What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
46 Comments
- backwardscompat, on 10/20/2009, -0/+31Actual worst moment #1: Windows ME
- Raumschiff, on 10/20/2009, -0/+23Best moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgriTO8UHvs
- 0260, on 10/20/2009, -1/+23"apps"..... shut up
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/20/2009, -0/+14Ahh, so many fond memories of Windows 95 and 98. Counter-Strike 1.3. Half-Life. Pulling the left Windows key off my keyboard so I don't bump it and minimize my games resulting in everything from crashes to lost sound to agonizingly long wait times as the desktop loaded and them the game returned to full screen. Blue screens of death. Desktop freezes. That things where you could drag the windows around but the desktop wouldn't update so it produced a trail of clones in its wake. Diablo. Starcraft. Waiting for the dial-up modem to connect, and wondering what all fuss over USB was about.
It seems like those were fundamentally different times in software and computing. No one really expected the computer to be totally stable or fast or flashy. Usually it was enough that it worked at all, and it was worth the wait (and there was a LOT of waiting) just to find out what was around the corner. Perhaps I'm just jaded, but it seems to me that there was once a general attitude of wonderment and possibility surround to computers in the 80s and 90s. Now its all an established role. A game machine/internet gateway/media player/office tool. You don't see much in the way of really unique software or hardware these days. I guess that's way many of the tech crowd turn to things like Linux where there's still some of that old spirit. For the rest of us, we've traded in our wonderment for reliability. Like the automobile from 1950 to1980. The nerdy romance is gone, and I'm not sure it was a fair trade. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/20/2009, -2/+16Why would ever need or want to click through groups of anything?
Click Start/Press Windows Key -> Begin typing name of application -> When application appears press Enter
Anything you use frequently can and should be pinned to the taskbar just by right-clicking its icon on said taskbar. Frequently used software will also automatically populate the quicklaunch list in the Start Menu. It simply doesn't get any easier than that.
I guess if you REALLY want to dig through the old style Programs menu you still can, but it's all grouped in folders. In fact, I'm not even sure what the hell "groups" you're referring to exactly. I've been using Windows since 3.1, and rarely did I even bother to group things in the Start menu. These days I almost never look in the Programs folders. There's really no point. All it's good for anymore is reminding myself what I do and don't have installed.
Basically, this isn't a regression. It's just different, and if you bothered just learning and using it for a while it would definitely be faster than digging through the Programs menu and groups. If you want to complain because this new fangled OS just isn't the way it used to be back in your day be my guest, but you sound like a tool. - Fleeek, on 10/20/2009, -0/+13Holy *****, look at those Paintbrush skills from back in the 90's
- Spinzy, on 10/20/2009, -3/+12"Circa 1987" bs. Circa is used for "approximately" when the precise date is unknown.
- Myztry, on 10/20/2009, -0/+9Apple did not own the rights to overlapping windows. Apple may have tried to sue Microsoft but the Commodore Amiga had overlapping windows before Windows 1.0 was even released. Commodore was never sued over the GUI.
In fact, Microsoft developed the second version of the Amiga's Basic which was released in late 1985. You can be darn sure their were some pretty thick notepads leaving with Microsoft during the development meetings with Commodore.
Further still, IBM cross-licensed the Amiga GUI in exchange for IBM's REXX scripting language while IBM & Microsoft were co-developing OS/2. Only a naive person would assume Microsoft took none of that with them.
The Xerox star is the undisputed founder of the desktop GUI for all intensive purposes. The Lisa is what could be considered the first real commercial endeavour. Both were commercial failures.
The Amiga on the other hand was the first desktop GUI computer that was succesful selling about 15 million units. Way before anyone even knew what the 16bit DOS extender known as Windows was.
Inexplicably despite also introducing such modern domestic computing mainstays like hardware accelerated GUI, 32bit pre-emptive multitasking, hardware cursor, multiple screens, etc - it doesn't even get a mention. That's just wrong.
A quarter of a century ago when the Amiga was released, computing was really going places. Then it all pretty much stalled. The only thing that has really advanced is the hardware.
And on that note: The worst moment in Windows history - when Bill Gates managed to take control of IBM's PC compatible platform by acting as a middle man between IBM and the makers of QDOS (Seattle Computing Products).
Without that leverage, Microsoft's low tech wouldn't have had a 3rd parties expandable platform for which to ride the wave to success, enabling it to $ block everything else. - str1fe, on 10/20/2009, -2/+1051: eight page articles
- The2DQuartet, on 10/20/2009, -0/+8"For eight years, most would consider XP the greatest OS Microsoft ever made" ... because Linux and OS X still have their major hurdles to cross.
For Linux, it's obscurity. It's free and easy to use but hardly anyone knows that.
For OS X, cost. I know of plenty of people, myself included, who would love a shiny new MacBook Pro but can't afford the £2000 or whatever they cost so buy a £450 laptop with equal spec which 99.9% of the time comes with Windows preinstalled.
If Apple hardware was cheaper and more people knew about Linux, things would be very different now.
I'm not saying XP is the best OS ever, far from it. I'm just saying not enough people have had the opportunity to try non-Windows alternatives. - antdude, on 10/20/2009, -0/+7One Print Page (will prompt to print): http://www.maximumpc.com/print/8494
- MattBlackCat, on 10/20/2009, -0/+7And you walked into the fanboy sadness trap
- jejones, on 10/21/2009, -0/+4"The successful launch of Windows 7 can't be underscored enough."
I guess not--so much so that MaximumPC is underscoring it before it actually happens. What total MS fanboys. - CressCrowbits, on 10/20/2009, -0/+4"That things where you could drag the windows around but the desktop wouldn't update so it produced a trail of clones in its wake"
When I first saw that picture for Windows 3.1 in the article, I thought it was a case of that before I noticed they were 5" floppies. - JohnnySoftware, on 10/20/2009, -0/+3Actually, Apple's right is not really the reason MS-Windows 1.0 was limited to tiling windows. The Microsoft employee who wrote the GUI windowing part of the software claimed it could not be done on an 8088 processor. As I recall, he came to Microsoft from Xerox PARC.
Admittedly, the 8088 processor was just an 8-bit processor to the rest of the system so that could have posed a bottlenecking issue. The 68000 processor was a 16-bit (or 32?) processor to the rest of the system so it could grab multiple bytes at once and perform pixel graphics operations on the bits much faster.
But also, Apple's software engineer spent 6-months writing and fine-tuning the QuickDraw software that was the low-layer graphics rendering routines on the Macintosh. He was very into computer graphics before that too. So Apple might have had better written and/or designed software that gave them enough of a performance edge to do what Microsoft could not.
Apple might have had a negative response when Microsoft finally did roll out overlapping windows in a later version of MS-Windows. But that does not change what the original reason for only non-overlapping, tiled windows being supported in MS-Windows 1.0. - Thuktun, on 10/20/2009, -1/+3"Later that same year [1995], Internet Explorer 2.0 would become the first cross-platform browser."
BS. IE was a fork of a fork of NCSA Mosaic. THAT was the first cross-platform browser, unless you believe cross-platform means "some other platform in addition to Windows". - Goldcodpiece, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1Crazy illusion.... page 3 top of page directx.....while reading the article left to right the image starts to rotate counter clockwise
- Myztry, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1While I'm aware of the errors of my ways, ♬ I Can't help myself - Bad Habits ♬
It's Australian so,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eETES1xP-IM - NoNameWorks, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=For ...
For all intensive purposes the phrase "for all intensive purposes" is identical to "for all intents and purposes", and anyone who continues to make the distinction is a soulless pedant.
Both of us lose. - Chalks777, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1Because the urbandictionary is a real dictionary.
... - MattBlackCat, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1/S
- The2DQuartet, on 10/20/2009, -3/+4It's a small picture but if you squint a little the Windows 1 taskbar looks a lot like the Windows 7 taskbar. Plus: "Because Apple owned the right to have overlapping windows in the GUI, Windows 1.0 was limited to using tiled windows" -- pwned!
- The2DQuartet, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1Yes. Fanboy.
(just kidding) - douglasr007, on 10/23/2009, -0/+1"With the release of Windows 1.0 way back in 1987"
"It All Begins with Windows 1.0
Circa 1985"
...what? - MiguelGomez, on 10/20/2009, -2/+3Glad someone else caught that too. I think someone just wanted to sound official, smart and fancy, in the end they just showed their ignorance.
Miguel - factsahoy, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1"Click Start/Press Windows Key -> Begin typing name of application -> When application appears press Enter"
Yes, because we all want to start typing just to launch an app, so much easier than clicking. WTF?
"Anything you use frequently can and should be pinned to the taskbar just by right-clicking its icon on said taskbar."
Brilliant. So we end up with the same problem as the Mac OS: You have to baby-sit your system to make sure that apps aren't unintentionally running hours later (although not quite as bad because Windows apps actually quit when you close their UI). The only things in the taskbar should be things that are RUNNING. Why the hell do you want a combination of running and non-running apps in there?
You're deriding others because you weren't smart enough to figure out how to use groups. Start button ---> audio apps --> Sound Forge. Done. No typing, no dicking around, no degrading the usefulness of the taskbar.
Making you the tool. - gkiltz, on 10/20/2009, -1/+2It is so hard to say what were the worst moments of Windows, because there were so many.
From a purely technical standpoint the worst Windows product ever was Windows ME, which was essentially Win 98 on multiple drugs.
Only reason it was ever released was that the marketing department needed fresh product because Windows 2000 was delayed so long.
Relative to what the public's needs, wants, and expectations were, Windows Vista takes the cake. From a purely technical standpoint it is bad, but not a real turd. They made the biggest marketing mistake you can ever make: Over promise and under deliver. The product was, again simply rushed out, before it was really ready. Would have been better to delay it even longer, even at risk of skipping over it, and get it right. - osfan456, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1I actually clicked on this article just to see when that moment was listed. I still laugh every time.
- factsahoy, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1WTF are you bitching about?
- twiggy3, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4
- peacelove420, on 10/24/2009, -0/+1"Perhaps I'm just jaded, but it seems to me that there was once a general attitude of wonderment and possibility surround to computers in the 80s and 90s. (...) You don't see much in the way of really unique software or hardware these days."
Dugg for truth...
Or maybe I'm nostalgic - jasonbarone, on 10/21/2009, -1/+28 pages? Are you serious? I came back to read the comments here after page 2.
- MiguelGomez, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1Once again,
You don't get it. Circa is used, as a way of giving a date when the exact date is not know. I would never say Circa October when talking about Haloween night. I would say Oct 31, because we all know taht is the date for Haloween.
They Knew the exact dates in history that the events in the article takes place, thus you give the date. Circa once again, is used to describe a date that you don't have exact figures for. "IN" is NOT an exact date, but thanks for the link, your proved my point. Circa is for the unknown date. The dates in this article are known. - molochi, on 10/25/2009, -0/+1I guess they know which side their bread is buttered on. They even made excuses for Windows ME. I mean seriously...
- the8thbit, on 10/20/2009, -1/+1It was 32bit.
- 7aji, on 10/21/2009, -1/+1the "50" best and worst??? I won't read it, even if it was 25. I just think it's way too much.
- no1unorightnow, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1No, that is not true, hence the definition includes "in". The term "circa" can be used in place of "at", "in", or "of approximately". Link: 'http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circa'
(The term "circa" is often used because of its versatility. That is, rather than "about 1920; exactly 1933; near or on 1924", it is common to use "circa 1920, circa 1933, circa 1924"; it keeps the text consistent and legible, and somewhat reduces the chance of errors.) - no1unorightnow, on 10/21/2009, -1/+1You just showed your ignorance. Circa: "at, in, or of approximately".
You can't believe everything you see on Wikipedia! - MiguelGomez, on 10/22/2009, -1/+1You don't get it. They knew the date, the term "Circa" is only used when you do not know the date. It is really pretty simple. Nice try!
Miguel - hcharger, on 10/21/2009, -3/+1 I think Microsoft should bear half the costs of Windows 7 for inflicting Vista on us hapless victims, in the first place. I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay another $250 plus to possibly be disgrunted with a Vista duplicate.
- Spinzy, on 10/20/2009, -10/+2well.. I guess they have the advantage of having support from all the hardware manufacturers... I wonder where Unix systems would be if they had that kind of info...
- MiracleBlue, on 10/20/2009, -13/+4Oh yeah
*stands corrected* - Scott2, on 10/20/2009, -11/+2An interesting article, but buried for all the unnecessary Mac digs. Justin "Longman"? Humorous but misleading "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads? and so on . . .
Is it now impossible to report facts without injecting your opinion? - thenorwegian, on 10/20/2009, -19/+9I stopped reading this article after this gem:
"For eight years, most would consider XP the greatest OS Microsoft ever made, and possibly the best OS ever (Linux and Mac OS X buffs undoubtedly have other favorites in mind)."
No ***** *****. It's called a 'fanboy.' I enjoyed this article until this dumb biased quote. And I'm an osx guy. - factsahoy, on 10/20/2009, -26/+4Too bad Windows 7 suffers from a lot of the same UI regressions that Vista did. Topping the list would the ***** Start button which no longer lets you organize apps into groups.
BRILLIANT. - MiracleBlue, on 10/20/2009, -39/+6Worst moment #1: The birth of Windows
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is