What was your worst OS?

[ofb]

This is a light-hearted thread for the OS you hated.

It's for people who've used at least three OS on a daily basis over the years. It's not a technical discussion of Pros & Cons, it's just for what you remember the least fondly.

----

I started in the seventies, and while Win 3.1 was definitely a low point I think I have to make a surprise choice of Apple OS 8.5.

Apologies to all the Mac fans! I tried to like it, I really tried to understand the attraction, but it was just ghastly for me on a PowerMac 7600/120. It's definitely the OS I never, ever want to boot again.

[Wiebelhaus]

Vista, all versions.

[professor fate]

Some Mac OS back in 1988. If I had a dollar for every little "bomb" alert.....

[skwishybug]

Windows 95 - when it first released

Buggy, insecure, trying to be a fancy coat for DOS

[wieman01]

Win 3.0 was certainly bad, but I kind of liked MS-DOS. Never had an issue with it.

I disliked Win98 from the bottom of my heart.

[jrusso2]

Got to agree with Windows 95a

[Kingsley]

Mac OS X 10.4.6. I installed and removed it in a record 2 hours. I'd probably like it more if I had run it on an Apple computer though.

[wieman01]

Got to agree with Windows 95a
I kind of skipped it, because I went straight from MS-DOS 5.0 to Windows 98. A disaster that was.

[mivo]

OSes I used for several years each: CP/M, TOS, Windows. The one Windows version I didn't care for was 3.1, but I had just come from TOS/GEM, so I really had some trouble to adjust to a system that felt like a step back. I actually thought Win95 was an improvement.

[santiagoward2000]

Well, I started using computers a little later. My first experience was with Windows 95. But the one I hated the most was Windows ME.

[Linuxratty]

3.0 was certainly bad I hoped 95 would be an improvement...Well,it looked better, anyway..I also did bad things to it, so 95's problems were partly my fault. :twisted::shock::biggrin:...98 blue screened too much.

[epimeteo]

+1 for Windows 95a. Even after OSR2 it was bad, but not as much.

I still think that all Windows versions since chicago where bad because of that first (not ready, not planned for the internet and not secure) release of Win95.

Windows 3.0 also was bad, but it couldn't be used for much.

[bruce89]

Mac OS X 10.8.6.

Wow, you've perfected time travel then?

[SunnyRabbiera]

Windows ME... I think that sums it up

[p_quarles]

Wow, you've perfected time travel then?
Codename "Cheetah." It makes sense when you think about it. :)

[dekeller]

You people don't go back far enough. You should have seen OS/360 on an IBM 360 model 30. Now that was bad. I had to wait all day just for turn around on a compile just to find out I missed a comma or something.

Darryl Keller

[PrimoTurbo]

Early versions of redhat were pretty bad, imagine you have to find all the dependencies yourself.

Also Ubuntu kinda sucks on my computer because it can be really slow.

Windows98 was bad at times, constant crashing of Explorer.exe after like a day of use.

[cyclefiend2000]

windows ME by a long shot. dont know how MS didnt get their butts sued over that travesty.

[rfruth]

Another vote for Windows ME cause it was a house of cards ready to collapse ...

[Linuxratty]

Windows ME... I think that sums it up

I heard so many bad things about Windows ME,I never got it.

[Lostincyberspace]

My worst experience is my fault but it was open SUSE 10.2 I really screwed it up royal. I broke gnome kde and the kernel, and thats just the begining.

[LaRoza]

Windows Vista, although I have made it somewhat usable.

[Kingsley]

Wow, you've perfected time travel then?
Excuse me, 10.4.6 :mad:

[SomeGuyDude]

I'd like to know how any OS could be worse than Windows Millenium Edition.

[ofb]

You people don't go back far enough. You should have seen OS/360 on an IBM 360 model 30. Now that was bad. I had to wait all day just for turn around on a compile just to find out I missed a comma or something.

We got the baby-food version -- typing in the code for games from magazines only to get a mass of SYNTAX ERROR that wouldn't be solved until the next month's issue came out with an errata.

[osxcapades]

Older versions of Linux.

[jflaker]

Well, I started using computers a little later. My first experience was with Windows 95. But the one I hated the most was Windows ME.

Windows ME was a fix for everything that went wrong in Win95 and Win98............I think someone miscommunicated the requirements for the WinME project.......combine all that was good in Win95 and Win98 and fix the bugs..........I think they missed on the third requirement to FIX the bugs.......

they combined all the features along with the bugs.

BTW: Windows 3.X was not an OS, but a GUI for DOS

[mivo]

We got the baby-food version -- typing in the code for games from magazines only to get a mass of SYNTAX ERROR that wouldn't be solved until the next month's issue came out with an errata.

Hey, I've done that, too! Was an Amstrad CPC. Hours of typing in endless lines of machine code, with checksums at the end of each line ... and then it still did not work. ;)

[D-EJ915]

Mac OS before version 8, crashed more than drivers in the US lol. The original Mac OS never had half-decent memory management, god that system sucked.

Windows also peeves me, but it's sort of decent once you get it set up, Mac OS was easy to set up but a pain to use.

[Frak]

Linspire/Freespire (Filled with junk)
Windows 95 (Too resource heavy)
System 8 (Great job setting IE as the default browser, Apple)

[LaRoza]

I'd like to know how any OS could be worse than Windows Millenium Edition.

* Windows ME was short lived, and was quickly replaced
* Windows Vista had a large expectation, and too much hype
* Windows Vista costs more
* Windows ME probably doesn't require you to upgrade a computer that came with Windows Vista
* Windows Vista is ME II, they did the mistake again, that makes it worse the second go

[MrFSL]

I'd love to take my turn bashing Windblows... but I'm tired of that. It sucks.

Gentoo - that was a Linux distro I hated. Especially back the dial up days.

[FG123]

Windows ME. Vista at least has a lot of fans (trust me, they exist), and Microsoft has already succeeded at having Vista as the current OS for most new computers, they just couldn't manage that with ME because it was so downright awful. No-one liked it.

[Lostincyberspace]

Vista at least has a lot of fans (trust me, they exist)

Its true I know some But they have been shown the lite of Linux and are starting to wobble.

[vishzilla]

Win 95, used it for few months. Boy, I screwed my comp with it.

[hellmet]

Win ME? I died trying to get dial-up working on it..

[HermanAB]

Hmm, I think Windows 95 was the worst - definitely worse than Windows ME. ME actually had networking and USB.

[-grubby]

Windows ME. Vista at least has a lot of fans (trust me, they exist), and Microsoft has already succeeded at having Vista as the current OS for most new computers, they just couldn't manage that with ME because it was so downright awful. No-one liked it.

I know you'll call me crazy but my favorite windows versions are as follows:
1:windows XP
2:windows ME
3:windows 98
4:windows vista
5:windows 95
(only ones I've used before)

[TeaSwigger]

Windows ME. Good grief. Worst OS ever for its time etc, IMH, and the ultra rich MicroSoft had no excuse for that by 2000.

I do feel that Windows 2kPro and XP are actually quite good in themselves; they were working fine for me. It's all the stuff around it - MicroSoft, invasiveness, security concerns, paying for a lot of programs (repeatedly) and the like - that helped persuade me it was time to persue alternatives, let's say. Very glad I did...

[Somenoob]

Win 98, yes even the "Second Edition" was buggy. If I had a penny for every "this program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down" error message....

Win ME was not even a OS it was just a program designed to crash.

Not much effort was put into some of the earlier flavours of GNU/Linux.

[ST.x]

Windows ME

[Anthrax9]

All versions of Vista suck

[potentia]

So far, measured in wasted time and in trouble: Linux.

[samjh]

Windows 3.1 was an OS I never got the hang of. :(

MS-DOS was difficult, but fun to use. When Window 3.1 irked me too much, I used to jump into DOS. :)

[zero244]

Early Versions of Linux they were useless for anything but lab work etc.
Ubuntu is my favorite OS overall.
I never had any major problems with later versions of Windows. I still use ME once in a while.
Security in all versions of Windows is almost non existant.......which is a major reason I use Ubuntu for most of my computing.

[HermanAB]

Hmm, I guess Minix is still the worst - totally useless really, except for studying it and for that Linux is way better.

[Lostincyberspace]

Why do you think Linus Torvalds changed from programing minix.

[HermanAB]

Exactly - even the very first version of Linux was better than Minix.

(For an OS class task, I wrote a floppy disk cache for Minix - yes, I am that old...)

[zeDuffMan]

Windows ME. It's clever how just leaving it on can cause it to break itself, but that's not a good thing.

[Baby Boy]

Ubuntu :p.

Just kiddin' Windows 95

[enitharmon]

I'm reluctant to be too harsh about the NCR Century 100 operating system because I never did get my head round it. From there I had the opportunity to work with CP/M, which was pretty neat in its limited way but it certainly had the worst documentation of any commercial software before or since.

Unless, of course, anybody knows better...

[oedipuss]

Windows ME without question.

I remember if I ejected a CD when explorer wasn't absolutely 100% ready to remove it, there was a bsod, and I had to reboot, or take my chances with that weird dialog that came after, CD not found : Abort , Continue, Cancel . I still don't know what each button does.

[cjazz]

OSes I used for several years each: CP/M, TOS, Windows. The one Windows version I didn't care for was 3.1, but I had just come from TOS/GEM, so I really had some trouble to adjust to a system that felt like a step back. I actually thought Win95 was an improvement.


A fellow Atari ST veteran! I also used TOS/GEM and dabbled with CP/M. I also used (and really liked) OS/2. My least favorite? Probably Windows 3.*, although all versions of Windows through 98 have been really shaky. Luckily I never had to put up with Windows Me.

[Sisophon2001]

I date back to Apple Macintoshes in the mid 1980's, and the worst OS I used was a very early version WinXP pro, and the the best version of windows was the latest release of WinXP Home. That siad, on average I consider WinXP to be a very solid contender. I rember the later years better than the first.

I used Win98 at work long after I had WinXP at home, so my memories of Win98 are not so fond. It was difficult to work with the constant crashes.

I never understood why floks complained about WinME. For me it was an update to Win98, nothing more. My home computers tend to be more stable than work computers, so that could have contributed to the crashes.

So looking back, Win 3.1 was the worst OS I used. I was draged in screeming from the dark world of DOS where I was perfectly happy with my command line and individual colection of apps. Having worked with Apple Macintoshes it was clearly an inferiour OS, and unstable compared with DOS which had the virtue of being cheap and reliable.

Notice no mention of Linux. I have used Linux for two years or more at home, and it is unlikely that I will be changing to someting else soon, so obviously I am happy with it.

Garvan

[Hairy_Palms]

mandrake 8 it could rival winME in bugs and crashes

[Bungo Pony]

Although I never owned it, it has to be Windows ME. My sis-in-law's computer ran it, and I've never seen a system crash so many times and randomly shut itself off. What a piece of junk that OS was.

You guys aren't gonna believe this, but for the OS that I've owned and worked on, the worst hands down is WinXP. I've never had so much trouble with an OS as XP. I try Ctrl-Alt-Del to kill an app, and I can never kill the damned thing! I've had this trouble on multiple PCs. But when all else fails, use the reset button :)

Windows 98se is next in line. Yet another buggy piece of crap.

I've actually had good luck with Win95. The occasional blue screen and crash was nothing compared to the OSes that I've mentioned above. It was probably the most stable Windows OS that I've used besides Win3.x.

And I agree, Win3.0 was a piece of crap. Everytime you click on something in the file manager, it opens it up in a new window.

[FierceDeity]

Windows Me, that was also the oldest system I've used... maybe it was just my incompetence at the time?

[meg23]

Besides Windows, Redhat 4 was really really aweful. I could not get anything to work on it. I almost gave up Linux completely until I came across Ubuntu.

[Alexis Phoenix]

Vista ](*,) - it's vastly more annoying than XP, which is very annoying. I like Feisty, it makes me very happy :) especially with new kernel (2.6.22) and new fglrx :) and bc43xx working nicely. MS just makes things be more work with their stupid trying to make things easy. I liked win98 even though it crashed a lot. I hope to The Gods Linux never ever goes down this route.... I've never used a mac though.

[creeco]

In linux distros definately PClinuxOS.. Because:
The menus are EXTREMELY cluttered.
You have to login to use the livecd, dumb, dumb, dumb!
It tries to look like windows vista, although its fans will say im wrong.
Many of its users spam distrowatch hitlist, in order to get pclos to the top.
Texter is a dumbass.

In others:
Definately windows vista, the more pumped with bloatware the worse it gets (winvista ultimate sucks the most.)

[NeoLithium]

For *nix I agree completely with PCLOS; nothing short of annoying in a variety of ways. I had it for around 45m to 1 hr before I removed it LOL

Windows....I think it's a toss up for me between 98/ME. I hated them both equally really, so I guess it'd just be flip a coin and see which of those CDs is my favourite coaster.

[cyclefiend2000]

I try Ctrl-Alt-Del to kill an app, and I can never kill the damned thing!

you have to know the trick.... kill it from the processes tab.

[jrharvey]

Mac OS X 10.4.6. I installed and removed it in a record 2 hours. I'd probably like it more if I had run it on an Apple computer though.

Haha I have OSX 10.4 running ON A MAC and I still hate it. Has to be the most annoying OS ever. Its better than vista but ill scream if I have to look at brushed metal for the next 20 years. I still use it because I havn't found an affordable laptop to replace it yet. I would put a PowerPC linux on there but I dont know if there are any apps supported for it. Ubuntu all the way on my tower.

[Scheater5]

Used Windows exclusively until a few years ago, and no internet until XP. So XP is by far my most hated OS. ugh, my family has no sense of internet security and will click "Ok" on anything that pops in front of them. I spent the majority of the last 4 years cleaning up/reinstalling XP on my family's computers.
Since then I've used probably 10 distros of linux and 2 or 3 BSDs, and not one do I "hate" - several I dislike, but all are usable.

[Perpetual]

Windows ME. Had it for a few days then wiped an installed 98SE.

[zach12]

Vista=EVIL
i was going to update to vista but wouldn't work on a lappy with a p3:confused: so found ubuntu on the net and love it!













window+me+time= no more windows:lolflag:

[HotShotDJ]

Hmmm... thats a hard one. I'll not include whatever it was that the University of Connecticut was using back in 1982 -- all I remember about that was that in my Intro to Computer Science class, we used punch cards and had to stand in line at the card reader, and then again at the line-printer just to find out that there was a typo on one of the cards (which I'd have to find, then go down the hall to the punch card machines, fix the error, rinse & repeat). Before that, in high school, we used TTY terminals, and a roll of paper ticker-tape for saving programs (the machine punched holes in the ticker-tape, and another machine would read the tape to load your program). Again, the technology, not the OS, was the problem there. (I laugh at the "Linux is too hard" crowd when I think about those days!)

CP/M, MS-DOS & IBM-DOS never gave me problems. I liked OS/2 Version 3. Then I got my first real Windows computer (a 400 MHz Celeron from CompUSA) which came with Windows 98 First Edition -- Not too bad, but it wasn't OS/2 either! "Upgraded" to Windows ME, and surprisingly I didn't have as many problems as other people did -- but then again, I didn't have high expectations of Microsoft after my OS/2 --> Win98 experience. Windows 2000 was a breath of fresh air -- FINALLY, a mainstream Windows OS that was as good as my old OS/2 machine. Then XP came along. ENOUGH!!! Switched to Red Hat Linux (I forget what version -- 6.something). I have since used SuSE, Gentoo & Kubuntu. (I still use Windows 2000 via VirtualBox -- the same full retail license I had seven years ago -- I almost wish I still had my old OS/2 installation disks to play with in VirtualBox!)

By far, the worse OS I ever attempted to use was Red Hat Linux 7.3 -- whatever they did from version 7.2 --> 7.3 completely borked my system. I never was able to get that version to function properly for me.

[jrharvey]

Ya know, all the things I HATE about windows are not really windows fault. Its not a bad OS but it is definately not a good one. It just needs alot beafier security. I kinda hope Windows stays on top of the food chain just so people will keep making virus's for it and not move over to making them for linux.

[jc87]

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

In only a few months of limited use (quickly change to Xp) i had the most stupid bugs ever.

Also 95 sucked a lot too, in my old pentium 200 "this program performed an illegal operation" was pretty much standart message of everyday use:)

[sanderella]

Windows 98

[igknighted]

I know you'll call me crazy but my favorite windows versions are as follows:
1:windows XP
2:windows ME
3:windows 98
4:windows vista
5:windows 95
(only ones I've used before)

I would list my favorite windows versions as follows (from best to worst):

Vista
2000 Pro
3.1
XP
98se
95
ME


Win ME and Win 95 were nightmares. I never want to see/hear from them again. Also, I concur with others about pre-OS10 macs. They were terrible. As far as *nix operating systems go, I think DreamLinux is the worst I have used. It had some great features to show off as a liveCD, but was probably the biggest disaster I've ever used once installed.

[glupee]

Definitely ME. I think that those of you who aren't voting ME never used it. A previous poster described it not as an operating system, but a piece of software designed to crash, and that's exactly what it was. Tried to troubleshoot it for a week, gave up and went back to 98 as well.

[jrharvey]

haha, I love MS's choice of words in win95. "this program has performed and illegal opperation". It seems like as many illegal operations going on at my house the swat team would have jumped through the window of my office. Oh but 95 was the first OS that I owned and I loved it so. I guess thats because before then I was using DOS and Apple OS (something old).

[koleoptero]

Lycoris Linux for me. It was just useless.

[rliegh]

The 2.6 Kernel -on any distribution. I'm giving it another shot (because I want to play with KVM), but up until now I've tried it on several different computers, from several different distributions, and each time I've tried to run it I got sick of it's instability and crashes.

It's disconcerting when you boot up your OS and you see detailed crash messages because the kernel freaks out trying to load some module or another.

I've had nothing but bad luck, instability and crashes from 2.6; touch wood that with 2.6.22 and beyond, combined with a store-bought computer I'll finally have a working version.

Vista really isn't that bad, the main problem with it, in all honesty, is that it is slow as arctic molasses. It came bundled on this computer and I've played with it -XP is more responsive (by an order of magnitude!) but Vista is not anywhere near as bad as you guys make it out to be.

No idea about Windows ME; glad I managed to dodge that bullet. :lolflag:

[MrFSL]

Early versions of Mandrake Linux need to be mentioned here. (Not sure how Mandriva is).

It was so frustrating! - Here, so much effort was put in to making things look nice when it should have been applied to making things work (bug fixes - etc.)

Back in the day, Mandrake would win the award for #1 under-achiever. All in all the O/S wasn't terrible but it got your hopes up and then bashed them when you tried to use it!

[jrharvey]

The 2.6 Kernel -on any distribution. I'm giving it another shot (because I want to play with KVM), but up until now I've tried it on several different computers, from several different distributions, and each time I've tried to run it I got sick of it's instability and crashes.

It's disconcerting when you boot up your OS and you see detailed crash messages because the kernel freaks out trying to load some module or another.

I've had nothing but bad luck, instability and crashes from 2.6; touch wood that with 2.6.22 and beyond, combined with a store-bought computer I'll finally have a working version.

Vista really isn't that bad, the main problem with it, in all honesty, is that it is slow as arctic molasses. It came bundled on this computer and I've played with it -XP is more responsive (by an order of magnitude!) but Vista is not anywhere near as bad as you guys make it out to be.

No idea about Windows ME; glad I managed to dodge that bullet. :lolflag:


Vista isnt really that bad. I will say that XP sp2 is better though. Vista is slow but if you turn of all the fancy stuff if does speed up quite a bit. All the effects bog it down and it is the same with ubuntu. If you want a good stable version of ubuntu you have to disable the effects.

I still think windows 2000 was probably the best Windows OS. XP was prob #2 but I HATED all the freakin popup bullcrap about no virus protection and firewall crap (even when I didnt have internet enabled). I havnt had any problem with OSX as far as stability but I just plain dont like it. It gets on my nerves the way it works and I have been using apple OS's since I started using computers.

[rliegh]

Vista isnt really that bad. I will say that XP sp2 is better though. Vista is slow but if you turn of all the fancy stuff if does speed up quite a bit. I agree, Even with Aero turned off and using the basic theme, it's not anywhere near as fast as XP sp2.

The main advantages (as I see it) that Vista has over XP sp2 is native support for newer AMD cpus -but it's no big thing to download the drivers from amd.com and the performance gain makes it worth the trip

I still think windows 2000 was probably the best Windows OS. XP was prob #2 but I HATED all the freakin popup bullcrap about no virus protection and firewall crap (even when I didnt have internet enabled).
FYI you can change that; just click on the balloon and then look over to the left at the window that pops up; you'll see something along the lines of "change the way that windows alerts me" and click that, then uncheck the relevant check boxes. If you're feeling brave you can also disable the service entirely (winkey+R, services.msc and then look for the security service, sorry I don't remember the exact name -google probably has it though if you need it).

:guitar:

[maybeway36]

Windows 98. It had drivers that took an hour to find and install. Now I use a dual-boot of Linux and FreeDOS for old games.

[CptPicard]

Win98. Never had ME but I hear it was worse.

[koleoptero]

I'll refrain from what I said earlier. I read some posts and I'll say for sure that the worst OS I ever used was commodore basic (I didn't know it counted as an OS)

[rliegh]

Windows 98. It had drivers that took an hour to find and install. Now I use a dual-boot of Linux and FreeDOS for old games.

Have you considered trying dosbox (http://dosbox.sourceforge.net) or running FreeDOS in qemu? dosbox was specifically written to run old DOS games so it might provide a better solution to you than dual-booting (which is always a tremendous PITA).

[SunnyRabbiera]

In linux distros definately PClinuxOS.. Because:
The menus are EXTREMELY cluttered.
You have to login to use the livecd, dumb, dumb, dumb!
It tries to look like windows vista, although its fans will say im wrong.
Many of its users spam distrowatch hitlist, in order to get pclos to the top.
Texter is a dumbass.


Hey, that is so totally unfair...
First: PClinux is NOT the only distro that uses passwords on the Live CD, I have seen this in others that use root accounts as opposed to Sudo.
Second: Texstar is a decent guy once you get to know him, he and the ripper gang are one hell of a team...
Bloody ignorance.

[Eddie Wilson]

So far, measured in wasted time and in trouble: Linux.

Not an operating system.

Windows Me was the worst for me.

[jviscosi]

I never actually hated any O/S while I was using it; I only started hating Windows (all versions) after switching to Linux and seeing how an OS could work.

[ARhere]

Windows ME, hands down. :mad:

-ARhere

[mummra1]

Windows ME by far! So many problems, so much heartache. I removed it after one day of suffering...

[dimbulb1024]

Got to agree with Windows ME. Problems, problems, problems!

[Neon Lights]

Windows ME.

God, that OS was so screwed up it's a wonder Microsoft ever lived through it. x_x

[mcduck]

Win 98SE. And of course Win XP was pretty bad as well.

Luckily I have managed to avoid both Win ME and Vista.

[DarkN00b]

I had no problem with any version of Windows after Win3.1. Windows ME ran rock solid after all updates were installed. The one version of Windows I hated most of all was Windows 3.1 - seen in the pic below. It had no networking out of the box. WFW 3.11 was a vast improvement. I have never tried Vista, and will never do so. The same goes for all future Microsoft products.

[rustybronco]

os2 warp, because I didn't understand it.
win98, beause it was buggy.

[Xeeon]

Mac OS X. I dunno why but I just absolutely hated it. I still do haha.

[meborc]

the win ME i got was buggy... i mean i got at least 5 blue screens of death a day... and i didn't even do anything... the whole period of using win ME (the whole 4 months of it) was a constant format - install - find drivers - defrag - format :)

i don't know how i lived through it... :D i guess i already then liked installing the OS like i do now... only with OSS

[a12ctic]

Windows ME by far, its the OS that first sent me on the search for an alternative, I found linux and I've been using it almost exclusively since.

[NightCrawler03X]

Mac OS 9 - Slow and horrible

Windows Me - The 9x kernel trying to take onboard features designed for NT. Unstable and buggy as hell.

Puppy GNU/Linux - No user functionality, completely root oriented (security lackage, anyone?). It's also completely unmaintainable, it doesn't use a package manager of any kind (pupget just has you double clicking installers as yuo would do with windows .exe or .msi files). Complete crap, totally unrecommended.

[mivo]

All the effects bog it down and it is the same with ubuntu. If you want a good stable version of ubuntu you have to disable the effects.

I cannot confirm that on my machine. I have turned on quite a few of the effects, use the cube all the time, have AWN running, etc, and the system is very snappy. With a video playing at 1680x1050, Evolution, Swiftweasel, Deluge, some terminals, PuTTY, Pidgin and some other stuff running, the system still uses less than 500-600 MB of RAM. I also did not have a single crash even though I do not reboot daily, and the machine is running 24/7. So, in short, I have a good, rock-stable version of Ubuntu with plenty of functional (or at least pretty!) eye candy.

I'm not using Vista, so I cannot say how it would run on the same box under similar circumstances. But I can say that Ubuntu runs extremely well. I really notice no difference between "all eye candy" and "everything disabled" in terms of responsiveness and performance. (The box does have a fair amount of memory and a decent video card.)

[LinuxGuy1234]

First up, Windows 98/98 SE/ME. It sucked. Badly. Next up, Windows XP and Vista. It sucked so badly. I got loads of blue screens of deaths and viruses, adware and spyware. Would you like someone that used used Bill's OS and get mad at Bill Gates? Ubuntu and other stuff under VirtualBox is what I use now. So much better.

Oh yeah, fix (use a startup disk, maybe even FreeDOS! (LOL) in order to get rid of M$ stuff):

cd c:
format c:
fdisk /mbr


Or even better:

cd c:/windows/system32
del explorer.exe
del lsass.exe
del winlogon.exe
del wpa.dbl

[Calash]

Windows ME

OS/2 Warp trying to run Windows apps......ewwww

DOS 5.0

[ExpatPaul]

Windows 98. More unstable than a really unstable thing

OS/2 Warp trying to run Windows apps......ewwww

I quite liked OS/2 but you're right about it running Windows applications... it was slooooooooooow!

[djsroknrol]

WinME was my worst experience with an OS...and everyone I knew at the time that had it (pre-installed or purchased) had nothing but trouble with it...welcome to the 21st century, huh? And here's what you'll use on your computer...LOL

[new2*buntu]

Windows ME

[glupee]

Windows ME ran rock solid after all updates were installed.
:shock:
god is that you?

[ofb]

I'll say for sure that the worst OS I ever used was commodore basic (I didn't know it counted as an OS)

Those systems were more like a shell + BIOS in modern terms I guess, but by all means include it -- this thread is intentionally light-hearted. It's for showcasing your personal villain.

[TeaSwigger]

WinME was my worst experience with an OS...and everyone I knew at the time that had it (pre-installed or purchased) had nothing but trouble with it...welcome to the 21st century, huh? And here's what you'll use on your computer...LOL

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! lol

[Pancetilla]

Windows Millenium or whatever made me install Mandrake on my PC six years ago...unbelievable experience :cry:

[santiagoward2000]

Windows Millenium or whatever made me install Mandrake on my PC six years ago...unbelievable experience :cry:

Well, see the upside: At least it made you turn to Linux! :lolflag:

[derekr44]

I was the wierd one... never had problems with WinME...

My worst was Win98.

[kd7swh]

The memory of CP/M hurts...

I remember the Apple Lisa, That was bad.

Windows 1.0 was god awful.

Windows ME pains me, even though I only used it for about ten minutes before going to windows 98.

That didn't last long. I moved to Mandrake, decided I didn't like RPMs, then moved to debian.

and well now I am here...

[multifaceted]

Windows ME... I think that sums it up

+1

WinME is embarrassing to mention even by MS advocates. So unstable, buggy and handicapped. Kind of like a pirated version of 98.

It seems to have been just a failed attempt to cash in on the "Millennium fad" before they released Xp...

WinME.... what a friggin' joke, lol!

[Spr0k3t]

WinCE - the name says it all.

[santiagoward2000]

WinCE - the name says it all.

:shock: I hadn't even heard of it!! I went straight to Wikipedia to see what that was about.

Windows CE (also known officially as Windows Embedded CE since version 6.0) (and sometimes abbreviated WinCE) is a variation of Microsoft's Windows operating system for minimalistic computers and embedded systems. Windows CE is a distinctly different kernel, rather than a trimmed-down version of desktop Windows. It is not to be confused with Windows XP Embedded which is NT-based. It is supported on Intel x86 and compatibles, MIPS, ARM, and Hitachi SuperH processors.

I really NEED to see it in action!!

[osxcapades]

It seems like bashing Windows ME is becoming popular in this thread. Those who have done so should consider what desktop Linux was like in 2000. It was not pretty, to say the least....

[santiagoward2000]

It seems like bashing Windows ME is becoming popular in this thread. Those who have done so should consider what desktop Linux was like in 2000. It was not pretty, to say the least....

Personally, I hadn't tried any Linux distro back then (I just got started an year ago). My problem was not that Windows ME was bad compared to Linux or any other OS, my problem was that Windows ME was worse than '98.

[-grubby]

It seems like bashing Windows ME is becoming popular in this thread. Those who have done so should consider what desktop Linux was like in 2000. It was not pretty, to say the least....

can you explain why many people say windows XP is better even though it was released only 1 year after. Or why windows 98 was better (and I'll assume) and was released in 1998?

[osxcapades]

can you explain why many people say windows XP is better even though it was released only 1 year after. Or why windows 98 was better (and I'll assume) and was released in 1998?

Windows ME probably wasn't Microsoft's greatest operating system, but it was certainly better than any Linux distribution at the time (for desktop use). Of course, this is just my opinion. But with Ubuntu 5.04 (this is the second Linux distribution I used, the first was Debian) looking and feeling like it was released 10 years before it came out, I can only imagine what desktop Linux in 2000 must have been like.

[-grubby]

Windows ME probably wasn't Microsoft's greatest operating system, but it was certainly better than any Linux distribution at the time (for desktop use). Of course, this is just my opinion. But with Ubuntu 5.10 (this is the second Linux distribution I used, the first was Debian) looking and feeling like it was released 10 years before it came out, I can only imagine what desktop Linux in 2000 must have been like.

Linux pretty much wasn't usable until some time a couple of years ago I can imagine.

[smartboyathome]

I still got a WindowsME system lying around doing nothing. I would have to say my worst was WindowsME as well. I regret the computer ever got upgraded from '98.

[MrFSL]

Linux pretty much wasn't usable until some time a couple of years ago I can imagine.

Windows still isn't. Not for what I need anyways!

[osxcapades]

Windows still isn't. Not for what I need anyways!

Just out of curiosity, did you use desktop Linux in the early 2000s? I imagine some of the more hardcore Linux users were so terminal proficient that all they needed a GUI for was web browsing (if the command line based web browsers weren't enough for them).

[Dapman01]

* Windows ME was short lived, and was quickly replaced
* Windows Vista had a large expectation, and too much hype
* Windows Vista costs more
* Windows ME probably doesn't require you to upgrade a computer that came with Windows Vista
* Windows Vista is ME II, they did the mistake again, that makes it worse the second go
I'm really getting tired of hearing that crap. ME was unstable, insecure, and after a few WEEKS you had to reformat it. Vista is just fine, its just a litte slow. I'm getting so tired of the bashing of it.

[hogwartsnigel]

My worst OS by far was Windows ME, God what a lame excuse for reliability and secure, iremember uninstalling and reinstalling 98.
Really when I think back to the cons I have been subjected to, I´d have to say any MS OS (XP was a vast insecure improvement though)

Nigel

[oedipuss]

I'm really getting tired of hearing that crap. ME was unstable, insecure, and after a few WEEKS you had to reformat it. Vista is just fine, its just a litte slow. I'm getting so tired of the bashing of it.

Well, at some level bashing vista is the 'in' thing to do these days. Of course there's no possible comparison between windows ME and vista or any other windows OS for that matter. ME was a complete disaster, vista is just a flop : too much hype for too little an improvement.
However, I think the similarity between vista and ME that people see is the fact that comparatively to windows XP, vista is or seems worse. That has only happened with windows ME. So far every windows version except those two was a clear improvement over the previous one.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Vista and Gentoo.

[glupee]

Just out of curiosity, did you use desktop Linux in the early 2000s? I imagine some of the more hardcore Linux users were so terminal proficient that all they needed a GUI for was web browsing (if the command line based web browsers weren't enough for them).
I used Linux (Mandrake) back ~2002. It wasn't that bad. Took a couple re-installs, that sure weren't as easy to do as now, but not the hardest thing in the world as you make it sound. Just a matter of getting everything configured from the start. The only reason i switched back was cause i got a new video card (allinwonder) and the tv aspect of it didn't work as there were no drivers available. I have a very similar problem now (check my sig), difference is i have a tv now. :guitar:

I still hold that ME has been the worst OS i've used.

[linuxlizard]

Windows 95 was rediculous on my machine. I had to re-install completely every month or so. Funny thing was- although frustrating I just accepted it as a way of life. LOL.

Windows 98 wasn't much better but I had go-back software for it. Without go-back it wouldn't have been much more stable than 95, but when things went wrong I could just "go-back" in time on my drive rather than re-installing the whole os.

[Vansinnesvisan]

Mac OS 9, with out a doubt.

[bobbocanfly]

Hmm, I guess Minix is still the worst - totally useless really, except for studying it and for that Linux is way better.

Not totally useless, i use it with Vim for a quick booting mini recovery os. Faster (and more complete) than ttyLinux and boots quicker.

[jonfenton]

I would like to add my vote for Windows ME. Only good thing about it was it started my use of Linux. A horrible piece of software and I really begrudge the money i paid for it.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

1. Windows ME - hands down the worst peice of crap I have ever installed on a computer
2. Mac OS 9 - it crashed more than Nelson Piquet on a fast lap
3. OS X - it could be so so good, but it isn't. Its more of a disappointment thing than it being actually bad. Finder is awful though, and should be burnt in the fires of hell.

Best Windows version for me - Windows 2000. Stable, reasonably secure, didnt crash alot. I actually liked it.

[Derek Djons]

Microsoft Windows Vista.

From easy to memorize and understand like Microsoft Windows XP, 2000 and okay even ME to totally being treated like a noob by Vista.

What I find the biggest disadvantages about Vista are:
* Multiple option in one screen to do the same.
* A lot of actions Vista tries to do them for you, especially networking.
* It demands above normal system performance to run smooth.

[dynamicv]

Out of the MacOSs OSX 10.0. Nothing worked and it was pig slow.

In entirety it has to be Windows NT4.0 before SP3 was released. Not that good to begin with compared to desktop OS/2 and Netware on the servers, but to top it off it was buggy as hell.

[mdebusk]

This is a light-hearted thread for the OS you hated.

If you call Windows 3.1 an OS (I don't), that'd be my most despised OS. If you call Windows 3.1 a glorified DOS menu (I do), then I'd have to say Windows 95.

Each version of Windows that I've tried has been better than the one before it. (I've not tried either ME or Vista!) Maybe someday they'll get it right... but I doubt it.

[MrFSL]

Just out of curiosity, did you use desktop Linux in the early 2000s? I imagine some of the more hardcore Linux users were so terminal proficient that all they needed a GUI for was web browsing (if the command line based web browsers weren't enough for them).

You say this like it's a bad thing. Like a GUI is required for a GOOD O/S.

Strange... are you sure you actually use linux? ;)

[aerotheexiled]

I haven't used much, but I'd say Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 Bloatware Edition (HP)

[Xanatos Craven]

Windows Vista, bloated, overglorified, and overpriced version of XP. And that "Cancel or Allow" crap. (Hasn't MS ever heard of sudo!?)

Also, I'd probably say Win3.1/DOS if it weren't already set up for me by my dad (old enough to even remember 3.1, too young to have set it up myself back then :P)

[WhimpyPeon]

Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were terrible. We used AS400 5250 emulator cards to connect to the AS400 via twinax cables. Getting these cards to work was pure voodoo. Some would work out of the box and others would remain buggy until the day we threw them away.

Back then even getting a modem to work properly was a drag.

As much as I like to bash M$, 95, 98, NT (to some extent), 2000, XP and Vista are all a joy over the 3.X series.

I love Linux in it's current state, but if you go back to the very first time I tried Red Hat in the mid 90's, it was a disaster then as well. Device drivers were limited the workings of the system were a mystery (for a newbie) and I never did get it to work right. I scrapped Linux until the early years of Gentoo when I tried again and things were good. People always consider Gentoo as a distro for experts, but I would argue it is the best way there is to learn Linux (other than perhaps LFS).

I still run two servers with Gentoo, however I generally stick with Debian for servers and Ubuntu/XUbuntu for desktops.

[vexorian]

I've used:
windows 3.11
windows 95
windows 98
windows XP
red hat 3.0
red hat higher version I don't remember.
ubuntu breezy
Slax
ubuntu dapper
ubuntu feisty


The worst is by far windows 98, you would get used to BSODs and it was quite slow. Second worst is the first red hat I tried, really, instlaling anything was a nightmare.

[Bruce M.]

Win ME? I died trying to get dial-up working on it..

So you've been resurrected than. :lolflag:

And just to keep in line with the thread...

I started with IBM PC-DOS 1.something and worked up to MS-DOS 6.6, then Win 3.11 for Workgroups, 95, 98, NT, 2000, Ubuntu 7.04

I've never had the pleasure of running Win ME, or even seeing it for that matter, but my choice for the OS that I least liked:

Win 95

[xpod]

Poor ME,poor ME....poor me another.

I only ever used ME for a couple of Months(on & off) but it was the very first OS(friends old pc) i used last year and i`m forever greatful to it.:)
It was really the start of my "why i should use Linux" education,even before knowing what Linux was.

That ME though BSOD`d two weeks after getting it so i took a 2 Yr old XP machine the MIL had lying around at hers,,,,She thought it was totally f,ed.
I did`nt really know how to rescue the ME at that time,i never knew jack s**t about anything in fact.
As it turned out the 2Yr old XP pc was in a far worse state than the 5Yr old ME ( as i slowly learned) so i really spent the next couple of months between them both being even further educated as to why Linux is probably the better choice.Still without ever even knowing about it though.

By time i had them both re-installed a couple of months after that i had discovered Ubuntu and although i`d obviously not spent the years & years with Windows that most have before trying alternative OS`s i already knew enough to understand just how lucky i was stumbling across Ubuntu when i did.

[Calash]

Bah...I loved 3.11. Enough GUI to get around, but with a command line backbone where you could do some really playing. I took forever to switch to 95 because it only emulated the Command line....it did not rely on it.

I am surprised nobody agrees with me on DOS 5.0. It would randomly delete files....how much worse of an OS can you get?? :)

[Kappity]

Windows 98. It's what drove me away from Windows. On two different computers it was ridiculous how often it would crash, and how the performance would degrade over time. Defrags and other disk maintenance didn't help. I knew that I'd be going with either Mac or linux for home use, and ended up going mostly with Mac.

Actually, once we got Windows XP on some of our work computers, I thought it wasn't bad at all. I've never even seen Vista.

[SuperMike]

OS/2 Warp. I had to support that beast in a weak moment in my past where I did tech support at IBM ages and ages ago. They hired me as a Novell CNE, but then the jerks stuck me on OS/2 Warp integration with Netware. I hated the Warp network.ini and protocol.ini files and IBM management was very cruel to me. In order to straighten out one's OS/2 Warp's messed up network stuff for complex arrangements, you had to forward the customer's network.ini and protocol.ini to an asian girl in some dark corner. She was a prima donna and took her own sweet time fixing the files. She managed to do it, but it was crazy. I think she had a connection with the actual OS/2 Warp programmers and could do undocumented stuff with their help.

IBM also forced me to brag about MCI (MCA?) architecture versus PCI and I wasn't very good at lying. I also hated how slow it was to thunk open Win32 apps on Warp. When I saw that NationsBank (now Bank of America) purchased a huge Warp contract right before Win95 was released, I had to bust up laughing. They eventually switched to XP when it was released.

[osxcapades]

You say this like it's a bad thing. Like a GUI is required for a GOOD O/S.

No no. In fact I wish I was that proficient with the terminal, but I use GUIs too much to get any real practice with it.

Edit: Yes! My post number is the square of twelve! Why not factor it. 144 = 12*12 = 6*2*6*2 = 3*2*2*3*2*2 = 3^2*2^4.

[alwiap]

the worst OS i personally ever used was Windows ME, I used it for about 1 day and then never saw it again.

recently, I was helping my grandmother setup her new laptop with Vista and I was very confused, so she just told me to "put the laptop back to the way my desktop was." So i installed XP and she hasn't complained since :)

I'm sure if I actually had a machine running Vista I would moan and bitch 24/7 about some pointless things; I'm glad I waste my time with Ubuntu.

[brokenstrides]

Worst OSs?

Linux for Dreamcast,
Windows 98,
ummmm. that's all really. I remember using Win95 when I was little but I don't remember it crashing NEAR as much as Win98...

[Frak]

I remember the Apple Lisa, That was bad.

I LOVED Lisa the first time I used it. It really did show the age to which computers were coming in to. Was it efficient? No. Did it have any good apps? No. Though, it was truly amazing.

Also, I've used GNU/Linux since '96-'97, GNU/Linux has improved a million fold.

[ardchoille42]

My worst OS?
Microsoft Windows

Why?
1) Virus explanation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

2) Microsoft Windows is closed source software.
If someone who wrote the code were paid to collect every keystroke you make on your computer (social security number, mother's maiden name, user names, passwords, credit card information, etc.), you wouldn't know it was happening and you'd be helpless to stop it.

3)
Cost:
Windows - More than $100.00 USD. Usually pre-installed on computers leaving the user with no choice.
Linux - $0.00 USD. Freely available via the internet. User has many choices as to kernel, program selection, package manager, user interface configurations and much more.

Software:
Windows - Most additional software must be purchased and is not maintained by Microsoft.
Linux - Most software is free to download, install and redistribute.

Viruses:
Windows - 100+
Linux - None active.

Updates:
Windows - Updates are routinely delayed until "Patch Tuesday" with some updates delayed for years.
Linux - Most updates distributed within hours.

Installation:
Windows - Requires activation. Can only be installed on one computer at a time unless the user purchases more licenses. Too many changes in hardware can require re-activation.
Linux - No activation required. Can be installed on millions of computers simultaneously without purchasing or violating any licenses.

Distribution:
Windows - Re-distribution by the user is forbidden.
Linux - Re-distribution by the user is encouraged.

4) Verdict:
Windows - sucks
Linux - rocks!

[jpittack]

Windows 98 SE.

On a gateway desktop. I had little knowledge of computers and didn't know to reinstall the OS to make it speedier. Hard drive space really limited what I did with the OS anyways.

I had my computer buddy who is a development partner with Microsoft ask me, "Why don't you just put XP on it?"

My answerthen: "Hard drive space."

Today's answer: "Ubuntu. Well, if I could find where I put the hard drive."

[Oldster]

Win 95 for windows.

Redhat and Mandrake for Linux. I don't know what versions they were because it was about 7 years ago. All I remember is dependency hell and kernel panics. Arrgh!

Thankfully Linux has improved and I've been using it full time for about 2 years now. Kanotix, then Sidux and now Ubuntu. :)

[TrailerTrash]

I like Windows ME. Im using it now on a older IBM laptop. I use it everday and use Opera to browse the web. I have no problems with the OS (yet) lol. I do a lot with this old turd of a laptop.

My worst Windows OSes are Vista, XP, 98, 95 and 3.1.
I do like Windows 2000 the best though.

[urukrama]

Fedora 6 for me, as the hardware of my computer didn't work very well with it. I'm sure it is a fine OS otherwise, but my experience of it wasn't very good.

[xlr8ed]

Older versions of Linux.



I'm going to have to agree with this one....While ME wasn't great, my wife did run it just fine for about a year. NT 3.x wasn't the best but I have to say that Red Hat 3 or 4, maybe 5 installed something like 15-20 different FTP programs, along with multiple browsers, ssh clients....the list went on. I believe it was pre-2000 and it was something like 1.9 gig install with Gnome.

[Retrograde77]

Windows ME without a doubt, cant believe I used it as long as I did *shudder*
In Linux, tried Fedora 8 last night on my laptop and was less than impressed.

[davtaine]

Windows 98

[RandomJoe]

Windows 95 was the worst - a PITA to get working right, and a memory hog on the low-end machine I could afford at the time.

I always figured ME would be king of the "worst" heap based on all I heard and read about it, and never used it. But a good friend had it on a laptop and ran it for many years (may even still have it!) and thought it was great!

[Frak]

Windows 95 was the worst - a PITA to get working right, and a memory hog on the low-end machine I could afford at the time.

I always figured ME would be king of the "worst" heap based on all I heard and read about it, and never used it. But a good friend had it on a laptop and ran it for many years (may even still have it!) and thought it was great!
I still have friends who brag about ME. Guess it depends on the person.

[init1]

Hmm, I guess Minix is still the worst - totally useless really, except for studying it and for that Linux is way better.
Minix isn't that bad. I've got it running on my laptop. I can't get X to start, but browsing with lynx is still fun.

[IYY]

Probably Vista, although I only used it for a week or so.

[mthakur2006]

windows ME, PCLOS, Suse 10.3 : all the same problem - it just didn't work.

[perlluver]

Windows ME, I thought it was going to be great, but I had to reinstall it every other week because it screwed up so much.

[jcrnan]

Windows ME hands down. Ive used linux distroes, windows since dos and older MacOS and ME is just plain crap. Horrible horrible piece of **** OS. Nothing should be allowed to crash that much and be that much of a pain in the *** to use.

[kevdog]

windows 2K -- didnt like it a lot. Windows XP was a great relief. I went from 98->2K->XP so I missed the me nightmare.

[Chilli Bob]

Win 95 was a dream compared to 98. I never used ME much, and frankly I'm glad.

[DeadSuperHero]

Mac OS 9 on the crappy eMac computers that my school never understood how to properly set up. Ironic that I like OSX so much nowadays.
Though, Linspire was even less fun than Mac OS9...

[PmDematagoda]

Windows ME is the most horrible OS I ever used, no other word can be used to describe it's incompetence.

[samasaur]

Hmm at first it would be windows ME, windows XP, windows Vista and I'd have to say Gusty Gibbon. I loved Fiesty Fawn because it was problem free most of the time, but Gusty seems to be plagued with bugs, at least on my desktop. But this is probably because its new.

[Can+~]

My score:
Ubuntu Gutsy... [████████████░░] (yeah, lot's of xorg troubles, but made it)
Ubuntu Feisty... [█████████████░ ]
Windows XP.... [█████████░ ░ ░ ░ ]
Windows 98.... [████████░░ ░ ░ ░ ]
Windows ME... [███░░ ░░ ░░ ░ ░ ░ ]
Windows Vista [█░░░░ ░░ ░░ ░ ░ ░ ]

Yeah, vista is worse than ME. ME was a total failure back then. But vista should comply with today standards, instead, they bloated it with DRM, WGA-spyware, CPU-chewing Aero, and Microsoft is evil now.

[jointstereotype]

Windows 95 is my worst memory. Win98/98SE are close, with RedHat 8.0 following close behind (OpenOffice crashed, nuked a couple of documents; nautilus crashed and nuked a few *more* documents - LOL).

I remember when I built my first computer - a K6-2 400, I think - and tried to install my copy of Windows 95 on it...turns out Win95 didn't like anything faster than 300mhz. I called Microsoft, who referred me to AMD, who offered me a simple solution: upgrade to Win98.

Like the proverbial newbie I was, I fell for it. ;)

[projectblu]

windows me had to be the worst but 95 was pretty bad to

[Sef]

Windows ME. But using ME did have a bright side in the long run: I started using GNU/Linux because it was so horrible.

[jrharvey]

So some guy mentioned reactOS earlier and I had not heard of it before so I checked it out. From what I read it is an open source alternative to windows XP completely separate from Microsoft and can run all windows xp compatible apps and games. What I dont understand is the point of using such an OS. Yes it is free but the majority of the people do not buy windows anyway, they usually get it on their new machine. It still seems to have the biggest problem of windows which in my opinion is security and virus's. From the forum of reactOS it seems that people are still getting spyware and malware.

[Technoviking]

Windows ME, at least it was a free copy given to me by a Microsoft rep.

[ErusGuleilmus]

I would have to say that the worst OS that I have ever used was Win. 95. Granted I was only five when that was out, but I still liked to explore and tinker, and I would kill Windows on almost a weekly basis.

[-grubby]

So some guy mentioned reactOS earlier and I had not heard of it before so I checked it out. From what I read it is an open source alternative to windows XP completely separate from Microsoft and can run all windows xp compatible apps and games. What I dont understand is the point of using such an OS. Yes it is free but the majority of the people do not buy windows anyway, they usually get it on their new machine. It still seems to have the biggest problem of windows which in my opinion is security and virus's. From the forum of reactOS it seems that people are still getting spyware and malware.

REACTOS isn't complete yet and crashes about every 5 minutes. They are working with the wine developers to create a complete windows environment. I believe they started out as a "free windows 95"

[joe.turion64x2]

Have not quite decided, but I guess it was Windows 95. (Could have been Windows ME).

[finalcut]

by far the worst OS i have ever used is Windows 98

[-grubby]

I can't decide between Kubuntu 7.04 and Windows XP

[Officer Dibble]

So some guy mentioned reactOS earlier and I had not heard of it before so I checked it out. From what I read it is an open source alternative to windows XP completely separate from Microsoft and can run all windows xp compatible apps and games. What I dont understand is the point of using such an OS. Yes it is free but the majority of the people do not buy windows anyway, they usually get it on their new machine. It still seems to have the biggest problem of windows which in my opinion is security and virus's. From the forum of reactOS it seems that people are still getting spyware and malware.

Must admit, by your post here I was intrigued by the concept of this ReactOS. It says it is Windows compatible, well that's its aspiration, but at the moment it doesn't support DirectX - so there is a big let down for it, but don't take this as a criticism as I strongly commend them for their innovation and the greater good they obviously want to do. :)

[voided3]

I got a 800mhz PIII computer for $15 that had Windows ME on it. I tried it for 30 minutes because I had never used it and I wasn't overly impressed. Xubuntu was nice on that machine though! Vista has caused a lot of problems for everyone I know and have yet to hear of anyone that actually likes it beyond tolerating it. Vista Ultimate especially needs one heck of a lot of tweaking to run lighter and more efficiently than stock, but it can be done.

[jarvis13]

Windows ME, by a mile.

[Midwest-Linux]

# 1 Yellow Dog for PPC...after spending a few hours downloading, burning five separate ISO YD discs at 8 X, then a very slow install on the G3 Mac...after all this ...it never booted...

The final insult was going to the YD forums and trying to register so I could get some help...both my email addresses were not valid...so I could not register.....I wasted five good CDs and also wasted a better part of morning trying to install this "dog"...Must be the same people who released Vista in its present form.....

# 2 ReactOS ....Yes I did manage to install this on only one computer out of three...but it could not find a driver for my network card....So I could not get on the internet.....But its still in Beta....for the last several years...

[undine]

#1 - Windows 3.1

#2 - Windows ME

#3 - Windows 98

#4 - PCLinuxOS

[Sutur]

Win 95:

C:/con/con

Allowing that bug in a final release still amazes me to this day.

[undine]

Win 95:

C:/con/con

Allowing that bug in a final release still amazes me to this day.

\ \ remember? -- Has it really been that long? :P

[SteveHillier]

Just browsed this thread for a few minutes and I think, hey some of you guys haven't lived yet!!!!
Ok, I skipped out Win ME. It never seemed to do anything that 98 did so what was the point. But most of you start with Win 95 and go forward from that.
Those of you who complained about Win 3.1 miss a point or two. 3.1 was a definite improvement on Win 3.0, but I cannot see anyone complaining about Win 2.0. Now there was a waste of time. It came out about the same time as IBM OS2 and did not confer any advantages to DOS 6 that was around at the same time.
I have also had the good fortune to never have used any Apple created computer since the Apple IIe.
I did use CP/M on a PC in the early days. It was a bit of a cross between the DEC OSes and was a hybrid built for a PC. It had a short life so that should be a contender.
So if I can classify and grade
On DEC Minis probably RT11 - Only able to create new files half the size of the largest contiguous free space - a bit of a b....r when disks were only 5Mb.
On PC probably anything between and including DOS 3 and DOS 5.
On GUIs probably Win 2.0
On Linux probably SUSE 7.0
On computers - any OS you like!!!

[toupeiro]

Just browsed this thread for a few minutes and I think, hey some of you guys haven't lived yet!!!!
Ok, I skipped out Win ME. It never seemed to do anything that 98 did so what was the point. But most of you start with Win 95 and go forward from that.
Those of you who complained about Win 3.1 miss a point or two. 3.1 was a definite improvement on Win 3.0, but I cannot see anyone complaining about Win 2.0. Now there was a waste of time. It came out about the same time as IBM OS2 and did not confer any advantages to DOS 6 that was around at the same time.


These probably weren't mentioned primarily because these versions of Windows were not Operating Systems. (They were unable to function without DOS) Back then, windows was a graphical shell on top of MS-DOS x.xx Windows 95 was the first, and I say this very loosely, Windows Operating System... (Technically, saying windows 95 was not DOS dependent is a stretch, but eh..)

[SteveHillier]

These probably weren't mentioned primarily because these versions of Windows were not Operating Systems. (They were unable to function without DOS) Back then, windows was a graphical shell on top of MS-DOS x.xx Windows 95 was the first, and I say this very loosely, Windows Operating System... (Technically, saying windows 95 was not DOS dependent is a stretch, but eh..)

Ok, I concede the point for pre Win 95 except to say that others had also spoken about 3.0 and 3.1.
If however we define the OS as that which in not the UI then we should perhaps talk purely about the Linux kernel and not the GUI or shell or offering that sits on top of it.
I also agree with the comment regarding Win 95 dependency on DOS. It really was in name only. But then we have made progress since then haven't we - we now have Vista!!!!!

[ofb]

\ \ remember? -- Has it really been that long? :P

Some memories are best blocked out.

... here's a little link about our friend, the Backslash. I couldn't remember if it was in CP/M or not.
http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/Cpm/optchar.html

[ofb]

Gentle Reminder Time - this thread is for the OS you personally disliked the most, for whatever reason, which you're most welcome to fill us in on. It's not about deciding the actual technical merit of an OS. It's an opportunity for people to tell us their own stories.

For example I say Win3.1 was a low point, though I'll happily agree it wasn't all that bad -- I used it till fairly recently on an 8mb laptop. But it also represents a personal low point because I first met it when going from Amiga to PC. What a ghastly let-down that was.

Please do chat about remarks, but also please let's avoid stooping to argument like that nonsense a few pages back over ME. That was OT and just discourages people.

----

And yes! yes indeed, Win3.1 is not technically an OS. Blame me for starting the loose talk, but I just couldn't think of any other succinct term to mean, and be understood to mean, 'the system we operate' for the purpose of this thread.

So what should we call it? What would be a good term that would mean the larger user interface that would include Ubuntu, Win3, and whatever-it-was we used on proto-PCs like the VIC20? I certainly don't like abusing the term 'OS', but I'm still at a loss for thinking of better. It's a poser.

[GGLucas]

I started out on Windows ME, from 2001-2004, then got XP a few years back, upgraded to Vista June this year, I actually did quite like it, but when I tried out Ubuntu 7.10 in a VM last month, I got completely hooked, installed it and haven't used windows since (aside from 2 or 3 incidental tasks I couldn't be bothered to figure out how to do in Ubuntu), out of those, ME is the worst, obviously, although I never did quite understand what the fuss was about it, I used it for almost 4 years and it didn't seem unstable to me, then again, I wasn't really looking out for those things yet either. Aside from there apparently being more BSODs, what else made ME worse than 98, concretely ? I've tried installing 98 a few times on really old PCs but it felt a lot worse than ME.

[toupeiro]

----

And yes! yes indeed, Win3.1 is not technically an OS. Blame me for starting the loose talk, but I just couldn't think of any other succinct term to mean, and be understood to mean, 'the system we operate' for the purpose of this thread.

So what should we call it? What would be a good term that would mean the larger user interface that would include Ubuntu, Win3, and whatever-it-was we used on proto-PCs like the VIC20? I certainly don't like abusing the term 'OS', but I'm still at a loss for thinking of better. It's a poser.

I wasn't trying to be nitpicky. Personally, if you want to call it an OS, thats up to you. Operationally or interactively, it may be justified to call it that, but technically its inaccurate to call those versions an OS. You could have clarified what you meant a bit more in the opening topic by stating exactly what you have above. It doesn't need to have a catch-phrase definition. People will likely understand what you mean whether they know the technical difference or not. I was just making a clarification that some people may not have been aware of. Not everyone says things to be a smarta$$. :)

So, maybe I took the topic too literally, which is why I let some responses build up to it before I commented. If I had to choose the worst OS for me, it would be Windows ME as well with DOS 4 following close behind.

[kvonb]

-

[toupeiro]

considering ROM Basic, its interesting how the industry's nex-gen hardware may be driven that direction again. Your OS will become bare metal. VMWare will be one of the first to implement this on server hardware. VMWare ESX will be available on a chip! (http://www.networkworld.com/supp/2007/ndc5/082007-virtualization-on-the-chip.html) I've read other articles where they are working out a chip based API that could call both windows and X based applications and would be totally firmware.

[rorestuff]

VISTA!

Buggy, slow - everything that could possibly be wrong with an OS.

Not nearly as cool as Ubuntu + Compiz

[ofb]

Not everyone says things to be a smarta$$. :)

Not at all. You're hardly the first to mention it in this thread, so I figured it was time to step up to take blame & make clarification.

As for mentioning it at the beginning, I nearly did & thankfully thought better of it. Long introductions discourage a lot of people, which would have been at odds with the intent. So I went with stating "OS", then followed with the deliberate misapplication to Win3.1 to set the tone as "rather sloppy".

I think it worked. The point was to make people remember their personal villain directly, rather than sidetrack over considerations of best terminology. There's less harm spurring digression now that the bulk has avoided that.

Where does DOS 4 fit in, btw? I can't remember it directly. Roughly when & what did it run on?

[JetskiDude911]

Probably Windows 95 for me...I never used (or even owned) Windows ME, but it probably would be the worst if I had actually ever had to use it as my main OS. I use to fix computers for a lot of people who had ME though. It seems like it was replaced with XP pretty quickly.

[toupeiro]

Where does DOS 4 fit in, btw? I can't remember it directly. Roughly when & what did it run on?

DOS 4 was basically a leaky version of DOS, and back when you only had 640K of conventional ram to work with, this was not a good thing. It was the first time DOSShell could be seen, but the bugs in the OS made any practical use of a feature in this release impossible until 4.01. It ran on your standard IBM-PC-AT system, but DOS 3.3 was much more stable. DOS had its first real quantum leap with 5.0, and again with 6.22.

[reckless2k2]

windows ME

[MrSpiffdifilous]

I have to go with the least reliable and shortest lived OS ever, Windows ME. It would crash daily.

[Adam_GUI]

For me?
ReactOS.
Even running in a VM, it crashes reliably every 3 minutes or so.
Like there's a command called "crash" or "kernel Panic" running as a cron job for every couple of minutes.

[SteveHillier]

I have to go with the least reliable and shortest lived OS ever, Windows ME. It would crash daily.

You see for me ME did not exist. It was really a non entity. I understand it was a tweak on 98 because they were running late with XP and had to get something to market!

[SteveHillier]

Where does DOS 4 fit in, btw? I can't remember it directly. Roughly when & what did it run on?

Timewise DOS 4 was around '85/'86 maybe a bit earlier. DOS 2 was around '83/'84. DOS 3.3 was a stable offering. DOS 5 was shortlived I recall. The trouble is I have been to sleep since these were around and my memory, being volatile, tends to forget things when I sleep - especially BAD things.

[Circus-Killer]

without a doubt......corel linux!

[fatfranko]

I heard so many bad things about Windows ME,I never got it.

exactly. im sure, if i tried it, that would be my choice for the worst os. personally, i had the most problems with win 3.1, but my choice for the worst os would have to go to win 98. theres no excuse for how unstable it was, for me at least, so many years after win 3.1 and for it to be such a close runner-up. especially since win 98 had online updates and it still was poo.

[powermacj7]

I kind of skipped it, because I went straight from MS-DOS 5.0 to Windows 98. A disaster that was.

Only Windows version I ever owned, after a month I erased the hard drive and went to Linux Redhat..

[HokeyFry]

Vista. At first it wasn't so bad, but then I put Xubuntu on my laptop and was like "ZOMG THIS PWNS TEH VISTA".:)

[Tristam Green]

SuSE 9.0. I did not like the interface, it just seemed non-intuitive to me.

Win9x/ME was more intuitive than SuSE's interfaces for me ><

[unityofsaints]

Windows - Win ME
Linux - Suse 8 (turned me off Linux for years, till I got to Ubuntu!)

[OffHand]

Windows ME :lolflag:

[Ifrgtmyname]

vista :lolflag:

[AlexenderReez]

fedora core 6 ...fedora

[tyggna1]

Windows PPC --if only I could get Linux on my Dell Axim :( saddness.

[m@dm@x]

I would have to say Vista Basic is the worst OS I have had to deal with. I have a pretty decent laptop that runs like a dog on it. ME would have to be the second worst OS.

[Computer Guru]

Vista, all versions.

Same here. Even worse than ME (posting this from XP by choice, so not fanboyism)

[Empath]

Windows ME without a doubt. I saw the color blue more times with 1 day of that then I saw with 2 seasons of the Smurfs :|

[ukripper]

Win ME and 95:popcorn:

[marco123]

Any 9x Windows, ME being the worst.. Windows 2000 Pro set up well was a decent OS but XP was just ugly as sin and weak as hell security wise. :-(

[Dapman01]

Windows ME sucked pretty bad crashed everytime I started it, Needed to be reformatted once a month

I don't know what you guys mean, I love vista, never had a crash and I have had it since launch

[SteveHillier]

Windows - Win ME
Linux - Suse 8 (turned me off Linux for years, till I got to Ubuntu!)

All Linux offerings prior to Ubuntu left me feeling as if I had missed something!

[Iceni]

Windows 98 original. Amazing how fast that could crap itself up.

[anandanbu]

All the gates and windows ;)

[Slingshot]

Cooperative Linux
Gentoo 2006

[Znort_Ubern00b]

Windows ME, dear god that was diabolical...was on my parents pc...the amount of times i had to reinstall from disc was amazing...

[timpino]

Windows ME was the most painful experience over a long time, but the whole 9x series was bad.

Windows 95 first edition was by far the worst in terms of crashing so it'll get my vote

[ukripper]

Win ME is all time winner!!!! Should be OSCAR nominated :guitar:

[Buzzygirl]

Windows 98. Worst OS I ever used, and I've used many...

[chrism66]

Ubuntu Gutsy x86_64. By far the most unstable OS I have ever used. It just don't like my system. Probably going back to Feisty over Thanksgiving break.

[ukripper]

Ubuntu Gutsy x86_64. By far the most unstable OS I have ever used. It just don't like my system. Probably going back to Feisty over Thanksgiving break.

What didn't work on 64 for you?

[juan@forum]

is Windows an OS?

if i want to include Windows i will call it
what was you worst product purchase?

[xArv3nx]

Gutsy Gibbon. Just closing a ******* tab made Firefox freeze. (Twice)

Vista > Ubuntu.

[ImpressMe]

MS-DOS! What the hell was all that memory management about? Constant struggles to tweak config.sys and autoexec.bat so you had memory enough for DOS programs or games in particular.

And then I had to listen to goons that told me that computers with a GUI based OS was "toys"... Geeks will be geeks.

[RealG187]

I had a PC with Win98, the monitor broke so I never used it for months (other PCs used built in monitors). When I got one later it BSODed I took it to an expert and they said the mobo was fried. Maybe cuz I flipped the 120/2xx switch (which was for European power supply)

[Darkhack]

Gutsy Gibbon. Just closing a ******* tab made Firefox freeze. (Twice)

Vista > Ubuntu.

Sounds like a problem with Firefox and not the OS.

[mysticrider92]

I am not quite sure what my worst os was, but Vista and Win98 have annoyed me most when I have used them. Thankfully, I have only used ME a few times, and it never seemed very good.

I also have something against a few Red Hat-based distros (mostly RH9), they just feel too cartoony or something...

[Frak]

Gutsy Gibbon. Just closing a ******* tab made Firefox freeze. (Twice)

Vista > Ubuntu.
Then change Firefox. Wow, problem fixed.

[mivo]

Gutsy Gibbon. Just closing a ******* tab made Firefox freeze. (Twice) Vista > Ubuntu.

People already pointed out that this is not an OS issue. I never had Firefox crash on me in Linux (but many times in Windows), though it did hang for a few seconds sometimes. I fixed this by using the Linux-optimized version, Swiftweasel, and currently toy around with Epiphany, which, while not being as fully featured, integrates better in Gnome and is overall lighter (I also feel it renders fonts better, though it too uses the Gecko engine). It does need the extensions, though, just for the ad blocker.

You see, Linux gives you many choices. All you have to do is make use of that freedom. If you would rather not (many people are suspicious of real freedom and feel lost or overwhelmed), you can always use what you are familiar with.

[erimar77]

NT... when business were still using it 10 years later.. no freaking drivers..

[Espreon]

The OSs I hated the most was MS-DOS (IDK which version I was like 5 and it was the 1st time I saw the inside of a desktop computer, which I shamelessly torn apart myself) and Windows 95 because when using Windows 95 the BSOD kept visiting me, plus it kept crashing.

[burning_man13]

I'd have to say Windows ME was the worst OS I've used... It was so bad that they took it off the shelves... I'm one of the few people who still owns a copy of it, although I'll never install Windows on any computer of mine again...

[MightyMe]

I say Windows 3.11. Trying to get the networking in order in there.........yikes :)

[SeanHodges]

Windows ME - it was Microsoft Bob all over again

I would say Vista, but I've only had a few painful hours with it (couldn't seem to write an ISO to CD until I found a network connection and downloaded some shareware). I didn't like my experience, but I cant base the entire O/S on a few hours of usage. Not looking good though...

[coolglobal]

XP environment made for Education Queensland in Australia - A huge lump of steaming bog.

[Roque2]

for me it was windows me,that one should just been buried before it was distroed

[RebounD11]

Windows 2000 - dumb and ugly

[rabidmonkey]

OS X - any version.

Why do I have to do everything with the mouse? Why are the shortcuts that exist different from every other OS ever? Why does home and end not work the way they should. Why don't windows maximize properly. Why is it just a giant cleaveland steamer?????

Company bought us $5k powermacs with 22" screens.... mine just tails the error logs while I use gutsy so I can actually get work done :)

[Linuturk]

Windows ME

This should have been a poll.

[adityakavoor]

Vista .. without a doubt:)

[lyceum]

Windows ME was the worst MS OS, Vista is annoying, but it does work with the same issues XP had when it first came out, +the added annoyance of "some one is trying to install!!!" every time I try to install something.

There are a lot of bad Linux/FOSS distros out there, but the only ones I would call bad would be the ones sponsored by companies. I really do not like SuSE. I have tried OpenSuSE and Enterprise Edition, and I really found both bogged down by useless junk. The looked really nice, but Ubuntu is just easier to use. I also do not like Fedora, but that is all about YUMM. Apt-get is so much easier. I would also say I don't like anything with KDE as all the aps seem to start with K and that gives me heada"k"es (Sorry Kubuntu fans!).

[xArv3nx]

People already pointed out that this is not an OS issue. I never had Firefox crash on me in Linux (but many times in Windows), though it did hang for a few seconds sometimes. I fixed this by using the Linux-optimized version, Swiftweasel, and currently toy around with Epiphany, which, while not being as fully featured, integrates better in Gnome and is overall lighter (I also feel it renders fonts better, though it too uses the Gecko engine). It does need the extensions, though, just for the ad blocker.

You see, Linux gives you many choices. All you have to do is make use of that freedom. If you would rather not (many people are suspicious of real freedom and feel lost or overwhelmed), you can always use what you are familiar with.
It is an OS thing, because I use Vista and it works fine on it.

You don't have freedom, check out GPL v3. ;)