SillyDog701

by **Antony** » Sat 29 May, 2004 5:30 am

Windows RG (Really Good Edition)

enjoy.
(You need Flash player/plugin installed)

That's a good reason why you need a Mac.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)

by **Don_HH2K** » Sun 30 May, 2004 6:52 am

I can't say that I've ever seen Windows just find and delete a file.. But there is a 99.9% chance of it happening!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

by **Edward** » Sun 30 May, 2004 7:18 am

WRT Mozilla, yes it has happened to me. I once lost all of the Bookmarks in the Mozilla profile.

bookmarks.html didn't delete itself...

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514

by **djv1** » Sun 30 May, 2004 12:53 pm

That is got to be the most horrible version of Windows that I have seen!! It's got almost as many error's as Windows ME :lol:

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

by **Don_HH2K** » Sun 30 May, 2004 2:37 pm

It reminds me of the time when I was away and was forced to use IE4 for awhile. For some reason it would open some 100 windows when I double-clicked it, and eventually I just ran out of RAM and got the good old blue screen.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

by **keith** » Tue 01 Jun, 2004 1:02 pm

hahaha The worst thing about Windows ME is the errors, but ya know, it works realy good for the first 3 months, then it basically falls apart.

keith

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.22; Mac_PowerPC)

by **DJGM** » Tue 01 Jun, 2004 2:13 pm

keith wrote:The worst thing about Windows ME is the errors, but ya know, it
works realy good for the first 3 months, then it basically falls apart.

keith

And that's pretty much the same as what happened, when I had the misfortune, and absent
mindedness to spend some of my money on a copy of what I call Windows Malignant Edition!

For the first three months or so, it was all chugging along just nicely, and it seemed to offer
quite a few (relatively small) improvements over the installation of Windows 98 it replaced.

Eventually, the honeymoon was well and truly over, and blue screens, crashes, and total
system freezes became a more than daily occurence. An absolute smegging nightmare!
TBH, Windows XP was essentially a godsend when it was released in October 2001.

And it's very rare you'd find me referring to a version of Windows being a godsend!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

by **Phoenix21692** » Wed 02 Jun, 2004 10:36 am

Speaking of WindowsME, it is often referred to as Windows Mistaken Edition.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514

by **djv1** » Wed 02 Jun, 2004 10:54 am

you got that right.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; FunWebProducts)

by **Andrew T.** » Wed 02 Jun, 2004 10:51 pm

I'll always agree that Windows ME doesn't give much to complement on in the stability department. To anyone who's used it, "Windows RG" hits close to home.
Even so, I'll nominate one configuration as possibly being more unstable: The original, August 1995 "upgrade" version of Windows 95, when carelessly installed over a existing (and very messy) DOS/Windows for Workgroups 3.11 installation that had literally nine years of loose ends and accumulated junk! I actually tried this out a year ago on my old computer, and I got freezes and "illegal operations" after one week to such a degree that I switched back to Windows 3.11!

By contrast, in my experience a clean installation of Windows 95 OSR2.x is about as stable an installation as one can get with Windows short of using NT, 2000, or XP.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514

by **Ron Williams** » Mon 14 Jun, 2004 10:35 pm

lol i think thats funny definately true though

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

by **Wellander** » Fri 30 Jul, 2004 5:29 pm

Hi,.
Windows 95 osr1 is better and more stable.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)

by **Don_HH2K** » Fri 30 Jul, 2004 5:31 pm

Wellander wrote:Hi,.
Windows 95 osr1 is better and more stable.

Not exactly... That prize goes to Windows NT4.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

by **Wellander** » Fri 30 Jul, 2004 5:33 pm

Hi,
Yes it does.
I was talking about 95osr1, 95osr2 comparison.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)

by **Don_HH2K** » Fri 30 Jul, 2004 5:48 pm

Wellander wrote:Hi,
Yes it does.
I was talking about 95osr1, 95osr2 comparison.

OK, that I can see happening.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

SillyDog701

Windows RG

Windows RG

LOL

Who is online