▲ 325 ▼ When did Microsoft stop developing Windows to be good? (lemmy.blahaj.zone) submitted 2 years ago by Interstellar_1@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world 180 comments fedilink hide all child comments Nowadays Windows is filled with adware and is fairly slow, but it wasn't always like this. Was there a particular time where a change occurred?
[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 10 points 2 years ago (3 children) XP was the response to Linux. Before that, windows was a crash fest, remember 98, or Millennium? Linux was rock stable, so microsoft had to do something and started yo use their server core in the home version of windows. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* XP was the response to Linux. Before that, windows was a crash fest, remember 98, or Millennium? Linux was rock stable, so microsoft had to do something and started yo use their server core in the home version of windows. They just realized trying to maintain NT and 9x core was foolish. Trying to put the hardware abstraction layer from Windows 2000 (NT 5) into 9x for Millennium Edition was AWFUL. So they scrapped the entire idea of a separate home core, 9x died, and Windows XP (NT 5.1) was born. But NT was already good. Windows 2000 SP4 was a fantastic OS for its time, as was XP. Gotta remember that the 9x core versions (95, 98, ME) were (in some ways) practically a separate OS masquerading as Windows. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maalus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago So you mean "Microsoft developed Windows to be good" like OP said. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago I barely remember using win98, it was the first OS I used when I was very little. But I don't remember it being so prone to crashing. At least not fatally crashing. Of course, by the time I was just playing around with paint and shareware games, not doing any serious work, so I wouldn't know if it was bad. But that still means it isn't as straightforward as "windows was always bad, linux was always good". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* XP was the response to Linux. Before that, windows was a crash fest, remember 98, or Millennium? Linux was rock stable, so microsoft had to do something and started yo use their server core in the home version of windows. They just realized trying to maintain NT and 9x core was foolish. Trying to put the hardware abstraction layer from Windows 2000 (NT 5) into 9x for Millennium Edition was AWFUL. So they scrapped the entire idea of a separate home core, 9x died, and Windows XP (NT 5.1) was born. But NT was already good. Windows 2000 SP4 was a fantastic OS for its time, as was XP. Gotta remember that the 9x core versions (95, 98, ME) were (in some ways) practically a separate OS masquerading as Windows. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago So you mean "Microsoft developed Windows to be good" like OP said. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago I barely remember using win98, it was the first OS I used when I was very little. But I don't remember it being so prone to crashing. At least not fatally crashing. Of course, by the time I was just playing around with paint and shareware games, not doing any serious work, so I wouldn't know if it was bad. But that still means it isn't as straightforward as "windows was always bad, linux was always good". permalink fedilink source parent