Well it doesn't cover Windows 2000 but I guess it doesn't count. I'm still bitter about Win2k being a viable OS and promptly being tossed on its ass for XP which was so much crap until about Sp2. I'm probably also bitter that I got my MCSE in Windows 2k about a month before it was tossed with no warning whatsoever.sb666 said:It will be interesting to see if it will follow this cycle.
Agreed that 95 wasn't that bad and that the chart is missing a few, probably to make its point seem more legitimate. But honestly, from what I remember of 98 I wonder if whoever made that graphic was using the same Windows 98 I was, because I remember it being pretty awful. Freezes, crashes and blue screens were frequent. I'm not sure I ever went more than a few days without having to reboot the damn thing.Owyn_Merrilin said:It also pegs 3.1 as good and 95 as bad. As someone who still periodically loads those two up in virtual machines (mainly for old Windows games that need 16 bit support), 95 was not bad at all. Yes, it was completely full of security holes, but it also came out at a time before the internet became ubiquitous, a time when files were more likely to be shared via floppy disk than modem. And from a user's perspective, 95 was a huge improvement over 3.1, which was really little more than a GUI that sat on top of DOS. 95 did a number of things that DOS couldn't, most notably from the perspective of a gamer, it introduced Direct X, which was a huge, huge thing. 3.1 mostly just made using a computer a bit more intuitive[footnote]It also wasn't the first version of Windows. As the number implies, there was a commercially released Windows 1, 2, and also something called Windows 386, which from what I understand was basically Windows 2 tweaked to better support the features of the then new and powerful Intel 386 processor. There's probably a few other variations I'm forgetting, not even counting stuff like 3.0 and 3.11.[/footnote].A-D. said:That picture is wrong, its missing Win98 Second Edition, Win NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, though the curve would still be correct for the most part.sb666 said:It will be interesting to see if it will follow this cycle.
That being said, it smells like another case of Vista to 7. So maybe Win9 will be the good Win8 essentially, like how 7 is essentially the good Vista version ;P
Basically, the "pattern" has only really existed since Vista turned out to suck, or since ME if you want to ignore that 2000 was a thing.
Ya know, not everything is a "circlejerk".VinLAURiA said:
I wouldn't say incredibly, but it was needlessly complex and definitely more trouble that it's worth.mew4ever23 said:
How about support for new hardware, or the fact that XP is full of security holes. Why anyone would stick to outdated operating system software is beyond me. Especially when we're moving into a 64-bit age. There are a lot of reasons to get 7, and not any I can think of to stick with XP. XP was shit up until about the last 3rd of its lifespan and even then wasn't awesome. The only reason not to upgrade when Vista came out was because it was Vista. Windows 7 is much more stable, secure and pretty much runs better than XP in almost every way short of a few games that are wonky or won't work right out of the box due to the era they were released and the way they were programmed.babinro said:
I don't see how either tracks, but especially the first. Apple at least has the decency to have an OS for their computers that is separate from their portable OS.Dragonbums said:
Ignoring the fact that Google and Canonical(Ubuntu/Linux) are progressively merging their desktop/tablet environments into one UI much like Windows 8 and will continue to do so in future iterations, as well as the fact that the Mavericks (OSX) was actually marketed by Apple as being "inspired" by their mobile operating system iOS.Zachary Amaranth said:
Also, the latest OS, Mavericks, is free. It works surprisingly well considering that I'm using it on a laptop from 2009.Zachary Amaranth said:
You too? I fucking despised 98.Vivi22 said:Agreed that 95 wasn't that bad and that the chart is missing a few, probably to make its point seem more legitimate. But honestly, from what I remember of 98 I wonder if whoever made that graphic was using the same Windows 98 I was, because I remember it being pretty awful. Freezes, crashes and blue screens were frequent. I'm not sure I ever went more than a few days without having to reboot the damn thing.Owyn_Merrilin said:It also pegs 3.1 as good and 95 as bad. As someone who still periodically loads those two up in virtual machines (mainly for old Windows games that need 16 bit support), 95 was not bad at all. Yes, it was completely full of security holes, but it also came out at a time before the internet became ubiquitous, a time when files were more likely to be shared via floppy disk than modem. And from a user's perspective, 95 was a huge improvement over 3.1, which was really little more than a GUI that sat on top of DOS. 95 did a number of things that DOS couldn't, most notably from the perspective of a gamer, it introduced Direct X, which was a huge, huge thing. 3.1 mostly just made using a computer a bit more intuitive[footnote]It also wasn't the first version of Windows. As the number implies, there was a commercially released Windows 1, 2, and also something called Windows 386, which from what I understand was basically Windows 2 tweaked to better support the features of the then new and powerful Intel 386 processor. There's probably a few other variations I'm forgetting, not even counting stuff like 3.0 and 3.11.[/footnote].A-D. said:That picture is wrong, its missing Win98 Second Edition, Win NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, though the curve would still be correct for the most part.sb666 said:It will be interesting to see if it will follow this cycle.
That being said, it smells like another case of Vista to 7. So maybe Win9 will be the good Win8 essentially, like how 7 is essentially the good Vista version ;P
Basically, the "pattern" has only really existed since Vista turned out to suck, or since ME if you want to ignore that 2000 was a thing.
Yeah. We were using 98 right around the time I hit the age where I was interested in computers and actually learned how to use them for more than opening a web browser or playing the occasional game, but even on those fronts it was the worst OS I'd ever used with all of the crashing. A few years later when we bought a new computer that came with XP I was blown away by how stable it was. Especially by comparison. Things rarely ever just crashed or stopped working on XP, but it was happening to us every other day with 98. I was actually surprised after using it for a few days because I couldn't believe Microsoft programmed something that worked the way it was supposed to.Darth Sea Bass said:
Maybe I don't remember it correctly, but I don't remember anything that bad about Win95. It was quite an improvement over Win3.11. I do remember Win98 having a shaky beginning, which was addressed through Windows Update (which many people didn't use yet), and eventually through Win98-SE. I do agree with the rest and hope that Win9 will be the next good Windows OS.sb666 said:It will be interesting to see if it will follow this cycle.
