[IgorPartola]

To be fair Microsoft was always shitware. I don’t remember a time when using a Windows machine just worked, didn’t take up gigabytes of space, didn’t crash, and didn’t get messed up by simply using it requiring a yearly or semi-yearly reinstall.

[inigyou]

Windows in the 95-XP era wasn't exactly high-quality software, but it was genuine technical innovation, doing what you otherwise couldn't do.

[jorvi]

Windows 7 was also incredibly good.

And yeah, there was some pretty neat stuff. Of Linux, macOS and Windows, Windows was the first to get GPU crash recovery, just chugging onward after a stall instead of bringing the entire system down.

The biggest sign for me that Microsoft just doesn't care about Windows (aside from the ads stuffed everywhere after a fresh install) is they stopped caring about its bones. Where is Windows' equivalent of APFS / BTRFS (or even EXT4)..? NTFS is more than 20 years old by now.

[ygra]

> Where is Windows' equivalent of APFS / BTRFS (or even EXT4)..? NTFS is more than 20 years old by now.

There's ReFS, but a lot of NTFS features are basically baked into the filesystem API, so replacing it is hard.

That being said, NTFS works extremely well and reliable. I don't really see a compelling need to replace it (which is always a messy transition unless you're completely backwards-compatible -- but in that case, NTFS has evolved a lot already).

[theodric]

Our culture is to replace working things purely because they're old. Solved problem? Never heard of her.

[jorvi]

APFS and BTRFS are objectively better than NTFS. Hell, even HFS+ and EXT4 already were.

And then there is already the next generation knocking on the door. BcacheFS is really cool and yet another step forward in performance and reliability.

Nothing stopping you from enjoying Slackware 11 on EXT2 though :)

[boringg]

Nothing since then. Thats a long 30 years.

[hx8]

I remember when Windows didn't take gigabytes of space because there wasn't gigabytes of space, and it was still shitware.

[LocalH]

Microsoft BASIC was a pretty decent interpreter, I wouldn't call it "shitware", so there you go?

[lstodd]

I would have preferred a Forth on my C64 seriously. But no, we were stuck with this "38911 bytes free" crap.

[LocalH]

If you checked any of the contemporaries, C64 offered more free BASIC RAM than others.

[olyjohn]

I don't remember DOS 6.22 blue screening on me. Maybe it wasn't so bad.

[pwdisswordfishq]

That's because it black-screened instead.

[LocalH]

Ah for the days when the OS didn't stop you from jerking off every hardware bit

[akurtzhs]

Windows 3.1? It was only 6 3.5” disks.

To be fair, I had stretches of 2K, XP, 7 and 10 working acceptably.

[chickensong]

> Windows 3.1? It was only 6 3.5” disks.

Well ackchyually... Windows 3.1 was just a window manager, you needed another 3 disks for DOS, and if you wanted that sweet networking support, you'd need Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which was 8 disks!

[hx8]

These eras of Windows had their own dark patterns that were incredibly anti-consumer. No one's lives were improved because they installed the Ask Jeeves toolbar, but people were asked to install it millions and millions of times.

[FrinkleFrankle]

Windows 2000 was incredible. It was so sleek, fast and worked so much better than XP. I'm sure it still required a lot of tinkering compared to a modern OS, but I still miss it.

[bigstrat2003]

That happened all the time. My Windows machines, from XP all the way up through early Windows 10, just worked. They didn't crash. And they certainly didn't need to get reinstalled for no reason. Your experience, while unfortunate, is not remotely typical.