Worst Operating System you ever used?

Post Reply New Topic

gentoo

Points at the troll and laughs.

I have parallels on my mac so I can have the ability to run other OSs when I need them. Does it say much that I have 2 virtual machines, each a different distro of linux? Notice what major OS did not make the cut and it is not due to lack of HD space either!

Hey! Someone wrapped a GUI around my terminal!

True, a GUI limits you in any OS as they design them for the lowest common denominator of usage/users. To do the neat stuff you hop into the command-line realm. Just make sure you know what you are doing before you do so.

BTW, was I the only one that loved that in the Amiga OS you could quit the graphical interface in order to devote more CPU resources to the command line?

Aaah, the Commodore Amiga - the perfect engineering replication of the girlfriend with split personalities. Some truely amazing graphics and some great games (head to head Lemmings where you get to kill your opponent's Lemmings - brilliant!). Then there was the *nix port that was utterly horrible. I don't even remember what flavor it was, but it constantly crashed and would trash your HD to the point you had to reimage it. The hardware was pretty shoddy also - my monitor started going out right after the warranty expired. According to the university repair shop, there was an issue where the components would overheat and stuff would start melting on the inside.

Those of you claiming today's Windows or *nix clones are the "worst" have no idea what true pain is.

Hmm...

My ''George Bush'' class political android. After my android army failed to forcibly sieze power for me, I started to work on ''Political'' class androids, to take over the world. He malfunctioned though and I wasn't able to repair him, then he managed to establish a collective and take over my ''Dick Cheney'' and ''Tony Blair'' political class androids, and I was powerless!

So yeah, don't use the ''Georhe Bush'' directive...

Thank you for the compliment. I try to base my views on facts and what I can see, as opposed to emotion, which is something alot of people can't do.




I do agree with you that NT was more stable than '95 and if given a choice, I'd have preferred NT, but the hardware support just wasn't there. At the time I was considering switching, I had hardware that was not supported under NT, so I went with '98. I had a printer that didn't have drivers available and a parallel port tape backup drive(which were quite common at the time). There were drivers later released for those items, but a friend of mine who tried the parallel port tape driver said it locked up NT. It was cheper for me to buy '98 then to buy a new printer and tape drive.



I never liked 3.0, but 3.11 wasn't too bad. It ran fine for me and I didn't have problems with it. I wanted to run newer software and everything that was coming out was for '95, so I upgraded.



Of course by then, more people were on the 'net, so that cut the time and cost of distributing updates bigtime.



I hope you are right. There are alot of upset people out there now saying they bought this new OS and it's already being replaced. I plan to run XP for as long as I can. I'm still debating whether or not in the future to build a new system and get the latest Windows, or to try running Ubuntu with Crossover Linux, http://www.codeweavers.com, so I can keep using some of my Windows applications.

I guess my views on Linux are similar to my views on NT, stable operating system, but not quite as consumer friendly as Windows, and not as much hardware support. I also like how in Linux if an application does crash, and it does happen no matter what the Linux gurus an zealots tell you, it doesn't take down the whole OS like in Windows. I've crashed an application in Linux a couple of times and all I had to do was kill it and keep on going. When it happens in Windows, the whole OS goes down with it, or becomes so unstable I have to reboot it to get it working right again.

With Asus now marketing a cheap laptop that runs on Linux, what happens in the OS market in the future will be interesting I'm sure. It won't be boring.

If you buy a new computer pr build one ask the OEM Manufacturer or the company the parts came from are compatible with Linux. If so you are in luck.

Actally Tony Blair is not really as Right-Wing as people think. He is actually one of the two men behind the Third-Way Moderate political establishment along with Former-President Bill Clinton.

So here in the U.S Blair will be a Moderate Democrat like Bill & Hiliary Clinton.


However I will leave it at that considering the fact that this is the Computer, Science & Technology Forum.

Oh Orwell, I don't mean Windows PC's but a actually mean IBM-Compatible PC's.

What, Debian

Fedora Core 3 was good, despite the fact that I could never learn UNIX systems.

Do people really have to quote entire posts? I hate when people do that, or if they are the fist to respond, they quote the entire thing so you can read the same thing twice.

Keith, they sure do. It's fun to quote an entire post. The longer the post, the better .

Keith, are you wearing a Faith No More shirt in your avatar? If so, is it the one that has the Angel Dust cover?

Anybody use Windows 1.0, 2.0 or MS-DOS Versions 1-4.

Are there (legal) ways of getting those for free? They could be fun to throw in a virtualbox sometime.

MS-DOS & Pre-Win95 Windows can be downloaded for free by just doing a Google Search.