This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Can someone explain to me which Windows iterations sucked and why?

#21PhilOnDezPosted 8/19/2013 1:00:44 PM
I think a big part of Vista being unpopular was because of how much more resource intensive it was vs XP. I had a computer that ran fine on 256mb ram on XP, vs one with 1gig wasn't nearly enough for Vista. I put in 2 gigs and that computer literally ran twice as fast. When they started shipping laptops/prebuilts with Vista it was just the same hardware as they had been shipping out with XP beforehand. The people I've talked to who had decently powerful gaming rigs at the time never had much problem with it. I only ever had a cheap laptop with it, along with my mom had a cheaper laptop with it and neither ran particularly well (The latter was the one where I installed the new ram for massive improvements)
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#22MarceloSampaioPosted 8/19/2013 1:01:09 PM
Lets see, from what I used:

-Windows 3.11 - Good. Light, even for the PCs at the time, and stable. Not great because the interface was too convoluted. But the File Manager was great. Didn't felt like a real OS, but just a Dos Shell. Installing hardware drivers was a pain, and making Internet work was a hit-and-miss thing;

-Windows 95 - Good. Great interface, felt like a real OS, instead of a Dos Shell. But was TOO unstable, and too resource-heavy for PCs at the time. Making Internet work was easier, but still problematic;

-Windows 98 - Great. More stable than Windows 95, but has some of the same issues. In fact, its soo similar to Win95 that it should be called Win95SE.

-Windows 98 SE - Better than vanilla 98. Even more stable, installing hardware was less problematic, and making Internet work was quite simple. USB started working better in here. The Plug-and-play feature was more like Plug-and-PREY though...

-Windows ME - HORRIBLE!! Unstable, incomplete, heavy, and installing drivers was more problematic than windows 95... It also removed MS-DOS compatibility for the first time. I hated this thing...

-Windows XP - My favorite Windows. Stable, easier to use, easier to connect to the Internet, drivers worked well enough. But was a bit resource-heavy again. Still, a fantastic Windows. :)

-Windows Vista - Millenium again... No really, the idea behind it wasn't bad, but the execution sucked. It felt more like a beta version of Windows 7. Unstable, big, resource-heavy, had too many issues with drivers instalations and had MANY issues with older softwares.

-Windows 7 - I like it. Its good, more light than Vista, stable and driver-friendly. Like Vista, the Control Panel is less effective than in Win9x, but its a great Windows to use. I'm still using it.
---
:3
If you accept Gaben as your true lard and savior, put this on your sig. :)
#23Digital StormPosted 8/19/2013 1:05:55 PM
What? No mention of Windows 95B and C?
---
Ooo eee, oo ah ah, ting tang, walla walla bing bang.
#24JonWood007Posted 8/19/2013 3:01:01 PM
I didnt know 95 was bad. I know 98 was an improved version, but I thought 95 was considered good.

ME was awful I heard, and Vista had a horrible launch. Everything I hear of 8 is bad. Isn't it basically made for a cell phone and makes absolutely no sense for a PC user? Everyone I know who gets a comp with windows 8 seems to hate it.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#25MarceloSampaioPosted 8/19/2013 3:16:38 PM
JonWood007 posted...
I didnt know 95 was bad. I know 98 was an improved version, but I thought 95 was considered good.


It was not BAD. Just unstable. Crashed too much. It was to easy to see a BSOD. It was easy to hack. But 95 was to 98 what the Vista is to Seven: no more than a beta version.

But keep in mind that 95 was quite well accepted when it was released. People started to bash it only after the release of 98. ;)
---
:3
If you accept Gaben as your true lard and savior, put this on your sig. :)
#26fataliPosted 8/20/2013 5:16:14 PM(edited)
WyzeGye posted...


your logic can be blown wide open with 4 words... "Windows 2000 was ok"

Plus, arbitrary criticism of windows 8 doesnt make you cool.


Actually was windows NT 4.0 ok, then windows 2000 not ok if you want to include workgroup windows.

And I like win 8, it just bothersome to go back and forth from modern UI to the standard apps, is also annoying to not be able to set modern UI apps to use half of the screen each. But I think 8.1 will fix that last one.
---
Mystery is the source of all true science.
#27arleasPosted 8/20/2013 6:48:44 PM
3.1 looked like crap, 95 looked like polished crap. 98 looked like a polished 95. I never used windows ME but I heard more than enough complaints from friends who DID use it to know it was a nightmare. Windows NT looked like crap.

I say "looked like" because I didn't use it enough... Basically, I had access to it on a few occasions but I wasn't spending a lot of time on those OS's. If I thought it looked like crap, I didn't enjoy using it but maybe I didn't have any significant problems with it.

Windows 2000 was ok, windows XP was just a polished Windows 2000 (Literally, Windows 2000 was NT 5.0, XP was 5.1) Vista was crap when it first came out and couldn't live down the reputation. Windows 7 was just a polished version of Vista Post crap stage.
---
http://raptr.com/badge/arleas/uc.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2868545294.png
#28Orestes417Posted 8/20/2013 6:51:26 PM
2000 was the single best OS MS has ever released taking into account the time differences. XP was viewed as bloated fisher price garbage till at least the first expac, with some people maintaining that stance till the seconds.
---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.