51–56 of 56 posts
The reality is Dave Plummer was called out again after incorrectly claiming Start Menu drew text sideways, that he built the entire menu, etc and was forced to backpedal when presented with evidence to the contrary. (He even revised the YouTube video title from I Built Start[...] to I Worked On Start [..., 1].) Once a scammer, always a scammer, it seems. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fr4Q6CF0E_8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can't be the reason. If the kernel crashes (or a driver, 'cause it's all the same in Win9x), then there's an instant BSOD, so there won't be any Task Manager, even if it's already loaded in memory. I belive that's the way thing were done in those days. In Win95 the Start Menu was also in memory, with the entire menu tree, progam names, icons, and everything. It would open instantly. In Win98 they changed that. I…
Chicago onwards was glorified Windows 3.0 386 enhanced mode, Cougar. The fundamental problems Win 9x has is it was buggier and didn't have the isolation assurances NT had. The main things Win 9x solved were the resource leaks of Win 3x and gradually increased relative stability. Whistler/Asteroid were the ways forward based on NT. (Pour one out for Neptune/Odyssey.)
You probably remember the BSODs due to buggy drivers.
One could argue that an OS for PC (Win9x) doesn't need any isolation. There's only one user (personal in "PC").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep that's my line of thinking, if you have physical access it's game over for security anyway (evil maid etc). Whether the kernel recognizes SysRq or CAD or whatever else is a matter of a patch, X11 or Wayland can't intercept (that's the entire point of having a very very low level kernel routine for that). The funky part would be the user space integration, the kernel would probably have to selectively resume a cou…
It ran like shit in 4MB—I remember telling the IT boss that we’ll need 8MB on every W95 machine, unless we want to wait 5 seconds to open a menu or run only one app at a time. Still 8 is impressive for the functionality.
I sometimes wonder, what would be the "smallest" machine you could feasibly DIY/build today, that would still allow you to be somewhat productive (e.g. write code, very basic web browsing, SSH, etc). I recently spent a week with a PowerBook G4 (2002) and it's very usable (save for the fan noise). There's probably a lot to explore with modern MCUs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It ran like shit in 4MB—I remember telling the IT boss that we’ll need 8MB on every W95 machine, unless we want to wait 5 seconds to open a menu or run only one app at a time. Still 8 is impressive for the functionality.
Yeah my own Win95 machine had 32MB and ran super happy. The 4MB machine was frankensteined from very random parts for a friend who fried the PSU on their 8MB - the difference between all 3 setups was crazy, I think at 4MB you had to use a 16-color palette? At 640x480x8bpp video memory alone should eat 300KB (I don't think there was double-buffering?) I sometimes wonder, what would be the "smallest" machine you could…
Windows 2000 ("NT 5") was the most usable of that era (just a bit later). It was stable, solid, and had a responsive UI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yet you still decided to accuse somebody of malicious intent and of being a scammer. https://youtube.com/watch?v=1GeF9AjlqP8 He is a scammer and was convicted for it.
> He is a scammer and was convicted for it. A settlement is not a conviction.