OSs: The Bitch Session

For crying out loud-

Quote:

---

Also, as for me getting pissed about it...Well, YOU spend 6 hours typing this out, THEN grab your Operating Systems book and check EVERY sentence to make sure it's correct, post it, and have some fag names rioter, who gets anti points for saying he loves porn, tell you it's so bad it made him want to commit suicide....

---

Keep your emotions to yourself, or go somewhere that cares. This site is for learning- not a place to live out your whiny little soap opera. But I'm not here to bitch, either- heres a link to help you out. http://www.lifechangetips.com/articlep2.html

Everyone relax...

I have to admit that I was one of the first to have some small critics on your post Gore, but I think I stayed relativly polite and didn't attack you in person. So I was realy surprised to see this thread. I haven't seen the replies on the other one... to bad ;)

btw. rapier57 good cooperation ;)

I'd recommend you actually look up what com and active x are. There are some horribly inaccurate things in the tutorial.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...sdn_comppr.asp

And here is a very basic one explaining ActiveX technologies...
http://www.pacificspirit.com/Courses/ActiveX/4.htm
and it's parent...
http://www.pacificspirit.com/Courses/ActiveX/index.htm

Yes, I do know what they are. I'm even Microsoft certified to develop code using COM and ActiveX....I've got thousands of lines of code in production. I've been doing it for years in fact....

I've pointed out the section (com and activex) and posted links to http://msdn.microsoft.com to the exact spot where that technology is discussed. I'd recommend taking the initiative to check up on it and then possibly fixing your tutorial.

Quote:

---

Windows 3.x :

Stealing a GUI to compete with the Mac, Microsoft released the first version of Windows, which was aimed at the 80286 computers, in 1985. This, like most versions of Windows, was very slow, and Windows was not accepted untill 5 years later when Windows 3.0 was released. Windows 3.0 was aimed at larger computers like the 80386, because only a computer with a faster, lightning quick 16-40 MHz, could make Windows run fast enough to enable user productivity

---

http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v1i1/myers.html

was windows 1.0 not 3.0


there you go thing
happy

Gore, Gore, Gore ...

Where do I begin? I'm at a loss of words here. You post dog ****, when you get called on it, you attack. Then when people post more links proving your dog ****, is in-fact, dog ****, you backpeddle into some blabbler about how you read some "OS" book, which you fail to list the name, date, and publisher. That is assuming you actually read a book on OS's. If you did I find it hard to believe you would post such DOG ****. Then again, you are an idiot.

I wasn't even going to come here and post, but we were having such a good laugh at this thread in IRC, I though to myself "what better way to finally get this account banned, I can go out flaming gore."

I know this post isn't sighting any technical examples, I don't feel I need to. I think others have done a fantastic job of proving you're an idiot, and your post is dog ****. Peace out DUMB ****S.

Love,
Quad

What's is with all the criticism, I thought it was a good tutorial for such a general topic.
Good tut Gore.

I don't know gore personally, but if you compare this tutorial of his to some of the ones in the tutorials forum, you plainly see that it is a hell of a lot better than some of the ones that received little to no criticism at all.

In fact, when I see some of the tutorials in the tutorials forum, I have to ask myself why in the hell is this even a tutorial. Some of those post/"tutorials" are better suited for GCC if ask me. I'm no know-it-all though.

`pw

If you wonder why are they there and if they also spread bad information then maybe you should speak up about it and invite others to do so as well. Yes the tutorial above can be helpful to those who need it but it also has some bad information which needs to be fixed. If you do not want harsh criticism of your work, you are best off double checking your facts and possibly providing links to supporting material or actually pointing out where (what book, seminar, etc) you got your information from.