The box that is labeled XP should be labeled 2000.
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
1028 points (98.8% liked)
Funny
11946 readers
2032 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They know we liked Win7. They'll never go back, they'll just keep making it worse for us and more profitable for them.
That's why I switched to Linux Mint a year ago. I feel sorry for people who can't switch for whatever reason.
I did a switch last week and i feel like my life became just a little bit more bearable because THERE IS NO FUCKING BLOAT. Win11 actively makes you feel bad using a computer.
95 is the stick, ME is the stick up someone’s butt
2k is what xp as shown as, xp was nt but prettier.
Yep, 2k should be the normal hammer and XP should be a hammer with rounded edges and a gradient.
load more comments
(1 replies)
NT is stuck
load more comments
(1 replies)
Windows 95, ME, NT, and 2000 erasure.
And 3.11 for Workgroups.
nobody talks about 2000 bc 2000 was solid as fuck and there was nothing to complain about
It's really incredible how Microsoft is trying to drive people away, by:
-
Polluting what works.
-
Never actually finishing revamps in progress.
-
Pushing so much crap even normal users are conditioned to click Microsoft 'features' away as spam.
They don't have to do anything! They could just freeze Windows 11 and gut development beyond security/api/hardware fixes, and rake in business "stuck on win32" dollars for eternity. But no, they are trying their absolute best to push folks to Android/iOS and open a window for stuff like the steam deck.
I bet we aren't far from OEMs even getting sick of it, as shipping (admittedly, trashy self made) linux distros.
In Late Stage Capitalism, companies have realized they can maximize their profits by making their product worse. Especially when they have a (near) monopoly.
Unless you are strictly talking next quarter's immediate profits/stock price, this is just bad for Microsoft. They are sabotaging their already anticompetitive golden goose.
Late Stage Capitalism dictates they'd try to keep their lock-in, but this is more executive dysfunction.
I feel like Frankenstein didn't know when to quit either. There's a lot of companies twisting the knife into themselves because shareholders demand infinite growth, but creating systems that work in harmony are in exact opposition to that creedo, so until we eliminate the perverse cancerous idea of infinite growth, we won't rid ourselves of these obviously bad actors that have themselves gilded with the guise of progress
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
I remember when we were a Unix shop (BSD & Linux) sharing space with guys writing code for some kind of printing software (for professional printing shops that did complex format conversions) that apparently absolutely had to be on Windows (because, unclear reasons, nobody would buy a non Windows printing management box, or something).
Anyway, they were writing for one of the early versions of NT, maybe 2000, not sure, and were pulling their hairs out the whole time we were with them.
A classic I remember was "the system will just decide that our driver (pretty much the only thing running) isn't that important, and dump it's priority to the shitter. Once it's there, it's dead in the water and we can't get it active again without physical intervention. We've been talking to Microsoft for weeks to get around this."
I suppose this has been more or less addressed by Microsoft nowadays, but, of course, this kind of thing hasn't been an issue in unixland, like ever. Because it's a system that fucking makes sense. And about the versions of Windows, I stopped using their stuff in the DOS days, so it's not like I even have an opinion.
(and yes, they did have a couple very high end developers, on top of the regular grunts)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Windows peaked at 7, I only moved to Windows 10 when Windows 7 lost support
That's mostly due to your age. Older people say it peaked at XP, younger people are saying it peaked at 10. Truth is, they're all kinda the same shit.
Nah. XP was huge when it came out because NT was so much smoother and more stable than the Windows 9x product line: it was nearly as stable as 2000 with a more modern DE than Windows 95-ME.
But Windows 7 did everything XP did bigger and better. It’s no shocker that all the Windows-like Linux DEs look like forks of Widows 7.
Is it though? From a privacy perspective I think Windows 10 quite clearly started introducing some shady surveillance practices which were absent in earlier versions. Of course, 11 took that waaay further, but 10 was a turning point imo.
95, 98, xp, and 7 were all great; each improved on the last. But 7 was the true peak. 10 was pretty good and unfortunately was the turning point into enshitification.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Oh how I wish we could just go back to W7 :(
As a programmer, my world changed when Windows 95 came out, what with being 32-bit and having an extremely powerful (if difficult-to-use at first) low-level audio API, since I mainly wrote software synthesis and music composition apps. I have not given two fucks for anything that has happened since 95. Quite amazingly, that audio API has remained in existence, unchanged, all the way until today. 30 years of not having to change what I'm doing at all has been absolutely amazing. That shit even worked, without modification, for Windows CE (Compact Edition) and Windows Mobile, so I was able to make versions of my software synthesizer that ran on shitty smartphones from 2005. It worked on Windows Phone as well, albeit it quite uselessly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Windows 12+...
But Windows ~~10~~ 11 is going to be the last version of Windows!
load more comments
(5 replies)
There were four versions that were useful for their time. Accurate.
I thought 10 was a decent OS once debloated, used it for a while.
Back to Linux now though.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I miss windows millennium, which would be a hammer made of a turd.
This is why I am on linux.
What about NT?
It's a stone hammer, but fully locked in place and chipped into a somewhat flat head.
Where the fuck is Windows 2000 Advanced Server? The shiniest turd of them all
load more comments
(2 replies)
And it doesn't show on the pictures, but it was always made of rubber.
Why skip 95 and put a blank in for 9. Windows 95/98 are the reason why there is no windows 9. Far too many lazy programmers make software and drivers that abbreviated to windows9 because there were two versions. Still nice try, I guess.
Because the omission is notable and funny, even if they had their reasons
load more comments
(1 replies)
Windows 9 looks nice, I'll take that one
You forgot windows me.
I know it would throw off the whole 9 square thing but if you (or the person that created this) decide to add it then might I recommend a hammer smashing itself into pieces?
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›