Jump to content

History Of Aqua - Discuss

Duckie

By Duckie
in Aqua Discussion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

smoke

smoke

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Duckie@Feb 26 2004, 11:48 AM

"In February of 2000, Microsoft released its partially 32bit operating system;  Windows 2000.  With this new OS, we could FINALLY use transparency (something impossible in the 16bit architecture of Windows 95/98/NT). "

Hold on, NT was always 32-bit. It had win32 on a fully 32-bit kernel. What windows 2000 added primarily was plug and play, transparency, and a new shell over NT4. In fact, there was always a wowexec subsystem in NT ever since NT 3.1 so it can run 16-bit programs.

Windows95\98\ME where hte 16-bit OS' with win32 tacked on making THEM partially 32-bit.

Read This

Also the primary things that XP added over win2k was 32-bit icons, the themes service, internet connection firewall and explorer "enhancements".

24-bit icons where available since windows98 BTW, not win2k. I had been doing those types in 9x in '98\99 and throughout 2000 when I was in the litestep community.

And I don't get how you get off in saying that stardock uses proprietary formats. The only format that can pass as proprietary that they use is the UIS format adn it has been that way since '98. Images in WB skins are bmp or tga. And .wba's are merely zip files with the extension renamed.

Also VDE\DesktopX didn't support native transparencies until later revisions they had a method of doing fake transparency that wasn't too noticible because objects don't go over windows. This allowed those programs to work on 9x but it would really slow them down because of their limited 128k GDI pool of memory.

I was following you in the other "History of Aqua's" but I think this one is a little misinformed.

Link to comment
smoke

smoke

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Duckie@Feb 26 2004, 04:41 PM

Read it again...I never use literals

besides, this isnt a story about Micro****

There is a difference between not using "literals" and spreading misinformation. At least get your facts straight if you are going to write something like this. And don't quote me like that changing my words. I read it more than one time. And it wasn't just about windows, I wen't through your article and saw quite a few things in there which I pointed out.

Or are you saying, "Hey, I'm Duckie, I don't need to put accurate or even true information. I'm writing technical poetry, blah blah blah". Or "I never say the truth".

I'm not trying to start doubt, I'm saying the T R U T H.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
deadzombie

deadzombie

Posted
Posted

Good job Timan & Seph, thanks for keeping this thread permenant.

Now then, is this something you're going to continue Duckie? Reading the history is like re-visiting old friends I've lost track of. Thank you for this.

And if anyone feels the need to be negative about this, contact me first please. I have a few things to say about your negativity, moderator or not. <_<

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
Dominatus

Dominatus

Posted
Posted

A correction to the history:

Windows 2000 is fully 32 bit, as is Windows XP. In fact, the difference between Windows XP and Windows 2000 is minimal, I believe 90% of the core OS wasn't even touched (WinXP is version 5.1, Win2000 is version 5.0 so its considered a minor upgrade -- Longhorn is 6.0).

Link to comment
deadzombie

deadzombie

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Dominatus@Aug 11 2004, 05:31 AM

A correction to the history:

Windows 2000 is fully 32 bit, as is Windows XP. In fact, the difference between Windows XP and Windows 2000 is minimal, I believe 90% of the core OS wasn't even touched (WinXP is version 5.1, Win2000 is version 5.0 so its considered a minor upgrade -- Longhorn is 6.0).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A correction in the correction; Windows 2000 is NOT fully 32bit in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT. Any old school modder knows this. Call it 99.999% 32bit, but little annoying things still crop up from time to time that weren't addressed by MS during development. If you never cracked open the registry to change an image or tried forcing transparency on something in Windows 2000 you would never know this. The most obvious, glaring example is it's use of 24 bit icons.

Perhaps the confusion comes in thinking that Duckie is addressing Windows 2000's compatibility with 32bit applications and support for modern processors, which he isn't.

Of course, thats history. :)

Link to comment
Dominatus

Dominatus

Posted
Posted

The use of 24 bit images has *NOTHING* to do with an OS being 32 bits or not. An OS being 32 bits, 64 bits, 16 bits is a completely technical one, referring to memory addressing and instruction length, and nothing to do with an images color depth. A 32 bit OS could exist on a 2 color display.

I really wouldn't call it confusion though. He's wrong. He used an improper term to describe something. For example, we don't even have anything yet called 64 bit color. So does that make Windows XP 64 bit not truely 64 bit? We don't use 32 bit sound yet, does that make Windows XP not fully 32 bit according to his logic? Either way, he's wrong, as not *every single* value in Windows XP is an integer of 32 bit length, and therefore, it's not *fully* 32 bits according to that logic. Nor will any OS be fully 32 bits, as sometimes you just don't need more than a byte to hold a value.

Link to comment
deadzombie

deadzombie

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Dominatus@Aug 11 2004, 02:02 PM

The use of 24 bit images has *NOTHING* to do with an OS being 32 bits or not. An OS being 32 bits, 64 bits, 16 bits is a completely technical one, referring to memory addressing and instruction length, and nothing to do with an images color depth. A 32 bit OS could exist on a 2 color display.

I really wouldn't call it confusion though. He's wrong. He used an improper term to describe something. For example, we don't even have anything yet called 64 bit color. So does that make Windows XP 64 bit not truely 64 bit? We don't use 32 bit sound yet, does that make Windows XP not fully 32 bit according to his logic? Either way, he's wrong, as not *every single* value in Windows XP is an integer of 32 bit length, and therefore, it's not *fully* 32 bits according to that logic. Nor will any OS be fully 32 bits, as sometimes you just don't need more than a byte to hold a value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I know all that. But you're missing the context of the article.

He's discussing CUSTOMIZATION OF THE GUI. In terms of GUI, 32 bit is not referring to memory addressing and instruction length, but the color depth of the GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE. Color IS defined by 8bit, 16bit, 24 bit and 32 bit values. In that context, the Windows 2000 interface is not 32bit across the board, like Duckie was trying to express.

Windows 2000 is limited by 24 bit color icons. Are they 32bit icons? True color icons? No, they are not. This means Windows 2000 is NOT FULLY 32 BIT IN TERMS OF THE GUI. It's not hard to understand.

Please, we aren't morons here, we understand the modern evolution of OS's across multiple platforms. Duckie was absolutely correct in stating that Windows 2000 is not a truely 32bit OS in terms of the GUI, which is entirely what his article is focused on. Now please, stop trying to argue and read a little more carefully?

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...