3 ms·
The irony here is that Windows used to be a good shell on a truly terrible kernel around Windows 3.1/Windows 95. Now, it is a bad shell and UX on an actually re
by gmueckl 8mo ago
The irony here is that Windows used to be a good shell on a truly terrible kernel around Windows 3.1/Windows 95. Now, it is a bad shell and UX on an actually really good kernel.
- Gud 8mo agoThere was always Windows NT, which was the superior operating system up until the release of XP when it took a turn for the worse. A lot of people herald Windows XP as the best Windows, but I question if they ever used Windows 2000.
- gmueckl 8mo agoXP did have somewhat better backwards compatibility to 95 and 98 if memory serves correctly, especially for games. Also, I remember that Windows 2000 required new drivers for lots of devices, but XP stayed compatible with most Windows 2000 drivers, so it ended up supporting more hardware immediately at its release. It's been 25 years, so my memory may be incorrect.