Electronics & Computers Deals here!
Community weekly poll: Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst
- 3/1/07 5:08 PM
Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 3/1/07 5:08 PM
Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst and why so?
Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows NT
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition (SE)
Windows Millennium Edition (Me)
Windows 2000
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Pro
I don't use Windows
Other (what is it?)
I don't use MS-Windows.
by clsgis - 3/1/07 11:12 PM In reply to: Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I've been using GNU+Linux at home since '92, and before that I had SCO and Xenix.
But of course I'm always repairing and updating MS-Windows for my friends who still use it, and now and then I've had to use it at work. I had to set up and run a software QA lab with a bunch of Windoze 98 boxes as the test clients. '98 was pretty bad; that was the one where they introduced "Active-X controls." Never saw Millipede Edition, or whatever it was called before they scrapped that kernel. Extreme Pain was a big step backwards from MS-Windows 2K. So much cruft. No wonder the biggest customers stayed on 2K.
The first ones were the worst. MSFT clearly had no idea why people wanted reactive user interfaces or multitasking or even a window system. When you have no idea why you're imitating something you just can't do a good job. And they had to do it in a convoluted way that wouldn't break all those MS-DOS programs that went around the OS because the OS didn't have the functionality they needed. Users' security was contrary to their whole corporate mission, and still is, so the lack of that's been a constant. So my vote is for 2.0 through 3.1, worst window system ever, worst operating system, worst file system, worst networking. Those were especially pathetic when you compared them to the cool stuff NBI and Atari and Mindset and Sun were doing around the same time.
What brainiac came up with the notion of hardwiring the window manager into the kernel? You can't replace it with a window manager from somebody else. (Of course that's why they did it that way. No more Quarterdecks.) You can't adjust the mouse focus policy. You're stuck with click-to-focus with autoraise, like it or not. How dumb is that. (Have they fixed it in Vista?) Focus-follows-mouse rocks.
Windows 3.0 - Worst Operating System Ever
by vogrijo - 3/2/07 6:13 PM In reply to: I don't use MS-Windows. by clsgisOkay, long answer short. When judging worst operating system ever designed, let's make sure the criteria is objective. An operating system has to perform five basic functions. First it must make accessing information easier for the user, it's a user interface not a computer interface. Second, you must spend more time working with the application than fixing it. Third, it must play well with others, which is specifically networking. Fourth, it needs to make the security of the user a forethought, not an afterthought. Lastly, the addition of new applications should not break existing applications.
No other system in the history of computing failed in all of these areas as completely as The Windows early operating system. It is correct to conclude that they were building it without understanding why.
But, if you don't like Windows today, you are saying you didn't like Apple ten years ago. Windows is a cheap knockoff of the Mac OS a decade behind, and always has been, although Vista is looking closer to OSX than it ever has before.
But 3.11 for workgroups was the last time I ever told anyone that Windows would be 'fixed' with the next release.
I have a BUNCH of old computers laying around, and I am wondering...
How does one go about getting Linux?
Nearly all the Windows OS were almost OK in their time
by feemery - 3/2/07 6:48 PM In reply to: Windows 3.0 - Worst Operating System Ever by vogrijoI think that Win 3.11 was a big improvement over 3.1 mainly because of the networking capability. That was about the time that I set up our home network and needed Win 3.11.
It is easy to overload Windows -- especially up through Win 98SE (and maybe Win ME -- which I didn't get since essentially all the reviews said that Win98SE was equivalent) and then get the blue screen of death. WinXP is much more stable (I have WinXP Home and WinXP Pro and for my uses they are pretty much equivalent). However, there are times that, even without the blue screen of death one needs to reboot the computer. Generally speaking if that happens, the system has stored where you were and will bring back the document you were working on.
I considered Linux, but have an old (1993) laser printer that is working well. Turns out there are no Linux drivers. At least through WinXP there are drivers.
Frank
How to escape, not exactly apple knockoff
by clsgis - 3/3/07 10:57 AM In reply to: Windows 3.0 - Worst Operating System Ever by vogrijo"Windows is a cheap knockoff of the Mac OS"
People think that because Mac OS was the only system of that generation that they saw. But Mac OS and MS-Windows were both imitations of the Xerox Alto aka Xerox Star aka Versatec Expert. And the Alto/Star/Expert was Xerox' attempt to make a product out of the concepts and prototypes that were coming out of universities at the time, mainly Project Athena at MIT. It was early, but it wasn't the only. Around the time Apple was trying to make a viable product out of the Lisa, Sun was selling something like it. So were Apollo Computer, Daisy, Mentor, SGI, NBI. Everybody in the Valley was looking at these "professional workstations" and trying to make machines people could afford that presented the same general user interface and networking. MSFT had the handicaps that they couldn't afford to break the MS-DOS application base that gave their monopoly its grip, and they had to sort-of run on a variety of relatively flaky hardware.
"if you don't like Windows today, you are saying you didn't like Apple ten years ago."
Ten years ago I had Sun and Slackware's GNU/Linux in the office. My Macintosh was gathering dust in the hallway because 3Com's outsourced IT department was unable to repair it and nobody wanted it. Macs are as hard to troubleshoot as IBM-compatibles. I had a Windows 95 April Beta on a partition on the Linux box but never used it. Both the Sun and Slackware were running the Open Look Virtual Window Manager, which Sun had just open-sourced. It was easier to use than than Mac or Windoze because of its virtual desktops and superior mouse focus policy. But the main thing is they never ever crashed. Windoze and Mac OS crashed routinely. I was doing real work and could not afford interruptions. We had regression test suites that ran for several days, and I was running twenty of them at once, each on its own desktop, with a few more desktops for office work and my own hardware design work. Those window systems had to stay up forever, and they did. Sometimes I think the main thing MS-Windows and the early Mac OS did was lower the users' expectations of reliability. They actually convinced you that it's normal for computers to crash. They gave you a euphemism, "lock up." Amazing.
"How does one go about getting Linux?"
My advice is just goof around with "live" CDs for a while. Get your feet wet with no risk or commitment. Learn how to participate in the free software community, as a newbie asking for help the right way (Google for "smart questions" right now) so that by the time you *need* help you'll know how to get it. We're an incredibly supportive group, as long as it seems like you're trying. The point is there is more to moving to free software than "getting" anything. When you're a MSFT or Mac OS customer, you're buying products. When you're a free software user, you're sharing services. It's a fundamentally different way to equip yourself. You've already begun, by asking a thoughtful question. A thoughtful question is a contribution, a service to the community. Lots of other people were thinking the same question but you expressed it.
My favorite all-around "Live Linux" CD is Knoppix. Most people seem to like Kubuntu or Ubuntu better. Slax, Cent-OS Live, and DamnsmallLinux are worth trying too. If you have broadband and a CD burner you can download and burn them yourself. On dialup, you'll find dozens of mail order vendors at www.debian.org/CD/vendors/. Most of them carry a good variety, and they're more focused than the ones you'll find randomly on ebay.
Don't install anything for a while. Get a USB flash drive and put two partitions on it: a Linux type ext3 file system for your "home directory," and a Linux swap partition. Make the swap partition between 100 MB and twice the size of the RAM on your motherboard, whatever fits on your flash drive. Most Live CDs have a feature for doing this with a more-or-less user friendly GUI. Now you can do real work with whatever Linux you happen to have booted right now, without starting all over each time. Get used to that environment. *Then* think about choosing a distribution and installing.
reply to clsgis
by stewartmq - 3/5/07 8:31 AM In reply to: Windows 3.0 - Worst Operating System Ever by vogrijoXerox+Tabulating company+ a cheap buyout of one (Xerox)= this discusion.
If history serves corect??
the boyes from (that place (its late)) anyway
it is the knockoff from the mach os (it is (Xerox))
which ever way you want that
apart from that i have used apple (even picked up an old one latly (not supported any more there is someone in town that mite be able to help this sitch for at least a few minutes anyways)ps am lookink for an old game(edu?)acity/dy? use of angled lasers+rolling old round bombs from old navydays used ,heavy use of angle ajustment anyway??)
ps i think it was a demo???
IF ANY APPLE USERS out there as i am looking to play on PC 1day??
as for O.S's youmight want to try the pc -MAGs for copy of Linux
they have one that's boot's from cd nowdays thogh it is still misted
from the older prog (4 ver on 5.25" from freind, + on 256MB tape have reader just ) but many os's out there,
Hay Here idea (Reinventing the wheel maby buuut??)
not fully refering to the replye altogether
but if you are up to the task jim should you chose to apcet it??
maby try to learn the prog to try prog from well almost scratch
eg c, c+, c++. check mags+? what they using these days
as stated not much hear about but theyerle be usn dos somewhere???...
ohyeah this prog wont ex/desintergrate in 30sec...
mayby jus th kbrd, as for th mouse ?????
stewartmq@bigpond.com
iiitttsss late here gota go
you ben good
0130am it dark
Windoze?
by Ptero-4 - 4/8/07 8:21 PM In reply to: I don't use MS-Windows. by clsgisI heard of this thing called Windoze when I was just a kid, but I never quite used it. I used Mac first (family computer) and then recently got myself a laptop with Ubuntu preloaded, so all I can say is that MS Windows is the worst OS ever, and BTW Does it still exist, I thought it went extinct along Xerox and comodore 64?
I own a ME install CD and never installed it.
by acoxon1274 - 3/2/07 8:52 AM In reply to: Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I bought ME and built a computer for it and then decided against it. Too many problems were showing up in the forums and with XP's release, ME seemed foolish. Why learn ME if XP is already replacing it. ME could not be used on my older computers because it would not install on computers with CPUs below 250 MHz so the older slower computers had to stay Win98. I would be stuck dealing with two Miscrosoft OSs to keep up to date. It quickly became more trouble than it was worth. Final insult was that Win98's and ME's product life cycle ended together. One of the reasons I even tried to work with ME was to avoid an OS with no support and when they extended 98 I felt they should have extended ME support life cycle beyond 98's but they didn't. I have 2 distros of Linux and I'm looking to buy an older MAC that can run that Bootcamp software and I want to learn more about microsofts virtual machine type Vista software so I can run my old software.
Windows ME is a peice of junk
by mrobinsonjr - 3/2/07 5:26 PM In reply to: Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I had a friend who upgraded his Gateway desktop computer from Windows 98 to Windows ME. The problems are: it slowed the computer down, and the disk defragmenter freezes and then we have to restart the computer, and it messed up his drivers he had to reinstall his drivers. thats the problems he had with Windows ME.
Win Me, the worst EVER!
by PumaSpirit - 3/2/07 9:15 PM In reply to: Windows ME is a peice of junk by mrobinsonjrSystem crashes, freezes, blue screens, red screens.... you name it. Win ME has got it. Want to drive yourself to an early grave? Install ME, lol
Regular Reinstalls?
by philthee - 3/3/07 1:21 AM In reply to: Windows ME is a peice of junk by mrobinsonjrMaybe I got lucky, but after battling for 18 months with 98 (bad) and 98SE (worse), I found Windows Me to be the most stable of the non-NT Windows flavours. Used it from September 2000 until September 2003 with a reinstall once every 12 months (plus an extra one for a motherboard replacement). Perhaps the reinstalls were the key to my success?
patricpoo9
by patricpoo9 - 3/2/07 5:26 PM In reply to: Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
i want my windows xp 2 back ,i do not like windows vista 95 at all.
No such animal
by albizzia - 3/8/07 12:47 PM In reply to: patricpoo9 by patricpoo9There is no "windows vista 95", there was Windows 95 (issued in 1995) and Windows Vista (recent release)
If you got something labeled "windows vista 95" you got something BOGUS!
Back up your critical files, then re-install from your original restore disks.
Microsofts worst version
by Billba - 3/2/07 5:31 PM In reply to: Which Microsoft Windows version would you consider the worst by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Windows ME,was there anything good about it???
Oh Ya got the company through a couple of years of Being very unproductive.
Agree that ME is worst..
by aboyer - 3/3/07 5:10 AM In reply to: Microsofts worst version by Billba..but Win2K actually came out shortly before ME. Not even sure why they released ME. I suspect they felt compelled to scrape more money out of the 98 users that didnt have the PC horsepower to run 2K. But certainly no unproductivity on MS part as Win2k shortly after became XP, which both were extreme improvements over their DOS-based counterparts.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
