[Famer]

Blackcomb should not be on a list of os'es that suck as it has not even been coded yet

[army20]

What is Blackcomb ¿¿

okay I see ....

Attached File(s)

•  aab.jpg (44.88K)
  Number of downloads: 97

[Suren]

army20, on Nov 11 2004, 08:55 PM, said:

okay I see ....

thats not blackcomb its xp with a stardock theme
it has not even been coded yet
btw me was not that bad i think it was a big improvement over 98
xp is the best with sp2

[allfive6]

ME

[army20]

Suren, on Nov 11 2004, 11:33 PM, said:

army20, on Nov 11 2004, 08:55 PM, said:

okay I see ....

thats not blackcomb its xp with a stardock theme
it has not even been coded yet
btw me was not that bad i think it was a big improvement over 98
xp is the best with sp2

What Ever !

The Link

The Video

[SiMoNsAyS]

@army20 take a look at the title of those pictures "Fake Blackcomb Screenshots".

all of them are fakes and if we know the fact that it will be released post-longhorn, you can imagine there still isn't created an interface and less a theme.
what you can see there are some screens of stardock themes that is how people imagine blackcomb (personally i doubt blackcomb can be relased ever or at least with that codename).

[CoffeeFiend]

Worst ever: Win Mistaken Edition! Hands down. Actually, all of Win9x -- a real BSODfest.

This post has been edited by crahak: 19 June 2008 - 03:07 PM

[Astalavista]

what is the purpose of this voting?

[XtremeMaC]

to prove that ME really sucks and should never been released
otherwise this was an old topic..

though I must say I agree with Zxian

win98 was widely used, well at least by me, i had used it for such a long time, then tried ME, didn't like the idea of getting new drivers, new programs, new version of everything which didn't quite work well, and along the release of ME there was w2k, i quickly switched over to w2k because there was something wrong about ME. (i cannot recall my memories) but at the time when I got ME, there wasn't much talk on how ME sucks, so when I got it I just used most of its functions and hated it so much, I was so used to 98 & 98se and I was even used to the crashes and created my own improvements and to-do's when 98 was going to crash or crashed. with ME it was different it wasn't the taste i was looking for, most things that worked on 98 didn't work on ME, games, apps.

at that time w2k was sooo good! switching over to it and getting driver updates was even more fun bc it felt right with w2k. and it didn't look any fancier than 98 nor ME.

I know some say that they used ME and liked it, i can only say that either they didn't use it as much as those who hate ME or they are simple too calm and never tried to do multi-tasking and used memory-hungry apps to get ME to crash.

XP is by far the best Os yet. I dunno why home and pro would be rated differently bc i don't think there are much differences in them, in which i mean if u're going to use pro's features and bought home version and bc of that hated the home version I cannot say anything, but pro is not so different from home and I use both.

and as for dos i cannot really compare it with windows

for server editions i'm sure ppl who use them are pretty happy with them, or at least found ways to improve it,

so at the end I like M$, and someone asked why $ rather then S and i'd say its bc of the marketing purposes on releases on ME and billy being the richest guy

and as for Zxian comments, i agree on windows not being the most secure or whatever u want to call it, it simply cannot be, nothing is perfect, your friends, your car, your etc. everyone tries to make better, yes MS might be delaying or not doing some stuff in the best manner but there are alternatives so either get used to it or switch......

[andrewpayne]

ME stinks.

Anyone who uses it must apply the Microsoft Fix asap - called XP!

[albator]

xp spk2 and millenium

[oftentired]

I'm having trouble with DOS 6.22 being called a "version of Windows". For the record my WinME box didn't crash repeatedly. I won't say it is was better than Win98 but I don't think it deserves the bashing. I think Win98SE was more unstable than WinME.

[Tarun]

First, just something that caught my attention; but shouldn't this be in the Polls section?

Anyways! Out of all the OS' that I have used, I do not care for Win XP Home at all. I've touched base/used all of the Windows OS' except for Windows 2003 and Longhorn.

95 (default OS) was good, but it had it's moments. Upgraded to 98 and my computer would never auto-shutoff like it used to.

New computer with WinME, no real problems at all. All these errors that people talk about I never see. Perhaps because Windows ME was the default OS so it was just made for it? I don't know. But I do know that it's very stable and can handle a LOT of abuse. My computer is four years old now and still running Windows ME. I still manage to boot at 95% system resources free, and have managed to have 99% resources free.

Used Windows 2k Pro at my last job and I was impressed, but even it was a bit crash happy. Then again, put idiotic bankers behind an OS and anything can happen. ;)

At a friends LAN party, it was one computer running Windows XP Home, laptop using XP Home, and two others running Windows XP Pro. Pro showed the most stability.

My friend whom has the XP Home pc has had so many problems with it, it wasn't even funny. Now I see why I was always over there. When we weren't playing games on the pc it was fixing errors and such.

For the few major errors I have had on my Windows ME computer, using GoBack has saved me every time. You avoid the hassle and stress of formatting when you can simply go back to a previous time and everything is working good as new.

[Mr.J!M]

I vote for ME but i have hesitate with the XP versions...
Too heavy, too slow, to playskool icons like, too dummy interfaced :/

Windows 2000 Pro SP4 is the best for a STABLE and USEFULL machine.

[discarnet]

Doggie, on May 19 2003, 10:03 PM, said:

who are the 2 losers that voted for xp ? lol jk

this losser did

I have 4 machines at home 2 on XP PRO 1 XP HOME and 1 ME

havent had to do a thing to the ME machine (Pentium 700Mhz 256ram) yet it runs better than the other 3
both on XPpro AMD 3.0 512 ram has to be reformatted at least twice a year(1 is duel boot with linux)
XP HOME pentiun2.8 512 ram has to be reformatted every few months

yet the ME machine hasn't been reformatted at all since orginal install 4 years ago never throws up errors doesn't get bogged down with crap and doesn't get attaked by viruses

I like XP for ease of use but reliability a big fat ZERO.
IF more games become avalible on linux i wouldnt even use windows

therefore i think that the argument of what windows version is worst is irrelivent cos they all suck its only by what amount that varys

so there

[mark]

And how do you quantify or qualify OS's that get more logjammed with junk as you install and uninstall programs or time goes by with who knows what going on inside? How about the amount of time you use trying to clear it out or go to the old fallback, like I do, of just re-installing the OS? It seems like everyday it gets slower and slower. I'm using XP Home at the moment and though it is relatively easy to use, it takes a real wiz to figure out a new way to modify it in any significant way. At work, I use an old 500MHZ w/ 98SE and it locks up because I use a light weight CAD program on it and it just gets overloaded and sometimes I will install a program that for whatever reason, it just can't handle it.

I've used 3.11, 95, 98SE and XP Home. XP Home has done the least locking up, with the exeption of what a keyboard did to it once. You would think that with Windows being the dominant OS and what seems like everybody and his brother writing programs for it and making hardware for it that it would be a lot more stable and adaptable than it is. But, I'm not a techie, never will be one and boy can I butcher the guts of an OS.

As the which Windows sucks the most, I vote for the blue one.

[XPero]

I voted for Windows 95. I prefer Windows ME over 98. It is almost the same (s***), but ME ¿booted? faster and I wanted to use Windows Movie Maker for some home-made humorous videos . Although Windows 95 was "more stable" than 98/ME, those "command.com", "win.ini", etc.. issues and "folder navigation" were frustating.

[Smash]

I Vote Me.
But let me say this, it all depends. Meaning that if the OS is loaded on unstable hardware it wont matter what the OS is. I can speak from experince. I am not speaking of bad hardware, just unstable. I have also seen that a system can be unstable from one reload of windows to the next with the same hardware and software /drivers. Been there, done that.
I reformat my system about every 1 to 2 months. (Dont ask, it's just my habbit.)

I also will ask/say that this poll needs clearing up on something. Are we talking about when the OS first came out or with all SPs/fix's? IF when first came out then remember that Win2k needed something like 100 fix's in first couple of month's after it's release to fix lots of holes.

It also occur's to me that pourly written /bad drivers can bring down a good OS.

With all I've said.....
ME still Suck's

[Jito463]

I've used DOS 6.22, Win95/95a/95b, Win98/98se, WinME, Win2k (Sp1-SP4), WinXP Pro (RTM - SP2) and I have to say that I absolutely love XP. The only reason I even used WinME was because at one of the MS roadshows I got a free copy of it. It lasted one week and my computer was crashing like crazy. Needless to say, it went bye-bye. So you can probably guess which OS I voted on. But then again, as the Three Dead Trolls in a baggie sing, Every OS Sucks

[jondunlap]

Another vote for ME