Which is the WORST OS ever created by MS?

hehe dude I ran a BBS for a while on a 2400bps modem! That was back in the DAY! I think was around RIGHT when 14.4 came out. I also was a co-sysop on one or two other BBS's. I caused trouble lots of time on the boards haha.. was SO fun. I miss it terribly!

I remember when I was running my board on WWIV, and my monitor went dead. I got so used to the commands on WWIV that I was typing mail to people on the boards to tell them to let everyone know that my monitor was dead and that I would be back soon. Now those are SKILLZ! lol

This thread is a little meaningless, as no definition of 'worst' has been provided. Its true that many users (self included) has had problems with Windows ME, but that doesn't mean that it is an inferior OS. Any OS does not operate in isolation, and I certainly know of users (self included - after fixing initial teething problems) that have had very little problem with ME.

Windows 95 was way inferior and everytime it booted it would misreport the hardware in your PC and inform you that you had 7 hard drives, when you only had 1. It also didn't last long before a rebuild was in order.

The only reason ME has had teething problems was because of the new requirements it posed on both software and hardware in an attempt to make it a more reliable OS.

Unfortunately, as ME was a dying breed (the last win9x OS) it never really got a chance to mature fully, and was, as others suggest, a pointless exercise by Microsoft to get max $$$ from users before switching to XP.

You just need Linux in your life.

That DOES take me back to the days of DOS. It takes me back to the days where I used to program and use my BBC Micro Computer...



...Or even my old Dragon32

LOL

WinME is the worst ever
WinXP sux a lot too, IMHO

Win2K is the best of all Win OSes IMHO again

Linux distros tend to become more & more compatible with all the new hardware stuff (usb2, nforce mobos, firewire, wifi, etc) so as I'm dont with school in 1 month i'll switch 90% on linux already began my coming out hehe

I know, I use it at the Uni...

But it just isn't the same as trying to figure out how to load sound and mouse drivers into memory without going under 620k free memory...
(And without using QMM as it made loading windows 3.11 an impossibility... And without Windows, no internet access...)


Acid> Wow... You were a SysOp with a 2400baud connection?!? I started using BBS' at that time, but I prefer the time with 28.8k.... Only annoying thing about it was the cost of long distance calls at that time...

DA> Thank you for the correction

Whatever happened to all the talk (just before XP came out) about it communicating covertly with MS if you had a network connection? Telling them everything from what your searches and hardware were, to what colour of boxer shorts you were wearing last Tuesday.
Surely if that is the case then XP would be the worst. Not from a buggy point of view, but from a design point of view?

Anyone?

guess ill never install xp and just jump from 2k to linux as i said
b/c i don't even want to see any "send report to MS" boxes on my screen ...

MrG, it was not me with the BBS, it was acidomosis

Is it fair to say XP sucks when pro is based on 2000 and XP home is based on 98?I really dont know.Im using XP PRO full version on my main PC and 98SE on another,so I dont know what XP home is like.

Windows 95 is about as stable as a drunk on a unicycle and roughly about as reliable.

Windows Me really wasn't THAT bad. It's notorious for problems and little quirks, but it is much more functional and faster than 95 (especially pre 2.5). The switch to a new WDM caused some problems as well as the "hidden" DOS.. But overall, it was okay.

But because Windows 95 was released years ago when it was really needed, it was a very good piece of software for its time period. Of course now, it is horrible...

Windows Me on the other hand, was release at a time it was NOT needed.. At all. Infact, it would have been better off never being released.

Changes, such as the "removal" of DOS, crippling of DOS system utilities (scandisk had difficulties finishing on bootup, sys C: never worked correctly in emergencies, system file checker was hidden or didn't even exist.. etc).. made Windows Me a pain to repair. It was Microsoft's little pet project to "remove DOS" to show how "new" it was, but the fact remained that Windows Me was the same old tired technology MS had been using for 7 years.

Don't get me wrong - I think Windows Me is a operating system than 95 - But its impact on Windows and consumer computing is negative at best.

So ME gets my vote for worst OS by MS (from the choices presented). Otherwise I'd probably pick Windows 3

You might want to double check your information before you jump to conclusions.

XP Pro and XP Home are both the same operating system - Pro just has more features. By no means is XP Home (or any version of Windows XP) based on 98.

• 95/98/Me - 9x kernel
• NT/2000/XP - NT kernel

Home is identical to Pro with the exception of limited networking abilities and maybe a couple of other minimal quirks such as no support for dual processors.

Now, as far as it being fair to say something sucks even though its based on something that doesn't suck as bad - Windows Me is based on the same thing as Windows 98.

Therefore, I can conclude it is fair.

True... It shouldn't have to be this way, but you can disable the services that control sending information to MS. XP is phone-home free once you tweak it a bit.

It would certainly be much better if it did not phone home out-of-the-box though.

The most obvious acts of home phoning include the "Send this error report to MS" crap, automatic updates and the activation itself.

Aside from that though, it keeps to itself exept for a few minor things (atomic clock time adjustment, WMP codec downloads and other funky digital rights crap...)

I kind of want a summary of why ME is the worst OS. Sorry about that, kind of lazy to read everything and get a little bit of this and that, thx for your kind consideration and attention!

From what I can tell, winME is actually Win98TE- Third Edition. You should pretty much expect your experiences to reflect a lot of that, although there were some driver issues.

One thing that I've noted from most people- If you're using a laptop, ME seems to be a great system to run. If you get it up and running, it runs fine. If you have a bad experience with ME though, it seems to be a REALLY bad experience.

If you had to ask me for worst OS ever, I'd say Win95. Win98SE finally ended up being what 95 was promised to be, and barely at that. Win2k is close behind that I think... As I said, individual experiences vary, I know someone who'll preach Win3.11 still...

Personally, I've tried every single version of Windows and own every single one except 95. I have self installed them from reformats and what not. The one that gives me the most troubles, errors, and the worst user friendly interface is ME. It seems as if it was a project Microsoft rushed to get out, which sucked.

Actually, I've got to admit and everyone has to show props to Windows 98SE. 98SE was the best operating system on the planet. From old to new, SE is compatible with everything. On the other hand, the 'professional' XP is only compatible with fast running computers, you wanna get that on a P4 or faster or you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Take it from me, I've thoroughly used these operating systems and still have them. I have 3 seperate removable hard drives for OSes and I find myself using SE the most rather than 2k and XP. Not because all my personal files are there (I have a seperate non-removable drive for that), but because it's most compatible and less troublesome.

I find XP most usefull and reliable as well as stable. As soon as I can afford more memory, because XP is a bit, just a bit, laggy on my system, I will incorporate full use into it.

(If you're wondering if I've had a hard drive with ME on it, yeah I did. I reformatted it and used it for my XP drive now, cuz ME sucks.)

I don't know. Windows 95A can compete with Windows ME for the worst...

Win ME... Win 95... hmmm. It's hard to say as it's like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges (both sucked money balls in their own stinkin' ways). But if i had to choose, i'd say Win ME cuz it's majority opinion here and I'm mindless like that. Bottoms up, it's happy hour time!

EDIT: I"m still trying 2 understand how Win2K and Win XP even got on the list to begin with. What was the rationale for that????

I say Windows 95 is the worst. A lot of hardware isn't even supported for it. USB? Forget it. AGP video cards? F*** that. Can't even get a decent damn browser for it these days, much less a somewhat realistic media player. Haven for those who just want an Internet browser to check your lottery numbers.

I personally used Windows 98 SE for the longest time, and I believe that it is worthy of the silver medal. Only thing I don't like about it is hard copies of music lagging under mild system loads. Other than that, 98 SE just about beats the hell out of most 9x kernels.

I see a lot of people expressing their hate for Windows Millennium Edition. I say: it mainly depends on your personal experience with the program/OS/hardware/whatever-you-may-be-referring-to. I have used Windows ME with absolutely no problem whatsoever ever since it was released. As a matter of fact, I can compare it's functionality and reliability to Windows 2000. (But then again, my little baby [Dell Dimension 4500] can handle any OS it wants to. ) I have somewhat of a fetish for ME, despite what other people may think about it. So, gold medal for Windows ME! :grinthumb

And just to say, I agree with Tushman. How the hell did the NT OS's make it onto this list?!?!? O_O

It would have to be....

Migraine Edition ..... Of Course....

rEsi_n8 :approve:

Haha, man... I've heard Windows Me called so many different things

Windows Migraine Edition (new one XDDDD good one)
Windows Mistake Edition
Windows Miserable Edition
Windows Multiple Errors
Windows Malfunction Edition