Windows 98 sucked. Windows 98SE was… well I won’t say good, but it was ok.
Vista was good on good hardware
That’s a hell of a caveat for an OS meant to be run on consumer hardware. You might get away with that kind of caveat if MS only offered in on good hardware and people went and put it on non-recommended hardware on their own accord. But that’s not the case, Vista sucked when running on hardware that met MS’s specs, so it sucked.
So the real pattern is Win 3.0 sucked, 3.1 ok, 95 sucked, 95B ok, 98 sucked, 98SE ok. Windows Me? OMG let’s just move everyone over to NT and never talk about this again!
2000 was good. XP wasn’t great but improved after awhile. Vista sucked. Windows 7 was peak windows, it was downhill from here. 8 sucked, 10 was ok, and 11 is shaping up to be complete dogshit.
So it’s not precisely every other release is bad, but close enough to see a pattern. I guess you could say 2000-> XP doesn’t follow the pattern, but Me->XP does. And since 2000 and previous NT versions were meant for servers, not home PCs, while XP was meant for home PCs. It would make more sense to look at the pattern of releases for PC releases rather than mixing in server releases.
When MS has an OS that works decently they tend to try to cram in a bunch of shit into the next release which causes problems. Then they either remove the shit (or at least make it work better) for the release after that so they have something that works ok again. Then it’s back to adding a bunch of shit into the next one.
Anyone who says NT was ever bad is out of their mind. That was the thing that saved Windows since 95’s kernel wasn’t modern. Anything that crashed took the entire system down. Yeah, that was fun times kiddos.
That list mixes NT kernel OS’s with Win95 OS’s to support a bad hypothesis.
The NT line is:
NT 3.1, NT 3.51, NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Vista, 7,8, 10.
NT 4, 2000, and XP were all great. Vista was good on good hardware. 7 was good. 8 was bad, 10 good, 11 bad.
If you take the 95 path it’s 95 good, 98 good, Me bad.
The only pattern is 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad.
Windows 98 sucked. Windows 98SE was… well I won’t say good, but it was ok.
That’s a hell of a caveat for an OS meant to be run on consumer hardware. You might get away with that kind of caveat if MS only offered in on good hardware and people went and put it on non-recommended hardware on their own accord. But that’s not the case, Vista sucked when running on hardware that met MS’s specs, so it sucked.
So the real pattern is Win 3.0 sucked, 3.1 ok, 95 sucked, 95B ok, 98 sucked, 98SE ok. Windows Me? OMG let’s just move everyone over to NT and never talk about this again!
2000 was good. XP wasn’t great but improved after awhile. Vista sucked. Windows 7 was peak windows, it was downhill from here. 8 sucked, 10 was ok, and 11 is shaping up to be complete dogshit.
So it’s not precisely every other release is bad, but close enough to see a pattern. I guess you could say 2000-> XP doesn’t follow the pattern, but Me->XP does. And since 2000 and previous NT versions were meant for servers, not home PCs, while XP was meant for home PCs. It would make more sense to look at the pattern of releases for PC releases rather than mixing in server releases.
When MS has an OS that works decently they tend to try to cram in a bunch of shit into the next release which causes problems. Then they either remove the shit (or at least make it work better) for the release after that so they have something that works ok again. Then it’s back to adding a bunch of shit into the next one.
Anyone who says NT was ever bad is out of their mind. That was the thing that saved Windows since 95’s kernel wasn’t modern. Anything that crashed took the entire system down. Yeah, that was fun times kiddos.