What was the worst OS you have ever used?

[alebcay]

Sure, ME sucked, but XP really needed a GUI makeover. It looked like a toddler built it out of Fisher Price blocks.

 

[TruskyMX]

VISTA!!!

 

[swarfega]

OS/2 and Windows ME. I felt MS rushed ME so they could get to call it Millennium after all they had already released Windows 2000 so couldn't use that moniker.

 

[chev65]

To me Windows 95 was pretty bad, I think Windows 98 was a big improvment over Windows 95. Never cared for XP much at all. Never tried Win 2000 or Win ME.

I figured out how to make Vista work for me after some frustration and lengthy learning sessions. Windows 7 is the best by far.

 

[CarlTR6]

The worst I have used is Win 98 ME. I skipped 95 and Vista. Win 7 is the best I have used.

 

[HammerHead]

Bad Memories

Win 3.11 was a little clunky. Win 95 did a lot of BSOD at times for me. But I think one of the biigest flops for MS was DOS 6.0.

 

[s3v3n us3r]

CLIX

It was a red-headed stepchild of UNIX that ran on Intergraph workstations in the 90's. But it didn't have many of the UNIX goodies.

 

[CarlTR6]

Win 3.11 was a little clunky. Win 95 did a lot of BSOD at times for me. But I think one of the biigest flops for MS was DOS 6.0.

I would have to agree with DOS 6.0. I had forgotten about it. I used it for two days and went back to 5.0. DOS 6.0 ranks right there with ME. After a few hours hours with ME, I went back to SE.

 

[Swifty]

Vista was terrible.

 

[freaky88]

geez why is vista terrible?

 

[Petey7]

This is a very short summary of the complaints about it:
Criticism of Windows Vista - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yowanvista]

Vista work fine for me, never got any problems with it

 

[OneSerious]

My mums system has ME on it and she refuses to get rid of it. She uses a ton of old crappy software that new OS's refuse to run, (I don't blame them).

Vista gets a load of stick, personally I think it was pretty sweet. I never had an issue with it. I was using x64. I did have a few problem on my Dad's laptop with Vista but it was more down to his terrible specs. I just built him a new machine about 2 months ago running Vista and haven't had an issue yet.

 

[alphanumeric]

If I had to pick one it would be ME. Ran it for a day and ended up going back to 98se. My favorite up until 7 would have to be 2000 WS. It was rock steady for me and I could even play my old games on it no problem. I really resisted the move to XP, mainly because of the telly tubby graphics . Once I did make the switch though it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. I'm still running it on two older PCs here at home. I never did run Vista.

 

[smarteyeball]

geez why is vista terrible?

It wasn't. It wasn't perfect by any any stretch of the imagination for many varying reasons - some MS fault, many not - but it's far from being one of the worst OS'es ever.

And Vista bashers were tiresome then just as they are tiresome now.


And if it weren't for Vista - nobody would enjoy using Seven either

 

[CarlTR6]

I didn't like Vista; but I think it was the learning curve. At that time in my life, I did not have a lot of internet access and when I had it, I had to make count. I didn't have time to learn Vista and make it work; so I stayed with XP.

 

[Petey7]

When ever I tried a Vista computer in s store, they took forever to do anything. My brother even bought one and we both tried it out, and was the slowest thing we had ever seen (he took it back). To be fair, the specs of those computers were less than ideal, but when it came time to order mine, even with specs higher than that of the ones I had tried, I payed Dell the extra money to get Windows XP. I will admit that when 64-bit became more common to see (early 2009) any 64-bit Vista computer I tired with 2GB of RAM or more did perfectly fine. I even started to like the way it looked.

I think so many people purchased computers with the minimum system requirements, which Vista just plain can't run on, and had problems with it, that soon everyone was hearing that Vista itself was horrible. I think the computer manufacturers should be partially blamed. I remember when talking to a guy from Dell on the phone while trying to pickout a computer (keep in mind that this was early 2008), he kept insisting I go with Vista business. I said "well all your computers show 512MB as the lowest amount, and 1GB as the recommended amount, so I should be fine with one of those, right?" His response was "Definitely not. You need at least 2GB for Vista. I recommend going for 3 or 4." Well, why sell computers that can't hardly run the OS to people? Why not get rid of the 512MB option for computers that only come with Vista. Why not only sell dual-core processors (Celeron processors were still sold at the time)? If people don't have a decent computer, it doesn't matter how good or bad the actual OS is.

 

[dobhar]

Started with Win 3.11 and DOS 6.22 and loved it...moved on to Win95 and was not a fan but decided to stick with it but when Win98SE I jumped at it. I have since moved on to Win2000, WinVista, and ended up With Windows 7 which I truly believe is the best.

Many people hated Vista due to how slow it was and I agree with Petey7 that many people purchased systems with minimum RAM requirements. I purchased my Dell XPS M1710 with 2.0GB and noticed how slow it was during boot up and shutdown. I upgraded it to 4.0GB and it ran much, much faster. It now was a great OS. I have since upgraded (clean install) to Win7 and it smokes.

 

[alphanumeric]

geez why is vista terrible?

It wasn't. It wasn't perfect by any any stretch of the imagination for many varying reasons - some MS fault, many not - but it's far from being one of the worst OS'es ever.

And Vista bashers were tiresome then just as they are tiresome now.


And if it weren't for Vista - nobody would enjoy using Seven either

It seems to be love or hate as far as Vista goes. Some people had nothing but trouble with Vista so I tend to cut Vista bashers "some" slack. I mean I don't loose any sleep over it and I don't let it bother me too much. On the other hand those that like it like it a lot and I don't blame them for defending it. I haven't seen to many "it was OK" comments though. In the end it's just somebodies opinion so take it for what its worth.

 

[msdos622wasfun]

I don't know if I could single out one specific Windows version that I've used on my machines that I could identify as being the worst. As long as you know what you are doing, and you set up your system properly and maintain it regularly, it's not hard to keep a Windows system chugging along that is reasonably fast, reliable, and dependable. No matter what version you have, you are probably going to run into bugs and problems -- but then again, in many cases, the fault lies not with the OS itself, but with a troublesome application, driver, or failing piece of hardware or hardware/software combination/interaction.

That being said, I think Windows 7 has proven to be the most pleasant for me. Prior to Microsoft's standardizing on the NT kernel, I remember running into my own share of blue screen crashes. If I decide I can still find a use for it, I have an old Windows XP box with a 1.0 GHz AMD chip that should probably be reformatted and reinstalled -- seems like XP can have a tendency to degrade over long periods of time (the same thing happened to our XP workstation at work).

Not only that -- would the general population like to go back to pre-plug-and-play days of DOS and Windows 3.0 where people were expected to allocate their own resources, assign their own DMAs and IRQs, and edit their AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files? I'm guessing not! Windows 95 was a very refreshing jump from what we were used to.