Longhorn Pirated Already

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2003-12-03 08:27pm

Rye wrote: A 3d UI you say? Only one immediately imaginable is the one from Jurassic Park.What's the real one going to be like?

And that one was actually just a little demo available on every SGI workstation. (standard installation, in the demo folder)

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-03 08:39pm

SPOOFE wrote:
It isn't truly 3D so much as it uses your 3D graphics card to put in certain 3D elements.
So it's a 2.5D UI, then...

It's a 3D GUI engine if you want to put it that way, though the display elements more or less remain 2D like how most are. MacOS X does something similar.

Tribun wrote:Win98 SE was the last OS without needless junk.

WinME actually had less junk that Win98 SE - the removal of real-mode MS-DOS, for example.

What M$ did now is just put unnessecary stuff into a OS. A OS, by definition, has to be as small as possible.

By whose definition? Yours?

But M$ seems to think that they had to produce a x.x GB monster. (for comparison, Win98 Se only uses 300MB as maximum)
Who needs this totally idiotic UI? for example. It only eats CPU power.

Eh, blame the MacOS people with their fancy GUI

Darth_Zod wrote:i'm firm in my belief that any operating system after windows 95 was merely an add-on.

You are quite wrong.

Jawawithagun wrote:And that one was actually just a little demo available on every SGI workstation. (standard installation, in the demo folder)

IIRC, there are a bunch of clones available on the 'net of that particular 3D file manager.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-12-03 08:42pm

Darth_Zod wrote:i'm firm in my belief that any operating system after windows 95 was merely an add-on.

Nice to see that stability and conveniance are considered to be only add-ons.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-12-03 10:25pm

Darth_Zod wrote:i'm firm in my belief that any operating system after windows 95 was merely an add-on.

Oh god, you remind me of one of my friends who at a LAN party once tried to say "Windows 2000 and Windows ME are virtually indistinguishable, even to the experts."

Everyone around him went silent with shock for a moment. Then I piped up "No, you're talking out of your ass." and proceeded to smack him down.

The NT series is very different from the 9x series, and is certainly not "merely an add-on".

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-12-04 02:55am

Correct me if I'm wrong phong, but ME actually has DOS. MS just hid it, thats all.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-04 03:09am

Vertigo1 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong phong, but ME actually has DOS. MS just hid it, thats all.

It's DOS emulation, not real DOS.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-12-04 10:41pm

The Kernel wrote:
Vertigo1 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong phong, but ME actually has DOS. MS just hid it, thats all.
It's DOS emulation, not real DOS.

You can get real-mode DOS access in WinME.

click me