Whatever puts extra distance between me and Vista is fine in my book.
~OLJ
Submitted by: Unknown
-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous When I Say “Close Browser” I Mean “Ctrl + Q” | Managers Managing Next »
Moving in Cycles
» 114 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
The Water Cooler
mm on He Prefers DMRs to ACRs Erik on Shut Up and Take My Magnetized… senna on I Was Born Ready for This… Rehcsif on Forever a Drone Rehcsif on No Bulls***! MrSeagull on He Prefers DMRs to ACRs zarchasmpgmr on Nyan BART gloworm on Forever a Drone Drendel on I.E. Needs to Make Like K… Paulo on “Today, We’re…
So basically every few years MS serves us up Good Crap. I guess that’s why so many of their products leave us with such a bad aftertaste.
I’d say it’s the third major release in each line of operating systems that’s the best.
DOS 1.0, 2.0, 3.3
DOS 4.0, 5.0, 6.0
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1
Windows 95, 98, 98 SE
Windows ME, XP, XP SP2
Windows Vista, 7, 8
You forgot Windows NT 3.x, 4, 2000.
I thought the same, but I think this is going for “home use” systems. Whereas XP and up had professional and home versions, 2000 and NT were intended strictly for business.
ME and XP in a row? Blasphemy!
ME is more like a 98 Third Edition.
In some ways, yes. But my thinking is ME was meant to be innovative and different from 95 and 98. So it started a new line of operating systems. ME did not deliver on it’s promise. But XP and XP SP2 were improvements in that line that delivered successfully. It’s similar how Vista was fairly innovative, but 7 is more of a fixed up version of Vista instead of something new and different.
DANCE YOU MERE MORTALS FOR I AM A MAC USER!
Nah, I actually run every major operating system on different computers or on dual boot.
are you THE Mac User?
Except Microsoft did not create DOS.
Source:
wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS#Origins
Except Microsoft did not create DOS.
Source:
wikipedia dot org/wiki/DOS#Origins
Sorry for the double post. I thought it wasn’t going to take the first one.
ME is after 98SE. It is not related to XP in any way
2000 is after NT and before XP
Cycles? Should say:
CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP
Troll harder
Beat me to it! ::fist shake::
But seriously, it should.
Win 7 is NOT that much better than Vista.
Technically, Win7 is MUCH better than Vista. Even Microsoft has admitted that Vista was a fail. Win7 has not had any problems on all 35 machines that I manage.
When we were running Vista, all 35 machines had multiple issues related to the operating system. And it wasn’t IT’s fault. Once the updates were released from Microsoft, the problems ceased temporarily.
I would have to agree… Windows 7 both 32 and 64 bit have been rock-solid… I’m running it on all of my *doze machines now.
Our company took Win 7 off our computers and put XP back on – it would not work with any of our Enterprise software. We do all our HR stuff with Enterprise Person (which sucks hind titty).
forgot windows 2K. Exception to the rule!!
Even then it’s ME = Crap
2k = Good
XP = Crap
XP SP2 = Good
2K came out before ME
2k is in another branch with NT and Server 200X.
Actually, Win XP and following versions are in the same line as Windows NT/2000:
Windows NT 4
Windows 2000 (internal version # 5)
Windows XP (internal version # 5.1)
Windows Vista (internal version # 6)
Windows 7
Where’s Windows 2000?
Or any version of NT. Or Windows 3.0, 2.x etc…
Windows NT, 2000, 2003, and 2008 are not consumer focused. They are for businesses.
2000, while not consumer focused, did not lack any features of ME or 98 – and often times found itself in more consumer machines than ME. Thus why Windows XP was built on Win 2k.
The main reason a lot of people held off on Windows 2000 on home machines was games that needed DirectX/Direct3D and assumed WinNT == No DirectX. I had a couple or three myself which worked great with XP’s compatibility mode settings that refused to run in Win2k. And Win2k didn’t get similar compatibility mode settings until SP3 or 4, I think.
You’re right though, Win2k was great for home use by and large.
The main reason people held 98SE as long as possible was support for Real DOS mode, because some games and programs were still good and too addictive to throw away. For XP you needed DOSBox (not released immediately) but by then old DOS stuff was finally finished.
But I still miss DeLuxe Paint and its central symmetry of shape creation.
Agreed. Win2k was pretty excellent.
Totally agree… NT 4.0 and 2k were excellent… 98 sucked….
98 sucked pretty much, but 98SE worked well, when you select good hardware (compatibility before strength).
Where’s Windows Bob … it was produced by Bill G’s wife. It’s where the paperclip came from.
Yikes! Anyone who claims Windows 3.1 was somehow superior to 95 has not tried to use 3.1 lately. (Well, maybe in terms of hardware requirements.)
Windows 3.1 served its purpose well and was very stable, it did what a good OS should do, allow you to run applications. It is still being used today actually.
That doesn’t mean it was somehow superior to 95.
How is 95 superior exactly? It was a terrible release, pretty much a beta that made it onto store shelves, it crashed constantly. The 9x family was barely usable until 98SE, which was still a piece of crap that ran on DOS.
Preemptive multitasking that usually mostly worked to prevent deadlocks
Memory protection that was far from perfect but had a much better chance of giving you a chance to save work when things went south
Real 32 bit apps with true multithread capability
Plug n Play/Pray which often worked. Sometimes. Still beat jumpers and manual install a lot of the time.
Better memory setup that prevented out of memory errors due to the resource allocation instead of actually being out of memory (though the same issues cropped up later).
Lots of user usability testing to improve processes (subjective though)
I could go on but for their time, they were both pretty solid, and neither has aged very gracefully. They’re mostly remembered for their faults and, while not perfect, they both did their jobs well. Win3.x solidified Windows’s position, Win95 established a lot of what we’re still using today. Most of their problems were due to their architectures being pushed farther than expected/intended, and that’s mostly where Microsoft failed with them. Win95 shouldn’t have been delayed, and the 9x-NT merger should have happened much faster.
You forgot that main slow-down reason in all 9x development was ongoing court process with Apple.
98SE worked very good for me, until newer hardware forced me into XP.
windows 3.1 didnt REQUIRE
DAMN IT hit the tab and it posted lol
Didnt REQUIRE you to boot into it … 95 did. Now you HAVE to play all your games in windows… you cant play any in dos because the command window is all but useless.
Win95 and Win98 both allowed boots into pure DOS mode. The same menu that had Safe Mode (F8) also had Command Prompt Only which gave you everything except Windows. It was the big deal about WinME that while still being DOS-based, it removed/hid the pure DOS options.
Quite a few of us who lived in the DOS->3.1->95 transition era kept quite a bit of legacy stuff around that needed pure DOS.
Naturally the NTs were a different animal.
And instead of F8, you could invoke that menu on every boot by setting BootMenu=1 in the MSDOS.SYS file.
Y U NO POST MONDAY MEMES?!?!
DIDN’T HAVE ANY! NEXT WEEK HOPEFULLY!
Windows 95 was better than 3.1/3.11.
The action cannot be completed because the other program is busy.
I think XP was the first good windows.
Clearly you never used Windows 2000, which was also pretty excellent.
Which is exactly why XP was based heavily on 2000.
Windows XP is basically Windows 2000 with extra bling.
Bling meaning a Fisher Price theme.
Windows 95 was a huge improvement over Windows 3.1
graphically maybe but performance wise it was crap… version A didnt even support USB.
Oh yeah. And USB 1.0 was released half a year later, than Win95. Oh shi—
Didn’t 95OSR2 support USB keyboards and mice? Memory sticks and USB printers had to wait until Windows 98, though I wouldn’t recommend using them on anything earlier than Windows 2000 (which was a real advance on both 98 and NT4). Windows 2000′s big flaw was that it could only firewall your Internet connection if you were sharing it.
OSR 2.5 had a USB Supplement with it that added some support (and I believe the usbsupp.exe could be pulled out and installed on earlier Win95s, but don’t quote me on it) but it was rather unstable. Keyboards and mice mostly worked, but the problem is a lot of software that came with them assumed Win95 == No USB and refused to install. There used to be a website that had a collection of hacks and tweaks for getting Win98-only USB stuff to install and work on Win95, but it’s long gone.
In my past life, I did DSL support for a major ISP and we spent quite a lot of time trying to get the then-new USB DSL bridges working on that Win95 OSR2.5, but never did get it to work reliably. Bluescreens galore. Ultimately we ended up not supporting it officially although we very occasionally got customers using it successfully.
It was then when the expression “Plug and PRAY” was coined…
Meh, kill the metro interface (directions below) *adjusts glasses* and Win8 is just a faster Win7.
Bring up regedit (Windows key + R, then type regedit) and go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer. The key RPEnabled can be set to 0 to disable Metro, 1 to enable it. You want to disable it.
I think by the time it goes gold you’ll be able to turn that stupid tablet looking interface off manually. Unless microshaft thinks they know best… OH WAIT THEY DO!
Windows 98 “Good?” Yeah, ok.
Compared to 95 or Me – Yes.
ME had only one good thing: Defragmenter. It worked 10 times faster than the one from 98. Luckily, you could copy Defrag.exe from ME to 98SE.
Windows 98 SE was pretty stable. Only lacked support for higher end hardware that really did it in.
Seriously? Have any of you even used Vista? I had Vista, and now I have 7, and they both work great. Next time you hear someone complain about how bad Vista was, ask them if they’ve ever actually used it. So far I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t just parroting what they read about it online.
I got a free copy of it from microsoft… I installed it on one of my machines and it took 1gb of my 2gb of ram to run it. windows 7? just under 600mb. Vista had problems with drivers for over a year. 7? runs like a champ. Vista will randomly change to the basic interface when you run a program and wont turn the aero interface back on when you shut it down.
but they both have the problem of only remembering 1 window position and size and both of them have the horrible interface where everything is moved around and renamed which is really annoying.
i had a vista for a couple years, & i f**king hated every moment of it, constant lag kept crashing & died after like 2 years, got windows 7 3 years ago & still no lag
On my sister’s desktop Vista sucked badly. We tried to change some components, bothered for about a year, nothing helped. Finally she returned to XP until got W7.
I have Vista horror stories. I had to disable Aero right out of the box, and then go to XP mode. It still can’t page worth a damn, and they disabled defragging page files because their algorithm was “so damn good”.
To add to it, HP would not certify Win7 on this laptop model until about 8 months ago, because of driver issues. Of course, that’s mostly HP’s fault for producing a crap product with piss-poor hardware selections. (For the same reasons, I could not install Vista SP2 until a year later.) That’s why HP computers are on my “never-buy” list. (Printers are OK; mine is 7 years old and still kicking ass.)
Vista was and still is a huge festering pile.
I had an expensive HP printer… Once the ink ran out, it wouldn’t accept ANY ink cartridges at all… New, used, refilled, remanufactured, nothing.
I’ve never had any problems with HP computers, though. Guess that HP is one of those companies where you get lucky with one of their products, and the rest just don’t work for you.
There isn’t an obvious pattern like that. Like a previous post mentioned, 2k/NT was so stable it’s still used by many reliable servers. I do believe 8 may fall into the pattern of being another good OS and in another few years after it’s released, it would be extremely eerie if it became the new server standard.
Also, any haters in these posts are obviously Mac fanboys. Go back to your Chippendale coffee shops.
true.. 8 is going to be 7 with a new interface to turn off.
“To turn off new interface” is the best option in W8, but I’m afraid in W9 we won’t be that lucky.
I didn’t see anyone with common sense to really hate NT and 2k. Especially 2k. They are still stable and strong. But they are also still Microsoft. Most reliable known Internet servers work with OpenBSD.
Now you can say that I’m MS AND Mac “hater”. LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of pattern, people here already pointed out that NT and 2k belong to another branch with Server 200x, not exactly with 9x, XP, Vista, 7, 8…
Windows 2000 was good. I guess it was left out because it didn’t fit the pattern?
No, it’s probably because XP was heavily based off of Win2k.
No, Windows Me was based on Windows 2000. They were nearly identical counterparts, one designed for business and the other for home.
Windows ME was based on the Win9x kernel. It’s a continuation of the DOS-based Windows. Win2k was based on NT4 and the NT line of things, and XP continues from 2k. There’s no kernel similarity between WinME and Win2k, but WinME did borrow some interface tweaks and UI design.
2k was sequel to NT and ME was sequel to 98, but some things were transfered from one branch to another. ME experiment failed, but gave experience to successfully add more from “2k branch” (business) to “XP branch” (consumer).
I recall some users reflecting on the logo of the first four versions, which illustrate a representation of your Windows data slowly dissolving into tiny little pieces.
did anyone noticed in the picture its windows 96??? not 95
also, its missing windows 2k, windows 1 and 2, and server versions :troll:
Um, where’s Bob? MS Bob?
Not Bob…. Clippy…
“I see you are trying to work. Let me f*CK it up for you”
Clearly you guys forgot the awesomeness of Windows 95 Plus!
Even crap Windows is better than the best Linux distro.
Oh, this thing strips anything that looks like an HTML tag? Way to ruin my joke, failblog.
Well, you’ll all just have to wonder what I really meant.
No.
And you clearly have not used a good Linux distro. Please stop trolling.
It supposed to be a joke, with some HTML “inversions”, but “this thing strips anything that looks like an HTML tag” and didn’t allow him to show what he really wanted to say.
Also missing are all of the Home, Basic, Premium and Professional versions.
Completion of Windows 95 was delayed for an additional three years in 1995 (partly because Gates had just heard about this “Internet” thingy); when it was finished it was released as “Windows 98″.
Microsoft promised that their NT and 9x lines would be merged into a common operating system to be called “Windows 2000″. 2000 came around and they had a new version of NT (which they called “Windows 2000″) and a new version of 9x (which they called “Windows Me”); but the merger didn’t happen until XP.
Everyone was starting to snigger about how long Vista was taking to ship, so Microsoft put out what they had at the time, incomplete though it was. That took a bit of heat off them while they finished it off and started shipping it as “Windows 7″.
XP did merge a lot of stuff, but Server 200x systems still go separately.
Win 95 was CRAP.
Win 95 OSR2 was almost OK (with some CRAP inside)
Win 98 was ultimate CRAP.
What is remembered as Win 98 beeing good is not Win 98 but Win 98 OSR2 which was good indeed.
Win 2000 was GOOD, but was not on this chart (and was out before Windows me by the way)
Agreed.
98 was sh*t and 98SE was “almost gold”.
This is kind of accurate. Windows 2000 was a server OS and wasn’t very used at home. Same reason why Windows 2003 / 2008 aren’t here. Btw the server OSs are all good, but 2008 is worse than 2003.
Windows users are like abused spouses. The fact that he only beats you on weekends and always buys you flowers on Monday doesn’t make him a good husband, honey.
Your comment is the best one here.
Over 9k Internetz for you.
Yes, but he doesn’t hit us very hard and the flowers are REALLY pretty…
And it’s usually my fault anyway.
Bros, this is silly. Vista was probably the greatest thing ever made by a man. Plus Windows 8 will be taking the power of a PC and dwarfing it into the frame of a smartphone.
Can’t we all unite against Mac?
Vista was tested for about a year in my sister’s desktop, with various hardware, and didn’t pass basic requirements to be called “Operating System”, because the “Operating” was missing most of the time.
To unite against Mac (and add them publicity like to Rebecca and Justin) is not necessary. Just ignore it.
Haha my family still uses XP, and i love it way more than any of apple’s crap
My grandma still runs Windows ME. It’s crap, but it’s got some pretty fun games on it, which almost makes up for their lack of internet.
+100 internets for your sir!
Gotta say, so far I loathe Windows 7. The majority of my office’s technical support callouts are for the folks who got “upgraded” to Windows 7 – even though they only comprise 20% of the users.
I still use XP at work, installed W7 Ultimate to two of my colleagues (5 and 4 months ago, ‘respectively’) and they don’t complain yet.
Kinda like the Start Trek movies. good, crap, good, crap…..
… oops. *Star
I can hardly recall Windows 3.1 / 3.11 but I know it was installed on the family’s PC (It was a Siemens-Nixdorf PC which was, if I am right, updated from DOS to Win 3.1 / 3.11 and even Win95).
Of course, lagging and crashing Computers were a standard Problem in those days, but if you treated them well, they’d work well).
Win95 was worse than Win98, and 98 had its open flaws.
I do still own a PC which was delivered with 98.
Sadly, a virus tore the OS apart and a friend wiped the HDD and set up Win2000, which is surprisingly good.
It is pretty crash-proof, and it can handle my favourite childhood games: Warzone2100 (D3D mode?!) and the original Unreal 1.
I’ve even sworn, if this machine breaks, i’ll burn some fireworks in the garden as a “salute”. I hope this day never comes….
You got it wrong:
Crap
Crap
Crap
Crap
Crap
Crap
Crap
:trollface: Crap
For its time, Win 95 was great.
Also, Win 2000 was really solid. Win 98 I had for quite a while but looking back, it wasn’t very good IMHO.
So… who knows how 8 will be…
I disagree.
Reverse it and you have a winner. I’ve had all of the ones labelled “crap” and they worked like a dream, no crashing or anything. Second I use the “good” ones I start getting errors and crashes all over the damn place.