operating system

Post Reply New Topic

what computer operating system do you use?
i use windows 7.its newest version of windows.

I'm running Windows 7 64 bit beta but I also have Vista Home Premium 32 bit and XP Pro 32 bit.

$uname -a
Linux Box-4 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Mon Dec 15 18:15:07 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux

Windows 7 is not as new as you may think it is; as long as it's built on the core of Vista, which it is, it is just Windows Vista with a new look. Microsoft have always planned on releasing newer operating systems, but the next will be based on the previous core. There are about 2 for each core. There's Windows 5.0 and Windows 5.1, but there is another Windows 5.2. For those who do not understand, Windows 5.0 is known as "Windows 2000" and Windows 5.1 is known as "Windows XP" If you do not believe me, go run "command.com" or "CMD.EXE" depending on operating system and you will see for yourself. There is another in the Windows 5.x line, it's known as Windows Server and/or known as Windows XP x64/x64 Professional, the later being more supported, yes there are 2 Windows 5.2 available.

Moving on to Windows Vista, if you run the CMD.EXE command, and type VER and [ENTER] you will see either 6.0.6000 or 6.0.6001 depending if you installed the service pack or not (unless it was already included) Try the same with Windows "7" you will see the version number is ....
6.1.7000.

Not quite Windows 7 after all, now is it? If it's not Windows 7, but built on top of the Vista 6.0 core, then it can not be new if it uses existing technology, and a few improvements.

Reminds me of the old days, of Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, people asking what happened to Windows 4 through 94... Windows 95 WAS Windows 4 Admittedly Windows 95 was pretty good when I saw it. Under version no. 4.0.950 then 4.0.950 A but the one to support larger hard drives was B. But is restricted to just 32GB partitions. Just think, having a 32GB partition in those days would be seen as immense....

I am a multiboot user, I use Windows 5.2.3690, 6.0.6001, planned 6.1.7000, SuSE 11 x64, Ubuntu 8.04, and a few others, so I can play with the various Linux distros to see which suits me best. They are free to download and why the hell not I'll probably keep them all, maybe not, but I have to find which is best for me. As they are not insistent on primary partitions, I can install as many various versions as I like as they will be in the extended part of the hard drive whereas Windows NT version will only install to Primary partitions, which sucks. Does help to have a third party boot manager, none of this various and hard to keep track of letters and less risk of damaging other setups

Not really - Win 3.11 was a GUI running under MS-DOS, so you booted first in Dos and started Win, whilst Win95 was an operating system on it own right, and did need a DOS-installation. And to run Win 3.11 you needed to enter in the autoexec.bat anything for accessing the high memory above 6xx-KB. It was not very consistent at all.



Mmmmhhhh ... I saw this quite differently. I worked prior with HP-UX V and had to move to DOS and Win and I saw both as pain in the arse.

Last edited by Dussel on 28 Jan 2009, 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Arch Linux and Vista Ultimate for my gaming

To be fair, Windows 95 relied on DOS as the backbone, therefore it was also DOS. Windows NT is an operating system in its own right. With the whole series of Windows 4, the DOS versions went up to 7.22 (from what I remember, could be thinking of Caldera DOS or PC-DOS)

This caused an horrible mixture of 16 and 32 bit programmes. For my part I blame the lack of stability of Win95/98 for a good part on this mixture.

$uname -a
Linux [orwell]-laptop 2.6.27-9-generic #1 SMP Thu Nov 20 22:15:32 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
That would be Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit version. I've also got Vista Ultimate 32-bit (oh the horror) and OS X Leopard 10.5.6, which is not bad but a bit too restrictive. Dussel, what distro are you on again?

The "server" I am currently working runs with debian-lenny (reinstalled a few weeks ago - new HDD). But server is great name for an assembled box with 2GB RAM and a three years old pentiumIV and 10 years history - but does its job.

Isee you two just displayed the kernal. Let see what mine is, I assume it will be similar to Dussel's

Linux debian 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Thu Oct 9 15:18:09 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux

I'm using Lenny on this computer

eComStation

Linux wlan 2.6.27-11-generic #1 SMP Thu Jan 22 17:22:40 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
This is from Intrepid on my Acer.

I've got a rather older kernel on my 10 year old workhorse desktop, as Intrepid doesn'y (didn't?) like my old graphics card (GeForce4), so I'm still running Gutsy there.
Linux medion 2.6.24-23-generic #1 SMP Thu Nov 27 18:44:42 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux

According the nvidia:

http://us.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/L ... dix-a.html

The newer drivers do not support the GeForce4-Card, but the older version 1.0-96xx - to be found here:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_disp ... -9639.html

You may have a look into the Readme-File:

http://us.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/L ... README.txt

The problem isn't Nvidea, it's Intrepid. The upgrade from Hardy (sorry, it isn't Gutsy, it's Hardy. With the desktop showing the Heron for a year, you'd think I'd have got used to what it was called?) doesn't give an option to use older Nvidea drivers (or at least, last time I tried to upgrade, that's what it said).

As I'm in the process of phasing out this machine, to some extent, I don't really want to get too tied up in tinkering with the upgrade process. (I've been phasing it out for about six months, now. Who knows.... another year or so, and I might get it done. )

What you would need to do is to de-install the driver and to re-install the old drivers directly from Nvidea. You must be only careful to de-install the old drivers fully.



I thin in the meanwhile there will hardy any piece of software on this box which is same ...