Was this the best operating system ever made?

>disk writes are not cached
kek

Redundancy in IT is a good thing actually.

that's not a Windows Vista x64 splash screen

rare based user on g i like your thinking

Yeah, because Vista sucked when it was released unlike 2k which was usable from day one.

thanks for beta testing as always

ms made some decent os in the past:

16 bit: ms dos 6.22
32 bit: windows xp
64 bit: windows 7
honorable mention: Windows NT 4.0

it was exceptionally good for it's time.

mandatory post
youtube.com/watch?v=BFkry3zzutI

>DC comics

*blocks your path*

Attached: windows_vista_aurora_.jpg (1600x1117, 77K)

>needed hardware specs that were not common yet to run smoothly when it came to market
meanwhile 2000 ran very well right out of the gates

I just noticed there are vocals in the theme wtf

No, but it was the best Windows.
That's a bit of marketing to remind people this is another WinNT system even if it has a different name.

I was going to post this one in the stupid questions thread but this is a specialized thread so here it goes:

There was a Windows 2000 source code leak a few years ago. I've heard many times that the code actually surprised a lot of people with how well written it was. Can Jow Forums confirm? If yes, can you explain to this brainlet here what makes this code well written? Is it some more arcane C/C++ knowledge or is it simply good architecture and applying well known rules of writing good code?

the best operating system ever made -- in spite of its irritating GUI -- is plan 9

i dread to think what the next windows iteration is going to be like t b h

win7

the source code leak was well over a decade ago and was widely derided for being a pile of shit

best windows perhaps

I remember that pasta on how good source code for windows is and how bad it is on Linux.

I've started to warm to DOS more as a platform and an aesthetic, as a representation of a place in time, as time has gone by.

Nah, all of them are shit.
DOS was a glorified program loader that provided very little actual OS abstractions. It was also ridiculously hardware dependent and required idiotic hacks just to move beyond the original IBM PC it was written for (e.g. himem.sys).
Win9x line was shit because it was built on DOS and there was no privilege separation, or any kind of separation at all. Programs frequently modified system files, could access system memory and modify it, and this resulted in the legendary unreliability that plagued the whole OS branch.
WinNT branch was a bit less shit because it was built by ex-VMS people who knew what they were doing (as opposed to regular MS code monkeys). But the problem was MS required backwards compatibility and this resulted in every separation barrier being readily bypassable.
Windows XP was better than the predecessors, but that's not a high bar and it was still shit. The retarded NTFS allocation algorithm guaranteed about 40% fragmentation in a matter of months. The system itself degraded in about 2 years of normal use due to ever present register creep and shit being left behind by programs/updates/etc. Privilege separation was still only on paper because backwards compatibility.
Vista was shit because after years of delays what we got was an unpolished turd. For every thing they improved they broke ten more things. The privilege separation finally got enforced, but the extreme nagging of UAC meant everyone just clicked Yes every time so it was practically useless. I remember getting three (!) different security prompts when running a downloaded installer. Also the HW requirements were insane. Even Win10 that came out almost 10 years later has lower HW requirements.

Lunduke is unfair, he is implying there isnt people customizing its Linux installation to do their own best OS ever.

cont.

Win7 was an improvement but still generally shit. The NTFS fragmentation was "solved" by auto-defragging every week. The Nazi UAC was toned down a bit, but it was too late and everyone had clicking Yes to everything in muscle memory. Old sins from early WinNT persisted, so scrollbar privilege escalation and webserver in the kernel.
Win8 was shit because the improvements were cosmetic and they fucked up the only thing worth using on Windows: the win32 API. In the classic Microsoft way, they half-baked in a new interface and API that even in Win10 still hasn't reached feature parity. All in a knee-jerk reaction to a boat they missed.
Finally, Win10 is a big improvement in some ways, but extremely shit in others. They finally started to clean up some of the long-standing mess, so no more extremely vulnerable kernel font rendering. But on the other hand, quality control has generally gone down. The yearly updates were so buggy they decided to make them twice a year with less QA, so now you can get all your files wiped twice a year. Or you won't boot because they broke some driver. The mandatory updates exacerbate the problem. Probably due to the telemetry and the mandatory updates, Win10 is unusable on HDDs. When you turn on your PC, it starts to access millions of small files and the system is unusable for several minutes. But at least the hardware has finally caught up with Windows and you can get an SSD relatively cheap.

what about that sentence did you find funny?

win10 is by far the best os ever made

Yeah, I do miss me some win 2k. It was a good iteration on NT before it. Clean interface and was reliable on the hw I ran it on.

...

nah m8

Attached: 51H947J5G0L._SX385_[1].jpg (385x468, 26K)

>win 10 good
lol

Linux.

Enterprise-y code quality benchmarks will consider Microsoft code extremely good, because Microsoft forces all of its programmers to follow a set of rules.

*crashes*

never seen that code, but generally microsoft core libraries and things related to dev tools are very well written. worked with python for the last year and a half, and it's absolute mess compared to microsoft ecosystem.

> but generally microsoft core libraries and things related to dev tools are very well written.
Like which? I've never seen a MS API or tool that wasn't a nightmare in one way or another.
Especially the win32 API is retarded, even newer additions.

>win32 API
are you living in 1995?

>meanwhile 2000 ran very well right out of the gates

Still does desu.

1985

Attached: CPM_CLUB15.png (1028x1280, 98K)

You still need to use it to interface with the OS. Unless you write .net, which will use the API for you. But .net code is unportable.

>But .net code is unportable.
thanks for input mr. uninformed, i bet direct win32 api calls are portable.

Consider the whole program. It's probably written in C/C++, some other language, Java, or Python. The win32 submodule can be written in C++ and easily interface with the rest of the program. You don't need to rewrite the rest of your program just to port it to another OS. Now imagine you wrote the Windows specific part in .net. How would you even interface with it? It's becoming non-trivial quickly.
I'm looking forward to the detailed and enlightening response that will make your "mr. uninformed" warranted. Maybe I and hundreds of other programmers have been doing it wrong all these decades.

>Even Win10 that came out almost 10 years later has lower HW requirements.
This is very true and many people seem to conveniently forget this. Windows 8.1 doesn't even run with the 2GB of RAM that came with a lot of cheaper touch devices and laptops. And it gets worse the closer you get to Vista.

nah. that was windows ME

UAC was a good thing. The fact that you brought up an installer that asked for privileged access three times should be setting off alarm bells, and nothing in that situation is Microsoft's fault. UAC put the problem directly in the user's face and made them complain to the correct people (the people that made that installer, for instance). Fast forward five years and nobody asks for privileged access unless they need it, and never more than once. Microsoft even called out Adobe specifically for being one of the biggest offenders in the professional software market.

You sound like a diehard Microsoft fanboi.
>The fact that you brought up an installer that asked for privileged access three times should be setting off alarm bells
The three prompts were standard for EVERY downloaded file, unless signed by Microsoft in which case you would get "only" two prompts.
1. this file was downloaded from the internet
2. this installer is not signed
3. this installer requests admin permissions
>and nothing in that situation is Microsoft's fault
Except the incessant nagging. Only one of those prompts is necessary, so it very much IS Microsoft's fault.
>UAC put the problem directly in the user's face and made them complain to the correct people
This never happened. Maybe in some crazy fanfiction...
>Fast forward five years and nobody asks for privileged access unless they need it
Nah, you're missing the point. The privilege prompt is the only one that's needed. It's the two other prompts that did the damage.
>and never more than once
Yes, but as I stated in my original post, it was too late because the Yes reflex already developed.
>Microsoft even called out Adobe...
Pretty much everyone called out Adobe at some point. It's a shit company.

>has lower HW requirements.
bullshit
upgraded 7 Starter to 10 on my crappy netbook, and while 7 was bad 10 was completely unusable
Vista didn't require an SSD to be usable

dos was very cozy, a bit limited by its single task architecture, but still decent

unix was much better at that time, modern machines could run unix without problems now

linux isn't really unix, btw

windows was never good.

This, Mac OS 9 was the comfiest.

even the bootup screen was comfy

>not AmigaOS
No.

Attached: 1544694984761.png (1920x1080, 1.43M)

Two of the three things you mentioned are not UAC, and are actually settings in IE.

>This never happened. Maybe in some crazy fanfiction...
No it very much happened in reality, privileged calls dropped dramatically in the face of UAC and software vendors were forced to start acting more professionally. When Vista came out there were programs that would trigger UAC just by starting up routinely, this was over and done with by the time 7 came out.

By the way your "yes reflex" argument is stupid and self-contradictory. Either UAC is nagware or you just click through it without thinking, it cannot be both. It was nagware introduced for a reason and it worked.

>You sound like a diehard Microsoft fanboi.
Weird, I don't have Windows on any of my computers. I just have a brain and understand what a feature is for and why it worked. Limiting privileged access entirely by social means created an environment where Microsoft didn't need to worry about software vendors complicating security issues, and made security updates easier to produce.

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-08-04 13-29-43.png (1920x1200, 1.51M)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Core
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

>having to rewrite your entire software in .net just so it runs on windows
>have to rely on sub-par 3rd party implementations of .net for it
Bugger off, retard.

>keeps changing the target
stay clueless roleplay fag

>calls me clueless while being a retard who can only post wikipedia links that don't even answer anything the post it replied to asked
Way to show you have no clue what you're talking about. This non-sequitur reply about roleplaying is pretty funny too. Ritual suicide is your only choice.

>Two of the three things you mentioned are not UAC
That's just arguing semantics and conveniently glancing over the fact that they were a problem.

>actually settings in IE.
Actually, they have nothing to do with IE. The first one is a filesystem flag and the second one is related to code signing, which was another security theater cooked up by Microsoft.

>No it very much happened in reality, privileged calls dropped dramatically
You're "responding" to a claim I never made.
I said that "users complaining to program vendors" is bullshit.
You're coming across as very desperate if you're willing to commit so obvious fallacies.

> Either UAC is nagware or you just click through it without thinking, it cannot be both.
Why? That's a false dilemma, they are not mutually exclusive at all.
It is constantly popping up in a very obnoxious way (=nagging), which is why everyone just clicks through because they think it's the same bullshit as always.
It's not a difficult mechanism to understand.

> I just have a brain
Everyone has a brain, that's not a particularly high bar.
The problem is, you're using yours to make, at best, fallacious claims. Outright lies and willfully fallacious arguments in bad faith at worst.

>Limiting privileged access entirely by social means created an environment where Microsoft didn't need to worry about software vendors complicating security issues, and made security updates easier to produce.
That's just pure corporate bullshit speak.
I know because I write shit like this into reports ever so often.

>bomb crashes if you breathe in the same room as the mac
>comfy