server, and an irc server, supplied with the OS?
    I have got it.. several machines have it
    One day you might get it to
    And yet you cant even tell the difference between linux and KDE
    My claim still stands, I still cant get any windows on those machines, and I
    have fully patched uptodate OS's running on them (except OpenBSD, and thats
    only because Im too lazy)
    Your the one claiming an OS needs a GUI

    Define Linux:
    Linux - Linux is a UNIX-like operating system that was designed to provide
    personal computer users a free or very low-cost operating system comparable
    to traditional and usually more expensive UNIX systems. Linux has a
    reputation as a very efficient and fast-performing system.

    Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus
    Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world. Developed
    under the GNU General Public License , the source code for Linux is freely
    available to everyone.

    Linux is a free open-source operating system based on Unix. Linux was
    originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers from
    around the globe.

    Nope..none of them say kde
    lets try wikipedia
    KDE (K Desktop Environment) is a free desktop environment and development
    platform built with Trolltech's Qt toolkit. It runs on most Unix and
    Unix-like systems, such as Linux, BSD, AIX, Unixware, OpenServer and
    Solaris. There are also ports to Mac OS X using its X11 layer and Microsoft
    Windows using Cygwin.

    Currently, a large portion of the primary KDE libraries and a few other
    applications can work natively on Microsoft Windows, thanks to the
    KDElibs/win32 Project. Ports of other KDE applications are being discussed.

    oo look its a windows app HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    More from wikipedia
    Linux's Unix roots mean that while graphical configuration tools and control
    panels are available for many system settings and services, plain-text
    configuration files are still commonly used to configure the OS and may be
    exposed to users. On the command shell, many usability hangups from early
    Unix days generally remain, such as the inability to undo many operations
    such as file deletion and inconsistency of interface of many older

    ion this case its you playing lennier
    Mind you Ive had you pegged as his clone for a while now
    or what?
    Shane, Jun 15, 2006
  15. T'was the Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:28:05 +1200 when I remembered Shane
    Administrating machines without GUIs? Like DOS? :)

    You know Longhorn's going to come with a (to my knowledge) version
    that doesn't have a GUI for a smaller attack footprint I believe.

    I also believe it comes with all of those servers above, except the
    IRC server. But it's not like I'd put that high on my list of critical
    services I'm after when designing a server.
    Waylon Kenning, Jun 15, 2006
  16. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    Considering you have repeatedly said you have nfi about computer science,
    your input is .. at best.. from a poor viewpoint
    Yes I do, I even mentioned it in this thread
    Furtermore, I havent seen specs that show removing the GUI for vista will
    make it a candidate for my low end machines
    Free exchange with *every* Windows?
    Free Terminal Services with *every* windows?
    A lot of people will be pleased to hear that

    I like IRC servers on lans, almost as good as Jabber IM's for inter office
    Still, a computer or application is only as good as you can configure it
    And the limits for any application are your imagination

    I would have thought by third year you would have picked these basic truths
    up by now
    Shane, Jun 15, 2006
  17. T'was the Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:06:52 +1200 when I remembered Shane
    Last time I checked you don't need computer science to administer a
    computer. Lets see, is me designing my own processor essential to
    administering a server? No. Is me designing my own programs in C++
    essential? Uh, no. And to be honest, I don't really want to be a
    computer scientist. I'd rather look at how computers and people
    interact to create information systems. Considering your vitriolic
    attitude to others around you, perhaps it's best you stay in computer
    science. Computers don't know the different, but people can point out
    Point repeatedly mentioned. My point is your low end machines are
    below the cost of economically supporting them in a business
    situation. So to keep pointing out that Vista wont run on your toaster
    is at best a pedantic argument, and at worst a pointless one. No,
    Vista wont run on your low end hardware. Get some new stuff. Next
    you'll be telling me that CDs don't play on your low end record
    Don't be a dolt. You said and I quotedIIS, email servers certainly run and can be bought or downloaded,
    comes with DNS, comes with file servers, and I discussed IRC. Where'd
    you mention terminal server?
    Alas, the ins and outs of whether servers have or do not have IRC
    don't seem to come up regularly in class. And here I was thinking it
    was people that were the important part of an information system...
    Waylon Kenning, Jun 16, 2006
  18. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    Very true, except if you are debating the merits of one system over another,
    knowing whats in them counts more than "I dont really care whats in them,
    just that they go"
    (Thats an exact quote isnt it?)
    Wrong yet again
    Did you know that Intel still do a roaring trade in Pentium 200 MHz procs?
    Do you have *any* idea why?
    Have a look at your modem, your router, your cell phone, your car, your
    toaster, your watch, your pda.
    Once you stop thinking of a computer as the big beige box on your desktop,
    and see the *HUGE* world of computing, then those low end machines show
    their importance
    But meh.. as you said before.. you dont really care about thing, just that
    they work.. except Windows wont

    My boxes came with mail, apache, ftp, sshd, preinstalled (and shitloads
    The point is, you claim the gui is the be all and all, yet its only *one*
    part of a very big picture
    Again, your failure to realise the basic truths of computers astounds me

    Alas, people using computers, and you would *never* install IRC
    Yet I point out how IRC is an effective tool in an office environment
    Really, if your class doesnt ask, how can I make this tool effective on a
    lan, and just disregards that tool because its abused on the wan. You
    really havent done a lot of thinking at all

    The rules change for internal systems.. or did you think the rules were the
    Shane, Jun 16, 2006
  19. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Jennings Guest

    On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:58:52 +1200, Waylon Kenning wrote:

    Once Vista arrives, you can just imagine if Maxburk did a Vista ( minus
    GUI ) versus Fedora core5 (with GUI ) comparison.

    And declared Vista the winner in terms of hardware requirements and speed.

    The whining level in here would reach that of 747 ...

    Jennings, Jun 16, 2006
  20. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Jennings Guest

    See above look your quote ">>> how easy it is to make things up"
    At least your honest i guess :)

    I guess that redhat 6.1 issue still grinds at you ..

    Because anyone with a clue could figure out the GUI over head, drop
    a old Fedora 3 with GUI onto your box , and let us all know how you get on.

    Fire up open-office , firefox, email- software that the 250 odd million
    window users would *** NEED *** if they converted to linux, else that box
    of yours belongs in a landfill.
    Your just pissed i shot ya down and made you look like a lennier clone.

    < large snip>

    Your ranting still doesn't make the linux foot print your using equal to
    windowsxp /win2000. Your comparisons are meaningless.

    Well if your posts weren't starting to sound like Lenniers ..

    I guess if you continue these idiotic posts, people will kill-file you
    along with Lennier.

    Jennings, Jun 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.