Worst Version of Windows?

Worse version of Windows?

  • Windows 3.1

    Votes: 11 2.2%

  • Windows 95

    Votes: 31 6.1%

  • Windows 98

    Votes: 8 1.6%

  • Windows ME

    Votes: 431 85.0%

  • Windows 2000

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • Windows XP

    Votes: 9 1.8%

  • Windows Vista

    Votes: 16 3.2%
  • Total voters
    507
Definitely ME=Mistake Edition. That was Microsoft's worst OS. I haven't looked at Vista yet but we shall see...some of the stuff I hear though...I don't really see any advantage...just disadvantages to vista.
 
ChingChang said:
how can anyone even think that XP or Vista are the worst...
Click to expand...

It's either the younger crowd or the i-am-funny-with-my-vote-haha crowd.
 
Voted ME.. If I had a choice between ME and 3.1, I would run my system on 3.1...

Damn Super Mario.. Did Win 9x/ME murder your mom, poison your dog, steal your car, or something..
You sure do get hateful towards Win9x/me, you let us know in every thread they come up in.. Win 98se was a fairly good OS for it's time.. I know you won't be convinced, but you should know that you are not convincing anyone either...

I agree that there were a number of better OS's available, but that don't mean squat when almost nobody developes software for them that the typical home user wants/needs... And in 1998/1999 that was the case..
 
Tweakin said:
It's either the younger crowd or the i-am-funny-with-my-vote-haha crowd.
Click to expand...


I have never used ME, so I don't have first hand experience. I vote for XP, due to its activation feature.
 
Flyboat said:
I have never used ME, so I don't have first hand experience. I vote for XP, due to its activation feature.
Click to expand...
is it that hard to type in 25 characters and click a button? :p

do you feel the same way about activating games?
 
ChingChang said:
is it that hard to type in 25 characters and click a button? :p

do you feel the same way about activating games?
Click to expand...

I only play old games, like wolfenstein, syberia and age of empire 2. I didn't know most new games require activation. That is interesting and shitty.
 
Ladies and Germs, we have an idiot!

I don't see how so few of you can not see how much worse 98 was. It was eventually stable but if you think like that, then Me was eventually stable because it became XP in some sense. 98 and 98SE were different and they should have been separated.

I'm not saying ME wasn't bad (it was aweful), but 98 was worse.
 
Windows ME, without a doubt. I went to a college that started a program where every student got a laptop. At the time Windows ME was the OS on them, and wow I never had so many problems. Luckily I also had a desktop, while in school, which ran Windows 98. Needless to say I used my desktop a WHOLE lot more, despite the fact it was so old, and had at least half the processing power and memory, as the laptop.

A year or two later Windows XP Pro came on the laptops, so that was nice.
 
lol didnt think this thread would last that long.

Yeah ME is pretty bad, I should find the email I wrote MS about ME awhile back about how lame it was and what they said back was basicly "i know, we're sorry." :D
 
ChingChang said:
is it that hard to type in 25 characters and click a button? :p

do you feel the same way about activating games?
Click to expand...

It's not about typing the 25 characters. With MS you enter the code. Have bullshit limitations (more appear to be coming in Vista). It reports back to MS every login (or did for awhile). and it seems non OS products from MS are starting to check if your your OS is valid or not (Check IE7).

Seems a perfectly valid reason to me to dislike an OS from MS. Then again I chose 98 or ME (I don't remember which) they both suck.
 
iSkylla said:
Ladies and Germs, we have an idiot!

I don't see how so few of you can not see how much worse 98 was. It was eventually stable but if you think like that, then Me was eventually stable because it became XP in some sense. 98 and 98SE were different and they should have been separated.

I'm not saying ME wasn't bad (it was aweful), but 98 was worse.
Click to expand...

ummm I dont think thats true, ME was based off 98, and 2000 was based off the windows nt kernel, and XP was based off 2000. I think the difference between me and 2000 release was just months apart, but 2000 was far more reliable then ME, and hence why xp was based off 2000.

And I former room mate used ME until very recently, and I had to fix that guys computer every other week. I am gonna say that ME was never ever stable. I am glad that is the only MS OS ne'er to touch my computer, but my experience with it was enough to say it was the worst operating system ever.
 
I voted for Windows 95. A family member had it several years ago and I remember it being a mess. BSOD galore. One of my old boxes had ME on it, but I never really had a huge problem with it besides the occasional hang on shut down crap. But hell that seemed to be a 9x based problem. I had 98 and it would hang on shut down at times. I did tweak the memory usage in the system.ini file and some other stuff when I used to use ME.
 
I've never had to run ME on a system, but attempted to fix it twice, so it gets my vote.

98SE was actually pretty good for the time. Better compatibility for hardware, it was pretty much the only choice for gamers until XP had been around for a year or two.

Glad to see nobody has voted win2k. That thing Just Works.
 
ME, hands down the worst os ever. I've used pretty much every microsoft os since dos 6 and I've never once seen anything as shitty as it was.
 
I agree that there were a number of better OS's available, but that don't mean squat when almost nobody developes software for them that the typical home user wants/needs... And in 1998/1999 that was the case..
Click to expand...

That's precisely the point. Developers should have devloped applications for the far superior opertaing systems that existed. I don't necessarily hate WIndows 98 for what it was, I hate it so much because it was far inferior to the other opertaing systems that existed, and yet software developers wrote almost all applications for it, and hardly any applications for the far superior operating systems like OS/2 WARP and Linux. Imagine how much better performance we would have had the last 10 years in the PC industry had developers actually designed alll applications for OS/2 WARP, Linux, or even Windows NT.

That is why I have such a hatred for Windows 9X/ME. A far inferior OS happened to be forced upon people because almost all applications were designed natively for 9X/ME and no other OS. A far superior OS kernel should have dominated the market back in the mid to late 1990s. Linux or OS/2 WARP with the Windows 95 GUI would have been ideal. And it without question could have been done, but no, MS had to take the lazy and easy route developing a far POS opertaing system. Maybe it is the fact that MS exerted control over the market that forced the adoption and domination of a far inferior OS product, which thus caused almost all applications to be designed for the pieces of sh*t classic Windows only, and no other OS. OS/2 WARP should have been the dominanbt player in the market from 1995 onward. It had a fine easy to use GUI and great compatibility with DOS applications, despite having no heritgae to legacy DOS. IBM was also the original inventor of the x86 PC, and all the others were just IBM-compatible PC clones. It would have made a lot of sense for IBM to deploy the dominaant OS because afterall, they founded the whole PC industry and are much of the reason for where we are at today.
 
Win2k is still a fine OS. Very mature and a great choice for a joe sixpack type that does not do multimedia stuff like pictures, scanners, and digital cameras.....
 
Super Mario said:
That is a lame excuse on why Microsoft needed to build Windows 9X on top of legacy 640KB natively memory limited DOS. They could have come up with some verison of NT that had great DOS emulatiom that ran DOS programs flawlessly. OS/2 WARP was a complete full-fledged true 32-bit, true pre-emptive multi tasking OS that had no real legacy DOS code in the system. And it had great DOS emulation for DOS programs and in fact it ran many DOS programs better than native DOS itself.

SO to try and day that it was necessray on Microsoft's part to build their next OS based on legacy MS-DOS is laughable at best. They didn't need to do it to get widesprerad DOS compatibility. Instead, they did it because it was easier and they were too lazy to do anything beter despite the fact that IBM was able to do it with OS/2 WARP.
Click to expand...

Dude, they still don't have DOS emulation right. I've got a Celery 333 box with win98 on it for playing Dungeon Keeper and a handful of other DOS games that simply don't work right on XP.

In the days of Win98 they still needed DOS compatibility, and it needed to be pretty much completely compatible.

DOS emulation on WinNT sucked. WinXP is better but it still has problems. Emulation wasn't the solution in the win98 days when businesses still needed their DOS apps to work 100%. Win98 was the middle ground between win95/DOS and the NT stuff.
 
I still have the 5.25 floppy for it around here somewhere... Talk about a buggy OS... but still not as bad as all my experiences with ME owned it for about a day went back to 98SE then quickly ported all my machines over to 2000Pro! Of all the machines I have had to work on I always charged a surcharge to anyone who brought an ME machine in to be worked on. Because I knew it would take upto 50% more time to get it back up and running. I almost said running right LOL
 
GreenMonkey said:
Dude, they still don't have DOS emulation right. I've got a Celery 333 box with win98 on it for playing Dungeon Keeper and a handful of other DOS games that simply don't work right on XP.

In the days of Win98 they still needed DOS compatibility, and it needed to be pretty much completely compatible.

DOS emulation on WinNT sucked. WinXP is better but it still has problems. Emulation wasn't the solution in the win98 days when businesses still needed their DOS apps to work 100%. Win98 was the middle ground between win95/DOS and the NT stuff.
Click to expand...


I'll tell you what really pisses me off then. Give me one reaosn why DirectX 9 was made to work with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME? It should have never been compatible with piece of sh*t WIndows 98/ME. DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only.

Maybe pure 100% native DOS compatibility was needed in the 1990s. but in no way was it widepsread needed in 2003. The performance has suffered in games because DX9 was made compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. It should have been for the native Windows 2000/XP/2003 only operating system.

It pisses me off that it took so long for Windows 98 to die. In fact, as sad as it is to say, most modern games still run on that piece of crap, even though they say they only support Windows 2000/XP only because DX9 was made for that piece of crap Windows 98/ME. That is what pisses me off the most.

I just cringe in disgust that games with the year 2007, YES, I said 2007 work on that pile of crap. I wanted a Windows 2000/XP only world as far back as 2001, and at the very latest, 2003. And heck, why hasn't it happened even yet to this day?

Please explain!!!

Just look at this thread over here at MSFN. Almost all, if not all games still run on that POS Win98/ME OS. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=71476&st=300

How fricken sad is that. I want native Windows 2000/XP only games. I wanted them back in 2002, and even today, we don't truly have native binary Windows 2000/XP/2003 only games. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

It is almost 2007 for crying out load, and all new or at least almost all new games still can be modified to run on that turd ancient legacy Win98/ME OS.

I want high performing, non-invasive DRM consumer friendly Windows 2000/XP only games that won't stand a chance to run on POS Windows 98/ME no matter how hard someone tries to hack/modify them and get them to work.
 
There shouldnt of even been a poll.. just put winME as 1 option, and you got your answer lol.. what was MS thinking? RC2 of winME was actually stabler then the final build. FINAL build = memory leaks, junk 9x kernel

NT > 9x
 
I might be showing my age, but I was looking for the Version 1.0 and 2.0 Windows on the poll myself. Those were pretty buggy versions....and 3.1 was a *huge* improvement of them.

WinME was kind of a hit or miss OS. I've seen some boxen run error free with it, but then there were others that brought out every bug available in the OS (it seemed). I guess since the old (initial versions) aren't on the list - I'll have to go with ME.
 
I still stand next to 98 as the worst operating system ever. 98 was a piece of crap when it first came out.
 
Wait, there was such a thing as a stable version of Windows ME? This is news to me, mine constantly crashed. If I wanted to mod a game, I had to reboot after editing each text file (they were ODF files in Star Trek Armada II, a DX8.1 RTS that controlled everything from ship name to ship hitpoints or weapons), otherwise the game crashed. With XP this did not occur. MS just wanted to put the word "Millenium" on it, that's all there is to it.
 
By far the worst OS was ME. It would slow down after only a couple of hours and was extremely prone to crashes.
 
iSkylla said:
I still stand next to 98 as the worst operating system ever. 98 was a piece of crap when it first came out.
Click to expand...


AMEN!! It disgusts me that only two people voted Windows 98 as being the worst version of Windows while 5 voted Windows XP as being the worst,

The fact remians is that Windows XP was light yeas ahead of POS Windows 98/ME, even for their respective times. I repeat, even for their times!!

You can't even compare how Windows 98 wa sin its heyday to how WIndows XP is today because Windows XP is so so so so so so so much better and beyond lkight years ahead of Widnows 98., even for its time!!!!
 
TheRapture said:
Win2k is still a fine OS. Very mature and a great choice for a joe sixpack type that does not do multimedia stuff like pictures, scanners, and digital cameras.....
Click to expand...


What? I do plenty of that on my win2k box just fine. Photoshop works fine under 2k, and I've never had a problem plugging a camera or scanner into the 2k box.

2k's Only weakness now is video since Avid's (and Adobe's for that matter) new stuff requires XP - but then generally those of us who use Avid are buying turnkey systems like newscutter or adrenaline, rather than installing just software on a regular desktop.
 
Yeah, I'm confused on the XP votes. 2k pro and XP have been my best and easiest computing experiences yet.

Voted ME, used that 1 month then went to 98se... lol
 
mdameron said:
Yeah, I'm confused on the XP votes. 2k pro and XP have been my best and easiest computing experiences yet.

Voted ME, used that 1 month then went to 98se... lol
Click to expand...

The votes for 2K/XP are probably from Linux zealots who think all versions of Windows are crap.
 
not really....

seriously, there are some people out there that are honestly that stupid and voted XP/Vista
 
I think a really interesting poll would be "Which OS is the best?"

and the choices would be Win XP, Win Vista, Ubuntu Linux, Mac OS, other Linux, other OS


and ppl would vote based on available software, ease of use, stability, security, device support, price, etc....
 
Windows ME, followed by Windows 95A.

Windows 2000 is the most solid in my opinion.
 
Super Mario said:
It is almost 2007 for crying out load, and all new or at least almost all new games still can be modified to run on that turd ancient legacy Win98/ME OS.
Click to expand...

Same with application. I know all intuit products are like that.
 
Super Mario said:
The performance has suffered in games because DX9 was made compatible with POS Windows 98/ME.
Click to expand...

Prove that.


What's the harm in offering it for the win98 folks? Not everyone wants to spend $100-$200 on a copy of XP. I'd buy the argument a bit more if XP still wasn't sold for a such a high price.
 
My understanding is that games are developed to work with the DirectX API. The underlying version of windows should have little to do with anything. Windows 9x compatibility does not make a game unoptimised for 2000/XP.

Super Mario has got to be Link19 from Anandtech. Noone else rants against Win 9x like he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top