Well, it’s true.
via: [Fail Blog M-F]
Failed Post!! Windows 2000 was excellent despite driver and incompatible software
wouldn’t that make it CRAP?
They left out the NT series until it reached the desktop, I guess it was hard to work-in the parallel workstation releases.
I ran NT4 Workstation until about 7 years ago with no problems whatsoever. Then I migrated to XP SP2 – from there I went to Ubuntu Linux and haven’t looked back. I worked as a tech/IT guy for years and I’ve never seen anything as bad as Vista.
Win 2k and 2k3 were alright, I beta tested both heavily but never ran them as a primary OS.
Just like star trek movies
The beta is amazeballs so I cant imagine this one being as bad as Vista.
I beta tested Vista during Longhorn phase, it was incredible before the RC’s came out.
I don’t see why Windows 95 was crap. After using Windows 3.1 for a few years it was bloody awesome!
We used a computer with Windows 95 from like 1996 to 2000~2002 and it worked fine, I still power it on once in a while to see how it’s doing :p 133 MHz Pentium and 48 MB of RAM!
It was crap on release because it would’t run to the box specs, you needed (for the time) an powerful machine to get it to go. If you had that it was great, if you didn’t it was a disappointing frustration.
Metro sucks. +1 to post!
I still don’t get the Vista bashing. They went forward, a ton of drivers were never updated, and especially not updated on time, so Vista fails? I think crap for ME is a bit of stretch too… That is far better than it deserves.
ME Crap?! You must not be a gamer. Memory improvements, faster start up-shut downs, the ability to change file associations from the file, not having to dig into control panel-file types. I feel ME did to 98SE what 98 did to 95
Windows ME was bogged down with a lot of additions and updates that made it a very large install and high memory upkeep. Also after about 6 months it never failed that something got corrupted and the OS failed to boot. However were I to install it or 98 on a computer today, I would get me for slightly better online protection, and better compatibility with even basic hardware like usb devices.
in what universe what 98 good? 95, 98, and me all sucked and im glad that that line of windows is dead.
You have the wrong labels on the first three.
This makes me sad.
DOS – OK
Win3.1 – Crap
Win95 – OK
WinNT – OK -> NT3.5 – GOOD
Win98 – OK -> Win98SE – GOOD
WinME – Crap
Win2k – GOOD
WinXP – OK -> XPSP3 – GREAT
WinVista – Crap
Win7 – OK
Win8 – Crap (metro ftl)
Some actually got better as updates were rolled out. XP was merely ok at release and really got far better with Service Packs. Same with 98 it was alright at release but SE was much better and cleaner. I think Win7 still has room for improvement and will probably improve some with updates. This is of course based on what was available at the time they were in use.
I would give windows 3.1 more credit. When working with windows programs it was great. GUI web browsers like mozilla, AOL, mod4win, mIRC, fonds memorys if 3.1 I had.
XP was GOOD when it hit sp2. I don’t recall anything special in sp3 actually, sp2 gave the integrated firewall.
A few bads here.
#1 windows 95 was GREAT. Yes, it was bad with backward compatability with DOS programs, but it is windows for crying out loud. If you stuck to windows programs it was fantastic, beats the hell out of 3.11.
#2 as mentioned above, missing windows 2000. Simply a fantastic OS and was actually supported by a fair amount of games and programs before and after XP. I didn’t hop from 2000 to XP until about 2 years after XP was released, and it was cause need for speed underground 2 had a slowdown bug in 2000.
#3 I never really had a problem with vista. Performance might have been down slightly but it looked better and the UAC is one of the best forms of rogue program execution protection you can ask for.
but yea windows 8 looks to be crap. performance wise im sure it will be fine but the new UI elements? keep em.
95 was definitely not crap, and they forgot 2000 as good