95, XP, 10
[Bad but not worst]
98, Vista, 8.1
95, XP, 10
[Bad but not worst]
98, Vista, 8.1
Some times I miss 3.1. Then I find a way to get a fresh taste of it and the nostalgia is short lived.
9X and 2000
Can we all agree ME worst OS? I remember the three years of reinstalling ME for two months of BSOD free use.
Yeah thats the only accurate ranking in OPs shitpost. How did '00 come out as decent but ME released like dogshit? What was the point of releasing it?
What part of "Windows was never good" do you not understand, user?
How many times do you have to reinstall Linux between posts?
UPDATED WINDOWS POWER RANKING
[Bad but not worst]
95, XP, 10
98, Vista, 8.1
1.0, 2.0, 3, 3.1
I'm about to build a new PC and am choosing which Windows to go with, thinking 7. Is that the right choice? I'd prefer XP but it doesn't support latest DX.
Yeah, 7 right now is the best option if you care about modern games support newer DirectX versions (except 12) AND want a stable operating system. Be sure to get the Ultimate 64-bits version. I have heard that 8.1 is good, but I never used it.
Otherwise, if you don't care about games, I don't see flaw over staying on XP.
Nothing is as good as running sub-20 process Windows XP.
If I didn't care about games I wouldn't dual boot Windows at all. I'll be torrenting it of course, I'll keep in mind to look for the Ultimate 64-bits version. Thanks.
I like Vista on a computer that can actually run it, but XP is the bestestest. I'd put either of them on machines I didn't need connected to the internet.
At the time there was a fear that switching to the NT kernel would break compatibility with old games/applications. ME was such dog shit no one complained by the time XP came around. I miss 2k-chan.
Okay, XP with the Service Packs was decent, then 7. Then everything else. And then XP without the Service Packs was the absolute worst OS ever.
kys microsoft shill
Just run it on DosBox and have fun. You can even play games on 3.1.
Windows 7 always was bad. it's basically windows XP that is broken, looks shitty, doesn't have GPU acceleration for classic GUI, contains fresh backdoors and keyloggers, have crap explorer that cannot be customized.
Why do you need DX12?
If you want to play normie new games you better buy a console. And have old (pre ME) PC for real stuff like imageboards.
there is nothing wrong with using old windows with internet.
Ever heard about NAT and firewalls?
Nice one fam you really got me there.
pick only one.
If 7 gives you trouble because video drivers don't play with it nicely, you can make 8.1 look almost exactly like 7.
XP/2000 was the best though user, I know that feel. XP has the best custom themes, the same can't be said about 7+ unless you like normie Apple ripoff themes.
Lotta assmad 10cucks in here.
Maybe we're being swamped by neogaf refugees.
1. Windows 7 with botnet removed
2. Windows XP
3. Windows 98
?. Who cares, all crap.
Take your opinion and shove it up your arse. And while you're at it, take my opinion and shove that up your arse too, you giant anal faggot!
God tier: doesn't exist yet bug off with your Win 2000 meme
Good: 2000, 95, 98, XP, Win 7
Neutral: Win Me, Vista
Bad: Win 8, Win 10
Win Me is Neutral because its stability problems are fixable, and despite the flak it's getting people forget how it introduced Movie Maker and System Restore among others.
Win Vista is Neutral because it's basically a crappy unpolished Win 7.
The new shit is bad because since Win 7 they've became telemetry spies for CIAnigger botnets. This is not forgivable. Forgivable is being crap without updates and not having drivers.
Windows 7 IS bad now. They patched in all the telemetry and cancer to get people to upgrade.
Are you sure? Because I read that security-only updates don't bring in telemetry. Besides this, is telemetry traffic something that the builtin firewall can't block?
Unless you can say in truth that "telemetry bypasses firewall outbound rules and CANNOT be disabled from services.msc and taskschd.msc" then all you do is spreading FUD.
Unless you're willing to block their updater, you're not going to be able to block their telemetry. And if you block their updater, you're going to get your 'telemetry' taken by someone other than MS.
Specifically what updater are you talking about? Windows Update? And who is "someone other than MS"? Seriously unless you clear these up for me and everybody reading, and stop being pointlessly vague, I'll have to call you either a FUD troll or a schizo paranoid, choose one.
It's amazing to see some people have good memories about xp.
You've got too much autism for me to continue with, user.
Coming from '98, XP was fucking fantastic. And it lasted for years. I only switched for Win 7.
windows 7 is shit
-doesn't have GPU acceleration with classic GUI
-explorer looks like shit and isn't customizable
-BLUR, everything is blurred like on linux, text and icons are not sharp like on old Windows
-higher RAM usage while providing you nothing more
-you cannot disable many services and stuff like before because system will break
-horrible Start menu, displays your installed programs in small window that takes 1/10 of screen area, on old windows it displayed installed programs in window that used 9/10 of screen area
Windows 7 was always shit, even before telemetry (keylogger)
also, windows 7 had spyware and botnets built in from first version. for example, every time you boot a win7 PC it connects to Microsoft, official reason is that it checks if you have internet connection...
considering how every other pc port is un-optimized to the point of 10fps on a $5000 system i wouldn't say he's wrong.
it's basically win10: beta edition. same shit just even more half-assed.
tfw I'm still using XP
pics or didnt happen
Post 3.1 maybe
windows 7 everything else is nostalgia tier
Doncare. Also you want Win98 to be GPU accelerated? Why, what for, grey pixels?
Agree on that, its lack of a window title makes it look broken.
Doncare, mostly subjective. I agree though the folder icon should have been done better cos they look bad on white bg.
That be SuperFetch service. Improves speeds by preemptive loading of your fav crap onto unused RAM.
What services exactly? You can disable loads and loads of crap just like before.
Start Menu is fine and comfy cos it has built-in search. What's your excuse to not use it, seriously, too paranoid or you cannot remember first 2 chars of program name?
Yes, that's true and shame on MS. Those who want to disable it check this in registry editor:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internetset EnableActiveProbing to 0
Also remember to uninstall update KB971033. I don't know of anything else thats problematic, unless you've been a fool and installed non-security updates like in tech FAQ list:
heathens, all of you.
Windows 3.1 had this feature: you could play a game of asteroids in a window, then minimize the window to an icon, and then continue to play the game of asteroids in the icon, with single-pixel asteroids
No other version of windows comes close to that
MS was a leader in pajeeting itself out of the kind of vision and talent that could sustain playable minimized games.
10 LTSB maybe. Server 2016 with tweaks might cut it too. Default 10 makes Windows 7 Starter Edition look good.
Debian > Win 7 > Win 10 > nostalgia tier windowses
windows 10 is now days actually pretty usable with classic shell. only problem is the metro stuff. i hate it. also error messages dont have even those cryptic hex messages. i was installing win 10 to friends machine, says after install driver is missing but NOT what driver :D
I still remember the rage about the luna. I used 98 and both were shit in their own way.
All versions of Windows denies users the freedoms to study and modify the source code, use without restriction, sell or give away exact copies, and sell or give away copies of modified versions. This makes all versions of Windows unacceptable.
Autism: the post
This is autism: the board
Where do you think we are?
Lemme ask you something, and this also goes out to all the "muh freedumbs" retards that populate this board: if a piece of software such as windows let you view and edit the source code, how many of you would actually go through and look at the source code, line by line, and then go as far as modifying it? And then, assuming you did all that, how many of you would trust a compiler to compile it and not inject malicious code? I'm assuming you idiots would just say "yay it's muh 4 rules of stallmans manifesto," and then just blindly download someone else's modified version of it, trusting again that there isn't any malicious code. Fuck off with this shit. Don't get me wrong, the CIA, FBI, etc can fuck right off and stop surveiling me and the rest of the innocent general population, but at the end of the day, a piece of software isn't going to save you from thought crime if your hardware is compromised. Just use whatever the fuck you like; I personally like windows 7 and xp, and am trying to learn Linux, but none of this matters, because I have a cellphone, use wifi, and use relatively modern hardware that has backdoors built in.
He didn't say anything about security. He's just stating the standard Stallmanic argument, which also doesn't claim that free software is automatically secure.
In practice being able to look at the code does help with security, though, even if it doesn't guarantee it.
I've looked at the source code of a lot of software I use, and even modified some. It's good to be able to do that for a lot of reasons unrelated to security.
Enough to make a difference. Some of us would even get paid for it. Same reason why you can trust popular compilers and VMs.
It only took only few good dev to spot if there's milicious code in it or it is defected by design. You shouldn't underestimate the level of skill and autism from open source dev user.
If I have a leaky faucet, do you think I'm required to have training in plumbing to get it fixed? If I want my cabinet to have more shelves, do I need cabinet making skills to put more in? When the sole of my shoes get separated from the shoe, do I need cobbler skills to put it back together?
The answer is "I personally do not need that kind of skill". I do not need any kind of technical skill to study the code and check that the code is good for me. When I am a free man, it is my responsibility to find a skilled helper to help me with any technical issue that I need in my software.
The problem with proprietary software is the owner of the software explicitly forbids me to live in freedom. It is impossible to live in freedom without access to the source code.
not him but I just used my T40 with XP yesterday. only thing is the video/display is very slow, it takes too long just to load icon images in a folder and will not play videos. but it syncs up with my Palm device just fine.
lol I used TinyXP yesterday too. In a VM, though. The program I wanted to run on it ended up being too slow for my purposes, but it did run just fine and I would use it today if my requirements were a little bit lower.
nice try, Microsoft.
Their easly BASIC interpreters were pretty good: BASIC-80, MBASIC, BASICA/GW-BASIC, QBASIC. The rest of their stuff, not so much.
Windows 1.0 logo looks the most modern and flat and is therefor the best.
They were all pretty shit until qbasic, and compatibility nightmares. I used to use basica a lot just because it was everywhere, though. I'd fuck with all the computer displays in stores and write little programs to have my name bounce around the screen or flash.
Windows 7 was the least bad, but still bad. It was a downgrade over XP, especially on the performance and bloat fronts (Pentium 4 and 1GB RAM to barely run). Everyone wanted to stick to XP, which was more lightweight, but Microsoft deprecated it, so people moved to 7 (Vista was absolute shit, especially pre-service packs, so barely anyone bothered).
Having the source means someone (you or someone else) can improve, modify, fix, and audit the software. No source makes all that significantly harder, if not impossible. Having the source code facilitates application interoperability and helps prevent vendor lock-in, like the case of MS's OOXML pseudo-standard formats.
Moreover, businesses can hire someone to maintain/update/rewrite old software instead of having to rely on a vendor's willingness to keep providing support.
Lastly, there's literally no upside to proprietary software for the user. The only 'benefits' (if they can be considered as such) for developers are it makes it harder for the competition to port features and facilitates vendor lock-in. (and no, it doesn't stop piracy at all)
Yep, you're dumb.
not an argument
that meme is not an argument
Win2k source was leaked long ago and enough people went through it that Microsoft saw fit to try to inhibit the development of WINE.
still no argument on your part to refute this
And "not an argument" is not an argument.
BASIC dialects as a whole were fairly incompatible, but not too much trouble to convert between unless the code depended heavily on PEEK/POKE and other hardware specific stuff. I started with MBASIC on CP/M and found no significant differences later when I used IBM PC in classroom. As a general rule, Microsoft's BASIC interpreters were fairly compatible, except of course stuff like sound and graphics functions that were included in the IBM versions but not CP/M (as most of those systems were text & beeper only). MSX BASIC was also pretty close (makes sense, since Microsoft was heavily involved there too).
As a kid I had no problems whatsoever converting between any Microsoft BASIC. It's the others that gave me trouble, and when those programs were ladden with PEEK/POKE statements that I had no clue what the purpose was for (would have needed a manual for that computer), I generally had to give up on trying to convert the program.
Pic is example "problematic" code. This one has comments at least, but it's not always the case...
[Bad but not worst]
95, XP, 10
98, Vista, 8.1
1.0, 2.0, 3, 3.1
You own linux distribution, Minix, TempleOS
Gentoo, LFS, OpenBSD
anything without systemd
Just because they were popular doesn't mean they were good, user...
This. Any non-NT windows is god-awful crap that probably gave me childhood PTSD.
NT isn't great either, but it won't cause mental scarring. It's just that it's not FOSS and thus incapable of ever reaching god-tier and now more botnet than it already was with Windows 7.
Someone be honest with me, how good is TempleOS, really?
It's good in the sense that it's much simpler than almost everything else that can run on modern computer. And at least it's not Unix-like. Too many things these days are a rehash of 70's mainframe. That makes sense for servers, but PCs don't need to be a mainframe.
The downside is it's for amd64 only, which is kinda a 40-year pile of crap, even without the botnet. Also it might not even run on all amd64 machines. It doesn't account for stuff like ACPI right? That used to be optional, but now maybe system won't even boot or just crash without it. The irony is without all the bloated complicated code, you don't need super-fast cpu that requires ACPI. Modern computers are a frankenstein abomination.
Plan 9 and derivatives
I've been using Windows XP since up until only a month ago when I finally got a new GPU which doesn't have proper fucking 32-bit drivers. I had been hoping to do PCI passthrough to virtual machine it from now on but it looks like I may be forced to continue maintaining a separate partition and using my old GPU to run the damn thing.
8.1 with botnet removed + metro apps removed + Classic Shell is actually pretty good tier.
In fact it makes a lot more sense to me than 7, since it has better hardware support and support a couple of new technologies. It also feels snappier than 7 in potato hardware.
The only things 7 has going for it over a properly configured 8.1 are better support for old DX8 and DX9 games, and the Win8-tans are pretty bland and there's no official 8.1-tan, I like to think of Inori as being the 8.1-tan
Some people also don't seem to remember that just like XP, 2000 wasn't always good, it had tons of bugs and glaring security flaws, it only became usable with SP2 and decent with SP3. It also ran like dogshit on PCs from its time, XP was actually better optimized.
Vista had lots of problems but it progressed to become pretty stable, reliable and optimized by the time SP2 rolled out. Too bad the damage was already done and MS had to release the "all new" Windows 7 which is pretty much Vista SP3.
Not at all.
Under the hood I think 8/8.1 have a lot more in common with 7 than 10. They only improve upon 7 on performance and stability, without all the problems 10 brought. At least that's my experience with 7, 8.1 and 10.
Interface wise I don't like it either, not even one bit, but with Windows 10 the street shitter army at MS just took all the concepts that 8/8.1 introduced (which already weren't great) and went full retard with them.
Speaking of which, there were also some themes for XP that Microsoft released later: Embedded, Zune, Royale, and Royale Noir.
2003 Server is the best one. Not surprising it's not even mentioned in this thread full of larpers who had their only experience with OEM Windows 10 and nothing else.
It's agreed that XP was the pinnacle of Windows.
People saying anything before 7 was acceptable speaks wonders how little they know about computers.
An operating system is supposed to abstract resources in such a way that the user is in complete control over the machine. In particular, userland shouldn't be able to mess up with your resources arbitrarily unless you specifically let it do it. Well, this was obviously not the case in any form on ANY DOS based windows, so they are ruled out. XP being NT based was better, but still trailed a lot of shit from that era, it was common to get your computer fucked up from nothing on userspace, specially without service packs. In W7, if some program fucks up you can recover your session in most cases, in XP the opposite happened, more often than not you had to go to the restart button or fucking format from scratch.
Modern versions of windows are even better technically but with all the telemetry and other useless crap they get a default 0 score.
So... Vista is the best?
3.1, 9X, 2000, only tolerable Windows OSes.
[Bad but not the worst]
1.0, 2.0, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, and all their 'server' OSes. The only excuse to use Windows is "muh gaymen".
For work I now have to use Windows 10.
Everyone who says they like it unironically gets excommunicated immediately.