OSs: The Bitch Session

Jehnny - I don't know about anyone else... (seems I may have missed a lot of the discussion too :( ).... but the only 'problem' I had with the original was that it was slightly lacking in some detail (at least IMHO).

For example whilst Gore touched on P&P in more depth in the original version he omitted to do similar with ActiveX, the registry etc etc. I only suggested that he could have done more with the original... as Gore will tell you though he did plan on including those bits in a follow up tut... which he obviously has done and which you have posted on his behalf... the inclusion of which makes it a much better tut (again IMHO).

If I was giving Gore a hard time (which I didn't think I was to be honest... <moment of self introspection>... Gore if you think I was giving you a hard time please PM me for offering of olive branch...) it's only because I'd hate to see him let himself down with a tut than could have been (and now has been) made better.

so Gore ya big softie where are ya... I wanna give you some greenies :D

I don't know if anyone else had any probs....??

Z

was and still is full of misinformation
btw why he go run to you, cant handle it on his own?
****ing pussy

Quote:

---

btw why he go run to you, cant handle it on his own?

---

mmm... wouldn't have put it quite like that myself... but the sentiment had crossed my mind too.......

What happened to Gore's post in the first place? Did he delete it?

I assume Gore vaporised it being as we're all giving him a hard time about it...... but I ain't been around much for a few days so I don't know..... maybe RiOtEr bounced it into orbit off his avatars bouncing jubblies.....


Z

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RiOtEr
was and still is full of misinformation
btw why he go run to you, cant handle it on his own?
****ing pussy

---

If there's tons of stuff wrong with it, I just want you tell me what exactly is wrong. As far as I know, if you can show where stuff is messed up, Gore would have no problem editing it out if you could prove he was wrong in some way, and exchange it for better more accurate information. As for myself, though, I couldn't find anything wrong with it when I read, but OSs aren't really my arena, so..

And he didn't run to me. He told me he posted his tute but deleted it, and I asked why he deleted it and he said you guys were giving him a hard time about it. So I asked him to read it, and told him I'd post it myself so you guys could, instead, give me a hard time and we could just figure out what the big problem is with the tutorial.

It was said to me that everyone was being really rude, mean, uncooperative, etc, and in my opinoin, that's just screwed up. When I spend tons of time on something (be it writing a tute, diong some art, programming, anything) I really don't appreciate people saying my work sucks because they dont' like me, and not actually giving any constructive criticism. I realize you don't like gore, rioter, but honestly it's no reason to disrespect him on public forums, by downing his work or by calling him a "****ing pussy."

Quote:

---

Command line interface requires you to actually learn to use a damned PC right.

---

Wouldn't this be a "pro" instead of a "con"? ;)

Nice tut.

:)

I saw the original, I have seen plenty of Gore's other posts and I have scanned this version of the tut.... (the history doesn't really interest me.......), and I have two points to make.

1. Historically Gore has been one of the quickest and often the most vociferous critics of others. Often, in these cases, he offers little or nothing to the conversation but simply castigates the author. It is, therefore, somewhat surprising to find he is so thin skinned when similar is done to him. To me, it speaks volumes to his character.

2. He tried.... Whether he was successful or not, whether it was useful to the uber leet or not he tried. If you have a problem with a tut then post "corrections"/questions etc and make a discussion out of it. The result would be a lot more useful to others than a bunch of geeks whining at each other about the quality.

Lastly, ('cos I just thought about it.....), the History of Operating Systems is a book, it's not something that you can cover properly in a "quick and dirty" tutorial on AO.... So, for Gore, topic selection is something you should probably consider before you spend your valuable time "scribbling for the masses" ;). For the rest: When you see a topic that clearly can only be a synopsis let's not "smell the blood in the water" and attack like sharks - because sharks are careful about what they attack - it isn't a blind rage like the media like to portray it - sit back and giggle if you please, but either add to the conversation or STFU might be a good decision.... ;)

Quote:

---

If you have a problem with a tut then post "corrections"/questions etc and make a discussion out of it.

---

speaking for myself, I thought that was what I had done and I have acknowledged in my first post that I think this version is much better than the original... which makes me curious as to what else was said since I never saw the rest of the comments (things move fast round here sometimes)

Quote:

---

When you see a topic that clearly can only be a synopsis let's not "smell the blood in the water" and attack like sharks -

---

couldn't agree with you more... which again speaking for myself is why in the original thread I did suggest things to Gore that I think he could have mentioned in more depth... turns out they were things he was going to include anyway.... and as I say the inclusion of them above makes it a better tutorial.

I realise the subject is a vast one - certainly too much for a tutorial which is why I ain't attacking... more.... prodding.

Z

PS

Quote:

---

He tried...

---

Precisely the other reason why I only suggested and tried to add something worthwhile to the original thread... the fact that someone tried is very important in my books.

My original response to Gore's post was that it was a bit thin on history and lacking technical depth. I wasn't complaining about the attempt. It was a good attempt. Covering the topic of OSs in this limited space is a challenge for anyone.

However, by cooperation, we can all add to the effort.

I submit:

DOS:
The first "DOS" (disk operating system) for desktop computers was CP/M (not Apple-DOS), developed in the mid-70's by Gary Kildall (Digital Research). Gary's model was the old PDP operating systems. This was the model on which the first version of the 8086/8088 DOS was built at Seattle Computer (from which Gates and crew bought). This CP/M was also the OS that Gates and crew wrote the Basic Interpreter for (published as GW-Basic).

The original IBM PC actually came with two operating systems. PC-DOS and CP/M 86. The first IBM PC also only had 64KB (one bank filled) RAM. It was up to the user to add additional RAM as needed.

PC-DOS was dog slow and clunky in 64KB RAM, but there were some applications for it (Lotus 123 was one). CP/M 86 ran just fine, but there were no apps for it. The bean counters, or course, won. CP/M 86 died out and was dropped by IBM.

GUI:

All the real work on GUI's started in Xerox-PARC, from which Apple, Microsoft, IBM (you young-uns probably don't remember the IBM GUI--thank whoever's in charge for that), HP (Amiga and Atari, too) built their various graphical interfaces. Until Win98, though, Apple was the only major company offering a fully integrated GUI that wasn't just a shell over the real OS.

Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x and 95 were not operating systems. They were operating environments. They rode on the memory management and API of DOS (the operating system). The environment and operating system did not become integrated in the x86 platform until Windows 98 (I think this may have been pointed out elsewhere on AO).

Plug-n-Play

P-n-P was not actually an operating system function, but a hardware standard for which Microsoft wrote supporting drivers and tools in Win9x. The hardware standard was developed by Microsoft partners as an approach to adding hardware to a system without having to go through the kind of misery and suffering required when adding hardware to IBM PS/2 MicroChannel systems. Hardware standards for processor and motherboards were being brought out by a number of vendors to vie for the 32-bit market. IBM's MicroChannel was a very good idea, but it was IBM'ed to death. The EISA was what prevailed and what P-n-P was designed to work in, originally.

There were also a number of "bus-mastering" models that appeared to help deal with the information handled by graphic, sound and other peripheral cards on systems. PCI won out as the fastest and simplest general purpose interface to replace the old 16-bit and 8-bit ISA slots. Later, AGP came along to handle graphics. These all had an impact on what the OS could work with and how well it could function--and how easy it was to add peripherals to a system.

640KB:

The 640KB RAM limitation was never really there. Most systems came with just 640KB at one point, and had no additional memory sockets available for adding more. It wasn't until some clone makers added additional banks of RAM sockets that we were seeing 768KB and as much as 1MB on PC/XT and AT systems. There were memory cards that could be plugged into 16-bit ISA slots that would expand memory. But that was an expensive and not very good solution. The cost of an upgrade from 640KB to 1MB (at the time) was about $500. There were two methods back at about version 3.3 of MS/PC-DOS (1987/1988) for addressing upper or higher memory. One was extended memory and one was expanded memory. I get confused as to which worked which way, now, but the one that allowed full access to high memory was the one that one out. Before Win3.0 was released, I was tweaking DOS to move drivers and portions of DOS into upper memory blocks, or high memory. I cut my teeth on understanding how memory worked and how to get the most out of it working in the 64kB environment of CP/M.

Multi-tasking:

There was a race to true (cooperative) multi-tasking at about the time Win95 came out. Apple was trying hard to do it, but came up short and had to live with pre-emptive multi-tasking for a few more iterations of its OS, largely due to limitations of the Motorola processors. Microsoft, on the other hand, had no such limitation with the Intel processors and got a huge boost with the 486s.

Win95:

Windows 95 did support internet connectivity out of the box. It included support for TCP/IP (granted, you had to know that the support was not loaded by default, but had to be added). I networked a campus with Win3.11 and Win95.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Perhaps I will. I'm still wondering why the **** they got greens in the first place for them.

Quote:

---

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.

---

No one can disagree with that. Comment, question, suggest, and then let the person responsible for the tutorial make the necessary corrections. That should do the trick, unless the information provided was intentionally misleading. I doubt that is the case here.

`pw

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by paulie walnuts


Perhaps I will. I'm still wondering why the **** they got greens in the first place for them.




No one can disagree with that. Comment, question, suggest, and then let the person responsible for the tutorial make the necessary corrections. That should do the trick, unless the information provided was intentionally misleading. I doubt that is the case here.

`pw

---

The whole tutorial was crap. Most of it was nothing more than loose facts, and unneeded option with absolutly NO cohesion whatsoever. It didn't makes sense, it didn't provide accurate or correct information, etc, etc.

- I see the term "32bit, 16bit" tossed around dozens of times, yet no explination about what it is. (just as an example)

- Calling an API "a big scary word" is laughable. Unless you're a software developer, you probably don't know, want to know, or even give a **** what an API is. It means nothing to your average userbase. Not to mention his description is fatally flawed. Anyone who needs to know what an API is, or does, already knows what it is, and in most cases how it's used. (as another example)

- windows 3.x and 95 offering no security ... LOL, they don't offer any services. It's a workstation. Turn off FPNW and you have one of the most secure workstations MS has ever put out. Especially since 3.x didn't bundle WSH and VBS active scripting to it. Which means no lamer script virii. And in most cases no Mass Mailer worms either, as they cannot use a scripted SMTP engine. (yawn)

I was gonna stay clear of this because gore is a friend of mine and he's being trashed. Are there problems with the tutorial, to some degree yes, however for a n00b it is still a good introduction, at least it's not completely watered down and pure lies, and yes there have been tutorials like that on here that have been praised. Hell no one is flaming the poster of the *nix shortcuts tutorial (sorry don't have the name and i'm too lazy to open a second window) and his shortcuts tutorial was primarly a CnP and not *nix but more Linux Bash...

If you want to get into technical inaccuracies. Windows 3.x was refered to as an OS.. This is wrong.. It's technically only a shell (a great shell, but still just a shell -- it couldn't run on it's own). Windows 1.0 (which I have a copy of... ) is nothing more than a file explorer.. If I remember correctly (haven't seen it in a while) but it's closer to midnight commander and norton commander..

I think this is just an example of people looking for a reason to flame. Point out the problems and move on people, don't bash for the hell of it. That's my job :D

" don't be an *******, the language isn't necessary. " - AP poster Phishphreak80

How about this for language:

Dear PhishPhreak80,
Why don't you suck my mother ****ing dick, you filthy, pussy-assed little ****.

Is that better?

"Not needed" - AP poster lekt0r

lekt0r - let me tell you whats not needed. Whats not needed is your disgusting whore of a mother dragging her teeth over my **** every time she sucks it. You better tell that bitch, the next time she does it, Im going to bitch slap the **** out of her.

yes, you were/are being an *******. the language was/is indeed not necessary.

If you have a problem with gore, that is between you two.
Why not send him a PM saying so, rather than acting like an ass?

what is untrue about my assignment?

I couldn't care less what you think about me, so calling me names does nothing but show how ignorent you truly are.

Quote:

---

This person has been banned from AntiOnline, and as a result...

---

They never learn.
:cool:

Quote:

---

They never learn.

---

They sure don't... this has to be at LEAST the third or fourth time Quad has been banned.

I know he is intelligent, but ignorence takes over and thats all we get to see.

rcgreen BTW: You're now 1337... I know, I know. But hold back the excitement.

Hrm, after reading MsMitten's post about moving all the whining to this thread I now see that my replies to the post apparently were not constructive enough. Beyond pointing out the inaccuracies and providing supporting material to fix those, what more could have been done? Or did I get lumped in with all of the name calling by accident/laziness/the need to make gore feel better? The links I provided are actually helpful and give real useful information about the technologies mentioned...

It was a grand lumping. Not all posts met that particular "vent" and I'm sorry I didn't clarify that point but after reading through the thread (and personally having an incredible shitty day)... well.. we all have our points. *BLEAH*

And it wasn't to make gore feel better but rather it just struck me that it was getting out of hand. I figured if people were going to gang up at least dedicate a thread to it. Almost wish that an auto thread was created for tutorial discussions elsewhere with a little link if people want to read it.

I'm sorry if you felt you were lumped in and you did post a constructive rather than destructive post.

This is my take.

Who gives a ****.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Drunk On Duvel
This is my take.

Who gives a ****.

---

surely not me , i just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading this thread..............................

I give a **** to the porcelin god. It is my offering to keep him happy.

Got complaints over this thread, read it realised its basically a lot of petty squabbling with Drunk On Duvel summing everything up perfectly.

So many antipoints given in that thread it makes me wonder.

Thread closed.