« Rev
@reactos   588
Fwd »


Anonymous
Grats
whats a grat?
OwnedByWuigi
whats a grat?
No idea
OwnedByWuigi
Just posting it for memes
Anonymous
if reactos was a macos alternative would it be called meactos. ractos, racos, reacos, meacos, ractos, mactos
Mike
i never understood the love behind windows 98 or just 9x in general. nt 3, 4, 2000, xp dont have a 4GB filesize limitation like 95, 98, me. 95 originally had a 2GB filesize limit while nt 3 had 262144GB filesize limit.
At the time it was decent. Big files were rare, people didn't use them so much, also due to small hard disks. It was fast, compatible with a lot of things (everything from dos games to dx 9.0c), and even when it went down you could usually revive it with a couple dos commands. Also, it was more tolerant to hardware faults than nt class
Mike
Now it would be a laugh. But at the time, it worked. Also, i used both 98se and linux at the time. Linux didn't work so easily with some mobos and vga cards, and had a few issues
Mike
500MB hard disks were common. 2GB was "wow huge size I can never fill up"
4.77 gb hdd was a popular option in 1998. In 1999, 6 to 10, with 8 being the most common
Mike
can win xp be considered as a service pack for win 2k?
IMHO, no. At the time of their first appearance 2000 was respected, xp was not liked too much. It was heavier, it had some issues and introduced some changes from 2000, notably being the first nt based os specifically for home usage
Mike
2000 service packs continued being released after xp 32 bit. thats why later service packs of 2000 can be installed on hard drives bigger than 127GB. even xp originally had the 127GB limit.
Are you kidding me? That was a bios limit, and not all the bios had some issues. Yes, with the HDDs they gave you a boot floppy to partition it if your bios didn't support it, but i remember installing a 160 gb hdd on my shitty presario 7460, formatting it (one fat32 partition) and it just flew. Just for curiosity, how old are you?
Anonymous
4.77 gb hdd was a popular option in 1998. In 1999, 6 to 10, with 8 being the most common
if apple invented the dvd people would never shut up about the fact that it only support 120 minutes of standard definition video in a time when high definition video existed. north america uses atsc 1.0 which is a high definition broadcast standard older than the first dvd.
Camarada Gato
Mike
the latest windows 2000 regardless of computer will by default have the 127gb limitation
I'm really curious to try it. Looks very strange to me, i think it's your BIOS limit
Mike
Apple and amiga were a bit better, but still way far from 1080p capable
Anonymous
I'm really curious to try it. Looks very strange to me, i think it's your BIOS limit
its a 13 inch mid 2007 white macbook. they have an efi with a legacy os compatibility layer. i tried sp4 2195
Anonymous
windows 2000 says the bios version is 07/29/05
Anonymous
Macbooks have always had bios quirks
yes. that same computer will greet me with a screen to select cd-rom boot type if i boot a dvd with an iso that has both uefi and legacy support despite already selecting the way i want to boot the dvd and is super hard to get passed because the keyboard will only work for a split second between the mac boot picker and that screen showing up. my 13 inch mid 2012 macbook pro doesnt have the screen though. reactos also shows the select cd-rom boot type screen but i think its because of the efi folder in the iso.
Anonymous
not my screenshot
if theres no uefi support in the iso it wont show this screen
Anonymous
the firmware is 1.1 which is from 2007. a time when windows didnt even have uefi support.
Chungy
There are plenty of commercial movies longer than 120 minutes sold on a single DVD just to drive that point home :p
Chungy
Chungy
Wherever you get your information from, it is wrong.
Anonymous
1. DVD has no such thing as a fixed runtime. If you want to put 20 hours if crap quality on one, go for it. 2. HD in the 1990s? You are completely out of your mind.
atsc 1.0 is hd and was originally rolled out in 1996. i heard of a movie filmed in 1993 in hd. ive also heard about an hd movie from 1987.
Anonymous
143 minutes isnt a whole lot more than 120 minutes. the average vhs has 6 hours.
Anonymous
cds only have 80 minutes but cassettes can hold 90 and even 120 minutes. also 80 minute cds are more like 74 minutes but 90 minute cassettes are more like 94 minutes. digital overpromises and analog underpromises.
Chungy
143 minutes isnt a whole lot more than 120 minutes. the average vhs has 6 hours.
VHS depends on the tape length and the speed recorded at. Slow speeds mean longer runtimes and low quality. High speed goes the other way. Movies didn't get released longer than 2 hours per tape.
Chungy
All the analog comparisons are useless. DVD uses MPEG2 principally (it also supports MPEG1 for compatibility with porting VCD titles). It's a digital codec with completely variable bitrate settings. You can go as long as you want at the sacrifice of quality.
Chungy
atsc 1.0 is hd and was originally rolled out in 1996. i heard of a movie filmed in 1993 in hd. ive also heard about an hd movie from 1987.
Film is film. An analog medium, the kind of resolution you can pull off it is largely governed by the film size and grain density. You can get The Wizard of Oz, from 1939, in 2160p (4k), because the film has all the detail already and could simply be remastered in a high resolution. Many old movies and shows were done on film. Same reason Star Trek The Original Series is now in 1080p, and that's not because people had HDTV in 1966.
Chungy
If it's literally film, then it's not "native HD", it's film.
Chungy
You can scan it and master it in HD, which would be a reduction in quality even :P
Anonymous
remastered and upscaled video looks like playdoh or blurry and the lighting tends to be all out of wack
Chungy
That's not what happens.
Esteban
Just because HD existed in 1989 doesn't mean it was mainstream. Here's digital HD video (1080i) from 1989.
Esteban
https://youtu.be/gbBuBRY3iJ8
Chungy
Downgrade compared to what? HD was not in the hands of common consumers yet.
Mike
it still existed
wtf, engine control units and fuel injection existed decades ago, yet many cars in europe used carburettors till the late 1980s
Mike
i'm really curious about your age
Anas
if reactos was a macos alternative would it be called meactos. ractos, racos, reacos, meacos, ractos, mactos
Impressive, very nice. Now let's see Paul Allen's alternative OS names
Anonymous
wtf, engine control units and fuel injection existed decades ago, yet many cars in europe used carburettors till the late 1980s
greed baby. ntfs which was released in 1993 had a 262144GB limitation but fat32 released in 1996 had 4GB. if 16 bit fat16 could hold 2GB why couldnt 32 bit FAT32 be 65536 times that? thats how the math of power of 2s is done right?
Anonymous
greed baby. ntfs which was released in 1993 had a 262144GB limitation but fat32 released in 1996 had 4GB. if 16 bit fat16 could hold 2GB why couldnt 32 bit FAT32 be 65536 times that? thats how the math of power of 2s is done right?
when the iphone 5c released in 2013 had 32GB max when the iphone 4s from 2011 and the iphone 5 from 2012 both had a 64GB variant it was outrage. how dare greedy apple downgrade storage am i right?
Mike
Also, not always greed. At the time the cpu power was small
Mike
You had to optimize
Mike
Also, iirc geforce 4mx and ati 8500 had some hd video acceleration even at the time, and windows 98se and me supported the same dxva acceleration as windows xp. But, at the windows 98 times, there were no consumer cards with enough power for full hd
Mike
They arrived later. The typical 99-2000 card could manage dvd graphics at best
Mike
With a few notable exceptions, like shitty trident cards and integrated chips (via mvp4) and nvidia vanta, or 3dfx
Anonymous
i think the decision to use 32 bit instead of even just something as small as 34 bit for decades was intentional to keep off issues long enough but also be fully aware people will need more than 4294967296 values so the greedy companies could force people to eventually buy everything all over again
Mike
wtf
Mike
if you talk about greed then you should destroy intel for not implementing 3dnow instructions at the time, or later for their damn gma chipsets and atom / chipset undercost sale
Mike
cpu power
Anonymous
32 bit is a cancer on technology that was built on greed. we shouldve used 64 bit or even just 48 or 36 bit from the very beginning and wouldve avoided almost all issues
Mike
you clearly didn't live at the times. we grew with lh for memory management, and then optimizing for ram and cpu. at the time both were scarce
Mike
32 bit is a cancer on technology that was built on greed. we shouldve used 64 bit or even just 48 or 36 bit from the very beginning and wouldve avoided almost all issues
at the time 32 bits were not greed, but a need. later things changed, but you should go a few years later, at the pentium 4 prescott - athlon 64 thing, and then i'll agree with you, but before it was waaay more complex
Anonymous
32 bit is a cancer on technology that was built on greed. we shouldve used 64 bit or even just 48 or 36 bit from the very beginning and wouldve avoided almost all issues
32 bit caused a massive hinder on advancement and still does because so many software developers insist on holding on to 32 bit for some reason i dont know
Mike
(also, about cars: they didn't use carburettors bcs of greed, but bcs they allowed for a low fuel combustion. many late 80s cars could reach 20 km/l on petrol/gasoline, and more, which many actual cars can't reach. also, engine control units costed a shitload and weren't very reliable at the time)
Anonymous
64 bit will never need to be replaced because the limitations are unrealistic
Mike
32 bit is like a 1.5 meter height restriction on ceilings
32 bits was ok for its time. can still be useful for some things, clearly it's surpassed for a lot of others
Mike
just bcs we have cars and bikes doesn't mean we should never go by foot anymore. the key is choosing with common sense
Mike
32 bits is still ok for many usages
Anonymous
they said the same about 32 bits in the 90s
but for real this time. i dont think 64 bit will ever need replacing especially for the consumer market.
Mike
verbatim
Mike
and tbh someone said the same about 16 bits, before
« Rev
@reactos   588
Fwd »