4 ms·
That pattern only holds if you think that the world started at Windows XP. Going back another few years: Windows 3.1 - Success Windows 95 - Success Windows 9
by MartinCron 14y ago
That pattern only holds if you think that the world started at Windows XP. Going back another few years:
Windows 3.1 - Success
Windows 95 - Success
Windows 98 - Success (moderate, whatever)
Windows NT 4 - Success
Windows Me - Failure
Windows 2000 - Success
- bduerst 14y agoWe're talking about Microsoft here! What about DOS?
- MartinCron 14y agoI was talking about Windows, actually. I do remember some versions of MS-DOS being marginally better than others, but I don't think it had any predictable cadence.
- Karunamon 14y agoIf you switch that metric from good/bad instead of success/failure, it makes more sense. Something doesn't have to have been objectively good to be sucessful. Here's how I remember it: 3.1 was the first windows GUI for mass consumption, and was successful, and pretty decent for it's time. 95 was also succesful, but I remember it being very, terribly unstable. Moreso than 3.1.. i put it in the bad column based on that. 98 improved on this and added a lot. Good. ME was utter dogshit. Kernels changed from ME to XP, so I make the link there. Microsoft did provide a direct upgrade path from ME to XP. XP was awesome Vista was horrid. 7 was awesome Now 8. If they continue the pattern, 8 will suck. It seems like there's a micro pattern like "new UI paradigm" >> "polish and improve new UI". 98 improved on 95, 7 improved on vista, XP improved on 2K.