Which Windows operating system is the most hated in history?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

I did had a single core P4 back in 2004 together with an ATI Radeon graphics card (I forgot which one) and 512 MB RAM. That ATI card kinda sucks and P4 plus stock cooler, thermals are awful. 

Today, I get like 65C idle on a Pentium 4.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

Just now, Factory OC said:

We should actually see how the software version of Quake runs on that. Please Linus, we need this!

I agree, I hope @LinusTech or @Slick tries something like that.

 

Maybe it'd make GTA V cranked up to the max on my desktop's GTX 1060 look super smooth in comparison?   (With the settings I used, it actually got crushed by the Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics!  )

 

Let me explain that.

Spoiler

 

Before I installed my 1060, I decided to benchmark a few things, one of them being GTA V.  I cranked all the settings up to the absolute max, including frame scaling.  (Base resolution was the native 1920x1080 of my monitor, times the 2.5x frame scaling or whatever is max.)  GTA was saying VRAM usage was somewhere around 9-10 GB.

I ran the benchmark on the Intel HD 4600, which took about 30-40 minutes or so to run, IIRC.  (Apparently some games, like GTA V, and Witcher 3, actually slow down the gameplay when your FPS dips way down.)

At the start of the sequence, I was getting, I think, about 1.5 or 1.8 fps on the Intel HD 4600.

 

Then, I installed the 1060 (EVGA SC 3GB) and its drivers, and re-ran the benchmark.  The first scene started off at I think 0.2 or 0.3 fps.  It took several minutes just to show the fps counter, after which I stopped the benchmark.

 

I suspect the latency between GPU's VRAM and system RAM might have been a factor in why the 1060 was so much slower than the iGPU in that situation.  (The iGPU doesn't have as far to go to get to system RAM.)

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

I agree, I hope @LinusTech or @Slick tries something like that.

 

Maybe it'd make GTA V cranked up to the max on my desktop's GTX 1060 look super smooth in comparison?   (With the settings I used, it actually got crushed by the Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics!  )

 

Let me explain that.

  Hide contents

 

Before I installed my 1060, I decided to benchmark a few things, one of them being GTA V.  I cranked all the settings up to the absolute max, including frame scaling.  (Base resolution was the native 1920x1080 of my monitor, times the 2.5x frame scaling or whatever is max.)  GTA was saying VRAM usage was somewhere around 9-10 GB.

I ran the benchmark on the Intel HD 4600, which took about 30-40 minutes or so to run, IIRC.  (Apparently some games, like GTA V, and Witcher 3, actually slow down the gameplay when your FPS dips way down.)

At the start of the sequence, I was getting, I think, about 1.5 or 1.8 fps on the Intel HD 4600.

 

Then, I installed the 1060 (EVGA SC 3GB) and its drivers, and re-ran the benchmark.  The first scene started off at I think 0.2 or 0.3 fps.  It took several minutes just to show the fps counter, after which I stopped the benchmark.

 

I suspect the latency between GPU's VRAM and system RAM might have been a factor in why the 1060 was so much slower than the iGPU in that situation.  (The iGPU doesn't have as far to go to get to system RAM.)

 

 

Holy crap. Get srekt... 

I sadly can't even play the game at low. 

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, TetraSky said:

That said, most of the hate I see for Win10 lately is mainly related to the whole privacy thing from the more "tech savvy" users out there and not the stability of the OS itself. (Emphasis is mine)

After getting the free upgrade to W10, the first noticeable bug I noticed is the Start Menu not registering keystrokes. 

The nasty bug persisted for months. Good thing you mentioned stability. Just look at my OP and see if any of those Instagram post suggest stability. It doesn't even include the fact that Windows 10 has more vulnerabilities than Windows 7.

 

[PianoPlayer88Key]

4 minutes ago, Factory OC said:

Holy crap. Get srekt... 

I sadly can't even play the game at low. 

I actually was able to play a little Witcher 3 at 1080p ultra on the iGPU.  Sure it was slow as heck, but at least I was able to kill a few of the critters at the beginning of the game.  (Probably would have gotten owned by a griffin though.)

 

I remember in one of my favorite games of the time, Team Fortress Classic ... when I first started playing it around 1999 or 2000 or so, our GPU was so weak that, iirc, I was lucky to get < 10 fps at 320x240, lowest settings, staring at the skybox or a wall in an empty server.  Add to that being on dialup so 300+ms ping, and needless to say, I almost always played as engy, relying on my sentry.  

 

I almost wonder if I might have a chance at matching or beating some pro players in some games, if they had to play with teh low settings & fps that I've played with in some games.... but then, they'd probably STILL crush me.

 

[captain_to_fire]

How I wish forum mods notify me that the thread had been moved either by PM or tagging me so that I won't have to look in the General Discussions and asking myself if I violated anything from the CS. Just saying.

[grayperview]

Vista was the most hated i can remember, but ME was far worse.

 

Vista had problems main down to the hardware it was being installed on was way to under powered for it, i was working in the industry at the time, and we had a packard bell with a celeron 1GB of ram with Vista on it to test it out, probably the worst computer i have ever used, it would literally freeze for 10mins at a time...At home i had a E6600 at the time with 4GB and vista was fine for me as a daily driver it was a lot more stable than XP at the time for me. 

 

ME however, i only had the privilege of using it a few times thank fuck, as it was a buggy pile of shite that did nothing but crash on the machines i use it on, Windows 98 was only marginally better to be fair as a daily driver it was a nightmare, as you never knew when it was going to crash but you it would though, going from 98 to 2000 was a joy, the stability of NT5 compared to win98 was like night and day.

[iamdarkyoshi]

Hate win10 due to forced updates. I'm the kind of guy that never updated, never had issues.

[linkboy]

We made the mistake of upgrading our Compaq to ME. I loathed that OS. I'm pretty sure I crashed it once just by looking at it without touching the computer. Ended up replacing it with Windows 2000, even though my dad didn't care for it.

[XHAD]

10 man the search function is super super slow it takes forever and protizes folder searches over everything else

[Dabombinable]

On 4/18/2017 at 7:49 AM, linkboy said:

We made the mistake of upgrading our Compaq to ME. I loathed that OS. I'm pretty sure I crashed it once just by looking at it without touching the computer. Ended up replacing it with Windows 2000, even though my dad didn't care for it.

Remember, OEM computers back then had drivers that were very rarely if ever updated. Combine that with Windows ME being more sensitive to mixed VXD and WDM drivers than 98SE (both OS support both driver types) and its not surprising that the computer had problems.

[Dabombinable]

Still not seeing any of the problems that Windows ME apparently had-the rig has been running for over 48 hours straight now and I'm starting to download games directly to it:
 

Spoiler

Specs of the rig:
 

Spoiler

• PIII 1000EB
• Nvidia TNT2 Vanta 16MB @ 150MHz core+memory
• 2x Voodoo2 12MB, Fastvid 4.6 drivers
• 2x 512MB PC133 SDRAM (Windows ME manually limited to 999MB)
• WD800BB (80GB 7200RPM HDD, late revision-faster+less prone to sudden failure)
• Creative SoundBlaster Live Value
• 1x Lite-on 52x R+W/32x R+W with re-writable discs
• 1x Poineer 5x DVD multi-recorder

 

 

 

[8uhbbhu8]

Windows ME was my first true Windows experience so it kinda has a nostalgia factor with it. First time I learned about graphics cards and plugins needed to be able to run games when what I wanted to play just plain wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{_{Also learned about ram being a physical thing and viruses when I tried to download more and it not working}} 

[GreenZombie]

Why would a rational person want to use windows.

[Not_Sean]

11 minutes ago, GreenZombie said:

Why would a rational person want to use windows.

I know right, its like why Buy a car from a dealership when you can just buy it all in parts and build it yourself and use its own brand of fuel so you can't uses half of what the normal cars can. Its madness

He said very sarcastically 

[LogicalDrm]

From those which I have used as daily OS, Win95. Man was it buggy... Win98 was ton better. I used Win Vista for long time and didn't really understood why people hate it so much. Its just heavy compared to XP. And it was bundled with underpowered laptops (bad, bad decision). But with full desktop systems and newer laptops it did work, after cleaning some unnecessary processes.

[Anghammarad]

I started the MS World with Win 3.1, then 95a, b, c... then 98, 98 SE, then got a worked over 98 SE edition form some IT students that meddled with it and got it far more stable so called 98 SEF (F for final). Jumped over ME, then NT4 shortly switching to 2000 Pro. From that switched with a tear in my eye over to XP due to driver issues after upgrading from Athlon XP to Core 2 Duo. Having then only had a few hands on on the Vista. Optically nice, usability terribad for an IT Guy. Then upgraded to 7, which I really loved. I jumped over 8 and 8.1 but have used 2012 a lot. And now upgraded to 10. 

 

10 is form my point of view very stable, I had not more faults or crashes than with 7 before. 

 

I'm quite happy with the new Neon Gui that is coming, because I really miss the Win 7 look and transparency options. 

[captain_to_fire]

5 hours ago, Anghammarad said:

I'm quite happy with the new Neon Gui that is coming, because I really miss the Win 7 look and transparency options. 

Aero 

[Anghammarad]

The Aero from Vista and 7 yes, I miss that. It looked more comfy than the win 8 - 10 style. 

 

And now they are working on Neon for 10.

[Muirj101]

All windows. I only use it for games and premiere. All of my other work is done on Kali

[Mira Yurizaki]

The only one I remember everyone having a beef with was Vista. I wasn't old enough to care about the Me pain. Though I did use a computer regularly during Win98 enough to have some issues, but not a whole lot. I also had two friends who used Me without problems... but they never connected their computers to the internet.

 

That said, I haven't had any problem with any Windows from XP after really. I don't know what I do, but I look at people's complaints and wondering what's going on.

 

And I also am in the belief that you will have problems with software with as wide deployment with an exorbitant amount of configurations. So one person's (or even handful of people) problems an entire software issue does not make. It's like gathering 300 million people and wondering why we can't all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Edited May 31, 2017 by M.Yurizaki

[dangeredwolf]

The thing about Windows Vista and Windows 8 especially were that Microsoft took steps to solve their problems. Vista SP2 is fairly stable, and 8.1 is very stable, in fact more stable than 10 on every piece of hardware I've tested, even on a Surface Pro 4 which technically is only supposed to run Windows 10.

 

Windows ME, however, was plagued with similar issues to Vista, but instead of resolving them, they left it in a hole to die instead. It was killed right alongside 98 in 2006, and before that it hadn't received any major updates: 95 OSR2 and 98 SE come to mind. So Microsoft had pretty much left it to die, which is why I think it deserves #1.

 

Edit: Also, Microsoft is overlooking some glaring problems with Windows 10. Considering Microsoft considers it the "last version of windows", it's akin to ME being the "last DOS-based version of windows", and the fact that microsoft refuses to fix its problems.

Edited June 1, 2017 by dangeredwolf

[dangeredwolf]

On 16/04/2017 at 9:21 AM, PianoPlayer88Key said:

I didn't use Vista myself, but from what I'm hearing ... would people have needed that era's equivalent of an i7-7700K and two Titan Xpp's in SLI, all under LN2 and overclocked to the point where they thermal throttle, JUST to run the OS itself about as well as a 2016 AAA game runs on a 2008 iGPU at max settings?  

1

Okay, I think you're exaggerating a bit.

 

It's more like requiring a minimum of an i5-6600K and 12 GB of RAM nowadays, with at least a 980 or a 1070 to run Aero.

 

It's not like total insanity like Titan Xps in SLI, but your average joe's i3 machine would never be able to run it, your grandparents' PC wouldn't even come close. But if you were using higher end hardware, you'd probably get along perfectly fine. 

 

This was especially crippling for laptops: Fitting with the previous analysis, most laptops for example lack 1070-level performance. They don't have CPUs comparable to a 6600K. They rarely come with more than 8 GB of RAM unless you spend a ton of money.

[captain_to_fire]

20 minutes ago, dangeredwolf said:

and 8.1 is very stable, in fact more stable than 10 on every piece of hardware I've tested,

I regret upgrading to Windows 10 actually. Windows 8.1 is very stable and memory management is better. Too bad you can no longer run Windows 8.1 on newer hardware like Kaby Lake chips.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

On 4/26/2017 at 8:45 PM, Dabombinable said:

Still not seeing any of the problems that Windows ME apparently had-the rig has been running for over 48 hours straight now and I'm starting to download games directly to it:

Specs of the rig:

 

……

• WD800BB (80GB 7200RPM HDD, late revision-faster+less prone to sudden failure

……

 

Which revision is your WD800BB?  I have a 32CAA0, dated 24 SEP 2001.  It was the first hard drive I ever personally bought, at some local trade show, iirc, in the early 2000s.  Interestingly, although it wasn't sold as "used" / "refurb", when I got it, it already had some other things on it.

 

 

I used that drive, mostly as a data drive (maybe briefly as an OS drive as well but I forget now) until sometime before or during 2012.  (I don't feel like turning my other PC on right now to look at the most recent datestamps of the files from a partition I pulled off that drive.)

 

Spoiler

Anyway, back in January this year, I plugged the drive into my PC (had to use a PCI-E to IDE/SATA card I had laying around), turned it on, and.....

https://goo.gl/photos/QFAUMHTsYJwwMQ677

 

Interestingly, though, about a month or two ago I plugged it in again, powered up .... I think it clicked once, or was about to, then it detected!  Although, I think it showed as 00CAA0 or something like that.  This time it was on a slightly taller stack of books, and I may have had it and my WD2500JB-53EVA0 plugged in a bit differently on the controller / cable.

First thing I did was fire up Linux, and start copying the partitions with GParted to one of my 5TB HGST NAS drives I had plugged in (that I'd been copying a bunch of other things to.)  I got through the first two partitions fine (NTFS), then it hung up while copying the ext2 (iirc) partition, then both IDE drives dropped from the system.

 

On next bootup, the 80GB was clicking again.  I jostled it around a bit and got it working, but this time I started using other utilities (like TestDisk) to inspect partitions.  Although I could see stuff on the Linux partition, I was having trouble mounting it, or mounting another drive so I could restore.  Thankfully though, I didn't find anything of value in the /home/user folder (or wherever the Linux equivalent of "C:\Users" is, I forget atm.)

 

At some point I was fiddling around with partitions on the 250GB drive - IIRC, creating a partition, so I could benchmark it with CrystalDiskMark.  I'd someday like to do a comparison benchmark of general Windows/PC usage (not gaming), using various storage devices as swap drives in low-RAM systems - an IDE drive, 5400rpm SATA, 7200rpm SATA, SATA SSD, and NVMe SSD, the last of which I don't yet have, and see which is fastest (and by how much), for situations when you've already installed the max RAM your motherboard will support, and your board doesn't support Optane.   I'd just have only 2 or 4 GB RAM installed (or 8GB which is the size DDR3 stick I have times four) to make it easier to max out the RAM, for example with a few hundred Chrome tabs.

 

Anyway, in the course of that, booting up again, and the 80GB drive clicked again, and I haven't re-resurrected it yet.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, dangeredwolf said:

Okay, I think you're exaggerating a bit.

 

It's more like requiring a minimum of an i5-6600K and 12 GB of RAM nowadays, with at least a 980 or a 1070 to run Aero.

 

It's not like total insanity like Titan Xps in SLI, but your average joe's i3 machine would never be able to run it, your grandparents' PC wouldn't even come close. But if you were using higher end hardware, you'd probably get along perfectly fine. 

 

This was especially crippling for laptops: Fitting with the previous analysis, most laptops for example lack 1070-level performance. They don't have CPUs comparable to a 6600K. They rarely come with more than 8 GB of RAM unless you spend a ton of money.

 

Interesting.  So by "minimum", I've always understood it to mean, said software won't run at all if you're even 1 notch below that on any one part.

Spoiler

 

Right at the minimum, it would run, but the experience would be terrible.  (For example, playing a game at 256x144, with such low graphics settings that even if you're knifing someone as a spy in TF2, you can't even tell if they're a heavy or a scout - like some heavily compressed youtube videos or low bitrate twitch streams for example, AND peaking at like 5fps with your face in a wall, average being more like 2-3fps, battles dipping to <0.09 fps.)

Or is it possible that's what it used to mean?  Cause I've fairly recently heard of people benchmarking games on a bit less than the "minimum", and still getting 30fps at 720p low/medium settings (which would still be like "ultra high" compared to my previous example, for example seeing clearly to snipe/headshot someone across the yard on well or dustbowl without using the scope as sniper).

 

 

I almost wonder how well my dad's Dell D830 (Core 2 Duo T7250, 2x1GB DDR2-667, WD5000BPKT, Intel GMA GPU IIRC) would run Windows 10, or 7.  He still has XP on it, it'd be nice to get him off it, and he doesn't seem to be in a big hurry to replace the laptop.  I'm not so sure it'd be worth putting an SSD in it, considering its age, nor upgrading the RAM to 4GB.  (maybe 8GB, but support seems iffy at best from what I read online.)

 

My laptop (that I'm using right now) has a 6700K (started with i3-6100 then got the i7 last Black Friday for $260), 40GB RAM (started with 8, then bought 2x16 last October and within a week the price shot up), and a 250GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate/Samsung M9T, but only a 970M and no apparent upgrade path beyond a 980M, to like a 1060 or 1070 even though it uses an MXM slot.  Even so it does fine running WIndows 10 Pro, except maybe when I have too many tabs open & run up against the 40GB RAM ceiling.

 

Spoiler

 

 

And that's before running all the VMs I'd like to run, AND I didn't have video editing software open at the time.  I hope I can add all that workload on my next system (maybe when DDR5/PCI-E 4.0 comes out), without having to use swap or get a HEDT/server board.