5 ms·
I think Windows 9x was peak Windows. I'd choose XP instead. People disputing the performance maybe should consider the hardware at that time. Real problem with
by narag 3mo ago
I think Windows 9x was peak Windows.
I'd choose XP instead. People disputing the performance maybe should consider the hardware at that time. Real problem with 9x was low-level stability. Juggling with compatibility was difficult, file access comes to mind, it was a kludge. It was possible but hard to maintain the system in a sensible state.
XP was the first to bring NT architecture to desktop. It was a huge success. Many despised the colorful UI, I actually like it. They started moving things around, but annoyances were fixable. Microsoft has adopted more of a "my way or the highway" attitude since.
- linguae 3mo agoXP also introduced activation, which is one of the reasons I prefer Windows 2000 to XP.
- reddalo 3mo agoYes, maybe XP was the sweet spot between ease of use and ability to revert back to a "classic" Windows interface. It also had many multimedia features for burning CDs, editing videos, etc..
- bee_rider 3mo agoXP was quite ugly though. 98 or whatever was the best looking, but 7 was probably best overall (because they’d at least somewhat improved the UI and the system was generally more stable and modern). (FWIW I mostly switched to Linux after XP so this isn’t nostalgia).
- BirAdam 3mo agoPeople also forget… XP had more than the one tonka-toy theme from Frog Design. There were several themes. Some appealed to my visual tastes, some didn’t… but I do think they were well designed, which is more than I can say for most UI design today.
- afzalive 3mo agoWasn't 2000 the first NT architecture on desktop? 2000 is, by far, my favourite Windows OS.
- Narishma 3mo agoWhat do you mean by 'on desktop'? NT has always had both server and workstation versions.
- hulitu 3mo ago> XP was the first to bring NT architecture to desktop That was Win2k (DirectX). XP was full of bugs and holes before SP2.