113
submitted 5 months ago by Owl@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net

lmao

(also use Linux)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Findom_DeLuise@hexbear.net 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

95/98/ME was kind of the other way around. 95? Shitty, unstable OS. 95B/SR2? Surprisingly stable, by Win95 standards. 95C/SR2.5? Shitty OS again because of the Internet Explorer integration baked into everything in the fucking shell.

Same deal with 98 -- the initial release was a crash-prone mess, but 98 SE fixed a lot of that through improved hardware support.

...and then there's Windows ME, which was just dogshit all around. Love it when my OS decides to optimize a slow-ass PATA disk and corrupt the kernel while doing so.

(And Vista was just 7 with really nonsensical branding/segmentation, and released for use on hardware that hadn't caught up yet. Vista Ultimate was legit if you had a beefy enough CPU and tuned a few things in the OS.)

this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
113 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23239 readers
332 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS