Guy who's trying his best :(I'm still constantly baffled by just how absolutely beyond shit modern computers are
kabel42
R.L. Dane 
🍵 
16-bit/early-32-bit was my favorite era. (Basically, the #68k era ;)
Computers were just becoming capable, but not too big for their britches.
@OpenComputeDesign @rl_dane I had a good time with my first amd athlon 64 but sure, simpler times :)
I think computers were honestly better when they were limited to absolutely no more than 1GB RAM, no more than 256 colors, and no more than 1024x768 screen resolution.
1GB RAM: no LLMs
256 colors: no horrid low-contrast soupy interfaces
XGA Resolution: no horrid empty spaces and bloated interfaces
I keep wanting to make that as an OS 😄
(If only I had the skillz)
Yeah, and the pushback I get from statements like that is insane to me.
"But we don't want to go back to Windows 95."
I don't either, it was a crap OS, but the interface was better than the crap interfaces they're shipping today, so ?!?!????!?
pixxI'd rather w95 with its software suite and interface than w11 with its.
W11 is a worse OS than w95 was.
@pixx @OpenComputeDesign @kabel42
It does have memory protection, though. That was Windows 95's most glaring weakness.
Edit: I meant to say that it doesn't. derp.
Edit2: No, I was saying that W11 has memory protection. lol
@OpenComputeDesign @pixx @kabel42
Brofam, Windows 95 used to crash on me daily.
Linux? Basically never.
FreeBSD? Maaaaybe once a week.
@kabel42 @OpenComputeDesign @pixx
Oh yeah, I had my CD Key MEMORIZED. XD
(Of course, the keys were a lot simpler and shorter back then ;)
Last few times I installed and activated (much more recent) versions of windows, had a problem where they'll accept the key, activate, then after a few days, deactivate and make you enter the key and activate again. Windows _is_ terrible. It's just, _all_ modern software is terrible as well.
@OpenComputeDesign @kabel42 @pixx
Yes, but some are terribler than others. XD
@OpenComputeDesign @kabel42 @pixx
No, I wouldn't compare the jankiest modern linux distro to Windows 95.
95 was terrible.
Jeremy@rl_dane @pixx @OpenComputeDesign @kabel42 I will gladly insert myself into this thread just to say that XP was the first good Windows. Everything before was a crash-fest.
@jp @pixx @OpenComputeDesign @kabel42
Better than 2k??
@rl_dane @pixx @OpenComputeDesign @kabel42 I was super young back then so my memories of 98 and 2000 blend together. It might have been more stable than 98? The XP to 7 era design is just so iconic though.
@jp @pixx @OpenComputeDesign @kabel42
There were basically three separate Windowses:
1980s | 1990s | 2000s | 2010s |20s
Windows 1.x -> 2.x -> 3.x -> 95 -> 98 -> ME
NT 3.x -> NT 4 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10 -> 11
[-------Windows CE--/-Mobile>Zune->Phone-]
W2k had the stability of XP without the Fischer-Price hilariously-bad copy of Mac OS X's interface.
I'm sure that XP had some features that 2k lacked, probably in the DirectX department, but 2k was plenty useable.
Actual dates:
1985-11-20 Windows 1.0
1987-12-09 Windows 2.0
1990-05-22 Windows 3.0
1995-07-14 Windows 95
1998-05-15 Windows 98
2000-06-19 Windows Millennium Edition
1993-07-27 Windows NT 3.1
1996-07-31 Windows NT 4.0
1999-12-15 Windows 2000
2001-08-24 Windows XP
2006-11-08 Windows Vista
2009-07-22 Windows 7
2012-08-01 Windows 8
2015-07-15 Windows 10
2021-07-24 Windows 11
1996-11-16 Windows CE
2000-04-19 Windows Mobile
2006-11-14 Zune variant of Windows CE
2010-10-21 Windows Phone 7
Root Moose@rl_dane @jp @pixx @OpenComputeDesign @kabel42 IIRC the big architectural change from XP to Win2k was moving access to the GDI out of ring 0. Network stack "improvements"?
It was such a quaint time. I may have hurt myself puling forward those memories. Ha.
@RootMoose @rl_dane @jp @pixx @OpenComputeDesign I only remember signed drivers, but i think those were only mandatory on 64bit
@kabel42 @rl_dane @jp @pixx @OpenComputeDesign come to think of it - GDI change may have been NT->XP.
Why am I thinking about this!? <old man shakes fist at WinXP background grass> lol