• saltesc@lemmy.world
      12·
      6 months ago

      Fuck you. Bringing up ME and making me relive the memories. Even as a kid, I couldn’t stand it wanted 98 back.

      ME and Vista are by far the worst to date.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          6·
          6 months ago

          Really? I do not see much difference compared with 10, other than shifted start button.

            • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              4·
              6 months ago

              Yeah, this pissed me off. It’s almost never useful, but spanning the whole x-axis on an ultra wide does make less sense.

              I hated icon stacking also because I had a wide monitor and didn’t want to have extra clicks.

              Ironically, now I have so many things open, the stacking only makes sense when I get ~15 explorer windows open and they’re all displayed as a tall list

          • TheCheddarCheese@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            Well aside from that, which shouldn’t have been set by default imo, it has more bugs, ridiculous system requirements, requires a ms account even more than before and runs worse.

            I guess however bad the versions before it might have been, they at least kind of had a point? 11 is just a shitty reskin to squeeze out those sweet licensing dollars. They didn’t even bother changing the version number in the older releases.

        • morhp@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          I switched mostly to Linux when windows 8 was released, but I don’t mind 11. It looks quite nice, the start menu is pretty good and normal again compared to the ugly full screen shitshow from windows 8 and the weird hybrid thing from windows 10 and most of that foreign mobile metro crap from windows 8 is gone again or reintegrated into the desktop.

          Having tabs in the explorer is also super nice.

      • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
        7·
        6 months ago

        I personally never had any issues with Vista. Even deferred win7 for 4-5 years until I got curious. Though I did have a system made for it, so that was part of it.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          6 months ago

          Vista was a nightmare unless you had OEM equipment that wasn’t just vista compatible, but MADE FOR VISTA. Your experience was an aberration, most people got ‘vista compatible’ PCs that were running vista but made with XP sp1 in mind. So you’d see these systems that had no hardware graphics acceleration beyond onboard anemic garbage trying to run menus with DOF blur and soft overlays just gagging, and god forbid you had to troubleshoot/support some software on some shit like this, it was a nightmare.

          The rest of the people upgraded from XP to Vista themselves, and the smart ones went “OH FUCK NO” and went back in droves.

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            7·
            6 months ago

            It had multiple personalities disorder. Two e-mails, two browsers, two settings. It was confusing as hell.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                1·
                6 months ago

                I can appreciate what you’re saying, but it’s a terrible idea to force a tablet paradigm in non-touch screen scenarios. 8 would have been fine if you could choose your start bar. Don’t say this wasn’t possible, because there was third-party software to make that happen.

                • The_Hideous_Orgalorg@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  I never said it was impossible to keep the old style. Though I do refuse that the start page is only useful to touchscreens. I would have preferred a bit more options than just large or small squares, but it still was a nice way to keep shortcuts close at hand without having them on the desktop. Bringing the shortcut screen over top of everything is much more useful than keeping the shortcuts at the bottom, on the desktop.

                  Frankly, I found it ridiculous that the start page got so much hate while stuff like bing searches being forced into the local machine search gets no reaction.

    • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
      5·
      6 months ago

      I don’t know if they reclassified it at some point, but back on those days 3.5 was titled “Windows for Workgroups” and 4.0 was the first to be known simply as “NT”.

      Forget what I said, I recalled an old memory from childhood of a 3.5 upgrade box for people running Windows for Workgroups.

      NT 4.0 is definitely what popularized that version prior to Windows 2000 and XP. Most people who just say “Windows NT” are thinking about 4.0.

      • BillibusMaximus@sh.itjust.works
        9·
        6 months ago

        3.11 was WfW, and ran on top of DOS just like 3.1 did.

        NT 3.51 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like 3.1/3.11 on the surface. NT 4 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like Win95.

        Win 95/98/Me also ran on DOS, though it was more tightly integrated than it was in the 3.1 days.

        Win 2k and everything after was based on NT.

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
          4·
          6 months ago

          I remember the early win 3.11 to win 95 days when it was still easier to exit to dos to install a lot of software because no one was writing windows interfaces for anything.

          Now I’m wondering if I still have my Doom .WADs saved somewhere…

    • brianorca@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 months ago

      Replace NT in this list with ME and you have all the consumer versions. NT versions 3.5 and 4 were the business versions in parallel with 95, 98, and ME.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        3·
        6 months ago

        Win2k wasn’t consumer. It was the business offering at the same time as ME, which may be surprising to some. Xp was their successor, merging the business and personal lines.

        • dan@upvote.au
          1·
          6 months ago

          I remember using Windows 2000 at school. That OS was solid. Far more reliable and stable than what I was running at home (Windows 98, first edition).

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            1·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, those were the days, back when more often than not a Windows upgrade was also an improvement. As much as I loved Win2k, WinXP was even better. Let’s not talk about Vista and while Win7 was nice, it wasn’t much of a UX improvement.

  • Hupf@feddit.de
    71·
    6 months ago

    Hi, my name is Gabe Newell and I’ll teach you how to count to ten:

    1, 2

  • Saganaki@lemmy.one
    223·
    6 months ago

    The reason there isn’t a Windows 9 is because there was a common test for windows versions that went something like this:

    std::string winVer = getWinVerStr();
if (winVer.find(“Windows 9”) != -1)
{
    // This is windows 95 or 98
}

    A good chunk of older programs would likely have issues.

    • dan@upvote.au
      6·
      6 months ago

      This is a myth. The Win32 API doesn’t even have a method that returns the string “Windows 95”! Windows version numbers are numbers, not strings. Windows 95 was actually 4.0. Windows 98 was 4.1, ME was 4.5, and XP was 5.0.

      Actually it’s not entirely a myth - there was some Java library that did this - but it wasn’t widespread at all, and certainly not the documented approach to check the version.

      • Saganaki@lemmy.one
        2·
        6 months ago

        WMI was introduced in XP (I think? Was it later?) and asking WMI for the version string was pretty common.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 months ago

        Close but not exactly. Windows 5 was 2000, Windows 5.1 was Windows XP.

        But it’s more confusing than that because of the two different lines: the MS-DOS based line which covered Windows 1.0 through ME, and the multi-user NT line for workstations and servers which adopted the same version numbers as the currently released MS-DOS line that was available at the same time. I.E. windows NT 3.1 used the windows 3.1 UI from the DOS line, but was New-Technology instead of DOS under the hood. NT4 used the DOS based win95 UI, and NT5 was Windows 2000 also with the familiar Windows 9x UI. Everything since XP has been exclusively NT under the hood.

      • Gumby@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        Lmao they only considered 95 > 98 > ME to be minor version updates? They didn’t even deserve their own major version? Although it’s probably pretty accurate, I remember 98 basically just being a slightly updated 95. I never used ME so no idea with that. It’s still pretty funny though.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      22·
      6 months ago

      Nope. Bill left MS in 2008 and Windows 7 came out in 2009.

      Also the joke left out Windows 10x, AKA 11.

      And for some reason, it includes NT and Win2k, but leaves out all the other Server versions (2003 through 23H2).

      • Doc Dish@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        6 months ago

        NT (3.x & 4.0) and 2000 were also available as Workstation editions. They were concurrent with Windows 3.x, 95, 98 and ME (which did get missed on the above)

  • kshade@lemmy.world
    14·
    6 months ago

    I wonder if they will call the next versions 12 and especially 13. Alternative names:

    • Windows AI (because all those new features are so transformative)
    • Windows Azure Blue, Red and Yellow (Home and Pro, neither allowing local accounts, also Enterprise where non-hybrid AD still kinda works)
    • Windows Edge 20XX (everything has to use cloud computing terms!)
    • Windows. Just Windows. (four years later: Windows 2 announced!)
    • dan@upvote.au
      3·
      6 months ago

      I’m on Windows 2000 which is 1987 versions ahead of Windows 13.

  • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
    101·
    6 months ago

    NT 3.1 came out before 95, and isn’t a single version (Windows 11 is still Windows NT). If you include NT as a version, you can’t include 2000, XP, or anything after.

    • dan@upvote.au
      1·
      6 months ago

      9x had versions too… 95 was 4.0 and 98 was 4.1. They were mostly just used internally though.