Microsoft wants you to "Get the Facts Straight"

[Odd]

Liam Proven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Fred Roller<froller at tnclimited.com> wrote:
> 
>> 3.1 (great because it was relief from cli, despite the constant crashes),
> 
> A relief from the CLI? I wasn't in any pain from it, myself. And what
> of 3.0 or before?
> 
>> 95 (sucked like a vac),
> 
> A fine, good, solid release of Windows, a technological tour-de-force
> that worked very well and led me to abandon my then-preferred PC OS,
> OS/2.

W95 was crap. It crashed right and left and the only positive thing that
could be said about it was that it multitasked, kind of.

>> 98 (good release and a sigh of relief after 95),
> 
> Nasty bit of bloatware that caused endless problems. 98SE marginally
> better but still crap.

W98 was crap too. Crashed left and right.

>> ME (didn't last 30 days on my system),
> 
> Still giving it to people occasionally.

Why? Do you like torturing people?

> Fully patched, it's fine and
> its Firewire support is the best of the whole 9x family.

No, it's not fine. Win ME was essentially W98SE with some
addons. Crap.

>> XP (same as 98, consumers were relieved that it worked),
> 
> What no 2000? XP is 2000 plus bloat, to me.

XP is a milestone as it was the first consumer OS from MS that
was stable, fully 32bit, based on the fine NT kernel. It's TONS
better than the previous consumer OSes from MS. Probably the best
and most userfriendly so far. Vista and Win7, no so much.

-- 
Odd