"because they want flexibility to raise children or prefer less math-intensive fields of science"
Many tech jobs are great for people who want to work from home and/or have flexible hours, and many women who want to raise kids at home (like my wife) would kill to have those options. So the former sounds like a load of BS, while the latter sounds very accurate. I try just as hard to get my daughter interested in mechanics/electronics/computers as I try with my son, but she won't take an interest in it. She does well at math, but she doesn't seem to have any curiosity about math-related subjects or how to design/create things, so I don't imagine she'll go for a math-heavy career.
I suspect his wife will soon leave him. If she's anything at all like my wife, anyway. She hates nothing more than to be proven wrong about anything, and all too often she remembers things differently than the way they actually happened. To have a record of everything and be able to prove her wrong every time would make her want to murder me in my sleep.
I agree with you, but there is one part of this story here that could be considered news. The fact that she was dumb enough to keep playing when it hurt, the fact that her parents were dumb enough to take her to a doctor for it, the fact that the doctors were dumb enough to treat it like it's something new and interesting (or that they think we're dumb enough to give them credit for "discovering" it), and the fact that the reporter was dumb enough to report it as such. It could all lead to an interesting news story about a break-down at several levels in society.
How common is it that everyone in a chain of events like this could be that stupid? What does it say about what our society is turning into? Or is it just bad reporting making the doctors sound this stupid? It's not hard to believe that a stupid kid has stupid parents, and that a reporter was hard up for a story.
You're right, Google was really stupid. They stupidly avoided locking horns with MS when they were getting started, and they stupidly laughed all the way to the bank with their insanely profitable business model. And if cheap Linux/BSD powered netbook/palm PC's start gaining market share, people still won't leave Google. And if MS pisses off customers enough to make them ditch MS, people still won't leave Google. Stupid Google with their stupid brilliant business plan. MS has done plenty of clever (and in some cases unethical) things to get where they are, but don't confuse that with Google being stupid. The fact that Ballmer threatened to kill Google, and that MS has fallen on their face in Google's arena despite attempts to stack the OS in their favor, seems to be sufficient proof.
"Another drawback is that the system cannot cope with encrypted files."
Even the article mentions that anyone doing something they want to hide is more likely to check the "encrypted only" checkbox. I work on NetSpective WebFilter, which has been passively identifying encrypted protocols that try to hide themselves like encrypted BitTorrent (both standard and Azureus), Skype, and UltraSurf for years. It also lets you choose to block any of these protocols you don't want on your network.
"If a hash matches any stored in a database of prohibited hashes, then the system will make a record of the transfer and store the network addresses involved."
Maintaining a list of hashes is not a new idea, as they seem to claim. It was abandoned because the list is insanely painful to manage, and it is insanely easy to get around. These guys aren't even trying to provide a list, which might be worth something (until the hackers put in the time to work around it). They're just sniffing/logging the hashes, which is child's play and worth almost nothing.
"Same as they've done with every other version of windows"
Actually, I've never seen Microsoft do this with any other version of Windows (and I started paying for upgrades after Windows 3.11).As someone who has paid for "upgrade versions" of various MS Windows operating systems, I can tell you that while it has always been cheaper than the full version, I have never seen it given away for free, either at home or at work.
"Nice troll attempt."
I would agree with you if I didn't believe it was true no matter how much it sounds like bait. While it makes sense on one level to argue that they're doing it to boost Vista sales until Windows 7 ships, that argument doesn't make sense under scrutiny. It almost cannot help but be better than Vista, and they will make significantly more money in the long-run by charging for upgrades like they always have. MS has more than enough cash on hand to wait until Windows 7 ships, and they would sound much better to investors if they admitted they were going to have one or two weak quarters followed by a few quarters that would knock the ball out of the park. The only two arguments that would make sense to me would be: 1) Vista is costing them too much in support costs and free upgrades will lower those costs, or 2) Vista is costing them market share and they need to show some goodwill to win people like me back who bought Vista and then uninstalled it after trying it.
"Were you aware Apple does this with its holy OS X too"
It sounds like you think I'm a fanboy, but I've never even used OS X. I've used BSD and Linux, but as a game developer I use Windows almost exclusively. Either way, Apple has different reasons for doing this. They hold the mouse's share of the market, and they need to go to greater lengths to keep existing customers happy while they work to take more of the lion's share away from MS.
I would concede points if any of your arguments made sense to me, but they don't. Some of them are just flat out wrong (like Windows upgrades being given out for free).
...this is Microsoft's way of telling you that they feel guilty about fooling you into believing that. It's really more of an apology to the people who weren't fooled, but one implies the other.
I agree, which is why I'm hoping Chrome sticks to "lean and fast" design goals. I really like the fast JavaScript engine, the way it manages downloads, how each window and tab is an isolated process, etc. There are definitely some UI elements I don't like as much as Firefox, but as long as I can see what I want to see quickly enough, Chrome is definitely not bad. It will be interesting to see how long they hold out against the bloat that inevitably infects almost every software project.
Re:Vista deserves credit...
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 1
I couldn't have said it better myself. My favorite early "indicator" of Vista performance was all those Crucial ads on Slashdot that essentially said "Vista is a memory hog, buy more Crucial RAM". Did anyone else here think those were hilarious?
Instead of putting electrodes on the back of a boat to speed it up, perhaps they could put them on the front of a boat. This would slow the boat down a bit, but in theory breaking the surface tension in front of the boat could decrease the drag of the boat as it cuts through the water. I have no idea if this would improve efficiency, reduce it, or break even, but it would be an interesting experiment to try on larger boats.
I'd be willing to pay for a program that filters out listeners/viewers who install those programs. You don't want to see/hear the ads? Then you shouldn't have free access to the content. TANSTAAFL.
That is all very true. However, you forgot to mention that some things will suck even when the Z value is correct. Things like cross-hairs, for instance, are generally drawn at the near clip plane. This means that when you focus on an enemy in the distance you get double-vision on the cross-hair, and when you focus on the cross-hair you get double-vision on the enemy. Trying to play it is like when Rocky said "I see 3 of him out there" and the advice was "Aim for the one in the middle". This happened to me when I tried playing Descent 3 with shutter glasses, and all the Descent games were tested on VR head-gear.
The developers could try putting the cross-hair at the far clip plane, but then you'd see double on enemies up close, and it would look like you were peering through a hole in whatever objects it was drawn on top of. They could set it at the distance of whatever object it's in front of, but as you turn it will bounce forward and backward in one of two very annoying ways. Either the size of the cross-hair will jump, which would be visually distracting, or the size will stay the same, freaking your eyes out as they try to maintain focus on it. In this case, something like a laser pointer sight would probably work the best, but not all games have something like that.
True. Another point to mention is that the current grid wouldn't be able to handle the increased load if too many people bought cars with these in them at once. Of course, it would be easier for the grid to handle people charging them over the course of a few hours at night than to handle people charging them in 3-minute bursts during peak usage times.
In a way non-automobile applications are even more exciting. Imagine replacing all the AA, AAA, C, D, 9V, and Li-Ion batteries you come in contact with these. Higher power storage density combined with quicker recharge and nearly infinite number of recharges would be incredible. The fact that the "battery" will last longer than almost any device it powers is another interesting benefit (one I'm sure marketing departments of several very large companies will fight tooth and nail).
The biggest problem with off-grid wind/water/sun power is the lack of a good way to store surplus energy for later. Put a big one of these under your house, and it would be a lot easier to go without the grid (unless you also need to power your car;-). I imagine a large array of these could be used on the grid in the same fashion, storing excess energy that is generated "just in case" a bunch of people flip a switch and need that energy to be there. When the capacitors are full, they can shut down additional turbines and save energy while knowing the energy will be available if a bunch of people flip that switch. I'm sure they already have capacitors for this purpose, but not with enough storage capacity.
Most house circuits have a 20Amp breaker or fuse, but your house is not limited to that. It's not that hard to install a bigger breaker and run a thicker cable from your breaker box to your carport/garage (like the cable running to your central AC unit). Although if you have an open carport, I wouldn't recommend having an accessible outlet outside, or people will charge their cars at your house while you're at work, and you probably won't know until you get the $1000+ electric bill.
But you are mincing words, though perhaps not to assuage guilt, and I will correct you. The difference is that you are not necessarily hurting anyone by buying and drinking a beer. Someone made that beer, and you paid him for it. Everybody's happy. If you steal it from him, you hurt him. If enough people steal it from him, he goes out of business. If everyone steals from every beer maker, soon there will be no beer makers, and no beer. Even during prohibition you had to pay for it. It's not like the mafia would have let you have it for free.
When you steal a video game, you are hurting the company and people that created it, and often putting them out of business. So in every way that actually matters, it is exactly the same as stealing a beer. The only real difference is that it is much easier to steal the video game and get away with it. As a part-time game developer, I can tell you that the salaries for being a game developer are poor and the hours are long (i.e. 60-80 hours/week). When a startup game company makes a game, it has an outside investor (usually a publisher) paying its salaries for the time it takes to make the game. Once that game is released, the investor/publisher stops paying everyone's salaries, and he has to regain his losses before the game company sees another dime. If the game is successful, it is likely to be heavily pirated, keeping the company that created it from ever seeing that dime. So bright developers and artists put in 80 hours a week to earn what comes close to McDonald's wages (when you count the number of hours) to get the game done before Christmas. If they get it done on time and the game is wildly successful on The Pirate Bay, instead of getting a bonus to make all that effort seem worth-while, they all lose their jobs right before Christmas. Merry Christmas guys. Great game, BTW. Too bad you won't be able to make a sequel to it. I would've been first in line to pirate it.;-)
While I agree they should not try to make file sharing itself illegal, they should still try to catch people stealing products like video games. You can't say it's not stealing because in every way that matters, it is stealing. If stealing it in one way is not technically against the law, laws can and will be changed.
You can't call Prohibition an unenforceable law any more than you could call rape or murder an unenforceable law. If you took the percentage of people that were determined to have a beer during Prohibition, and you changed it to "this percentage of people are determined to break law X", then any law would be unenforceable. Laws like rape and murder are extremely difficult to enforce even now in the US. In a very large number of cases, no body or evidence is never found and the person is simply listed as missing. Statistics like "1 in 4 girls are molested/raped by the time they turn 18" are tossed about frequently. The more serious the laws are that are being broken in large numbers, the more our legal privacy protections will be removed. Laws will be easier to enforce, but some police will inevitably abuse their powers, and the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth.
Well, if they're in the US, they're getting the torrent from ThePirateBay (which is in Europe), and they're downloading pieces of it from all over the world, then technically you could say they're stealing shit on the high seas. After all, most of the international tubes pass through the high seas.
Yeah, the original Descent was the only DOS game I ever bought that supported actual VR head-gear, and I can imagine it may have been worse than I hear Mirror's Edge is without VR. I didn't get dizzy or queasy at all playing stereoscopic games, but I didn't have head-tracking. I think that for HMD's to become popular, there will have to be a console like the Wii with games designed specifically for its controller. I imagine game testers wouldn't be so excited to test a game like Mirror's Edge with a console like that. It would be like the video game equivalent of the vomit comet.;-)
Drivers have been around for a long time can take existing 3D games and make them stereoscopic if they use the depth buffer in a normal way. There are various glitches in various games, of course. I tried Descent 3 with shutter glasses about 10 years ago, and it looked awesome except for one thing. The cross-hairs were set at 0 depth, so when you focused on something you wanted to shoot, you got double-vision on the cross-hairs, making it a pain to aim at things. Other than that, the stereoscopic effect was so slick I found myself leaning my head over to try to peer around corners. It doesn't work without head-tracking of course, but it was so immersive that it "felt" like it would work. Of course, head-tracking won't work without game support.
In my experience, 95 and 98 beat the pants off of NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and 2000 on all my pre-XP machines ranging from a P1-100 to a P3-500. All versions of NT were very sluggish while running my development environment. I'm not sure how they react during light use, but when heavily taxing the machine, 95 and 98 were the only Windows OS's that were acceptably responsive. Perhaps it would've been different if I'd had more memory (NT requires more), but you have to work with the system you've got.
Some of my co-workers claimed that NT compiled our huge projects a bit faster when you left the machine alone to grind away at the code. That may have been true, but what does that matter if the OS isn't responsive enough to keep working comfortably while it's compiling in the background? I always got a lot more work done than my co-workers while using 95/98. I'm in charge of those projects now, so I must have been doing something right.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm turning 37 this year, and I feel the exactly same way. If it starts dropping off more quickly at age 37, I don't know if I'm going to make it.
"because they want flexibility to raise children or prefer less math-intensive fields of science"
Many tech jobs are great for people who want to work from home and/or have flexible hours, and many women who want to raise kids at home (like my wife) would kill to have those options. So the former sounds like a load of BS, while the latter sounds very accurate. I try just as hard to get my daughter interested in mechanics/electronics/computers as I try with my son, but she won't take an interest in it. She does well at math, but she doesn't seem to have any curiosity about math-related subjects or how to design/create things, so I don't imagine she'll go for a math-heavy career.
I suspect his wife will soon leave him. If she's anything at all like my wife, anyway. She hates nothing more than to be proven wrong about anything, and all too often she remembers things differently than the way they actually happened. To have a record of everything and be able to prove her wrong every time would make her want to murder me in my sleep.
I agree with you, but there is one part of this story here that could be considered news. The fact that she was dumb enough to keep playing when it hurt, the fact that her parents were dumb enough to take her to a doctor for it, the fact that the doctors were dumb enough to treat it like it's something new and interesting (or that they think we're dumb enough to give them credit for "discovering" it), and the fact that the reporter was dumb enough to report it as such. It could all lead to an interesting news story about a break-down at several levels in society.
How common is it that everyone in a chain of events like this could be that stupid? What does it say about what our society is turning into? Or is it just bad reporting making the doctors sound this stupid? It's not hard to believe that a stupid kid has stupid parents, and that a reporter was hard up for a story.
You're right, Google was really stupid. They stupidly avoided locking horns with MS when they were getting started, and they stupidly laughed all the way to the bank with their insanely profitable business model. And if cheap Linux/BSD powered netbook/palm PC's start gaining market share, people still won't leave Google. And if MS pisses off customers enough to make them ditch MS, people still won't leave Google. Stupid Google with their stupid brilliant business plan. MS has done plenty of clever (and in some cases unethical) things to get where they are, but don't confuse that with Google being stupid. The fact that Ballmer threatened to kill Google, and that MS has fallen on their face in Google's arena despite attempts to stack the OS in their favor, seems to be sufficient proof.
"Another drawback is that the system cannot cope with encrypted files."
Even the article mentions that anyone doing something they want to hide is more likely to check the "encrypted only" checkbox. I work on NetSpective WebFilter, which has been passively identifying encrypted protocols that try to hide themselves like encrypted BitTorrent (both standard and Azureus), Skype, and UltraSurf for years. It also lets you choose to block any of these protocols you don't want on your network.
"If a hash matches any stored in a database of prohibited hashes, then the system will make a record of the transfer and store the network addresses involved."
Maintaining a list of hashes is not a new idea, as they seem to claim. It was abandoned because the list is insanely painful to manage, and it is insanely easy to get around. These guys aren't even trying to provide a list, which might be worth something (until the hackers put in the time to work around it). They're just sniffing/logging the hashes, which is child's play and worth almost nothing.
I stand corrected, and I apologize for some of what I said. I missed this part of the article:
"during the program eligibility window"
I thought they were offering Windows 7 free to all Vista users, which would be a very large departure to what they've done in the past.
"Same as they've done with every other version of windows"
Actually, I've never seen Microsoft do this with any other version of Windows (and I started paying for upgrades after Windows 3.11).As someone who has paid for "upgrade versions" of various MS Windows operating systems, I can tell you that while it has always been cheaper than the full version, I have never seen it given away for free, either at home or at work.
"Nice troll attempt."
I would agree with you if I didn't believe it was true no matter how much it sounds like bait. While it makes sense on one level to argue that they're doing it to boost Vista sales until Windows 7 ships, that argument doesn't make sense under scrutiny. It almost cannot help but be better than Vista, and they will make significantly more money in the long-run by charging for upgrades like they always have. MS has more than enough cash on hand to wait until Windows 7 ships, and they would sound much better to investors if they admitted they were going to have one or two weak quarters followed by a few quarters that would knock the ball out of the park. The only two arguments that would make sense to me would be: 1) Vista is costing them too much in support costs and free upgrades will lower those costs, or 2) Vista is costing them market share and they need to show some goodwill to win people like me back who bought Vista and then uninstalled it after trying it.
"Were you aware Apple does this with its holy OS X too"
It sounds like you think I'm a fanboy, but I've never even used OS X. I've used BSD and Linux, but as a game developer I use Windows almost exclusively. Either way, Apple has different reasons for doing this. They hold the mouse's share of the market, and they need to go to greater lengths to keep existing customers happy while they work to take more of the lion's share away from MS.
I would concede points if any of your arguments made sense to me, but they don't. Some of them are just flat out wrong (like Windows upgrades being given out for free).
...this is Microsoft's way of telling you that they feel guilty about fooling you into believing that. It's really more of an apology to the people who weren't fooled, but one implies the other.
I agree, which is why I'm hoping Chrome sticks to "lean and fast" design goals. I really like the fast JavaScript engine, the way it manages downloads, how each window and tab is an isolated process, etc. There are definitely some UI elements I don't like as much as Firefox, but as long as I can see what I want to see quickly enough, Chrome is definitely not bad. It will be interesting to see how long they hold out against the bloat that inevitably infects almost every software project.
I couldn't have said it better myself. My favorite early "indicator" of Vista performance was all those Crucial ads on Slashdot that essentially said "Vista is a memory hog, buy more Crucial RAM". Did anyone else here think those were hilarious?
... I just have more aggressive bacteria in my gut.
Instead of putting electrodes on the back of a boat to speed it up, perhaps they could put them on the front of a boat. This would slow the boat down a bit, but in theory breaking the surface tension in front of the boat could decrease the drag of the boat as it cuts through the water. I have no idea if this would improve efficiency, reduce it, or break even, but it would be an interesting experiment to try on larger boats.
I'd be willing to pay for a program that filters out listeners/viewers who install those programs. You don't want to see/hear the ads? Then you shouldn't have free access to the content. TANSTAAFL.
That is all very true. However, you forgot to mention that some things will suck even when the Z value is correct. Things like cross-hairs, for instance, are generally drawn at the near clip plane. This means that when you focus on an enemy in the distance you get double-vision on the cross-hair, and when you focus on the cross-hair you get double-vision on the enemy. Trying to play it is like when Rocky said "I see 3 of him out there" and the advice was "Aim for the one in the middle". This happened to me when I tried playing Descent 3 with shutter glasses, and all the Descent games were tested on VR head-gear.
The developers could try putting the cross-hair at the far clip plane, but then you'd see double on enemies up close, and it would look like you were peering through a hole in whatever objects it was drawn on top of. They could set it at the distance of whatever object it's in front of, but as you turn it will bounce forward and backward in one of two very annoying ways. Either the size of the cross-hair will jump, which would be visually distracting, or the size will stay the same, freaking your eyes out as they try to maintain focus on it. In this case, something like a laser pointer sight would probably work the best, but not all games have something like that.
Somehow I don't think that would work. Although it does make me think of that Simpsons episode where Homer became the union leader.
Homer: What's the job pay?
Carl: Nothing.
Homer: D'oh!
Carl: Unless you're crooked.
Homer: Woohoo!
They're going to have a hard time finding replacements. I don't think I'd want to work in that capacity for the Republican party (just in case).
True. Another point to mention is that the current grid wouldn't be able to handle the increased load if too many people bought cars with these in them at once. Of course, it would be easier for the grid to handle people charging them over the course of a few hours at night than to handle people charging them in 3-minute bursts during peak usage times.
In a way non-automobile applications are even more exciting. Imagine replacing all the AA, AAA, C, D, 9V, and Li-Ion batteries you come in contact with these. Higher power storage density combined with quicker recharge and nearly infinite number of recharges would be incredible. The fact that the "battery" will last longer than almost any device it powers is another interesting benefit (one I'm sure marketing departments of several very large companies will fight tooth and nail).
The biggest problem with off-grid wind/water/sun power is the lack of a good way to store surplus energy for later. Put a big one of these under your house, and it would be a lot easier to go without the grid (unless you also need to power your car ;-). I imagine a large array of these could be used on the grid in the same fashion, storing excess energy that is generated "just in case" a bunch of people flip a switch and need that energy to be there. When the capacitors are full, they can shut down additional turbines and save energy while knowing the energy will be available if a bunch of people flip that switch. I'm sure they already have capacitors for this purpose, but not with enough storage capacity.
Most house circuits have a 20Amp breaker or fuse, but your house is not limited to that. It's not that hard to install a bigger breaker and run a thicker cable from your breaker box to your carport/garage (like the cable running to your central AC unit). Although if you have an open carport, I wouldn't recommend having an accessible outlet outside, or people will charge their cars at your house while you're at work, and you probably won't know until you get the $1000+ electric bill.
But you are mincing words, though perhaps not to assuage guilt, and I will correct you. The difference is that you are not necessarily hurting anyone by buying and drinking a beer. Someone made that beer, and you paid him for it. Everybody's happy. If you steal it from him, you hurt him. If enough people steal it from him, he goes out of business. If everyone steals from every beer maker, soon there will be no beer makers, and no beer. Even during prohibition you had to pay for it. It's not like the mafia would have let you have it for free.
When you steal a video game, you are hurting the company and people that created it, and often putting them out of business. So in every way that actually matters, it is exactly the same as stealing a beer. The only real difference is that it is much easier to steal the video game and get away with it. As a part-time game developer, I can tell you that the salaries for being a game developer are poor and the hours are long (i.e. 60-80 hours/week). When a startup game company makes a game, it has an outside investor (usually a publisher) paying its salaries for the time it takes to make the game. Once that game is released, the investor/publisher stops paying everyone's salaries, and he has to regain his losses before the game company sees another dime. If the game is successful, it is likely to be heavily pirated, keeping the company that created it from ever seeing that dime. So bright developers and artists put in 80 hours a week to earn what comes close to McDonald's wages (when you count the number of hours) to get the game done before Christmas. If they get it done on time and the game is wildly successful on The Pirate Bay, instead of getting a bonus to make all that effort seem worth-while, they all lose their jobs right before Christmas. Merry Christmas guys. Great game, BTW. Too bad you won't be able to make a sequel to it. I would've been first in line to pirate it. ;-)
While I agree they should not try to make file sharing itself illegal, they should still try to catch people stealing products like video games. You can't say it's not stealing because in every way that matters, it is stealing. If stealing it in one way is not technically against the law, laws can and will be changed.
You can't call Prohibition an unenforceable law any more than you could call rape or murder an unenforceable law. If you took the percentage of people that were determined to have a beer during Prohibition, and you changed it to "this percentage of people are determined to break law X", then any law would be unenforceable. Laws like rape and murder are extremely difficult to enforce even now in the US. In a very large number of cases, no body or evidence is never found and the person is simply listed as missing. Statistics like "1 in 4 girls are molested/raped by the time they turn 18" are tossed about frequently. The more serious the laws are that are being broken in large numbers, the more our legal privacy protections will be removed. Laws will be easier to enforce, but some police will inevitably abuse their powers, and the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth.
Well, if they're in the US, they're getting the torrent from ThePirateBay (which is in Europe), and they're downloading pieces of it from all over the world, then technically you could say they're stealing shit on the high seas. After all, most of the international tubes pass through the high seas.
Yeah, the original Descent was the only DOS game I ever bought that supported actual VR head-gear, and I can imagine it may have been worse than I hear Mirror's Edge is without VR. I didn't get dizzy or queasy at all playing stereoscopic games, but I didn't have head-tracking. I think that for HMD's to become popular, there will have to be a console like the Wii with games designed specifically for its controller. I imagine game testers wouldn't be so excited to test a game like Mirror's Edge with a console like that. It would be like the video game equivalent of the vomit comet. ;-)
Drivers have been around for a long time can take existing 3D games and make them stereoscopic if they use the depth buffer in a normal way. There are various glitches in various games, of course. I tried Descent 3 with shutter glasses about 10 years ago, and it looked awesome except for one thing. The cross-hairs were set at 0 depth, so when you focused on something you wanted to shoot, you got double-vision on the cross-hairs, making it a pain to aim at things. Other than that, the stereoscopic effect was so slick I found myself leaning my head over to try to peer around corners. It doesn't work without head-tracking of course, but it was so immersive that it "felt" like it would work. Of course, head-tracking won't work without game support.
I think you mean a Shipstone (which was actually supposed to be a battery).
In my experience, 95 and 98 beat the pants off of NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and 2000 on all my pre-XP machines ranging from a P1-100 to a P3-500. All versions of NT were very sluggish while running my development environment. I'm not sure how they react during light use, but when heavily taxing the machine, 95 and 98 were the only Windows OS's that were acceptably responsive. Perhaps it would've been different if I'd had more memory (NT requires more), but you have to work with the system you've got.
Some of my co-workers claimed that NT compiled our huge projects a bit faster when you left the machine alone to grind away at the code. That may have been true, but what does that matter if the OS isn't responsive enough to keep working comfortably while it's compiling in the background? I always got a lot more work done than my co-workers while using 95/98. I'm in charge of those projects now, so I must have been doing something right. ;-)