Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Do you use which OS?

Name: vip 2006-02-28 12:25

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 12:48

>>1

WindowsME is bad OS.  :)

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 13:23

lol yeah thats one of the worst, personally I just use binary....uses less system resources

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 15:44

I use Gentoo. VROOM VROOOM!

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 16:21

>>4
Same here! It's crazy fast, almost like Windows, except I'm not using a GUI lol.

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 18:10

>>4
LMAO

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 19:16 (sage)

LOL Gentoo is for noobs

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 23:11

2k, slackware, ubuntu.

horses for courses.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 2:36

Windows 2k,XP,Ubuntu,Fedora, Mac OS X, Slackware 10.1 and google

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 5:47

windows 2003, 2000, XP. Ubuntu, Mac OSX

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 6:43

Windows 2000, Windows XP, SuSE Linux 10

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 7:22

>>7
<insert >>7's OS> is foor noobs, Q.E.D.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 7:40

NetBSD, OSX 10.4, Debian+Hurd+Win2k.

Name: Vince 2006-03-01 7:45

Gentoo GNU/Linux, Archlinux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 8:32

Kubuntu, Debian, Mac OS X.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 8:57

Windows2000,XP Pro  ...... and ME

http://www.ninjaparty.com/flash/troubled_windows.swf

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 9:19

FreeBSD, Windows XP, Ubuntu Linux

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 11:59

WinXP, Win2003, Win2000 Server, Gentoo, FloppyFW

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 15:41

WinXP, Win 98, Mac OS X.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 15:52

Mac OS X.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 16:12

XP Pro. I used to use 2003 Server, but AMD wanted their box back. :(

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 16:45

Mac OS X.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 17:21

Windows2000

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 17:27

Kubuntu Breezy, Kubuntu Dapper

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 1:28

XP Media Center '05. Was using Ubunty Hoary on my laptop, but upgrade to Breezy didn't work and it screwed my laptop up.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 3:30

XP Pro

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 3:35

Windows 2003 Enterprise, like windows XP except you have to modify every fucking game installer to run them. Fun fun.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 5:29

Fags, why 2k when there is xp?
I just run linux, I emerge sync every day.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 5:34

>>28
2K sucks slightly less than XP.

I only sync once a week, I don't need to be _that_ up to date. That reminds me I need to set up a cron job to take care of that for me, I keep forgetting.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 5:34

ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge sync all teh taim

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 7:18

>>28
Fag, because it's not bloated with useless shit therefore it runs faster and takes less RAM. And the Control Panel is nicer, as in "less stupidified".

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 7:31

>>31
Eh, what? The control panel is pretty much the same in XP as it is in 2K.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 7:32

>>31

FAIL for not knowing how to optimise XP to run in a similar memory footprint to 2000.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 7:55

>>33
Uh-huh. Have you ever disabled all the useless services and removed all the cruft from XP, and then compared? On a limited machine?

I have.

It's night and day, mate. Anyone who claims otherwise is either full of shit or sniffing glue.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 7:59

The reason I ask why 2k is bettar is because I recently got a job which entailed maintaining windows workstations and the genius who had the job before me, who also thinks kix32.exe is the next best thing to ice cream and has aids, keeps telling me I should stick with 2k because it is so amazingly stable. I refuse to believe him, as far as I can see there is no difference between the two if you select the classic theme.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 8:04

2000 is faster, period.

There isn't much difference in stability on the same hardware.

XP has more features.

Any questions?

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 11:16

>>34

Yes I have also. And the difference in performance was negligible.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 16:59

>>27
I've been running it for years and never modified a single game installer. You must be pretty dumb.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 16:59

>>36
No, 2000 isn't faster. You're a fucking idiot, that's the whole difference.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 17:18

You bet it is. I used to develop on 2000 box. It was a 400MHz PII with 64MB RAM. It ran quite comfortably. XP, with most services disabled, and stripped of the cruft, didn't run all that well on a 2GHz Athlon, 256MB of RAM. I'd like to see it run on that old PII box.

And before someone says that's due to XP needing a lot more RAM, I'd like to remind you that thrashing kills your performance.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your emotional attachment to XP. Just call people fucking idiots, and that'll make it all better, >>39!

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List