3 ms·

You have missed Windows ME between XP and 98, which was so awful people don't remember it anymore. For a revolutionary product, Windows 95 wasn't that bad.

capableweb 4y ago
It wasn't supposed to be an extensive list, plenty of versions are missing, like NT 4 and well, every single version before 95 :)
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
I've heard the pattern phrased: 95 Good, 98 Bad, 98 SE Good, ME Bad, XP Good, Vista Bad, 7 Good, 8 Bad, 10 Good. Counting 98 SE as a separate release does seem like cherry-picking in order to make the pattern work. Then again, you could also say the cycle started with Windows 98 (putting the whole of that release into the good pile), and you'd still have a remarkably consistent pattern across two decades and seven versions of Windows. Honestly makes you wonder if there's some deeper cause related to Microsoft's organizational structure or something.
- p1necone 4y ago
  And then there's 11 which doesn't really feel like a new version at all to me. I use 10 at work and 11 at home and after changing the taskbar settings to put the start button back on the left I don't even notice switching.
  - seiferteric 4y ago
    For all the rightful hate 11 gets for ads and tracking crap, once you turn it off it feels... fine. I even don't mind the UI look and really like the new window management, but I don't use windows for anything serious anymore, only gaming so maybe there are other issues.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      You can't turn off the tracking crap, this is really the biggest problem IMO. Same here by the way, I don't use it for anything but gaming and work for the tracking reason.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >And then there's 11 which doesn't really feel like a new version at all to me. That's because it isn't, Windows 10 and 11 both identify internally as NT10.0. For some context: Windows Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1 identified as NT6.0, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 respectively; Windows 2000 and XP identified as NT5.0 and 5.1 respectively.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  If you're breaking out 98 into two releases, then you should probably break out XP into pre-service-packs and post. IME it wasn't until SP3 that XP really felt solid, depending on what hardware you were running.
  - ok123456 4y ago
    Pre-SP3 XP was slow out of the box, buggy, and insecure.
lawgimenez 4y ago
There’s also Windows 2000, which I think was the worst of all.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  It was a server and workstation OS not really suited for consumer desktop.
  - zabzonk 4y ago
    i used it as my daily driver on a sony laptop - worked like a charm.
  - Mike_12345 4y ago
    It was the first stable Windows OS that could run all the latest games and desktop applications without constantly crashing or needing a periodic reinstall. It was their best desktop OS at the time. XP was just 2000 with an ugly default theme and added bloat.
- mat_epice 4y ago
  Oh wow, I feel exactly the opposite. Windows 2000 was no-nonsense, but all good stuff. The good bones that Windows XP got came straight from Win2k. The only real problem it had was a narrower hardware compatibility profile, but it still wasn’t that bad.
- agent86 4y ago
  I would personally argue that Windows 2000 wasn't bad, it was just painful in the beginning. It was the transition point from the 9x kernel/setup to the NT kernel/setup and some manufacturers navigated that change better than others in the beginning.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  it was brilliant - fast and very stable.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
asciimov 4y ago
I had the one PC in that era that WinME was smooth sailing on. It was a Packard Bell with a 200mhz Pentium 1 (96 mb of ram at the time, i think). For whatever reason, and combination of hardware, ME had no issues running. I had less blue screens on it, and overall found it to be enjoyable and much more stable than 98 and 95c was on that machine.
Osiris 4y ago
ME was all the features that eventually went into XP but still based on the Windows 98 kernel instead of NT. What made XP great was how reliable it was compared to previous Windows versions.
masswerk 4y ago
Some things about Win95 are lost to nostalgia, as well. Like broken drivers, esp. in concert with up-to-date office, which came with issues of its own, like broken export formats. (It took more than a year for serious support for Postscript printers, etc.) Win95 became only somewhat functional with Windows 95B. (This one, however, started the IE integration.)
- wkat4242 4y ago
  And broken USB support. Even with OSR3 it didn't quite work with many devices.

capableweb 4y ago

It wasn't supposed to be an extensive list, plenty of versions are missing, like NT 4 and well, every single version before 95 :)

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

I've heard the pattern phrased: 95 Good, 98 Bad, 98 SE Good, ME Bad, XP Good, Vista Bad, 7 Good, 8 Bad, 10 Good. Counting 98 SE as a separate release does seem like cherry-picking in order to make the pattern work. Then again, you could also say the cycle started with Windows 98 (putting the whole of that release into the good pile), and you'd still have a remarkably consistent pattern across two decades and seven versions of Windows. Honestly makes you wonder if there's some deeper cause related to Microsoft's organizational structure or something.

p1necone 4y ago
And then there's 11 which doesn't really feel like a new version at all to me. I use 10 at work and 11 at home and after changing the taskbar settings to put the start button back on the left I don't even notice switching.
- seiferteric 4y ago
  For all the rightful hate 11 gets for ads and tracking crap, once you turn it off it feels... fine. I even don't mind the UI look and really like the new window management, but I don't use windows for anything serious anymore, only gaming so maybe there are other issues.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    You can't turn off the tracking crap, this is really the biggest problem IMO. Same here by the way, I don't use it for anything but gaming and work for the tracking reason.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >And then there's 11 which doesn't really feel like a new version at all to me. That's because it isn't, Windows 10 and 11 both identify internally as NT10.0. For some context: Windows Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1 identified as NT6.0, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 respectively; Windows 2000 and XP identified as NT5.0 and 5.1 respectively.
zdragnar 4y ago
If you're breaking out 98 into two releases, then you should probably break out XP into pre-service-packs and post. IME it wasn't until SP3 that XP really felt solid, depending on what hardware you were running.
- ok123456 4y ago
  Pre-SP3 XP was slow out of the box, buggy, and insecure.

lawgimenez 4y ago

There’s also Windows 2000, which I think was the worst of all.

thriftwy 4y ago
It was a server and workstation OS not really suited for consumer desktop.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  i used it as my daily driver on a sony laptop - worked like a charm.
- Mike_12345 4y ago
  It was the first stable Windows OS that could run all the latest games and desktop applications without constantly crashing or needing a periodic reinstall. It was their best desktop OS at the time. XP was just 2000 with an ugly default theme and added bloat.
mat_epice 4y ago
Oh wow, I feel exactly the opposite. Windows 2000 was no-nonsense, but all good stuff. The good bones that Windows XP got came straight from Win2k. The only real problem it had was a narrower hardware compatibility profile, but it still wasn’t that bad.
agent86 4y ago
I would personally argue that Windows 2000 wasn't bad, it was just painful in the beginning. It was the transition point from the 9x kernel/setup to the NT kernel/setup and some manufacturers navigated that change better than others in the beginning.
zabzonk 4y ago
it was brilliant - fast and very stable.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

asciimov 4y ago

I had the one PC in that era that WinME was smooth sailing on. It was a Packard Bell with a 200mhz Pentium 1 (96 mb of ram at the time, i think). For whatever reason, and combination of hardware, ME had no issues running. I had less blue screens on it, and overall found it to be enjoyable and much more stable than 98 and 95c was on that machine.

Osiris 4y ago

ME was all the features that eventually went into XP but still based on the Windows 98 kernel instead of NT. What made XP great was how reliable it was compared to previous Windows versions.

masswerk 4y ago

Some things about Win95 are lost to nostalgia, as well. Like broken drivers, esp. in concert with up-to-date office, which came with issues of its own, like broken export formats. (It took more than a year for serious support for Postscript printers, etc.) Win95 became only somewhat functional with Windows 95B. (This one, however, started the IE integration.)

wkat4242 4y ago
And broken USB support. Even with OSR3 it didn't quite work with many devices.