POLL : The worse Microsoft OS ever made....

Which is the worse ever OS?

  • Total voters
    149
I vote that M.E is the badest because I had a window m.e computer and it had so much errors plus it was slow. So I recently changed it to xp.
 
Service packs and patches never change the systems performance. Not drasticly anyway.
Click to expand...
Ah but they do. Windows 95 initial release was god awful, but after a service pack or 2 it was ok. Windows 98, again initial release was terrible but by the sime second edition rolled around it was ok.
 
i guess i've just never heard any complaints about 2000 where as I have with 2k. This complaining probably arises from the more ppl using xp than 2000. It being newer and more compatible makes sense. I was just throwing that out there to see what you guys thought.
 
Byteman said:
DOS. It's the mistake that bill built unstable shells on top of, (Win95/98/me) and has taken him years to completely get out of production, and producing nos DOS os's (WinNT/2k/XP).
Click to expand...
Woah! Unstable!? It's a similar situation as to Linux, just to a much lighter degree. If you know what you're doing Windows 9X works like a dream. I've never had a problem that has persisted for more than an hour, and I've been running 98 since I was about 8 years old. All that's changed from 98 to NTFS systems is some serious idiot-proofing, and a loss of DOS compatibility. Granted, a lot of backwards compatibility is baggage, as Praetor stated, but look at Linux. Linux is, with a little tweaking, backwards compatible with just about anything. It's also much much faster than Windows OS's. If backwards compatibility is being sluffed off of new Windows OS's to increase performance, why is Linux able to handle it no problem? Simple. Idiot-proofing. If Windows were to make an advanced user OS, they wouldn't have to worry about spending 40% of their time coding to prevent dipwads from deleting system files.
 
If you know what you're doing Windows 9X works like a dream. I've never had a problem that has persisted for more than an hour, and I've been running 98 since I was about 8 years old.
Click to expand...
Well you will also know then that in a pre-2K environment you can write programs that fck with hardware directly ... which is stupid ... just stop and think about that

All that's changed from 98 to NTFS systems is some serious idiot-proofing, and a loss of DOS compatibility
Click to expand...
Ill go easy on you cuz yer only 15 and say simply that, that was not the only change.

It's also much much faster than Windows OS's.
Click to expand...
Yes but development under a linux platform, efficient or otherwise is a pain whereas Windows development is heavily supported and if the community wants stuff badly enough, APIs get made

If backwards compatibility is being sluffed off of new Windows OS's to increase performance, why is Linux able to handle it no problem?
Click to expand...
Yes but linux, based on Unix is a lot older than windows. One would expect nothing less. Furthermore, id like to see linux run -- straight out of the box, an arbitrary application, selected from a list of every single x86 application.

Idiot-proofing. If Windows were to make an advanced user OS, they wouldn't have to worry about spending 40% of their time coding to prevent dipwads from deleting system files.
Click to expand...
And then people wouldnt use computers meaning there wouldnt be nearly the same market as there is now... meaning less hardware devlopment....
 
they wouldn't have to worry about spending 40% of their time coding to prevent dipwads from deleting system files
Click to expand...
Yes but unleash those same dipwads on a unix based system and you'll have some serious issues. The OSs are targeted at a different user base, claiming an advanced user OS would prevent dipwads from deleting stuff is crazy, dipwads are, by denfinition, dipwads and will bugger up any and everything they can
 
Cromewell said:
Yes but unleash those same dipwads on a unix based system and you'll have some serious issues. The OSs are targeted at a different user base, claiming an advanced user OS would prevent dipwads from deleting stuff is crazy, dipwads are, by denfinition, dipwads and will bugger up any and everything they can
Click to expand...
True enough. More or less the point of my post was more to the effect that if Microsoft would gear a small portion of their efforts to providing an advanced user operating system, they would have a handhold in the advanced user market. Advanced users tend to be much more committed to IT, and if they created an advanced user OS, as well as a series of advanced user applications, they would be able to offer a system that can handle, with great efficiency, not only backwards compatibility, but additionally security functionality, graphical editing capabilities, multi-tasking, and a host of other features that are generally lacking (or that could use improvement).

I'm by no means an advocate of Microsoft products, I'm just amazed that they've let the advanced user market pass them by.

Not only would they have a hand-hold in the advanced user market, but if those same dipwads decided to use the advanced user OS, it could only mean profit for Microsoft ;) . For MS, it's a win/win.
 
Last edited:
I'm by no means an advocate of Microsoft products, I'm just amazed that they've let the advanced user market pass them by.
Click to expand...
By the same means AMD and Intel dont live on the sales of their top end processors but rather to the majority.
 
I'd have to say that since I run 4 comp's here at the house and laptop for mobile office work each likes a different operating system.
My Gateway has tried all the operating systems and with it's 600 celeron processor it runs best on windows xp pro.
My dell with the 2.0 gig p4 hates everything but Linux Turkix.
My amd with it's 1.8 runs great on 2000.
Laptop likes 98 s.e. Probably because its a 133 mhz.
The compaq runs win xp pro fine as well on its 600 celeron as well.

Notice never mentioned 95 or 98 except for s.e.
IMHO it's not which operating is best it's what the machine readily runs the best.
as far as backwards compatiblity if it didnt have that feature avail why would you want it? Seems like all the software I have I paid dearly for it.
 
Last edited:
I have been fortunate enough no to have dealt with ME. My buddy has though, and I had to convince him to go back to 98 or up to 2000, but his games wouldn't play well on 2000 so he settle on XP.

ME=not good. Worse software title since Microsoft Paint.
 
Windows 2000 was my first taste of a reasonably stable microsoft OS. I never really liked 98 SE so when i got fed up with ME crashing cos i had too much RAM there was only one choice that i was willing to make... didn't have many drivers straight out of the box but once it was all set up i never looked back
 
I was quite pleased with a tweaked 98se (great gaming os at the time).

Btw winxp_hater, what do you dislike about this awesome os? I'm just being curious.. :)
 
Last edited:
Tweaker nothing really just thought it made for a good name. O.K I b.s'ed a lil . I have the file hang up thing other then that thought it has proven itself as great. Best thing is no blue screen of death ......................
 
winxp_hater said:
I have the file hang up thing
Click to expand...

Oh you mean the,

"Cannot delete X: It is being used by another person or program. Close any programs that might be using the file and try again."

issue?

Is that easily fixed problem supposed to be a reason to hate XP.. :P

j/k :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top