Win your Ultimate Tech Bundle by entering Fasthosts’ Techie Test here: www.fasthosts.co.uk/danwood Please support the channel by supporting the sponsors, these videos can take me 30-40 hours to make! :)
@@JamieCrookes TempleOS is never gonna be anyone's daily OS, but it's real value (imho), lay in providing us a window into the mind of a troubled fellow soul.
@@toddnolastname4485 Great in some respects, but not in start up time... (or stability between programs or processes). The start up time was really like a bad joke, especially compared to the *instant on* computers we used in the 1980s.
My (least) favorite thing about Windows 8 and the "Metro UI" was that Microsoft _forced it upon server users in Windows Server 2012_ (the server version of Windows 8.) Doing server remote management over VNC, over a slow internet connection, was *PAINFUL* in Server 2012. "Crap, I don't have a desktop shortcut for that, prepare for slow full screen redraw!"
Warning, if you participate in the sponsored "techie test", you are agreeing to this: "By entering this prize draw, you are providing your data, including contact details, to Fasthosts which may be used for marketing purposes." and also "Fasthosts reserves the right to cancel or amend the competition and the competition terms and conditions and associated rules at any time without prior notice." No thanks.
@@FloppydriveMaestro FYI, Google does not sell your personal information to advertisers. Facebook on the other hand has a history of freakin' giving it away.
I was fortunate enough to hang onto XP in order to avoid Vista. However, one day I bought a new laptop and it had Windows 7 pre-installed on it. The first thing that struck me as being positive about Windows 7 was the Aero-peek design of the UI and the beautiful gradients. The first (and probably only) thing that frustrated me was how "Program Files" had been split up to keep x86 and x64 binaries separate, as well as their respective "Program Data" folders. This changed the way my own software was compiled and deployed, but I got used to it. I still use Windows 7 for my personal dev box, and it's still as reliable as ever. IMHO Windows 7 is still the best version of Windows Microsoft has ever released. Windows 10 was a whole different story. When Windows 10 won't boot anymore, it WON'T BOOT ANYMORE, and good luck repairing the MBR and system partitions to get it back to where it should be. Also, the Windows 10 UI strikes me as being lifeless and bland, with Microsoft doing away with most gradient effects and replacing them with ugly, flat, two-dimensional tiles and lifeless fonts. My final question is WHY is Windows 10 so bloated and resource intensive? Linux running a graphical UI requires a small percentage of the disc space required to run Windows 10.
When Seven Reached EOL I Ran It For 2 More Years Downloading The Security Patches From Pirate Sites! Windows 10 Is Simply Spyware/Malware And After Big Tech Interfered In The 2020 Elections I Have Left Them Forever! I Now Run Kubuntu Or To Say Debian With The KDE Desktop! Essentially Kubuntu! I Did Run Kodachi But When My Nordvpn Quit Supporting It I Had To Move On!! I Really Loved The Kodachi Dashboard For It's Simplicity And Security But You can Do All Of Those Things In Settings Here And There! But It Was Nice having Them All In One Place!
Back when Windows 10 was brand new, I remember it was a gamble on whether it would start again after shutting down my computer. Sometimes it would just grenade itself for no reason. It even did that years after release, but it wasn't as common. Windows Aero is still a favorite of mine to this day too. At least Windows 11 is better than Windows 10 in that regard.
@@trabant601e One thing that royally pisses me off about Win11 is how you have to keep clicking on additional options to get to the traditional Cut, Copy, and Paste options in the Explorer context menu. Sure, I could use the hotkeys but I prefer to use the context menu. What about users who aren't familiar with using hotkeys? Whoever decided it was a good idea to hide those options by default is an idiot.
Windows 10 still has a split personality. It's like Windows 7 with Windows 8 glued on top. The Windows 10 control panel for example, doesn't include all the settings needed, and the system resorts to the classic control panel whenever you need to change any more advanced settings. The main selling points of Windows 10 are DirectX12 and optimisations to system boot, and honestly, they don't really make up for all the downsides.
Wrong. Someone here isn't a power user. Windows 7 constantly crashed and was even more difficult to find settings for. Windows 10 is BY FAR the most user friendly and stable.
After using Win10, I don't think I could go back to Win7. Win10 does a ton more than 7 did, is more powerful, and is more secure. It's better than 7 in soooooo many ways.
@@soulintake Ahh yes, the old "You don't like something I like, so hence you must be an inferior user," argument. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I don't doubt that you like it, but I don't. And it has nothing to do with skill levels.
My experience goes back to 1963 on the IBM 1620 (20k of memory and 2 meg of disk) but it allowed batching ONE job at a time. It actually worked running fortram and SPS - an early and rudimentary assembler. Ulike later computers - the 1620 and the 1401 I worked on later actually exected its instruction set, not simulated it in a RISC computer. These computers were discrete components on printed circuit boards, many of them on a frame called a gate, with wires between them. The basic 1620 had three gates about 3 x 4 feet each. When they added a disk drive they added a small gate inside - actually drilled holes in the chassis with an electric drill to mount it! Then i hit the big time in 1965 with three IBM man systems for the S/360 line, TOS, DOS and OS. Tape Operating System was an IBM release that was primarily to provide a platfrom for people to start developing programs, mainly in cobol and assembler for DOS and OS that were not ready yet. DOS had a supervisor (Kernel) that could be as small as 6k, but most were 8k. We were on a 64k S/360 - 8k Supervisor, 8k online inquiry program leaving 56k for batch processing. Many of our ptograms had overlays, segments that were successively loaded. DOS/VS (limited to one address space of 16M) came out and later DOS/VSE (about 1980 with max of one address spaece of 4G) allowing virtual storage and words like paging, thrashing and Least recently used, and swap came in. A little later I moved to larger facility and hit OS, now known as Multiple Virtual Systems MVS/VS and later VSE which could have each process having 4G of address apace - about 1985. In August 1999 in another role I helped move a company from DOS/VSE - which was expiring before Y2K) to a parent company MVS/VSE.
Not quite as far back, but I did work on a 1401, 360. I remember placing the startup code in the I/O buffer to save memory on the 360 (Assembly). The introduction of VM/370 was a godsend, made several patches to both DOS 26.2 and VSE for improvements. Fascinating how capable those (relatively) insanely expensive systems were. Lease prices were tens of 1000's per month. It's easy to take all advancements with a grain of salt with that background.
Shit, I was born in 63!👶 I got my first PC a Sinclair z81 in 1981, and hardly used it for being slower than writing by hand... I had a few 2,3, and 486's, a Macintosh Lisa (Still have it but won't boot the OS anymore), and AMD K's and a few Athlon's too. I really only became a power user with Windows 3.1 and a GUI🥴. Some 15 years ago, when my OS was Windows 7, I just got too fed up with MS and literally nuked it and shredded the CD and switched to Linux cold turkey!🤬 I put myself through Linux boot camp and learned it rather quick for having no Windows to fall back on, and have been Loving it ever since.🥳🐧BTW I use Arch!😜🐧 I just built A wicked system with an AMD 7500X, 64 GiB of RAM, and two swift WD Black NVME's, but held off on getting a better graphics card than the one I swapped from my old i5 system because the prices are still too unjustifiably insane!
@@Bob-of-Zoid I too got bit by tbe Linux bug back in 2004. Work PC had XP, couldnt change that, but i FDISKed my home pc (Celeron Coppermine) and installed Fedora Core 1. Never looked back. A P4 (intels biggest piece of shit IMHO) then a Core i3, and now I'm on Fedora 31 and probably due for and upgrade. I only kept the Win7 partition for Autocad, but now Dassault gives us Draftsight for Linux and I'm a happy camper.
@@johnclement5903 You mean you got bit by a penguin!🐧 HAIL TUX!😂 I have tried FreeCAD and it's pretty powerful, but not necessarily as easy to use. I kind of been putting off learning it, because my wish of buying a CNC Router is not tenable at the moment. Over the years that I have tried it on and off, it has improved a great deal. I checked out "Draftsight" but it's proprietary not FOSS, and there's zero Linux anything on their site. It all points at Windows and MAC OS exclusively. So either you are using it on Windows, or you are speaking of another software. There are a few supposedly good online CAD/CAM tools, but putting your designs you may want to patent, or protect for any reason, on some companies servers is trouble waiting to happen. I can't wait to hear the news when a bunch of people find out their patent was patented by someone else, or their entire business model was copied marketed and released before they had a chance too, and found out it was because they did everything with google doc's and google is in the business (Through "Affiliates") of using others hard work to their advantage, and that those they rip off blindly handed over their whole freaking business and all data associated for not reading and understanding their EULA! My Business is nearly 100% self contained. I don't do any other services than email, a host for my website, and an internet provider. I don't do cloud, or software services of any kind, and never will!
I saw your title of this video and thought "oh sure." I worked as a system admin from 1990 through 2017 and saw most of the Windows OS's mentioned, and you and your subscribers are absolutely correct. I recall the sheer frustration with some of those mentioned. I think back of the amount of time I spent trying to get programs to run and developing a true dislike for Microsoft.
I remember on of the selling points of Vista was the widgets you could run on the side. Then one day, the widgets were a huge security problem, then they said, we aren't going to fix it, it was just removed in security update.
@@AraiDigital I'll go one better; the entire windows system itself, has been flawed in execution. The greed which kept new bells and whistles front and center, while not fixing the underlying problems in the OS, is what has perpetually kept windows from ever becoming a great program. The incredible bloat of windows, as well as the intentionally hiding so much in an obscure 'registry', simply makes it a non starter for serious users.
@@d.e.b.b5788 Lawdy, that damned registry. I consider myself an advanced user and have worked as IT support, though not always for Windows. The complexity of trying to tease out a problem, and then resolve it, is insane. You think you've found the right entry for something, then discover that there was a connection somewhere that has now made your system unstable. I'm grateful that I haven't had to dive into it in years. My current system is stable and I rarely add new software, which was the cause of most of my past ventures. It is approximately 5 years old now, and I hope I can keep it going another 5. Compared to current systems, the specs may seem weak, but all my software runs smoothly.
@@d.e.b.b5788 You have hit the nail on the head! "the entire windows system itself, has been flawed in execution" The "incredible bloat", the registry, the incompatibilities, and so on mean that almost ANY other OS is preferable for the desktop. Absolutely Linux for a server!
Thanks for stating that Vista was actually fine after SP2. I fully agree with this and have very similar experiences. I always found that there was too many prejudice and that MS had actually done a good job in correcting many annoyances with Vista. The worst would be Windows ME in my opinion. Windows ME would fail within a week after a clean install.
I had an all in one PC with ME on it. I could see no issue with it. Perhaps only a bluescreen once in afew months for me. Didn't quite know what people disliked at the time.
The problem with saying Vista is the worst, yet fine after SP2, then shouldn't it be tied with XP? That had ridiculous bugs, some of which, like the fact that anyone from anywhere could literally send you a system message, usually spam, with no way of blocking them, without being patched to hell and back first.
Tolerating and justifying MS products and behavior (and the opposite) is a declaration of principle It would be debatable to accept MS if their products were superb Supporting MS crap leads to later supporting nazis, zionists and all kinds of fascists
I used Vista on 2009 laptop, and for a long time I did not switch to Win7 or Win8, as it simply worked like a charm. When I switched to Win7, I noticed that this system is just a revamp of Vista SP2 and it did not work as great as people said.
It's insane to me because Microsoft proved a universal truth with their Mojave campaign - all they had to do was take Vista, rebrand it Windows 7, and braindead people would eat it up. Vista SP2 and Win7 RTM are the exact. same. fucking. operating system. XP RTM and SP1 were unmitigated nightmares and it will never cease to blow my mind the mental gymnastics people do to claim Vista is the "worst" of anything.
My favorite "bad Windows" story was from when I was doing on-site computer repair. One of my clients was a lawyer. She was using an ancient Windows Me computer in early 2007. It was dog slow, and of course it was horribly out of date. The big problem was that the court reporting software she used to get transcripts from the court, was upgraded to a new version; and that version no longer supported Windows 9x. Well, she had to have access to court transcripts, so she had to upgrade. I broke this news to her, told her that while it would be _possible_ to upgrade the copy of Windows on her computer, it would be far too slow for Windows XP to run reasonably. So she went out and bought a brand new computer - and called me back a few days later. First problem, she had bought the absolute cheapest brand-new computer she could find. It was dog slow. Second problem, it came with then-brand-spanking-new Windows Vista. That made the slow computer even slower. The computer *barely* met Windows Vista's minimum requirements (the minimum 512 MB RAM, whatever the slowest-currently-available processor was, probably an already-out-of-date AMD Duron,) and came preloaded with tons of bloatware. It literally took over half an hour to go from power-on to a "usable" desktop. (Good thing I billed by the hour.) And then the hard drive would thrash for another 15-20 minutes, the system barely usable. I immediately threw in another stick of RAM from my parts box and uninstalled all the bloatware. That got it to "minimum actual usable" state. Went to install the new version of the court reporting software.......... "This operating system is not supported." While Me was too _old_ to run it, Vista was too *new*. Had her return the system and buy an older-but-still-in-stock XP model. Rarely had to go back after that.
I had a similar issue supporting an architect. There was just a couple pieces of software they had to be able to use. Some time around 2010 we still had to use xp on a virtual machine to run that 1 program he would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to replace. He retired before having to do that. After that when someone askes ‘what computer should I get?’ I ask them what software will be installed on it.
That's great. I'm definitely glad you're billed by the hour. It's hard for me to imagine someone being a competent lawyer and being so cheap that they'd refuse to buy even a mid-range PC. Did you ever try partitioning or adding a separate drive for storage? It also seems like she might have had about 2,000 documents on her desktop, which would account for the very slow startup.
@@encycl07pedia- She was actually SUPER organized. And mostly “offline.” She only used the computer for exactly the hat was needed for technical reasons. (The online recordings/transcripts.)
Vista was the reason I switched to Mac in 2008! Windows outlook stopped working and my entire adobe Creative Suite stopped working, I tried over and over again to reinstall them, but to no avail. I decided to try Mac, an OS I openly trashed at the time. To my surprise it was lightning fast, ran all the programs I needed and still use.
I threw away the ms dos floppies that came with my pc. Never used it. First pc dos and then Dr dos. X tree gold (gets faraway look like Homer Simpson mmmmmmmm)
This is just a list of Windows versions before Service Pack fixes. Vista was okay after SP2. Win 8.0 was fixed with 8.1. Even beloved XP was bad before SP1.
Agree, but XP runned for me best after SP2 Windows 8 wasnt that bad after 8.1 and tweaking. Vista, to be honest whas great to on my laptop runned it till Windows 10 came out.
Back when I worked for a company that made dev tools for Microsoft OSes, some of the older crusty devs explained it to me this way: NT was the A team. 9x was the, "mmm, yeah, don't want that guy on my team - he'll bung it up" team.
10. Lindows 2:18 9. Windows 8 4:38 8. Gnu Hurd 6:32 7. IMB DOS 4.0 8:26 6. Windows 1.0 9:42 -Giveaway Ad- 11:30 5. Mac OS 8 Copland 13:00 4. JavaOS 15:13 3. Microsoft BoB 17:01 2. Windows ME 18:18 1. Windows Vista 20:45
As a software developer, I remember Vista very well. Lots of apps failed for one reason: developers though they knew better than Microsoft and did their own thing. When Microsoft locked things down, their apps break. Mine didn’t because I actually followed Microsoft’s instructions!
lol. Yeah, it's kind of how lots of HTML has become "obsolete" and "no longer supported" but pretty much every browser reads those tags just fine. I imagine if a browser actually removed those from support, half the Web would break on the browser. It sounds like you didn't do any quick-and-dirty hacks. Thank you for writing good code.
It was the same with drivers. Back then there were a lot of crappy hardware manufacturers that provided very bad driver support especially from companies fromplaces like Taiwan. As great at hardware Taiwanese companies are they are terrible at software and especially documentation.
The problem with me was most people were running it on old computers that were designed for windows 95. Vista is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be, it added a lot features that are considered normal today.
The problem with ME was definitely stability, and the computer restore feature which ate your generally not to big HDD up, and never worked one single time when the system files ended up corrupted. I had a brand new 1.0ghz P3 machine with 256mb of RAM and a 40gb HDD, computer restore would often take up 5gb of it after any long period of time, the performance was fine on that machine, the stability was not. We bought a second HDD to keep my parents work stuff on and every single member of the family including my at the time 6 year old brother knew how to run the system restore CDs to reinstall windows ME and all the drivers. My family LOVED ME when I stole a windows 2000 CD key and install disk from my highschool from machines they imaged XP on. Still couldn't play real mode DOS games, but the computer worked. Windows 2000 was great, OEM keys would install on any machine. Running a Windows ME virtual machine in retrospect isn't as terrible because, well, eventually all the problems got patched but it was long after everyone forgot ME existed. I played the hell out of Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, and Mechwarrior 4 on that machine, as well as Empire Earth.
Removed a good many too, and Vista was every bit as bad as people made it out to be. The 64 bit didn't have issues aside from getting drivers, the 32 bit would blue screen and ruin the file table if run on a 32 bit chip. The upgrade theory doesn't hold as people were having these problems on new machines with OEM installs.
I remember the same issue with O/S 2 back in the early 90s. I was working for an automation vendor and we had software from Europe than ran on O/S 2. The problem is that OS/S 2 required at least 2 Mb RAM and more to run well (a lot in the early 90s) and people wouldn't buy it. Windows 3.0/3.1 required a lot less RAM. O/S 2 was so superior to Windows it wasn't funny but people wouldn't buy it because of the memory requirements. It sounds like a joke in 2020, but memory was really expensive in the early 1990's.
@@shaunpcoleman At least it leveled off a bit since Vista, otherwise we'd be in the 1/2- 1 TB zone. I had 2 mb in 93 and it was half the cost of the PC
My buddy got his hands on a vista beta, allegedly. And according to him, there was a beta version of Vista that was AMAZING. He never upgraded it to the full release and used it for all of high school. He swore by it all the time
In Germany, the "ME" wasn't only spelled out letter by letter since "me" isn't a word in German, it was also backronymed to either "MüllEimer" (Garbage can) or "Müll Edition" (Garbage Edition). ;-)
we called it the missery edition. One new dell pc ran ME with autocad. The OC plotter could only work with ME or not available anymore win2000 license. ME made your day misserable. One day i was so fed up with it i took the pc stealthy to my home and installed 2000. Problem solved 😁
Vista SP2 was my favorite. Stable, the windows 3d look was the best for my taste and it did perform well. When I went to Win 7, I realized it was a slightly streamlined Vista and history has proved me right, it was Vista underneath the covers.
@@SwervingLemon hahah exactly. I went full force on compiz and completely stopped using Windows back in university up to this day. Linux was also more convenient for my uni assignments, so it was a pretty easy transition completely away from Windows (I'd already been dual-booting linux for a few years).
I'm going to say it. Windows Vista wasn't a bad OS. At all. The thing that made people think it was, in my theory, was the hardware requirements that the hardware of the time just weren't up to it, baring in mind people would've been updating their XP machines that may have already been upgraded from 98. My very first Vista experience was on a 1.06Ghz Core Duo sub laptop that was HORRIBLE. But fast forward to having a Core 2 Extreme and 4GB RAM? Beautiful OS! Hell, recently I've been working on restoring a bunch of Dell Optiplex 740's that run on Vista Business & they are very fast & responsive & completely usable in 2020 for basic work and some light web (yeah, I know, outdated browsers aside). Also, not sure why you had issues with VirtualBox drivers. I have a Vista VMWare machine that I've been running to test out Post EoL update installs with no problems.
I've always said that saying Vista was bad because it ran slow on machines that really shouldn't have came with it is like saying XP is bad because ran like shit on a Pentium MMX.
I'd say it's a pretty big problem if a mass-market operating system doesn't, uh, operate very well for most users (including even some who bought computers with Vista OEM).
@@kvngn that wasn't the fault of Vista. It was the fault of OEMs slapping Vista Home Premium on machines that shouldn't have ran anything past Vista Home Basic.
Windows 7 was a breath of fresh air. It felt like an apology for every OS that came before it. I miss it dearly, and curse it's loss every time I uninstall TEAMS AGAIN?! WHY?!
Full disclosure, I worked on Vista drivers at Intel when it was coming out. I didn't care for it, but I am a Linux person and also worked on HPUX, AIX, MacOS and Linux at the same time. I remember Microsoft was telling Intel that Vista was going to be the last version of Windows and they were going to get out of the OS game to focus on gaming, home entertainment and office productivity, so there was a bit of a party atmosphere whenever a team shipped their Vista final binaries, fully expecting they'd never have to deal with Windows ever again. I can only imagine the disappointment when 7 was announced. Which is just Vista with a less aggressively different UI. Hell, use a CD burner in 10 and it's recognizably to me as the EXACT SAME THING that was introduced in Vista, right down to Vista-specific Aero UI elements...
@@jasonmetcalfe4695 Not really. ME is just 98 without some legacy support, and 9x is just 3.x with a better program manager. Vista and 7 are literally the same except for branding. Microsoft's just really good at selling its OS customers the same turd twice and them liking it the second time, even if nothing substantive has changed about it but the marketing materials.
I'm always amused by the amount of hate that Vista still receives these days. I had a Vista based PC that was my daily driver for almost 4 years. Granted it was a Core 2 Quad that had 4 GB of RAM to begin with (later 8 GB) and it came with Vista SP2 but it never gave me any real issues. However, I do agree with Microsoft making a whole lot of changes with Vista very quickly hurt it. The fact is Microsoft enforced a whole lot new rules with Vista as far as the Windows APIs & drivers are concerned that were mostly suggestions under XP. Some of the new rules that had to be followed caused older programs to trip UAC, sometimes constantly, and caused a lot of device drivers to have to be rewritten. Many of those new API & driver rules were put in place due to how easy it was (and still is) to unleash malware/viruses on XP based machines. By the time Windows 7 was released both the hardware, software and device drivers had all caught up to those changes so the transition seemed very easy, hence the love for Win 7 over Vista. Even though under the hood Vista and 7 are very similar.
I agree. I used Vista for years and I thought it was fine. UAC could be a bit annoying but really, its just one click to say 'Yes I made that change' I never had issues with it being tripped multiple times for a program.
AzlanTLion I just turned UAC off. After that, I found Vista to be great. Actually had better luck with vista than 7 (in terms of stability). My one complaint with Vista is that it never had Aero Snap
My laptop back in 2007 was a Celeron with 2GB of memory and it came/ran with Vista fine. Granted, I was a student who didn't need much out of it except for social media, document manipulation, and occassional light gaming. Also, I liked UAC when it was introduced to be honest. Back during the XP days I used to have an anti-malware solution that relied on approving/denying system events instead of virus definitions to work as I was fed up by my PC getting screwed over whenever I plug a flash drive in.
The reason you never had any real issues was because it was already SP2 on decent hardware. At launch even hardware higher than recommended specs was struggling with aero on and a few programs open. On top of that depending on which peripherals you used more often then not drivers would be a major headache and take forever to get resolved (many I know just bought different hardware that they knew from forums/friends worked). Partly it was Microsoft's problem of not enough collaboration with manufacturers and their buy-in scheme for Win compatible (pay us to get your hardware working PnP); partly it was manufacturers pushing their products too soon and then dragging their feet and pointing fingers instead of working on proper drivers together with MS. I had plenty of issues with it (including many blue screens) until SP1 was released. That solved all my issues (well at least my pc issues lol). After SP2 it was pretty much a pre-win7 version.
I used to know the guy who was the Microsoft manager who had the responsibility of releasing Vista home version. We called him Tam, not sure if that was his real name or a nickname. The last time I saw him a few months after Vista had been released, I was setting up my webcasting equipment for a meeting of an association we both were involved with (nothing to do with Microsoft). When he walked in he looked at me and said "I don't want to talk about Vista". He knew it wasn't ready but had been forced to release it due to it being so far behind schedule. Sadly, Tam passed away some years ago of complications from diabetes.
My main gripe with Vista was that it was so massive you needed at least a gig of ram to run it. That's a tall order at the time for a broke college student. Lol. The laptop my dad got me came with Vista and 512mb ram. It was so slow, and crashed so much. I had a buddy put XP on it and never had another issue. When i got 7 with a new desktop i loved it. I realized it was Vista, but a more streamlined version and thought "if this is what i got years ago this would've been great!"
>That's a tall order at the time for a broke college student. Lol. Actually 1 gigs of DDR2 were among the cheapest ram sticks around in 2007 (i believe 512 Mb were on sale but wasn't common in new builds) and most PCs were build with at least 2 gigs. So it wasn't expensive to run Vista. Literally anything you can build from a local store, were fine. Notebooks are whole another story cause it's not you who define a hardware. Add a slowness of the mobile hard drives (SSDs weren't a thing)... By the time 7 were released, even an Intel-Atom based netbooks were packed with at least 1 Gb. Good thing now both can utilize the same storage and DIMM/SO-DIMM performance match.
@@melonademan5639 Totally agree! I loved it! I selected compatible hardware at the time with Vista Ultimate. Never ran into any problems at all. Was quite content with it!
In 2007, Vista simply wasn't up to scratch. I'm not sure if you used it in 2007, and on what hardware, but the whole planet couldn't suddenly dump everything, throw away every peripheral, and buy a dual core system with 3GB RAM and 256MB+ of video RAM. There were systems with 32 and 64MB of video RAM, that were single core with lower bus speeds such as Pentium 4 2.8GHz machines that had no chance in hell, and that's without looking at their device drivers and peripherals. The world doesn't stop just because Microsoft finally manages to get their bloated trash out of the door at v0.7 beta 2 [wink]
I've been using 2000 for so long that I barely used XP, which I saw as "NT for dummies". I made the switch just to have a 64 bit OS (yes, there was an x64 version of XP)
Microsoft's joke on us: Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 were all Windows 6.x under the covers. 10 would have been another 6.x, but Microsoft wanted to cut ties with Windows 8 so much that the product name and system version were both upped to 10.
Windows Mobile was hands-down the worst, by such a large margin that it took down Nokia and any aspirations Microsoft may have had with global OS market share. If anyone has any experience of this they will know the relief they felt when the OS bricked the handset or, in my case, having destroyed the device in a fit of frustration.
I would swap Windows ME, and Windows Vista. ME was promoted as the next iteration of 9x, but fell very far short just delivering the basics. Vista on the other hand delivered everything it should have, but was more demanding than Windows XP, and needed new drivers, which some vendors didn't deliver. Its problem was the way it was launched, more than Vista itself.
@@thelaughingmanofficial For some this may have been the case, but I have heard many stories of people installing ME or buying a PC with ME already installed and the computer crashed a heck of lot more than 95 or 98 ever did. I've heard that this may have been a driver issue, possibly due to many PC manufacturers not properly updating their drivers for ME or putting out buggy ME drivers. The removal of Real Mode DOS in ME did alleviate a common cause of crashes in 95 and 98 but drivers and/or other issue made ME crash allot for others reason, at least for many. Apparently, ME was rushed out as stop-gap Windows update for the year 2000 because they had originally planned to release a consumer version of Windows 2000 codenamed Windows Neptune but canceled those plans in favor developing Windows XP, codenamed Whistler. Whistler was a combo of Neptune and Odyssey (the planned successor to Win2000 workstation). With Whistler/XP they decided to introduce a radical Luna theme over the old Windows 2000 that wasn't much different the NT 4 theme. Had Neptune been completed and released instead of ME, I think even with the somewhat boring interface, that would have been the better move then update the interface with XP a year later as planned.
@@thelaughingmanofficial It worked fine if you weren't reliant on ANY program, to be fair. Nothing justifies 98SE running smoothly without a hitch (for 9X standards) while ME crashes when you sneeze. Even 3.1 variants of Windows didn't give me that much trouble. So yes, ME is definitely the worst of 'em. Far, FAR worse than Vista, that's for sure.
I'll argue that the overwhelming fault with Windows Vista, was found in two areas: system resource management, and the marketing. Promises which never became fulfilled with Vista's potential, were made. Generally speaking, the market ready hardware at time of release just wasn't ready, either. It wasn't a "bad" operating system, as every iteration of Windows is resource hungry and bloated beyond anyone's needs, but it was released incorrectly, and at the wrong time.
Ye tbh I've used Vista a couple of times and it seems ok I guess it's just that the hardware back then wasn't powerful enough for a modern gui in the operating system
My experience with Vista was the UAC being the most annoying aspect in that it felt every action prompted the UAC to ask "are you sure you really want to do that?", ended up turning off UAC on quite a few pc's because it really did get to people.
@Josh B'Gosh said "It wasn't a "bad" operating system, as every iteration of Windows is resource hungry and bloated beyond anyone's needs Your response is the best example of what I say: microsofties believe crap is normal so it's ridiculous to demand MS products to function as a car I bet you would sue if your car behaved like MS crap
Vista definitely had faults, but unlike most of the OSes here, it somewhat redeemed itself after a few years once SP1 and SP2 for Vista came out. 7 was out for a while and I remember going back and installing Vista on a computer when SP2 was out and it was still supported and it ran well on that computer. It wasn't a powerful computer but certainly better than the early minimum system requirements and it was honestly a pleasant experience. Felt like I was using a blend of XP and Windows 7 and while I wouldn't consider the system as stable as Windows 7, I don't remember running into many issues with it. So yeah by the time the Service Packs came out for Vista, the reputation was already irredeemable and 7 had a better launch so people stuck with XP or 7.
As a software engineer I find any software “upgrade” that make your computer slower Oxymoronic! It’s one thing if you are doing more work and require more hardware, but Windows it’s self should not slowdown your computer!
You must not have been a software engineer for long then. Software has gotten slower faster than hardware has gotten faster. This is especially true in the last 6 years, where the new trend is to move everything to the web and bring Javascript to the desktop. Combine that with the SOP of Javascript developers being to use a library for EVERYTHING because they can't even write a left-pad function, and yeah... The only place software seems to NOT be getting slower is in the free/open-source space.
@@angolin9352 The problem is the operating system isn't supposed to be the application you're running. It's merely supposed to be an environment that facilitates the ability to run applications within it. An operating system that uses more resources in the applications you're running isn't doing its job. It should be getting out of the way as much as possible while maintaining a reasonable form of memory management, task swapping and process isolation. Wirth's law should never apply to operating systems. Wirth's law is the merely the result of lazy programming not a fundamental principle. It is radically true in the web programming arena, because web programming seems to be focused on extremely short turn around times instead of good design practices.
The second PC I bought with my own money was running Vista and I basically never had any problem, always felt like a great OS to me and I actually missed quite a few things when I finally upgraded to 7 especially the look. Granted I came pretty late to the party and with a 4 core processor and I think 4GB of RAM and I was using it almost exclusively for games.
Vista never had issues if you built for vista, my own machine was pretty much the best you could buy as of December 2006 (and the CPU got upgraded as soon as there was a quad core 2 extreme which happened in 2007). I also had 2 dual 8800 gts gfx cards, 4gb of ram (think I had 8gb at the end of 2007 when I got the new cpu so I already had more memory than most users at the time unless we're talking eec memory users) That PC ($7,876.47) gave me so much entertainment than any game console ever did (ok, the ps2 was a banger, the 360 also was pretty damn stacked in 2007 as well as PS3 but the 360/ps3 was the last GOOD console gaming generation.. it's sucked since) You also gotta realize I was only 17 at the time (jan 2007), so $8k was a lot of money and I was screamed at by my parents because college was coming up and I just bought kick ass PC components (hindsight College was a waste of money and I don't recommend college unless it's a trained and needed position like a dr, lawyer, etc.. everything else can be learned on your own) That PC lasted me until LGA 2011 which I think came out at the tail end of 2011 or early 2012.. Now obv I upgraded the CPU and gpu a few times but honestly that system kept up for a good solid 5 years! In 2012 I went with a i7 3820 (I originally was gonna upgrade this later but never happened but I did get a stable 4.5ghz out of it), 16gb of ddr3 (eventually 64gb), 5x 2tb hdd, 4x 500gb ssd, 1x 2tb ssd(main os/programs), gtx 680, 3x samsung 24' 120hz 3d panels (I can't remember the actual product name but they were 3d tn panels that ran at 120hz). I don't think I upgraded my gpu until I noticed severe fps issues at 1080p high settings.. think I upgraded to a Titan or a Titanx.. it was a titan (which then got upgraded to gtx 1080) and now I'm on a 3070ti (that's mainly cause it was impossible to get ANY gpu at the time.. prob won't upgrade until a 5080/90 or see how amd is doing.
Once hardware caught up Vista was a great OS. The problem was that most of the PCs people were using at the time it was released weren't really up to the task. It needed a multicore CPU with a gigabyte of RAM and a video card with 3D acceleration to run well and those are things most people didn't have yet. Windows 7 was only a minor update to Vista and it was hugely popular.
I always loved the fact that Steve Jobs was kicked out of his own company, started NextOS, made a next generation OS there, had Apple buy his company and OS and then actually took over Apple as CEO again. Who got the last laugh?
@@steinrich56 What??!!! When the heck did THAT happen?! But seriously, it was fun to watch those series of events take place and then have Steve build the company up to the trillion dollar enterprise it is now.
Windows 8 easily. Worst operating system ever made. The interface was unusable. Microsoft tried to put a phone interface on a desktop OS. Vista was bad, but good god Windows 8 was on another level of terrible.
Actually with a custom start menu Windows 8 / 8.1 was IMO better than Windows 10 is right now, because the Windows 10 start menu is as bad as the Windows 8 start screen AND we have even more duplicate settings menus compared to Windows 8. Fullscreen or in Windows, those metro like settings menus are the worst thing ever, if you are a mouse user.
win 8 was horrible. first i used win 8.1 on a brand new computer and after a blackout the instalation corrupted, so reinstalled win 8 vanilla. i didn't realize it had win 8.1 from the factory and i thought i installed the wrong version of the os. it was horrible, i couldn't get to the desktop at first but i found a workaround by opening my pc from the start menu. after installing the lastest updates it was so much better and i actualy like win 8.1. im not using it right now because it has compatibility issues with older games and i play a lot of them to this day, but if it wasn't for that i would still be using it. the metro styled start menu was very easy to use for me, in fact i loved it. it felt different at first but i got used to it pretty quickly and since the tiles were bigger they were faster and easier to click compared to win 7 style.
@@GreatOne0815 Well yeah maybe, but that's not the point. You shouldn't have to "hack" an OS to be like its predecessor to be usable. I agree though that Win 10 is terrible. I'm still on Win 7 till the day I die.
To me, Windows 8 was the nail in the coffin that made me switch to Mac. Vista - I had a high-end gaming PC at that time, and liked many of the changes. I didn't hate that. I completely skipped Me before that.
Linus only did one thing more than RMS - "release". Regarding "Copland" - this proves the old adage that "Good software is written by small teams working fast. Bad software is written by large teams written slowly".
yes it sucked, still better than the trojan rootkit spuware PUP Malware known as "windows 10" were in big trouble world is more and more useing litteral malicius code as an OS, just because they bic corp dosent make it "safe" infact, big corp measn MORE DANGERUS!!!
@@NightmareRex6 When I finally did an install as they made sure some stuff no longer works on Windows 7, I laughed when it asked if I agreed for them to collect 'inking'. Or to put it another way, agree to key logging. Some accused me of being a tin foil hat wearer, so I showed them the link on the Micro$oft site how to switch it off and check it hasn't been switched on again by an update. I use Linux for everything else now and just have Windows 10 for gaming and the stuff that won't run on 7 or Linux.
Wow, I was wondering if I’d see this here. That guy was stupid-smart, but utterly and absolutely incompatible with living. :( I wish more of his archives survived; it seems spread pretty thin these days, from what I’ve seen. I came into it very late, but I’d like to think that there’s some footage of him being educational out there, before he got too far down his road.
I remember Dos 4.0, it clogged up the memory so it worked not as well as the 3.2 or 3.3 Version and it had almost no real useable innovations. The next version 5.0 brought quite significant improvements.
The real killer in MS-DOS 4.0 though was "Smartdrive" - for about 3 MONTHS before MS-DOS 4.0 was released, the best selling drive BY VOLUME was the Miniscribe 3650 and it's RLL certified version the 3675R - which had more than 1024 tracks. Smartdrive was limited to 1024 tracks, or it would OVERWRITE DATA - so you either had to format the drive smaller and LOSE CAPACITY, or you had to ditch SmartDrive entirely, or you had your most critical parts of the drive get overwritten and LOSE DATA. There were other drives with the same issue that were less common but had been around LONGER, like the Microscience 3085 and it's ESDI version the 3170, and had EVEN MORE tracks. There was a VERY STRONG reason MS-DOS 5.0 had a WIDE, OPEN BETA TEST before it was released - and I think that's STILL the only Microsoft OS that ever had a REAL Beta Test program.
Every reason I’m so happy to have switched 100% to a MAC environment at work since 2011. No blue screens, no drivers to install, no IT support, we’ve saved £1000’s on using MacBooks instead of PC’s in our workplace, probably around £80,000 over the 13 years. Got MacBook Airs from 2012 still running fine that have never crashed once.
While I agree that the launch of Vista was a disaster, it's fascinating that so many consider Windows 7 to be one of MS's best OS's, an OS which is essentially Vista Service Pack 3. I think the reasons people view WIn7 so much more favorably than Vista are: 1. Vista did indeed have several issues at launch, which were fixed with SP1/2 2. The system requirements of Vista and Win7 are actually nearly identical, but Vista came out several years earlier. At the launch of Vista, 512-1024 MB of RAM and single-core CPUs were the norm. By the time Win7 came out, 4+ GB of RAM and dual-core CPUs or better were common, making everything feel snappier. 3. When Vista came out, hardware manufacturers just weren't ready. Drivers were either buggy and unstable, or simply non-existent so you had to throw out perfectly good hardware if you wanted to upgrade. When Win7 came out, hardware manufacturers had caught up with the new driver model, and almost everything that worked with Vista would work with Win7.
I had a few machines running Vista. I'm not sure what all the hate was about with this release. The very first release had some issues, but these were quickly fixed. It was actually one of the most polished releases Microsoft ever put out. It's downfall was being sold, initially, on older hardware that really wasn't up to the task.
@B3ro1080 I seem to recall gamers' main complaint with Vista being added latency, and many staying with XP. I don't really pay too much attention to the needs of gamers' because they are not representative of general usage. PC gaming also wasn't quite as "hot" of a scene then as it is today. Sometimes I think a lot of the BS about latency, frame rates, resolution, etc are more of a dick size contest than actually about playability or strategy.
@B3ro1080 It wasn't that big in 2007 when Vista came out. Present, but not the esports thing we have today. As for as 200ms goes. It's all in your head. Find a science book. Looks like you responded just to argue anyways.
@B3ro1080 Plenty of online reaction time tests around to prove that out. 200ms is considered average... The all time average on the famous dataset is 280ms. The old gold standard for RTT before ubiquitous fiber links was 90ms or roughly half typical reaction time. No denying that some have exceptional reflexes, but even the best test subjects tested in the 140s. That is visual reaction time. Aural reflex is much faster... Some professional athletes testing as low as 78ms.
POSIX systems: "This action requires elevated privileges, prove you are root, type your password" Win32 systems: "This action requires you to be admin, are you admin? [Yes/No]"
Actually, it's worse. Sometimes it doesn't allow a damn thing to function even if you're an Admin. For instance, if some moron decided for some service to have a DCOM-based interface. You just enable everything, turn off every firewall thus completely ruining security of the system, but still it's permission denied issue.
But it is mostly protecting you from programs that are doing something you didn't expect, or didn't even realize that you were running / were being run for you...it isn't perfect but had its raison d'etra.
Honestly, my experience with Windows Me wasn't bad. I happened to buy a PC with Windows Me pre-installed back in late 2000, I think, and used it for several years without any major issue. Never had to reinstall the OS, most things ran just fine; there were some crashes, certainly, but not very frequently, as far as I remember.
@@ivandubinsky1857 You must have been an early adopter. By the time XP was right around the corner is when I had purchased a PC with ME. It did have a later revision that you probably didn't have. It kinda sucks it took them that long to fix the issues it had before because everyone I talk to in person has had a bad experience with ME except myself. Mine ran just as good as XP.
@@ThexthSurvivor I had a good experience with ME too, it was MUCH faster than Windows XP on my Pentium III machine at the time and it was somewhat faster than Win98se, it was also my favourite Windows user interface ever. The difference between NT and 9x in terms of speed is often forgotten but there really was a big performance hit going to NT. ME ran very well on older hardware, it was happy with 64MB of memory whereas XP really needed 256 to present a decent experience upon release. As XP became patched and evolved into SP3 you really had to have 512MB to run XP.
22:55 I can't believe people think an Operating System is supposed to "look good" instead of use as little resources as possible to facilitate applications.
In defence of Vista, I think a lot of its problem was due to marketing - on a PC with similar specs I always found win 7 and vista to run basically identically, I had a core 2 quad at the time and it ran flawlessly, I came to find that a lot of vista’s issues in my experience were due to it being ahead of its time in many ways, but it struggled massively on the hardware at the time.
In those days offices were filled with 512 meg of ram machines and a powerful PC would have 1 to 2 gigs. XP survived for so long that oems cheaper out with less ram to a race to the bottom with price wars.
In Benchmarks, Vista simply could not keep up to Windows 7 because of the way it wasted ram to display the desktop while Windows 7 used much faster vram.
ehhhhhhh, longhorn looked great when it was in development, but the finished product was bloated and didn't look anywhere near as good. and no amount of aesthetic appeal is going to make up for all the compatibility issues, overzealous uac, etc.
3:43 Not Copyrights. There's no question of copyright infringement, nothing was copied. The problem Microsoft alleged was trademark infringement. THat's a serious matter, if trademarks are not defended, they are lost. Whether "Windows" could be a registered trademark was disputed, but Linspire went broke before the question was resolved. Microsoft claimed an "auditory likeness."
So what is an "operating system", if not the system by which you operate the computer? Far from all computers historically had schedulers, multitasking, or even file systems. Still they usually had a system by which the computer could be operated. Hence that old terminology.
@@herrbonk3635 Let me explain it in other words. Is an engine a car? Do you interact as a user-driver with an engine directly or you've got some interface? It is the same with the OS. Hurd is an engine and with some features around makes an OS. But comparing Hurd to any OS is like comparing a 2.5 TFSI engine with Ford F150. We can do this but the sense is questionable. In both worlds, we may have some addons. USB-chargers, radio, GPS navigation, or text editor, spreadsheet, web browser, etc. But those add-ons are not must-have, and they do not define the thing.
@@herrbonk3635 he is right as well, GNOME or KDE are not a GNU Linux, there are just graphical interfaces. So as I remember windows 3.1 or 3.11 was the first Windows called an OS. All previous versions were just graphical interfaces to DOS.
It's an old ad. He was actually destroying it and then the mom went to the PC and used System Restore to showcase the ability of Windows Me to repair itself.
MS gradually introduces a lot of big brother tech inside of their line of operating systems. There was a truckload of newer features of this kind in Vista, and public reception was further aggravated by Mr. Ballmer eccentricity and arrogance. Win7 still had all these controversial features and much more, but the general public got used to them, I guess.
*"infringing Microsoft’s copyrights “* You fail to mention the really interesting fallout from this case: the court ruling that Microsoft did not, in fact, own a trademark on the name Windows. That’s what led to the out of court settlement and probably made Microsoft regret filing the lawsuit.
It's funny to hear about ME. I remember building a new PC back when ME came out and I installed ME on it. It wasn't until later that I found out everyone hated ME. But my experience with it was great; I don't remember it ever crashing and every new piece of hardware I installed seemed to install without any problems. I remember being mystified about why everyone else hated it. Maybe I just got lucky; I dunno.
Most likely you simply used the proper drivers and hardware. Like with Vista Me didn't like drivers and Hardware from the previous Windows. Which is understandable. Used both Vista and Me and both are actually quite good. Vista has the maybe most appealing UI of all. It's just hip to hate both of them lol
All though I`ve used Vista, XP, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10. And a little 95 and 98. Honestly prefer the layout on Win 8. Windows 7 have been outdated for years And windows update on win 7 worked half of the time. Win 8 was better looking. Win 10 is the king.
Perhaps the reason Win 2000 doesn't show up on those tick-tock lists is: "...Windows 2000 shipped in four different editions: _Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server._ Windows 2000 Professional was _aimed squarely at enterprise desktop customers_ and was the version used the most. All of them included advanced new features that made Windows 2000 an attractive upgrade for both Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98..." 2k released February 2000, Me released September 2000.
The first laptop I bought had windows vista installed and it was stable from my end. At that time I was wondering why there are a lot of complaints. I guess using machines meant for xp was the main issue.
Powerful PC also struggle with vista not because of low performance but due to terrible hardware handling. This problem didn't exist in W7 so many of us just waited on xp until W7 came out.
fun story, dad's old core 2 duo laptop from 2008 HATES 10 (and by proxy also 11 i imagine) due to a borked intel wifi driver. vista that it shipped with? NOT A SINGLE BSOD, EVER. like idk.
As an IT support dude (formal title in Arizona!) I longed to present myself as being proficient in MS Bob. Sadly, I didn't make the leap. Back to the real world. Every version I have seen of DOS, including the non-MS one, can't handle requests for less than (IIRC) 4 paragraphs of memory from within an executable. DOS returns a pointer to a 100 byte section of the stack that contains the "resume" pointer when your app ends... reading it is okay, writing to it is streng verboten. I learned this when I was testing a resizable window project I was doing as hobby... make the window too small and the computer had to be hard booted after the app ended.
I recall Vista launching and thinking it was a rushed, knee-jerk reaction to the 3D accelerated desktop environments that were the rage on linux at the time. Im shocked to find out that it had a 6 year dev cycle. Wow.
@@existenceisillusion6528 I’m able to do plenty on my Windows 10 tablet. It’s only crap if you’re a die hard fan of putting MS/Windows down all the time.
@@existenceisillusion6528 we’ve all got our opinions. I do video editing, which is quite labour intensive. I’ll agree that Windows 7 was good, Windows 8 was crap but Windows 10 is good again.
I came to Vista quite late and it worked fine. I was not a big PC user by that point, (I still had my faithful XP laptop and rarely touched the Vista PC), but the PC was powerful enough to run it with no problems. The issues I found with Vista were: 1) far too many versions upon release. 2) the machines it first shipped with were under-powered (including the infamous "Vista ready" machines that were sold prior to it's release). To my mind, people should have raised more legal claims against the retailers selling these barely capable machines. The OS was not the problem, it was just too power hungry for the state of the market at that time. The need to upgrade should have been made clearer, with an emphasis on Vista being a premium product for newer powerful machines.
Vista was great if your hardware supported it fully. Same with ME. But many people upgraded to it or used underpowered cheap PCs with them and got stuck with bad drivers
Vista's biggest problem was that MS let vendors sell underpowered systems as "Vista compatible". I had my users come to me with new, dog-slow laptops with Vista. I just turned off all the Aero accerated features, because these machines only had integrated graphics, and told them to double the RAM. After that the Vista machines ran fine. Edit: I left my comment before finishing the video. My appologies.
I was in the Windows 8 beta group. When the beta first came out I immediately complained and said "I do not want my computer to be a better phone". Within a matter of minutes, maybe seconds, I was booted from the group. Like almost instantly.
That wasn't a good reason to be booted. Maybe you had a better idea of how the GUI was supposed to look and work. Maybe your ideas were better than the mess that ended up being win 8.
I loved Windows 2000 back in the day - clean interface, stable, and actually ran quite a few games (unlike NT 4, which also required doing a double backward somersault through a hoop while whistling the Star Spangled Banner just to get it installed). I kept 98 as a dual boot for running older stuff, and while I did dabble with ME for a while, I got fed up with it and went back to 98SE. Same goes for Vista - I have a "Vista Capable" laptop that did run it okay, but I got frustrated with that too and went back to XP. At least I was able to get it through the university instead of having to pay full price. I also used 8 and 8.1 for a while, and I was at least able to "tolerate" them - instead of hunting for apps in the Metro interface, it was just quicker to use the search function instead.
2000 was really the dry run for XP. And it was really great. XP was really just 2000 with higher hardware requirements and a pasteurized wallpaper. Though as computers got faster and faster, XP began to overtake 2000 in what it could get out of the hardware. For me that seemed somewhere around the Athlon XP 1600ish area.
My issues Vista actually started with the release of SP1. Had an external HDD that worked fine until I upgraded to SP1. After a few bouts of uninstalling/reinstalling the OS and testing I found that running Linux in a VM allowed me to access the drive.
A lot of people installed it, found their performance dropped 75% on then quickly ditched it for a less intensive os, usually the one they just 'upgraded' from. To put it into context, let's say you brought a brand new car but handles and performs like some 70s beater, you would be upset you paid top dollar for a worse car than you had, no matter how shiny it was. The death knell was business - forced into upgrading through security and support policies. If you have 500 pcs that work perfectly fine, then have to throw them out to spend $2000*500 to replace them, just to be able to do the exact same thing you did before with zero productivity improvements... well let's just say MS made themselves extremely unpopular worldwide.
@@tvctaswegia497 there WERE productivity improvements though. also, I hate computer car analogies but here, if you were getting worse performance, it was because you didn't get a new car (computer).
@@tvctaswegia497 If you're spending $2000 a piece when buying 500 computers in bulk you're getting scammed... Typical office pc's very capable of running Vista could be bought for ~350 back then, buying 500 in bulk will easily get you a 15-20% discount at HP/Dell thus ~$280*500. Also, performance didn't drop 75%, that's just a made up percentage and the wrong measure anyway. System resource utilization increased a bit yes but nowhere near 75%, more in the range of 5-10% when running on a low-end system. Once you spent more than $250 on a new pc Vista ran fine from launch. Their peripheral support sucked though.
I had Vista Ultimate on a brand new laptop at the time. My experience of Vista seems very different to many, I loved it but then I had a computer capable of running both it and Aero at the time.
hot take: Vista was actually pretty great. It had two major problems: high system requirements, and WAY too much nagging about permissions. But it remains to this day Microsoft's prettiest UI, and debuted many features that became essential components of the OS moving forward, such as Defender, which was the all--time biggest blow to malware since Windows' introduction, hard drive encryption at the operating system level, and real user account control. I even liked the sidebar gadgets. It was ahead of its time.
Vista was too forward looking for its own good. Like it brought in features and stuff we now love. But it did little too much , release little to early and drivers were huge issue. Still I used it after SP1 and upgrading my PC, I knew it was demanding, so I just waited for upgrade and from there on, experience was actually good. Which kind of got confirmed with Windows 7 and minimum change. Like 7 in ways felt like Vista SP3, at least I think 2 was last service pack. But yeah, damage was already done and 7 had luck of more people upgrading to newer hardware, as well as I think it was bit easier on system resources. But list wise, I would actually put it much lower. Though I could totally see why it got voted, because way more people use or have to use Windows than they do with other OSes, where things more split and spread out.
I remember with Windows 8 having to install one of those alternative start menu programs. I forget the name of it but I really liked it. Really helped tide me over until Microsoft started offering Windows 10 as a free upgrade. :)
I think Windows 11 is by far the worst so far. Overzealous telemetry, the terrible start menu with ads and no way of categorising your programs. Then there’s the superfluous system requirements which are completely meaningless and can be bypassed. What about the need to register for an MS account and have to be online just to install. The whole thing is a mess. No longer a cycle of good OS / bad OS, Microsoft have turned a dark corner. I sincerely hope to general public vote with their feet on this one and turn their backs on this company. It’ll take a lot more that AI tinsel baked into their crappy operating system to redeem themselves.
I have fond memories of Warp 3. Trying to get music and digital sound both working on Doom was fun as each seemed to lock out the other. When Windows XP came along and Doom worked flawlessly, that saw all 40 discs reformatted.
Vista was not that bad for me. I have a Gateway laptop that came with Vista, it works well and I used Vista on it quite regularly until support for Vista ended). I have now dual-booted it with Vista and Linux.
the only real problem with vista is it required performant hardware. had ssds been widely available at its release i dont think it would have the terrible rep that it does. the worst thing about it is it felt like it nerfed file copy performance. that alone made me downgrade to xp64 pro. when 7 came out and ssds were more common it was smooth as butter. though 7 may have been better received because many of the computers it shipped with had ssds. vista's main problem was that it was actually ahead of its time.
18:26 Windows em eeE - or the REAL name, Windows Millenium Edition (as you did mention). I have NEVER heard anyone just say "me" about it before. As far as Windows 2000 goes - it was intended to MERGE the "home" Win9x line and the "business" NT line in ONE operating system - I saw a LOT of 2000 home computers.
I don't get Vista hate - I used it and it was fine. Windows 7 came out and was pretty much the same product. My only beef maybe was that it had quite a bit more memory overhead.
I think it comes down to two different things. Firstly, an overly aggressive implementation of UAC, which irritated experienced users and scared the hell out of inexperienced users. Secondly, as with WinMe the individual experience seems to have varied hugely, with many people happy but far too many people encountering far too many issues. Manufacturers preinstalling Vista on systems that lacked the resources to run it properly no doubt didn't help...
It was terrible on machines sold as "Vista Capable" with Celerons or Semprons and 512 MB of RAM. But if you had a Core 2 Duo and 2-4 GB of RAM it was quite nice. I had a decent PC at the time, and quite liked it. However many of my customers (PC repair tech) bought those horrible Big Box Store PCs manufactured by the likes of Gateway, HP, eMachines, Acer and had a terrible time trying to run the RAM hungry OS on what was a barely acceptable XP machine. Generally doubling or quadrupling their RAM to 2 GB or so made it tolerable even on low spec CPUs for general use.
MS Bob was only a program starter and it wasn't that bad. I installed it once for a kid and he loved it. But what gave me nightmares were MacOS 8 and 9. For 9 I had a loooong list of needed addons and those which were needed to be switched off. And the version of those addons. And lot's of the system tools you needed from third parties to just exchange a harddisk. MacOS X was a godsend!
I worked as a field engineer for a medical computer company for 27 years. I started in this field before Windows even existed. Im here to tell you the Windows Me was the biggest pile of digital sh!t the Microsuck EVER put out.
I barely remember going to buy Windows Me at the software store at the mall. It cost like $99 which was a lot of money for me at the time. Fortunately I've forgotten the install experience, but it was definitely bad, with Me not accepting a lot of my old device drivers and the installer crashing all the time. They also dropped support for some real-mode drivers, or else they still kinda loaded but ran or crashed dog-slow. I tossed it away after 3 days.
Then don't roll back to 4.11. You'll scream bloody hell when file allocation table (FAT) is overwritten with trash. Then ScanDisk fixes it by writing over 2nd good copy.
DOS 4.00 - DOS 6.00 - Win 95 (sort of) - Win2k - Vista - Windows 8 Those are all "x.0" systems, so the rule at 09:31 is true at least _now_ (Win98, XP, 7, and 10 all count as expensive bug fixes of the above OSes. The cycle of "MS promises new features, takes two versions to deliver _properly_ , then thinks of something new (and usually something totally unnecessary), again fails to deliver on the first try..." has seen countless repetitions during the last ~30 years, only slightly slowed down because XP was perfectly fine for about a decade (SP1 to end of support), and after 8, because MS just plain ran out of ideas what to f### up next time. Too bad that not only end users, but also businesses keep falling for it.
@@achtsekundenfurz7876 Win2k does not belong in your list of software products aimed at home users. 2k was the follow-up of WinNT product line. And if you removed OS version check from .MSI files, many programs for XP Pro would not only install, but also run fine under 2k (with help of any missing .DLL files). If you have time, extra HD, and copy of Win2k SP4, give it a try.
@@aleksandrbmelnikov Yes, Win2k was an OS for servers and other professional uses. But it delivered so badly that MS made XP as a quick follow-up to both 2k and 98/ME - the latter was even worse than 2k AND 98. BTW, the bugfix to 2k Server was Windows 2003, a bit later than XP but many years before any other OS development.
Strange that you didn't mention the "dll hell" problem that caused so much trouble in Vista. In the first version of Vista, many programs required new versions of the dlls that they used, and in those early years, there was no versioning mechanism for dll files. If a newer version came out, it just overwrote the old version. But that then caused other programs that used the same dll, to crash because they called incompatible new versions of the methods that they needed. Versioning was added to later versions of Vista, solving lots of issues like this. But by then, it was too late, and Vista had gotten to be known as "unstable".
I remember constant crashes, lockups, and blue screen from Windows 95 and 98. Back then, I always blamed Microsoft. Strange thing though, I recently installed Windows 98 on a much newer computer system than I could afford back in the day, so that I could play some of my old games again. The new(er) system is rock solid, plays for days without the slightest hiccup. Makes me think maybe hardware issues were more common than we realized back then.
It was easy for the hardware vendors to blame the OS. That's why driver signing became a thing in XP. And all of a sudden XP was the most reliable OS. Funny that.
these were all caused by driver issues. often because the wrong driver was installed. it got significantly worse in the early days of usb because in most cases you had to install the driver before you installed your device which was the reverse of the usual way. driver signing wasn't the immediate cure everyone thought it would be because you could still install the wrong signed driver. now i barely have to manually configure drivers and it took a long time to get that right.
@@gertsy2000 yea but in my experience (was a system integrator in the trialing edge of the 98, early xp era). some devices had really good drivers, while others were extremely shoddy with poor instructions, and liked to use generic chipset drivers instead of ones specifically for the hardware they sold. the worst were networking/modem drivers and sometimes sound drivers. those never seemed to work right the first time.
I remember using Lindows in 2003 as my second Linux distro after trying red hat. Lindows was also available for free, or you could buy it retail…for some reason. Not sure what they were trying there
As a matter of fact, Vista had issues with hw requirements but if you had them, it worked, not as fast as W7 but worked, windows Me instead, OMG, it crashed every single day, blue screened like crazy, wasn’t reliable at all.
95b and ME would bork the file table after 3-6 months and require a reinstall if used as a daily work machine Vista would as well unless run on a core2 or greater, a plain core could go a few years with light use. If anything it seems there's just a problem with the 32 bit version when run on 32 bit chips, linux, 2k, XP and 7 run stable on the same machines. 8 and 8.1 like spitting out pool errors and other blue screens on older hardware, ones that go on to successfully run 10, this is 64 bit only, never messed with 32 bit version of 8 or 10
You are correct and Windows 2000 was an excellent operating system, probably one of microsofts best. Truthfully XP was for the most part just windows 2000 with a prettier desktop! Some people tend to confuse it with Windows ME, which was a piece of crap.
Win your Ultimate Tech Bundle by entering Fasthosts’ Techie Test here: www.fasthosts.co.uk/danwood
Please support the channel by supporting the sponsors, these videos can take me 30-40 hours to make! :)
Server 2008!
I think vista had one of the better start meus.
UK contestants only
Hey'up Dan lad, why didn't you do a top 10 of YOUR most hated OS'? Then maybe down the line do 2 top 10's of viewers most beloved and hated OS'?
Where was TempleOS?
@@JamieCrookes TempleOS is never gonna be anyone's daily OS, but it's real value (imho), lay in providing us a window into the mind of a troubled fellow soul.
I had to re-install Win98 so often, I still have the serial number memorized.
Xp x64 aka xp pro 64 bit.. I had that and my 32bt aka x86 edition product keys
Must have been your hardware. 98 and 98SE were great. Back then, I only reinstalled when I upgraded to the new OS.
That's heroic
@@toddnolastname4485 Great in some respects, but not in start up time... (or stability between programs or processes). The start up time was really like a bad joke, especially compared to the *instant on* computers we used in the 1980s.
J3QQ4 🌚
My (least) favorite thing about Windows 8 and the "Metro UI" was that Microsoft _forced it upon server users in Windows Server 2012_ (the server version of Windows 8.)
Doing server remote management over VNC, over a slow internet connection, was *PAINFUL* in Server 2012. "Crap, I don't have a desktop shortcut for that, prepare for slow full screen redraw!"
Did you get to have Classic Shell running to improve the situation? BTW was CS compatible with Server '12?
me
Or just run it in "Desktop" mode. Really, I don't get how supposed IT professionals missed that.
Win Server 2012 with Metro makes me wonder wtf was wrong with MS executives in that era.
@@wton The full screen start menu made me rationally angry. It was terrible over RDP sessions. “Want to start a program? PREPARE FOR SLOWNESS!”
Warning, if you participate in the sponsored "techie test", you are agreeing to this: "By entering this prize draw, you are providing your data, including contact details, to Fasthosts which may be used for marketing purposes." and also "Fasthosts reserves the right to cancel or amend the competition and the competition terms and conditions and associated rules at any time without prior notice." No thanks.
Dan should really look into this. My contact list?
Fasthost better figure it out real quick!
This is no surprise and standard Internet "Win Prizes" marketing. I do not see the problem here ...
Man if you are worried about this you should read Google and facebook terms of service.
@@FloppydriveMaestro FYI, Google does not sell your personal information to advertisers. Facebook on the other hand has a history of freakin' giving it away.
I was fortunate enough to hang onto XP in order to avoid Vista. However, one day I bought a new laptop and it had Windows 7 pre-installed on it. The first thing that struck me as being positive about Windows 7 was the Aero-peek design of the UI and the beautiful gradients. The first (and probably only) thing that frustrated me was how "Program Files" had been split up to keep x86 and x64 binaries separate, as well as their respective "Program Data" folders. This changed the way my own software was compiled and deployed, but I got used to it. I still use Windows 7 for my personal dev box, and it's still as reliable as ever. IMHO Windows 7 is still the best version of Windows Microsoft has ever released. Windows 10 was a whole different story. When Windows 10 won't boot anymore, it WON'T BOOT ANYMORE, and good luck repairing the MBR and system partitions to get it back to where it should be. Also, the Windows 10 UI strikes me as being lifeless and bland, with Microsoft doing away with most gradient effects and replacing them with ugly, flat, two-dimensional tiles and lifeless fonts. My final question is WHY is Windows 10 so bloated and resource intensive? Linux running a graphical UI requires a small percentage of the disc space required to run Windows 10.
When Seven Reached EOL I Ran It For 2 More Years Downloading The Security Patches From Pirate Sites! Windows 10 Is Simply Spyware/Malware And After Big Tech Interfered In The 2020 Elections I Have Left Them Forever! I Now Run Kubuntu Or To Say Debian With The KDE Desktop! Essentially Kubuntu! I Did Run Kodachi But When My Nordvpn Quit Supporting It I Had To Move On!! I Really Loved The Kodachi Dashboard For It's Simplicity And Security But You can Do All Of Those Things In Settings Here And There! But It Was Nice having Them All In One Place!
Back when Windows 10 was brand new, I remember it was a gamble on whether it would start again after shutting down my computer. Sometimes it would just grenade itself for no reason. It even did that years after release, but it wasn't as common. Windows Aero is still a favorite of mine to this day too. At least Windows 11 is better than Windows 10 in that regard.
Not gonna read a novel for opinion on an os.
Windows 11 looks a lot better
@@trabant601e One thing that royally pisses me off about Win11 is how you have to keep clicking on additional options to get to the traditional Cut, Copy, and Paste options in the Explorer context menu. Sure, I could use the hotkeys but I prefer to use the context menu. What about users who aren't familiar with using hotkeys? Whoever decided it was a good idea to hide those options by default is an idiot.
Windows 10 still has a split personality. It's like Windows 7 with Windows 8 glued on top. The Windows 10 control panel for example, doesn't include all the settings needed, and the system resorts to the classic control panel whenever you need to change any more advanced settings. The main selling points of Windows 10 are DirectX12 and optimisations to system boot, and honestly, they don't really make up for all the downsides.
Idk, it starts up fast and plays games pretty well. Win7 took way too long to start up.
Wrong. Someone here isn't a power user. Windows 7 constantly crashed and was even more difficult to find settings for. Windows 10 is BY FAR the most user friendly and stable.
Rebecca you really need to spend much, much more time with Windows 10, preferring it over Windows 7 speaks volumes in your familiarity with the OS
After using Win10, I don't think I could go back to Win7. Win10 does a ton more than 7 did, is more powerful, and is more secure. It's better than 7 in soooooo many ways.
@@soulintake Ahh yes, the old "You don't like something I like, so hence you must be an inferior user," argument. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I don't doubt that you like it, but I don't. And it has nothing to do with skill levels.
My experience goes back to 1963 on the IBM 1620 (20k of memory and 2 meg of disk) but it allowed batching ONE job at a time. It actually worked running fortram and SPS - an early and rudimentary assembler. Ulike later computers - the 1620 and the 1401 I worked on later actually exected its instruction set, not simulated it in a RISC computer. These computers were discrete components on printed circuit boards, many of them on a frame called a gate, with wires between them. The basic 1620 had three gates about 3 x 4 feet each. When they added a disk drive they added a small gate inside - actually drilled holes in the chassis with an electric drill to mount it! Then i hit the big time in 1965 with three IBM man systems for the S/360 line, TOS, DOS and OS. Tape Operating System was an IBM release that was primarily to provide a platfrom for people to start developing programs, mainly in cobol and assembler for DOS and OS that were not ready yet. DOS had a supervisor (Kernel) that could be as small as 6k, but most were 8k. We were on a 64k S/360 - 8k Supervisor, 8k online inquiry program leaving 56k for batch processing. Many of our ptograms had overlays, segments that were successively loaded. DOS/VS (limited to one address space of 16M) came out and later DOS/VSE (about 1980 with max of one address spaece of 4G) allowing virtual storage and words like paging, thrashing and Least recently used, and swap came in. A little later I moved to larger facility and hit OS, now known as Multiple Virtual Systems MVS/VS and later VSE which could have each process having 4G of address apace - about 1985. In August 1999 in another role I helped move a company from DOS/VSE - which was expiring before Y2K) to a parent company MVS/VSE.
Not quite as far back, but I did work on a 1401, 360. I remember placing the startup code in the I/O buffer to save memory on the 360 (Assembly). The introduction of VM/370 was a godsend, made several patches to both DOS 26.2 and VSE for improvements. Fascinating how capable those (relatively) insanely expensive systems were. Lease prices were tens of 1000's per month. It's easy to take all advancements with a grain of salt with that background.
Shit, I was born in 63!👶 I got my first PC a Sinclair z81 in 1981, and hardly used it for being slower than writing by hand... I had a few 2,3, and 486's, a Macintosh Lisa (Still have it but won't boot the OS anymore), and AMD K's and a few Athlon's too. I really only became a power user with Windows 3.1 and a GUI🥴.
Some 15 years ago, when my OS was Windows 7, I just got too fed up with MS and literally nuked it and shredded the CD and switched to Linux cold turkey!🤬 I put myself through Linux boot camp and learned it rather quick for having no Windows to fall back on, and have been Loving it ever since.🥳🐧BTW I use Arch!😜🐧
I just built A wicked system with an AMD 7500X, 64 GiB of RAM, and two swift WD Black NVME's, but held off on getting a better graphics card than the one I swapped from my old i5 system because the prices are still too unjustifiably insane!
@@Bob-of-Zoid I too got bit by tbe Linux bug back in 2004. Work PC had XP, couldnt change that, but i FDISKed my home pc (Celeron Coppermine) and installed Fedora Core 1. Never looked back. A P4 (intels biggest piece of shit IMHO) then a Core i3, and now I'm on Fedora 31 and probably due for and upgrade. I only kept the Win7 partition for Autocad, but now Dassault gives us Draftsight for Linux and I'm a happy camper.
@@johnclement5903 You mean you got bit by a penguin!🐧 HAIL TUX!😂 I have tried FreeCAD and it's pretty powerful, but not necessarily as easy to use. I kind of been putting off learning it, because my wish of buying a CNC Router is not tenable at the moment. Over the years that I have tried it on and off, it has improved a great deal. I checked out "Draftsight" but it's proprietary not FOSS, and there's zero Linux anything on their site. It all points at Windows and MAC OS exclusively. So either you are using it on Windows, or you are speaking of another software.
There are a few supposedly good online CAD/CAM tools, but putting your designs you may want to patent, or protect for any reason, on some companies servers is trouble waiting to happen. I can't wait to hear the news when a bunch of people find out their patent was patented by someone else, or their entire business model was copied marketed and released before they had a chance too, and found out it was because they did everything with google doc's and google is in the business (Through "Affiliates") of using others hard work to their advantage, and that those they rip off blindly handed over their whole freaking business and all data associated for not reading and understanding their EULA!
My Business is nearly 100% self contained. I don't do any other services than email, a host for my website, and an internet provider. I don't do cloud, or software services of any kind, and never will!
I saw your title of this video and thought "oh sure." I worked as a system admin from 1990 through 2017 and saw most of the Windows OS's mentioned, and you and your subscribers are absolutely correct. I recall the sheer frustration with some of those mentioned. I think back of the amount of time I spent trying to get programs to run and developing a true dislike for Microsoft.
Shocked that not a single version of ChromeOS is on here because every version is horrible
It's a glorified browser.
as much as i hate chromeos, i gotta admit its pretty good at what its intended to be. chromebooks are basically just modern day internet appliances.
I remember on of the selling points of Vista was the widgets you could run on the side. Then one day, the widgets were a huge security problem, then they said, we aren't going to fix it, it was just removed in security update.
What happened to the third party widgets? Did anyone pay for them?
@@treehugger3615 I think the widgets as a whole had a vulnerability, regardless of who made them, the actual widget *system* was flawed in execution.
@@AraiDigital I'll go one better; the entire windows system itself, has been flawed in execution. The greed which kept new bells and whistles front and center, while not fixing the underlying problems in the OS, is what has perpetually kept windows from ever becoming a great program. The incredible bloat of windows, as well as the intentionally hiding so much in an obscure 'registry', simply makes it a non starter for serious users.
@@d.e.b.b5788 Lawdy, that damned registry. I consider myself an advanced user and have worked as IT support, though not always for Windows. The complexity of trying to tease out a problem, and then resolve it, is insane. You think you've found the right entry for something, then discover that there was a connection somewhere that has now made your system unstable. I'm grateful that I haven't had to dive into it in years. My current system is stable and I rarely add new software, which was the cause of most of my past ventures. It is approximately 5 years old now, and I hope I can keep it going another 5. Compared to current systems, the specs may seem weak, but all my software runs smoothly.
@@d.e.b.b5788 You have hit the nail on the head! "the entire windows system itself, has been flawed in execution" The "incredible bloat", the registry, the incompatibilities, and so on mean that almost ANY other OS is preferable for the desktop. Absolutely Linux for a server!
Thanks for stating that Vista was actually fine after SP2. I fully agree with this and have very similar experiences. I always found that there was too many prejudice and that MS had actually done a good job in correcting many annoyances with Vista. The worst would be Windows ME in my opinion. Windows ME would fail within a week after a clean install.
I had an all in one PC with ME on it. I could see no issue with it. Perhaps only a bluescreen once in afew months for me. Didn't quite know what people disliked at the time.
The problem with saying Vista is the worst, yet fine after SP2, then shouldn't it be tied with XP? That had ridiculous bugs, some of which, like the fact that anyone from anywhere could literally send you a system message, usually spam, with no way of blocking them, without being patched to hell and back first.
Tolerating and justifying MS products and behavior (and the opposite) is a declaration of principle
It would be debatable to accept MS if their products were superb
Supporting MS crap leads to later supporting nazis, zionists and all kinds of fascists
I used Vista on 2009 laptop, and for a long time I did not switch to Win7 or Win8, as it simply worked like a charm. When I switched to Win7, I noticed that this system is just a revamp of Vista SP2 and it did not work as great as people said.
It's insane to me because Microsoft proved a universal truth with their Mojave campaign - all they had to do was take Vista, rebrand it Windows 7, and braindead people would eat it up. Vista SP2 and Win7 RTM are the exact. same. fucking. operating system. XP RTM and SP1 were unmitigated nightmares and it will never cease to blow my mind the mental gymnastics people do to claim Vista is the "worst" of anything.
My favorite "bad Windows" story was from when I was doing on-site computer repair. One of my clients was a lawyer. She was using an ancient Windows Me computer in early 2007. It was dog slow, and of course it was horribly out of date. The big problem was that the court reporting software she used to get transcripts from the court, was upgraded to a new version; and that version no longer supported Windows 9x. Well, she had to have access to court transcripts, so she had to upgrade. I broke this news to her, told her that while it would be _possible_ to upgrade the copy of Windows on her computer, it would be far too slow for Windows XP to run reasonably.
So she went out and bought a brand new computer - and called me back a few days later.
First problem, she had bought the absolute cheapest brand-new computer she could find. It was dog slow.
Second problem, it came with then-brand-spanking-new Windows Vista. That made the slow computer even slower. The computer *barely* met Windows Vista's minimum requirements (the minimum 512 MB RAM, whatever the slowest-currently-available processor was, probably an already-out-of-date AMD Duron,) and came preloaded with tons of bloatware. It literally took over half an hour to go from power-on to a "usable" desktop. (Good thing I billed by the hour.) And then the hard drive would thrash for another 15-20 minutes, the system barely usable. I immediately threw in another stick of RAM from my parts box and uninstalled all the bloatware. That got it to "minimum actual usable" state.
Went to install the new version of the court reporting software.......... "This operating system is not supported." While Me was too _old_ to run it, Vista was too *new*.
Had her return the system and buy an older-but-still-in-stock XP model. Rarely had to go back after that.
xD
I had a similar issue supporting an architect. There was just a couple pieces of software they had to be able to use. Some time around 2010 we still had to use xp on a virtual machine to run that 1 program he would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to replace. He retired before having to do that.
After that when someone askes ‘what computer should I get?’ I ask them what software will be installed on it.
That's great. I'm definitely glad you're billed by the hour. It's hard for me to imagine someone being a competent lawyer and being so cheap that they'd refuse to buy even a mid-range PC.
Did you ever try partitioning or adding a separate drive for storage? It also seems like she might have had about 2,000 documents on her desktop, which would account for the very slow startup.
@@encycl07pedia- She was actually SUPER organized. And mostly “offline.” She only used the computer for exactly the hat was needed for technical reasons. (The online recordings/transcripts.)
Lawyers also bill by the hour. Maybe she's smarter than you think.
Vista was the reason I switched to Mac in 2008! Windows outlook stopped working and my entire adobe Creative Suite stopped working, I tried over and over again to reinstall them, but to no avail. I decided to try Mac, an OS I openly trashed at the time. To my surprise it was lightning fast, ran all the programs I needed and still use.
I switched to Mac while trying to use Windows 8 while working on a masters.
I switched to Mac after windows 8 and never looked back once, I have used windows at work and still can’t believe how rubbish it is
Don't forget the combo of CE, ME and NT, called Windows CEMENT.
NT was pretty good, and CE did exactly what it promised.
@@logan_page Very little computing for very little computers? 😋
still better than the spyware rootkit malware PUP trojan called "windows 10" who TF uses it as there OS, all the normies of the world were doomed.
Jeff Govak what do you use, pray tell?
@@NightmareRex6 what do you use??
I'm old. I remember when DR-DOS was a thing.
I remember that, I was a Novell 3.11 CNE.
No fond memories of XTree Gold....?
I threw away the ms dos floppies that came with my pc. Never used it. First pc dos and then Dr dos. X tree gold (gets faraway look like Homer Simpson mmmmmmmm)
And it was a good thing from what I remember.
I must be older. I still remember installing MS-DOS 5.0 on a IBM XT with 8088 and 256KB RAM. Guess what? It worked!
This is just a list of Windows versions before Service Pack fixes.
Vista was okay after SP2.
Win 8.0 was fixed with 8.1.
Even beloved XP was bad before SP1.
Agree, but XP runned for me best after SP2
Windows 8 wasnt that bad after 8.1 and tweaking.
Vista, to be honest whas great to on my laptop runned it till Windows 10 came out.
True
Hahahahahah...
Windows ME was the worst version of a Microsoft gui, ever. I made more money back in the day downgrading to Windows 98SE then anything else.
@@RDJ134 8.1was a service hack. 8 and 8.1 were both horrible, much worse than Vista.
Back when I worked for a company that made dev tools for Microsoft OSes, some of the older crusty devs explained it to me this way: NT was the A team. 9x was the, "mmm, yeah, don't want that guy on my team - he'll bung it up" team.
Organisational ‘features’ such as that are a big give away…
10. Lindows 2:18
9. Windows 8 4:38
8. Gnu Hurd 6:32
7. IMB DOS 4.0 8:26
6. Windows 1.0 9:42
-Giveaway Ad- 11:30
5. Mac OS 8 Copland 13:00
4. JavaOS 15:13
3. Microsoft BoB 17:01
2. Windows ME 18:18
1. Windows Vista 20:45
Well that answers my question as to whether TempleOS made an appearance
Replace Windows 8 with Windows 10
Glad to see IBM OS2 Warp not on the list. I always sort of enjoyed that one.
@@HansensUniverseT-A No noninono lol
As a software developer, I remember Vista very well. Lots of apps failed for one reason: developers though they knew better than Microsoft and did their own thing. When Microsoft locked things down, their apps break. Mine didn’t because I actually followed Microsoft’s instructions!
lol. Yeah, it's kind of how lots of HTML has become "obsolete" and "no longer supported" but pretty much every browser reads those tags just fine. I imagine if a browser actually removed those from support, half the Web would break on the browser.
It sounds like you didn't do any quick-and-dirty hacks. Thank you for writing good code.
Percisely
It was the same with drivers. Back then there were a lot of crappy hardware manufacturers that provided very bad driver support especially from companies fromplaces like Taiwan. As great at hardware Taiwanese companies are they are terrible at software and especially documentation.
Clap clap for the good little developer who does as he's told.
@@MS-ho9wq You mean the developer that did the one thing that made their software work? Yes, how dare they! /s
The problem with me was most people were running it on old computers that were designed for windows 95.
Vista is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be, it added a lot features that are considered normal today.
The problem with ME was definitely stability, and the computer restore feature which ate your generally not to big HDD up, and never worked one single time when the system files ended up corrupted. I had a brand new 1.0ghz P3 machine with 256mb of RAM and a 40gb HDD, computer restore would often take up 5gb of it after any long period of time, the performance was fine on that machine, the stability was not. We bought a second HDD to keep my parents work stuff on and every single member of the family including my at the time 6 year old brother knew how to run the system restore CDs to reinstall windows ME and all the drivers. My family LOVED ME when I stole a windows 2000 CD key and install disk from my highschool from machines they imaged XP on. Still couldn't play real mode DOS games, but the computer worked. Windows 2000 was great, OEM keys would install on any machine.
Running a Windows ME virtual machine in retrospect isn't as terrible because, well, eventually all the problems got patched but it was long after everyone forgot ME existed. I played the hell out of Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, and Mechwarrior 4 on that machine, as well as Empire Earth.
I loved UAC. When I got used to it being there, I could no longer go back to XP.
Removed a good many too, and Vista was every bit as bad as people made it out to be. The 64 bit didn't have issues aside from getting drivers, the 32 bit would blue screen and ruin the file table if run on a 32 bit chip. The upgrade theory doesn't hold as people were having these problems on new machines with OEM installs.
I remember the same issue with O/S 2 back in the early 90s. I was working for an automation vendor and we had software from Europe than ran on O/S 2. The problem is that OS/S 2 required at least 2 Mb RAM and more to run well (a lot in the early 90s) and people wouldn't buy it. Windows 3.0/3.1 required a lot less RAM. O/S 2 was so superior to Windows it wasn't funny but people wouldn't buy it because of the memory requirements. It sounds like a joke in 2020, but memory was really expensive in the early 1990's.
@@shaunpcoleman At least it leveled off a bit since Vista, otherwise we'd be in the 1/2- 1 TB zone. I had 2 mb in 93 and it was half the cost of the PC
My buddy got his hands on a vista beta, allegedly. And according to him, there was a beta version of Vista that was AMAZING. He never upgraded it to the full release and used it for all of high school. He swore by it all the time
I've heard Windows ME referred to a "Migraine Edition".
Multiple Errors I call it
In Germany, the "ME" wasn't only spelled out letter by letter since "me" isn't a word in German, it was also backronymed to either "MüllEimer" (Garbage can) or "Müll Edition" (Garbage Edition). ;-)
we called it the missery edition.
One new dell pc ran ME with autocad.
The OC plotter could only work with ME or not available anymore win2000 license.
ME made your day misserable.
One day i was so fed up with it i took the pc stealthy to my home and installed 2000.
Problem solved 😁
And now Bill Gates wants to F'k the world with his shitty vaccines.
Does any one trust this guy?
And for a little more I could have got a computer with Windows 2000. Oy...
Vista SP2 was my favorite. Stable, the windows 3d look was the best for my taste and it did perform well. When I went to Win 7, I realized it was a slightly streamlined Vista and history has proved me right, it was Vista underneath the covers.
Same
I loved Vista in general, it was eye candy to me.
About that same time, Compiz/Beryl came along and completely blew away any notion of what I had previously thought of as 'pretty'.
Vista64 GOOD, Vista32 BAD. They should have been brave and only ever released the 64 bit version.
@@SwervingLemon hahah exactly. I went full force on compiz and completely stopped using Windows back in university up to this day. Linux was also more convenient for my uni assignments, so it was a pretty easy transition completely away from Windows (I'd already been dual-booting linux for a few years).
I'm going to say it. Windows Vista wasn't a bad OS. At all.
The thing that made people think it was, in my theory, was the hardware requirements that the hardware of the time just weren't up to it, baring in mind people would've been updating their XP machines that may have already been upgraded from 98.
My very first Vista experience was on a 1.06Ghz Core Duo sub laptop that was HORRIBLE. But fast forward to having a Core 2 Extreme and 4GB RAM? Beautiful OS!
Hell, recently I've been working on restoring a bunch of Dell Optiplex 740's that run on Vista Business & they are very fast & responsive & completely usable in 2020 for basic work and some light web (yeah, I know, outdated browsers aside).
Also, not sure why you had issues with VirtualBox drivers. I have a Vista VMWare machine that I've been running to test out Post EoL update installs with no problems.
Vista had fairly high memory requirements at the time. However I had 8 GB in my quad core system in the year 2008 and it ran like a dream.
I've always said that saying Vista was bad because it ran slow on machines that really shouldn't have came with it is like saying XP is bad because ran like shit on a Pentium MMX.
Windows Me was far worse than Vista.
I'd say it's a pretty big problem if a mass-market operating system doesn't, uh, operate very well for most users (including even some who bought computers with Vista OEM).
@@kvngn that wasn't the fault of Vista. It was the fault of OEMs slapping Vista Home Premium on machines that shouldn't have ran anything past Vista Home Basic.
Windows 7 was a breath of fresh air. It felt like an apology for every OS that came before it. I miss it dearly, and curse it's loss every time I uninstall TEAMS AGAIN?! WHY?!
Teams is junk. Although, after thinking about it, New Teams is quite -decent- workable.
Still running windows 7 on my office driver. Everything works with it. My old Scsi film scanner to my latest Android phone.
Full disclosure, I worked on Vista drivers at Intel when it was coming out. I didn't care for it, but I am a Linux person and also worked on HPUX, AIX, MacOS and Linux at the same time. I remember Microsoft was telling Intel that Vista was going to be the last version of Windows and they were going to get out of the OS game to focus on gaming, home entertainment and office productivity, so there was a bit of a party atmosphere whenever a team shipped their Vista final binaries, fully expecting they'd never have to deal with Windows ever again.
I can only imagine the disappointment when 7 was announced. Which is just Vista with a less aggressively different UI. Hell, use a CD burner in 10 and it's recognizably to me as the EXACT SAME THING that was introduced in Vista, right down to Vista-specific Aero UI elements...
@@kukuc96 I do hope Windows finally fades out. It really is a weird and obsolete design.
@@BalooUriza Wow! Great story!
@@BalooUriza Like Gnome 3 :D
That actually explains a lot.... like why there's 8 different versions when only 3 of them are actually useable
@@jasonmetcalfe4695 Not really. ME is just 98 without some legacy support, and 9x is just 3.x with a better program manager. Vista and 7 are literally the same except for branding. Microsoft's just really good at selling its OS customers the same turd twice and them liking it the second time, even if nothing substantive has changed about it but the marketing materials.
I'm always amused by the amount of hate that Vista still receives these days. I had a Vista based PC that was my daily driver for almost 4 years. Granted it was a Core 2 Quad that had 4 GB of RAM to begin with (later 8 GB) and it came with Vista SP2 but it never gave me any real issues.
However, I do agree with Microsoft making a whole lot of changes with Vista very quickly hurt it. The fact is Microsoft enforced a whole lot new rules with Vista as far as the Windows APIs & drivers are concerned that were mostly suggestions under XP. Some of the new rules that had to be followed caused older programs to trip UAC, sometimes constantly, and caused a lot of device drivers to have to be rewritten. Many of those new API & driver rules were put in place due to how easy it was (and still is) to unleash malware/viruses on XP based machines. By the time Windows 7 was released both the hardware, software and device drivers had all caught up to those changes so the transition seemed very easy, hence the love for Win 7 over Vista. Even though under the hood Vista and 7 are very similar.
I agree. I used Vista for years and I thought it was fine. UAC could be a bit annoying but really, its just one click to say 'Yes I made that change' I never had issues with it being tripped multiple times for a program.
AzlanTLion I just turned UAC off. After that, I found Vista to be great. Actually had better luck with vista than 7 (in terms of stability). My one complaint with Vista is that it never had Aero Snap
My laptop back in 2007 was a Celeron with 2GB of memory and it came/ran with Vista fine. Granted, I was a student who didn't need much out of it except for social media, document manipulation, and occassional light gaming.
Also, I liked UAC when it was introduced to be honest. Back during the XP days I used to have an anti-malware solution that relied on approving/denying system events instead of virus definitions to work as I was fed up by my PC getting screwed over whenever I plug a flash drive in.
The reason you never had any real issues was because it was already SP2 on decent hardware. At launch even hardware higher than recommended specs was struggling with aero on and a few programs open. On top of that depending on which peripherals you used more often then not drivers would be a major headache and take forever to get resolved (many I know just bought different hardware that they knew from forums/friends worked). Partly it was Microsoft's problem of not enough collaboration with manufacturers and their buy-in scheme for Win compatible (pay us to get your hardware working PnP); partly it was manufacturers pushing their products too soon and then dragging their feet and pointing fingers instead of working on proper drivers together with MS.
I had plenty of issues with it (including many blue screens) until SP1 was released. That solved all my issues (well at least my pc issues lol). After SP2 it was pretty much a pre-win7 version.
Vista was a day late and a dollar short. It wasn't a bad OS, it just couldn't cash the checks that the Longhorn hype wrote. Blame Ballmer.
I used to know the guy who was the Microsoft manager who had the responsibility of releasing Vista home version. We called him Tam, not sure if that was his real name or a nickname. The last time I saw him a few months after Vista had been released, I was setting up my webcasting equipment for a meeting of an association we both were involved with (nothing to do with Microsoft). When he walked in he looked at me and said "I don't want to talk about Vista". He knew it wasn't ready but had been forced to release it due to it being so far behind schedule. Sadly, Tam passed away some years ago of complications from diabetes.
My main gripe with Vista was that it was so massive you needed at least a gig of ram to run it. That's a tall order at the time for a broke college student. Lol. The laptop my dad got me came with Vista and 512mb ram. It was so slow, and crashed so much. I had a buddy put XP on it and never had another issue. When i got 7 with a new desktop i loved it. I realized it was Vista, but a more streamlined version and thought "if this is what i got years ago this would've been great!"
>That's a tall order at the time for a broke college student. Lol.
Actually 1 gigs of DDR2 were among the cheapest ram sticks around in 2007 (i believe 512 Mb were on sale but wasn't common in new builds) and most PCs were build with at least 2 gigs. So it wasn't expensive to run Vista. Literally anything you can build from a local store, were fine.
Notebooks are whole another story cause it's not you who define a hardware. Add a slowness of the mobile hard drives (SSDs weren't a thing)... By the time 7 were released, even an Intel-Atom based netbooks were packed with at least 1 Gb. Good thing now both can utilize the same storage and DIMM/SO-DIMM performance match.
I blame OEMs for the failure of Vista. Drivers and hardware specifications were the main reason.
Those were the dark days. What a crap operating system
@@soulintake The operating system itself wasn’t crap. It’s the fault of the OEMs for not living up to modern standards.
@@melonademan5639 Totally agree! I loved it! I selected compatible hardware at the time with Vista Ultimate. Never ran into any problems at all. Was quite content with it!
Vista wasn't optimised very well so it ran badly on low end hardware. Basically the same problem as ME
In 2007, Vista simply wasn't up to scratch.
I'm not sure if you used it in 2007, and on what hardware, but the whole planet couldn't suddenly dump everything, throw away every peripheral, and buy a dual core system with 3GB RAM and 256MB+ of video RAM.
There were systems with 32 and 64MB of video RAM, that were single core with lower bus speeds such as Pentium 4 2.8GHz machines that had no chance in hell, and that's without looking at their device drivers and peripherals.
The world doesn't stop just because Microsoft finally manages to get their bloated trash out of the door at v0.7 beta 2 [wink]
I was fortunate enough to be using Windows 2000 when "me" came out. Didn't even try it lol.
lot of older programs and games did not work op 2k (like carmageddon 2)
Amen!
For some time here 2000 wasn't listed as many of the "experts" didn't believe it was a desktop OS.
I've been using 2000 for so long that I barely used XP, which I saw as "NT for dummies".
I made the switch just to have a 64 bit OS (yes, there was an x64 version of XP)
My memory in Win2k is as sweet as the memory of my childhood, I miss them, I even still remember how hard disk sound when at 2k's loading screen.
I always liked the joke that Windows 7 is Windows Vista upgraded to Windows XP.
It wasn't as good as XP, but it was mostly tolerable. And 10 isn't half as good as 7, but it's tolerable.
I think technically it is/was
Microsoft's joke on us: Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 were all Windows 6.x under the covers. 10 would have been another 6.x, but Microsoft wanted to cut ties with Windows 8 so much that the product name and system version were both upped to 10.
WINDOWS 10 is windows 8 upgraded to windows 7 (but not as good as 7)
Funny and true.
Windows Mobile was hands-down the worst, by such a large margin that it took down Nokia and any aspirations Microsoft may have had with global OS market share. If anyone has any experience of this they will know the relief they felt when the OS bricked the handset or, in my case, having destroyed the device in a fit of frustration.
I would swap Windows ME, and Windows Vista. ME was promoted as the next iteration of 9x, but fell very far short just delivering the basics. Vista on the other hand delivered everything it should have, but was more demanding than Windows XP, and needed new drivers, which some vendors didn't deliver. Its problem was the way it was launched, more than Vista itself.
Windows ME worked just fine if you weren't reliant on DOS programs. Not a good OS but hardly the worst.
@@thelaughingmanofficial For some this may have been the case, but I have heard many stories of people installing ME or buying a PC with ME already installed and the computer crashed a heck of lot more than 95 or 98 ever did. I've heard that this may have been a driver issue, possibly due to many PC manufacturers not properly updating their drivers for ME or putting out buggy ME drivers. The removal of Real Mode DOS in ME did alleviate a common cause of crashes in 95 and 98 but drivers and/or other issue made ME crash allot for others reason, at least for many. Apparently, ME was rushed out as stop-gap Windows update for the year 2000 because they had originally planned to release a consumer version of Windows 2000 codenamed Windows Neptune but canceled those plans in favor developing Windows XP, codenamed Whistler. Whistler was a combo of Neptune and Odyssey (the planned successor to Win2000 workstation). With Whistler/XP they decided to introduce a radical Luna theme over the old Windows 2000 that wasn't much different the NT 4 theme. Had Neptune been completed and released instead of ME, I think even with the somewhat boring interface, that would have been the better move then update the interface with XP a year later as planned.
@@thelaughingmanofficial It worked fine if you weren't reliant on ANY program, to be fair. Nothing justifies 98SE running smoothly without a hitch (for 9X standards) while ME crashes when you sneeze. Even 3.1 variants of Windows didn't give me that much trouble.
So yes, ME is definitely the worst of 'em. Far, FAR worse than Vista, that's for sure.
I'll argue that the overwhelming fault with Windows Vista, was found in two areas: system resource management, and the marketing. Promises which never became fulfilled with Vista's potential, were made. Generally speaking, the market ready hardware at time of release just wasn't ready, either. It wasn't a "bad" operating system, as every iteration of Windows is resource hungry and bloated beyond anyone's needs, but it was released incorrectly, and at the wrong time.
Ye tbh I've used Vista a couple of times and it seems ok I guess it's just that the hardware back then wasn't powerful enough for a modern gui in the operating system
My experience with Vista was the UAC being the most annoying aspect in that it felt every action prompted the UAC to ask "are you sure you really want to do that?", ended up turning off UAC on quite a few pc's because it really did get to people.
That pesky UAC issue could easily be turned off :-)
@Josh B'Gosh said "It wasn't a "bad" operating system, as every iteration of Windows is resource hungry and bloated beyond anyone's needs
Your response is the best example of what I say: microsofties believe crap is normal so it's ridiculous to demand MS products to function as a car
I bet you would sue if your car behaved like MS crap
Vista definitely had faults, but unlike most of the OSes here, it somewhat redeemed itself after a few years once SP1 and SP2 for Vista came out. 7 was out for a while and I remember going back and installing Vista on a computer when SP2 was out and it was still supported and it ran well on that computer. It wasn't a powerful computer but certainly better than the early minimum system requirements and it was honestly a pleasant experience. Felt like I was using a blend of XP and Windows 7 and while I wouldn't consider the system as stable as Windows 7, I don't remember running into many issues with it. So yeah by the time the Service Packs came out for Vista, the reputation was already irredeemable and 7 had a better launch so people stuck with XP or 7.
As a software engineer I find any software “upgrade” that make your computer slower Oxymoronic!
It’s one thing if you are doing more work and require more hardware, but Windows it’s self should not slowdown your computer!
nothing that more and faster ram and a bigger ssd can't solve! ;)
Sometimes security fixes cause software to run more slowly.
You must not have been a software engineer for long then. Software has gotten slower faster than hardware has gotten faster. This is especially true in the last 6 years, where the new trend is to move everything to the web and bring Javascript to the desktop. Combine that with the SOP of Javascript developers being to use a library for EVERYTHING because they can't even write a left-pad function, and yeah... The only place software seems to NOT be getting slower is in the free/open-source space.
Lol you ain't a software engineer if you haven't encountered the scope creep and bloat and comes with an old legacy system 🤣 (I'm joking of course)
@@angolin9352
The problem is the operating system isn't supposed to be the application you're running. It's merely supposed to be an environment that facilitates the ability to run applications within it.
An operating system that uses more resources in the applications you're running isn't doing its job. It should be getting out of the way as much as possible while maintaining a reasonable form of memory management, task swapping and process isolation.
Wirth's law should never apply to operating systems. Wirth's law is the merely the result of lazy programming not a fundamental principle. It is radically true in the web programming arena, because web programming seems to be focused on extremely short turn around times instead of good design practices.
The second PC I bought with my own money was running Vista and I basically never had any problem, always felt like a great OS to me and I actually missed quite a few things when I finally upgraded to 7 especially the look. Granted I came pretty late to the party and with a 4 core processor and I think 4GB of RAM and I was using it almost exclusively for games.
Vista never had issues if you built for vista, my own machine was pretty much the best you could buy as of December 2006 (and the CPU got upgraded as soon as there was a quad core 2 extreme which happened in 2007). I also had 2 dual 8800 gts gfx cards, 4gb of ram (think I had 8gb at the end of 2007 when I got the new cpu so I already had more memory than most users at the time unless we're talking eec memory users) That PC ($7,876.47) gave me so much entertainment than any game console ever did (ok, the ps2 was a banger, the 360 also was pretty damn stacked in 2007 as well as PS3 but the 360/ps3 was the last GOOD console gaming generation.. it's sucked since) You also gotta realize I was only 17 at the time (jan 2007), so $8k was a lot of money and I was screamed at by my parents because college was coming up and I just bought kick ass PC components (hindsight College was a waste of money and I don't recommend college unless it's a trained and needed position like a dr, lawyer, etc.. everything else can be learned on your own) That PC lasted me until LGA 2011 which I think came out at the tail end of 2011 or early 2012.. Now obv I upgraded the CPU and gpu a few times but honestly that system kept up for a good solid 5 years! In 2012 I went with a i7 3820 (I originally was gonna upgrade this later but never happened but I did get a stable 4.5ghz out of it), 16gb of ddr3 (eventually 64gb), 5x 2tb hdd, 4x 500gb ssd, 1x 2tb ssd(main os/programs), gtx 680, 3x samsung 24' 120hz 3d panels (I can't remember the actual product name but they were 3d tn panels that ran at 120hz). I don't think I upgraded my gpu until I noticed severe fps issues at 1080p high settings.. think I upgraded to a Titan or a Titanx.. it was a titan (which then got upgraded to gtx 1080) and now I'm on a 3070ti (that's mainly cause it was impossible to get ANY gpu at the time.. prob won't upgrade until a 5080/90 or see how amd is doing.
Once hardware caught up Vista was a great OS. The problem was that most of the PCs people were using at the time it was released weren't really up to the task. It needed a multicore CPU with a gigabyte of RAM and a video card with 3D acceleration to run well and those are things most people didn't have yet. Windows 7 was only a minor update to Vista and it was hugely popular.
I always loved the fact that Steve Jobs was kicked out of his own company, started NextOS, made a next generation OS there, had Apple buy his company and OS and then actually took over Apple as CEO again. Who got the last laugh?
Ahem....I think that he is dead......
@@steinrich56 What??!!! When the heck did THAT happen?! But seriously, it was fun to watch those series of events take place and then have Steve build the company up to the trillion dollar enterprise it is now.
That is certainly a karma :)
Linus got the last laugh... 😅
Bill Gates
Windows 8 easily. Worst operating system ever made. The interface was unusable. Microsoft tried to put a phone interface on a desktop OS.
Vista was bad, but good god Windows 8 was on another level of terrible.
Actually with a custom start menu Windows 8 / 8.1 was IMO better than Windows 10 is right now, because the Windows 10 start menu is as bad as the Windows 8 start screen AND we have even more duplicate settings menus compared to Windows 8. Fullscreen or in Windows, those metro like settings menus are the worst thing ever, if you are a mouse user.
win 8 was horrible. first i used win 8.1 on a brand new computer and after a blackout the instalation corrupted, so reinstalled win 8 vanilla. i didn't realize it had win 8.1 from the factory and i thought i installed the wrong version of the os. it was horrible, i couldn't get to the desktop at first but i found a workaround by opening my pc from the start menu. after installing the lastest updates it was so much better and i actualy like win 8.1. im not using it right now because it has compatibility issues with older games and i play a lot of them to this day, but if it wasn't for that i would still be using it. the metro styled start menu was very easy to use for me, in fact i loved it. it felt different at first but i got used to it pretty quickly and since the tiles were bigger they were faster and easier to click compared to win 7 style.
@@white_mage But bigger tiles means that you have to move the mouse a lot more than wit small icons. I never liked them. even in Windows 10.
@@GreatOne0815 yes, you have to move the cursor more but is faster because you don't need to take aim before clicking. at least that's my case.
@@GreatOne0815 Well yeah maybe, but that's not the point. You shouldn't have to "hack" an OS to be like its predecessor to be usable. I agree though that Win 10 is terrible. I'm still on Win 7 till the day I die.
To me, Windows 8 was the nail in the coffin that made me switch to Mac. Vista - I had a high-end gaming PC at that time, and liked many of the changes. I didn't hate that. I completely skipped Me before that.
Linus only did one thing more than RMS - "release".
Regarding "Copland" - this proves the old adage that "Good software is written by small teams working fast. Bad software is written by large teams written slowly".
here in Greece we call Windows Vista, the Windows Svista... "svista" in Greek means "erase it". we love them hahahaaha...
yes it sucked, still better than the trojan rootkit spuware PUP Malware known as "windows 10" were in big trouble world is more and more useing litteral malicius code as an OS, just because they bic corp dosent make it "safe" infact, big corp measn MORE DANGERUS!!!
The funny thing is that "svista" in Italian means "error by distraction"
EDIT: Hello fellow Greek neighbor!
Εχω δει να τα χρησιμποποιουν μερικοι στο δημοσιο, αλλα λιγοι. Εκει δεν εχουν τα Svista εχουν ακομα τα XP
@@NightmareRex6 When I finally did an install as they made sure some stuff no longer works on Windows 7, I laughed when it asked if I agreed for them to collect 'inking'. Or to put it another way, agree to key logging. Some accused me of being a tin foil hat wearer, so I showed them the link on the Micro$oft site how to switch it off and check it hasn't been switched on again by an update.
I use Linux for everything else now and just have Windows 10 for gaming and the stuff that won't run on 7 or Linux.
Και νομιζα οτι μονο εγω το λεω ετσι...
TempleOS is the best operating system.
It's good to see another disciples of Terry here.
Sure, if your cable modem is speaking to you in Aramaic.
Wow, I was wondering if I’d see this here. That guy was stupid-smart, but utterly and absolutely incompatible with living. :( I wish more of his archives survived; it seems spread pretty thin these days, from what I’ve seen. I came into it very late, but I’d like to think that there’s some footage of him being educational out there, before he got too far down his road.
Schizophrenia, it's not cute.
Definetly
I remember Dos 4.0, it clogged up the memory so it worked not as well as the 3.2 or 3.3 Version and it had almost no real useable innovations. The next version 5.0 brought quite significant improvements.
The real killer in MS-DOS 4.0 though was "Smartdrive" - for about 3 MONTHS before MS-DOS 4.0 was released, the best selling drive BY VOLUME was the Miniscribe 3650 and it's RLL certified version the 3675R - which had more than 1024 tracks. Smartdrive was limited to 1024 tracks, or it would OVERWRITE DATA - so you either had to format the drive smaller and LOSE CAPACITY, or you had to ditch SmartDrive entirely, or you had your most critical parts of the drive get overwritten and LOSE DATA.
There were other drives with the same issue that were less common but had been around LONGER, like the Microscience 3085 and it's ESDI version the 3170, and had EVEN MORE tracks.
There was a VERY STRONG reason MS-DOS 5.0 had a WIDE, OPEN BETA TEST before it was released - and I think that's STILL the only Microsoft OS that ever had a REAL Beta Test program.
Every reason I’m so happy to have switched 100% to a MAC environment at work since 2011. No blue screens, no drivers to install, no IT support, we’ve saved £1000’s on using MacBooks instead of PC’s in our workplace, probably around £80,000 over the 13 years. Got MacBook Airs from 2012 still running fine that have never crashed once.
While I agree that the launch of Vista was a disaster, it's fascinating that so many consider Windows 7 to be one of MS's best OS's, an OS which is essentially Vista Service Pack 3. I think the reasons people view WIn7 so much more favorably than Vista are:
1. Vista did indeed have several issues at launch, which were fixed with SP1/2
2. The system requirements of Vista and Win7 are actually nearly identical, but Vista came out several years earlier. At the launch of Vista, 512-1024 MB of RAM and single-core CPUs were the norm. By the time Win7 came out, 4+ GB of RAM and dual-core CPUs or better were common, making everything feel snappier.
3. When Vista came out, hardware manufacturers just weren't ready. Drivers were either buggy and unstable, or simply non-existent so you had to throw out perfectly good hardware if you wanted to upgrade. When Win7 came out, hardware manufacturers had caught up with the new driver model, and almost everything that worked with Vista would work with Win7.
I had a few machines running Vista. I'm not sure what all the hate was about with this release. The very first release had some issues, but these were quickly fixed. It was actually one of the most polished releases Microsoft ever put out. It's downfall was being sold, initially, on older hardware that really wasn't up to the task.
@B3ro1080 I seem to recall gamers' main complaint with Vista being added latency, and many staying with XP. I don't really pay too much attention to the needs of gamers' because they are not representative of general usage. PC gaming also wasn't quite as "hot" of a scene then as it is today. Sometimes I think a lot of the BS about latency, frame rates, resolution, etc are more of a dick size contest than actually about playability or strategy.
@B3ro1080 Anything over 60FPS is higher than human persistence of vision. Any latency below 200ms isn't perceptible.
@B3ro1080 It wasn't that big in 2007 when Vista came out. Present, but not the esports thing we have today. As for as 200ms goes. It's all in your head. Find a science book. Looks like you responded just to argue anyways.
@B3ro1080 Plenty of online reaction time tests around to prove that out. 200ms is considered average... The all time average on the famous dataset is 280ms. The old gold standard for RTT before ubiquitous fiber links was 90ms or roughly half typical reaction time. No denying that some have exceptional reflexes, but even the best test subjects tested in the 140s. That is visual reaction time. Aural reflex is much faster... Some professional athletes testing as low as 78ms.
POSIX systems: "This action requires elevated privileges, prove you are root, type your password"
Win32 systems: "This action requires you to be admin, are you admin? [Yes/No]"
"This incident will be reported"
Actually, it's worse. Sometimes it doesn't allow a damn thing to function even if you're an Admin. For instance, if some moron decided for some service to have a DCOM-based interface. You just enable everything, turn off every firewall thus completely ruining security of the system, but still it's permission denied issue.
But it is mostly protecting you from programs that are doing something you didn't expect, or didn't even realize that you were running / were being run for you...it isn't perfect but had its raison d'etra.
Honestly, my experience with Windows Me wasn't bad. I happened to buy a PC with Windows Me pre-installed back in late 2000, I think, and used it for several years without any major issue. Never had to reinstall the OS, most things ran just fine; there were some crashes, certainly, but not very frequently, as far as I remember.
Same here. My Windows ME PC never gave me any issues.
I couldn't get it to run for more than 10 minutes without crashing.
@@ivandubinsky1857 You must have been an early adopter. By the time XP was right around the corner is when I had purchased a PC with ME. It did have a later revision that you probably didn't have. It kinda sucks it took them that long to fix the issues it had before because everyone I talk to in person has had a bad experience with ME except myself. Mine ran just as good as XP.
@@ThexthSurvivor I had a good experience with ME too, it was MUCH faster than Windows XP on my Pentium III machine at the time and it was somewhat faster than Win98se, it was also my favourite Windows user interface ever. The difference between NT and 9x in terms of speed is often forgotten but there really was a big performance hit going to NT. ME ran very well on older hardware, it was happy with 64MB of memory whereas XP really needed 256 to present a decent experience upon release. As XP became patched and evolved into SP3 you really had to have 512MB to run XP.
22:55 I can't believe people think an Operating System is supposed to "look good" instead of use as little resources as possible to facilitate applications.
In defence of Vista, I think a lot of its problem was due to marketing - on a PC with similar specs I always found win 7 and vista to run basically identically, I had a core 2 quad at the time and it ran flawlessly, I came to find that a lot of vista’s issues in my experience were due to it being ahead of its time in many ways, but it struggled massively on the hardware at the time.
By the time WIndows 7 was mature, Vista had been patched sufficiently to be stable. But the first year or two of using it was horrible.
In those days offices were filled with 512 meg of ram machines and a powerful PC would have 1 to 2 gigs. XP survived for so long that oems cheaper out with less ram to a race to the bottom with price wars.
@xwinglover I had mine for 2 weeks before it started acting up.
But that's the problem. No problem with a game pushing the limits of hardware, the world's most popular OS shouldn't be.
In Benchmarks, Vista simply could not keep up to Windows 7 because of the way it wasted ram to display the desktop while Windows 7 used much faster vram.
GlaDOS? Downright user hostile, that one...
@Brandon Taylor “Says you, puny human!” 🤖
@Brandon Taylor ...piece of cake!
@Brandon Taylor -
$ xget aperturescience.com/mirror/glados_installer.zip
> Connecting... OK
> Requesting file... OK
> Downloading 42ExB... OK
$ _
But there's no sense crying over every mistake, you just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake!
@@darkwinter6028 aaaaahhhh *404'd*
To give Vista some credit: It had the by far prettiest UI and still has!
ehhhhhhh, longhorn looked great when it was in development, but the finished product was bloated and didn't look anywhere near as good. and no amount of aesthetic appeal is going to make up for all the compatibility issues, overzealous uac, etc.
Agreed!
The only issue I had with Vista was a external HDD not being detected after SP1 was installed. (Running Linux in a VM picked it up fine.)
@@deesnutz42069 pre longhorn got cancelled cuz of instability
3:43 Not Copyrights. There's no question of copyright infringement, nothing was copied. The problem Microsoft alleged was trademark infringement. THat's a serious matter, if trademarks are not defended, they are lost.
Whether "Windows" could be a registered trademark was disputed, but Linspire went broke before the question was resolved. Microsoft claimed an "auditory likeness."
Why is Windows 1.0 on the list? It wasn’t even a operating system, just a DOS shell. And it was pretty good for the time being.
I agree, it makes no sense. The same with GNU Hurd. It wasn't an operating system but micro-kernel.
So what is an "operating system", if not the system by which you operate the computer?
Far from all computers historically had schedulers, multitasking, or even file systems. Still they usually had a system by which the computer could be operated. Hence that old terminology.
@@herrbonk3635 Let me explain it in other words. Is an engine a car? Do you interact as a user-driver with an engine directly or you've got some interface? It is the same with the OS.
Hurd is an engine and with some features around makes an OS. But comparing Hurd to any OS is like comparing a 2.5 TFSI engine with Ford F150. We can do this but the sense is questionable.
In both worlds, we may have some addons. USB-chargers, radio, GPS navigation, or text editor, spreadsheet, web browser, etc. But those add-ons are not must-have, and they do not define the thing.
@@bartlomiej-bak Sure, that's in a way pretty similar to what I said. My remark was aimed at Dionisio Louro above.
@@herrbonk3635 he is right as well, GNOME or KDE are not a GNU Linux, there are just graphical interfaces. So as I remember windows 3.1 or 3.11 was the first Windows called an OS. All previous versions were just graphical interfaces to DOS.
I like how the kid is running from the Windows ME computer.
It's an old ad. He was actually destroying it and then the mom went to the PC and used System Restore to showcase the ability of Windows Me to repair itself.
@@EricchiYukia Horrible OS at the time.
Unnecessary, and died before it could redeem itself.
Mistake edition
@@Phil-D83 No that's windows 7
@@Jimmycozad1980 reee
Tbh I loved vista when it came out, I even still have an original beta dvd of it. Never understood all the hate
Judging by the comments most people who used it loved it.
It was by far an improvement in aesthetics and it introduced that cool side widget.
I loved Vista. I ran it for years on an (admittedly powerful) laptop. I actually skipped Windows 7 altogether and finally upgraded to Windows 10.
Same here.
Then again, I had *Windows Vista* on a powerful gaming PC that could easily render all the *Aero* effects.
MS gradually introduces a lot of big brother tech inside of their line of operating systems. There was a truckload of newer features of this kind in Vista, and public reception was further aggravated by Mr. Ballmer eccentricity and arrogance. Win7 still had all these controversial features and much more, but the general public got used to them, I guess.
*"infringing Microsoft’s copyrights “*
You fail to mention the really interesting fallout from this case: the court ruling that Microsoft did not, in fact, own a trademark on the name Windows.
That’s what led to the out of court settlement and probably made Microsoft regret filing the lawsuit.
Expected TempleOS to be in this
Same
That was my immediate expectation
You are looking for the best OS list then 😋
@@youreperfectstudio4789 TempleOS deserves to be at the top of both lists
RIP Terry
It offers ultimate privacy and is an excellent developers research operating system. It's not meant for you perhaps. 😼
It's funny to hear about ME. I remember building a new PC back when ME came out and I installed ME on it. It wasn't until later that I found out everyone hated ME. But my experience with it was great; I don't remember it ever crashing and every new piece of hardware I installed seemed to install without any problems. I remember being mystified about why everyone else hated it. Maybe I just got lucky; I dunno.
Most likely you simply used the proper drivers and hardware. Like with Vista Me didn't like drivers and Hardware from the previous Windows. Which is understandable. Used both Vista and Me and both are actually quite good. Vista has the maybe most appealing UI of all. It's just hip to hate both of them lol
like the nokia 3310 memes 99% of the haters never touched ME or worked with it.
As a person who’s life exists firmly in the 21st century, windows 8 is much higher on My list
Windows 8 thought it was cute, hate it
All though I`ve used Vista, XP, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10.
And a little 95 and 98.
Honestly prefer the layout on Win 8.
Windows 7 have been outdated for years And windows update on win 7 worked half of the time.
Win 8 was better looking.
Win 10 is the king.
Perhaps the reason Win 2000 doesn't show up on those tick-tock lists is:
"...Windows 2000 shipped in four different editions: _Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server._ Windows 2000 Professional was _aimed squarely at enterprise desktop customers_ and was the version used the most. All of them included advanced new features that made Windows 2000 an attractive upgrade for both Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98..."
2k released February 2000, Me released September 2000.
22:32 Love the reference to The IT Crowd!
The first laptop I bought had windows vista installed and it was stable from my end. At that time I was wondering why there are a lot of complaints. I guess using machines meant for xp was the main issue.
I agree, i had windows Vista running on a Core2Duo system and it was quite fast and stable.
@@hyperturbotechnomike runnnin' win 7 on 2 core and it still is fairly ''good''
I had the same good experience, stable without crashes. And when I changed the HDD for a SSD, the system improved a looooot
Powerful PC also struggle with vista not because of low performance but due to terrible hardware handling. This problem didn't exist in W7 so many of us just waited on xp until W7 came out.
fun story, dad's old core 2 duo laptop from 2008 HATES 10 (and by proxy also 11 i imagine) due to a borked intel wifi driver. vista that it shipped with? NOT A SINGLE BSOD, EVER. like idk.
The problem with crowdsourcing, is that you get the stereotypes, and nobody learns anything.
As an IT support dude (formal title in Arizona!) I longed to present myself as being proficient in MS Bob. Sadly, I didn't make the leap.
Back to the real world. Every version I have seen of DOS, including the non-MS one, can't handle requests for less than (IIRC) 4 paragraphs of memory from within an executable. DOS returns a pointer to a 100 byte section of the stack that contains the "resume" pointer when your app ends... reading it is okay, writing to it is streng verboten. I learned this when I was testing a resizable window project I was doing as hobby... make the window too small and the computer had to be hard booted after the app ended.
Back on the days when vista was released, I was on college doing my thesis, my computer got stuck on an update and I lost 2 weeks of work
Why would you go 2 weeks without backing up your thesis?!
I recall Vista launching and thinking it was a rushed, knee-jerk reaction to the 3D accelerated desktop environments that were the rage on linux at the time. Im shocked to find out that it had a 6 year dev cycle. Wow.
You guys said Vista was number one when Chrome OS exists
@@existenceisillusion6528 Windows 10 is quite good, way better than Vista or 8.
@@existenceisillusion6528 I’m able to do plenty on my Windows 10 tablet. It’s only crap if you’re a die hard fan of putting MS/Windows down all the time.
@@existenceisillusion6528 we’ve all got our opinions. I do video editing, which is quite labour intensive. I’ll agree that Windows 7 was good, Windows 8 was crap but Windows 10 is good again.
@@DanCollinsPersonal windows 10 is nice on a pc but why the hell would you put windows on a tablet?
@@David_Box It was pre-installed. And works great 👍
I came to Vista quite late and it worked fine. I was not a big PC user by that point, (I still had my faithful XP laptop and rarely touched the Vista PC), but the PC was powerful enough to run it with no problems.
The issues I found with Vista were: 1) far too many versions upon release. 2) the machines it first shipped with were under-powered (including the infamous "Vista ready" machines that were sold prior to it's release). To my mind, people should have raised more legal claims against the retailers selling these barely capable machines.
The OS was not the problem, it was just too power hungry for the state of the market at that time. The need to upgrade should have been made clearer, with an emphasis on Vista being a premium product for newer powerful machines.
Windows 1.0 wasnt an operating system, It was a gui for MS-DOS... The first Windows operating system was NT
Still DOS at its core
Vista’s always been my favourite version of Windows. It’s like a cross between my 2 other favourite versions (7 and XP) in both UI and function.
Why
@@Clay3613 because it's got the best from XP (tons of good software inbox) and the best of 7 (aka the vista features) can't you read?
Vista was great if your hardware supported it fully. Same with ME. But many people upgraded to it or used underpowered cheap PCs with them and got stuck with bad drivers
I loved Windows ME! It had every software driver needed to get you running!
What I remember too , 98SE without as much reinstall hassle for that reason I remember hating 98 more which blue screened just as much.
Back in the day, it was fine. Nowadays, it is rubbish.
Vista's biggest problem was that MS let vendors sell underpowered systems as "Vista compatible". I had my users come to me with new, dog-slow laptops with Vista. I just turned off all the Aero accerated features, because these machines only had integrated graphics, and told them to double the RAM. After that the Vista machines ran fine.
Edit: I left my comment before finishing the video. My appologies.
I was in the Windows 8 beta group. When the beta first came out I immediately complained and said "I do not want my computer to be a better phone". Within a matter of minutes, maybe seconds, I was booted from the group. Like almost instantly.
That wasn't a good reason to be booted. Maybe you had a better idea of how the GUI was supposed to look and work. Maybe your ideas were better than the mess that ended up being win 8.
@@jamesphillipshort It made me laugh. I did not care at all. But it shows the attitude of the Windows developers at the time.
I loved Windows 2000 back in the day - clean interface, stable, and actually ran quite a few games (unlike NT 4, which also required doing a double backward somersault through a hoop while whistling the Star Spangled Banner just to get it installed). I kept 98 as a dual boot for running older stuff, and while I did dabble with ME for a while, I got fed up with it and went back to 98SE.
Same goes for Vista - I have a "Vista Capable" laptop that did run it okay, but I got frustrated with that too and went back to XP. At least I was able to get it through the university instead of having to pay full price.
I also used 8 and 8.1 for a while, and I was at least able to "tolerate" them - instead of hunting for apps in the Metro interface, it was just quicker to use the search function instead.
Did you buy it in the first few months? Zero driver support out of the box. What a failure
10/10 assessments there. Windows 8 was only tolerable if you were comfortable using the keyboard more than clicking icons with the mouse.
2000 was really the dry run for XP. And it was really great. XP was really just 2000 with higher hardware requirements and a pasteurized wallpaper. Though as computers got faster and faster, XP began to overtake 2000 in what it could get out of the hardware. For me that seemed somewhere around the Athlon XP 1600ish area.
@@soulintake You scream "incel". Are you ok?
@@wishusknight3009 I'm fine, you seem a bit emotional over this, its going to be okay man! Have a great day!
Vista was pretty good in my experience.
Then again I'm no early adopter of new OS's, always wait a year or two.
most people who used it seem to have had a very good experience with it (by used it I mean used it long term)
My issues Vista actually started with the release of SP1. Had an external HDD that worked fine until I upgraded to SP1. After a few bouts of uninstalling/reinstalling the OS and testing I found that running Linux in a VM allowed me to access the drive.
A lot of people installed it, found their performance dropped 75% on then quickly ditched it for a less intensive os, usually the one they just 'upgraded' from. To put it into context, let's say you brought a brand new car but handles and performs like some 70s beater, you would be upset you paid top dollar for a worse car than you had, no matter how shiny it was.
The death knell was business - forced into upgrading through security and support policies. If you have 500 pcs that work perfectly fine, then have to throw them out to spend $2000*500 to replace them, just to be able to do the exact same thing you did before with zero productivity improvements... well let's just say MS made themselves extremely unpopular worldwide.
@@tvctaswegia497 there WERE productivity improvements though. also, I hate computer car analogies but here, if you were getting worse performance, it was because you didn't get a new car (computer).
@@tvctaswegia497 If you're spending $2000 a piece when buying 500 computers in bulk you're getting scammed... Typical office pc's very capable of running Vista could be bought for ~350 back then, buying 500 in bulk will easily get you a 15-20% discount at HP/Dell thus ~$280*500.
Also, performance didn't drop 75%, that's just a made up percentage and the wrong measure anyway. System resource utilization increased a bit yes but nowhere near 75%, more in the range of 5-10% when running on a low-end system. Once you spent more than $250 on a new pc Vista ran fine from launch. Their peripheral support sucked though.
Windows is an easy punching bag. As someone who installed Slackware Linux from 13 floppy disks in the late 90s, we've all come a very long way.
I had Vista Ultimate on a brand new laptop at the time. My experience of Vista seems very different to many, I loved it but then I had a computer capable of running both it and Aero at the time.
A while back, I ran across an old laptop that came with Vista Starter, and 256mb of ram.
i loved vista i never had an issue with it i had 2gb ram in my laptop and a core 2 duo it was my favourite os
That's because you got a later update and you haven't tried the inital release
Saying Vista is the worst OS ever is total rubbish plenty of far worse OS to choose from.
hot take: Vista was actually pretty great. It had two major problems: high system requirements, and WAY too much nagging about permissions. But it remains to this day Microsoft's prettiest UI, and debuted many features that became essential components of the OS moving forward, such as Defender, which was the all--time biggest blow to malware since Windows' introduction, hard drive encryption at the operating system level, and real user account control.
I even liked the sidebar gadgets.
It was ahead of its time.
Vista was too forward looking for its own good. Like it brought in features and stuff we now love. But it did little too much , release little to early and drivers were huge issue. Still I used it after SP1 and upgrading my PC, I knew it was demanding, so I just waited for upgrade and from there on, experience was actually good. Which kind of got confirmed with Windows 7 and minimum change. Like 7 in ways felt like Vista SP3, at least I think 2 was last service pack. But yeah, damage was already done and 7 had luck of more people upgrading to newer hardware, as well as I think it was bit easier on system resources. But list wise, I would actually put it much lower. Though I could totally see why it got voted, because way more people use or have to use Windows than they do with other OSes, where things more split and spread out.
I had Vista on a new HP laptop in the day, actually it still works, and it really wasn't bad. It's nothing like as bad as Windows 8.
Had vista on an old emachines laptop, never bluescreened once from 12 years of use
@@Tech101yt 8.1 was fine
I remember with Windows 8 having to install one of those alternative start menu programs. I forget the name of it but I really liked it. Really helped tide me over until Microsoft started offering Windows 10 as a free upgrade. :)
Start Is Back
@@barkybarker2592 I think the one I used was "Start Shell" or sonething
I think Windows 11 is by far the worst so far. Overzealous telemetry, the terrible start menu with ads and no way of categorising your programs. Then there’s the superfluous system requirements which are completely meaningless and can be bypassed. What about the need to register for an MS account and have to be online just to install. The whole thing is a mess. No longer a cycle of good OS / bad OS, Microsoft have turned a dark corner. I sincerely hope to general public vote with their feet on this one and turn their backs on this company.
It’ll take a lot more that AI tinsel baked into their crappy operating system to redeem themselves.
I have fond memories of Warp 3.
Trying to get music and digital sound both working on Doom was fun as each seemed to lock out the other. When Windows XP came along and Doom worked flawlessly, that saw all 40 discs reformatted.
For me, it's a toss-up between Windows Vista and Windows 8. These two represented the worst ideas to ever come from Microsoft.
I think you're right.
Vista was fine, it was simply too ahead of its time.
Vista was not that bad for me. I have a Gateway laptop that came with Vista, it works well and I used Vista on it quite regularly until support for Vista ended). I have now dual-booted it with Vista and Linux.
the only real problem with vista is it required performant hardware. had ssds been widely available at its release i dont think it would have the terrible rep that it does. the worst thing about it is it felt like it nerfed file copy performance. that alone made me downgrade to xp64 pro. when 7 came out and ssds were more common it was smooth as butter. though 7 may have been better received because many of the computers it shipped with had ssds. vista's main problem was that it was actually ahead of its time.
IIRC, Vista introduced UAC - it was the seemingly constant UAC interruptions that people despised.
yep copy performance was the only problem, but luckily there was supercopier back then which was running perfectly well @@LordOfNihil
18:26
Windows em eeE - or the REAL name, Windows Millenium Edition (as you did mention).
I have NEVER heard anyone just say "me" about it before.
As far as Windows 2000 goes - it was intended to MERGE the "home" Win9x line and the "business" NT line in ONE operating system - I saw a LOT of 2000 home computers.
I don't get Vista hate - I used it and it was fine. Windows 7 came out and was pretty much the same product. My only beef maybe was that it had quite a bit more memory overhead.
I think it comes down to two different things. Firstly, an overly aggressive implementation of UAC, which irritated experienced users and scared the hell out of inexperienced users. Secondly, as with WinMe the individual experience seems to have varied hugely, with many people happy but far too many people encountering far too many issues. Manufacturers preinstalling Vista on systems that lacked the resources to run it properly no doubt didn't help...
It was terrible on machines sold as "Vista Capable" with Celerons or Semprons and 512 MB of RAM. But if you had a Core 2 Duo and 2-4 GB of RAM it was quite nice. I had a decent PC at the time, and quite liked it. However many of my customers (PC repair tech) bought those horrible Big Box Store PCs manufactured by the likes of Gateway, HP, eMachines, Acer and had a terrible time trying to run the RAM hungry OS on what was a barely acceptable XP machine. Generally doubling or quadrupling their RAM to 2 GB or so made it tolerable even on low spec CPUs for general use.
MS Bob was only a program starter and it wasn't that bad. I installed it once for a kid and he loved it. But what gave me nightmares were MacOS 8 and 9. For 9 I had a loooong list of needed addons and those which were needed to be switched off. And the version of those addons. And lot's of the system tools you needed from third parties to just exchange a harddisk. MacOS X was a godsend!
just remember Scotty grabbing that old school mouse then says into it"hello computer"
I worked as a field engineer for a medical computer company for 27 years. I started in this field before Windows even existed. Im here to tell you the Windows Me was the biggest pile of digital sh!t the Microsuck EVER put out.
I barely remember going to buy Windows Me at the software store at the mall. It cost like $99 which was a lot of money for me at the time. Fortunately I've forgotten the install experience, but it was definitely bad, with Me not accepting a lot of my old device drivers and the installer crashing all the time. They also dropped support for some real-mode drivers, or else they still kinda loaded but ran or crashed dog-slow. I tossed it away after 3 days.
DOS 6.00 would be on my list (the issues with its disk compression getting corrupted) at least 6.22 was good
Then don't roll back to 4.11. You'll scream bloody hell when file allocation table (FAT) is overwritten with trash. Then ScanDisk fixes it by writing over 2nd good copy.
@@aleksandrbmelnikov reminds me of my signature on bbs’s back the
To double your disk space type Deltree Windows at the C:\> Prompt
DOS 4.00 - DOS 6.00 - Win 95 (sort of) - Win2k - Vista - Windows 8
Those are all "x.0" systems, so the rule at 09:31 is true at least _now_ (Win98, XP, 7, and 10 all count as expensive bug fixes of the above OSes.
The cycle of "MS promises new features, takes two versions to deliver _properly_ , then thinks of something new (and usually something totally unnecessary), again fails to deliver on the first try..." has seen countless repetitions during the last ~30 years, only slightly slowed down because XP was perfectly fine for about a decade (SP1 to end of support), and after 8, because MS just plain ran out of ideas what to f### up next time. Too bad that not only end users, but also businesses keep falling for it.
@@achtsekundenfurz7876 Win2k does not belong in your list of software products aimed at home users. 2k was the follow-up of WinNT product line. And if you removed OS version check from .MSI files, many programs for XP Pro would not only install, but also run fine under 2k (with help of any missing .DLL files). If you have time, extra HD, and copy of Win2k SP4, give it a try.
@@aleksandrbmelnikov Yes, Win2k was an OS for servers and other professional uses. But it delivered so badly that MS made XP as a quick follow-up to both 2k and 98/ME - the latter was even worse than 2k AND 98.
BTW, the bugfix to 2k Server was Windows 2003, a bit later than XP but many years before any other OS development.
Strange that you didn't mention the "dll hell" problem that caused so much trouble in Vista. In the first version of Vista, many programs required new versions of the dlls that they used, and in those early years, there was no versioning mechanism for dll files. If a newer version came out, it just overwrote the old version. But that then caused other programs that used the same dll, to crash because they called incompatible new versions of the methods that they needed. Versioning was added to later versions of Vista, solving lots of issues like this. But by then, it was too late, and Vista had gotten to be known as "unstable".
I remember constant crashes, lockups, and blue screen from Windows 95 and 98. Back then, I always blamed Microsoft. Strange thing though, I recently installed Windows 98 on a much newer computer system than I could afford back in the day, so that I could play some of my old games again. The new(er) system is rock solid, plays for days without the slightest hiccup. Makes me think maybe hardware issues were more common than we realized back then.
It was easy for the hardware vendors to blame the OS. That's why driver signing became a thing in XP. And all of a sudden XP was the most reliable OS. Funny that.
these were all caused by driver issues. often because the wrong driver was installed. it got significantly worse in the early days of usb because in most cases you had to install the driver before you installed your device which was the reverse of the usual way. driver signing wasn't the immediate cure everyone thought it would be because you could still install the wrong signed driver. now i barely have to manually configure drivers and it took a long time to get that right.
@@gertsy2000 yea but in my experience (was a system integrator in the trialing edge of the 98, early xp era). some devices had really good drivers, while others were extremely shoddy with poor instructions, and liked to use generic chipset drivers instead of ones specifically for the hardware they sold. the worst were networking/modem drivers and sometimes sound drivers. those never seemed to work right the first time.
3:40 Microsoft did not allege copyright infringement. They alleged trademark infringement. These are very different things.
I remember using Lindows in 2003 as my second Linux distro after trying red hat.
Lindows was also available for free, or you could buy it retail…for some reason. Not sure what they were trying there
Because slow download speeds made it more convenient to get the software at the store.
Vista and ME where far from the worst Os' ever, just the most popular that people didn't like ;)
Also, I've never found them to be that bad...
As a matter of fact, Vista had issues with hw requirements but if you had them, it worked, not as fast as W7 but worked, windows Me instead, OMG, it crashed every single day, blue screened like crazy, wasn’t reliable at all.
Yeah it's a joke. I used Me and Vista for years. Vista was slow, Me crashed alot but 1 and 2? No way.
95b and ME would bork the file table after 3-6 months and require a reinstall if used as a daily work machine
Vista would as well unless run on a core2 or greater, a plain core could go a few years with light use. If anything it seems there's just a problem with the 32 bit version when run on 32 bit chips, linux, 2k, XP and 7 run stable on the same machines.
8 and 8.1 like spitting out pool errors and other blue screens on older hardware, ones that go on to successfully run 10, this is 64 bit only, never messed with 32 bit version of 8 or 10
4:45 Why would Windows 2000 be included on these charts? The NT family was still a separate product line from 95/98/Me at the time.
You are correct and Windows 2000 was an excellent operating system, probably one of microsofts best. Truthfully XP was for the most part just windows 2000 with a prettier desktop! Some people tend to confuse it with Windows ME, which was a piece of crap.
Win2K was an excellent version.
2k was hardcore. Best gaming OS at the time.