Worst Operating System Ever Made

Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu said:

Sorry for misspelling operating. :)

This thread is to replace the closed thread.

SO PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC!

The topic is, in your view, what is the worst operating system ever made and why?


Me, anything above Windows XP is dumb.


Let the thread begin!

Click to expand...

What do you have against 7?

I'm working well enough with windows 7.
I've used a few operating systems and they have their strengths and weaknesses.

Windows 98, my first real operating system. Fond memories. Worked fine for the time.
Windows 2k, again it worked fine. I didn't really see much of a difference between 98 and 2k
Windows XP, didn't get this until later (after downloading it, and installing it with a key taken from the back of a computer at school!). I understand that it wasn't that great security wise, the graphics and ability of it was mind-blowing (well maybe not mind-blowing, but definitely something new).
Windows Vista, Ugh. Never actually had it on any of my computers, I've always been behind the curve, waiting for them to be released as stable torrents so I was fortunate enough to jump straight to 7. I guess vista addressed the security flaws in XP, a bit too well - my experience using it at friends houses was okay to begin with but soon ground to a halt having to confirm a security thing at every stage, as well as the incompatibility with a lot of existing programs and hardware.
Windows 7, yeah I enjoy it. I find it's a good mix of performance and looks, I'm not sure about security (as I guess most operating systems are these days, it's up to the user to install and manage security).
Windows 8, I don't know, I think it looks ugly. I'm not prepared. I haven't used it or spoken to people that have used it much. I'll stick to windows 7 for a while yet.
OS X 10.2.2, currently got this on an old eMac. It's hard to use and programs frequently crash, I haven't had much experience using OS X. I can accept that it appears to be pretty 'foolproof', I grow frustrated with the lack of customisation and when analysed with a whollistic approach I am a bit meh on osx not having a lot of programs and cross-compatibility.
Linux, I haven't used this much either. I guess it's on the other end of the spectrum as OSX, it's super-open. Too open and complex for my needs. Great that it's free and open-source, but I don't need that. Again, as with the OSX thing, I'm not that much into it that I have time and resources to learn a constantly changing thing (like linux), as well as application support etc.

Windows 8 sucks, Intel works hard to provide backwards compatibility with their chips, why would the w8 OS block backwards compatibility, if it is already present?! That is like putting plastic covering over your car radio player, it is already their why would someone want to loose functionality?

NarutoActor said:

Windows 8 sucks, Intel works hard to provide backwards compatibility with their chips, why would the w8 OS block backwards compatibility, if it is already present?! That is like putting plastic covering over your car radio player, it is already their why would someone want to loose functionality?

Click to expand...

It's more like Microsoft wanting to dictate the market, what technology to use. Another example is this so called UEFI Secure Boot, which is designed to replace the BIOS. This one has given the Linux community quite some trouble. Fortunately you can turn it off (well, until now...)

I like Windows 8, I find it pretty great for my laptop, I've had no problems with it.

The worst operating system from my experiences thus far has been Windows ME. I had so many issues with that OS when I was using it. I was always receiving error message pop ups all the time - I wanted to pull my hair out.

This is a silly question, every programmer and their cat has made their own Linux distribution. It should be "worst popular or big-name OS."

My vote goes to Arch Linux. There's no reason to use it aside from feeling smarter than you actually are.

Aurora. said:

Tough contest between Windows XP and Windows 8. On the one hand, you have an ugly piece of software with multiple security holes and dreadful piracy countermeasures. On the other hand, you have software with a GUI designed for tablets which is complete rubbish on desktops, no Start button, and stripping of the desktop feature. I would probably have to go with Windows 8, being biased because I am currently enduring it now, but XP isn't far behind.

Click to expand...

Which desktop features did they strip of? I only noticed start button.

The start button isn't necessary because you would be spending the same amount of time in the start menu... maybe even less time because everything is right in front of you.
But if you really want that start button, 8.1(which will be free to people who use windows 8) brings it back(though it does the same thing as clicking the left corner).

Anyone who hates on Windows 8 is afraid of change, when the start button was first announced with Windows 95, people went nuts saying it's going to be ****, and change is bad because they're not used to it.



Back on topic; I have a hard time choosing between XP and Ubuntu

Can't complain about the start button on W8 .. due to popular demand it's back.

I've had no problems with all my installations of Windows.

-Windows ME: the first ever bloated OS from Microsoft, I never used it but I believe it was.
-Windows Vista: another fail OS, it had nothing different from XP but that it has more visual effects & more crashes, & has a crappy compatibility (doesn't run most of the programs made for Windows XP & before), it also has exaggerated security standards, I mean srsly, asking before running any EXEcutables? It was the worst for gamers that's for sure.
-Windows 7: just like Vista but slightly better because of the bug fixes, but it uses so much memory just to keep the system running, & I believe memory was meant to be for the programs & not the system alone.
-Windows 8: don't even get me started, it's a tablet OS ffs.
-Ubuntu: probably the reason why I hate Linux, installing a program (or as they call it, an app) is such a pain, especially for someone with a choppy internet connection, also it doesn't compare to Windows, it's open-source, it sucked at being user-friendly, it was extremely unstable & has 0 compatibility for games, & WineHQ isn't even suitable for heavy programs & games.

My choice would be Windows Vista.

Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu said:

I have heard mixed messengers about 2000

It's good, bad, dumb, crappy and BOSD prone.

Whats so bad about it? I have NEVER used it. LOL

Click to expand...

KingCharizard said:

IMO Windows 2000 what was the point of it? I'm really fond of the new Apple OS. I'm using windows 7 I like it, vista wasnt bad to me either, I also like XP. I've owned a windows computer most my life but 2000 was the worst in my opinion.. Linux, is kind of the forgotten OS but from the images i've seen it looks interesting

Click to expand...

IMHO, Win2K is almost the same as XP (only with an older theme & style lol) since XP was a clone of 2K... 2K ran all the programs & games I threw at it flawlessly because the system used so little memory, though since it was mainly designed for pros (the only version released was the Professional Version) it lacked drivers & some components such as a decent Image Viewer & an easy-to-use Network Manager, & ofc it didn't have the same visual styles XP had.
I think it was very stable, I still use it till today, it was a hassle at first because I had to look for a ton of drivers for it but it's just flawless now, never crashed, EVER.
I used 2K, XP, Vista, 7 & 8 all for a fair amount of time... & I would choose 2K & XP over any other OS in the world.

AnonygooseD said:

-Windows 8: don't even get me started, it's a tablet OS ffs.

Click to expand...

People who say this have only seen a screenshot of the new start menu.

I suppose clicking this does nothing:





I really suggest researching before you spout 100% pure crap.

I have a PC with W8 just so you know...
I know I can get a desktop, but switching between it & the "Metro" constantly is such a pain, also the absence of the start button proves my point.
And yes W8 was made with tablets & touch-screen devices in mind.

The only switching is clicking desktop or opening a program. The lack of the start button is irrelevant because it's no longer needed. While 8.1 brings back the start button it will do the exact same thing as clicking the left corner in 8.

Insomniac said:

8 to me (like other users) I agree it should have no place in a laptop, desktop, any computer. It should be for tablets.

Click to expand...

8 to you and others, is something you haven't even touched. Don't go spouting useless crap. There are tablets for Windows 8 which is called Windows 8 RT, and then there's Windows 8 for Desktops, and laptops called Windows 8. The desktop/laptop version can utilize the desktop feature like previous versions of Windows, while also being able to use apps from the tablet version(completely optional).

No offence to you or anyone else, but you really need to research before you down talk something you haven't even touched.

Windows 3.11 is worst
Mac os 7 is worst
Windows 2000 was OK
Windows 95,98 are my favorite
Anything above windows me is crap

Windows ME was a monumental turd, XP was so much better in terms of usability in my opinion, not to mention it was far more aesthetically pleasing.(once again, an opinion.) Vista is up there on the lists of terrible operating systems too.
But... I would say out of all of the operating systems that I have tried, keeping the year of release in mind, Linux Mint has to be the worst. On the other spectrum of Linux, Backtrack 5 r3 KDE 64-bit, is quite amazing.

Disgust said:

But... I would say out of all of the operating systems that I have tried, keeping the year of release in mind, Linux Mint has to be the worst. On the other spectrum of Linux, Backtrack 5 r3 KDE 64-bit, is quite amazing.

Click to expand...

Mind (Ubuntu, too) is designed for beginners, so its major issue is, that it hides so much stuff from the user, making it hard to configure.
Also, is Backtrack even maintained anymore?

★Hoenn★ said:

★Windows Vista/7 take 3.534321 years (approx. 3 years 6 months) to boot up. And eats lot of time for loading startup programs and other shizz.

I don't know if it's my processor, but I'm certain, because a double-time faster processor than mine takes loads of time to boot up.

Click to expand...

The reason why Win7 needs so much time for boot and startup is mainly because it loads EVERY driver available. So there's much junk started (driver for telephone, fax, whatever).
Start -> msconfig -> Services
There you can choose which services to start. Disabling all unused services should give you a faster boot time. (even though it's nothing compared to like ten secounds boot time with Linux xD)

(Vanilla) Windows 95 was the absolute worst in my opinion. We had to use these infernal machines as a "retro" lesson in my school, and let me tell you this OS is the worst! X_X

Even though people tear into Vista I rarely had issues with it. My main problem was the fact that it never memorized the folder views. The issue even carried with the Win7 upgrade.

Boot times never matter to me because I use Hibernation mode. I'm surprised it's not used much, it's a great time saver for people who time crunch.

★Hoenn★ said:

Windows 7 / Vista. I mean, the looks and stuff are good and all, and the styles are awesome, but here's what I've accounted.

★Vista has 190215702847028347923 (still testing) bugs.
★Windows Vista/7 don't support many programs and have loads of compatibility issues.
★Windows Vista/7 take 3.534321 years (approx. 3 years 6 months) to boot up. And eats lot of time for loading startup programs and other shizz.

I don't know if it's my processor, but I'm certain, because a double-time faster processor than mine takes loads of time to boot up.

I haven't tried 8 yet. Is it nice?

Click to expand...

I don't know where you heard this nonsense, but that's exactly what it is: nonsense. At present, Vista and 7 are almost functionally equivalent. Neither has significantly more bugs than the other. Vista had more bugs when it first came out, but it came out years ago and most of those have been fixed.

Whoever told you "Vista and 7 don't support many programs and have loads of compatibility issues" is full of crap. Unless you're trying to run ancient software, you shouldn't have any problems with compatibility. Some older games might require a quick Google search to get running right, but that's about it.

And Windows 7 starts in under thirty seconds on my desktop, from power button to functional desktop. It might take longer if you're running hardware from ten years ago that's below recommended spec, but that's your own fault.

What you are saying is commonly known among we computer specialists as "FUD," or "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Put another way, it's false hearsay that makes a product seem not worth the hassle. In the future, you shouldn't comment on the supposed operation of a product unless you've actually used it.