john titor
Captain
Does Vista take the proverbial biscuit? I can't imagine a worse OS, it just fails spectacularly, but I'm sure there are ones out there.
Worst OS in history?
- Thread starter john titor
- Start date
Vista doesn't even come close to being the worst, Vista is similar to XP in that it had some rough early years but by SP2 it was stable and a fairly decent OS. XP only has a good reputation because Microsoft screwed up WinFS and had to restart Vista from scratch, effectively doubling its development time, which allowed XP to dominate the market.
I don't know much about non-Microsoft OSs, but the worst they released was probably MS-DOS 4.0.
I don't know much about non-Microsoft OSs, but the worst they released was probably MS-DOS 4.0.
Not even close. Vista was quite decent and stable. I had no problems with it.
Windows Millennium has to be the worst OS I've ever used and I've used 3.1, 95, 98, NT, XP, Vista, 7 and Ubuntu
Good lord, Vista? Come on, it was hardly Microsoft's worst work. It failed for a number of reasons, but they had very little to do with how good of an OS it is. Poor driver support, lousy backwards compatibility, and a somewhat ill-conceived security model do not make it the "worst."
The worst version of Windows, all around, was Me, though the first version of 95 is pretty close. What a piece of shit that was. People who think Vista is even a blip on the "worst OS" radar have very shorty memories.
I agree that MS-DOS 4.0 was a wreck. 4.01 was a marginal improvement--they fixed the most atrocious problems, though it was still kind of a clusterfuck of an "OS." I used both, it was like night and day to use 4.01 vs 4.0.
There was some version of MacOS I used back in the mid-'90s that I remember being an absolute terror. Crashed constantly, froze up all the time, programs would fail for no apparent reason. And it was on multiple machines that did this. I don't know, maybe the hardware was junk, but the OS simply did not handle the situation with any grace. I know it's sacrilegious to ever say anything bad about Apple operating systems, but MacOS certainly had its bad days.
The worst version of Windows, all around, was Me, though the first version of 95 is pretty close. What a piece of shit that was. People who think Vista is even a blip on the "worst OS" radar have very shorty memories.
I agree that MS-DOS 4.0 was a wreck. 4.01 was a marginal improvement--they fixed the most atrocious problems, though it was still kind of a clusterfuck of an "OS." I used both, it was like night and day to use 4.01 vs 4.0.
There was some version of MacOS I used back in the mid-'90s that I remember being an absolute terror. Crashed constantly, froze up all the time, programs would fail for no apparent reason. And it was on multiple machines that did this. I don't know, maybe the hardware was junk, but the OS simply did not handle the situation with any grace. I know it's sacrilegious to ever say anything bad about Apple operating systems, but MacOS certainly had its bad days.
Another vote for Millennium -- that and DOS 4.0, the lifespan of which was something like 6 months before 5.0 was being pushed out the door.
Windows Me, hands down.
Sounds like you are talking about Mac OS 7.5.x, which was Apple's first attempt at opening up it's operating system to run on non-Apple hardware. It was a disaster. And it further highlighted Apple's failure to develop a modern OS (Copland) and the fact that they had let laps their high end server OS. A/UX, which was a cross between System V Unix and System 7.0.x (but only ran on 68k hardware), had to be replaced on Apple's PowerPC based workgroup servers with IBM's AIX (which could run Mac OS 7.5.x and Mac apps in Apple's MAE for Unix).
Some stability was regained by the release of 7.5.5, and further refinements made with 7.6.x, but things like partial memory protection and cooperative multitasking weren't part of the OS until the introduction of Mac OS 8. Even 7.5's asymmetric multiprocessing ability was based on software from a third party (Daystar). Both Mac OS 8.x and 9.x were slowly given Copland based enhancements after Copland as a stand alone OS had been dropped, but both were also being redesigned internally to work within Apple's future OS development path (8.x designed to run in Blue Box in Rhapsody, 9.x designed to run in Classic in Mac OS X, both Blue Box and Classic being based on earlier MAE technology).
Between Apple's poor experiences with Mac OS 7.5.x (and the Mac clones) and Rhapsody on PC hardware (and developer's lack of interest), Apple has been reluctant to put forward products where they don't control both hardware and software. This distrust was further enhanced by Microsoft's API attacks on Quicktime (and RealPlayer, Java, Netscape) in Windows in the late 90's. That was part of the reason that Apple didn't originally provide iTunes for Windows when they made iPods available for Windows users.
Apple tends to be phobic about not repeating mistakes.
But yeah... 7.5.x was awful!
I went from System 7.1 to Mac OS 8.1 on my personal systems back then.Still, today I've gotten nearly flawless performance out of Mac OS 8.6 on a number of my systems. My PowerBook 3400c (which sees daily use) has been up since July 13th without needing to be shutdown or restarted (and has a record of just over 14 months between restarts)... but I also know that OS well enough to know how to take full advantage of it's strengths while sidestepping any weaknesses.
Another vote for Windows Me as the worst -- the number of hours I wasted having to reinstall that sucker.
The worst I used was Windows Me, it was just terrible and I ended up reinstalling 98se
Definitely ME.
In Vista's case, it really isn't that bad for the home user. It's problems, for various reasons beyond the scope of the thread, become more systemic in corporate use
In Vista's case, it really isn't that bad for the home user. It's problems, for various reasons beyond the scope of the thread, become more systemic in corporate use
A
Amaris
Guest
Oddly enough, I never had much trouble out of Windows ME. Worst OS? If I go by my worst experience, that would probably be Mandrake 8. I could never get that OS to work properly at all, from drivers to stability and everything in between.
J.
J.
I'll cast a vote for O/S2 Warp... 'Course, that was a few centuries (errr, years) ago.
Cheers,
-CM-
Cheers,
-CM-
Actually, for all intents and purposes O/S2 was actually pretty good. It just had a certain notoriety and stigma that did it in.
Mandrake 8 was a lot better than 7. The less said of 7, the better.
I'm giving dual "dishonours" to XP and OSX, on the basis that both really kicked the "let's make all the software and games people spent thousands of dollars on over the years obsolete overnight - and a good chunk of the hardware and peripherals while we're at it" mentality into high gear.
Before this there was generally backwards compatibility to a degree, and yes I know both XP and OSX have methods of dealing with older software (except for those of us who bought Intel Core Duo Macs, that is, for which "Classic environment" does not apply). But I do think the fact that these two OSes really introduced the fact that software is, at best, temporary tools, and I think this has contributed to piracy to no end because who is going to pay $50 for a game or $100, 200, 800 for a piece of software that might no longer work when the next OS update comes along?
Both XP and OSX have their strengths, along with their weaknesses, and having spent a decade on PC I'm never going back after spending 3 years on Mac. But it's the philisophy behind it all that I think did more harm than good.
Incidentally, just a bit of background. My experience with computers (including programming) dates back to the Commodore PET circa 1978, and the Apple II+ from about 1980. I remember it being a big deal when an OS update allowed PETs to print lower-case letters! And I remember when Apple moved from Dos 3.2 to Dos 3.3. Oh, did people complain back then!
Sigh. I better go take my nightly dose of Geritol...
Alex
Before this there was generally backwards compatibility to a degree, and yes I know both XP and OSX have methods of dealing with older software (except for those of us who bought Intel Core Duo Macs, that is, for which "Classic environment" does not apply). But I do think the fact that these two OSes really introduced the fact that software is, at best, temporary tools, and I think this has contributed to piracy to no end because who is going to pay $50 for a game or $100, 200, 800 for a piece of software that might no longer work when the next OS update comes along?
Both XP and OSX have their strengths, along with their weaknesses, and having spent a decade on PC I'm never going back after spending 3 years on Mac. But it's the philisophy behind it all that I think did more harm than good.
Incidentally, just a bit of background. My experience with computers (including programming) dates back to the Commodore PET circa 1978, and the Apple II+ from about 1980. I remember it being a big deal when an OS update allowed PETs to print lower-case letters! And I remember when Apple moved from Dos 3.2 to Dos 3.3. Oh, did people complain back then!
Sigh. I better go take my nightly dose of Geritol...
Alex
