Goodbye Win95 and Win3.x it was nice knowing you article


gnuman
#1
I just thought to inform the general web (I hope someone else besides me reads it) that would actually agree with my point of view and really enjoyed the article.

I don't know about you but I think it should win an Emmy award it was so heart touching, and painful to those who still use win95 on a daily basis.

I honestly can say I don't remember that much about win3.x and used it for probably around a year or two, I was too young to remember.

I used DOS 3.3 for a long time and then slowly moved up the hill, where Win95b I only stopped using maybe 2 years ago!

Tell me what you think about the article
 
THT_Barrie
#2
Ahh, what the hell.. They barely support windows to begin with. Its nothing out of the ordinary.
 
gnuman
#3
Well they kinda did stop support for win95/98 already but this is the official EOL for it......

But Win95 did revolutionize computers and it should be noticed that Win95 was probably also the starting point when people accessed the net from.

Although it was limited, MS did release all that "in betwen" oses which were bad I mean I hated 98se... Never tried ME and I wouldn;t want to

I mean if MS wanted to capture the awe that it did when going win3.x-> win95 it shoulda gone from win95-> win xp

supposedly MS is pulling the plug on 98 and 2k next year. Eventhough I find it a bit too early to kill off Win2k.
 
Shmad
#4
I doubt they'd kill off win2k next year, granted XP itself is based from 2k in parts and the fact that is very heavily used by network administrators and companies world wide.

Although, if you look at the flipside, it would make them more money, the customers wouldnt be able to get 2k updates, so they would spent the big $$$ to upgrade their office networks and get hordes of licenses for "Windows domination" whatever the name of the next release will be. Frankly Im a little sick at how they name windows, but thats alright, in any event, windows might never die, but people are finding other solutions that are way more cost effective and still allow them to run Windows Applications on them.

A good example of this is Lindows (ya i know i know). It can run Windows applications and licensing is $99 for as many computers as you want to run it on, its a very quick and speedy Operating system, and the current release is pretty stable. Ontop of being a unix based OS, it offers the best of both worlds for those who are sick of microsoft and have no clue about linux.
 
no1important
#5
Get a MAC and you don't have to worry about these things. Macs are way better and faster than PC's anyways. Plus they dont crash like PC's.

OS/10 blows away anything microsoft puts out. My 1.25 G4 blows away any p4 that is out there now would would probabley blow any away that are coming out in the near future. I am sure glad I switched.

The only problem with macs is the price. 3500$ and availbility of some programs but it makes up for it with speed and reliability.
 
Andem
#6
MAC's are too expensive and too incompatible... I'm happy running an PC with dual-boot linux and windows xp (for the things i need with windows).

I must admit, the new generation MAC OS's are nicely build on unix Very much resembles gnome. hehe
 

Similar Threads

33
knowing yourself
by china | Feb 14th, 2009
47
Knowing Yourself
by china | Nov 18th, 2006
29
Knowing and learning
by china | Sep 26th, 2006
268
Nice American Article: US vs. Canada
by Andem | Feb 16th, 2005