Worst Operating System you ever used?

Page 7 of 13 [ 204 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

25 Sep 2008, 9:16 pm

Gambit wrote:

mandrake 10

Whats wrong with mandrake 10. I heard it was good.

lxuser
Sea Gull

Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 223
Location: Melbourne, Australia

30 Sep 2008, 6:03 pm

Windows in general, keeps on breaking. I use linux and never had a problem with it.

dougn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 773

30 Sep 2008, 9:02 pm

Another vote here for Windows ME.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

30 Sep 2008, 9:05 pm

Don't forget, Windows NT can divide by zero

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

30 Sep 2008, 9:31 pm

twoshots wrote:

Don't forget, Windows NT can divide by zero

And the answer is, "All engines: full stop."

"aye aye Captain!"

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

30 Sep 2008, 9:56 pm

CP/M: Worst. System. Ever.

iamyou
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 8

09 Oct 2008, 3:38 pm

window's vista, it's badly designed for keeping thing's organized may downgrade or convert to linux/unix

Psimulus
Sea Gull

Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Earth

09 Oct 2008, 3:53 pm

The most confusing operating system that I have used is the human mind. It did not come with instructions so we have had to attempt to decipher its code our selves. Its capable of running many programs though it often becomes infected with virii and malware. One of the benefits is that it is compatible with many forms of hardware. It also has an inherent capacity of self programming, which I think is great The gaming on it could be a bit better in my opinion though, maybe I'll upgrade the hardware eventually and see if that has an effect.

_________________
The infinite Universe is the divine essence. We are of the Universe.

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 1:13 am

Betzalel wrote:

SCO OpenServer hands down the worst OS I've ever had to work with period. this is System V Release 3 which was obsolete almost a decade before SCO started selling it. the version I was usign was released in 2003 (inexcusable) you7 had to re-link the kernel just for it to see an extra disk added to the SCSI bus. (keep in mind this was software released in 2003!)

It also has most of the old bugs from System V release 3. embarrasing bugs bugs that can cause all sorts of major problems bugs in the most basic of command line tools. It also has the "feature" of the SCO license manager. (policy manager daemon, kernel hooks etc) someone thought that it was a good idea to charge you out the ass for an obsolete UNIX system and then only give you the abiliyt to have 5 interactive logins on the machine, and limit other things like the use of various subsystems etc. so if you want more people to log in you pay 500$ for the ability to have just 10 more users.

I'm not even done yet.... lets get back to the process of adding a disk that already has a SCO filesystem on it so we can grab some files off of it. on any normal system you would expect it to find the device and read the partition table (or VTOC or whatever) and make a device node for each disk slice. but nope. not with good old SCO. not only do you have to run a utility that asks you every detail about the disk (because it cant just detect the drive oh no thats too modern) like what bus its on what its scsi id and lun number, blocksize etc.) and then re-link the kernel and reboot just so it can see the drive. you have to run a program called (i think) fsdiv. which will read the disk and show all the slices. THEN you have to tell it what to call the device nodes for each slice and THEN it will create the nodes in /dev that you actually need to run mount with. then and only then can you even mount anything on that disk and start to get work done.

I ran into all of this and much much more helping a customer with disaster recovery where they managed to make their SCO system running medical records unbootable. it was my first real life exposure to a SCO box and I did manage to walk them through getting it all back and working. If I hadn't have had lots of exposure to commercial UNIX and particularly never knew what ancient SYSVR3 UNIX was about (I actually used to have several AT&T 3b2 minicomputers running System V 3.2.2) I wouldn't have had a prayer to get this thing running.

Oh yeah just thought of something else the basic system tools don't even have large file support. you cant even handle files much over 1GB with tar alone. you have to cat or gunzip -c | tar xvf - or tar cvf - >file if you want to make or work with an archive thats is much bigger than 1GB. and even then I think the filesystem itself doesn't support files larger than 2GB max. all of this wonderful masochistic joy in an operating system that they still charge a fortune for and that came out in 2003 (the version i was using anyway) I hope SCO rots in hell not for the Linux lawsuit which is also lame but for the pain they inflicted on me through OpenSewer *spit*

Wow, that does sound horrid.

I actually have an email newsletter daily subscription to "Good Morning Silicon Valley" because it's an awesome and upon occasion funny newsletter regarding technology. I think they even have referred to SCO's OpenServer in their stories as "OpenSewer" actually.

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 1:20 am

RogueProcess wrote:

For all that everyone goes on about how great Mac OSX is, I really cannot agree. Sure, it's more stable than most other systems out there, but the interface is just a horrible, dire, cluttered mess. Too many things to mention here, but eitherway, just horrible...
(PS for any people thinking I'm just blindly hating Apple, I'm actually a Mac user, just one with a big chip on his shoulder about some of Apple's downright stupid design decisions).

I'm just curious. What about the interface do you hate? I love the interface. It's predictable, and once I figured things out, I do not have to waste any more of my time with guesswork when I start using any new apps that conform to apple's design standards (i.e. certain-styled buttons open drawers in the side of the window, certain buttons you expect in certain places in a dialog box, you do not use system-wide keyboard shortcuts for anything else, & above all, essentially, if you put something that the users are used to seeing in front of their faces, they'll do something with it while expecting a certain behavior to follow because it does that behavior in all the other common apps they use.)

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 1:23 am

Paddy789 wrote:

I liked OS9.

Leopard and OSX in general is too simplified and condescending, it makes me feel like I'm some idiot that can't use computers since it's impossible to tweak by normal means. I had no problems with it though, but I don't know if I'll ever like it.

I like Vista, oddly enough... I had no problems with it so far. Using it for almost a year and I had no major issues, SP1 made it even quicker than XP too.

wow, you're an anomaly I see.

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 1:41 am

jdbob wrote:

Versados by a big margin. In case you are wondering, it was Motorola's operating system for the 68000 family in the later half of the 1980s.

Same processor family as used in the early Macs?

Last edited by musicforanna on 11 Oct 2008, 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 1:46 am

Drakilor wrote:

Lunix. I hate it. It's never going to go off anyway since you need Windoze to run it, so you might as well use the best OS in existence (why else would it be so popular).

You don't need windows to run linux. Where did ya get that notion?

Windows is popular because people haven't bothered trying to use anything different after they were brainwashed by microsoft. Then Microsoft monopolized the market, effectively trying to shut down competition. Competition makes a healthy market though. Ride on, Apple and Linux...

As that one site says... Open your mind, and your OS will follow.

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 2:47 am

gamefreak wrote:

Eggman wrote:

os x

Which Version

Exactly what I was going to ask. Because there are some big differences from version to version (trust me as someone who has used OS X since the 10.0.x days). I haven't used a lot of 10.5, but have seen it from time to time on my sister's laptop. 10.3 I didn't use much except on the G5's at school and my sister's laptop a while back, my family pretty much skipped that release completely because of money issues. We haven't gotten 10.5.x either because our Macs are too old/slow to run it (Mine is from 2002, dad's is from 2001) The other versions of Mac OS X, I have used extensively though: 10.0.x, 10.1.x, 10.2.x, and 10.4.x currently on this computer I'm typing on right now (an iMac G4).

10.0.x (Cheetah): slow as molasses, the first public "finished" release of Mac OS X. Lacked major features, but here still multi-tasked better than OS 9 could possibly dream of.

10.1.x (Puma): still lacked some common features, but was a very solid and stable release. This version was free to those who tolerated the slowness/instability of version 10.0.x, including my dad, whose "quicksilver" Power Mac G4 came bundled with 10.0.2.

10.2.x (Jaguar): Was rather buggy and slow on my system (but still could run circles around windows). My iMac didn't terribly like this one.

10.3.x (Panther): lot of people had USB issues with this one, but I didn't use it extensively. I still do love using the Exposé feature that was introduced in this version.

10.4.x (Tiger): To date, the best version of Mac OS X that I've personally used thus so-far.

10.5.x (Leopard): Seems okay, there have been some stability hiccups according to people here and there, but it seems fine on my sister's laptop, can't say much though because I have an 800mhz iMac G4 that's 6 years old, and is too slow/too old to run it.

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 2:57 am

I'm allergic to windows... :lol: okay, maybe not allergic, but, I guess you can say, as a mac user of 21 years, I already had a strong bias against it the minute I realized that it started doing crap that didn't make sense, and still doesn't make sense, even slightly in a metaphorical sense. And if I wanted a computer to nag me until I forget whatever the hell I was doing (even after unchecking the nag option), I would've programmed my mother into it.

WillMcC wrote:

Some of the worst I've used

Windows ME
Macintosh 8.5
Windows Vista

I think one of the major problems with Vista, from my experience trying to troubleshoot my family's vista-run computers, is that it doesn't recognize a lot of hardware, especially things like scanners, printers, etc. Another problem with vista is that too many computers were tacked with stickers deeming them capable of running the OS, when really they weren't. :roll:

Windows ME ate my sister's gradebook one time (she teaches english and remedial reading at a high school). She wasn't terribly happy.

Mac OS version 8.5 wasn't so bad for me. 8.6 was probably the best classic Mac OS though. You know what I think of the next major version that followed though :lol:

musicforanna
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 798
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

10 Oct 2008, 3:05 am

gamefreak wrote:

Paddy789 wrote:

OSX Leopard.

That's one of the best Operating Systems on a mac. Why didn't you pick something like OS9.

Orwell wrote:

EDIT: I don't think I've really had any crappy OS's. I mean, the old-school Mac OS before they came out with OSX weren't great, but for their time they were OK. I suppose MacOS 9.2 actually never worked properly, and after it failed my family stuck with 9.1 until OSX was introduced.

iceb wrote:

I once had a mac delivered with Mac OS 9 and was gobsmacked on how rubbish that OS was.

I agree about OS 9. I love most of the Mac operating systems, but puh-lease, OS 9 was an abomination if I ever saw one. It didn't work right on my iMac with 512mb of ram, it didn't work right on the school computers with 256mb, it didn't work right on my dad's mac with a gig of ram. It just didn't work right. Especially with my first experience with running 9.0.4 on a Power Mac 8600 with 72mb of ram. That was dismal.

I also never quite understood those people who were all about being OS 9 holdouts because they hated the change in OS X (okay, I understand if you were waiting on a main app for your job to be reprogrammed for X, but there were some people who held onto OS 9 in an obsessive degree, like they were eating cold canned spaghetti-o's in a muddy bomb shelter.) It was crazy.

p.s. I just got done reading my 2nd Orwell book, and I'm hooked on his writing style with the way he makes me think.

Page 7 of 13 [ 204 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13 Next

Jump to:

Worst Operating System you ever used? Post Reply New Topic

Worst Operating System you ever used?