Tribal Instinct

WOW this guy is a microsoft hater! of course we all know how accurate the inqurer site is. still a humorous read.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39087

I liked Windows ME

law.of.averages wrote:I liked Windows ME

If Bill Gates took a dump in a computer Law would call it OS gold.

nonstop wrote:

law.of.averages wrote:I liked Windows ME

If Bill Gates took a dump in a computer Law would call it OS gold.

No, i'd call it linux

Huh, I'd call it a mac.

i used ME too. but i saw a lot of blue.

Ace wrote:Huh, I'd call it a mac.

Well my first impresison was to call it nonstop.

Sideous Prime wrote:i used ME too. but i saw a lot of blue.

For folks like me, who had compliant hardware, it worked fine, but aparently that is the problem many people shared.

I don't blame Microsoft for that, I put the blame on driver manufacturers. If you recall, back then there were two operating systems. 98 and 2000. Each had it's own complete departiment, code, testing, etc etc... but MS was already aiming towards 1 code base. (call it XP)

The problem, at the time was that only select companies were creating hardware drivers for 2000. The rest weren't interested enough in 2000, or didn't believe there was a market (see any similarities to the 64bit feet dragging today?)

So MS created ME--Windows 98se with a Windows 2000 driver model. All those companies who were sitting on their laurels rushed crappy drivers out the door.

As an operating system ME failed.... But I think it did what it was intented, which was to stimulate creation of drivers in the 2000 environment.

People gripe that stuff doesn't work on Vista. Again that's not entirely Microsoft's fault. Its the companies that make the software. The ones that still haven't (or, in my case, haven't been sanctioned) even installed Vista and aren't even thinking of devleoping code against it.

i agree, law, some hardware vendors don't yet have drivers to support vista. thus, hampering the initial "welcome" into the consumer and commercial markets.

as far as ME, it looked nice. ran faster than 98se. in fact it natively supported all of my hardware right out of the box. then came blue...and eventually windows 2000. refresh my memory, which was released first?

the only problem i had with windows 2000 was that i remember having to hunt for hardware and software(software was less of an issue) that was supported. that was when 2000 was brand new and all i remember was being in best buy going from shelve to shelve looking for a scanner saying, "nope, not 2000 compatible." i did finally find an HP.

law.of.averages wrote:

Sideous Prime wrote:i used ME too. but i saw a lot of blue.

For folks like me, who had compliant hardware, it worked fine, but aparently that is the problem many people shared.

I don't blame Microsoft for that, I put the blame on driver manufacturers. If you recall, back then there were two operating systems. 98 and 2000. Each had it's own complete departiment, code, testing, etc etc... but MS was already aiming towards 1 code base. (call it XP)

The problem, at the time was that only select companies were creating hardware drivers for 2000. The rest weren't interested enough in 2000, or didn't believe there was a market (see any similarities to the 64bit feet dragging today?)

So MS created ME--Windows 98se with a Windows 2000 driver model. All those companies who were sitting on their laurels rushed crappy drivers out the door.

As an operating system ME failed.... But I think it did what it was intented, which was to stimulate creation of drivers in the 2000 environment.

People gripe that stuff doesn't work on Vista. Again that's not entirely Microsoft's fault. Its the companies that make the software. The ones that still haven't (or, in my case, haven't been sanctioned) even installed Vista and aren't even thinking of devleoping code against it.

If you wub microsoft so much why don't you marry it?

I built 4 machines for people with ME and they all came back crying of BSoDs so I switched them to 98SE.

Sideous Prime wrote:the only problem i had with windows 2000 was that i remember having to hunt for hardware and software(software was less of an issue) that was supported.

Exactly! no driver = no hardware.

I'd say more, but I have to reply to Nonstop.

nonstop wrote:If you wub microsoft so much why don't you marry it?
I built 4 machines for people with ME and they all came back crying of BSoDs so I switched them to 98SE.

First of all, I've already admitted that Bill Gates *does* have enough money to afford my sexual favors... what more do you want?

As for your four BSoD machines that you built.... I see another common denominator besides Microsoft.... Can you? I started by saying that I was in the minority. Lots of folks had trouble... which is why it ain't around. I'm just saying the blame should be more accurately aimed.

If it ran great for me, and bad for you...Then the problem lies in what was different between our systems. Base ME was the same either way... the differences were in drivers for the hardware we decided on.

As long as I've been in the industry, I've seen the same patterns repeated over and over. Despite the many betas, pre-releases, and releases to manufuacturing...drivers ALWAYS lag behind an OS release.

In fact, I refuse to by another Iomega product because of a tape drive I bought for Windows 95. The BOX said "Windows 95 ready" ...but when I called for support I got "We don't support 95 on that model."

Iomega zip drive "click of death!" Never been a fan of Iomega.

Iomega....arggh...there's a company. They actually denied the "click" of death ever existed.

We replaced their drives like underwear....once a week if we needed to or not.

Wonder what there up to these days? ....According to their web page they look like a viable company still. Trust data to their hardware....it would be a very cool day in the netherworlds.

myxxplyxx wrote:We replaced their drives like underwear....once a week if we needed to or not.

Did anyone else catch this?!?!