Let me share with you one early "review" of Vista: "I chose my laptop (a Sony TX770P) because it had the Vista logo and was pretty disappointed that it not only wouldn't run [Aero], but more important wouldn't run [Windows] Movie Maker. ... Now I have a $2,100 e-mail machine." This review's author? Mike Nash, Microsoft's corporate vice president of Windows product management, in an internal e-mail dated Feb. 25, 2007. Go argue with him, Microsoft fanboys, not me. http://www.pcworld.com/article/162866-3/the_10_worst_operating_systems_of_all_time.html
It has nothing to do with the top 10 wors operating systems, if I didn't know any better, I would say your just trying to promote a really stupid article, that wasn't worth 5 seconds of my life. Also, I don't even understand your comment, just cause you don't know how to use a computer, or even google an error, I think this was useless. Really, I don't understand anything in this post, and it sounds useless. Forgive me, cause all I did was skim it through, but it still, sounds horrible.
The aim of your post is somehow unrecognizable. Windows Vista is way far from being one of the worst operating systems, except if your specs are low.
Vista is alright but XP still wins for me For vista you just need to unistall all stupid software which comes with and clean it up and dont run un-needed apps then Vista will be fast .
Vista is ok on some computers with good specs. I installed it on my laptop with 1gb ram and 1.5ghz processor and it crashed quite a bit. I hope Windows 7 isn't as much as a power hog
20 OS : Windows 7 Windows Server 2008 Windows Vista Windows Server 2003 Windows XP Professional Windows ME Windows 2000 Professional Windows 2000 Servers Windows 98 Windows 95 Windows 3.1 Windows NT 4.0 Windows NT 3.51 Windows NT 3.5 Windows NT 3.1 MS-DOS 6.22 MS-DOS 6.21 MS-DOS 6.20 MS-DOS 6.0 MS-DOS 5.0 Worst 10 : Windows 3.1 Windows NT 4.0 Windows NT 3.51 Windows NT 3.5 Windows NT 3.1 MS-DOS 6.22 MS-DOS 6.21 MS-DOS 6.20 MS-DOS 6.0 MS-DOS 5.0
I don't think Windows Vista is bad at all. Most people who say it sucks are people who use Macs and believe those ridiculously biased PC vs. Mac commercials.
I think Windows wise they are also missing.... Windows XP from Windows 2000 sounded really silly to me cause all I ever got was a pretty interface. Windows ME was just silly. Windows 98 still had blue screens from Windows 95.
windows vista windows vista windows vista windows vista windows vista windows vista windows vista windows vista windows vista ^ there you go. 10 OS I'm using Ubuntu
For each time period it is needed to examine how well it worked then. Saying 3.1 was bad NOW is not relevant. THEN it was amazing. 3.1, and 95 changed everything because they were mass marketed, and a huge success. Microsoft Bob on the other hand... that was chilling, and a foreshadowing of the user friendly mushy bullcrap to come. Windows 98 dropkicked 95, and became the only OS to be a literal king - until XP. Windows ME was a disaster when it came out, the hardware issues, the bugs, all the crap, and the gouging of releasing a 98 patch a year before XP culminated to make it the second most hated release of all time. XP came out, and showed that the NT base was as strong as ever, and that it could be very good. In fact, it still is very good, it is used today - two years after vista - more than vista. Vista is by far the WORST release ever - not because of inflated sales through bundles, not because of how utterly crap it was, not because of anything like that... no... you know why it is such a clusterf**k? Because instead of focusing on what is important (OPERATING SYSTEM NOT EQUAL EYE CANDY STORE OF OHMAGAWDMUSTHAVE TEH HARDWARZ!), being able to actually function. If you have to upgrade a one year old machine to run Vista, then I am sorry, Vista fails. People saying you "need" to have a "decent" machine are missing the point. An OS is not supposed to force hardware upgrades when you have a new computer. Ever. You know how they could have made a better OS? It's really simple. Take WindowsXP SP3, strip it down, redo the core to be more efficient, less buggy, and inherently secure, then add on additional functionality without the bloat (IPv6 integrated, drivers for all the latest stuff, et cetera), and top it off by adding back the necessary applications and functionality. Then release three versions. That's it. Not four. Not eight. Not nine million. Three. ITS A SIMPLE NUMBER. Home, Media, Pro. Basic, Basic and More, Everything But no, instead of doing it right, Steve forges ahead up his blind river with Vista. Where's Bill when you need him? Retired. That's where. So, fanbois, vistasuckers, and the likes, enjoy your new hardware that costs more, and only helps to feed that fire. I'm looking toward a future with XP holdouts, independent patches, and eventual conversion to Linux based OSes. Windows 7, I am sure, will fix all your problems with the loss of only a few hundred more dollars... you know - rather than fix what they already have.
Are they really the worst 10 OSs of all time, or just 10 of the earlier Microsoft ones you happened to Google?
One of the worst OS that I ever installed is Windows ME. I need to reinstalled every two month, luckily I do have to use it anymore as I installed WinXP and have a dual boot with Linux.