16 Jun
2013
16 Jun
'13
4:59 p.m.
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013, Tothwolf wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Willing to agree with that. I've found however that NT 4 is a LOT less of
a kludge than 2000. 2000 is far too webby for my liking.
The NT 4 kernel was nice. ;)
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013, Tothwolf wrote:
Certainly. On the other hand, at least with say Windows 3.1, you could
actually fix something if the OS got screwed up, vs everything being done
in the registry. One of my only real gripes with NT4 is the start menu
being extremely difficult to modify compared to say Win 95 OSR2 and
later...well, that and getting the service packs installed properly and
with the other correct updates done in between was also a real pain.
*I haven't seen any major discussions of
modern versions of Windows,
other than /maybe/ discussing incompatibilities with certain emulators
or maintenance/disk imaging utilities - which themselves are very much
"on topic". Maybe we need a thread about just how much Windows 8 sucks
compared to Windows 3.x or OS/2 Warp? ;)
I take offense to that. NT 4 is far superior. ;)