http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7707016.stm

i don't even understand most of the stuff that's written there so can someone epxlain to me in simple english please

thanks

 

They've stopped selling Windows 3.x licences.

The end.

 

I'm gutted I still use it

 

poor dojj you having a blonde moment

 

You don't need a licence for Windows 3.x. Just download it.

 

that will be useful to run your latest pc lol

 

old school software that lol.

Still catn beat Windows 95 for speed lol

 

what about OS2 Warp, BeOS, DOS, BSD, Linux

even Gentoo with a fluxbox desktop on my current rig is faster imho

 

ok, the nerds didn't throw themselves out of the windows, they started posting here

what you lot on about then?

yes there was a windows 3.1 i remember ebcause i think one of my computers had it
then i rememebr windows 95
then 98
them 2000
then melienium
then xp
and now i'm on vista

so what does it all mean?
or it it like a merc that just gets better and better so they decide to give it a new name?

 

dojj it means more money for bill

 

Its called Evolution.

new ways of doing stuff, improvements (except in Milleniums case - that went backwards).

Well Windows 3.x was the first recognisable Windows.

Windows 1 was a billy basic GUI version of MS-DOS (command line stuff) that meant you could just have multiple windows open with other command line stuff in it etc, and a funky calculator.

Windows 2 was an improved Windows 1, with a few more colours and better GUI, which contained a few basic graphics.

Windows 3.x was significant in that it had proper Icons etc, and alot more functionality than the earlier versions. Windows For Workgroups 3.1 and 3.11 (WFWG) had proper networking abilities, which meant you didnt need to run something like Novell Netware etc for your networks. It also had some 32bit arcitecture too.

The above all used MS-DOS as its boot up software - Windows wasnt a self contained operating system, more a shell at the time.

Windows 95 was a completely new format, new layout and modern - It was also named to coincide with the year of its release! It didnt need MS-DOS to boot up, as it was a full OS, but did retain a command line shell, which was called MS-DOS 7.0.

Windows 98 essentially is an improved version of Windows 95, with some new bits lol.

Millenium was just Microsoft cashing in on the year 2000.

XP was built on the NT kernel from Windows NT 3.x / NT 4 / Windows 2000, which were all aimed at businesses for networking etc. They had workstation versions. NT 3.x was based on the layout of Windows 3.x, and often used with WFWG for the end user, with admins usually using the NT workstation version. XP is a modern version of Windows 98, but has more in common with Windows NT / 2000. It is also 32 bit, but retains a 16bit subsystem and command line shell (basic version of MS-DOS) for older programmes.

Windows Vista comes in a number of formats - 32 bit and 64 bit. 64 bit doesnt include a 16bit subsystem, so older programmes cannot work on it. The 32 bit version still includes a 16 bit subsystem. Both contain a command line shell. It is a modern version of XP, that also contains alot of what you might use which is integrated as standard, rather than you having to get other, (possibly) external packages, making it an all in one.

Im pretty sure that about covers your question???

 

very true, and even though im not a fan, he does give ALOT of money to charity.

 

Totally outclassed by Amiga and Mac systems when it came out.
Fuck knows how it ever took off.
Then OS2 came along for PC and blew it into last year.. yet still Windows came out on top... from an 'IT nerd's' point of view its truly mind boggling.

 

It was VHS and Betamax all over LOL

Amiga's could multitask owing to having a cpu for every function.

OS/2 was IBM's answer - trouble i found was compatibility issues.

 

Agreed... its a miracle that its dominated the market place.
even these days its inferior compared to OSX and Linux both technically and visually

 

OS/2 was Microsoft and IBM's answer in the 80's when the love affair fell apart IBM continued to develop OS/2, while Microsoft changed the name of its (as yet unreleased) OS/2 3.0 to Windows NT (New Technology) which as we all know is the basis of XP and Vista

IBM's OS2 Much better than NT imho during the early years, but yea it had compatibility issues with Windows users. But I don't care, I use Linux by choice so compatibility issues are nothing to me

 

lol- Im going to Linux very shortly - once i find 10 minutes to install it hahahaha

 

So what would it mean to the average guy like me, who's reasonably i.t. literate and knows his way round a pc, if I wanted to change my laptop from xp pro to linux

What would I have to do?
How would it affect me
Can i still use MSN etc and any other normal apps you can download?

 

You can use MSN, but not an MS version, unless you run a Windows Emulator, then whats the point of running Linux?

Linux and Laptop's dont always go tother either.

I tried several distro's on my laptop and all failed on the install.

None of your MS apps would work on Linux.

99% of people, Windows is fine.

 

So why is everyone harping on about linux being better? Not much point if the man on the street cant use it with his eyes shut and minimal fuss like windows?

 

Its better from a point of view that you arent limited like you are with MS in alot of aspects.

if you find something wrong, you dont have to wait until MS decide theres something wrong lol.

Currently, but for how long i dont know, Linux isnt vulnerable to viruses.

its stable, fast, is a great server based O/S and is free to download. There different versions etc too.

The average man on the street doesnt need imo.

 

from what i can gather, it's about peole driving around in beemers because they are better cars than mercs, but most peole just want a car that gets them from a to b in poshness, which is why you will see loads more s class mercs on the streets of london than 7 series beemers

 

Dojj, it's nothing to do with cars or WWE so just listen and learn from the experts!

 

Right so it's a better server O/S....gotcha, of course then I understand why its a big deal as such even tho it's not to a home user.

 

too much information.

Are you one of them guys that are in the pub at lunch talking about HP deskjet new pressure jets that produce more econamy that normal??

 

Fuckin hell...

Has Stu H not seen this post... Mr PC Nerd will be along shortly rest assured.

 

oh good old windows 3.11

i used that when i started out in IT. was a good platform and still would be to understand what goes on at a lower OS level.

My fav OS of all time is still windows 2000 professional

 

Is this coz I gave you a MASSIVE wound on ur slicks post

Admit it, its true

P.S. Mr PC Nerds are quite useful, especially at silly o'clock eh Jake

Have to catch up for a beer SOON mate, been too long!

 

The reason I use Linux is because I simply do not like problems, the very fact that I can safely run my system without anti virus applications, spyware applications, applications to clean my system ensures that every last bit of my processing power is used for performance.
Although Linux can be a bit strange for the new user, once you have it running its exceptionally fast, stable and reliable, it is for this reason that it widely used for web servers. (one of my own computers has not been rebooted for three years)

As linux is not owned by a company, it is owned by the users it is constantly reviewed and improved, any problems discovered are fixed quickly by the people who use it, you are never waiting for a company to do something.

I can do everything I need on a Linux box, its free, there is no licence problems and its fast..

If your interested to have a look you can run Linux from the CD without effecting you windows installation.. You can get a free cd from http://www.ubuntu.com/

A Liniux cd is worth having anyway simply because you can recover a crashed windows system with them.

 

thats me ohh my sad sad life

 

Thanks for the link, i may give it a try!

Why dont you need AV etc with Linux? :s

 

On windows most people run as an administrative user which allows you to do anything, I myself do simply because the functionality of the system is effected if you do not.
On Linux you do not run day to day as the administrative user, however should you wish to change or remove a file that effects the system you will be prompted for the administrative or root password.

Unlike in Windows system files under Linux can not be edited, changed, deleted easily as the normal user which makes screwing it over a lot more difficult.

Also the very fact that every geek can download and view the code that makes Linux ensures that it evolves and improves security wise. Any bugs, issues and problems are soon detected with geeks across the globe looking at the code.

Because few people are paid to write Linux code and more do it for enjoyment or love, the quality of work is high as people takle care about things they are passionate about.

Its not Windows, its a very different experience, Linux can be what you want it to be... it suits me

 

That still doesnt sound like you dont need AV unless I'm missing something. It just means a virus for Linux would need to be more complex. Interesting stuff this.

 

This is very true, it is not that Linux is able to catch viruses its just that the manner in which the system is created ensures that it is a less attractive and easy target.
The knowledge that within hours of a virus or exploit being released geeks the world over with access to the source code of Linux will be examining the source code and finding out how to close the hole means that the chance of a viral writer having a widely successful virus such as melissa is vastly reduced.

When a exploit is discovered on Windows you have to wait till microsoft acknowledge it and then takes action to fix it which can be a long period of time.

The biggest reason i started to use linux though was that it gave me control and power over my own computer and I did not have to run additional applications to protect the failings and bad design of the operating system.
I love always having up to date software without having to pay again and again and again and i love the stability of Linux

some things can be a bit of a pain to make work such as wireless as its all designed for Microsoft but with a bit of effort I can make everything work i need

Linux is just a less attractive target in general for virus writers and the people who use it heavily over many years are in general a little more knowledgeable than the average windows user.

Have a look at ubuntu if your seriously interested, it runs from a CD and is a good first look at Linux

 

No operating system is 100% invulnerable.
Windows is a much larger target for virus writers, given its market prevalence and the general anti-microsoft vibe that the writers tend to have.
Windows security is shit, making it a much easier target too.

The point I'm getting at, is not that other operating systems are massively secure, its that windows massively isn't.
MS tried to address the whole 'everyone's an admin' problem by introducing the 'Run As' facility. The idea being normal user accounts would remain restricted and secure but have the option to run admin-based tasks without having to log off.
This failed because nobody uses it.

 

Some people have no option but to not use it - such is the way that Windows run's if you're a normal pleb user, theres alot of things you cant do as anything but an admin. At least that is what I have found in my experience of supporting the product I support right now - mail merging for instance wont work properly unless there is admin rights on the user account lol

 

I agree with you both however get the feeling now that Windows is holding on to far to many legacy parts to ever become secure, I think its simply to complicated for its own good now and Microsoft's attempt to secure it adds more code rather than solve the actual problem.
I personally think MS should do what Apple did for OSX and drop all the old legacy code and start again from scratch

 

agreed completly

if we were all using linux it would be targetted

 

Exactly and in 5 years time if Linux is the biggest OS and getting nasty viruses written daily faster than the voluntary code writers can secure it and Windows is small then Windows would seem an attractive proposition would it not?

I'm just trying to think how a business would justify using linux?

 

Linux will never be bigger than Windows.

Linux networks often still use Windows workstations. Linux servers are more simply for file storage / access.

They are more reliable, dont need rebooting everytime theres a tuesday in the week, doesnt need to be patched up constantly, you as a Linux Admin can implement your own changes / fixes without having to wait for someone at MS to do one.
you dont have the risk of your server rebooting because you failed to turn off automatic updates

There are LOTS of plus points for Linux as a server based system.