Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Worst OS you ever had


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,293 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:49 PM

I think there is a good case for this topic as this topic exists and well why the heck not:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/641661/best-os-you-ever-had/

 

I wonder if we can make the forums explode with all the "Windows ME" comments :D

 

I will start with my comments on ME, man oh man what a pile of crap.

I still have no idea what the hell Microsoft was thinking here.

At least with Vista on the right hardware it could work nicely but ME's failure rate is legendary.

Even Windows 8 and its crap tablet interface is better, at least windows 8 can get past the boot screen without blue screening.

 

I do have some runners up though.

Pretty much every version of openSUSE I have used since openSUSE 42.1

Also Ubuntu 7.04


Edited by MadmanRB, 23 May 2017 - 02:49 PM.

You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

xu847p-6.png


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 ranchhand_

ranchhand_

  • Members
  • 1,752 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 23 May 2017 - 02:45 PM

Oh, you twanged my guitar string on this topic.

 

I still have no idea what the hell Microsoft was thinking here.

I think I have an idea; if you will remember, ME was released within the year of the millenium, but what everyone was buzzing about was M/Soft's transition to an OS based on NTFS which was reputed to be released to public soon, discarding FAT32. We were waiting for that OS to be announced formally but it had no name yet. I remember many thinking that ME was the one, but all M/Soft did was add a few bells and whistles to Win98 and cut 'er loose as the new hotsy-totsy OS with the usual marketing advertising public hoopla. After purchase, many were shocked that this was just Win98 with fresh make-up over an old face. I remember I was a member of another forum at that time, and we were flooded with bewildered users trying to make the new movie-maker  work properly, system freezes, BSODs, some DOS based programs refused to run, ad infinitum. 

ME was launched in Sept. 2000; Windows 2000 was launched February of 2000. There is no way in hell that anyone can convince me that was an accident. Two (2) operating systems aimed at the general public launched in the same year?  Within 6 months?? Microsoft pulled off one of the greatest cons in financial history by squeezing the last bit of profit off an old DOS system that already was destined for the scrap heap.

Whatever respect I had for M/Soft was lost with that debacle; I don't trust them any further than I can spit, and their marketing ploys since then has only reinforced my viewpoint.

One man's opinion.

 

Oh....and in reference to your main question...WIndows 3.x without question. Welcome to Crash City folks, chills & thrills as you take a roller-coaster ride through one of the most unstable OSs ever conceived by man.


Edited by ranchhand_, 24 May 2017 - 10:18 AM.

Help Requests: If there is no reply after 3 days I remove the thread from my answer list. For further help PM me.


#3 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:12:05 PM

Posted 24 May 2017 - 03:48 PM

I didn't have a great experience with Linux the first time I tried it. It was, I believe, Mandrake Linux 6.0 back in 1999. It was a learning experience, but not something that endeared me to desktop Linux as a concept. It didn't support my hardware - the printer, internal modem (this was before broadband), sound card etc didn't work and I couldn't get them to work.  I messed it up and ended up doing fresh installs at least 10 times, trying to for example, manually re-compile and upgrade the kernel, or compiling drivers etc. which was considered a basic Linux task that all users should know.  It put me off trying Linux again for a good 6 years or so.  It was at least stable though when I wasn't trying to break it, although of limited use as a desktop OS.

 

Agree with comments on Windows ME.  They should have just held back and released XP.  I didn't have any big problems with Windows 3.1x for the most part. Opening lots of applications at the same time would cause memory or "Windows resources" to run out, but apart from that, it was OK.  A restart of Windows sorted it out.  I do remember Windows 2.0 running on old 286's being pretty unstable, but I only used it at school, I didn't have a PC myself at that point. 


7sbvuf-6.png


#4 SuperSapien64

SuperSapien64

  • Members
  • 1,025 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 24 May 2017 - 10:18 PM

Windows Vista buggy just buggy, I don't remember all the bugs it was my first computer an Acer laptop back in 2009.



#5 Bat.1

Bat.1

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 30 May 2017 - 07:43 PM

XP was So Bad I went back to using ME until I started Beta testing Vista. Several of My Mates switched to Linux and stopped using Windows until Win 7 came out. One Guy I know only started back since Windows 10. Think He's ready to go back to Linux again.



#6 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,886 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:05 AM

Posted 30 May 2017 - 08:57 PM

I have lived and serviced the machines that came out since the early 80's and have not found any since the beginning that wasn't without faults.  User attempting transition from one version UP to the next found it just didn't work like expected.  WIN95, WIN98, WIN ME, WIN Vista, WINXP,  to 7, 8, and 10.  It hasn't changed.  I understand M$ in their attempt to make an OS that was usable on ALL devices, desktops, laptops, notebooks, netbooks,  phones and tablets.  This is a bit too unrealistic but they tried.  And the users found themselves having to go back to the original version, where all the peripherals worked properly and extra drivers from some third party weren't needed.  I don't think you can pick a "worst" one, they have all been lacking when the new stuff hits the market.  Attempting to write new versions to reflect the advances in the hardware leave users with lesser hardware specs in the dark, stuck with whatever version was original and unable to successfully  move "up" to the newer releases.



#7 smax013

smax013

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,329 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 03 June 2017 - 11:46 PM

Since all OSs have quirks and issues, I am not sure I necessarily have a worst one per se.

If I did, it would likely be Vista. But that is a qualified "worst one". My main complaint about it was that it was somewhat bloated and Microsoft certified too many computers as "Vista compatible" that were really just too under powered for it. It ran find on my desktop, but my desktop had plenty of power to run it fine. So, I have no real issues running it. I did, however, help a number of friends who did. Mainly helping them by installing RAM upgrades to machines sold with Vista and labeled as "Vista ready" or "compatible" or whatever the terminology was. So, I don't really consider it a bad OS per se, but rather just mis-marketed by Microsoft.

I personally don't have much in the way of bad memories with Windows Me, but it has been ages since I used it and my memory is not quite as sharp as it used to be.

On the Mac side, I did not like the early versions of Mac OS X too much. It basically took 10.4 for it to really gel in my mind. And 10.4 was pretty much rock solid at that point.

#8 Chris Cosgrove

Chris Cosgrove

  • Moderator
  • 7,139 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland
  • Local time:12:05 PM

Posted 04 June 2017 - 06:01 PM

I have to disagree with Ranchhand about Win 3x, I found it quite easy to use and at least moderately reliable so long as it was running on top of either DOS 5 or 6.20. Then again, as this was my introduction to computing, maybe I didn't know any better !  What I do know is that every machine in the college seemed to have a copy of the original Doom on it !

 

As for the others, I seem to have missed most of the dogs. I went from 3x to 98SE then XP SP2, then 3, and on to Win 7 where so far I have stopped. My wife's laptop runs 8.1 which seems a pretty good OS, it certainly gives virtually no problems.

 

Chris Cosgrove



#9 KZ91820

KZ91820

  • Members
  • 38 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:08:05 AM

Posted 07 June 2017 - 08:38 AM

Everything Microsoft produced except XP, Win7 and Win10. All the rest were annoying to me.



#10 Platypus

Platypus

  • Global Moderator
  • 15,519 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:11:05 PM

Posted 07 June 2017 - 09:54 AM

MS-DOS 4 was a dog, and was very quickly removed when it arrived with the first 286 PC I got.


Top 5 things that never get done:

1.

#11 ranchhand_

ranchhand_

  • Members
  • 1,752 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 07 June 2017 - 07:13 PM

Ahhh, yes, the 286; I remember it well. Actually had a lot of fun on that old Packard Bell. I remember typing in the cmd's  to get programs to run, then came the DOS shell, and what luxury. I could actually use the mouse to execute a program!


Help Requests: If there is no reply after 3 days I remove the thread from my answer list. For further help PM me.


#12 kdnoel

kdnoel

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:07 AM

No doubt it was Windows ME and TRSDOS was bad as well.



#13 kdnoel

kdnoel

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:44 AM

 

No doubt it was Windows ME and TRSDOS was bad as well.

 

Don't have better idea about this Windows. Could you tell me bit about this one?

 

A little background here http://www.pcworld.com/article/165133/vista_or_windows_me.html
It was a 9 month wonder that has haunted M$ since it's release!



#14 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3,293 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 12:00 PM

 

 

 

Windows ME was buggy, unstable, and really utter trash.

It is hands down the worst MS operating system, even Vista and 8 were a million times more stable (well at least windows 8, Vista did have its fair share of hardware compatibility issues but on the right machine it was great)


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

xu847p-6.png


#15 kdnoel

kdnoel

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 10 June 2017 - 12:16 PM

Windows ME was nothing more than early code released to generate revenues to fund further development and satisfy investors.
 

Truly a clear scam on consumers that immediately upgraded to the next version to get rid of the headache.


Edited by kdnoel, 10 June 2017 - 12:17 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users