anomnom comments on Evolution of Windows

Funny

16,714 readers

3,904 active

94 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 3 years ago

moderators

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

NT/2000 always gets left out of these, I ran 2000 on an old PC for years past XP and Vista even. But all it was doing was running a vinyl and laser cutter.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] thaklor@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They forgot 95 and ME as well.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

ME would just be a brick wall.

And I would happily go back to using 2000 if I could. I held out all the way up to about 2012, at which point the number of games that wouldn't run out of the box got to an untenable amount. :(

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah ME wasn’t worth looking at, we downgraded my GF’s computer after it wouldn’t run well. 95 was a big jump over 3.1, but still more like a beta for 98.

But I switched to 2000 not long after it came out. I did set up my first home built PC with 98, in 98, just got a sudden flashback to the defragging screen. Shudders.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent