Windows XP for 64 bit

I meant Window 3.1, Window 95, window 98, window 2000 where base on stole codes which they didnot fully understand. So I disassemble than 1 million lines of code program , call label will have default label given to them by the disassemble like label a, b,c and so on. You have the binary machine in assemble form but what do the vary part do and how they realate to each other will take along time to figour out if it can be figure out. Window 3.1, window 3.3 where the worst one they where so back that DOS was many time more stable and useful. That why alots of games where not make for window 3.1 or 3.3.

 

Charles, it is well known that Microsoft ripped the Windows "Look and feel" off Macintosh with Windows 95. If they had truly stolen all the code to make their earlier versions of Windows, Bill Gates could not buy his way out of it.

Also, Windows 2000 was based off Windows NT, which was a new kernel that MS created for a specific purpose. 95 and 98 both derived from 3.x. XP combined the best parts of the 98 and NT kernels (but mainly the NT one).

 

My Amiga computer have alot better Window than Window 3.1 or Window 3.3 than was alot more stable than both.

 

Charles, any old "Hello World" program is more stable than any operating system out there. Windows is far more complicated than your old as the sun Amiga.

 

Linux is beautiful in it's simplicity. It's hard for new users to find their way around and learn how to install programs, but it's programmed right.


All three of my orders are in Texas right now, they'll be here Tuesday. Athlon 64 3200+ is going to kick some ass.