Is there anything beyond Windows and Linux

Just curious.
A couple years ago I read an article that said they were developing a
new operating system that would be a replacement for Windows, and would
operate software made for all versions of windows and most other OS's.

I'm just wondering if any of this has occurred?

No, it's NOT linux. (I would not touch linux with someone else's
fingers on someone else's computer keyboard).....

Personally, I'd stick with Win98 for the rest of my life, and since I'm
fairly old, maybe I can. However it seems to be getting harder and
harder to use Win98 and still keep up with the demands of the internet,
particularly browsers, Flash player, videos, and PDF readers.
Comment: (why the hell do they keep upgrading pdf readers anyhow? They
always do the same goddamn thing in the end)....... *This puzzles me*

Anyhow, I did not like XP when it came out, and still dislike it. And
heaven forbid I ever have to cope with Vista, Win7, or the next MS bloat
nightmare.....

If the day comes when Win98 just wont work anymore, and even Windows
2000 cant handle it (I also use W2000 on occasion), I guess my days on
the computer are over. I just can not see myself using the latest MS
bloat-****-ware, not even XP, which is probably soon to be obsolete too.
And Linux..... well, I tried it, and I cant express my opinion of it
without using all seven of those really bad 4-letter words, and making
up at least seven more.

That only leaves me the Apple computers. I hear they're good.
Expensive, but they work well. My problem is that I dont want to have
to relearn to use a computer at my age. I've been using computers since
the 1980's, beginning with Dos, and proceeding with Win 3.x, Win95, and
then Win98 tried WinME and even use Win2000. I'd miss Dos for starters.
I still use it at times. But hey, 14 years of using mostly Win98, and I
know how to make it tick. Starting all over again, whether it's an
Apple computer, heaven forbid it's linux, or the latest MS bloatware OS,
NO THANKS!!!!!

But this alternative OS was supposedly being developed that would work
similar to Win98, but have lots of added features that could run
software designed for any OS...... I kind of like the sound of that!!!

Of course, there is one thought to add to all of this. Maybe the
internet wont be here in another couple years. Usenet is nearly dead,
email is on it's way out, and even the web is dying. It appears that by
the year 2014, the entire internet will be spelled *FACEBOOK*. That
nasty privacy invading, every page looks the same boring, with it's
annoying "LIKE" buttons, piece of crap dominated by immature 12 to 18
year old punks on drugs, playing boring computer games.
-= You wont find me there =-.
Hell, even my cellphone (which is only a phone with minimal internet
access), has a goddamn Facebook link on it, and they told me it can not
be removed.... (That's a damn ****er).

So, if the internet dies like it appears it will, I guess it wont matter
what OS I use. Win98 will still work just fine to type letters and
documents, do spreadsheets and databases, edit and store photos, play
music, and much more. After all, it's only the internet software that
seems to continue to demand we constantly upgrade. Apparently MS
designs that into the internet to keep trying to force us to upgrade,
which means they get our money as well as the hardware sellers.

Whatever happened to the good old internet with lots of newsgroups being
used, geocities for us all to share, and FTP sites to get all the
goodies....... Those were the days when the internet was fun......
Those days are gone!!!!

wrote:

Just curious.

React OS

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

I thought that it's earlier versions or history was based on trying to
duplicate or emulate win-9x...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:39:15 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

wrote:

Just curious.

React OS

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

I thought that it's earlier versions or history was based on trying to
duplicate or emulate win-9x...

I looked it over. I intend to give it a try as soon as I can get to a
place with faster download speed. If it emulates XP (which is says), I
might be able to live with it. I'm sort of forced to use XP at times
and I set it to the "classic" look. Hopefully React OS will do the
same.

Have you or anyone else on here tried this?
If yes, what's your opinion of it?

Thanks

wrote:

React OS

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

Have you or anyone else on here tried this?

No, I've never tried it.

But I suggest that if you try it, or if you ever install XP on any
system, that you prepare the drive by formatting it as FAT32 and NOT as
NTFS.

Use the command "a:\format c: /s" so that the drive will have DOS and be
able to boot into DOS.

XP running from a FAT32 drive allows for the conveinence of booting into
DOS and having true command-line access to all files on the drive.

I have no idea if Linux can run off a FAT32 drive, but I'd do the same
in that situation too.

You lose the ability to have file larger than 4 gb on a FAT32 drive, but
you can make up for that by creating a secondary partition and make it
NTFS and keep large files (probably movies) on that partition.

98 Guy wrote in :

I have no idea if Linux can run off a FAT32 drive, but I'd do the same
in that situation too.


Possibly not but it can certainly mount one, as can OpenBSD. I think Linux's
standard type is called 'Reiser' (Quite the subject once you start
Googling...), and OpenBSD's is 'A6' (after its hexadecimal indentifier byte
in the boot sector).

I think in both cases it may be possible to coerce it to run on FAT32 but
chmod and many other tools will have little or no meaning if that were done.
Better to let them live on theor own filesystems and formats, and take
advanatge of the fact that they mount FAT filesystems more easily than stuff
on FAT will read anything that isn't FAT.

98 Guy wrote in :

You lose the ability to have file larger than 4 gb on a FAT32 drive

And it's worth retricting to 2GB even there. I have a couple that are bigger,
but the shell (W95 Explorer and Shell32) can't access them properly or
safely. Maybe Total Commander could, as can some DOS-based tools. I guess a
W98 SE shell is ok though.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
98 Guy wrote in :

You lose the ability to have file larger than 4 gb on a FAT32 drive

And it's worth retricting to 2GB even there. I have a couple that are
bigger,
but the shell (W95 Explorer and Shell32) can't access them properly or
safely. Maybe Total Commander could, as can some DOS-based tools. I
guess a W98 SE shell is ok though.

No, I seem to recall having issues with files larger than 2 GB with some
programs, too, even with Win98SE. I can't recall now when that 2 GB vs 4
GB restriction raised its ugly head, but it sure did. I think the reason
for this "anomaly" was attibrituted to incorrect use of signed integers
(which are two bytes or 16 bits wide) to store/read data in some cases.
(i.e., where the MSB was being used as a sign bit, which effectively cut the
range of values in half when used by some applications). That issue wasn't
just limited to the use of Windows Explorer.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:49:34 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

wrote:

React OS

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

Have you or anyone else on here tried this?

No, I've never tried it.

But I suggest that if you try it, or if you ever install XP on any
system, that you prepare the drive by formatting it as FAT32 and NOT as
NTFS.

Not a problem. I would not have any NTFS drives if I had my choice,
because if I cant access them from Dos, and something fails, I lose my
data. My only NTFS drive is in my laptop which came with XP installed
and no CD to reinstall it, thus I'm stuck with it. But I dont use my
laptop for anything important. I use it on the road for WIFI access.
If I download anything, it gets moved to my home computer with W98. If
I download anything specific to the laptop, such as a newer version of
Firefox, this could easily be re-downloaded, so it's no big loss.

Use the command "a:\format c: /s" so that the drive will have DOS and be
able to boot into DOS.

Yep, or type SYS C: after the format. I know Dos well.....

XP running from a FAT32 drive allows for the conveinence of booting into
DOS and having true command-line access to all files on the drive.

Agreed.

I have no idea if Linux can run off a FAT32 drive, but I'd do the same
in that situation too.

I think Linux has it;s own format. It's been years since I tried that
miserable OS. I wont be using it ever again.

You lose the ability to have file larger than 4 gb on a FAT32 drive, but
you can make up for that by creating a secondary partition and make it
NTFS and keep large files (probably movies) on that partition.

I cant say I've ever encountered a file larger than even one GB. Then
again I dont download movies or anything like that.

wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:49:34 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

wrote:

React OS

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

Have you or anyone else on here tried this?

No, I've never tried it.

But I suggest that if you try it, or if you ever install XP on any
system, that you prepare the drive by formatting it as FAT32 and NOT as
NTFS.

Not a problem. I would not have any NTFS drives if I had my choice,
because if I cant access them from Dos, and something fails, I lose my
data.

Just to set the record straight, that's not necessarily true. There are
some utilities available that will allow you to access files on a NTFS
partition, even if you can't boot up into windows. But I'll grant you,
it's not as easy as simply booting to DOS.

snip

"Bill in Co" wrote in news:hb2dnTqjI-
:

I think the reason
for this "anomaly" was attibrituted to incorrect use of signed integers
(which are two bytes or 16 bits wide) to store/read data in some cases.

That fits. As with the 48 bit LBA problem, the system might have several
things that need fixing. I always assumed that the shell should be bypassed,
I just wasn't sure about the main W98 SE shell because I never used it, I
always used the W95 shell which certainly has this restriction. Fortunately
it usually results in flat refusal to operate on the file, rather than do so
blindly and corrupt it. The XCOPY command will handle one intact.