Comment

Comment on Microsoft keeps shooting itself in the foot with Edge

I’ve been using Microsoft products since the early days of DOS, and the only product that truly impressed me was NT; it was a breath of fresh air as a developer, with its new kernel and much improved stability. Finally, we could develop for windows and not have the OS crash!

Everything else has driven me nuts, and their quality had definitely gone drastically down hill. Their software now is a bloated mess of ugly, especially windows. How did we get to an OS that installs so many gigs of files? Holy crap!

I try to always use Firefox and never use Edge.

source

Sort:hotnew top

orclev@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Windows XP 64 bit edition was Microsofts peak, everything has been downhill from there. Microsoft Research (a child company of Microsoft proper) does some really cool stuff. Everything interesting/good to come out of MS in the last couple decades started there, and then the main Microsoft company got ahold of it and inevitably cocked it up.

For a brief period of time I was hopeful that MS had turned over a new leaf when they started to opensource their dev software like VS Code and typescript, but that’s always been a bait and switch. They’re handing carrots out to developers while simultaneously beating their normal customers with sticks.

source
Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

the only product that truly impressed me was NT

I hated Windows NT from day 1, any driver or update could potentially brick your system, and there was no command line to boot into to fix it. It wasn’t until service pack 3 that it became reasonably stable. I simply don’t understand how Microsoft could ever be considered a maker of professionel software. The most impressive thing about Windows NT was the stupidity of it, and the completely outrageous claims Microsoft made about “security” features.

source
- YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yeah maybe I was thinking of NT 3.5.1. Whatever version it was, it was our first experience of a Windows version that was stable. It was a long time ago, my memory isn’t great. I think we were forced to develop on Windows 95 until we could get the NT licenses and hardware.
  
  source
  - Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    That would make more sense IMO. If you used Windows 95, It probably wasn’t the original Windows NT, because that came out in 93 and was called NT 3.1.
    Windows NT 3.5.1 came out in 95, I admit I looked it up to support my memory. I still didn’t like 3.5.1 although it was better, Although it came out later the same year, I liked Windows 95, it finally got long filenames, which annoyed me tremendously that DOS/Windows didn’t have before Windows 95. Obviously Windows NT 3.5.1 still lacked the ability to boot to console, and have a full set of tools to fix things when they went wrong. Also most games didn’t work on NT. 😋
    
    source
    partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Windows NT 3.5 (and later 3.5.1) was far more stable than the desktop versions of Windows (Windows 3.11 and early Win95). If you need help remembering NT versions visually, NT 3.X still used progman.exe so it looked like Windows 3.1. Windows NT 4 was the first one to use explorer.exe (with the Start button) like Win95.
    
    Win95 gold release was a hot mess of crashes and shaky drivers. The “stable” version of Win95 didn’t arrive until OSR2 (aka Windows 95B).
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
mesamunefire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Linux is soooo much nicer on the daily.

source