3 ms·

> easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used. Windows ME?

by coherentpony 11y ago

mrmondo 11y ago
At least ME didn't crash every day for most people.
- mirashii 11y ago
  Yes it did
- threeseed 11y ago
  You're being a bit ridiculous here. OSX is not crashing every day for "most people". There are tens of millions of users. There would be a massive uproar on all the forums and in the media if the OS was that unstable.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  Windows ME definitely had that reputation. I'll stick up for Windows NT based versions of Windows on stability grounds. But while 95, 98, and 98SE were "mostly stable" Windows ME was "mostly unstable" even on good hardware. The 9x based versions of Windows had a lot of problems. And as more LOC were added to Windows 9x it seems like the core design of that range showed that it couldn't scale (since an error in one sub-system "infected" another, due to limited memory protections across boundaries). So often something would crash, but it was actually a sister process which caused it (opps!). Essentially what I am saying is that the 9x range had a "upper complexity limit," so as it became more complex, it inherently became less stable (since more complexity=more bugs=less stability). ME was the upper limit of how complex that model could become. NT based versions of Windows (NT 3.xx, 4.0, 2K, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 (and server + embedded editions)) have no such problem since the core design is simply superior (in a large part due to x86 hardware improvements NT takes advantage of). Edit: Just to clarify: "Simply superior" in the final paragraph is contrasting Windows 9x to Windows NT (not OS X). OS X and NT both take advantage of x86's memory protections and both try to restrict kernel hotpatching (which was a massive PITA for 9x/MS Dos). They're both "modern" operating systems relative to what 9x was (and Dos, and other similar systems of that time period).
- sim0n 11y ago
  Daily OS X user here, haven't ever had Yosemite crash from normal use.
- qubitcoder 11y ago
  Just out of curiosity, have you considered doing a clean install? Yosemite was unusable on my MacBook Pro Retina--visual artifacts, misaligned GUI elements, and frequent crashes. I participated in the beta test program, so I suppose this left behind a lot of cruft on my system. A clean install eliminated all these issues.
- unscaled 11y ago
  You've probably never had the pleasure of using ME. Heck, even Windows 95 and 98 often meant daily crashes for the power users among us. Beyond flame-baiting, I don't think any of the major modern desktop OSes (including their most maligned versions - I'm looking at you Vista RTM) can even come close to the stability nightmare that was Windows 9x (not that OS9 was better, having no memory protection at all, I'd wager it was worse, but I never got to use it often). I'm definitely not an Apple fanboy, and I never subscribed to the illusion than OS X is somehow more stable than Windows NT, but I wish people would stop bring up these irrelevant comparisons.
radley 11y ago
I think he means out of all Apple OS versions... which is almost true. I think the first two years of OS X was the only time it's been worse than now.

> easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used. Windows ME?

mrmondo 11y ago

At least ME didn't crash every day for most people.

mirashii 11y ago
Yes it did
threeseed 11y ago
You're being a bit ridiculous here. OSX is not crashing every day for "most people". There are tens of millions of users. There would be a massive uproar on all the forums and in the media if the OS was that unstable.
UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
Windows ME definitely had that reputation. I'll stick up for Windows NT based versions of Windows on stability grounds. But while 95, 98, and 98SE were "mostly stable" Windows ME was "mostly unstable" even on good hardware. The 9x based versions of Windows had a lot of problems. And as more LOC were added to Windows 9x it seems like the core design of that range showed that it couldn't scale (since an error in one sub-system "infected" another, due to limited memory protections across boundaries). So often something would crash, but it was actually a sister process which caused it (opps!). Essentially what I am saying is that the 9x range had a "upper complexity limit," so as it became more complex, it inherently became less stable (since more complexity=more bugs=less stability). ME was the upper limit of how complex that model could become. NT based versions of Windows (NT 3.xx, 4.0, 2K, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 (and server + embedded editions)) have no such problem since the core design is simply superior (in a large part due to x86 hardware improvements NT takes advantage of). Edit: Just to clarify: "Simply superior" in the final paragraph is contrasting Windows 9x to Windows NT (not OS X). OS X and NT both take advantage of x86's memory protections and both try to restrict kernel hotpatching (which was a massive PITA for 9x/MS Dos). They're both "modern" operating systems relative to what 9x was (and Dos, and other similar systems of that time period).
sim0n 11y ago
Daily OS X user here, haven't ever had Yosemite crash from normal use.
qubitcoder 11y ago
Just out of curiosity, have you considered doing a clean install? Yosemite was unusable on my MacBook Pro Retina--visual artifacts, misaligned GUI elements, and frequent crashes. I participated in the beta test program, so I suppose this left behind a lot of cruft on my system. A clean install eliminated all these issues.
unscaled 11y ago
You've probably never had the pleasure of using ME. Heck, even Windows 95 and 98 often meant daily crashes for the power users among us. Beyond flame-baiting, I don't think any of the major modern desktop OSes (including their most maligned versions - I'm looking at you Vista RTM) can even come close to the stability nightmare that was Windows 9x (not that OS9 was better, having no memory protection at all, I'd wager it was worse, but I never got to use it often). I'm definitely not an Apple fanboy, and I never subscribed to the illusion than OS X is somehow more stable than Windows NT, but I wish people would stop bring up these irrelevant comparisons.

radley 11y ago

I think he means out of all Apple OS versions... which is almost true. I think the first two years of OS X was the only time it's been worse than now.