31 Oct 2009
2.
Clippy
Shaun Nichols: Bob was regarded as one of the more amusing
failures in Microsoft's history. An early attempt to simplify computer use, Bob
was instead received as an annoying gimmick that drove people crazy.
You would think that after such a fiasco Microsoft would learn its lesson, but no. With the bitter taste of Bob still lingering, Microsoft set out to create an even more useless, intrusive and irritating piece of idiotware: Clippy. The infamous animated paper-clip shipped with Microsoft Office 97-2003 had a six-year run which tortured users and gave office supplies everywhere a bad name.
Think of the annoying salesperson who pops up behind you and repeatedly asks if you're finding everything OK, or the guy who stands over your shoulder while you're fixing something in the garage and offers unwanted advice. Clippy was like both of those people, combined with an irritating children's cartoon character. Obviously, when you're on a deadline and rushing to finish a business report or term paper, nothing is more helpful than an annoying cartoon paper clip popping up on the screen and offering to help you write up your grocery list.
Thankfully Clippy was killed off in the most recent versions of Office. Hopefully Microsoft has finally learned its lesson and we won't have to deal with an even more annoying animated utility in the future, but I'm not optimistic.
Iain Thomson: Microsoft has never released the name of the person who came up the idea for Clippy, and for good reason. Several million computer users would be after them with murder in their hearts and police wouldn't have to look far for a motive.
I swear IT administrators got more calls about Clippy that any other piece of Microsoft kit. The overwhelming question was how to turn it off before people snapped and took a chainsaw to their PCs. It was a nadir in stupid software.
You have to wonder what Microsoft was thinking. Maybe there were some science fiction fans at the company who liked the idea of a computer helper. But Clippy wasn't a HAL or other advanced AI system. It was AD – artificial dumbness. It's still a running joke in the industry and I hope it remains so; that way no company will be so stupid as to do it again.
1.
Windows Me
Iain Thomson: When we decided to do this list I was dreading
the argument with Shaun. I know he hates Vista and would want it for the top
spot, but I felt we'd be not just flogging a dead horse but jumping up and down
on the tins of dog food it had become.
As it turns out, he wasn't keen to have Vista on the top spot either and we quickly agreed on the winner, if that's the word. Windows Millennium Edition (Me) was an absolute dog of an operating system and even now is mocked as Microsoft's lowest point in operating system design.
To start off with the operating system was, in my opinion, the most crash-prone piece of software I've ever had the misfortune to run. It was as unstable as a Hollywood starlet with substance abuse issues, and many users got used to saving everything every five minutes just in case. IT administrators hated it for this reason and point-blank refused to roll it out in more than a few instances.
Then there were the compatibility issues. To speed up the boot time Microsoft limited access to DOS, but this also made some popular applications incompatible with the operating system. The system restore feature was a nice idea, but most users assumed that documents would also be restored, which wasn't the case, and occasionally even found the system restored deleted malware.
There was a widespread view that Me was a cash-in product, something Microsoft had stuck out there early to wring a bit more cash out of the Windows 9x line before moving over to XP. That may or may not be true, but it was certainly not a polished product and did wonders for sales of Apple's iMac.
Shaun Nichols: When users restored their systems with Windows 98, the software would occasionally also reinstall malware which had previously been deleted. Amazingly, the fact that it would deliberately reinfect your computer was not the worst thing people remember about Windows Me. That should tell you all you need to know right there.
Windows Me was one of those releases that Microsoft really should never have let off campus. After the first few tests, which no doubt showed that the system was incredibly error-prone, someone in the higher ranks of the company should have pressed the panic button and sent everyone back to the drawing board. It's hard to imagine a Steve Jobs or a Larry Ellison letting a dog of this calibre ship as a final release.
Last week Iain suggested that every other version of DOS was poorly built and worth skipping. I would suggest that the same holds true for Windows: 3.11 was a landmark release, Windows 95 not so great, Windows 98 much better, Windows Me was notably terrible, Windows XP very good, and Vista a train wreck. The good news is that, if history is any indication, Windows 7 shouldn't be so bad.
Latest stories from Operating Systems
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
Our highly successful client urgently requires Senior...
Our highly successful client urgently requires Senior...
Our highly successful client urgently requires Senior...
Our client, a highly successful and currently market...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Windows 7 Starter...
...seams to be a contender for "The silliest way to cut corners award". * You're not able to change the image on your desktop - HELLO! - Well it's a register hack, so it's reversible. * You can't play commercial DVD's - OK, so it's marketed towards Netbooks and the likes, but - HELLO! - well fortunately there's VLC.
Posted by: !# 07 Dec 2009
Window 95 and Vista
Couldn't you see both as forerunners for the following Windows versions, which were of acceptable quality? Best regards Bent http://www.synlighjemmeside.dk
Posted by: Bent 29 Nov 2009
Stopped Apple and Netscape?
wewa have you been in a lead mine for 20 years? Apple is doing better than ever despite the continual copying by Micro$oft, or maybe because of it. The Netscape evolutionary successor, Firefox, is eating Internet Explorer's lunch. IN the computer savvy-portion of the market, it has already beaten IE into a soggy sandwich. And you claim to be an IT expert?
Posted by: James Smith 26 Nov 2009
Once upon a time..
We all were young and energetic! We could do all with our all abilities and aimed for. When others look at the things with their own views it will look different. But we all do our job and go away from the world. Even forgetted, may be leaving critics and people would have praised the work we did. These all apply to the technologies too. they came with intentions, they were accepted or hated. But they were there for the intention and have given boost to better to come. We all must honour all of them as they have done something better to uplift our ambitions.
Posted by: fun enjoy 24 Nov 2009
Windows rubbish
ME was ok at least I had no problems with it, Office 2003 was brilliant but 2007 is diabolical. I've been struggling with it since it first came out & havn't got to grips with it yet. I'm sure it would be much better with proper menus instead of the crazy technicolour ribbon strips. If I ever have to do manything important I use my laptop which still has 2003 on it. Microisoft woud do well to totally seperate their home & business products so that us poor home users do not keep getting lumbered with over sophisticated products having loads of features the home user neither wants nor needs. That way they wouldn't have to keep updating every few months. Having said that don't suggest works because that should be included in any list of microsoft rubbish.
Posted by: R.Fielding 24 Nov 2009
negative
what a load of negatives without microsoft where would we be you have to have some failures.
Posted by: Rog 22 Nov 2009
Office 2007
What a DOG! Office 97 was great, 2000 was a let-down, 2002 not a lot better, 2003 was brilliant but what on Earth made MS produce the hideous pile of garbage that is Office 2007 - that disgusting ribbon interface really drives me and most of my students to distraction. Bring back the menus - people understand WORDS not ridiculous stupid little icons! It is SO BAD that I installed Ribbon Customizer at home to make it usable.
Posted by: Ron Hagley 14 Nov 2009
You other lists are good, this one needs work
I have been in IT over 25 years. Vista should have been #1 on your list. That is clear to many. I have installed WinMe on hundreds of machines. It ran faster than XP on low powered, older systems fine. People just didn't understand it and how to configure. Win95 was flawed but still was revolutionary. It put a stop to Apple and Netscape. This is back when Microsoft was very savvy in taking down competitors (Novell, Wordperfect, etc.). If you're going to shun Me and 95, you may have well added NT to the list, instead of Vista twice. And you forgot UAC if you're going to breakout technologies such as Bob. Thanks for trying. I'll move on to your other lists now...
Posted by: wewa 14 Nov 2009
Clippy the Microsoft Office Assistant
"Looks like you are reading an Article about me, would you like help with that" How we hated him. Then there was Blinx, a mascot game character for the XBOX, to match Mario and Sonic. Ha ha these guys are waiting in hell for the truly wicked.
Posted by: Mo Patel 13 Nov 2009
Office 2007 must be in the worst 5
Both Office 2007 and Word 6 deserve mention for the way they suddenly meant your colleagues could no longer open the files you sent them - but the awful non-intuitive interface on Office 2007 wins it, if only for breaking the old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" so badly. Mind you, the version control in Word 6 which meant you were at risk of losing all the versions of your work also means it runs close to getting in the top 10.
Posted by: Connie Craven 12 Nov 2009
You forgot Word 6 and Publisher
Word 6 was a complete disaster, completely changing the way things worked and throwing away lots of useful capabilities (e.g. linked files with global pagination). And Publisher has to be the apogee of page layout programs; so many bad things to say about it I won't even try.
Posted by: Old Computer Duhde 10 Nov 2009
XP was the last M$ product I used
After trying Vista I switched to Ubuntu and I do not regret. There is nothing in Windows that is better then good Linux distribution.
Posted by: Alex 10 Nov 2009
ME the worst? hardly
I ran ME for years, found very little instability. It all came down to the people running it, how they set their system up, and how they went about using it. Same as you got poor results using win95 as you did 3.11, you got the same things with ME.
Posted by: flobert 10 Nov 2009
Vista works OK
Vista is about the same as my XP rigs , gaming wise and I already am now using Vista 64 to game with no problems. As much as I would like to "upgrade" , 7 really has nothing much to show me after trying the release. Vista is mostly fixed and I have invested in ram to make it a practical OS. Not happy but Pragmatism must rule here. Buying an OS every 2 years is ridiculous.
Posted by: lobsta21 09 Nov 2009
Every second version?
When you say that every second version of Windows was good or bad depending on where you start counting, I need to take a small exception to your progression. Although XP may have technically followed Me, it was really the next version of NT, not 9x. If you look at it that way, and count backwards, with XP being good, then Windows 2000 Pro would have been a bad version, and NT4 a good one, etc. I used all three and never had any real issues with any, insofar as a Windows experience is concerned.
Posted by: Picayun 09 Nov 2009
What a waste
Both writers not doing enough homework and survey. What a retarded article.
Posted by: MoSE 09 Nov 2009
Never installed ME/Vista
Never installed ME or Vista, so got that right. Installed 7 out of curiosity on my Laptop that ran XP fine for years. Now it seem I need to change my router becaue of IPv6 (DNS lookup is low or fails) got 3 BSOD's in the same DLL in 3 weeks, Got 2 complete blank (black) screens and system hanged, file deletion is slow and opening programs sometimes takes forever you never know if 7 started the program or not) , No, 7 is not better than XP. Graphically itare great. Functionality wise it not good. I need my PC for business, not for playing an artist.
Posted by: N. One 09 Nov 2009
Win 95 - you called that wrong!
Windows 95 C was as good as Windows got for a number of years. Your issues are mostly done with rose tinted glasses! In 95, you had Windows for Workgroups and then Windows 95 came out - it was 100% better. OK, DOS 6.22 was easier for those of us who had learnt from the command line, but Win95 introduced a whole world to the PC! Now, I am no M$ fan, but I know when someone is being unfair - Maybe you should have considered putting Windows 2 in the list, or DOS 7 or maybe Bing - or would that have involved not being lazy?!
Posted by: F0ul 09 Nov 2009
Not W95 but Office 2007
You should have put there Office 2007. I remember I installed it and it took me 3 days to figure out where the heck was the "save as" function. I have seen many people that praise Office 2007 and later seen them embarrassed as they cannot found the button or option they are looking for. Changing the interface after so many years was plain wrong. On the other hand, I remember Windows 95; it generated some polemic, but it was not even comparable to the one for Vista; even XP, on its moment was considered one of the worst M$ mistakes; we just have been too long with it. When w95 went out, it was so different but also, it performed so well and I think it really influenced to bust to the www. I installed it in a 486/33DX with 8Mb of ram; a machine I had since 1993.
Posted by: Poto 09 Nov 2009
Oooopss! Forgot a Bunch!
This article is a good first take on MS blunders but there are a whole lot of omissions. MS's weakness has historically been software design. How about: -- COM - could they have made this thing any slower and more difficult to use? BSTR? VARIANT wtf -- Win32 - just try figuring this thing out. Win32 shows that MS documentation is vague for a reason - they don't know how it works either! -- MFC - well, thank god for STL, eh? -- All MS File Systems (for idiotic disk management schemes). Dudes, you can't manage disk as if it were RAM and expect it to perform.
Posted by: Toaster 08 Nov 2009
ME - OS with an unspecified disease
ME was horrible. It was pre-loaded on my first new PC (previously used 95 & 98 on laptops and 2nd-hand boxes) and it nearly switched me off from computing. Thankfully I discovered Win2000 and have since gone on to teach IT. I did not change to XP until SP2 and having recently bought another new PC; I suffered Vista crashes for no more than a few days before switching to a Win7 beta. Vista would appear to be the new ME; but they gave it the wrong medication.
Posted by: S Meer 08 Nov 2009
Agree with the Exchange comment below but...
.. its not really 'customer facing' like the products in this top 10.
Posted by: PaulW 08 Nov 2009
Vista Ultimate
You might have wanted to call out Ultimate; the lack of extras it ever gave, and now the fact that Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 requries yet again Ulitmate OR a whole new install.
Posted by: Peter Thomas 08 Nov 2009
Office 2007 vs. Clippy
The Office 2007 interface is so awful, I've found myself wishing I could _enable_ Clippy so it could tell me where the most basic functions are located. Given this damning evidence, Office 2007 should be higher on the list than Clippy, Q.E.D.
Posted by: Dan 08 Nov 2009
ME, the last time I gave M$ money
They stole my hard earned cash for this substandard software and hid behind their EULA rather than refund me. Ever since I've done ALL my computing with open source software and never looked back. Thanks Bill
Posted by: Llew 08 Nov 2009
Microsoft mistakes
Bill Gates was born. Long live Apple
Posted by: David French 08 Nov 2009
oh no ,the ME myth again
Did you actually ever use ME? Because in my experience everyone who goes on about how unstable etc it was hasn't. I used it for 3 years, it worked absolutely fine. In my opinion, this myth has gained traction simply because most people have never used it, most people either stuck with 98 or jumped to 2000. Yes, system restore was a dog, but it still is, one of the first things I get rid of on XP.
Posted by: Ian 07 Nov 2009
Don't knock ActiveX and Windows 95
Windows 95 did some pretty technically amazing things - bridging the gap between DOS drivers and a proper 32 bit OS wasn't ever going to be very stable but was bloody handy. ActiveX is a great technology that's core to lots of Windows interoperability - other operating systems are still miles behined there. Use on the interweb is questionable - the ability to embed flash in a web page is arguably confusing and dangerous. Anyway, these two have pretty much defined the IT industry.
Posted by: Ed 07 Nov 2009
Microsoft Exdrain should indeed be number one!
That's Exchange Server's nickname by those who have dared to use the alternatives, which are, without exception, better. In 2004, Ms bought 51% of Telewest (aka Blueyonder) and insisted they migrate to Exchange. Millions of vital invoices of dozens of big companies went down that proverbial drain resulting in litigation. I breath a sigh of relief every time I check the headers of my blueyonder emails and see "Exim".
Posted by: Mike Yates 07 Nov 2009
I disagree totally
For starters Vista has to be Number 1. There is nothing you could do for Vista to make it perform correctly. Sure ME was bad only because of drivers. ME was actually faster that 98 and if you had the correct drivers, it was rock solid and fast and I know of a lot who ran ME for a long time. Windows 95 was a hugh public event. It was the introduction into 32 bit computing. It is something like 64 bit being introduced now. There will be issues with this type of milestone.
Posted by: Mike 07 Nov 2009
Horrible article
Vista Capable isn't even a product unless you count marketing propoganda as a "product".
Posted by: Anon 07 Nov 2009
So many people are just blabbing
In reality, whether you think they are bad products or not, Microsoft has maintained quite a significant market share even till this day of apple coolness. It is easy to condemn certain products but really, windows 95? I think the writer did not do his research. With Microsoft's market share, all can say is, like comcast, Microsoft is just another company that people love to hate even though they claim there are other choices. I dont get it. But I guess its just cause we are human.
Posted by: taz 07 Nov 2009
Win 2K
Why is no-one mentioning windows 2000 as one of the best ever? If we're talking about stability for working then it's a must _ remember its the ancestor of XP. I gave it away as much as I could to ppl banging their head on the wall because of Me and was able to play on it with some SP and MPClassic for multimedia...
Posted by: Chris H. 07 Nov 2009
windows 95
Yeah, I don't think windows 95 should be on there either. I have fond memories of using it. :)
Posted by: Rockabye 07 Nov 2009
Windows 95 -- really?
I too am pretty shocked about the pissing on Windows 95. Yes it had its issues, but as the previous poster said it was a huge leap in terms of the GUI and usability for the average consumer.
Posted by: Marcus 06 Nov 2009
windows me
I bet the time when windows ME came out, everyone started getting a PC... I mean, it must be that ppl without any single knowledge of how to use PC tried to do whatever with the OS and messed up. Cuz i never had any of the problems ppl talk about, it was stable, and much better than windows 98. I only fully moved to XP after SP2, cuz b4 it wasnt that good to make me abandon ME.
Posted by: Ronaldinho 06 Nov 2009
and the apple grows...
I changed over to apple when windows 95 was released. I just couldn't work productively with it. Needless to say I have never looked back. I run XP and now 7 as virtual PC's on the mac...bets of both worlds ;-)
Posted by: Death Honey 06 Nov 2009
Why no Office 2007?
...and that damned annoying 'fluent interface' ribbon. It's rubbish and must have put more people off Microsoft products than everthing else listed. Why in the name of god, didn't they leave the old menu system in as a switchable option for all those of us that have been using it for the past 20 years or so?
Posted by: Richard 06 Nov 2009
I totally agree
I Totally agree, Me was as unstable as a rat on crack! i've kind of followed technology ever since i was young learning by trial and error,i having clawed my way through, dos,win3.1,95,98,98se,xp,vista,Windows 7 rc2, linux of verious kinds, Windows Me was probably the only microsoft OS i refused to have, i have a mate who had it and it caused him some serious head aches, and would crash hourly and with out warning.
Posted by: Adam Laing 06 Nov 2009
I nominate:
Microsoft exchange server ... does everything Novell Netware did, but less reliably; uses up client system resources in ingenious new ways; interferes with client program operations if not blocking them altogether; crashes regularly. A real dog. Woof woof!
Posted by: Jon Norstog 06 Nov 2009
What about Windows 2000
Why does everybody forget about Windows 2000, and NT. The article says every other version of windows, but for their time I found NT & 2000 to be very good products. Given 2000 gave rise to XP, and NT gave rise to 2000, surely that screws up the every second OS theory?
Posted by: Mark 06 Nov 2009
No I don't agree
Why limit the list to just 10? There so many to chose from..Where to start. Windows Firewall. The one that broken out of the box. IE 6 bet you could get a few million votes for that. Indexing Service. You have vista twice. No fair considering there is millions of better one to pick.
Posted by: ROBOKILL 06 Nov 2009
A possible #11
I definitely would have added DirectX 10 to the list. Ever since MS crammed that down our gullets without even an option for XP/2000 users to take advantage of the new driver model, the PC gaming arena has turned into a ghost town. All game designers now don't trust MS when it comes to DirectX compatibility and most don't write for OpenGL anyway, so now everything gets designed for Xbox/PS3/PS2/WII, and port is later made, mayber, for the PC; need I go further? The best designing was always PCs first, consoles later.
Posted by: QBert 06 Nov 2009
Microsoft Bob
You history of Bob is actually inaccurate. For the real information on it, look up Lon Safko. He invented Bob for use by people with disabilities such as his father. He showed it to Microsoft to see if they wanted to market it, they declined. But then the future-Mrs. Gates stole the software and packaged it as Bob. How obvious is the theft? Well if you look at a screenshot of Bob's desktop, it is Lon Safko's office which he based it on back in the day. He was forced to sue Microsoft for violating his intellectual rights and won with a cease and desist. Not defending Bob as an operating system, it was clunky, but for an independent software creator with a specific purpose of helping his disabled father, it was amazing for its time.
Posted by: Scott 06 Nov 2009
Windows 95
I disagree with Windows 95 on the list and place Windows 2000. Why? Windows 2000 was released without any driver support.
Posted by: C 06 Nov 2009
Windows XP was actually not very good
To be honest, compared to Windows 2000, Windows XP was - and remains - pretty terrible. Compared to 2000 it has ME-levels of reliability. Windows 7 is more a "return to form", but it's more back to the old fasioned reliability levels of Windows 2000, as opposed to the reliability of Windows NT 4 - which ironically was criticised as being not as reliable as the nonpariel of Windows NT 3.51. Why people think XP was actually any good escapes me. Windows 2000 wasn't particularly good, but it was - and remains - and order of magnitude better than any subsequent Windows release.
Posted by: Simon C 06 Nov 2009
Windows 95 - hardware intensive?
Quite the reverse. At the time I sold software and hardware. We used a benchmark from a popular PC magazine of the time. Nearly all the benchmarks were slightly higher on the same PC for Windows 95 than Windows 3.1, except the graphics - which were usually in the mid-20s range for Windows 95, and in the mid-7s for Windows 3.1 (that's a fifth of an order of magnitude, roughly). Not to be sneezed at...
Posted by: Simon C 06 Nov 2009
In praise of ME
WinME, if properly tuned, is easily as stable as Win98SE and has much improved memory-management. Hence, I have "downgraded" many XP boxes to it when SP2 & SP3 made that bloatware unworkably slow without buying more RAM. In some cases RAM is very expensive for older boxes and some old PCs have a 512 or even 256MB RAM limit. Current XP is just not practicable there and ME produces a great increase in speed (e.g. for Opera browsing) which amazes the owner, as well as being very safe against malware, since most Win9x viruses are now extinct!
Posted by: Mike Yates 05 Nov 2009
very well in hindsight
It's very well to mock some of these products in hindsight, but at the time they were released many on your 'worst' list were really very good products. My biggest shock is that you have Encarta on your worst list. Encarta was an excellent product - you have to remember that back at Encarta's peak in 1995/1996 internet access was not common, and only taking off - when the internet did start to take off it was via a 28.8k or 33.6k modem and to use an ISP you had to pay a monthly fee and also pay the cost of the call to your ISP on top (well in the UK you did - I think in the US you guys had it lucky). Therefore, CD-ROM encyclopedias were the way to go. I admit that Encarta's online version was not up to scratch, but it is such a shame that it is to close because there are many articles on Wikipedia that are a complete biased mess, and where Encarta's quality was superior. For Win95 and IE5 you really need to compare them to the competition at the time. IE5 was superior to the Netscape equivalent at the time. IE4 was the browser that introduced the OS integeration.
Posted by: Paul 04 Nov 2009
i so agree.
could not agree more with this list! clippy was annoying, but I had ME. brought it 6 months before XP and didnt upgrade till Vista. It really was a shit operating system! I still save everything every 2 minutes and back up every other week. Atleast i have ingrained good habits. Encarta, i actually thought that was useful when internet was rare.
Posted by: Hannah 04 Nov 2009
At least Clippy gave you a relevant answer
I miss Clippy. At a click you could have help in finding an answer without having to wade through too much information as in the present Help package.
Posted by: Babbler 04 Nov 2009
Ms.Dewey
I always wondered what happened to her
Posted by: charles 04 Nov 2009
Windows Vista is the best!
I disagree. Windows Vista is a very good operation system. It works with old programs and it is easy to use. Vista has far more features than XP. I think Vista works better than XP. It is my opinion. Vista isn't worse product. I don't know, why people don't like Vista.
Posted by: wiwi_eu 03 Nov 2009
Microsoft's Worst Products perspective
You folks give the impression that Microsoft can and does make "great" software products, with constant statements of "new features" and use of word s like "performance" and "Wow". The truth is quite different, since no Microsoft operating system and some other software - from DOS forward was ever the best product at the time - when fairly and accurately compared to competition, and most if not all of the "new features" presented as original were capabilities that are better executed and available in other products long beforehand. It has become a farce how many so-called technology journalist have, over the years, skewed their writing more and more to falsifying information in favour of Microsoft and refusing to sensibly and credibly inform the public about alternative software products and solutions that represented a viable, in-most-circumstances better choice. I know about MS-DOS - all of them that were no better than CP/M or DR_DOS, and Windows 98/NT/200 that was no where as good as IBM OS/2, and Word/Excel/Outlook that did not hold a candle in "real" features to Wordperfect or Lotus Smartsuite 98, or Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7 that really copied much from and are less grand than Mac OS X or Ubuntu Linux 91.0. All these really great products are consistently considered under-written about as ugly step-children - as in Cinderella. Fortunately peoples in other continents do not hero worship Bill Gates or Microsoft, and give very little credence to "an American being the richest man in the world", and therefore are more pragmatic in wisely choosing Linux as foundation for their education and government technology operations that will probably put them significantly ahead of US in near future. Sad that fluff and marketing are more important that real value.
Posted by: W. Anderson 02 Nov 2009
Vista and Clippy
Vista may have it's problems, people conveniently forget that XP did when it came out. I seem to remember no end of whingeing about it in the early years. In my experience Vista is a lot more stable and reliable than XP. If '7' solves some of the gripes about the 'footprint' it should be terrific. And I really miss Clippy. Instead of moaning about it, if you don't like it... turn it off.
Posted by: Mike 02 Nov 2009
Microsoft Windows
Your comments on on Dos and Windows are over the top. I dont know the full history, but understand that dos was made for IBM. DR Dos was a load of rubbish and WIN3.1 was better than nothing. Nobody else gave us an operating system for the average user. Where was IBM's version to compete. I don't know much about Mac except that they shot them selves in the foot by being too mean to allow others to build their computers. Everyone runs down Microsoft, but where would we be today without them. Linux is still difficult for the average user. So what dos or windows are we going to use. My biggest sorrow is losing Qbasic to work completely in Windows.
Posted by: Jack Kenrick 02 Nov 2009
I disagree
I used to be using WinME with success for much longer that Win98 or Win98SE. For me it was more stable and for example had no issues with shutdown like Win98SE (there was a patch for 98SE to fix this but it didn't work for my system). My system was based on AMD K6-2 350MHz and 64MB RAM.
Posted by: yaworski 02 Nov 2009
Why bother?
Are you taking the same Windows 95 that's considered the most fundamental breakthrough in bringing graphical GUI to to mass consumer? The OS which resulted in Microsoft's position as the OS of choice for 90% of all computers? And the writer considers this to be one of their worst product! No USB support? Maybe thats because USB wasnt invented at the time. and also, encarta was a brilliant product for the time. Its like saying VHS was a failure because DVDs are better.
Posted by: sean 31 Oct 2009