this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
546 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

58115 readers
3928 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Uh, no.

95 bad, 98 bad, 98SE good only compared to 98, XP actually decent, Vista only really bad because of the change in how drivers were handled and there not being a robust library of them because of it, 7 THE GOD KING OF WINDOWS OSes..The Best, The Pinnacle. The Peak. The Top of the bell curve, 8 was shit, 10 was more shit than 8, 11 is just spyware.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you're calling 95 bad i don't think you spent a lot of time in 3.1. Resolving IRQ conflicts, configuring winsock.DLL, whatever the hell else. 95 had its issues, especially on the gaming side, but it was leaps and bounds better than what came before. Meanwhile 98SE was good enough to keep people, especially gamers, on it for a long time.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I did, but I didnt feel it was necessary to go into an excruciatingly detailed list of all OS's from now to all the way back to LEO I in my OS criticism, just to avoid some pissy OS ping pong of "You thought that was bad? You obviously never used (insert older OS here)!"

[–] TheDuckPrince@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Damn if it was ok i would install windows 7 now...for real

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Seriously. Windows 7 was the first genuinely stable OS from Microsoft.

Everything before it required regular reformating. Granted, the frequency of the reformating less over time, but still required it. Like, Win95/98 required it like every 3 months, XP every 6 months to a year, just to avoid the bloat and slowing down and issues. Same with reboots, it didnt have to be rebooted every time you ran a program, either.

Windows 7? My longest run between formats was like 4-5 years iirc, and that was due to hardware changes, not due to any performance or maintenance need. Ans for reboots? Only time that computer ever got rebooted is when a windows update demanded it, or when the power went out. Neither of which was particularly frequent.

It was also slick, agile, easy to use. You didnt have to think about shit when you used windows 7, you just did shit.

I'm not a fanboy, despite what this sounds like, but 7 was legitimately the best Windows OS, hell it wouldnt take much twisting for me to say it was the best Desktop OS, period. It was the first time ever that I was able to use the computer, and not have to stop and think "Well, I just finished running a heavy game, I need to reboot before I do something else" I just stopped one heavy task, gave the background processes a second to finish up, then went right to another heavy task without issue or concern.

It also had a very good UI. But Windows always had the best UI, by comparison, in the market, cause they spent billions on developing it so that the most computer illiterate could pick it up and use it with 15 minutes of instruction.