3 ms·
To be fair, Windows 1.0 was unusable. Windows 2.1 was "almost there," as was Windows/286. I think we should list the "birth of windows" as happening somewhere
by retrocryptid 3y ago
To be fair, Windows 1.0 was unusable. Windows 2.1 was "almost there," as was Windows/286. I think we should list the "birth of windows" as happening somewhere around 1990 when Windows 3.0 escaped from Redmond.
I will give MSFT credit. With the exception of ME, Vista and Windows 8, every version of Windows was a noticeable improvement upon the last.
Even as a Unix(tm) admin, I would even argue Server 2008 was not crap.
- throwaway44773 3y agoThat's quite a controversial statement, claiming that even Windows 11 was a noticeable improvement upon the last. Care to elaborate?
- retrocryptid 3y agoWindows 11 and Windows 10 are the same OS.
- ngcc_hk 3y agoTbh, until windows xp or 7, it is a struggle to support. But some of my users really like windows 98. And for server, those click click click and try to remember what have you set or repeat it, give me unix (not linux for large firm. Even red hat is a hard sell … we use hp or aix) any time. I still wonder in the last few year I watch my team to maintain these windows server. Some issues… good luck I would say deep in my heart, but put up a brave face as management and tried my best pretending it is not that hard to diagnostic and fix.
- pyeri 3y agoWell, even the 3.0/3.1 versions worked under direct supervision of MS-DOS and Windows wasn't a true OS on its own. The Windows-95 is what I'd call birth of the "real Windows"!
- retrocryptid 3y agoBut not the "real mode windows."
- steve1977 3y agoThere was already a Windows NT 3.1 (up to 3.51) for which this was already not the case anymore.