[Mac Daddy]

Well, I messaged Zardon on an idea for this thread, never heard back

So here it goes, I want opinons on the Best, Most Reliable, most stable OS
MR BURNS and Microsoft ever created

Im an Electronics Engineering Technologist, not a Puter guy, WELL, maybe Iam

This is just a fun off topic thread, and there is only one answer !!!!!!

What is it ????????????

[Sourcer_2002]

98SE or 2k for the most reliablity and stablity XP is still a little underdevloped for me its a good lookin OS and they did a pretty good job. I would till the new version of XP comes out till i installed so for now my top are 98SE and 2k and if u want somthin try Linux.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

The one that Mr. Burns uses on his personal pc...

[Zardon]

well I did reply to your email and said to go for it


most stable OS, probably linux...... best? windows XP professional. just my humble opinion.

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by Zardon
well I did reply to your email and said to go for it


most stable OS, probably linux...... best? windows XP professional. just my humble opinion.

Never received your reply, lowercase on all characters in Email
Within DH I may have something shut off in options, OH WELL !!

Did you like the artwork on my Gitfiddle ??????

Linux, Have heard really good things bout this OS, will try it out when I have time

Windows XP Professional is a definite improvement over recent releases, 98SE was a good one as well. 2K platform is where I think MS is going, incorporated with some XP ideas

Man I've been waiting years for an OS that is intelligent enough to take two folders, one with 2 files, and one with 16, as adjust the size of the icons to fill the whole window, very smart

Getting Roxio to author there CD burning utilities was a smart move as well

I'm a big fan of XP so far

Still not the answer I was looking for
Best, most reliable and most stable for its time and period
All parameters, think back to our DOS days maybe

thanks for reply, keep this site going, DH is the bomb

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by Kelsenellenelvian
The one that Mr. Burns uses on his personal pc...

Nice, you may have something there haaaaaa

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by Sourcer_2002
98SE or 2k for the most reliablity and stablity XP is still a little underdevloped for me its a good lookin OS and they did a pretty good job. I would till the new version of XP comes out till i installed so for now my top are 98SE and 2k and if u want somthin try Linux.

Agree on XP, when they mix this with the stability of 2K, They will have an ass kicker of an OS

98SE is one of those OS's Microsoft releases every 3 years or so, a good one

This thread is very quickly covering two topics, and any input on newer OS's is Welcome

But like I said to Zardon, this is a history lesson

only one golden egg, past or present, what is it ???????????

This is a quiz, and is meant to be fun

Im sure Louie6666 and Sintax would know of what I speak

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Personnaly win xp is best and I've tried most of 'em...

[FuNsTeR]

98se for me every piece of software i have works on it ... unlike XP plus its very stable/reliable as well .... may i also add XP is kinda homosexual in its outlook ie pretty icons and its layout .... i use Mandrake 8.2 Professional as the 2nd boot os with 98se

[Malus]

Originally posted by FuNsTeR1970
98se for me every piece of software i have works on it ... unlike XP plus its very stable/reliable as well .... may i also add XP is kinda homosexual in its outlook ie pretty icons and its layout .... i use Mandrake 8.2 Professional as the 2nd boot os with 98se

Frooty is not the same a homosexual. You can be a homosexual and not be flamboyant, frooty, etc. Not that you would know apparently, but I'm just throwing out the idea.

Anyway, you cna turn off the frilly graphics in XP, so that is kind of a moot point.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

You must never push the limits of 98 funster I was always crashing it when I was using it. Out of one year and all the nasty crap that I've done to my computer XP has only crashed 3 times and everytime it recovered on its own i.e. no re-install no reprograming and no calling for tech support! I am always screwing with the registry and boot files and internal system files and 98 would never stand up to this punishment...

[Alistair]

I have yet to make XP by itself crash on me. Now some games lockup usually due to beta drivers and other beta software I run but none of my regular applications freezeup on me

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by Alistair
I have yet to make XP by itself crash on me. Now some games lockup usually due to beta drivers and other beta software I run but none of my regular applications freezeup on me

I agree, and this is the third point I neglected to mention, XP catches itself crashing.
Smart software

I'm not much into the Pics in folder icons and that stuff either, a bit much
But the folder and file management is much better.

I hate opening a window with two frickin files in it, and it defaults to a window full screen
98SE had a nice management addition in the way of Plus for Windows, Plus for XP is also a nice compliment.

But XP is the first OS from MS, to offer some of these enhancements as part of the Original OS

[Mac Daddy]

Some nice input on XP and 98SE, I think an XP SE would be in Microsoft's best interest
If you try and release a brand new OS every year, you end up with the Win95 and ME type of crap, ME only Microsoft OS where even "End task" doesnt work properly

Lets do this, Best Mr. Burns your happy with now, fun for discussion, I'm certainly enjoying it

And that one OS, that made the prick most of his money

Two topics, 1 thread.

I actually installed 95, for bout 20 min, reformatted my HD and reinstalled the OS Im thinking of, falls into second category, past, but still have install disks for it.

Win98 was the first of "new breed" I installed, which of course had it's Probs
But 98SE fixed almost all of them

98SE, and XP are in my humble opinion, 2 of 3 Microsoft OS's that I found useful

What's the third ???

[DallasStar]

Originally posted by Mac Daddy
Some nice input on XP and 98SE, I think an XP SE would be in Microsoft's best interest
If you try and release a brand new OS every year, you end up with the Win95 and ME type of crap, ME only Microsoft OS where even "End task" doesnt work properly

Lets do this, Best Mr. Burns your happy with now, fun for discussion, I'm certainly enjoying it

And that one OS, that made the prick most of his money

Two topics, 1 thread.

I actually installed 95, for bout 20 min, reformatted my HD and reinstalled the OS Im thinking of, falls into second category, past, but still have install disks for it.

Win98 was the first of "new breed" I installed, which of course had it's Probs
But 98SE fixed almost all of them

98SE, and XP are in my humble opinion, 2 of 3 Microsoft OS's that I found useful

What's the third ???

win2k

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by dallasstar
win2k

Yes, I forgot that one in my haste, and I still think this platform will retain, very stable

Lets make it 1 of 4

Still not the answer I was looking for

What is the fourth ?????????

98SE, Win2K and XP and ??????????????

Man you guys are really making me feel old

[merry]

DOS 3.3

[Ryoko]

win3.11 was the best os i've ever used... stable, reliable, FAST, and only used 12 MB... now i'm dealing with oses that use 600MB...

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by Ryoko
win3.11 was the best os i've ever used... stable, reliable, FAST, and only used 12 MB... now i'm dealing with oses that use 600MB...

You've won the the Golden Egg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't send ya anything online, but at least owe ya a beer or two
Windows 3.11 for Networking, for its time and period was the OS that fit all of the parameters. And it was current for bout four years

More for me because I didn't like the feel of 95

I think it was this OS that really secured Mr. Burn's Stranglehold on IBM.

Lets not stop here though, lets keep this discussion going

All views on pros and cons of OS's we have tried

[UberLord]

Originally posted by Ryoko
win3.11 was the best os i've ever used... stable, reliable, FAST

Excuse me?

Stable? This is the OS that hard-locked when you accessed a floppy drive when it had no floppy in. Up came a box saying "Insert a floppy" or similar (brain fuzzy - can't remember exact message but it wasn't that user friendly) and it hard-locked. Reset PC to continue.

Reliable? Of course it was. Say a windows 3.x app crashes then it brings down the entire PC. Not my definition of stable.

Fast - erm nope. Compared to it's counterparts like GEM for example it was dog slow.
The main problem Win3.1x had was it's networking support. Once you installed that then it blew chunks.

Besides, you guys are completly not understanding what an Operating System is. Win 3.x/95/98/ME et all are NOT operating systems. They are GUI's. They're operating system is ..... drum roll....... DOS. Disk Operating System. All of those "OS's" can run on DR-DOS and PC-DOS which were viable replacements for MS-DOS. DR-DOS in particular was more stable, more reliable and much FASTER than MS-DOS.

[UberLord]

Originally posted by Mac Daddy
So here it goes, I want opinons on the Best, Most Reliable, most stable OS
MR BURNS and Microsoft ever created

Windows 2000 SP2 (not SP3 which has a few "issues" - also with the new EULA)

Point - aren't reliable and stable actually the same thing and you're simply confusing matters by including them both?

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by UberLord
Excuse me?

Stable? This is the OS that hard-locked when you accessed a floppy drive when it had no floppy in. Up came a box saying "Insert a floppy" or similar (brain fuzzy - can't remember exact message but it wasn't that user friendly) and it hard-locked. Reset PC to continue.

Reliable? Of course it was. Say a windows 3.x app crashes then it brings down the entire PC. Not my definition of stable.

Fast - erm nope. Compared to it's counterparts like GEM for example it was dog slow.
The main problem Win3.1x had was it's networking support. Once you installed that then it blew chunks.

Besides, you guys are completly not understanding what an Operating System is. Win 3.x/95/98/ME et all are NOT operating systems. They are GUI's. They're operating system is ..... drum roll....... DOS. Disk Operating System. All of those "OS's" can run on DR-DOS and PC-DOS which were viable replacements for MS-DOS. DR-DOS in particular was more stable, more reliable and much FASTER than MS-DOS.

Keep in mind time and ERA, I disagree

Sounds like your hardware wasn't there

I ran PC-DOS quite reliably, and 3.11, never ran MSDOS with that software

ME and 2K arent the same , and too be honest neither of them are installed on my puter
Platform, of 2K, not geared for the more the casual user, more for designers.

Is what caught my eye, You know what blows chunks, is the total exclusion of DOS

If you don't think I know what an OS is lets go back

OS2 by IBM, was doing things 10 years ago, Mr. Burns is doing now

And lets go back to 1988 when I graduated college,

Took a tour of Atomic Energy in Chalk River, near where I was born, Petawawa, Ont.

Bout a dozen IBM Puters in the place, The rest were Motorola based !!

Man 88, They had puters running Artifical Intelligence programs, and Windows similar OS's that would blow you mind.

I'm a hardware guy, I think of registers and memory allocation, even with these fancy new OS's

Thanks for reply, And thanks for help on my copyright thread as well, BUD

Be honest, and be nasty, I always am

[UberLord]

I'm going to change the order of some of your statements to have a decent argument here.

Originally posted by Mac Daddy
Sounds like your hardware wasn't there

Actually, you can replicate that floppy problem I stated on any hardware. It's a known problem.
I can't find any linkage to prove this, but I may dig some up if bored tomorrow

ME and 2K arent the same , and too be honest neither of them are installed on my puter
Platform, of 2K, not geared for the more the casual user, more for designers.

When did I ever say they were the same? As a software engineer I know for a fact they are widly different.

Is what caught my eye, You know what blows chunks, is the total exclusion of DOS

Try reading the last paragraph of my post you quoted - I mentioned three (3) different brands of DOS (IBM, MS and DR)

I ran PC-DOS quite reliably, and 3.11, never ran MSDOS with that software

That I do not dispute. What I do dispute is that when an application crashes it should not bring down everything else. Maybe you were lucky and none of your apps crashed.
Win 3.x/95/95/ME run programs in shared memory spaces. This means that a badly written application can mess around with memory used by another application directly. If this happens then boom - you crash. WinNT based OS's (NT 3.x, NT4.0, 2k and XP) and most other OS's (like OS/2 which you mention below) don't suffer from this problem when running 32-bit applications.

If you don't think I know what an OS is lets go back

OS2 by IBM, was doing things 10 years ago, Mr. Burns is doing now [/b][/quote]

Oh I agree - OS/2 was much more advanced than Windows. In some aspects is still is, but these days Windows has pretty much everything on OS/2 beaten. But I'm curious - when did I say that you didn't know what an OS way?

But then, from a pure OS perspective, the GNU/Hurd OS is miles ahead of anything else.

[lisagauss]

running Red Hat Linux 7.2...super stable....never had a crash...install time is fast, bet the 8.0 must be amazing..Red Hat Linux gets my vote!!!

[WyreTheWolf]

Most Stable... OS/2 WARP 4.5, Most Reliable... No complaints with XP Pro ...

[merry]

Uber:

To play the devils advocate, Win 3.11 was a cross between a shell/GUI and an OS. Remember 32 bit disk/file access? (win 3.1 only had one of those). That was done by direct access to the BIOS (INT13H), not through INT21H. And the whole API system. And win32s.

But I agree with you, it wasn't working great. I worked on a Pentium 90Mhz/8MB RAM, and moving to Win95 was a relief (although it booted in more than 95 seconds).

It was though what made Bill the man he is.

IMO Win98SE is best for 'consumer' (for toying around) and WinXP for work.

[Ryoko]

win3.11 never gave me problems. maybe it's all the generic stuff i ran. office 4.3, netscape 3.0, a whole bunch of dos games, and a 4 computer home network.

i don't know. i think the reason why i've never had a problem with an os is because i've always had plenty of memory for it. for win3.11 i had 48MB, for win98se, i have 512MB.

and for all intents and purposes, win3.11 was win3.1 with 32 bit addressing and lanman thrown in the code.

[Ryoko]

and i won't argue with you about the floppy disk thing, uber. i think the reason why it never bothered me is because i only used cdroms.

[Mac Daddy]

Originally posted by UberLord
I'm going to change the order of some of your statements to have a decent argument here.


Actually, you can replicate that floppy problem I stated on any hardware. It's a known problem.
I can't find any linkage to prove this, but I may dig some up if bored tomorrow




When did I ever say they were the same? As a software engineer I know for a fact they are widly different.



Try reading the last paragraph of my post you quoted - I mentioned three (3) different brands of DOS (IBM, MS and DR)



That I do not dispute. What I do dispute is that when an application crashes it should not bring down everything else. Maybe you were lucky and none of your apps crashed.
Win 3.x/95/95/ME run programs in shared memory spaces. This means that a badly written application can mess around with memory used by another application directly. If this happens then boom - you crash. WinNT based OS's (NT 3.x, NT4.0, 2k and XP) and most other OS's (like OS/2 which you mention below) don't suffer from this problem when running 32-bit applications.



OS2 by IBM, was doing things 10 years ago, Mr. Burns is doing now

Oh I agree - OS/2 was much more advanced than Windows. In some aspects is still is, but these days Windows has pretty much everything on OS/2 beaten. But I'm curious - when did I say that you didn't know what an OS way?

But then, from a pure OS perspective, the GNU/Hurd OS is miles ahead of anything else.[/quote]

Thanks for you replys and advise as always Uber
lets start with number 1, floppy issue:

It was well known, but easily fixed, as far as hardware
I meant hardware in general, at that time programmers were fighting with speed, memory and file size. Not a prob we have now.
The situation has reversed, The Hardware is now ahead of the software.
As a result, we are feed badly compiled overly large software packages
That's what I meant on hardware, no one was happy with hardware at that point in time!

topic number 2, ME and 2K
Heh, I had no doubt you knew the difference, but some still don't
Windows 2000 released programs, man there all crap, heh, not all
Software Engineer, doesnt surprise me at all, Being a heartfelt "newbie" here still
Though my title might not reflect it!!
I still respect my Piers, and that list would be way to long for this thread

As a last comment on 2, maybe I thought you were being overly critical AND
Maybe I posted that comment just to piss you off !!

topic 3, DOS

I did notice the 3 DOS OS's you mentioned, and did read that last paragragh very thoroughly
What you neglected to remember is your talk of pure OS's, which neglect DOS completely
Win 3:11, Win95(OH my GOD This SUCKS), ME (Why release this crap) rely on DOS installed systems
Windows is simply an add on!!
I agree on that,NT 3.X, NT4.0, 2K and XP, are different

3.11 introduced us to 32 bit and had its probs, we have to start somewhere

XP, is good, very good but forces your HD format system, don't like that
Finally found a use for my ME disk (lisenced)
Run FDISK /MBR
and format FAT32 before installing XP corporate, and your valid key, I may have 3, but won't commit to it
and enjoy!!!!

Topic 4: bringing down sytem

I agree completely, but all comments I think are covered above

And once again time and period are imparative

topic 5: I dont know what an OS is, view your post

reply to Ryoko,
"Beside's you guys , are COMPLETELY not understanding what an OPERATING SYSTEM is"

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????
RIGHT !!! WHAT? BAKING POWDER ??? EXSQUEESE ME ?? HUH !!!!!

Whew !!!, am I tired now
Uber, would like more info on Linux and GNU/HURD OS

AS for OS's, quite happy running XP corp for now, but getting bored with it, its too simple to figure out.

Take care Uber, I think you are becoming my favorite member, Short and Sassy
And too the point, Cheers Bud

[merry]

Originally posted by Ryoko
win3.11 never gave me problems. maybe it's all the generic stuff i ran. office 4.3, netscape 3.0, a whole bunch of dos games, and a 4 computer home network.

i don't know. i think the reason why i've never had a problem with an os is because i've always had plenty of memory for it. for win3.11 i had 48MB, for win98se, i have 512MB.

and for all intents and purposes, win3.11 was win3.1 with 32 bit addressing and lanman thrown in the code.

Win 3.1 (maybe 3.11 too) was, to my knowledge, limited to 32 MB RAM, that is, it didn't use more, even if you had it installed. You needed though at least 12 to make Word 6.0 work well, and more if you printed large pictures. Corel 5.0 also was terrible with less than 16 MB RAM.