• saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fuck you. Bringing up ME and making me relive the memories. Even as a kid, I couldn’t stand it wanted 98 back.

      ME and Vista are by far the worst to date.

      • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I personally never had any issues with Vista. Even deferred win7 for 4-5 years until I got curious. Though I did have a system made for it, so that was part of it.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Vista was a nightmare unless you had OEM equipment that wasn’t just vista compatible, but MADE FOR VISTA. Your experience was an aberration, most people got ‘vista compatible’ PCs that were running vista but made with XP sp1 in mind. So you’d see these systems that had no hardware graphics acceleration beyond onboard anemic garbage trying to run menus with DOF blur and soft overlays just gagging, and god forbid you had to troubleshoot/support some software on some shit like this, it was a nightmare.

          The rest of the people upgraded from XP to Vista themselves, and the smart ones went “OH FUCK NO” and went back in droves.

    • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I don’t know if they reclassified it at some point, but back on those days 3.5 was titled “Windows for Workgroups” and 4.0 was the first to be known simply as “NT”.

      Forget what I said, I recalled an old memory from childhood of a 3.5 upgrade box for people running Windows for Workgroups.

      NT 4.0 is definitely what popularized that version prior to Windows 2000 and XP. Most people who just say “Windows NT” are thinking about 4.0.

      • BillibusMaximus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        3.11 was WfW, and ran on top of DOS just like 3.1 did.

        NT 3.51 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like 3.1/3.11 on the surface. NT 4 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like Win95.

        Win 95/98/Me also ran on DOS, though it was more tightly integrated than it was in the 3.1 days.

        Win 2k and everything after was based on NT.

  • Hupf@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Hi, my name is Gabe Newell and I’ll teach you how to count to ten:

    1, 2

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nope. Bill left MS in 2008 and Windows 7 came out in 2009.

      Also the joke left out Windows 10x, AKA 11.

      And for some reason, it includes NT and Win2k, but leaves out all the other Server versions (2003 through 23H2).

  • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    NT 3.1 came out before 95, and isn’t a single version (Windows 11 is still Windows NT). If you include NT as a version, you can’t include 2000, XP, or anything after.