window troll

2955_5fa1.jpeg (48 KB)


Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Please Login to comment
    6 Comment threads
    5 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    10 Comment authors
    KamakiriRSIxidor8===========>------- your facePaul_Is_Drunkbytehead Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    rundinj
    Member

    So windows 2000 goes where?

    RSIxidor
    Member

    It goes right before Windows XP.

    It wasn’t spectacular as a PC OS, but it wasn’t particularly bad either.

    I’d say it does break the pattern.

    And actually, I believe earlier versions of Windows NT (which was what 2000 was, sort of) also were sometimes used for personal computers or at least workstations in the corporate environment.

    So the pattern is all kinds of fuckedaroni.

    Malta Soron
    Member

    These are all intended for home pc’s; 2000 was meant for businesses.

    RSIxidor
    Member

    That is not entirely correct. Windows 2000 Professional was targeted in some amount at the personal computer market before XP was released. It’s main purpose was business, absolutely, but people that were not happy with 98 or ME for whatever reason could pick up 2000 on a home machine. It was not common, but it was there, and advanced features that it offered were part of why XP was built on the NT kernel. I don’t think it was very common, but it was available.

    twitch
    Member

    When I got my first computer my OS was Win98 and it was the best OS for me and even though ME and 2000 was released I still didn’t change my OS. I was hesitant to change it to XP when it came out but I have no other choice since most of the games back in 2003 need to be played in an XP OS. I’m still using XP until today 🙂

    no
    Guest
    no

    2000 was pretty boss for light server needs. I loved how bare bones the permissions system was.

    Wildman7316
    Guest
    Wildman7316

    I would argue that 95 should be considered one of the “Good” systems. It wasn’t Microsoft’s fault that hardware improvements were WAY ahead of schedule. In 1995 who could foresee the need for more than 512 Meg of RAM?, that was a lot for a Hard Drive (2 Gig Hard Drive? You’ll never fill that up.) USB devices weren’t even on the horizon but to an extent were integrated.

    I’d include 2000 between Me and XP and only Me and Vista would be considered junk.

    bytehead
    Member

    I’d have to agree. I beta tested 95, and bought it. I upgraded to 95B (USB support mainly), but didn’t do anything with 98. I saw zero reason for doing so, and I thought ME was simply a ripoff. Then I updated to Windows 2000, decided to go with Server 2003 as a workstation instead of XP (which worked for about 99% of what I wanted, not bad…), started using XP on a laptop (finding the 1% that I was missing on my 2003 desktop), moved to the Win 7 beta, then to Win 7 release, and now trying Win… Read more »

    Paul_Is_Drunk
    Member

    Windows 95 was one of the good ones. The probably just changed it because it didn’t fit with the pattern they wanted.

    Kind of like a lot of journalism. Create a story, then arrange the facts to fit with the story you created.

    TrAyVon'S GhOSt, nuCca
    Member

    Apparently Troll is the same in every language and now we all know how to write shit in chinese.

    This is probably from a system of rating which ones to pirate.

    Kamakiri
    Member

    It’s actually japanese but anyway…