TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- List all the OS's/GUI's you've used.
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

List all the OS's/GUI's you've used.

I've used:

Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows For Workgroups 3.1
Windows For Workgroups 3.11
Windows Chicago Beta 1 (95 Beta)
Windows Chicago Beta 2 (95 Beta)
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windoww 99 (98SE Beta)
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
IBM OS/2 1.3
Mac OS 7.5.3
Microsoft Bob

Funnily enough though, I don't ever remember using Windows 2000 at any point in time. I've tried messing with Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT Daytona with the Virtual PC emulation software (which I've used to install most of the older OS's) but it crashes saying it can't be installed on my processor.

Out of all these, i'd have to see Windows NT 3.51 (1995) is my favourite.

Win 3.1(1)
Win 95
Win 98
Win 98SE
Win 2000 (at school)
Win XP Pro
Oh, and some weird OS that was in my very first PC (IBM 286). No idea what it was though.

Hmmmm.

Win 3.11
Win 95
Win 98
Win 2000
Win ME
Win NT
Win XP
Linux

XP has worked very well for me so far, apart from a mysterious bug that now and then reboots my comp out of nowhere for some reason.

Windows 2.0 (at school)
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE (which is what am useing now)
Windows 2000 (at college)
A mate of mine also asked me to install cable onto an XP computer, i did it but i had trubble at installing the driver! as i could not find my way around XP.

3.1
95
98
2000
XP Pro

windows 2.0??? whoa... and i though using 3.1 was old school, =P

what about dos? i used dos 5...

Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows XP
Windows 2000 Pro
OS390
NOVELL all versions, including Groupwise
Programmed In C, C++, fortran, pascal.
IBM maiframe (TSO, ISPF,JCL)
Mac OS all versions.

quote:

Originally posted by mr. poopyhead windows 2.0??? whoa... and i though using 3.1 was old school, =P what about dos? i used dos 5...

I've used many versions of DOS, however it's just a text based command prommpt therefore I didn't list it.

My opinions on these:

Windows 2.0 - Laughable. Just use DOS instead. It was installed on my Dad's old 286 and never even used.
Windows 3.0 - A huge improvement visually. This could display at True Color 800 x 600 and 256 Color 1024 x 768. Seeing a real photo on a PC monitor seemed incredible . However, positive comments stop there. It was horribly unstable and crashed about every 20 minutes.
Windows 3.1 - This is whot got Micro$oft where it is now and to be fair, back in 1992 it was a huge step in the right direction. This could run at up to 1024 x 768 True Color mode.
Windows For Workgroups 3.1 - Windows 3.1 with Networking software.
Windows For Workgroups 3.11 - Again, same as Win 3.1 but with Networking software and TCP/IP support. I had a lot of fun with this on my 486 and this was the OS I first surfed the internet with so it still has some sentimental value to me.
Windows Chicago Beta 1 (95 Beta) - WFW 3.11 with Win32s and an underdeveloped Win 95 interface.
Windows Chicago Beta 2 (95 Beta) - Same as above, but with an even further developed interface which looks almost the same as the final release of 95.
Windows 95 - Had a very nice interface for it's time and I ran it for more than 4 years without much problems. However, when I tried installing it after my HD crashed early this year, it was a lot less than I remembered it to be.
Windows 98 - In simple terms, Win 95 with Internet Explorer 4.0 and all it's "Active Desktop" and the webby Windows Explorer. Obviously there is more than that, but all the IE4 "Active Desktop" nonsense made it less stable than Windows 95.
Windoww 99 (98SE Beta) - Same sa the above but slightly more stable I reckon and bundled with some odd programs.
Windows 98SE - Same as the above but with IE5 and generally more stable than the former 2 versions.
Windows ME - Windows 98 + IE 5.5, minus the exit to DOS feature and any stability (at least for me).
Windows NT 3.51 - My favourite version. This was released only 2 months before Win 95 but with the old Program Manager 3.1x style interface. Since it's basically the same as NT 4.0 but with the old interface, it's able to run many modern 32 bit apps. Screenshots of it running a few can be seen here and here.
Windows NT 4.0 - Windows NT 3.51 plus the interface of 95. Adding the new interface lost a bit of the stabililty from the previous version, but still not a bad OS, just getting a bit old now as it's over 7 years old.
Windows XP Home Edition - I managed to keep a huge uptime in this without any crashes. However, I did have problems with some games that worked in XP Pro and my IE java totally fucked up.
Windows XP Professional - Definitely better. Apart from my internet connection suddenly disspearing, I've had no trouble with this. It's run several games that didn't run in XP Home and the java problems have never taken place in this version. It gets my thumbs up as the version of Windows to use nowadays, although I'm not sure about 2000
IBM OS/2 1.3 - It's over 10 years old and all I did with it was mess with a few applications and saw the interface. So not much there.
Mac OS 7.5.3 - Is it just me, or does this have the least user friendly interface of all time?
Microsoft Bob - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This was a GUI aimed at kids or novices that sat on top of Windows. Instead of the Program Manager/Start Menu you have "Rooms" and objects in the rooms are the icons to launch programs. It was bundled with a simple word processor, email client and silly kiddy educational question and answer programs. Microsoft expected it to be huge and were planning to release more programs to go with it. However it utterly flopped, therefore no additional programs were released for it, making it utterly redundant. It's hilariously bad, and I'd even reccomend installing it for a laugh .

Windows 3.1
Windows for Workgroups
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows XP beta (i tried the beta but havent really used the final release)
Windows NT (some version or another)
Windows CE
MacOS (some old early 90's version )
Various Linux Distrubutions (Mandrake/Corel - years ago)
BeOS

hmmm

Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows NT 4.0
Windows XP Professional
Red Hat Linux 7.3
Microsoft Bob

Dos
Windows 3.1
Win 95
Win 98
Win 98SE
Win 2k
Win XP

i'm getting a redhat machine some time next week.

Win 3.1, 95, 98, 00', XP

the usual, my preference is good old xp pro

Nothing beats DOS!

BeOS
Linux
FreeBSD
DOS
lots of windows
and u can;'t forget the almighty QUICKMENU muhahahahahhaha

In the dark ages, I used Windows > 3.1.

Now, its strictly Mac.

erm..

lots of windows / dos

linux: slackware + redhat

unix: feck, i cant remember the name.. SunOS + !!! it'll come to me!!

Commodore 64 + Amiga 500+

Gameboy??

David

Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows XP

Windows 95
98
2000
xp home & pro
osx

win 3.11
win 95/98/ME
win XP/2000
and indie OS:
MAC OS 8.6
Linux for mac and pc...

Ms:
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 4
Windows NT 4 Server
Windows 2000
Windows XP Pro
Windows.net Server Enterprise RC 1
Windows 2003 Advanced server RC 2

Linux:
Slackware 7.1
Mandrake 8
RedHat 7.1
RedHat 7.2
Redhat 7.3
RedHat 8.0
RedHat 9
Fedore core 0.94

C-64 Basic
Whatever was on an Apple IIe
Dos 2.0 through 6.0
Windoze 1.0
Windoze 3.xx
95
98
2000
Linux
Unix

Lot's of other things from other peoples computers/school/businesses

Basically if it was made I probably used it.

windwos 3.1, wfw 3.11, 3.1, 95, 95 OSR2, 98, 98 2nd edition, ME,
NT4, 2000 pro, xp pro
os2 beta
dos 5, 6.0, 6.2
beos
redhat
Mac Os

Interesting how few people on this list have actually used a Mac, considering how many people bash 'em.

windows 3.1
windows 95
windows 98 + SE
Windows 2000
Windows NT 4.0
Windows ME
Windows XP

Linux

Symbian
UIQ

^^^

I'll give a someone a pat on the back if they know what the last two are

quote:

Originally posted by dj_mdma Symbian UIQ ^^^ I'll give a someone a pat on the back if they know what the last two are

Symbian is a mobile OS for smartphones. I think uiq is some kind of mobile OS too...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.