|
gameson
Veteran
Posts: 285
Join Date: Sep, 2007
|
 |
« on: July 13, 2008, 03:41:05 AM » |
|
Just curious what everyone is thinking. Now people are cursing Vista, but before, there was another Windows that don't even get heard that much, Windows ME...
Please let me know if I miss anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
inedibleshoe
Regular
Posts: 191
Join Date: Aug, 2005
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2008, 09:52:04 AM » |
|
While the majority of the Internet hated ME, I had no issue with ME. I had endless troubles with 98SE though. Blue screen after blue screen. ME was infinitely better than 98SE.
Vista was OK. I went back to XP just to test how much of a speed difference there was (perceptive, not numbers based test). Couldn't see it.
Was a little worried about the Home Server data corruption bug earlier, thought Vista might be affected. Seems to be fixed now.
I'm on SP1 now. Will be upgrading to 64bit now I have the CD from the retail trade up programme.
Some of the cursing is justified. The whole DirectX10 thing (of which there's little to no benefit visual wise) looks just like a lock in attempt. And I think people are smarter now too. You can't get away with some of the stuff you could 10-15 years ago now. And as developers are starting to see the benefits of coding for multiple Operating Systems, so the dependance on Windows will be reduced. Eventually you'll see consumers staying with Windows by choice and not by lock in. Obviously that means less money for Microsoft but arguably more money for the tech sector as more companies start to jump in with their own ideas.
Microsoft is starting now to drum up DirectX 11 as the next big thing. So far we haven't seen a compelling case for 10 let alone 11. This sort of tactic worked back in DirectX 5 through 8. Its like they're beating a drum and yelling at everybody to get in line and march. People look at the fuss they're making, and see it as nothing more but a nuisance.
Sorta derailed there. TL;DR: Though 98SE brought a lot of good things to the table, the quality control just wasn't there. So 98SE is my answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tino
Vorsprung Durch Technik
Sudhian Administrator
Posts: 4,547
Join Date: Sep, 2004
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2008, 04:50:15 PM » |
|
Some would argue that all version's of Microsoft's Operating Systems were the worst ever. I have used everything from 95-Vista and I have to say ive not managed to keep with any one of them for longer than 2months before I decide to change back to either OS:X or a Linux based Distro (Normally Debian or SuSe)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timster
Ace
Posts: 2,845
Join Date: Jan, 2004
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2008, 05:50:00 PM » |
|
I voted for 95, although in retrospect ME might've been worse. I had very little problems with 95 in a home environment, but when put in a multi-user corporate environment, I spent alot of time pulling out hair and wanting to run out of the room screaming because of the weird things it would do.
Edited to add: Where's Windows NT?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2008, 08:12:03 PM » |
|
I've used all versions of windows from 3.1 through 6.0.
By today's standards set by Windows XP SP2+3 (+Resource Kits, AppCompatToolkit), they all seem bad.
The only truly bad product for it's day was Windows ME.
It should've never been released and apparently Microsoft (eventually) agreed.
Windows XP (32-bit) is currently the best quality product however when initially released, suffered from several key configuration issues including (but not limited to) not enabling the embedded firewall by default. A savvy user could identify and correct these issues before they became fatal however Microsoft should've configured the product for a more hostile environment (a.k.a. - the real world)[/i] to begin with. It came configured for use over a completely trusted and secure LAN versus WAN.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2008, 08:15:30 PM » |
|
I voted for 95, although in retrospect ME might've been worse. I had very little problems with 95 in a home environment, but when put in a multi-user corporate environment, I spent alot of time pulling out hair and wanting to run out of the room screaming because of the weird things it would do.
Edited to add: Where's Windows NT? ...and 2000. They were typically only used in businesses, though in modern times we've found that they've migrated to consumer homes along with the PCs that businesses were getting rid of. EDIT: Oh, he does have 2k up there. Server Editions ? - generally have most of the same features as the client editions and much more |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BrandJury
Veteran
Posts: 293
Join Date: Mar, 2008
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2008, 11:31:02 PM » |
|
I disliked 95 when it came out, but not enough to not use it.
I'm perhaps the only vocal Vista fan online.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gameson
Veteran
Posts: 285
Join Date: Sep, 2007
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2008, 01:44:15 AM » |
|
I voted for 95, although in retrospect ME might've been worse. I had very little problems with 95 in a home environment, but when put in a multi-user corporate environment, I spent alot of time pulling out hair and wanting to run out of the room screaming because of the weird things it would do.
Edited to add: Where's Windows NT? ...and 2000. They were typically only used in businesses, though in modern times we've found that they've migrated to consumer homes along with the PCs that businesses were getting rid of. EDIT: Oh, he does have 2k up there. Server Editions ? - generally have most of the same features as the client editions and much more Well, I omitted Windows NT because NT is not a popular public OS, unlike the one listed above. I picked the list above that the one public used most of the time. As for myself, I picked ME as the worst ever. It looks the same as 98, nothing different. 2nd worst is Vista, but then even Vista unreliability doesn't touch ME level. ME just sucks back in its day... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Salamander
Elite
Posts: 810
Join Date: Jan, 2008
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2008, 02:09:00 AM » |
|
Well I look it at this way; pick the worst OS which you must use as your main system today (and for a whole year!), then it's of course; 3.1.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timster
Ace
Posts: 2,845
Join Date: Jan, 2004
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2008, 05:32:36 AM » |
|
I've used all versions of windows from 3.1 through 6.0.
By today's standards set by Windows XP SP2+3 (+Resource Kits, AppCompatToolkit), they all seem bad.
The only truly bad product for it's day was Windows ME.
It should've never been released and apparently Microsoft (eventually) agreed.
Windows XP (32-bit) is currently the best quality product however when initially released, suffered from several key configuration issues including (but not limited to) not enabling the embedded firewall by default. A savvy user could identify and correct these issues before they became fatal however Microsoft should've configured the product for a more hostile environment (a.k.a. - the real world)[/i] to begin with. It came configured for use over a completely trusted and secure LAN versus WAN. In my opinion, XP was mostly a cosmetic upgrade for 2000, with a few options added. I've had the least problems under either version. Win2k worked so well for me I held off upgrading until I built my last pc a few years ago. 2k did everything I needed it to do, and didn't feel like replacing something that worked. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timster
Ace
Posts: 2,845
Join Date: Jan, 2004
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2008, 05:40:10 AM » |
|
Well I look it at this way; pick the worst OS which you must use as your main system today (and for a whole year!), then it's of course; 3.1. Just because it's antique and can't support alot of modern features, I'd partially agree, but when configured properly, I'd choose it over winME any time. I'd also pick a Model T Ford (in perfect running order) over a 1980 Plymouth Horizon any day. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Salamander
Elite
Posts: 810
Join Date: Jan, 2008
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2008, 10:38:20 AM » |
|
ME wasn't that bad, just a bit unstable. At least I can still drive full speed and it still look decent on the outside with paint in millions of colors  But sure differences are rich (in choices as well) so just take/use what's best in your eyes of course. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rrussell
Ace
Posts: 3,306
Join Date: Jul, 2004
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2008, 05:00:20 PM » |
|
You forgot "BOB."
(Although, I suppose TECHNICALLY that's not a version of Windows...)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Babar
Sudhian Administrator
Posts: 5,470
Join Date: Jul, 2003
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2008, 06:14:47 PM » |
|
Incidentally, Melinda Gates was on the team that developed BOB.
I voted for Windows ME. What a pile o' crap. It came preinstalled on a laptop I bought in college and it wasn't long before I uninstalled it and put Win98 on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
crosscourt
Game Guru
Posts: 22,215
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2008, 07:55:04 PM » |
|
Ill second that Babar, WinME overall was the worst Windows experience Ive had....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Viahardware.com first moderator
|
|
|
|
Timster
Ace
Posts: 2,845
Join Date: Jan, 2004
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2008, 04:30:50 AM » |
|
When they made ME, they stuffed 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag. It's like they pumped up 98SE on steroids, and all they got was shrunken private parts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
crosscourt
Game Guru
Posts: 22,215
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2008, 04:46:52 AM » |
|
LOL!! Timster
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Viahardware.com first moderator
|
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2008, 05:32:47 PM » |
|
I've used all versions of windows from 3.1 through 6.0.
By today's standards set by Windows XP SP2+3 (+Resource Kits, AppCompatToolkit), they all seem bad.
The only truly bad product for it's day was Windows ME.
It should've never been released and apparently Microsoft (eventually) agreed.
Windows XP (32-bit) is currently the best quality product however when initially released, suffered from several key configuration issues including (but not limited to) not enabling the embedded firewall by default. A savvy user could identify and correct these issues before they became fatal however Microsoft should've configured the product for a more hostile environment (a.k.a. - the real world)[/i] to begin with. It came configured for use over a completely trusted and secure LAN versus WAN. In my opinion, XP was mostly a cosmetic upgrade for 2000, with a few options added. I've had the least problems under either version. Win2k worked so well for me I held off upgrading until I built my last pc a few years ago. 2k did everything I needed it to do, and didn't feel like replacing something that worked. At the core they were very similar. In addition to the dress & earrings, Win2k I believe lacked an embedded firewall. WinXP at least had one, they just failed to turned the damned thing on by default. Outside of a business environment with no professional-level support and sitting directly on the net as an unsecure client, the problems it suffered probably would've been a little worse than XP. System Restore will actually work quite well when the PC is operated from a non-administrative account. On an semi-unrelated note, I've recently had two, 2k users in the past month and both were sitting behind hardware firewalls but warned them about continuing to use IE versus Opera, FireFox & Safari as Microsoft quit supporting/updating 2k years ago. (by the way it's been my observation that software firewalls generally offer better protection from unsolicited traffic) EDIT: I forgot that Safari won't install on Win2kSP4 even after running the MSI4.5 installer. There's a way to get it on there, just didn't take the time to explore the options given that Opera & FireFox install & run fine. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
VorLonUK
Ace
Posts: 3,760
Join Date: Nov, 2002
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2008, 01:15:37 PM » |
|
I'd say Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hugh
Ace
Posts: 4,371
Join Date: Nov, 2005
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2008, 02:00:25 PM » |
|
i used the likes of 95 a tiny bit when i was about 8 so doesn't really count, so from the experience i've had i'd have to say XP is my least fav.
counter to other peoples opinions, i am in love with vista and really havn't found a thing that would make me think any other way
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Quartz-1
Veteran
Posts: 252
Join Date: Aug, 2006
|
|
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2008, 04:01:13 AM » |
|
I voted for ME - truly a stinker. But I'm an aging fart now and I remember the excrescences that were Windows 1 and Windows 2. EGA monitors, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ashtefere
Elite
Posts: 825
Join Date: Nov, 2006
|
|
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2008, 06:37:21 AM » |
|
Well, I think we all agree that ME was a pile of crap, although its problems WERE numerous (bluescreens whenever it felt like it) none of them were serious.
On the release of Vistard we had some very serious problems - lots and lots of hard disk corruption/file transfer issues, lots of performance issues (which did not happen with 98-me) and lots of dropped features. Most of the features planned for vista that were the cause of people upgraded were dropped, and still dont exist.
Not only that, but Vista was the first OS were microsoft really tried to push users into upgrading against their will. In the end, Vista only offered one thing that XP did not have, and that was DX10 - a feature that only a handful of games (5 or so?) use anyway.
Although this is all retrospective - I am using vista (server 2008 actually) right now so I can't really complain. I guess having a linux on dual boot allows me to put up with it though.
In fact, the only vista's that I could get to work well are pirated copies (imagine that! - note* I DO own a server 2k8 license... I just installed the copy I got from bittorrent because of the product activation removal)
But yeah - WinME was a pile of crud... Vista was even worse.
-Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Quartz-1
Veteran
Posts: 252
Join Date: Aug, 2006
|
|
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2008, 07:28:54 AM » |
|
Vista has actually matured quite nicely. Perhaps I'm looking at a longer view than others, but I see Vista as a transition product: the transition being from 32 bit to 64 bit. Remember that the mass transition from 16 bit to 32 bit took over 5 years and 3 products - Win32S to Windows 95 to Windows 98 (maybe Windows 2000 too).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shuttle-Boy
Veteran
Posts: 408
Join Date: Feb, 2007
|
|
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2008, 10:23:00 AM » |
|
I've tried Vista for a several months. In my opinion, Vista looks better, but I just couldn't take the performance degradation of Vista compared to XP.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2008, 10:17:45 AM » |
|
........ lots and lots of hard disk corruption/file transfer issues, .............. I've quietly updated my post here http://www.sudhian.com/index.php?/forums/viewpost/887826/ explaining that the cause of the issue (in my case) was resuming XP (from hibernation) on the drive after it's contents had been altered. So for example, hibernating XP then manipulating the drive using Linux, Windows or other, then resuming XP would likely result in drive corruption. As far as ME it had loads of problems and issues with unresponsiveness and lengthy freezes in addition to the BSoDs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
