Jump to content

Worst O/S


St.Jim
 Share

Recommended Posts

Microsoft Bob. :-) Think I'm joking? You'd be sadly mistaken.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad products can still become smashing successes. :-) *cough*Apple!*cough*

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TI OS for the 83/84+ series!

As I said in an other thread, it only uses slightly over 32k of the 128k available ram, the rest goes wasted. What could possibly be worse?

Ok it is not a desktop OS, but it's definitely an OS.

I would write plugins, if I knew what kind of plugins were needed.. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is too dumbed down and the user doesn't have sufficient access to the operating system itself to make neccessary tweaks. Also that Cancel or Allow stuff is annoying.

Pfft. The only thing in Vista that people with proper know-how have lost access to is control over the defragger.

Other than that, pretty much everything is either more open or exactly the same as XP.

(Again, this assumes the person making the tweaks is either a power user or very good at following other people's directions)

xZYt6wl.png

ambigram signature by Kemaru

[i write plugins and stuff]

If you like a post, upvote it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is too dumbed down and the user doesn't have sufficient access to the operating system itself to make neccessary tweaks. Also that Cancel or Allow stuff is annoying.

Pfft. The only thing in Vista that people with proper know-how have lost access to is control over the defragger.

Other than that, pretty much everything is either more open or exactly the same as XP.

(Again, this assumes the person making the tweaks is either a power user or very good at following other people's directions)

I also don't like the compatability issues. Most of the games I currently own won't work on Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is too dumbed down and the user doesn't have sufficient access to the operating system itself to make neccessary tweaks. Also that Cancel or Allow stuff is annoying.

Pfft. The only thing in Vista that people with proper know-how have lost access to is control over the defragger.

Other than that, pretty much everything is either more open or exactly the same as XP.

(Again, this assumes the person making the tweaks is either a power user or very good at following other people's directions)

I beg to differ. As a 'power user' I feel as if I have lost conrol over terminating processes and programs. If a program starts hanging, I dont want Vista to look for a solution to the problem, I want it to close! And, regardless of how much I hate UAC, Vista wont allow you to run under Administrator without it. It is like the plugin blocking system: not all of us are three year olds, we can make decisions to.

signature.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What games? Have you tried compatibility modes?

The only compatibility issues I've ever had in Vista were my printer drivers, which were updated before Vista even left beta.

Knights and Merchants (you can download it for free, and no that is not piracy - the game is 10 years old and no longer sold -> abandonware) hardly works. Some people get it to work (but it'll go extremely slow) and other people do not even get it to work at all. (I didn't even bother to try running a game on a VM, that is just pointless, and I'm not about to pollute my computer with Vista)

Also, you can run as Admin without UAC on at least some versions of vista, you get a constant nag about it though (how pointless, one would think that the admin is "safe" without UAC, otherwise he/she should not be admin)

No matter how bad Vista is though (very), it's not so bad that it only uses 25% of your ram (like TI OS) so I wouldn't call it the worst OS (definitely bad though)

I would write plugins, if I knew what kind of plugins were needed.. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have vista (on ma new pc) hense the sig :roll: and it's ok I say that, not because it's dumbed down, but becuase it's slow, it uses all it's processing power on vista aero flip 3d (does anyone actualy use this on a regular use) and it's easier to hack than Xp. Also VCoD doesn't work on it, (even in compatibility mode) all the drivers for vista don't make any use of my DX10 geforce 8600MGT, and vista keeps pestering you about allow/cancel for stupid things like allowing a (trusted) program to do something! :shock: Xp is better (MCE 2005) but vista is almost a leap backwards.

My personal hate of O/S has to be 95 on my old old old pc. Complete *****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OS/2 by Microsoft and IBM :lol: j/k I never used OS/2 even though I can as I got the floppys.

Windows ME

Vista

I guess you can really class Vista with Windows ME as it was only put out to make money and fool people into thinking it the new windows of windows for a long time. Even though before Vista even came out MS was making a new OS to replace it.

Out of all the OS's I used Vista makes it to 2nd place on my list of Worst OS's. 1st place would be MS-DOS just because I hate having to type a lot (But really I love DOS because I can do so much). Gezz if I had to pick between Vista and Windows 3.1 I would go back to Windows 3.1 with it bad looking GUI and crashs.

Wow you should not have gotton me started with the Vista thing. I got lots of stuff to say about it and even more today as I had to fix a friends vista computer as it likes to change settings on the poor guy at startup. it also like to deny him access even though he is logged on as a Admin. Come on MS a Admin who can't Admin what were you thinking.

Maybe I should copy and past this in the rant forum lol. Anyway for all you poor souls on Vista I got an answer to your problem and it not the save XP site. You just need $5 and a lighter. You guess with the $5 is for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate vista, yes I do!

Dont like UAC? Disable it. And 3.1 is way worse, nowhere near comparable to the productivity that Vista comes with. I was watching Chris Pirello debate XP vs. Vista last night, and he really opened my eyes to something. It isnt necessarilly Vista that is the reason it is hated, it is the fact that drivers by third party companies are slow to release even though they were all in Microsoft's own personal 'fight club'. IF the drivers had been released on time and many programs fixed withen two to three months then Vista wouldnt have been that bad. But because these things didnt happen, productivity was lost and once productivity is lost than it is useless, until fixed. Now with tons of driver support and SP1 riding on its back it is safe to say Vista is better then XP.

signature.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all that safe, it is still a whole lot slower than XP no matter how much you disable

That the hardware also got better is no excuse, upgrading hardware just to be able to run an OS is completely ridiculous, and if you don't it'll be slow as heck. And even if you have a computer on which Vista has acceptable performance, XP has an even more acceptable performance on it.

Sure, Vista has many new performance tricks (prioritized IO for example), but they don't hide the fact that the OS is giant bloatware and inherently slower than XP.

Before anyone says my comp is too bad for vista: 4GB ram, 3.3GHz quadcore, 8800GTS 640mb (I used all vista tuning things that I could find and disabled fancy glass etc, performance was still unacceptable)

I would write plugins, if I knew what kind of plugins were needed.. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

upgrading hardware just to be able to run an OS is completely ridiculous...

How do you come up with that idea? Every OS that's ever come out has required higher technical specs than the one that comes before it. Vista just had a steeper curve. Windows 3.1 required higher RAM and processor speed than MS-DOS; Windows95 required a much better graphics driver than Windows 3.1; WindowsXP required a huge leap in computing capability from Windows2000.

My dad was telling me about MSDOS, which is what they used in the eighties, I think that that is the ultiamte worst OS

Given your dad's stance on IE6, I wouldn't believe a word he says about computers. Actually, MS-DOS was quite powerful for the time. It didn't allow for a GUI, but the computing technology of the time didn't require it. It was quite a good operating system (so good, in fact, that the phrase "Operating System" comes from it - Microsoft - Disk Operating System). ;-)

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

upgrading hardware just to be able to run an OS is completely ridiculous...

How do you come up with that idea? Every OS that's ever come out has required higher technical specs than the one that comes before it. Vista just had a steeper curve. Windows 3.1 required higher RAM and processor speed than MS-DOS; Windows95 required a much better graphics driver than Windows 3.1; WindowsXP required a huge leap in computing capability from Windows2000.

Sure but there is still no computer that is good enough to run Vista at acceptable speed, and it's a year and a half old now. Even my €2500 computer is not good enough, that should say something.

If, for example, Vista ran smoothly on 1GB ram, a moderate dual core and a 7950 GT than that would be fine, that would be loads more than XP (which does fine with 256mb ram, 1ghz single core and just about any gpu if you don't play games) but at least in that case normal computers would run vista smoothly.. But clearly 4GB ram a 3.3GHz quadcore and a 8800GTS 640mb is not yet enough - that is a lot better than the regular computer but still not up to Vista.

The point is, a year after it's release, regular user computer should be able to run it smoothly. This is not the case, even expensive home-build gamer computers are not good enough.

I would write plugins, if I knew what kind of plugins were needed.. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you that. But I still don't think Vista is a bad OS- just a bit ahead of its time.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad was telling me about MSDOS, which is what they used in the eighties, I think that that is the ultiamte worst OS

Given your dad's stance on IE6, I wouldn't believe a word he says about computers. Actually, MS-DOS was quite powerful for the time. It didn't allow for a GUI, but the computing technology of the time didn't require it. It was quite a good operating system (so good, in fact, that the phrase "Operating System" comes from it - Microsoft - Disk Operating System). ;-)

Hmm, I suppose you're right, but it was very tiresome, you had to write almost everything in code, and then wordperfect came along...

Grungesig.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know it didn't have any big deficiencies for that hardware (nowadays it would be unable to use Long mode and it would only ever use 1 core), it just lacked a GUI (were GUI's even invented yet anyway?)

At least with DOS you had the power to do pretty much anything you wanted without things like "Do you want to give the program File Operation permission to perform a file operation?" (is there any reason to not-want that?) or "Canceling - please wait" (just destroy all threads owned by the process?) or "The driver you are trying to install is not digitally signed, continue anyway?" (where you always click yes because otherwise some important piece of hardware will not work)

I would write plugins, if I knew what kind of plugins were needed.. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...