PrisonerSix wrote:
My first computer was a Commdore VIC20 with 3.5K RAM I got around 1982. We loaded programs from audio cassettes. For it's time and price it was OK, same could be said for the Commodore 64 then the 128. Of course, Commodore didn't support the 128 too well and made it backward compatible with the 64 so most software vendors wrote for the 64 instead of the 128. When the market was flooded with PCs, Commodore was pretty much on it's way out.
As for worst OSes, the first PC I had came with Windows 3.0 which was terrible. It crashed alot plus it had printing issues. I'd do a document in a word processor and try to print it and it was for no reason start printing blank pages. That's why I stuck to Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS for so long.
Windows 95 had problems with stuff hanging and locking up alot and the first time I installed it, it wouldn't boot but of course, I made the mistake of doing and upgrade instead of a clean install.
When Windows 98 was coming out, I debated if I should use it or NT4.0 Workstation. I decided to go with '98 because some of my hardware didn't have NT drivers available. Windows 98 actually worked pretty well for me, I kept it updated and didn't have many problems.
I studied for(and completed) a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer certification in NT4.0, but didn't think much of the OS once I got into it. For one thing, hardware options were limited because there weren't NT drivers for alot of the stuff out there. In addition. servers had to be rebooted regularly. The Novell Netware guys I talked to told me you could but Netware on a server and it would practically run forever without a reboot, ditto with Linux servers. I guess I don't think much of NT then.
I never used ME and haven't used Vista, so I don't know how they are. I've heard good and bad about Vista, so I don't know what to think for sure. One thing that kept me away from it is I read that alot of current hardware couldn't handle it well and many experts were suggesting to buy a new computer to run Vista. Since I didn't want to do that, I'm still running XP on my 1.583ghz AMD with 1.5GB RAM. I've had few problems with it, but do sometimes get some software hanging in it.
As for Linux, I've tried Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, and Linux Mint. Xubuntu was OK, but some software didn't run on it well if it all. Of course, I ran it on a 400mhz system. As for Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS, and Mepis, I found the KDE desktop environment to be a little resource heavy, plus on Mepis, I couldn't get multimedia to work, in spite of following instructions. For PCLinuxOS, I found the selection of software in the repositories too limited and installing other software on it was too difficult.
My two favorite Linux distros so far are Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Mint has a slight edge of Ubuntu because it has all the multimedia stuff already installed on it unlike Ubuntu where you have to go get it. The only hardware issues I've had with either of them were with an old Intel webcam and an old cheapie obscure brand scanner that even though could do 2400dpi in Windows 98/XP, would only scan at 100dpi in Linux because of the limited driver available. I've since junked that scanner for an HP printer/scanner/copier(very well supported on Linux, thanks HP, there's even printer software similar to what's available in Windows) and have no problems at all.
My only complaint with some Linux distros, and I understand it's due to legal reasons, is alot of stuff that comes installed in Windows you have to go out and look for in Linux, kind of like we did in Windows 10 years or so ago. On the other hand, many Linux distros ship with OpenOffice now, something Windows I doubt will ever do.
For my worst OS, based on the ones I've used, I would guess it is a toss up between Windows 3.0, 95, or NT.
Basing opinions based on compatibility & stability I see. Very educated on what you are using. Windows 95 wasn't bad for its time but still [well the same for the good majority of OSe's] needed a good stability push to do anything right.
Windows NT was stable but still wasn't consumer friendly & didn't have a lot of driver support. [Like a particular Gateway Docking Station a friend had.] However I would use Windows NT before 95 due to stability & I don't need all those bells, whistles, games, and eyecandy.
Windows 3.0, You where better off just using MS-DOS & occasionally using DOS-Shell. That was until 1993 when Windows For Workgroups 3.11 came out. Stable, User-Friendly, Great Networking Tools & few compatibility issues. I would say WFW 3.11 was more stability and conherant than 95.[Well it was an enterprise OS.]
Windows 98 & then 2000 was around the time Microsoft got the OS thing down. Stability, Ease-Of-Use, Compatibility, Innovative Features. Oh yes, the greatest thing ever. Windows Update. Before Windows 98 if bought a early version of a certain Windows OS [Like Windows 3.0.] you would have to pay for a upgrade to Windows 3.1 to get some bugs and flaws fixed up. By Win98 all you had to do is use Windows Update from there on.
Vista itself however was still a beta of another Microsoft Project when it came out. Vista is not too bad but isn't that great either. It was something Microsoft rushed to the board just because its been 5- Years since XP xame out. Windows 7 is going to be so much better.
22 Dec 2008, 11:08 am
