On 15 July 2016 at 20:48, Jerry Kemp <ot...@oryx.us> wrote: > I guess I am glad that someone getting something positive from windows. > > I have never viewed it as any more than a virus distribution system with a > poorly written GUI front end.
I am ambivalent. I don't particularly like it any more, but the reasons are secondary: the poor security, the copy protection, the poor performance because of the requirement for anti-malware, etc. The core product was pretty good once. Windows 3.0 was a technical triumph, Windows for Workgroups impressive, and Win95 a tour de force. For me, Win 2K was about the peak; XP started the trend of adding bloat, although it did have worthwhile features too. Win95 was vastly easier to get installed & working than OS/2 2, it had a better shell -- sorry, but it really was -- better compatibility and better performance. No, the stability wasn't as good, but while OS/2 2 was better, NT 3.x was better than OS/2 2.x et seq. It would be technically possible to produce a streamlined, stripped-down Windows that was a bloody good OS, but MS lacks the will. Shame. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
