MTM2.com

I have FF3, Avant and IE, FF by far is the best browser. Avant is nice, it has its own builtin ad blocker, but is slower than FF and it has a theme that looks like IE7 [eww]

chang ethe theme < I'm personally a fan of sunset.
I tried FF3, it loaded google but always crashed when I tried to do a search, after 3 crashes, i couldn't reload the browser, I tried restarting, reinstaling, nothing, so i deleted it.

Humoursly this is what happened last time too, though that was a long time ago already, back in 2003. Different computer, same final symptom (it didnt crash before, it just only worked once then I could never reopen it.)

Edit-
So does anyone still believe that Firefox requires less resources than IE?
I remember that BS used to be a big selling point. Or at least, advertised by fans as such.

well the beta version for about 2 months, minimal issues, 3.0 none yet

Ive been running Firefox since version 1.5 and its only gotten better and more stable over time for me. I switched to version 3 when it went to a release candidate and outside of extension incompatibilities I've had no problems.



Version 2 of Firefox had memory problems for sure, after a few hours of surfing it would eat up a lot of memory, enough that a few times I had to restart it. Version 3 seems alot better for example I've had it running for about eight hours today and its only using 150k of memory and 150k of VM.

yea, its definitely better than v2 by far on the memory side of things

Firefox is a good browser, I always used it.

I helped 'em break the world record (and they did).

I always found the best applications are the ones that adapt to their environment. Specifically, systems. It's always neat to see applications morph as required to match the dependancies and abilities of the system.

You should see what the latest Spybot S&D looks like in Windows 95.

hmmm, i could try that, if i could find the machine with Win 95, prolly have a laptop with Windows 3.1 somewhere, but i think the HDD crashed lol

i dont think 3.1 would work heh, 3.1 kinda ran the same way as linux now (sad linux has only gotten as far as 3.1 lol), a CLS with a GUI infront of it.

Come to think of it, you couldn't even browse the internet on 3.1, you need at least IE 5.5 to browse the internet. Otherwise, you will simply get millions of errors and finally crashing your browser, dont even try goign to an MS download site, even IE 5.0 will crash on MSN.com lol.

IE 5.5 SP2 Modded for Windows 95 by Microsoft themselves, for me alone , or so they claimed. This is a complete install (Click this text), I think it will also do the desktop update on Windows 95 (which makes it identical to windows 98, just much more stable). If not, desktop update should exist on Windows 95 B and C version, as IE 4.0 install on the disc.

Linux will go beyond any crap microsuck will make

hard to say, obviously linux fanboys will believe that, but I have a bit more objective view, as I dont really care for either system, what I do see however is so far, even Vista, can run on a far smaller system, and still be usable, compared to a GUI Linux (well below the system requirements, Vista doesn't care, it just scales back itself)


Something I learned recently, Windows 2000 complete install was about 1.7 GB, Windows XP (Professional with SP2) complete install was 1.2 GB. It also boots and shuts down in half the time (I run them both at same time in a VPC at work, both with 256 RAM).

So really XP was a big improvement over Windows 2000, Vista actually boots up fast aswell, only slightly slower than XP. My linux on a virtual machine (on our server, so its WAY bigger, about 512 RAM allocated to it, and a 3 ghz CPU) takes about 6 times longer than XP takes to boot up.
So by boot up time alone Windows wins by a huge margin.
Also I had Ubuntu on my oldie, 200 MHZ, it ran, installed and everything else, no issues liek that, though I couldn't get sound, apperently sound blaster 16 AWE64 was not supported, and also it didn't lik ethe idea of a serial port printer, it wouldn't let me print. It also wouldn't let me print network jobs. Which basically made the system useless. Now I can understand Linux not supporting the latest and greatest hardware, but hardware that is now 13 years old, should have worked, even generic drivers can run that stuff, but Linux even failed that. And lastly, no loading screens. Linux seriously needs loading screens, considering it could take upwards for 5 minutes to open an admin version of the file browser, at which time you just sit there waiting for it to happen, Linux gives no indication that its trying, it doesn't even change the mouse cursor. I however prefered Daemons over services. I also liked that Linux could rescue itself after, say a powerout, (It is possible to do this in windows 95 with some minor hacking, near impossible to do in XP). The way that you can set a sort of global start up for applications was helpful, and I had my system set to make a "Save state" every 5 minutes, so if it did lose power, it would reload to that saved state, a very handy feature, like hibernation, except it doesn't turn off, it just saves itself.

Linux made a much better web, ftp server, it did a horrid job as a file and print server. and CPU management was probably the worst I've ever seen since the DOS era.

XP CPU management is actually extremely good. Using mouse stutters as an example.

95, Mouse stuttered and froze when at 100% CPU and trying to start a new process
98, Mouse stuttered starting any process (worst ever, even worse than Linux, ok, so I contridict myself, it wasn't worse since DOS< it was worst since Win 98)
2000, Mouse stuttering occasionally when the system was busy, such as file copy opperations etc.
XP, Mouse stutters only occasionally if you have several system opperations happening, I've only managed it when I had 2 VPC's going, 4 File copy opperations, and web browsing, all at once, my screen had the peeling effect everywhere, but the mouse only stuttered for a moment
Linux (Ubuntu on that old computer), mouse never stuttered, but was often unresponsive, you could move the mouse, but clicks and such were ignored, and would suddenly happen all at once 5 minutes later (when whatever was happening finished). I found this frusterating as it constantly felt like your computer was frozen.


This is my analysis of those systems, feel free to argue it, just dont come back saying Linux is better.

I'm sorry but Linux is better

>>Vista actually boots up fast aswell, only slightly slower than XP. My linux on a virtual machine (on our server, so its WAY bigger, about 512 RAM allocated to it, and a 3 ghz CPU) takes about 6 times longer than XP takes to boot up.

You may have a faster boot up now, but your MBR is totally screwed up (and don't even talk about the boot sys, it's a mess)

Ubuntu 8.04 boot even faster than Vista or XP on my computer, just a few seqs and you got the login dialog and then nautilus and gnome.

>> I couldn't get sound, apperently sound blaster 16 AWE64 was not supported

You need to get the drivers to get it supported, it's up to your distro if the drivers are there, Ubuntu is a 2008 operating system, it obviously won't have old drivers cards, XP is a 2001 OS so you may have luck there.

>>and also it didn't lik ethe idea of a serial port printer, it wouldn't let me print. It also wouldn't let me print network jobs.

Haha, yes, installing printers in Linux is not easy, but i've never done it, I think I will try to install my old Lexmark Z11 and I'll tell you. But again, it's old hardware.

>>Now I can understand Linux not supporting the latest and greatest hardware

Completely incorrect- I just installed 8.04 with Kernel 2.6 and everything works, it even detected my Intel 950 and my sound car (Something that Windows XP AND Windows Vista couldn't do)

>>Linux seriously needs loading screens, considering it could take upwards for 5 minutes to open an admin version of the file browser

"Admin" version? lol,

Thank god this is not Vista.

oh well, to enter to Nautilus as root you type on the terminal "gksudo nautilus"

>>And lastly, no loading screens. Linux seriously needs loading screens, considering it could take upwards for 5 minutes to open an admin version of the file browser, at which time you just sit there waiting for it to happen, Linux gives no indication that its trying, it doesn't even change the mouse cursor.

Serioulsy, what distro were you using? 8.04 has everything, loading screens, mouse cursors

And, your trying to implement linux with a new OS system, like ubuntu, on a very old computer (Although your distro must be VERY old to not have loading screens or mouse icons). It's like trying to run Vista on it, and Vista is a 2005 operating system (and it still suck). For old computers, you can try Xubuntu.


A last thing, Open-source will always be better than closed-source. Microsoft is an evil company that does this



And YOU found that! lol Guess how many times this is repeated on Windows source code, nobody knows...

On error resume next.....


Generally old hardware can be run by generic drivers...


your MBR isn't screwed up if your system still boots...

Ubuntu 8.02 I believe, I did this 2 months ago.

Vista wont install on oldie, not enough RAM, XP will however. and it runs smoothly, even tho its below minimum system requirements.

My XP machine at work, boots in 2 seconds flat, from button press to login screen.

oops, that's VBScript right?

>>your MBR isn't screwed up if your system still boots...

It is if you want to install another os...

>>Ubuntu 8.02
No such version exists

>>Vista wont install on oldie
And it's a 2005 OS, Ubuntu is 2008

>>My XP machine at work, boots in 2 seconds flat
That's a big fat lie, You can't even load the BIOS in 2 seconds lol

Quad core 3 ghz machine, 4 gigs of Ram (DDR2), 4 400gb Sata drives

Trust me, it can do it, i dont even see the XP loading or bios loading, I press power, screen comes on, I log in.



Then it was 8.04, what existed 2 months ago?

>>Quad core 3 ghz machine, 4 gigs of Ram (DDR2), 4 400gb Sata drives

That's a fast machine heh

>>Trust me, it can do it, i dont even see the XP loading or bios loading, I press power, screen comes on, I log in.

ok....

>>Then it was 8.04, what existed 2 months ago?

April release is 8.04 (2008,Month 4), but I highly doubt that you were running that version, if it has no loading screens or mouse icons, it might be version 5.04, that one has only few loading screens, that's all

I forgot to quote:
>>what I do see however is so far, even Vista, can run on a far smaller system
LOL! Vista won't run on a machine with less than 512mb. And aero will take half of that

Maybe that's why our professor has teached us how to install Win98, WinXP and finally Ubuntu, not Vista, because it's simply useless.

Sorry but that's not argueable.

>>and still be usable
Are you serious? lol Vista is useless even with a Xeon quad core. And I knew it, because I had Vista. Of course, I don't have a Xeon, but I have a Dual Core 2gbRAM

XP is okay, although i hate the NT kernel, the webby look of the control panel, the IE integration, Internet Explorer, the annoying WGA activation and the poor DOS emulation.

Vista wont fire aero if it doesn't have enough memory to do so...

April 2008, I had it in... lets see... gotta find done of those spam my forums topics, ill find one and post back.


The fact that you required an instructer to installl those OS's is sad, Windows 95 is slightly tougher cause no bootable CD, but even that just requires a floopy disk with CD drivers. but all others you just stick it in and go, they all even automatically format unallocated space for you, heck, Windows 2000 and Xp by default install as if they were unattendad, except for regional settings, 2000 actually clicks through itself if you wait long enough. Ubuntu basically installs itself too, you start up on CD and say copy OS to HDD, effortless.
And i got it wrong, its 3gb on RAM, my mistake.

Switch your control panel to clasic mode and turn off the task pane, bam, it looks like 9X.

IE integration has existed since Windows 3.1, and dare i say it, konqure, what else... im not super familure with all the garbage Linux Distros use, but they are all basically web browsers. And the fact that they are integrated is absolutly great for programmers and businesses. Example, i don't have to find a program on a users system to open a JPEG file, I don't gotta figure out their windows directory, find their system directory, and pass a complicated command to RunDll.exe to fire up a jpeg file, I simply pass the jpeg file path as a parameter to explorer.exe and Windows takes care of it for me.

The DOS emulation has actually been improved since the 9X era, adding several new commands, many of which the same as the Unix counterparts to make managing systems for system admins easier as they don't gotta remember 2 CLS languages.

The NT Kernel is by far the best, with abilities that actually allow it to recover from errors, containing several security rings. These rings allow important system functions to run unhindered, while preventing, possibly malicious ones, from ever even having kernel permissions to do anything. Without these security rings, a virus could simply behave as a wrapper for your kernel, and manipulate its functions to do whatever it pleases.

I've run Vista on several Desktop machines (Laptops and Vista are Epic fail) and they oftne run faster than the XP counterpart.
my Real targetrs to this are Linun fanboys, those that, insist Linux can run on any system, despite the age, insist that Linux is completely safe, and has no unsafe browser integration. That insist because its open source, that its safer (this very idea is mind boggling, because everyone can view and change the code freely, without even hacking, this makes it safer???), and insist that linux is somehow better than windows and that everyone should use it.

My Rebuttle to these fanboys
>>Runs on any system
You can login, eventually, thats about it, its not useable, whats the point, MS could prolly do the same thing, but they realize that advertising as such would be foolish, and that the backlash from angery users from a slow system would be costly

>>Linux is completely safe
The biggest thing I hear is there is no viruses for it, well, maybe because no personal users can figure out linux, thus they use windows, you usually wont get bank cards and password information from people from webservers unless you hijack them, and then thats the webserver applications fault, not the OS. So put simply, this argument is litiritly saying linux is unpopulour. I will relate this, why is my Windows 95 never attacked.... Cause I am prolly one of the only people that still use it, why try and virus attack it?
The other argument is because Linux isn't always the root administrator, so viruses cannot take control.
What was that command you said, why couldnt you make a runnable program that could just enter that command to the OS then
*--edit, bugger deleted some of what I said
using API calls, asuming Linux supports message sending, actually take control of the system and click through the windows and do the damage that way.

>>No unsafe browser integration
Already explained this, your file browser is litiritly a web browser window, at least in Windows you are not litiritly running Internet Explorer.

>>Better because its open source
Well that just means anyone can easily read the code, find vulnerabilities, and exploit them. at least with windows they have to decompile them, and read through binary instructions, which hopefully slows them down. But at least a sopen source, it does get updated more frequently. Now if only I could manage to print, I read some instructions for it, but, well, if it were windows it would be hacking, I guess in Linux, its "Programming to make the OS do something the rest of the world could have fixed but didn't"
And the sound thing, that was just a complete *beep*, considering other Distros could detect my sound, heck, evne live CD Linux could, but not Ubuntu, why does this Distro fail? It seems a bit stupid to have so many distros, and th eonly way to tell if it will work is to install it. At least Microsoft enforces Windows certification for hardware, Linux should do the same, and the installer for Linux should tell you if your hardware won't work before hand (Windows 95 could even do this, why can't Linux?)

>>Linux is simply better than Windows and everyone should use it
If it was better, than everyone would use it, that what id like to say, but just like the betamax, VHS won because it was cheaper, but wait, XP costs money, so why does it win? Well, probably because it has the market share, and has been so for a long time. If I had to predict, id say that MAC's will take over, lon gbefore Linux does, why do I say this. Because people always want an easy reliable tool. This is not what linux is, Linux is a large stable tool, but it is anything but easy. No matter how hard they try, even simple tasks are made complicated. Because Linux is still geared to a CLI interface, with a GUI to help users that hate typing, it will never gain any real power in the market. Its frighting, but Rookie users drive the market. Even though computers have been out for a long time, every new OS has been made to make the system easier to use, and more stable.
Linux however, has had updates to add functionallity, but the easier part usually falls through the cracks. Granted Linux is definitly trying now, with those prepacked installs and such, you can get most Linux programs without even using your web browser. What a brilliant idea. Who decides what is included I wonder? And why hasn't this caught on for Windows?

Those of you paying attention to the business news, would know that MS has essentially lost interest in making OS's for computers, and instead are focusing on Global communications, bringing everything together, making everything easier for users, businesses, etc.

Vista isn't a complete POS, it has issues for sure, but nothing that, even out of the box, makes it an unusable machine. Frusterating to Windows powerusers, thats for sure, but to average and, rookie users, it works just fine. And even many powerusers have figured it out and are not comfertable with it. I remember how much I hated switching to XP, now I prefer it, and of course, I use VPC to remind me of what we have evolved from.

Linux isn't a failure, but, its targeting the wrong markets to ever get a large market share, so far the only people that truely love and swear by it, still have pen protectors and and coke bottle eyeglasses.

Most users just want a system that requires as little configuration as possible to do what they want to do.

lmao, that might be true, Mac is like a tricycle to Windows as a super bike

I've seen a mac freeze once in my lifetime, the OS is so stable, but it has its issues with PC based software, mac's are brilliant at photos, video, and music, but that is about it.

>>Vista wont fire aero if it doesn't have enough memory to do so...
Hey that's a plus for vista..not.

>>April 2008, I had it in... lets see... gotta find done of those spam my forums topics, ill find one and post back.
Spam of what?

>>The fact that you required an instructer to installl those OS's is sad, Windows 95 is slightly tougher cause no bootable CD, but even that just requires a floopy disk with CD drivers. but all others you just stick it in and go, they all even automatically format unallocated space for you, heck, Windows 2000 and Xp by default install as if they were unattendad, except for regional settings, 2000 actually clicks through itself if you wait long enough. Ubuntu basically installs itself too, you start up on CD and say copy OS to HDD, effortless.
You can only compare the Ubuntu install system to the Vista one, (it got rid of the DOS-like setup)

>>Switch your control panel to clasic mode and turn off the task pane, bam, it looks like 9X.
I know, you didn't get the point.

>>IE integration has existed since Windows 3.1
Not true. It was fully integrated in Windows 95 4.00.950C with IE4

>>and dare i say it, konqure, what else... im not super familure with all the garbage Linux Distros use, but they are all basically web browsers.
Again, false. Try to type http://google.com on nautilus and you'll get nothing. Unistall firefox and you have no web browser.

>> And the fact that they are integrated is absolutly great for programmers and businesses.
Yeah, Microsoft bussiness.

>>Example, i don't have to find a program on a users system to open a JPEG file, I don't gotta figure out their windows directory, find their system directory, and pass a complicated command to RunDll.exe to fire up a jpeg file, I simply pass the jpeg file path as a parameter to explorer.exe and Windows takes care of it for me.
Internet Explorer is not as "integrated" as Microsoft says it is. You can actually install IE designed for Windows with Wine on Linux, now how is this supposed to be integrated?

Wine can only run application programs, it can not run operating system components such as VxD drivers or the Windows kernel itself. Applications run by Wine can not access the hardware directly or make use of internal Windows structures that are not simulated by Wine. Interestingly when Microsoft released IE 5 they stopped referring to it as an application program and started referring to it as an "operating system component"...

For some strange reason IE 5 runs under Wine... just like an application. So now Linux users can view those obsolete web sites that only allow IE! Microsoft is so generous to give away their browser for free and can now run under other OSes... or are they being generous? Before you get any ideas about installing Microsoft's "free" web browser application under your favorite operating system, you might want to take a look at the IE EULA In part it reads:
"IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (MICROSOFT WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM PRODUCT, ANY MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT WORKSTATION OPERATING SYSTEM, OR ANY MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER OPERATING SYSTEM), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY, OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA."

"OS components" is referring to the Internet Explorer web browser application. Microsoft forbids you from installing the Windows version of IE under any other OS.

This leads to an interesting problem. Since all new Microsoft apps and even many non-Microsoft apps now require IE, Wine has had to re-implement large chunks of IE and its APIs to enable programs to run "out of the box" without IE. Down with cross-platform software huh?

>>The DOS emulation has actually been improved since the 9X era, adding several new commands, many of which the same as the Unix counterparts to make managing systems for system admins easier as they don't gotta remember 2 CLS languages.
Oh hell no, Try to run Duke Nukem 2. First of all, no music. Then, the sound has a very annoying clip. Try to run Terminal Velocity. Bad sound & music emulation, again. Try to run Carma Hi-res, oh wait, you can't.

>>The NT Kernel is by far the best
The best..for Windows.

>>with abilities that actually allow it to recover from errors
After a reboot.

>>containing several security rings. These rings allow important system functions to run unhindered, while preventing, possibly malicious ones, from ever even having kernel permissions to do anything. Without these security rings, a virus could simply behave as a wrapper for your kernel, and manipulate its functions to do whatever it pleases.
But you can't modify it. Those are only *options*

>>I've run Vista on several Desktop machines (Laptops and Vista are Epic fail) and they oftne run faster than the XP counterpart.
No way in hell. XP is faster than Vista in any kind of way.

>>my Real targetrs to this are Linun fanboys, those that, insist Linux can run on any system, despite the age, insist that Linux is completely safe, and has no unsafe browser integration.
Linux has no browser integration, In fact, how could a kernel have browser integration?

>>That insist because its open source,
That's a plus.

>>that its safer (this very idea is mind boggling, because everyone can view and change the code freely, without even hacking, this makes it safer???)
LOL you can not go modify an opensource proyect and then inmediatly release it. Of couse, you can make your own builds, but they wouldn't be oficial releases. That's why Linus Torval supervices all the new stuff that goes into any new release of the Linux kernel

>>and insist that linux is somehow better than windows and that everyone should use it.
It is, you should give it a try, it's superior in multitasking and software developing.

>>You can login, eventually, thats about it, its not useable
I can login and use it. No crash since... ever! The only crash i got was on Wine (How ironic, a Windows emulation layer, seems like they're emulating it good) when I was testing MTM2.

>>whats the point, MS could prolly do the same thing, but they realize that advertising as such would be foolish
Yeah, they think it was enough with forcing you to install their "free" web browser.

>>and that the backlash from angery users from a slow system
would be costly
Yes, they had enough with BSOD huh?

>>The biggest thing I hear is there is no viruses for it, well, maybe because no personal users can figure out linux, thus they use windows, you usually wont get bank cards and password information from people from webservers unless you hijack them, and then thats the webserver applications fault, not the OS. So put simply, this argument is litiritly saying linux is unpopulour.

It is getting popular now, thanks to Windows Vista.

>>I will relate this, why is my Windows 95 never attacked.... Cause I am prolly one of the only people that still use it, why try and virus attack it?
But you are defending newer versions of windows right? Why don't you install 2003 Server on it, if it's so secure and stable?

>>The other argument is because Linux isn't always the root administrator, so viruses cannot take control.
What was that command you said, why couldnt you make a runnable program that could just enter that command to the OS then
Beacuse I don't need to. Only "dangerous" programs, like Partition managers are blocked. And you don't need to be an admin to use Nautilus. But if you want to edit some system files you may need to be root user to modificate. And that's what I call safety. Safety is not prompting you everytime you want to copy a file, or run a program.

>>using API calls, asuming Linux supports message sending, actually take control of the system and click through the windows and do the damage that way.
APIs are the worst part of Windows, since some of them are undocumented, you have to figure it out how's the deal

>>Already explained this, your file browser is litiritly a web browser window
False, I have already explained, Nautilus is a file explorer not a web browser. Ubuntu has no "integrated browser", they are not that stupid

>>at least in Windows you are not litiritly running Internet Explorer.
You are running IE. You can even see the "Favorites" menu

>>Well that just means anyone can easily read the code, find vulnerabilities, and exploit them.
But you have just said that Linux was safer, because no one uses it

>>at least with windows they have to decompile them, and read through binary instructions
Is that really a plus? Kinda lame, you have to illegaly decompile to learn about how your OS runs your computer.

>>which hopefully slows them down. But at least a sopen source, it does get updated more frequently.
Yeah, and thank god ubuntu doesn't install you spyware as a "critical update" Windows Vista runs in reduced-functionality mode if found by WGA to be compromised. But what about False positives?

>>Now if only I could manage to print, I read some instructions for it, but, well, if it were windows it would be hacking, I guess in Linux, its "Programming to make the OS do something the rest of the world could have fixed but didn't"
And the sound thing, that was just a complete *beep*,
Try finding the drivers lol, I never got sound to work after a clean XP install. I just installed ubuntu and the sound works, and my video card was recognized very well.

>>considering other Distros could detect my sound, heck, evne live CD Linux could, but not Ubuntu, why does this Distro fail?
Considering not even Windows Vista could detect any new hardware, why this, the lastest stable version of Microsoft Windows fail?

>>It seems a bit stupid to have so many distros, and th eonly way to tell if it will work is to install it.
It's not stupid, is like saying that Why have another POD mounters if we have Cowpod? or Why keep having TXRAW since we have GoldView? Since Linux is free software anyone can come and create their own custom distro, according to its needs

>>At least Microsoft enforces Windows certification for hardware,
What if your hardware needs a non-signed driver? You're f-up.

>>Linux should do the same, and the installer for Linux should tell you if your hardware won't work before hand (Windows 95 could even do this, why can't Linux?)
Because you can make it work lol

>>If it was better, than everyone would use it, that what id like to say, but just like the betamax, VHS won because it was cheaper, but wait, XP costs money, so why does it win? Well, probably because it has the market share, and has been so for a long time...
You have just said it. First Linux was only a programmers' experiment. Now you can find Ubuntu, even newbie can install software on it. And a real operating system, were you are the master, not the company behind it, trying to block your software or even your OS.

>>Vista isn't a complete POS, it has issues for sure, but nothing that, even out of the box, makes it an unusable machine. Frusterating to Windows powerusers, thats for sure, but to average and, rookie users, it works just fine.
Vista only works for "rookie" users. People like me, need to do thing fast, I don't need another calenadar in my desktop, I don't need a second clock, I can't even read old-fasioned analog clocks very easily anyway, that RSS feed thing isn't going to connect to anything since I'm not configuring IE and cmon, picture viewer? USELESS. and that's just an example.

>>And even many powerusers have figured it out and are not comfertable with it. I remember how much I hated switching to XP, now I prefer it, and of course, I use VPC to remind me of what we have evolved from.
Microsoft had to release SP2 to be "usable". (My bro had SP1, geez...)

>>Linux isn't a failure, but, its targeting the wrong markets to ever get a large market share, so far the only people that truely love and swear by it, still have pen protectors and and coke bottle eyeglasses.
Linux is not a business, it's your oportunity to be free.

Linux forums are less fanboyish than you.


I can start with the DOS stuff, cause everything you said doesn't use DOS, but a DOS shell, of which you can moddify if you really want to, thats what config.sys is there for.
Make sure you have Extended and Expanded memory turned on.

I spent weeks trying to find drivers for Soundblaster 16 AWE 64, I could get close, but everything I tried failed, the one solution I found involved 40 pages of insttructions on system edits through CLS. Thats when I said f*** it.
It simply is not supported, it was too fancy, the AWE 64 was apperently a special driver and addon, it was essentially the same as AWE 32, but with these special drivers to modify it, without these special drivers, it cannot be used.

Video worked fine, printer installed, but wouldn't print, and couldnt be access by windows systems over a network.

>>Is that really a plus? Kinda lame, you have to illegaly decompile to learn about how your OS runs your computer.
Thats calle dreverse engineering, and its a huge problem for all software developers, considering everything you have on your computer is pirated, id think you would understand this very well