USWhoFan Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 XP crashes more times than 98 ever did. Win98 was much more stable than XP and more compatible than XP. As for Vista, I'm not buying that until the bugs are ironed out. I don't think so. :thinking: Besides my experience at home I work in IT Infrastructure in a large corporate environment with 10's of thousands of PC's and I can say with quite a bit of certainty that 98 WASN'T more stable than XP. I'm not saying 98 was bad, because I really liked it and it was great for it's day, it's just not "all that". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Well we do know that XP is better than Vista, I just wish it was more stable than it is, you know like DOS. Granted with DOS if you push the wrong button or type the wrong command the results could get particularly frustrating. I think Microsoft damaged it's profits over the last year or more because of Vista. Why not just improve XP instead of designing another new OS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Well we do know that XP is better than Vista, Absolutely! I just wish it was more stable than it is, you know like DOS. Granted with DOS if you push the wrong button or type the wrong command the results could get particularly frustrating. Yea, DOS was the good old days of stability, but keep in mind that the entire OS could fit on a single diskette and every time you added anything you had to install the additional driver for it, no matter what it was that was added to the system. There just wasn't anything built into the OS, except basic system functionality. (Before DOS 4/5 you even had to add your own memory manager.) I think Microsoft damaged it's profits over the last year or more because of Vista. Why not just improve XP instead of designing another new OS? I'm sure they did. I agree they really should've beefed up XP even more, maybe even make it a paided update and they would've most likely done better and wait for a complete OS replacement until they have the new file system and everything ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 DOS really made computing into personal computing because as you said not all DOS machines were made equal. Do any of you remember HDM 4? or at least I think it was called that. Beefing up XP like you said would have been a much better move on Microsoft's part. Instead of making a whole new OS they could have improved stability and security on XP, a limiting task considering advances in computer technology but the way things have gone these past few years, certainly a profitable one. When XP came out 128mb of RAM was nothing anymore, absolutely nothing. To run your computer decently you needed at least 256mb of RAM and even then it probably wasn't enough. Then more powerful PCs came out with 512mb+ of RAM giving XP some real usefulness. People could actually use the OS for what it was meant for. Nowadays PCs are coming out with 1, 2, even 3gb of RAM. Two years ago I would not have seen this in stores but now we have souped up PCs whose only drawback is that they use Vista instead of XP. Now a PC with 1gb of RAM is almost nothing thanks to Vista but if you use XP that 1gb will go farther. When I go to a PC store now and see what the're selling I think, wow! Then I realize it's a Vista PC. This can only mean less money being spent on MS's new operating system. I certainly agree that Microsoft has hurt it's bottom line with this new, buggy, slow, incompatible OS and that a service pack or update was all that was needed. I'm sure the 5 year gap between release of OSs made Microsoft nervous. They were no longer getting the income generated by releasing new OSs every two years. They probably figured releasing a buggy system would be preferable to improving the existing system, making it faster, more efficient and less resource-consuming. Perhaps they felt they needed the extra cash to account for a rising overhead. Microsoft has become the IBM of our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Microsoft has become the IBM of our time. No doubt! Too big for there britches, or own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Just as IBM has been bested I think Microsoft will suffer the same fate. Microsoft has allowed its overhead to grow far too big for it's own good. They no longer innovate and set industry standards. I think the company spends much of its time doing security fixes and maintaining a buggy system rather than wowing audiences with new and better products. Who would a high-tech professional rather work for? The answer to this question alone I think would show Microsoft's weakened position over the last few years. That being said I would be ok working for such high-tech giants regardless of the high overhead. Microsoft is supposed to be one of the top employers in North America, possibly the world. The only thing is that I think they've moved from making these impressive products back in say 1998 to doing boring redundant tasks in 2008. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Am I wrong? Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Why thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 And now... 10 years later, we have Win 10 update 1809... Anyone effected? The latest update effects Intel & Windows users... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now