3 ms·
Define "stable." Millions were using computers with great success long before 2001. Windows 95 and Windows 98 both worked and you got things done fine with them
by jb1991 5y ago
Define "stable." Millions were using computers with great success long before 2001. Windows 95 and Windows 98 both worked and you got things done fine with them. Are today's OSs "stable" by your definition? It's not uncommon to reboot 2022 desktops often to fix stability issues, and in fact Mac is arguably getting less stable by the year.
- ido 5y agoI was using windows 95 since almost the time it was released in the summer of '95 (on a then state of the art Pentium with 16mb RAM - way above the minimum system requirements), it was significantly less stable than the NT line (that XP and beyond belong to). Crashes and freezes were a lot more common than today. Classic Mac was similarly unstable, maybe even worse in terms of a single program being able to freeze/crash the entire OS (which almost never happens to me today in either mac or windows).
- jb1991 5y agoThe issue is that your arbitrary line of 2001 is a little odd -- things have gotten better over time, but Windows 3.1 was also pretty usable. Windows 98 was better than Windows 95. Was XP better than 98? I don't recall a major difference in stability, per se.
- ido 5y agoI do, the NT line was a massive leap and XP was the first time NT was rolled to the consumer market (NT4 and 2K were great but mostly sold for workstation/server). The switch from 9x to XP was absolutely not an arbitrary line, nor the switch to OS X at the same year.