Technology

59577 readers

3716 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

940

Former Microsoft developer says Windows 11's performance is "comically bad," even with monster PC (www.techspot.com)

submitted 7 months ago by jeze@leminal.space to c/technology@lemmy.world

359 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Should just use Linux, tbh.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Except 98SE-2000-XP were all good. 2000 not worse, but better than the other two.

[–] Imprudent3449@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Well your leaving window ME out of that list which came right after 98SE and is widely considered a turd. I also wouldn't put 2000 in with them as it was an operating system designed for business use while the other 2 were consumer oriented.

95, 98, 98SE might be a pretty decent stretch though. NT4, 2000, and XP could be a good stretch on the business side. If you ignore NT4's poor driver support.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago

No, ME was the last of the DOS-based ones, but came out after 2000. Which is what I meant.

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Still though, Windows 2000 Professional was king even on the user desktop. Imo as a user, it's only beaten by Windows 7.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago

I used 2000 Server, but yes. It technically ran everything that XP ran, but was faster then and looked nicer.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 7 months ago

I also wouldn’t put 2000 in with them as it was an operating system designed for business use while the other 2 were consumer oriented.

Who said that? 2000 was not a server edition, if something. Naming like 2003 and 2012 and 2008 for server versions came later.

So there were 2000 Server and 2000 Professional.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ME.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ME was after 2000 and before XP.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It was pretty close, I remember seeing both for sale at the same time, and starting about the same time, and 2000 persisting longer, so I just assumed different markets or something.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I guess MS expected that there would be people who'll need or prefer a DOS-based Windows.

But ME was so unstable that they used 98SE.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Mmmmmmm but also I was literally a child so maybe defer to anyone else's info here.