this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
1347 points (99.2% liked)
People Twitter
7183 readers
2599 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
7 was decent too; I personally feel like 8 is where things went off the rails.
It was a known rule that every second version of Windows was good. 95 was good, 98SE was good, XP was good, 7 was good, but sadly they never released Windows 9, so we're still waiting for the good version to come after 8.
I liked Vista and 8.1.
No problem, we don't kinkshame here.
Vista was fucking terrible on launch, it got better towards the end it it's life, much like 8.1 was to 8, but it was still a mess when 7 came out.
Prior XP they were really bad at memory management and isolation.
They were still good windowses for their time, especially when you compare them to DOS and Mac OS 9 which would have been the alternatives. For a fair comparison with professional OSes with full memory protection like UNIX you'd have to look at Windows NT, but there the preimise is true as well (as far as I can tell by googling, I only ever used 2000 Pro): 3.1 was bad, 3.5(1) good, 4.0 bad, 2000 good, 2003 meh.
There was also OS/2. But yes, for the time they were running decently on "cheap" hardware.
8.1 was ok. Fight me.
I’m with you. 8.1 was underrated. Yes the start screen wasn’t for everyone, but I didn’t mind it. It was the last native Windows start menu that would just find the apps you wanted to run. No Cortana, no web searches, no ads.