Which is the WORST OS ever created by MS?

[tifc8lraz]

When I had Windows ME, it would constantly BSOD, and freeze in the middle of nowhere. Good Ridance to ME !

 

[xxjt712xx69]

i agree

ME was horrible my neighbor is still using ME and is always asking me for help,
luckily enough 99.9% of people dont have it any more so its not targeted for viruses

 

[Rayss523]

Vista is clearly the worst it installs mulitple spyware programs that you agree to in the EULA.

I don't want somebody watching what I do all the time to see if I happen to use bittorrent for downloading.

 

[Dabears]

Windows ME was the worst. nough said.

 

[zipperman]

I voted 98

But 98 se was ok.Not fair to pay for update to 98se.
I was happy with WMe,till my software wasn't.
All versions had their good and bad points.
MSoft didn't need so many steps to reach todays version and disable older software use.
Just the rich getting richer.
Did you buy them all ?

 

[SNGX1275]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to let this latest resurection of this thread stand. This post originated in 2003 and has been brought back several times, this last time I just deleted the post that brought it back and the resulting post because the guy that brought it back had 1 or 2 posts (still has 2). Since it got brought back AGAIN, I'm going to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, and I'll even put Vista as an option in the poll. But don't be too suprised if it gets locked or disappears, we already have plenty of bash Vista threads floating around.

 

[appariti0n]

Windows ME is the ONLY operating system I have ever seen completely lock solid before it's even finished loading for the first time on a clean install. That requires a special award.

Special like the kids who used to wear helmets but didn't play football.

 

[Essex]

ME maybe the worst, but Vista home is gonna go down in history and beat ME hands down. This is such a widely marketed product in such a large (2007) market... wait and see. My crystal ball says ME will come in second. LOL

Main problem? Compatibility with hardware peripherals and of course MS's need to get their investment back. The web forums are crammed with Vista problems.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I am sure Vista will move thru several upgrades, the original program will probably loose most of its original identity.
And talking of identity... Vista is either schitzo or paranoid... it certainly isn't tech friendly...

Nah, but I love the graphical quality and the minimum 1Gig to move it into first gear.
ME, never touched it from day one... had my crystal ball then too.
Run the poll again in five years... I am already there. Don't you just love computers?

Back to work... mmm yummy quad cores and fast driving... pleasure
(And a great XP engine) LOL

 

[howard_hopkinso]

I seem to remember XP having all the same kind of problems when it was first released. It wasn`t until sp1, sp1a and finally sp2 that we had the XP we have all come to know and love.

Trying to compare Vista with ME at this stage in Vista`s development, really isn`t fair at the moment. I say, let`s wait and see what happens in the future before we condemn Vista to the realms of ME.

Regards Howard

 

[Essex]

I tend to agree, but the numbers involved (customers) are far greater now. Try telling that to the millions that now utilise computers

Most go for laptops where only Vista is mainly supplied on board. Most go for cheaper laptops, which only have the basic Vista. Then they try to push the capabilities to the extreme (like running on 512Mb, 1.86Mhz dual core) and expect the poor thing to perform.

People are strange in today's fast world and unfortunately less forgiving. Hence the bad publicity that grows from memories bad experiences.

So in a nutshell, Vista is no doubt a fantastic platform, and will become a robust and reliable OS in time, just as XP evolved. No knocking, just facts. In the meantime voices will do their damage whilst patience and frustrations will surface.... in 2007 dateline computer user numbers.

Meantime no knocking Vista from me. ME was the worst because few did the research for its downfalls. Just like for Vista now. I'll stick to XP for now.

PS ... I just like to be ahead of time... the past has gone and its nice to see the future and be prepared. Gimme Vista 2-3 years time... just as I did with XP .

PPS MS must keep the Vista name and go the route of "SP1, SP2". Then it won't get labeled like ME.
XP was a completely different platform than its predecessors. Its all down to proper Vista marketing and keeping the customer happy.

 

[SNGX1275]

XP was a completely different platform than its predecessors.

It was nearly entirely the same platform as Windows 2000. I'd put stability/reliability of Windows 2000 SP4 up against any machine running XP SP2. The functionality is nearly identical too. There really isn't anything you can do in XP that you can't do in 2000. Even (some?) XP/Vista only games can be made to run in 2000.

I've ran 2000 a bit, ran XP a lot, and been running Vista since Feburary. But every time people point out problems with Vista and say there is no reason to upgrade from XP, I like to point out that if they really believed that then why are they running XP over 2000.

 

[zipperman]

Whats your point ?

I'm running XP over WMe.Never considered 2000.
Never even saw it advertised or heard of 2 day lineups like XP had.
And i mean a full $260 XP Home.Not an upgrade.
My answer to the ? is W95A and W98.
98se was a big improvement.
So answer the question as described.

Removed unnecessary quote.