Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

499 comments

I haven't watched the video but... (-1, Troll)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374622)

...this strikes me as someone who has too much time on his hands.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (5, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374648)

Whenever I hear "too much time on his hands" I think it's really someone saying "I'm jealous because my life is grey and dull without an imagination".

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (0, Troll)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374720)

I'm wondering what kind of warped and twisted imagination it would take to come up with THAT as a way of wasting a few days.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374654)

Well cats and dogs spends 30% of their life time licking themselves. That's what too much time on hands! (The rest 70% of time constitutes: 50% sleeping, 15% eating, 5% having sex - way lower than humans!)

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374916)

As George Carlin said, if I could lick myself there, I'd never leave the house.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374964)

Actually, that was Bill Hicks, during his famous "suck your own cock" routine ;)

They are both fucking awesome, so the confusion is understandable :)

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375176)

if they lick themselves, why don't they lick each other? Is oral sex what really separates the animals from the humans?

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (2)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375162)

Cats and dogs don't have hands. Well, some do. I've got some in my laboratory that do, but that's a different story.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (3, Interesting)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374662)

I have, and I totally agree. Also, he fails in terms of "evaluating software compatibility"... many more applications from early versions of windows run in Windows 7 than he made note of, and he didn't even aknoledge that early control panels, designed for EGA usage, look beautiful in True Color because of the way they were programmed. Also, what's with starting with DOS 5.0 - Couldn't he have found a version released in 1.01? And not finding a 98 upgrade disk, or going to ME instead of 2K seemed moderately flawed...

should also installed the video driver for higher (4, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374692)

should of also installed the video driver for higher res / more colors in 3.0 / 3.11 / 95 / 98.

Re:should also installed the video driver for high (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374784)

Should HAVE, dumbfuck, HAVE.

Re:should also installed the video driver for high (5, Insightful)

Cryolithic (563545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374992)

I wish I could mod this up.

Re:should also installed the video driver for high (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375092)

It's documented in the urban dictionary, which makes it valid English, since English is not a dead language. Of course, that probably invalidates the urban dictionary definition, which leads to a confusing bit of circular logic.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=should%20of [urbandictionary.com]

Re:should also installed the video driver for high (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375166)

It's documented in the urban dictionary, which makes it valid English, since English is not a dead language.

Given that at least half of Urban Dictionary consists of made-up drivel written by scatological twelve-year-olds trying to out-gross each other, there's no way in *hell* I'm accepting everything I see there as legitimate English, living or not! >:-(

Re:should also installed the video driver for high (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375096)

mucking around with drivers in pre win ME had a pretty high mortality rate for the install, i don't blame him for leaving that out.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (5, Interesting)

atlasdropperofworlds (888683) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374712)

I found the fact that he actually *could* upgrade all the way to Win7 and have applications still work utterly amazing. What other OSes can do that? Maybe linux (or maybe not...), definitely not OSX.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374810)

um that's not true. you can run any of the PowerPC apps on a brand new intel powered machine right now.

with rosetta and classic mode of leopard it isn't hard. not sure about 68k compatability but that is slightly more difficult.

of course given the fact that Apple has switched Processors arch. not just once, but 3 times in that same time makes it a lot more difficult.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374960)

Classic apps won't run on recent versions of OS X, i.e. Snow Leopard or Lion.

I'm not really criticizing Apple for not maintaining compatibility, but your statement that a brand-new Intel Mac will run any PPC app is false.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375216)

2 times. 3 architectures = 2 switches.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (0)

Moderator (189749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374860)

FreeBSD or Solaris would probably have the longest binary compatibility, and easiest upgrade path from the first to most recent version.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (5, Informative)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375062)

IBM OS/360 programs (circa 1964) are still binary compatible with the latest Z-OS. That's compatibility from OS/360 through MVT, MVS, OS/390 and now z-OS.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375068)

I thought of ME, however he could not use it since there is no upgrade path from ME to anything, it is a dead end.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375200)

I managed 95 -> 98 -> ME -> XP -> Vista -> 7 without any serious problems.

Posting anonymously so I don't lose my Linux cred...

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

rgo (986711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374668)

...this strikes me as someone who has too much time on his hands.

Or too many Windows licenses.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374904)

Wait... wouldn't he just need a license for the first one? Upgrades cost less than a full license, right?
-searches-
Looks like an upgrade to Win7 home is $120 while the full license is $200. I wonder how much it'd cost to buy Win 1.0 then upgrade to 7 as quickly as possible? I don't wonder too much though, because I'm not willing to look it up.

Re:Too much time on his hands (4, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374722)

+1 Styx

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

MrClever (70766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374730)

My thoughts exactly...but as soon as I'm untethered (Optus GSM...you suck!) and on some real bandwidth, I'm watching the video :) I too have far too much spare time!

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (0)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374844)

This is the most common operating system in the world, and a big selling point is the ability to upgrade. Not all that worthless.

And it's fun.

Re:I haven't watched the video but... (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374952)

...this strikes me as someone who has too much time on his hands.

Oh, great, then I have the right job [slashdot.org] for him.

I have always wanted to do this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374650)

It would also be fun to difference the resulting file hierarchy with various clean installs. It would go to show how little effort goes into cleaning the mess that usually gets left behind by upgrades.

I'm not a fan, but... (3, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374656)

Kudos to Microsoft. And even greater kudos to VMWare.

Re:I'm not a fan, but... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374706)

Since the smallest disk you need for windows 7 could not possibly be handled by dos or windows 1.0, the whole thing looks contrived to me.

Re:I'm not a fan, but... (5, Informative)

pstorry (47673) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374832)

VMware can grow disks. If I were doing this, I'd start out with a ~400Mb disk and grow it from there. MS-DOS 5 could cope with that, and the first time you'd need to grow the disk would probably be at around the Windows 2000/Windows XP install stage I think.

(In this case, it probably requires a bootable Linux distro for resizing the partitions on the virtual hardware disk though.)

VMware can also change the RAM available, too. Again, start small and grow bigger as you go. Whilst I haven't tried something as extreme as this, I've often created a small image (say a 5Gb to 10Gb disk and 256Mb of RAM) when evaluating a distro, only to extend either the RAM or storage at a later date. It's a minor faff, but quite doable...

Re:I'm not a fan, but... (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374930)

Not true. You can install DOS 5 on a huge disk, but I don't think it will see anything above 512MB. You can use something like PartitionMagic to enlarge this to 2GB when you get to Windows 95, then to something larger when you get to an OS that supports NTFS.

Re:I'm not a fan, but... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374994)

But the article suggests he upgraded his way from dos5 all the way to win7.
I still doubt that is possible without a good old fashion nuking in there somewhere.

Re:I'm not a fan, but... (1)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375022)

Watch his video. He did and it is.

Re:I'm not a fan, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375010)

fdisk, which came with DOS, could not handle modern drives but many modern partitioning tools can create FAT16 partitions. I believe DOS does require BIOS, so EFI is probably out.

Re:I'm not a fan, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374760)

When you walk out that door, do you think anyone is gonna care about you!? No, they won't, you little brat!

"Chain of Fools" (0)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374658)

Haha, how appropriate!

wow... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374660)

this has to be the most pathetic thing anyone has ever done... ever...

this is probably the most hardcore thing to waste the time of your life...

now excuse me need to catch up with some new makeup tutorials on youtube..

Re:wow... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375190)

Makeup for Cats tutorials.

And the result was? (1)

gregfortune (313889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374674)

Not terribly interested in watching a video of OS upgrades (I get quite enough of that on my own) so a text write-up of the results would be dandy. Since the submitter didn't bother, perhaps it's time for an industrious reader to do a proper "review."

The result was determined to be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374694)

...that Andy really needs to get a life!

Re:And the result was? (5, Informative)

rmo6 (47545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374754)

Well, the video's author had the following conclusions -

1) That MSFT should be commended that there is a lot of backwards compatibility for over 20 years of operating systems as evidenced by Doom2, program managers, file structures remaining in tact.

2) That versions of XP, Vista and 7 were a little disappointing that they applied their own theme and color scheme and those settings weren't carried over between versions. Prior versions did in fact keep theme settings.

3) That the upgrade path and process has changed significantly over 20 years (obviously) and while it may have gotten longer (in time spent), it seems to have gotten easier for the end user.

Now, I don't know if I agree with any of the conclusions and I don't know if any of those conclusions are substantive, but that's what I got out of the 10 minute video.

Re:And the result was? (1)

lordzee (2008340) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374772)

It was strangely entertaining and informative about unless but geeky stuff. It's worth a go.

Yeah, this is GREAT... (-1, Troll)

Tufriast (824996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374688)

This is just a tour of the 9 hells. Why on Earth does there need to be a YOUTUBE video on it? This is a videography of pain and torment. Do not click. NSFW.

Re:Yeah, this is GREAT... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374728)

It is semi interesting though. I did watch it (hey I was bored). It worked. Could I say do the same with MAC OS1 to 10.6? Or say slackware 1.0 to 13.0? Maybe....

Re:Yeah, this is GREAT... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375050)

Apple System 1 to MacOS 10.6 would require an absolute minimum of 3 machines, because the early versions only supported Motorola 68000 machines, MacOS 8.5 onwards required PowerPC, and 10.6 required x86 (10.7 requires x86-64). That part of the test is slightly contrived - it's more credit (or possibly blame) to Intel than to Microsoft: a modern PC still boots in 16-bit real mode and can still run PC DOS 1.0. You certainly wouldn't think about installing Windows 7 on an IBM PC XT. Each version of Windows has required a more modern computer than the last, so this is only possibly by starting with a modern PC and then installing an ancient OS. Or possibly moving a hard drive between machines.

The more impressive part is the ability to run legacy software. This is something that Microsoft is traditionally very good at. Interestingly, I find it much easier to run legacy Windows and DOS software on my Mac than old Mac software. MacOS Classic stuff doesn't work with Rosetta. You can run an old version of MacOS in BasiliskII or SheepShaver if you can find the ROMs, but these programs also run elsewhere and require emulating an entire system. DOSBox and WINE both run pretty well on OS X - I've played a lot of games from GOG.com under WINE recently.

Masochist (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374700)

Surely a masochist for putting his system through so many reboots!

Re:Masochist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375156)

Yes, it's quite painful to reboot a VM...

Call the boys in the white jackets... (-1, Offtopic)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374704)

Man, this person is a confirmed hard core masochist! Arrrrgh! If he's married, my sympathies to his wire/partner! Whenever I run Windows, I cringe and run screaming back to my Linux systems. Unfortunately, there is ONE program that I have to use that ONLY runs on Windows, so I run it on an XP virtual machine on my Scientific Linux 6 (RHEL6) workstation, or my Ubuntu laptop when I'm on the road.

FWIW, we have something like 13 computers in our house, and not one of them runs MS software! My wife has a couple of Apple Mac Pro laptops, a Sony Vaio running Scientific Linux, and a netbook running Ubuntu. I have an 8 core workstation running SL6, a laptop running Ubuntu 9.04 and 10.10, an older workstation running Gentoo, an ever older 486 workstation running QNX 4.0, and two Nexus One Android phones. Then there is assorted other stuff (Palm Pilots, iPods, iPhones, etc). I guess you could call our house "Windowless"! :-)

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374746)

OK I have to ask. In this day and age, of what use is QNX running on a 486?

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374866)

A microsoft-hating linux cocksucker married to an apple whore, of course.

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374768)

And your comment is relevant to the topic because?

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (1)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374886)

The process of doing a continuous migration from Win1 to Win7 is, in my opinion, either crazy, futile, or both! But I give him credit for doing it! :-)

To quote The Church Lady (4, Funny)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374786)

FWIW, we have something like 13 computers in our house, and not one of them runs MS software! My wife has a couple of Apple Mac Pro laptops, a Sony Vaio running Scientific Linux, and a netbook running Ubuntu. I have an 8 core workstation running SL6, a laptop running Ubuntu 9.04 and 10.10, an older workstation running Gentoo, an ever older 486 workstation running QNX 4.0, and two Nexus One Android phones. Then there is assorted other stuff (Palm Pilots, iPods, iPhones, etc). I guess you could call our house "Windowless"! :-)

Well... aren't you special..

Re:To quote The Church Lady (0)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374908)

This is me, sticking my tongue out and and giving you a raspberry... :->...

Re:To quote The Church Lady (1, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375106)

This is me, sticking my tongue out and and giving you a raspberry... :->...

Really? Because from here, it just looks like you're being an ass.

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374884)

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (1, Interesting)

GNU(slash)Nickname (761984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374896)

...there is ONE program that I have to use that ONLY runs on Windows, so I run it on an XP virtual machine ... 13 computers in our house, and not one of them runs MS software!

Umm, what? XP isn't MS software?

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374946)

Of course not. Just like most games today don't use DirectX and 'nix has okay to piss poor emulation of it.

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (1)

IgnitusBoyone (840214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375052)

I think there was an implied "on" in his sentince

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375024)

That sounds exhausting. I just install Windows XP on everything and forget about it.

Re:Call the boys in the white jackets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375208)

Christ, I can't believe anybody would marry you.

twatface! (2)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374726)

HAHAHA! Wow, it doesn't take much these days to induce laughter. At least I WTFV

Username (1)

jdastrup (1075795) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374732)

Interesting choice of username he selects for Windows 3.1

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374740)

Current slashdot tags:

Recent Tags
                * windows
                * os
                * upgrades
                * technology
                * microsoft
                * software
                * social

I'm tired of corporate propaganda!

Re:Who cares? (1)

BancBoy (578080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374888)

I hate respond to an AC, but...
You forgot
*story

Hahahahah (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374744)

7:35 - check out user name! Twatface. How can the guy be talking all serious with a label like that?

Re:Hahahahah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35374836)

How can the guy be talking all serious with a label like that?

It sounds like he used a text-to-speech program.

Interresting hardware (0)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374782)

Without having seen the video I wonder what type of hardware is able to run all these versions of MS OS?

Re:Interresting hardware (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374948)

Without having seen the video I wonder what type of hardware is able to run all these versions of MS OS?

The virtual kind. (VMware to be specific.) About 10 years ago I tried installing some versions of Ancient Windows I had sitting around (probably 1.04 and 2.0) on then-current hardware, and failed. The lack of proper EGA video-mode support was the culprit, I think. So this demo would have to have involved some changes of the virtual hardware along the way to keep it going. He probably also had to increase the size of the DOS 5.0 FAT16 partition (max 2GB?) before he got to Win7.

Re:Interresting hardware (1)

IgnitusBoyone (840214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375018)

He runs the experiment on a vmware install. Its actually very interesting, but man does the guy know way to much about early versions of windows. As he points out with the exception of Windows 2000 his Doom install still runs after 7 upgrades which is just amazing, and I guess that means the whole thing installed on fat32 system. The most interesting part of the entire thing was that his visual settings for windows 2.0 kept all the way up to XP, but non of the os upgrades after XP stored default windows settings.

While its is the reason Microsoft has a hard time innovating you have to admit that type of compatibility is impressive. I would hate to see someone try this on MAC OS.

Re:Interresting hardware (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375030)

the virtual kind.

none, actually (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375206)

It was done in a VMWare setup, so the hardware wasn't really much of a factor. I think it would have been more interesting had it actually been done in a physical box, but it is what it is.

Next week ... (0)

grepdisc (1352977) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374798)

disappointment with Windows 7 leads to incremental downgrades back to Windows 1.0

How bored can someone possibly be... (0)

mhoenicka (1035832) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374830)

...to install every existing version of an obsolete operating system? Can anyone send him a current Linux CD please?

Re:How bored can someone possibly be... (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375058)

I would be willing to bet that I could do what the subject of the video did and install every iteration of Windows in the the time it takes me to do a single install of Ubuntu and get it working properly. Last time I tried, I blew a whole weekend, and all I got was a computer that has 640x480 video, no sound, no networking, and I couldn't even figure out how to install and use apps on it. Blech.

Re:How bored can someone possibly be... (2)

gazbo (517111) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375074)

He's just spent a whole day upgrading from MSDOS 5 to Win7. He probably doesn't want to spend another week getting linux to work properly.

Missing OS (1)

EW87 (951411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374864)

Where is Windows ME?

Re:Missing OS (4, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374996)

As the video explains, it was omitted because there is no upgrade path from WinME to Win2K. Remember that "Millennium Editon" came after Win2K, as a stopgap for the consumer market until WinXP was ready, so going from ME to the business-targeted Win2K would not have made sense.

It only took them HOW many years... (-1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374872)

... to _finally_ settle on C:\users\ for the home directory? ... or to keep fucking around with batch/scripting: command.com, cmd.exe, VBScript, Windows Scripting Language, and Windows PowerShell ?

"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." (Paraphrasing Edmund Burke, and quoting Henry Spencer who said it.)

At least Windows doesn't suck as bad is used to... now if they could only add Window Snapping when moving them around ...

Oh My... (1)

drunkenkatori (85423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374892)

PTSD...

Short Version for the Lazy (4, Informative)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374920)

-Apps/games installed on DOS 5 still work in Windows 7 unmodified after all the OS upgrade iterations.
-Various Windows setting survived 20 years or so in the same way.

To be fair, this is one of Windows strengths. It's not perfect but lets give credit where credit's due.

Re:Short Version for the Lazy (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375144)

The observations about old apps running on the later OSes are a little hasty and overly generous to Windows, though. While simple demo-level applets like Reversi – written by Microsoft according to approved API specs –might still work, there have been a lot of old Windows apps that simply couldn't survive through OS upgrades (clean install or not), and either had to be fixed by the developer or abandoned by the user. Often the only way the old app would work is if you'd done an inplace upgrade of the OS, such that the remnants of the earlier OS (e.g. obsolete DLLs) were still lying around for the app to use. But sometimes not even then, most often with the ugprades to Win95 and WinXP (which were major overhauls of the architecture). Win7 has problems too: just yesterday I was trying to install Adobe CS2 on a new Win7 machine, and the only way to get it to work was to tell the installer to use ye olde DOS-compatible 8.3 name for "C:\Program Files (x86)" ("C:\PROGRA~2"). That's probably Adobe's fault, not Microsoft's, but to suggest that Microsoft has provided flawless backward compatibility for apps in every new version of Windows is a bit misleading.

Re:Short Version for the Lazy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375222)

Not following published specs and best practices will get you exactly what you deserve on any api.

Interesting comments here (5, Interesting)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374968)

A guy shows how the upgrade procedure goes from DOS -> Windows 7, and instead of making comments on the robustness of the Windows upgrade system or anything even remotely related to the video, instead there are comments about how the poster doesn't use Windows anymore and brags about it.

Jeez, is there any wonder the Linux community is seen as toxic by outsiders?

Re:Interesting comments here (5, Funny)

equex (747231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375054)

Shut up and be quiet, I am at a critical stage of hex-editing a drivers binary code trough a serial cable so I can Linux to boot again. Then I can finally have a go at getting the sound to work again after submitting the patch to the distro managers. Sniff.

Re:Interesting comments here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375132)

robustness? seriously? how about typing 'apt-get dist-upgrade' every few years for the last 10 years without a need for any hw upgrade, without support for any of my hw being dropped while maintaining all of my configuration customisations?

robustness my arse

A Divine Comedy ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35374998)

... the modern version.

Re:A Divine Comedy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375110)

Then this can only be considered Book One. Inferno. Let me know when he makes the attempt to do this with Linux.

I usually avoid youtube comments, but... (5, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375036)

Here's the highest rated comment:

When I got divorced, my ex asked me to build her a computer. I obliged, and as a parting shot, told her I installed the latest-greatest operating system from Microsoft... hope you enjoyed ME, dear.

Is this the right path? (2)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375090)

If the point is to end up at Windows 7, I would think after DOS, he would move onto *OS/2*, then NT 3.5, 4.0, 2K, XP, etc. OS/2 was intended to be the successor to DOS, whereas Windows 1.0 through 3.11 was just a shell that sat on top of DOS.

Re:Is this the right path? (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375164)

The point is to move up through every Windows version. He started with DOS 5 because Windows 1.0 would only install on top of DOS.

Ok! Now try it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375104)

Ok! Now try it on a Mac: Take the latest Macbook Pro and install Mac OS 1 through OS 10.6.6.

I'll wait!

linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375108)

I started doing the same thing with Linux, every kernel version. It was a very long, boring video.

23 years of software compatibility is garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375118)

Thats doesn't seem accurate, sure DOS games were compatible but what about the myriad of Windows apps that perform OS level confirmations/checks/pre-quals before installing? That rules out (I would think) many medium to larger software titles. For example if you had a Windows 95 application I couldn't see him installing it on Windows 7 directly, he would have to have done it on Windows 98 and let it persist through upgrades. That to me isn't exactly backwards compatible.

MS isn't the only OS vendor with good compat (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375122)

Is this when I mention what version of emacs I am still running, without so much as a recompile?

[~] machine:user# uname -a
SunOS machine 5.10 Generic_127127-11 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240 Solaris
[~] machine:user# date
Thu Mar 3 18:50:46 EST 2011
[~] machine:user# ls -l /opt/xemacs/bin/xemacs
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 12 Jul 22 2010 /opt/xemacs/bin/xemacs -> xemacs-19.14
[~] machine:user# ls -l /opt/xemacs/bin/xemacs-19.14
-rwxr-xr-x 1 bin bin 10107552 Sep 1 1996 /opt/xemacs/bin/xemacs-19.14
[~] machine:user#

Couldn't do this on a Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375154)

I'm not trying to troll here, but it occurs to me that with two processor transitions (Motorolla 680x0 to PowerPC, and PowerPC to Intel), and various versions dropping support for older hardware for other reasons (i.e. the original version of the Mac OS X requiring a G3, and I'm pretty sure one of the releases of the classic OS had a problem with older version of the on-board ROMs), you couldn't do this with the Mac OS.

Beats Ubuntu - sorry Linux fanatics (2, Interesting)

LikwidCirkel (1542097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375212)

I am totally amazed that this was actually possible and that the system didn't break at some point. Every single time I've tried to upgrade from one Ubuntu version to the next, the system becomes unusable.

Sometimes I think Microsoft deserves more credit than nerds want to give them!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...