|
DOS 4 was so buggy, IBM refused to install it on their PCs! 
It used a load more of my precious 640K base memory, and crashed daily. And MS ignored all beta tester input as usual.
4.01 was OK .. but still not the multitasking OS MS had been promising us ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Windows ME is my vote for the worst ever version of Windows - I "upgraded" my then boss's new laptop from ME to Windows 98, and everything just worked better.
|
|
|
|
|
My boss at the time (I became his boss a year or two later) bought a dual processor PC to run ME on in the hope of getting faster results from his PCB layout software.
ME only supports a single processor ... he wasn't happy.
Mind you, his layout software didn't work multithreaded even years later when he had an OS that supported multiple cores. 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
How about Windows Bob, that's got to be a top contender. Up until Windows 10 the normal Microsoft Tick/Tock was good/bad OS. That should have put Windows 10 as a fix for Windows 8, NOT! I just wish that rather than rounding the corners on things, they would actually fix things! It has been over a month since they broke my email, but at least it will have round corners? It's not the version of operating system I don't like, it's their constant breaking of their basic system that I'm tired of.
|
|
|
|
|
as for the look itself..
I think it's like fashion, its core value is to be different from the few guy just before.. hate or love it.. Both are valid.. and it's not really for me a selling point either way..
|
|
|
|
|
This is sooo true. Look at where Linux distros have gone. It used to be that you could install a linux flavor on anything older and it would work. Now alot of them require almost as much memory and harddrive space as windows.
Dev's don't care anymore about space other than honey. because space and CPU power are cheap at the moment comparatively.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
I would venture to say that Windows 8 was the "first" step backward... I can't stand Windows 10. The flat design kills me, the plethora of extra processes just to maintain a functional OS is crazy. While I did recently build a Windows 10 machine for myself, since I know that eventually, I will require it, my primary workstation is still a Windows 7 64 bit machine with 32Gb of RAM and a bunch of SSDs in a few RAID configurations. That said, my home networks are well fire-walled, in fact, friends/guests/visitors that require WIFI access get an entirely different router and and gateway. All of my development/testing/work resources are on a separate network from the rest of my home, so as long as I don't do something terribly stupid, the lack of new security updates is not of too much concern to me. If it ever gets to the point that I can't run all of the development tools that I require on W7 64 bit, then I will bite the bullet and transition to the Windows 10 box, but until such a time, Windows 7 still rocks!
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, Windows 8 got me started looking seriously at Linux and BSD as alternatives to Windows. I now run MX Linux as my main OS and only boot to Windows 10 for gaming and the occasional photo editing session (I dislike Gimp!). I'd probably be running BSD as my main OS if it had better support for modern hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
Even though the author ask about your experience with Windows XP
I agree with K Personett Windows 7 is the product that MS should have enhanced
and not over engineered I can only make this statement based on past experience
with MS OS's namely Windows 95 Windows XP and the nightmare of Windows ME
My experience with Windows ME taught me to READ what other professionals
thought about a new OS before I blindly upgraded because it was NEW and IMPROVED
My biggest complaint was when Microsoft and I had a go around about my copy of
Microsoft Office 2003 which I purchased on a DVD They refused to let me install
it on a new Widows 7 64 bit machine and accused me of trying to install pirated
software after numerous complaint emails to Bill Gates I did not believe someone
from MS contacted me and said the problem was fixed
Final thought FWIW New is nice if it includes Improvements with out
BLOAT and maintains backward comparability with high priced MS Software
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 7 was the natural evolution of Windows XP. I still use Windows XP virtual machines for running tons of JScripts that mimic xml-http clients that interact with the server products I write/maintain. I use 32 bit XP VMs mainly because the memory requirements are low and it runs well in a sandbox under Hyper-V. I still have some 64 bit XP installations backed up, but no need to run them any more due to the limited usage I require.
I don't do any PC based gaming. I spend enough time on computers while working.
|
|
|
|
|
For my Money the best version of Windows, the 'embedded' version XPe worked nearly every time even if the board had damage if it could. The desktop version aside from the odd BLue Screen was stable, all was right with the world 
|
|
|
|
|
XP is super for me. Once a year. I run it in a VM to print my Christmas card labels in Visual Foxpro. Then, I shut it down for a year.
10 is fine, runs faster because it is on much faster hardware. I can still run my Office 2000 on it (except LookOut)
I think my favorite was 2K.
None are my main OS. All via VM. Whatever works, works 
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought 7 was a definite improvement over XP. I don't want to have to learn enough to be qualified for tech support. But XP sometimes required that, whereas 7 rarely did. So I also didn't think 10 was much of an improvement on 7.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: First I have to admit I am a Microsoft apologist
Perhaps the best response possible to your own post.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I hardly used XP at all...just for testing. There was no need to move from 2K which I used until Win7. As for Win10, the only complaint I can think of is the forced updates/restarts.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
XP with the classic UI (none of that Fisher Price thing) was pretty good back in its day, but I wouldn't run it today because by now there's gotta be hundreds of known exploits that are never gonna get patched. 7 is also headed down that road.
I tolerate 10, but looking at the process list in Task Manager is appalling to say the least, and more and more apps are making things worse - if there's a memo that went out that said it was now okay to have 8 instances of the same EXE running (I'm looking at you, Chrome, Edge and Teams) then I didn't get it. In terms of UI, it's definitely a step back. Hiding scrollbars, window edges so thin I have a hard time grabbing onto them to resize windows, the lack of contrast so you can't even tell where one window ends and the other starts, undiscoverable UI elements...none of these increased usability.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: So please come at me with your anecdote why XP is better than W10!
It's not; it's just really quick, because lots of functionality that I'm used to is missing/not being loaded in XP. Because it didn't exist back then.
And got more programs open now than in the XP days; alt-tab away. Two different browsers, each with some tabs, Oxygen not included and Warcraft in the background, plus their respective launchers. Some messengers, discord, spotify, and an application that I'm testing to stream my games on youtube.
Yes, it takes it's time to boot, where XP was there in under 20 seconds. But then I stopped turning the machine of, and resuming an active session takes less than 20 seconds.
Lots of bloat? True. Do I care? Nope, not a bit
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
This (and the update issue, which hasn't affected me in the last 6 months) is the biggest detriment to Win10 I have: The Weird and The Wonderful: SSD use - run one of the programs in that thread and you will think things have gone insane!
|
|
|
|
|
I KINDA get that performance standpoint. MS surely took their time with Vista, so the period in time between XP and Vista was way longer, than between XP and 2000 or between Vista and 7. Meaning with XP, that "I'll never need to upgrade"-stance was way more likely to stuck than with any other Windows version. Same goes for the start menu, the "me n0 likey change"-crowd got quite a lot of time to get accustomed to XP, way more time than to any other Windows version. I agree with you, starting programs is way easier. That didn't really change since Vista though. In looks yes, in functionality barely if at all.
As for 10's performance, it runs absolutely fine on contemporary work/hobby-grade hardware. Even on my bathtub-reading-grade low-end Atom tablet (although I think some minimalistic Linux would yield better performance)!
Where 10 REALLY sucks though, is HDDs. Never ever again will I try to run Windows 10 off an HDD. This OS is soooo not working on a system HDD, it's incredible. If someone doesn't know the difference between an HDD and an SSD, I totally get how they would get the impression Windows 10 runs like an old lady through molasses, despite the CPU & RAM having Big Numbers on the discounter product box (because Big Numbers on the box is often all that matters, which leads to amoral companies stuffing huge HDDs into their boxes, instead of smaller but better SSDs). I bet, that would barely matter if at all unter Windows XP.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in XP we don't need to investigate the screen with 2 or more people to find out what row is the selected row...
I like how W10 works (except the spyware off course) but I hate how it looks.
We got all that PC power, we got graphical cards that have more power then old PC's, but we have such a limited GUI. Finding a button to push is sometimes a real challenge.
In in that regard, XP is superior to W10
|
|
|
|
|
Delphi.7.Solutions wrote: we got graphical cards that have more power then old PC's, but we have such a limited GUI
One of my main complaints about Windows 10. Now that it's safe to assume everyone's got the hardware to render (at least) 24-bit color, MS went back in time and Windows 10 wouldn't look all that different rendered on a CGA card from 1982.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in XP we don't need to investigate the screen with 2 or more people to find out what row is the selected row...
I like how W10 works (except the spyware off course) but I hate how it looks.
We got all that PC power, we got graphical cards that have more power then old PC's, but we have such a limited GUI. Finding a button to push is sometimes a real challenge.
In in that regard, XP is superior to W10
|
|
|
|
|
|
XP is so much better because:
- more frequent BSODs mean I know my OS cares about me and wants to interact!
- new installs on internet-connected machines are so vulnerable, they are typically taken over before the latest updates can install! This truly is the OS for everyone (well, everyone else)
- the duplo-inspired theme keeps me child-like all day long!
------------------------------------------------
If you say that getting the money
is the most important thing
You will spend your life
completely wasting your time
You will be doing things
you don't like doing
In order to go on living
That is, to go on doing things
you don't like doing
Which is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: a very quick search box
Exactly! You have to search for stuff, even when you know exactly where you put it! I use W10 with Classic Shell installed, giving me an XP-like start menu. I organise it the way that is logical for me, and I can access every application, tool and setting I need with a few mouse moves (don't need to click to show submenus, just hover). Whilst most of the time I know exactly where an item is, there are a few tools I use rarely that I forget the name of. E.g. why would my android emulator be called "bluestacks" for heavens' sake? Even if I forget the name, I know it's in the "emulators" folder and is therefore almost instantly accessible. Using the W10 search I'd need to remember the name of the blessed thing, then faff about typing it's name (hopefully without errors).
I've noted before on here that I believe Windows went downhill when it switched from Program Manager to File Explorer; that was the point at which the user lost control of their system, and Windows became an un-knowable jungle of stuff you had to hack through to find or do anything.
FWIW, best Windows op.system of all time? Windows2000. Installed in under 10 minutes, never once crashed, just gave me everything I needed.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
