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
i was going to say ME, but when i saw vista, i had to vote for it. i know vista is not released and i know ME is the worst one ever. my reasoning is because of all the limitations that MS is implementing into it. as far as i can tell, the kernel will be secure, but for some reason, my mind is thinking that the rest of the OS will be fundamentally insecure.
 
Anyone who make polls with Vista as one of the choices are stupid since it's beta and we cannot judge before it's OFFICIALLY released.

I picked ME since it's the pinnacle of the shitness.
 
kurt454 said:
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.
Click to expand...


It is Link19 from Anandtech.. His quotes never fvcking change.. its the same "POS WINDOWS 98" garbage that comes out of his/her ass. I'd love to see this loser on the street so I can bitch slap his dumb ass.

Link also posts as "Link21" over on MSFN. Constantly attacks threads/people at the slightest hint of anyone using a Windows 9x operating system.
 
I love how the results of the pole show Windows ME sticking out like a big pink Middle Finger to all :p
 
I'm going to spend a few seconds and say something bound to be hugely unpopular. ME wasn't their worst OS, but it had the worst perception surrounding it. Windows 2000 had just been released, and there was a promise that the "millenium OS" was just around the corner (this was actually XP). ME became a stopgap because XP ran late, so people attributed everything evil to it. The way some tell it, ME eats babies and rapes children.

It wasn't anything but Win98TE (Third Edition). Just like the entire windows 9x series, it required its daily reboot to ensure there'd actually be system resources available. It was more stable than 98, but because it was light years behind Win2K (which had also just been released) it ended up being an unwanted child. Given the promise of the new, NT based OS for the millenium, then being handed 98TE, WinMil was bound to offend. No matter how much you polish the turd that was 9x, you still have a turd.

Given that, ME had the fewest amount of driver headaches in the series. I shudder remembering trying to get some of the early USB devices working on windows 95, or the initial release of 98 (before SE). Both of these were more unstable, and more of a pain in the ass, than ME. However, they didn't suffer from being overhyped, overpromised, and under delivering.
 
Tawnos said:
I'm going to spend a few seconds and say something bound to be hugely unpopular. ME wasn't their worst OS, but it had the worst perception surrounding it....
Click to expand...
While it might have been 98TE, the crap they added was the straw that broke the camel's back. 98SE was actually fairly usable and didn't need daily reboots (though they cetainly helped) and was on the whole a lot more stable than ME. It was also better for gaming as it didn't use as many resources, and remember 128MB was still pretty lavish at this time.

While a lot of it might be down to perceptions, most consumers didn't really know what Win2k was, they only knew that ME was a constant source of problems.
 
What happened to Windows NT 3.1? That was awful. esp running on a 486DX w/ 128mb of ram.
 
ME is crushing the compeition.

Meanwhile, Windows 2000 is vote-free. I'm still using a copy of 2000, and have been for the last half-decade, gotta love it.

Now I need to get a copy of XP for my new rig =/
 
I think me was the worst closely followed by vista I had vista installed worked for a day no problem then would randomly reboot tried the 1st version and rc1 no different everything else runs no problem vista = junk right now.
 
jackofalltrades said:
I think me was the worst closely followed by vista I had vista installed worked for a day no problem then would randomly reboot tried the 1st version and rc1 no different everything else runs no problem vista = junk right now.
Click to expand...

What BETA means for you ? Since it's beta, it is expected to have issues ;)
 
I know but how about will not stay running?

How can I test if I cannot even run it everthing is supported and it just will reboot about 1 day or less after installation and after that it reboots quicker each time until it doesn't start at all tested hd and it tested good and ran linux and xp and even me no problem.
 
jreffy said:
ME is crushing the compeition.

Meanwhile, Windows 2000 is vote-free. I'm still using a copy of 2000, and have been for the last half-decade, gotta love it.

Now I need to get a copy of XP for my new rig =/
Click to expand...

I think 2000 was pretty good, if it wan't because they pushed XP so hard we would still be using 2000. Of course I voted for ME because that was gargabe.
 
GreenMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...


I could go along with that argument if your talking about games that don't need a relatively fast system to run and are designed to be compatible with slow systems with small amounts of RAM like less than 128MB of RAM and a CPU of 400MHz or slower.

If you have the money to game at the high end level, you can afford to pay $100.00 for a copy of Widnows XP or Widnows 2000 if you don't like activation.

And yes, it does hurt performance. The architecture of 9X and NT is so different that it takes a lot of extra effort to make an API compatinle with two distinctly differnet opertaing systems, and thus degrades performance, instead of how much better performance would have been if they made DirectX 9 for only one OS arhitecture.

There was no reason at all to make DirectX 9 compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. It should have been for Windows 2000/XP only!! DirectX 9 was intended for high end gaming on fast systems. If you wanted your game to be compatible with low end systems, then it should have been written to only required DirectX 8, since DirectX 9 is backward compatible with DX8 games.

In NO WAY did POS WIndows 98/ME have any place for high end gaming any time in early 2003 to present.

Thus NO WAY should DX9 have been made for POS Windows 98/ME. Its sad to see that DX 10 will be vista only, while DX9 supported POS Windows 98/ME. It should have been the other way around because Windows XP is already a good OS and deserves to have another DirectX. POS Windows 98/ME were not, and should have in no way been supported for DirectX 9.

If DirectX 9 was for Windows XP only and not Windows 2000, people running Windows 2000 would have had a right to complain about being forced to upgrade to Windows PX because Windows 2000 was already a good OS. But anyone running POS Windows 98/ME should have been forced to upgrade to play high end resource demanding games and use DX9 because they were POS operating system.

Same with DX10. DX10 should be for Windows XP SP2 because it is new enough and still a relaly good OS. I would barf beyond belief if DX10 was released for POS Windows 98/ME. But thankfully, that isn't going to happen. But sadly, DX10 will most likely never make it to XP either.

How sad can it be that WIndows XP never saw its own version of DirectX that was only compatible with Windows 2000/XP based operating systmes, and not POS Windows 98/ME. :mad: :mad: :mad: It makes me very mad. And now, the next version of DX is going to be Vista only. That blows. I had badly hoped of seeing a 2000/XP only DirectX that didn't support piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME, and didn't force you to use Vista. :mad:
 
Windows: ME (Many Errors) ....IMO

nicepun said:
I think 2000 was pretty good, if it wan't because they pushed XP so hard we would still be using 2000. Of course I voted for ME because that was gargabe.
Click to expand...

The sole reason I went from 2k to XP was SLI support :(
 
Nothing gave me more problems than ME. I had to stupid promotional upgrade version back when I thought it might be a good idea to get something from microsoft for a discount (haha). Yeah, well big mistake. That system would basically self distruct after a few days. There was some glitch on the system I couldn't fix with service packs and security updates and critical updates that would massively slow it down. Went back to Windows98SE and I cracked the ME cd with my hands.
 
Super Mario said:
I could go along with that argument if your talking about games that don't need a relatively fast system to run and are designed to be compatible with slow systems with small amounts of RAM like less than 128MB of RAM and a CPU of 400MHz or slower.

If you have the money to game at the high end level, you can afford to pay $100.00 for a copy of Widnows XP or Widnows 2000 if you don't like activation.

And yes, it does hurt performance. The architecture of 9X and NT is so different that it takes a lot of extra effort to make an API compatinle with two distinctly differnet opertaing systems, and thus degrades performance, instead of how much better performance would have been if they made DirectX 9 for only one OS arhitecture.

There was no reason at all to make DirectX 9 compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. It should have been for Windows 2000/XP only!! DirectX 9 was intended for high end gaming on fast systems. If you wanted your game to be compatible with low end systems, then it should have been written to only required DirectX 8, since DirectX 9 is backward compatible with DX8 games.

In NO WAY did POS WIndows 98/ME have any place for high end gaming any time in early 2003 to present.

Thus NO WAY should DX9 have been made for POS Windows 98/ME. Its sad to see that DX 10 will be vista only, while DX9 supported POS Windows 98/ME. It should have been the other way around because Windows XP is already a good OS and deserves to have another DirectX. POS Windows 98/ME were not, and should have in no way been supported for DirectX 9.

If DirectX 9 was for Windows XP only and not Windows 2000, people running Windows 2000 would have had a right to complain about being forced to upgrade to Windows PX because Windows 2000 was already a good OS. But anyone running POS Windows 98/ME should have been forced to upgrade to play high end resource demanding games and use DX9 because they were POS operating system.

Same with DX10. DX10 should be for Windows XP SP2 because it is new enough and still a relaly good OS. I would barf beyond belief if DX10 was released for POS Windows 98/ME. But thankfully, that isn't going to happen. But sadly, DX10 will most likely never make it to XP either.

How sad can it be that WIndows XP never saw its own version of DirectX that was only compatible with Windows 2000/XP based operating systmes, and not POS Windows 98/ME. :mad: :mad: :mad: It makes me very mad. And now, the next version of DX is going to be Vista only. That blows. I had badly hoped of seeing a 2000/XP only DirectX that didn't support piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME, and didn't force you to use Vista. :mad:
Click to expand...

You are still not offering proof that games have had slower fps due to the DirectX9 API being available for 9x operating systems.

I definitely believe 2000/XP is superior to 9x in a number of ways, but you are NEUROTIC in your hatred of 98/ME.
 
I installed win 3.1 and 98 recently on my opteron.. I think it got into windows almost instantaneously.. it was great. :p
 
ME wins the P.O.S. contest.

LoneWolf said:
Original poster forgot Windows NT. While I regard ME as the worst, early versions of NT weren't great either.
Click to expand...

I cant say much for NT 3.51 (used it, hated it) but Ive ran two servers for about a year with NT 4 server, MySQL and Apache. Before that, it was the servers for a newspaper company, they ran NT4 and talking with the admin, sounded like it worked fairly well for him.

The compaqs 5500's never saw much use under my care due to my connection only being 64k, but I've Only had one crash due to a VRM on one cpu board failing. Had to swap in a new VRM and she was good to go. Ive also installed it on my brothers laptop, its one damn fast OS to run on a low end pentium rig, and could play starcraft and warcraft non stop. As far as not having stupid errors every other 5 minutes, I think NT4 was the first. At least, thats my experiance.
 
The worst isn't even a choice.

The absolute worst OS Microsoft ever made was BOB.

Where is BOB ???????????????
 
kurt454 said:
You are still not offering proof that games have had slower fps due to the DirectX9 API being available for 9x operating systems.

I definitely believe 2000/XP is superior to 9x in a number of ways, but you are NEUROTIC in your hatred of 98/ME.
Click to expand...


Its not just FPS. How about other aspects of games. How about the overall picture quality. How about the stability of games. How about the loading times of games. There are many more factors than just simply FPS. Even FPS has suffered because of POS Windows 98/ME. What would be better performance. True Linux applications or applicions compatible with Linux only through WINE? Of course native Linux applications would be much better,

I want to see true Windows 2000/XP applications, not just applications written for Widnows 98/ME that are compatible with 2000/XP because 2000/XP have ackwards compatibility for running 9X applications.

Just like with MAC OS X. It is better to have true MAC OS X applications rather than MAC OS 9 and below applications that run on MAC OS X through backwards compatibility for running legacy OS 9 applications

Its the same with 2000/XP and 98/ME. I want true Windows 2000/XP applications, not just 98/ME applications that run on 2000/XP because 2000/XP provide support for legacy 9X applications.

The fact is, in NO WAY hsould games have suported POS Windows 98/ME. It is flat out ignorant for any high end games to support those POS opertaing systems.
 
bob said:
ME wins the P.O.S. contest.



I cant say much for NT 3.51 (used it, hated it) but Ive ran two servers for about a year with NT 4 server, MySQL and Apache. Before that, it was the servers for a newspaper company, they ran NT4 and talking with the admin, sounded like it worked fairly well for him.

The compaqs 5500's never saw much use under my care due to my connection only being 64k, but I've Only had one crash due to a VRM on one cpu board failing. Had to swap in a new VRM and she was good to go. Ive also installed it on my brothers laptop, its one damn fast OS to run on a low end pentium rig, and could play starcraft and warcraft non stop. As far as not having stupid errors every other 5 minutes, I think NT4 was the first. At least, thats my experiance.
Click to expand...


Windows 98 sucked just as much. Windows 98 and Windows ME sucked equally.
 
I experienced ME on a few different systems. I installed it on one of my personal systems and it randomly lost all networking functionality and had to be reformatted. It managed to last about a week before I reformatted the system back to 2K. My friends' PCs with it experienced similar things.
 
jreffy said:
ME is crushing the compeition.

Meanwhile, Windows 2000 is vote-free. I'm still using a copy of 2000, and have been for the last half-decade, gotta love it.

Now I need to get a copy of XP for my new rig =/
Click to expand...

I can't imagine anyone could justify a vote against Win2K. Personally, I think Windows 2000 was (and still is) the best OS to ever come out of Microsoft. It was not overloaded with a bunch of useless fluff, and it is incredibly stable once it has been properly patched up.

I still have a number of clients that refuse to upgrade to XP because they are so pleased with the fact that 2000 continues to run as well as it does. I can't say I am in a hurry to migrate them to XP or Vista because the clients still on Win2K seem to have the least amount of problems.
 
For the 10 or so people who said Vista is the worst, well all I have to say is that you are morons.

Microsoft has created a great operating system, obviously you have not used it if you said it is the worst.

Just like any new operating system Vista has a few bugs to work out, and the kernel locking is something that will be worked out soon.

The majority of the problems with Vista are with the companies that create the drivers, such as ATI, Nvidia, Intel, etc...

Regardless of whether its Release Candidate 1 or 2, it is still a BETA, and it just angers me every time people give so much negative criticism about it, all that matters is whether you like the new features or you dont, in the end it is a great operating system that has a few bugs that need to be worked out.
 
ThaDrewster said:
Regardless of whether its Release Candidate 1 or 2, it is still a BETA, and it just angers me every time people give so much negative criticism about it, all that matters is whether you like the new features or you dont, in the end it is a great operating system that has a few bugs that need to be worked out.
Click to expand...
Even the RC's are better than 9x....
 
ThaDrewster said:
For the 10 or so people who said Vista is the worst, well all I have to say is that you are morons.

Microsoft has created a great operating system, obviously you have not used it if you said it is the worst.

Just like any new operating system Vista has a few bugs to work out, and the kernel locking is something that will be worked out soon.

The majority of the problems with Vista are with the companies that create the drivers, such as ATI, Nvidia, Intel, etc...

Regardless of whether its Release Candidate 1 or 2, it is still a BETA, and it just angers me every time people give so much negative criticism about it, all that matters is whether you like the new features or you dont, in the end it is a great operating system that has a few bugs that need to be worked out.
Click to expand...

QFT, that's also why putting Vista as one of the poll options is a moronic idea. We don't poll on beta stuff !
 
You forgot NT (3.51 or 4.0?)

I voted ME because it took a good OS (98SE) and butchered it.

98SE could still be a valid OS today if MS didn't kill its updates and there were a way to make it more secure.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
does 2k have support for hyperthreading/multicore?
Click to expand...

That was the big difference between 2k and 9x.

That, and 2k wouldn't run older games/apps if they even thought about trying to directly touch the hardware.
 
98SE could still be a valid OS today if MS didn't kill its updates and there were a way to make it more secure.
Click to expand...

Flat out UNTRUE. IN NO WAY shape or form is such a cheap, low end, low performance OS like POS Windows 98/ME acceptable for running today's applications. NO WAY!!

Windows 98 should have died a long long long time ago. Windows XP and Windows 2000 should stick aorund and live a long long time even after Vista is released because they are still good opertaing systems.
 
PopeKevinI said:
That was the big difference between 2k and 9x.

That, and 2k wouldn't run older games/apps if they even thought about trying to directly touch the hardware.
Click to expand...

There are far mnore differences between them. Windows 2K has nothing in common with POS Windows 9X except for an identical looking GUI. Windows 2K was allso light years ahead of POS Windows 9X in system performance, efficiency, reliability, and stability, even for its time!!

WIndows 2000 was a native true 32-bit, pre-emptive multi tasking OS, unlike POS Windows 9X. Windows 9X was nothing more than a glorified DOS shell that had to rely on extenders to use more than 640KB of memory and doesn't even deserve to be considered a 32-bit OS. Windows 2K natively supports the full 32-bit address space of RAM which is 4GB as do Linux, OS/2 WARP, and all other true 32-bit operating systems.
 
You also forgot the bastard children Windows 1.01 and Windows 2.0. Windows 2.11 came out only a week before I was born. :D
 
Super Mario said:
There are far mnore differences between them. Windows 2K has nothing in common with POS Windows 9X except for an identical looking GUI. Windows 2K was allso light years ahead of POS Windows 9X in system performance, efficiency, reliability, and stability, even for its time!!

WIndows 2000 was a native true 32-bit, pre-emptive multi tasking OS, unlike POS Windows 9X. Windows 9X was nothing more than a glorified DOS shell that had to rely on extenders to use more than 640KB of memory and doesn't even deserve to be considered a 32-bit OS. Windows 2K natively supports the full 32-bit address space of RAM which is 4GB as do Linux, OS/2 WARP, and all other true 32-bit operating systems.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if you want to get into all that, W2K was far superior if you were using server-class hardware of the day. I was talking purely from a user's point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top