1364
Is that bad? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
304 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I liked Vista and 8.1.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •