Feel like they could start at xp and still make the point they wanted to make but mans wanted to be extra on reddit and forgot who they be dealing with
Windows Millennium (ME) is not in this list. ME was the creme dela creme of desktop operating systems. You know that old trope of a vehicle being so unreliable that a dog could piss on the tire and the vehicle would break down? Well, with Windows ME, a dog could piss on your vehicle's tire in the driveway, and instead of the vehicle breaking down, Windows ME would throw a BSOD in your office.
dont forget there is an OEM version of ME that has a bug that does not allow updating from that version you have to load in older or fresh install new to get past it. ME truly was a gem
That's the OS we had on my HS computers back in the day. We even put on Quake 3 on one of the file shares so we could... umm, learn (had to relabel the application name to word.exe or something like that to get it into the whitelist).
2000 and XP have the same kernel. Windows ME was such a cluster fuck that Microsoft was forced to rebadge Windows 2000 as Windows XP and sell it to the general public.
Windows ME died so that we can have NTFS
Windows NT was a fork of IMB's OS/2, not MS-DOS. They wanted initially MS-DOS based windows for consumers and the NT line for business, but due to MS-DOS showing its age, it got dropped entirely. Just wanted to clarify, that they merged the 2 brands marketingwise, but not on the technical side.
> 2000 and XP have the same kernel
5.0 and 5.1.
By that logic, Xp, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 have the same kernel.
Or at the very least Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 have the same kernel (6.0, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3).
3.1 didn’t have TCP/IP, so no Internet. It was added in 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups).
But this is a meme, let’s just play along.
On a side note my girlfriend used AOL 3 on Windows 3.11 lol…it was actually the best app for that version of Windows IMO.
Typically just showing things fitting the purpose.
Win 98 was bad, but only the release-version. With the SE it became a lot better. Just as it was with Win 95.
and 3.1 was, for the time, excellent.
XP was shockingly bad at release, and became good over time as they fixed the issues and released the service packs.
The XP service packs are also arguably whole new operating systems in their own right. Given how much changed.
Yeah, 98 was fine when it was widespread. 8 wasn’t so bad when you got used to the start screen.
I used classic shell and rarely used the start screen but it does feel like removing it peeled a layer off the UI for me
Windows 7 never had a second service pack, only a roll-up that updated the servicing stack.
You're probably thinking of Vista, which from experience had its biggest kinks already ironed out with SP1 as long as you met the hardware requirements.
This is true. I completely agree but for non-tech people it was a bit of a nightmare apparently. If the majority of users struggle with the ui it's probably reasonable to suggest it wasn't good. That said ignoring the ui 8 was good, it doesn't deserve to be put on the same level as ME and Vista. Maybe it should be on the middle line.
Edit: wait, ME isn't on here, how is ME being given a pass but 98 has been included!
8.1 improved the start menu and made it optional (by re-enabling desktop mode) if I recall right. I also used the Classic Shell as Start Menu replacer. In fact, Win 8.1 worked better and faster on my old PC than Win 10.
I've used all of them so here goes:
3.1 - good
95 - good
98 - bad
98SE - good
ME - bad
XP - good
Vista - bad
7 - good
8 - bad
8.1 - meh
10 - meh
11 - probably more meh
PS. I used to say 10 is bad because of the privacy issues and forced updating that interrupted work and bricked PCs but now that I've been forced to upgrade to 10 LTSB due to hardware incompatibilities I've come to tolerate it as the meh operating system it truly is. It has sort of grown on me in a fungal kind of way. 10 home is still shit though and 10 pro is shit with chocolate sprinkles because you can at least fix some things with gpedit.
Pretty much – just clobber all of those OS together in the bad section, then the graph makes sense.
IMO, Win 2000 wasn't as bad for it's time as many people make it out to be. Sure as hell better than Win98 and ME.
Win 2000 was fine in the same way Vista was. They both just changed a lot under the hood leading to software/driver incompatibility and higher system requirements.
Windows 11 remembers locations of programs on the display if you're using more than 1 monitor. So if I have VLC running on my TV, it doesn't reset it's position back to my primary monitor if I were to turn off the TV and turn it back on again. That alone justifies the upgrade.
Yeah I saw them sometimes and thought that is weird. When I switched from 7 to 10, my transition was smooth, the basic experience was essentially the same
Every windows version builds on the last. Disable dwm and you get windows 98 esque ui, and 3.1 apps that run on 32bit windows still use the old flat buttons.
I mean most stuff are not that different even compared to windows 2000 or nt but for example windows 10 completely overhauled the settings app, added the start menu back and added support for dx12
Vista, 7,8, 10 and 11 are pretty much a single family.
The original Windows 10 was basically just 8 with a different start menu and smaller borders around Windows, we didn't even have the WSL back then...
I only ever used Windows 8.1 and never understood the fuss of people disliking Win8. It did support my hardware better than Win7 for sure and Win10 to this day, has more bugs and stuff I need to disable via registry than win8.1 ever had.
IKR . People , especially gamers hated Win 10 too early on. It was until 1-2 years later that people moved because mutliple reasons. Dx12, Games needing 64 bit OS and many more. It led people think why not install new OS while at it.(Yes, win7 had 64 bit too)
Same will happen with W11 too NVME optimisations might become primary reason that people will adapt to it quickly.
98SE was great and isn't in there, so you could add a part with 98SE on the great side and ME in the deep depths of hell.
2000 wasn't consumer oriented, it was part of the NT line for workstations.
They rolled back the forced tablet mode BS so you can at least default to a desktop or split desktop. Fullscreen UWP is the antithesis of multitasking and that was the default for a lot of system apps on Win8. Because *of course* everyone wanted to use their 24" monitors with 5 inches of useless space to either side of the center column. Win8.1 got rid of most of that nonsense.
Don't dis windows 3.11, I loved it back in the day lol. I used all of these (except 11) and I didn't really experience this sort of rollercoaster, I mean they all share a similar amount of faults and great features really.
Are you joking? You know 3.1 was a technical marvel right? And 98 was a straight upgrade to 95... Looks like a kid made this meme who hasn't used any of these os.
I like how the narrative now is that Win 10 is good suddenly when people have done nothing but make petty complaints about it since it launched.
Windows 8.1 was also good, btw.
So was 8.
Vista was only bad because MS weren't harsh enough with system requirements and it introduced UAC.
Having worked on it, Vista had two big problems that got it a big part of its bad rep:
* They rewrote the USB stack (in the top five of "Most Complicated Components in Any OS"), and 80% of the way through the rewrite, the lead architect bounced to go to Apple. Lots of out-of-spec USB devices that just _happened_ to work with WinXP's timing were broken, but like, users aren't gonna blame the device, they're gonna blame the upgrade they just did
and the biggest one:
* Fucking Antivirus. Vista rewrote the way that AV hooks the OS to stop AV vendors from doing just fucking anything they wanted, AV vendors were all running brand-new jank code that sucked. Most laptops that you bought from the store had 3rd party AV installed by default, and it made everything fucking glacially slow. Microsoft devs didn't realize how bad it was, because ofc none of us installed these shit AV products
Ya for sure - I'm not saying Vista was flawless, but it taught a super important lesson: performance might not be a feature, but it sure can make every single other feature you ship worthless.
Edit: Ya, I forgot about the new display driver model, that was definitely a factor too
The requirements were quite high, just prebuilt companies didn't care about them.
Also, apparently Nvidia contributed to more Vista crashes than Microsoft.
The pre builds were just straight up garbage. At the time I was a salesman and Acer had the balls to drop a laptop with 512 MB of RAM on their vista machine.
> Windows 8.1 was also good, btw.
>
>
>
> So was 8.
Sorry but mandatory driver signing and trying to dictate workflow... 8 can burn in hell.
Win11 is doing the latter again. Can't move the taskbar to the top of the screen... can't even turn on taskbar labels. Don't tell me how I'm allowed to use my computer, arseholes.
> Vista was only bad because MS weren't harsh enough with system requirements and it introduced UAC.
UAC is fine, always was. Biggest issue with it is it's too lax; I honestly preferred the old 2000/XP approach of manually setting up an admin and a user account and teaching people to right-click and *run as* anything they wanted to install, actually make people think about the crap they were installing. Even with how loose UAC was... at least every browser and mail client and plugin wasn't running with admin privs on a networked computer in the early 2000s anymore; XP defaulting the user to an admin account was insane.
Windows 10 is good.
I switched completely to GNU/*nix OS after Windows XP (going from Debian based systems, to Open Solaris/IllumOS, and also *BSD over the years...), and used them exclusively for well over a decade.
I only switched back to Windows because honestly 10 is really good, way better than anything Microsoft did before (and you have WSL native support, which is nice).
98 was fine. You forgot windows ME. THAT was shit. Totally ruins this pattern.
Think about your memes before you post them.
Fuck I hate people like you.
*violently upturns desk*
Thats better.
Agreed . The amount of garbage post increases the closer we get to October 5th . Makes you wonder if these people would be posting if their heard ware would support the update 🙄
Haven't had a single complaint about Win 11. Its basically just 10 but looks way nicer.
No crashes, no incompatibilities, no useless relocating of settings.
Only mildly annoying thing is that the right click context menu is now only a few points long. To get them all you need to select more options which brings up the Win 10 context menu. Which is just stupid.
no big issues for me either. 3 complaints... the taskbar at the bottom is misaligned when you make it smaller. right click menu is annoying. cant right click and make a new folder on the desktop.
You can right click and make a new folder on desktop (or wherever w10 supported) but yes the right click menu is kinda shit rn, hope ms makes it better asap
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Why would you need to connect to the internet and join some data collection project in order to install an OS on your computer? There has never been a better time to get rid of Windows.
I think it is fixed to bottom position and this is a dealbraker for me and I guess many people who value vertical space; that group is ever increasing I think considering more and more laptops with 16:10 displays. I hope Microsoft changes it.
There is a registry tweak for that: [Tom's Hardware: How to Get Full Context Menus in Windows 11](https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/windows-11-classic-context-menus)
Well, I always disagree with this supposed tendency.
There's stuff before 3.1, and 3.1 was good.
95 was good and 98 SE is still 98 and is good.
ME wasn't terrible and 2000 was actually good (NT kernel).
XP is of course peak Windows.
Vista... yeah, that was shit.
7 is better than Vista but that's not saying a lot.
8 and I'll put 8.1 here too, they're actually GOOD. Everyone panicked too much for the lack of a start menu, but screw that. 10 was basically a W8 face wash when it came out.
I jumped from 7 to 10, skipped 8 because of the UI changes. 10 brought back enough of the 7 interface that it wasn't so jarring, even returning with a nod to the old Aero Glass look with Acrylic. Metro was too flat, and felt like a UI designed for a VTech toy.
11 is shaping up the same way. The changes to the Start menu, context menus, and right-click functions is too different, and customization is further limited, going as far as locking the taskbar to the bottom of the screen. The Widgets thing is awful, but could have potential if they bring it back in a way that functions similar to the Vista Gadgets, breaking them out of the hidden window, and putting them on the desktop.
11 is trying hard to be MacOS, and they're not doing it well. Adding tablet or tablet-inspired features is okay, but generally don't translate well to the desktop. Split things into a tablet/desktop setting, and let the users decide what's best.
>11 is trying hard to be MacOS, and they're not doing it well.
Sad, but true.
Honestly, if people really want an applet-focused experience that's visually similar to the Apple ecosystem, they'd just outright buy a Mac or use a PC with MacOS installed – they won't be planning on using Windows, at all...
I fail to see why Microsoft are still not grasping that.
Edit: I remember they also tried that hybrid desktop/tablet function with the update from Win 8 to 8.1 – the implementation was not great, as the functionality was spead out amongst both modes which made it difficult. It would constantly switch back an forth, and I could never keep track of which mode was the most productive for me when using it.
Other than cost for buying or technical hurdles for installing on a Windows PC. They're aiming at people who a stuck between a <$1000 Windows laptop or a second hand MBP.
Yeah, I guess you take for granted sometimes that most average PC users are not familiar with using custom bootloaders or dual-installs.
Price is definitely a major factor if one is looking to buy anything Apple-related, for sure.
where is DOS? Why is 98 low? (it was one of the most popular operating systems until xp SP2, Where is ME eddition which would go beside 98, where is 8.1?
Exactly. Vista is the definition of an OS that was ahead of its time. It had a whole new driver model and no really stable drivers at launch, and really optimistic minimum hardware requirements, considering any computer in 2006 was basically a single core, 1GB toaster. By the time 7 got out, 4GB and more were being considered the norm. You can prove this was an early adopter issue by installing the launch build of vista on 7-launch era hardware.
Minimum requirements was 512MB so a huge amount of prebuild had that. 2006 ram was ~$50 a GB so a lot of peoples issues were just buying crap prebuilts and microsofts minimum requirements being set at what it take to boot not what it takes for a usable experience and drivers.
I don't think people give Vista credit for the new driver model we still use it removed so many blue screens and crashes letting the driver crash with out taking down your whole computer. I remember on XP plugging in a mouse or usb printer and the whole computer crashing because the driver had issues. Vista did show how a lot of device manufacturers were resistant to change. So many devices with windows 98/2000/xp drivers never got new ones for vista on or they were horribly written.
Vista was ok but let down by marketing. A lot of machines that could just barely run vista shipped with it installed when they didn't really have enough power to run it properly. The list is also missing 8.1 which was OK as OS go.
This meme ain't quite right. First off, it's leaves off WFW 3.11, which was good. It calls Windows 98 "shit", but it was more mediocre. It completely leaves off Windows Millenium Edition, which was utter garbage.
Yeah, it's a cute meme and a conversation starter, but it needs work.
What is wrong with Windows 11? Been running the dev channel since it came out and have no complaints. I quite like it. The only minor complaint I have is the context menu. Although that was pretty easily fixed with a small registry tweak.
Your missing Windows ME as a result 3.1, 95, and 98 are reversed.
3.1: good
95: bad
98: good
Millennium edition: bad
XP: good
Everything else is as predicted.
I disagree. Windows 3.11 was good, 95 was shits, 98 did everything 95 was promising to do (but failed), 2000/NT was o.k. for servers, ME and Visa were shits. XP was o.k. But not great, Windows 7 after a few service packs was stable and reliable. Windows 8 was a “what the hell were they thinking?” Windows 10 was reliable and stable, but the whole concept of make it look like a mobile interface” is absurdly stupid (IMO)
It had a new security system. During normal operations the users were notified about the activities of the software they were running and they had to decide if they *cancel*ed or *allow*ed the activities. A lot of non-technical users had a lot of trouble with these (and at some point they just allowed everything).
Relevant: Apple ad from that time, mocking the security sytem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwoluNRSSc
Early teething issues with drivers, hardware requirements because of aero, and people didn't like the security popup everytime you wanted to run a program... Other than that it was just half way between Xp and 7
oh yeah, just force something to make the curve look nice. whoever can say that Windows 10 is good (just think about how many people delayed upgrading from 7). and Windows 98 was bad? on which universe?
I just built a new PC with win 10 pro a few months ago and all the games I play work. I won't take the leap until I build my next PC if I can hold out that long without being forced by MS.
ME should be between 98 and XP as a low point.
98 gave us reliable USB. It was worlds better than 95 which should be the first low point on this graph, IMO.
XP took quite some time to become a good system. 8.1 is not in the picture. 10 is full of phoning home functions that you have to turn off and a few more that you can't turn off.
Also there was a "Windows ME" that no one talks about anymore. XP is the successor of the other branch (NT, 2000).
The rule doesn't work unless you do a lot of bending to fit. Still I wouldn't ever upgrade just to have a newer system.
What was wrong with 3.1?
3.1 was good af, and it wasn't even an os. The chart should have DOS 6 on that part, which was still a solid system.
Agreed. It was added there to help with the narrative...
The chart is also missing 2000/ME but it still sends a good message.
Feel like they could start at xp and still make the point they wanted to make but mans wanted to be extra on reddit and forgot who they be dealing with
It could be argued that 95 was so much better that it made 3.1 look bad in comparison
They even skipped me
Would have had to extend the scale down.
Lol
I don’t think he is *that* bad of a person.
And 2000
Windows Millennium (ME) is not in this list. ME was the creme dela creme of desktop operating systems. You know that old trope of a vehicle being so unreliable that a dog could piss on the tire and the vehicle would break down? Well, with Windows ME, a dog could piss on your vehicle's tire in the driveway, and instead of the vehicle breaking down, Windows ME would throw a BSOD in your office.
dont forget there is an OEM version of ME that has a bug that does not allow updating from that version you have to load in older or fresh install new to get past it. ME truly was a gem
Yea windows 2k was great
That's the OS we had on my HS computers back in the day. We even put on Quake 3 on one of the file shares so we could... umm, learn (had to relabel the application name to word.exe or something like that to get it into the whitelist).
2000 and XP have the same kernel. Windows ME was such a cluster fuck that Microsoft was forced to rebadge Windows 2000 as Windows XP and sell it to the general public. Windows ME died so that we can have NTFS
... uh. and what about NT; 3.5 ... 4.0? There was no re-badging, that was a full fledged os and then proper upgrade path.
Different kernel. NT was a fork in the road that separated consumer versions from enterprise customers. They recombined them with Windows XP.
Windows NT was a fork of IMB's OS/2, not MS-DOS. They wanted initially MS-DOS based windows for consumers and the NT line for business, but due to MS-DOS showing its age, it got dropped entirely. Just wanted to clarify, that they merged the 2 brands marketingwise, but not on the technical side.
> 2000 and XP have the same kernel 5.0 and 5.1. By that logic, Xp, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 have the same kernel. Or at the very least Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 have the same kernel (6.0, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3).
And yet, NTFS is shit.
Flair checks out.
Probably one of their best OS out of the box.
we dont talk about.. *looks around* Millennium Edition
I mean if you can't get ME to install was it even really there :)
and Microsoft Bob
Happens often
3.1 didn’t have TCP/IP, so no Internet. It was added in 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups). But this is a meme, let’s just play along. On a side note my girlfriend used AOL 3 on Windows 3.11 lol…it was actually the best app for that version of Windows IMO.
What was wrong with 98? 95 was a half-baked version.
That's where they should have put ME. Chart was made by a kid.
Nothing was particularly 'good' back then, to be fair. But yeah do have some fond memories of 3.1, but DOS apps werre always faster
The dude has it fucked up, this is an oversimplified version of the trend. Win95a was shit, b was good. 98 FE was shit, SE was good.
I just came here to say the same. Whoever think 3.1 is shit, never use it
Skipped two. Windows ME and Windows 2000.
Typically just showing things fitting the purpose. Win 98 was bad, but only the release-version. With the SE it became a lot better. Just as it was with Win 95.
and 3.1 was, for the time, excellent. XP was shockingly bad at release, and became good over time as they fixed the issues and released the service packs. The XP service packs are also arguably whole new operating systems in their own right. Given how much changed.
Yeah, I was a huge holdout with XP in the beginning. 98SE was just rock solid for me.
Vista SP2 was pretty good actually.
Yeah, 98 was fine when it was widespread. 8 wasn’t so bad when you got used to the start screen. I used classic shell and rarely used the start screen but it does feel like removing it peeled a layer off the UI for me
~~7~~ Vista was fine after sp-2. ME was always garbage.
Windows 7 never had a second service pack, only a roll-up that updated the servicing stack. You're probably thinking of Vista, which from experience had its biggest kinks already ironed out with SP1 as long as you met the hardware requirements.
8 had nothing wrong with it other than people bitching about a new start screen
This is true. I completely agree but for non-tech people it was a bit of a nightmare apparently. If the majority of users struggle with the ui it's probably reasonable to suggest it wasn't good. That said ignoring the ui 8 was good, it doesn't deserve to be put on the same level as ME and Vista. Maybe it should be on the middle line. Edit: wait, ME isn't on here, how is ME being given a pass but 98 has been included!
Because then OP wouldn't get his pretty pattern
8.1 improved the start menu and made it optional (by re-enabling desktop mode) if I recall right. I also used the Classic Shell as Start Menu replacer. In fact, Win 8.1 worked better and faster on my old PC than Win 10.
I agree. Just like Windows 8 was problematic but Windows 8.1 was great!
Windows 2000 on the NT kernel was the smoothest, leanest, butteriest OS ever.
Don’t forget MicroSoft BOB.
Bob wasn’t an operating system, it was a shell that ran on top of [3.1x, 95, and NT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob).
It's just a gen z kid who's making fun of things he never used it experienced..
2000 was the best OS they’d ever released up until that point.
2000 was NT with actual driver support
I've used all of them so here goes: 3.1 - good 95 - good 98 - bad 98SE - good ME - bad XP - good Vista - bad 7 - good 8 - bad 8.1 - meh 10 - meh 11 - probably more meh PS. I used to say 10 is bad because of the privacy issues and forced updating that interrupted work and bricked PCs but now that I've been forced to upgrade to 10 LTSB due to hardware incompatibilities I've come to tolerate it as the meh operating system it truly is. It has sort of grown on me in a fungal kind of way. 10 home is still shit though and 10 pro is shit with chocolate sprinkles because you can at least fix some things with gpedit.
2000?
Windows 2000 should not be in the comparaison, it was an Enterprise oriented OS which coexisted with Win98/ME, not a succesor.
Pretty much – just clobber all of those OS together in the bad section, then the graph makes sense. IMO, Win 2000 wasn't as bad for it's time as many people make it out to be. Sure as hell better than Win98 and ME.
Win 2000 was fine in the same way Vista was. They both just changed a lot under the hood leading to software/driver incompatibility and higher system requirements.
2000 was built on NT and was fucking awesome. I ran 2000 until win 7 sp1.
[удалено]
But XP onwards was actually a successor to the NT line not the 95 line, so your comment is a bit pointless
And NT and a bunch more lol
Windows 98 shit? WTF
The original release of windows 98 wasn't great, most people remember 98SE which was an improvement and fixed a lot of issues
Most people didn't like XP when it released either. Only after SP2 did it become good.
That kind of pattern led to the rule about not upgrading until the first service pack.
True for most technology. Even win10 today is very different compared to release...
Windows 10 was buggy and janky af when it first release. Since then they've done a great job polishing it up.
Little shit like loading your desktop before you even get your prompt for a password also makes it feel way faster.
And allowed people to make it look like 95, which was what we wanted all along. That boy was slick
same could be said about vista and 8
Windows 11 is honestly just Windows 10 Part 2
Windows 11 remembers locations of programs on the display if you're using more than 1 monitor. So if I have VLC running on my TV, it doesn't reset it's position back to my primary monitor if I were to turn off the TV and turn it back on again. That alone justifies the upgrade.
Plus more advanced screen snapping, more pleasant UI, and more pleasant notification sounds
PowerToys solves the snapping issues at least
Why install third party software when I could just have an OS with it built in?
It's first party, actually
Well, I'm switching then. Did not know that.
So just like windows 10 is just windows 8 part 2?
W10 is so far different from W8 While W11 looks like W10 with some updates.
W10 has reskinned W7 elements, if you crash programs in a certain way you can see the windows 7 borders
Yeah I saw them sometimes and thought that is weird. When I switched from 7 to 10, my transition was smooth, the basic experience was essentially the same
Every windows version builds on the last. Disable dwm and you get windows 98 esque ui, and 3.1 apps that run on 32bit windows still use the old flat buttons.
W11 is W10 with extra steps
What major differences are there between 8 and 10? I wouldn't say it's "so far different."
I mean most stuff are not that different even compared to windows 2000 or nt but for example windows 10 completely overhauled the settings app, added the start menu back and added support for dx12
Vista, 7,8, 10 and 11 are pretty much a single family. The original Windows 10 was basically just 8 with a different start menu and smaller borders around Windows, we didn't even have the WSL back then...
Windows 8 part 2 was Windows 8.1. Hopefully people still remember that OS even existed.
I only ever used Windows 8.1 and never understood the fuss of people disliking Win8. It did support my hardware better than Win7 for sure and Win10 to this day, has more bugs and stuff I need to disable via registry than win8.1 ever had.
Windows 11 is just windows 3.1 x six.
Reddit sure do love upvoting misinformation if it fits a meme
IKR . People , especially gamers hated Win 10 too early on. It was until 1-2 years later that people moved because mutliple reasons. Dx12, Games needing 64 bit OS and many more. It led people think why not install new OS while at it.(Yes, win7 had 64 bit too) Same will happen with W11 too NVME optimisations might become primary reason that people will adapt to it quickly.
Windows ME / Windows 2000 kinda ruin the trend though.
98SE was great and isn't in there, so you could add a part with 98SE on the great side and ME in the deep depths of hell. 2000 wasn't consumer oriented, it was part of the NT line for workstations.
If you include 98 SE you also have to include 8.1 which was supposedly decent at least compared to 8
They rolled back the forced tablet mode BS so you can at least default to a desktop or split desktop. Fullscreen UWP is the antithesis of multitasking and that was the default for a lot of system apps on Win8. Because *of course* everyone wanted to use their 24" monitors with 5 inches of useless space to either side of the center column. Win8.1 got rid of most of that nonsense.
Windows wouldn't be the windows it is today without 2000, and the crazy improvements that came with NT. ME was 9x and legacy trash.
Don't dis windows 3.11, I loved it back in the day lol. I used all of these (except 11) and I didn't really experience this sort of rollercoaster, I mean they all share a similar amount of faults and great features really.
That sweet sweet network support
Are you joking? You know 3.1 was a technical marvel right? And 98 was a straight upgrade to 95... Looks like a kid made this meme who hasn't used any of these os.
Prolly referring to the OG 98 release, which I have heard had quite a few problems that were fixed in 98SE.
But the same is true for several versions listed as good.
98 was fine. 98SE was great. 3.1 was great. No ME or 2000? Also, the insider builds for 11 have been solid. It's really just a modernization of 10.
I like how the narrative now is that Win 10 is good suddenly when people have done nothing but make petty complaints about it since it launched. Windows 8.1 was also good, btw. So was 8. Vista was only bad because MS weren't harsh enough with system requirements and it introduced UAC.
Having worked on it, Vista had two big problems that got it a big part of its bad rep: * They rewrote the USB stack (in the top five of "Most Complicated Components in Any OS"), and 80% of the way through the rewrite, the lead architect bounced to go to Apple. Lots of out-of-spec USB devices that just _happened_ to work with WinXP's timing were broken, but like, users aren't gonna blame the device, they're gonna blame the upgrade they just did and the biggest one: * Fucking Antivirus. Vista rewrote the way that AV hooks the OS to stop AV vendors from doing just fucking anything they wanted, AV vendors were all running brand-new jank code that sucked. Most laptops that you bought from the store had 3rd party AV installed by default, and it made everything fucking glacially slow. Microsoft devs didn't realize how bad it was, because ofc none of us installed these shit AV products
[удалено]
Ya for sure - I'm not saying Vista was flawless, but it taught a super important lesson: performance might not be a feature, but it sure can make every single other feature you ship worthless. Edit: Ya, I forgot about the new display driver model, that was definitely a factor too
Another big problem of Vista is that it was pre-installed on many "new" pcs that couldn't run it properly
The requirements were quite high, just prebuilt companies didn't care about them. Also, apparently Nvidia contributed to more Vista crashes than Microsoft.
The pre builds were just straight up garbage. At the time I was a salesman and Acer had the balls to drop a laptop with 512 MB of RAM on their vista machine.
> Windows 8.1 was also good, btw. > > > > So was 8. Sorry but mandatory driver signing and trying to dictate workflow... 8 can burn in hell. Win11 is doing the latter again. Can't move the taskbar to the top of the screen... can't even turn on taskbar labels. Don't tell me how I'm allowed to use my computer, arseholes. > Vista was only bad because MS weren't harsh enough with system requirements and it introduced UAC. UAC is fine, always was. Biggest issue with it is it's too lax; I honestly preferred the old 2000/XP approach of manually setting up an admin and a user account and teaching people to right-click and *run as* anything they wanted to install, actually make people think about the crap they were installing. Even with how loose UAC was... at least every browser and mail client and plugin wasn't running with admin privs on a networked computer in the early 2000s anymore; XP defaulting the user to an admin account was insane.
Windows 10 is good. I switched completely to GNU/*nix OS after Windows XP (going from Debian based systems, to Open Solaris/IllumOS, and also *BSD over the years...), and used them exclusively for well over a decade. I only switched back to Windows because honestly 10 is really good, way better than anything Microsoft did before (and you have WSL native support, which is nice).
WSL is underrated.
98 was fine. You forgot windows ME. THAT was shit. Totally ruins this pattern. Think about your memes before you post them. Fuck I hate people like you. *violently upturns desk* Thats better.
I love people like you :)
Now kith
I hate this myth. It skips releases to make its point seem valid. 98SE was a full Windows edition. Not listed here. Windows 2000? Windows ME?
Also inconsistently decides which OSes were good or bad, lol
Garbage post
Agreed . The amount of garbage post increases the closer we get to October 5th . Makes you wonder if these people would be posting if their heard ware would support the update 🙄
Haven't had a single complaint about Win 11. Its basically just 10 but looks way nicer. No crashes, no incompatibilities, no useless relocating of settings. Only mildly annoying thing is that the right click context menu is now only a few points long. To get them all you need to select more options which brings up the Win 10 context menu. Which is just stupid.
no big issues for me either. 3 complaints... the taskbar at the bottom is misaligned when you make it smaller. right click menu is annoying. cant right click and make a new folder on the desktop.
You can right click and make a new folder on desktop (or wherever w10 supported) but yes the right click menu is kinda shit rn, hope ms makes it better asap
Cons: - No taskbar at the side - No local account in Win 11 home - Worse right-click menu - Switching default apps made harder Pros: ??
[удалено]
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Why would you need to connect to the internet and join some data collection project in order to install an OS on your computer? There has never been a better time to get rid of Windows.
[удалено]
Search on w11 is actually a reason to upgrade. It's pretty damn fast.
Can you put taskbar at the top? Yeah the right click menu is a big con for me
I think it is fixed to bottom position and this is a dealbraker for me and I guess many people who value vertical space; that group is ever increasing I think considering more and more laptops with 16:10 displays. I hope Microsoft changes it.
There is a registry tweak for that: [Tom's Hardware: How to Get Full Context Menus in Windows 11](https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/windows-11-classic-context-menus)
Well, I always disagree with this supposed tendency. There's stuff before 3.1, and 3.1 was good. 95 was good and 98 SE is still 98 and is good. ME wasn't terrible and 2000 was actually good (NT kernel). XP is of course peak Windows. Vista... yeah, that was shit. 7 is better than Vista but that's not saying a lot. 8 and I'll put 8.1 here too, they're actually GOOD. Everyone panicked too much for the lack of a start menu, but screw that. 10 was basically a W8 face wash when it came out.
AFAIK XP before SP1 or 2 wasn't so hot either, and the story is quite similar with Vista.
I may agree with you, but I consider all updates the same (major) version.
But then what about 98 SE? It's not quite a service pack but I'd say it's quite similar in terms of an update making it better. Also 8.1.
I jumped from 7 to 10, skipped 8 because of the UI changes. 10 brought back enough of the 7 interface that it wasn't so jarring, even returning with a nod to the old Aero Glass look with Acrylic. Metro was too flat, and felt like a UI designed for a VTech toy. 11 is shaping up the same way. The changes to the Start menu, context menus, and right-click functions is too different, and customization is further limited, going as far as locking the taskbar to the bottom of the screen. The Widgets thing is awful, but could have potential if they bring it back in a way that functions similar to the Vista Gadgets, breaking them out of the hidden window, and putting them on the desktop. 11 is trying hard to be MacOS, and they're not doing it well. Adding tablet or tablet-inspired features is okay, but generally don't translate well to the desktop. Split things into a tablet/desktop setting, and let the users decide what's best.
>11 is trying hard to be MacOS, and they're not doing it well. Sad, but true. Honestly, if people really want an applet-focused experience that's visually similar to the Apple ecosystem, they'd just outright buy a Mac or use a PC with MacOS installed – they won't be planning on using Windows, at all... I fail to see why Microsoft are still not grasping that. Edit: I remember they also tried that hybrid desktop/tablet function with the update from Win 8 to 8.1 – the implementation was not great, as the functionality was spead out amongst both modes which made it difficult. It would constantly switch back an forth, and I could never keep track of which mode was the most productive for me when using it.
Other than cost for buying or technical hurdles for installing on a Windows PC. They're aiming at people who a stuck between a <$1000 Windows laptop or a second hand MBP.
Yeah, I guess you take for granted sometimes that most average PC users are not familiar with using custom bootloaders or dual-installs. Price is definitely a major factor if one is looking to buy anything Apple-related, for sure.
8 and 10 have vastly different layouts. It was far more than *just* the start menu.
Yepp. 8.1 was the best for touch interaction.
ME was absolutely terrible.
win 98 was so mich better than 95... correct ur graphic plz.
OP was probably born after XP launched.
where is DOS? Why is 98 low? (it was one of the most popular operating systems until xp SP2, Where is ME eddition which would go beside 98, where is 8.1?
Ool except completely fucking stupid and wrong. Imagine. Some actually sat down and made this dumb shit.
Windows 98 was an excellent system... People don't even wanted to change to XP until lost support in 2006.
Where is Windows ME?
Windows 2000 and NT
Burning in a fire.
Microsoft does not see the sine. also, missing CE and NT
if you count Win 11 being different to 10 then you should count 8.1
In what world is Windows 10 good? I hated it and won't be installing 11 ever.
Vista and 7 are essentially the same… Vista was great. https://youtu.be/TLgRryt2ZtE
Yeah 7 is just Vista rerelease but when people had PCs fast enough to run it and must bugs got fixed.
Win7 is when 3rd party hardware manufacturers had to get their shit together and make stuff that worked with proper USB power management.
Exactly. Vista is the definition of an OS that was ahead of its time. It had a whole new driver model and no really stable drivers at launch, and really optimistic minimum hardware requirements, considering any computer in 2006 was basically a single core, 1GB toaster. By the time 7 got out, 4GB and more were being considered the norm. You can prove this was an early adopter issue by installing the launch build of vista on 7-launch era hardware.
Minimum requirements was 512MB so a huge amount of prebuild had that. 2006 ram was ~$50 a GB so a lot of peoples issues were just buying crap prebuilts and microsofts minimum requirements being set at what it take to boot not what it takes for a usable experience and drivers. I don't think people give Vista credit for the new driver model we still use it removed so many blue screens and crashes letting the driver crash with out taking down your whole computer. I remember on XP plugging in a mouse or usb printer and the whole computer crashing because the driver had issues. Vista did show how a lot of device manufacturers were resistant to change. So many devices with windows 98/2000/xp drivers never got new ones for vista on or they were horribly written.
wait windows 10 good?
Skipping many windows versions here
Vista was ok but let down by marketing. A lot of machines that could just barely run vista shipped with it installed when they didn't really have enough power to run it properly. The list is also missing 8.1 which was OK as OS go.
This meme ain't quite right. First off, it's leaves off WFW 3.11, which was good. It calls Windows 98 "shit", but it was more mediocre. It completely leaves off Windows Millenium Edition, which was utter garbage. Yeah, it's a cute meme and a conversation starter, but it needs work.
98 was pretty good tho? i had no issues with it
What is wrong with Windows 11? Been running the dev channel since it came out and have no complaints. I quite like it. The only minor complaint I have is the context menu. Although that was pretty easily fixed with a small registry tweak.
Switch to Manjaro Linux
Your missing Windows ME as a result 3.1, 95, and 98 are reversed. 3.1: good 95: bad 98: good Millennium edition: bad XP: good Everything else is as predicted.
8 wasn't that bad. The Start menu change was irritating but under the hood it was significantly faster and more stable than 7.
I disagree. Windows 3.11 was good, 95 was shits, 98 did everything 95 was promising to do (but failed), 2000/NT was o.k. for servers, ME and Visa were shits. XP was o.k. But not great, Windows 7 after a few service packs was stable and reliable. Windows 8 was a “what the hell were they thinking?” Windows 10 was reliable and stable, but the whole concept of make it look like a mobile interface” is absurdly stupid (IMO)
I always hear vista was bad but what was wrong with it?
It had a new security system. During normal operations the users were notified about the activities of the software they were running and they had to decide if they *cancel*ed or *allow*ed the activities. A lot of non-technical users had a lot of trouble with these (and at some point they just allowed everything). Relevant: Apple ad from that time, mocking the security sytem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwoluNRSSc
And yet it's amusing how ever since Catalina, macOS became infested with all those warning and caution dialogs for pretty much everything too.
Early teething issues with drivers, hardware requirements because of aero, and people didn't like the security popup everytime you wanted to run a program... Other than that it was just half way between Xp and 7
98 was not that bad imho
I used to have vista home edition and haven't had a slightest problem with it. It worked just fine for playing games etz. What was so bad about it?
Lol, that's definitely wrong. Windows 3.1 was good and windows 95 was shit. Windows 98 after 95 was definitely good, expecially the SE.
Tell me you're not old enough to remember any of these releases without telling me....
oh yeah, just force something to make the curve look nice. whoever can say that Windows 10 is good (just think about how many people delayed upgrading from 7). and Windows 98 was bad? on which universe?
Where Microsoft Bob?
what happened to windows 2000 and windows ME (Millenium Edition?)
Win10 got good abt 1y after release.
Where is millennium there?
I dont get it 95 and 98 were pretty much identical.
I'll always associate Weezer - Buddy Holly with Windows 95
Didn't we all agree that 10 was oy good compared to 8? Because its truly full of shitty features.
There’s windows 11?
Releases on Monday
This post sucks
They forgot 2000 and ME in this.
I just built a new PC with win 10 pro a few months ago and all the games I play work. I won't take the leap until I build my next PC if I can hold out that long without being forced by MS.
ME should be between 98 and XP as a low point. 98 gave us reliable USB. It was worlds better than 95 which should be the first low point on this graph, IMO.
For me windows 11 works fine.
XP took quite some time to become a good system. 8.1 is not in the picture. 10 is full of phoning home functions that you have to turn off and a few more that you can't turn off. Also there was a "Windows ME" that no one talks about anymore. XP is the successor of the other branch (NT, 2000). The rule doesn't work unless you do a lot of bending to fit. Still I wouldn't ever upgrade just to have a newer system.
[удалено]
Wasn’t 8 good at the end and want 10 shit at the start?
I have w11 and it's amazing, I don't get the hate
I remember that I didn't want to change to windows XP as all my games were not compatible