▲ 1364 ▼ Is that bad? (lemmy.world) submitted 1 year ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works 304 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children) XP was the last good Windows. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lowered_lifted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 year ago (2 children) I remember when people were saying this about Windows 95 because XP was so cursed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brot@feddit.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Everybody who did know what they were doing were using Windows 2000. That was a really, really good one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago The initial release was a bit rough but holy shit that OS was basically magic when it was dialed in. 100% my favorite. Next to no resource usage. Reasonably secure (for its time - especially compared to other offerings) ... and all settings were right in reach. No bullshit, no fluff. It played the os role perfectly. Run your shit and get the hell out of your way. I still believe they killed it off early to force people to switch. It was murdering the new os in performance benchmarks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago In my experience people were saying that about 98SE after ME came out. People didn’t really have many issues with XP until the internet got really popular, and by then we had some nice service packs to help with the security nightmares of ye ole internet. permalink fedilink source parent [–] normalexit@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children) 7 was decent too; I personally feel like 8 is where things went off the rails. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) It was a known rule that every second version of Windows was good. 95 was good, 98SE was good, XP was good, 7 was good, but sadly they never released Windows 9, so we're still waiting for the good version to come after 8. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I liked Vista and 8.1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago Vista was fucking terrible on launch, it got better towards the end it it's life, much like 8.1 was to 8, but it was still a mess when 7 came out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago No problem, we don't kinkshame here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mihies@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Prior XP they were really bad at memory management and isolation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They were still good windowses for their time, especially when you compare them to DOS and Mac OS 9 which would have been the alternatives. For a fair comparison with professional OSes with full memory protection like UNIX you'd have to look at Windows NT, but there the preimise is true as well (as far as I can tell by googling, I only ever used 2000 Pro): 3.1 was bad, 3.5(1) good, 4.0 bad, 2000 good, 2003 meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago There was also OS/2. But yes, for the time they were running decently on "cheap" hardware. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 8.1 was ok. Fight me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago I’m with you. 8.1 was underrated. Yes the start screen wasn’t for everyone, but I didn’t mind it. It was the last native Windows start menu that would just find the apps you wanted to run. No Cortana, no web searches, no ads. permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago 98 for me. Was good stuff. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lowered_lifted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 year ago (2 children) I remember when people were saying this about Windows 95 because XP was so cursed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brot@feddit.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Everybody who did know what they were doing were using Windows 2000. That was a really, really good one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago The initial release was a bit rough but holy shit that OS was basically magic when it was dialed in. 100% my favorite. Next to no resource usage. Reasonably secure (for its time - especially compared to other offerings) ... and all settings were right in reach. No bullshit, no fluff. It played the os role perfectly. Run your shit and get the hell out of your way. I still believe they killed it off early to force people to switch. It was murdering the new os in performance benchmarks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago In my experience people were saying that about 98SE after ME came out. People didn’t really have many issues with XP until the internet got really popular, and by then we had some nice service packs to help with the security nightmares of ye ole internet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brot@feddit.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Everybody who did know what they were doing were using Windows 2000. That was a really, really good one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago The initial release was a bit rough but holy shit that OS was basically magic when it was dialed in. 100% my favorite. Next to no resource usage. Reasonably secure (for its time - especially compared to other offerings) ... and all settings were right in reach. No bullshit, no fluff. It played the os role perfectly. Run your shit and get the hell out of your way. I still believe they killed it off early to force people to switch. It was murdering the new os in performance benchmarks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago The initial release was a bit rough but holy shit that OS was basically magic when it was dialed in. 100% my favorite. Next to no resource usage. Reasonably secure (for its time - especially compared to other offerings) ... and all settings were right in reach. No bullshit, no fluff. It played the os role perfectly. Run your shit and get the hell out of your way. I still believe they killed it off early to force people to switch. It was murdering the new os in performance benchmarks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago In my experience people were saying that about 98SE after ME came out. People didn’t really have many issues with XP until the internet got really popular, and by then we had some nice service packs to help with the security nightmares of ye ole internet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children) 7 was decent too; I personally feel like 8 is where things went off the rails. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) It was a known rule that every second version of Windows was good. 95 was good, 98SE was good, XP was good, 7 was good, but sadly they never released Windows 9, so we're still waiting for the good version to come after 8. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I liked Vista and 8.1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago Vista was fucking terrible on launch, it got better towards the end it it's life, much like 8.1 was to 8, but it was still a mess when 7 came out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago No problem, we don't kinkshame here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mihies@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Prior XP they were really bad at memory management and isolation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They were still good windowses for their time, especially when you compare them to DOS and Mac OS 9 which would have been the alternatives. For a fair comparison with professional OSes with full memory protection like UNIX you'd have to look at Windows NT, but there the preimise is true as well (as far as I can tell by googling, I only ever used 2000 Pro): 3.1 was bad, 3.5(1) good, 4.0 bad, 2000 good, 2003 meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago There was also OS/2. But yes, for the time they were running decently on "cheap" hardware. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 8.1 was ok. Fight me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago I’m with you. 8.1 was underrated. Yes the start screen wasn’t for everyone, but I didn’t mind it. It was the last native Windows start menu that would just find the apps you wanted to run. No Cortana, no web searches, no ads. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) It was a known rule that every second version of Windows was good. 95 was good, 98SE was good, XP was good, 7 was good, but sadly they never released Windows 9, so we're still waiting for the good version to come after 8. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I liked Vista and 8.1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago Vista was fucking terrible on launch, it got better towards the end it it's life, much like 8.1 was to 8, but it was still a mess when 7 came out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago No problem, we don't kinkshame here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mihies@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Prior XP they were really bad at memory management and isolation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They were still good windowses for their time, especially when you compare them to DOS and Mac OS 9 which would have been the alternatives. For a fair comparison with professional OSes with full memory protection like UNIX you'd have to look at Windows NT, but there the preimise is true as well (as far as I can tell by googling, I only ever used 2000 Pro): 3.1 was bad, 3.5(1) good, 4.0 bad, 2000 good, 2003 meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago There was also OS/2. But yes, for the time they were running decently on "cheap" hardware. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I liked Vista and 8.1. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago Vista was fucking terrible on launch, it got better towards the end it it's life, much like 8.1 was to 8, but it was still a mess when 7 came out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago No problem, we don't kinkshame here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago Vista was fucking terrible on launch, it got better towards the end it it's life, much like 8.1 was to 8, but it was still a mess when 7 came out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago No problem, we don't kinkshame here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mihies@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Prior XP they were really bad at memory management and isolation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They were still good windowses for their time, especially when you compare them to DOS and Mac OS 9 which would have been the alternatives. For a fair comparison with professional OSes with full memory protection like UNIX you'd have to look at Windows NT, but there the preimise is true as well (as far as I can tell by googling, I only ever used 2000 Pro): 3.1 was bad, 3.5(1) good, 4.0 bad, 2000 good, 2003 meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago There was also OS/2. But yes, for the time they were running decently on "cheap" hardware. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They were still good windowses for their time, especially when you compare them to DOS and Mac OS 9 which would have been the alternatives. For a fair comparison with professional OSes with full memory protection like UNIX you'd have to look at Windows NT, but there the preimise is true as well (as far as I can tell by googling, I only ever used 2000 Pro): 3.1 was bad, 3.5(1) good, 4.0 bad, 2000 good, 2003 meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago There was also OS/2. But yes, for the time they were running decently on "cheap" hardware. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago There was also OS/2. But yes, for the time they were running decently on "cheap" hardware. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 8.1 was ok. Fight me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago I’m with you. 8.1 was underrated. Yes the start screen wasn’t for everyone, but I didn’t mind it. It was the last native Windows start menu that would just find the apps you wanted to run. No Cortana, no web searches, no ads. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago I’m with you. 8.1 was underrated. Yes the start screen wasn’t for everyone, but I didn’t mind it. It was the last native Windows start menu that would just find the apps you wanted to run. No Cortana, no web searches, no ads. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago 98 for me. Was good stuff. permalink fedilink source parent