Computer Geek advice?

by SixofNine 30 Replies latest jw friends

drwtsn32
My machine is booted to run XP, Windows 7, Vista, Mac, Linux ... beat that bitches.
I boot:
- MS DOS 3.30 (optionally start Windows 1.x or 2.x)
- MS DOS 6.22 (optionally start Windows for Workgroups 3.11)
- Windows 95b
- Windows 98SE
- Windows Me
- Windows NT 3.51
- Windows NT 4.0
- Windows 2000 Professional
- Windows XP Professional
- Windows Vista Business
- Windows 7 x64 Enterprise
- Windows 2003 Server
- Windows 2008 Server
- Debian 5.0
- Ubuntu 9.04
Suck it.
But this all runs in VMware on a Windows XP host, so it's not quite as cool.
Too bad VMware doesn't let me load my copy of OS/2. :( I also tried loading a hacked copy of Mac OS X but it didn't want to work very well.
zombie dub
I boot:
- MS DOS 3.30 (optionally start Windows 1.x or 2.x)
- MS DOS 6.22 (optionally start Windows for Workgroups 3.11)
- Windows 95b
- Windows 98SE
- Windows Me
- Windows NT 3.51
- Windows NT 4.0
- Windows 2000 Professional
- Windows XP Professional
- Windows Vista Business
- Windows 7 x64 Enterprise
- Windows 2003 Server
- Windows 2008 Server
- Debian 5.0
- Ubuntu 9.04
..... why??
zombie dub

double post
drwtsn32

zombie: for fun. But actually I also do software development, so one real purpose is to test applications on other platforms. Nowadays I only test software on Windows 2000 and up.
leavingwt

Windows NT 3.51
The horror.
Have you seen the HCL for this product. If I recall correctly, it's a single 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper.
BurnTheShips

The horror.
In certain respects, NT 3.51 was a better product than more recent MS OSes. The earliest NT version used a microkernel architecture, this is a far more stable and secure architecture than the monolithic kernels of subsequent releases. Unix was nearly always a microkerneled OS. And Netware was always microkerneled, hence the greater stability and security of the OS. You could simply reload an NLM.
BTS
leavingwt

In certain respects, NT 3.51 was a better product than more recent MS OSes.
It was rock solid, agreed. It was not user-friendly at all. Windows 2000 was light years ahead of NT is terms of hardware installation and multimedia capability. (In other words, 99.9% of home users had ZERO use for the NT products.)
Maybe I'm thinking about the very first version of NT. Was there an official release prior to 3.51?
brinjen

I believe Windows 2000 was NT... would have been version 5 if they'd continued the numbering system...
leavingwt

I believe Windows 2000 was NT
Yes. The big difference being that Win2K was Plug and Play.
brinjen

True.

Computer Geek advice?

Share this