- #Carmageddon 2 windows xp vista patch software#
- #Carmageddon 2 windows xp vista patch code#
- #Carmageddon 2 windows xp vista patch professional#
I think is really great and I have used Linux in the past (Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu, Mint). I admire what the community has achieve with Linux.
#Carmageddon 2 windows xp vista patch software#
Just oppose that to the new web app approach to software engineering: breaking backwards compatibility is such a common theme that nobody bats an eyelid.
#Carmageddon 2 windows xp vista patch code#
So since I was more into the hacker mindset, I moved into GNU/Linux world and never looked back.īut I did grow an appreciation for MS engineering: they can develop quality software, and did it even in 96, but their consumer OSes strive for unparalleled compatibility and allow anybody (literally anybody) to write system level code that runs on the kernel ring level due to that.Ī couple years down the line, I've even seen an article how many workarounds they had to introduce into '95 to allow old software employing their own extended/expanded memory management tricks to continue to function (think stuff like DOS games, WordPerfect.).įor all the fun we make of it, Windows 95 was a marvel of engineering when you consider the constraints and requirements. The same "soft modems" (called "winmodems" at the time) were equally unsupported in NT4 just like in Linux, so you had to get yourself external hardware modems which were like 5-10x the cost (whatever came out of US Robotics?). But it had the same problems as Linux: it was very specific as to what hardware it supports. However, I've briefly used NT4 as my "development box" (Delphi addict for a while, though in my defense, I was like 15 at the time) for 6-12 months, that was as stable as anything you could get. I get no joy using it, but I guess if you are used to working in Windows the OS is perfectly fine for what it does.īefore committing to GNU/Linux in 1998 or 99, I've had a similar experience with moving away from DOS/Windows for workgroups 3.11 to '95: Windows 95 tried to achieve too much in terms of backwards compatibility between 16- and 32-bit software, and was very flimsy as a result. It looks cleaner but behind the veneer its just a giant heap of historical accidents piled on over the years, with no consistent direction of vision to be found. They work, behind the scenes the technology has improved, but I they still annoy me in many ways, and the UI is IMO the worst it has ever been in the history of Windows. I don't care for any of the 'modern' Windows versions. The very first thing I always did was to switch back to the classic UI for everything (theme, start menu, all control panels, etc).
#Carmageddon 2 windows xp vista patch professional#
I also think the default theme and general visual style of the XP is downright terrible and completely unworthy of a large professional company like Microsoft. What I remember from XP is that it took until SP2 before all the problems were worked out, and SP3 actually introduced more annoyances in the name of security. Totally my experience as well, Windows 2000 really was the only Windows version I actually liked, it had very few faults for its time.
0 kommentar(er)
