Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: zirk on 01 October 2014, 14:25:00
-
Well the preview is anyway, I assume you have to rub shoulders with MS in some form or another to download it.
So what happened to Ver 9, thought they where up to 9.7 or simular. :-\
-
Blimey only just got used to Win9. :o
Good , means there will be plenty of Win7 licences floating about as people upgrade to the latest must have rather than need.
-
I liked Win7, probably the last were see of a MS OS without having to poke your sticky fingers all over a screen. :'(
Having said that, during a recent sort out, I come across an old IBM 701 Lappy, small thing with the keyboard expanded outwards when you opened the lid, thinking this wont work, charged it and it effortlessly Booted Up Win95 (485 plus 20Mb Ram), I was actually quite impressed how quickly it booted up. :)
-
Still using MSDOS V6.2 . . . . . . . ;)
Nah, not really, but I still have customers with MSDOS systems. Really ? I hear you say. Yes, medical equipment in PRIVATE hospitals. Yes, the patient pays megabucks for the very very best and most up to date !
-
Still using MSDOS V6.2 . . . . . . . ;)
Nah, not really, but I still have customers with MSDOS systems. Really ? I hear you say. Yes, medical equipment in PRIVATE hospitals. Yes, the patient pays megabucks for the very very best and most up to date !
Yep, we still have machines running Win 2K. Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest. It's not fit for purpose by a long way..
Mind you, it's not fit for purpose on a desktop since Windows 8 IMHO. Maybe they'll climb down and offer a usable GUI with 10. ;D
-
Much of the aerospace world is still on Windows NT4. We still have to produce Windows drivers for our hardware that support Win 3.1, NT4, 95, 98, 2K, XP, Vista, 7 and 8.
When a PC falls over, it's virtualy impossible to get mother boards that support ISA slots nowadays. So the customer buys a brand new PCIe motherboard, and then complains when 20 year old hardware and software won't run/fit on it. They typically upgrade to Win2K, and the adventurous few are experimenting with Win 7.
-
We have 1 server left with NT4 - it was virtualised a while ago for fear of the hardware letting go... I'll be glad to see it go, but it's run fine for the last 12 years....
-
If 10 is as shite as 8, begs the question why MS bothered
-
I have Win7 on my desktop which I find fairly usable but I doubt that I will upgrade it to anything MS afterwards. Win8 killed it and having to upgrade completely all the time gets frustrating. Zorin and other Debian based Linux builds are getting pretty good, once Wine is fully sorted and easier to use there will be no need for a MS OS on a separate partition :y
-
I went from windows ME to XP and am now on 7. A mate of mine uses windows 95, as it runs his free full functioning Sony Soundforge ver 4.5
-
I have Win7 on my desktop which I find fairly usable but I doubt that I will upgrade it to anything MS afterwards. Win8 killed it and having to upgrade completely all the time gets frustrating. Zorin and other Debian based Linux builds are getting pretty good, once Wine is fully sorted and easier to use there will be no need for a MS OS on a separate partition :y
Yes, No Windows machines for me at home any more and I'll be sticking with Win 7 at the office.
Can't even recall when I last booted a Windoze VM. Probably last time I ran TIS. ;D
At least, with Linux, if some megalomaniac decides he knows better than 30 years of GUI design has taught us (as has recently happened with Ubuntu, of course), you can just spend 10 minutes installing a new WM and carry on as before. :y
-
At least, with Linux, if some megalomaniac decides he knows better than 30 years of GUI design has taught us (as has recently happened with Ubuntu, of course), you can just spend 10 minutes installing a new WM and carry on as before. :y
twm for life!
-
....so where our resident Microlimp fanboy? Busy "spanking the under side of his desk" ?
Licking his naked Bill Gaytes poster on the back of his bedroom door?
.....Or just hiding from the embarrassment? ;D
-
still I have working codes on xp and win 2000 here and there.. but they dont pay for yearly maintenance, so I'll let them on their own :-\
and as for code development, still I'll prefer windows XXX for many reasons..
-
Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.
I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.
For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.
-
Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.
I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.
For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.
.... ::) where's me violin ::)
:D ;D
-
Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.
I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.
For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.
.... ::) where's me violin ::)
:D ;D
Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies). But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products :-X
-
Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.
I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.
For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.
.... ::) where's me violin ::)
:D ;D
Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies). But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products :-X
just looking the numbers of MS running machines vs others makes trying to convince anyone unnecessary ;D
-
Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.
I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.
For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.
.... ::) where's me violin ::)
:D ;D
Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies). But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products :-X
...eventually. ;D
Come on, take the Bill Gaytes tinted specs off for some of that "reality" of which you speak. I do remember a certain admin on here talking about Microsoft loosing their way not too long ago. ...now which admin WAS that, remind me H21? Noooo. Dtm? NOOOO. AA noooo ;D .... ::) :P ;D
-
I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.
For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.
My issue is that they make it impossible for ME to support it. Clearly, no manufacturer will have significant support for a mainstream product that old but, when we're talking about a system that was designed to do a job, accepted and put into service the "patch tuesday" type of support is the last thing I want anyway (and I've never managed to elicit any other useful type of support from M$).
It'll most likely be in a controlled environment where no changes that I can't account for are made (so, M$ patches can get right out of there!). Also, nobody uses it in an internet-facing role or to surf dodgy porn sites (in theory - I sometimes wonder), so that type of "support" is not especially useful.
My issue is that I can't legally sell it any more, or move the customer onto new hardware when it wears out, I can't legally get the development tools to support them any more, etc...
But.. that's a fairly niche application for which a consumer OS is being used, so not really surprising.
On a wider note, M$ have their work cut out to avoid being the next Nokia, IMHO, and they need to undo a lot of the bad in Windows 8 this time to achieve that. They bleat about having one "experience" on all devices, but the truth is that they have 3 incompatible "experiences". A crippled smartphone "experience" on a desktop machine, a crippled desktop "experience" on a smartphone and a third bastardisation comprising the worst bits of the other two on a tablet. ::)
-
Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.
I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.
For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.
.... ::) where's me violin ::)
:D ;D
Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies). But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products :-X
...eventually. ;D
Come on, take the Bill Gaytes tinted specs off for some of that "reality" of which you speak. I do remember a certain admin on here talking about Microsoft loosing their way not too long ago. ...now which admin WAS that, remind me H21? Noooo. Dtm? NOOOO. AA noooo ;D .... ::) :P ;D
MS were years ahead of other options in security, party because they were a target early on. That's why FF is playing catch-up and Chrome is all but given up trying to be secure. And I don't see many Windows sysadmins running around like a blue arsed fly over a 20yr old flaw with a severity rating of 10. God, I wish I still specialised in Windows, rather than this *nix shite ;D
I always said Windows 8 was a fantastic OS (it really is) let down by a really, really, REALLY shite UI. A definite loss of vision there, Mr Balmer. Win 10 seems to more of an effort to claw back those still not taking the leap to Win 8 (ie, the likes of me :-[). But I've not tried the preview yet.
-
My issue is that they make it impossible for ME to support it. Clearly, no manufacturer will have significant support for a mainstream product that old but, when we're talking about a system that was designed to do a job, accepted and put into service the "patch tuesday" type of support is the last thing I want anyway (and I've never managed to elicit any other useful type of support from M$).
Why can't YOU support it? Unlike, say, Linux, you can use it for as long as you want if you bought the licence. MS won't provide PSS (that's a lie, you can, but if its found to be a bug, it won't get fixed) on it, but their online stuff says on for ages.
I called Redhat today, for an updated bash for RHEL3 (yes, I know, and its truly internet facing with no proper firewall). Couldn't even get passed the 1st line piss-off pill.
As I said, MS really ain't that bad for support. Pretty much the best in my experience. The worse of the big mainstreams has to go to Oracle.
-
Forget MS, you need the new IBM stuff.
(http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ibm/5150/5150_A/P1010050.JPG)
-
Bit of a reg edit and it's even working on my old netbook.
Only had it running for a couple of hours but it seems fine on this little Atom with 2 gig of ram.