# Best versions of Windows of all-time?



## Pink Jazz (Jan 2, 2012)

If you could consider certain versions of Windows to be the best of all time, which versions would they be?

My picks would be Windows 98, XP, and 7. These three versions were refinements of pre-existing versions (95, 2000, and Vista) and improved on them by making them more stable.

*A NOTE TO MAC USERS: Please do not make any comments such as "All versions of Windows sux" or anything similar.*


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Dorkiest poll ever.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Win7 because I really haven't had a single problem with it on several laptops.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Without a doubt, Windows 7.

And I'm sure Win8 will be even better.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I'd say Win95 because of it's introduction of the internet to the masses. Stability and more drivers came with Win98.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

"" said:


> I would answer Windows version 2.11. That was the version that started all the other Windows versions. Even though version 2.11 was nothing more than a file manager.


----------



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

Seven has been great then XP.Windows Me was an abortion!!! When windows 3.? was out I was using IBM os/2. It was the bomb at the time.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Anything could be said for each version to a degree but NT 3.1 is what really made Windows what it is today without the NT developments.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Windows XP and Windows 7.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> Dorkiest poll ever.


I can make it dorkier: Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is missing, and that's where networking became completely functional.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I have to go with Windows 7. 

I think I might still have my disks for Windows 286. It was the first version I ever had. I ran it on a Gateway 2000 286 machine. I had a hard time getting used to the mouse at first. I was so used to the keyboard. I learned as many of the keyboard short cuts as I could find...I still use some of them today. Although, my mousing skills are greatly improved. :grin:

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I have to go with Windows 7.


Same here.

I've used virtually every version on the poll at one time or another.

What happened to Windows v3.11 (the sucky one)? 

XP SP2 was pretty solid.

Windows 7 is very solid with more polish.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

"Shades228" said:


> Anything could be said for each version to a degree but NT 3.1 is what really made Windows what it is today without the NT developments.





"" said:


> I agree


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

I am surprised at the votes for 98. And ME shouldn't even be an option.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

A little off tropic but the upcoming Window 8 with a reset feature sounds nice. It is something they should have had a long time ago.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2473...h_microsofts_new_ways_to_restore_your_pc.html


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I actually voted NT 3.51...way better than 3.5 and it set the groundwork for what we have today...of course I use Windows 7 for everything now. ANd I thank NT 3.51 for it.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Me was an abomination. I quickly removed it. Vista isn't much better, certainly not an improvement over XP.
I voted Windows 7, but still have some computers around the house that can't go beyond Windows XP.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Windows 95.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

It's a slam dunk for Windows 7 on the 64 bit platform, Awesome ! 


My previous favs were 98 SE and XP.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Matt9876 said:


> It's a slam dunk for Windows 7 on the 64 bit platform, Awesome !


Agree. I am very happy with it.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I didn't use all the ones in the list but ME was the only one I had substantial problems with.

Win 7, of course, will run poorly or not at all on older underpowered computers.


----------



## Kevin F (May 9, 2010)

7 and XP.

They were both semi revolutionary in the windows ecosystem in their respective times in my opinion.

Kevin


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

I'll put Windows 98 on the poll but that’s only because you do not have Windows 98 SE.

Those are my 2 greats, Windows 98 SE and Windows XP. I have not used Windows 7 enough to give a solid opinion on it.


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

I voted for Windows XP since it was way better than Windows Vista or anything older than XP. My old computer ran fine on XP but I thought that Vista would be better. I upgraded to Windows Vista when it came out because the Microsoft web site said my computer was Vista capable but when I upgraded, to Vista, it ran but was horribly slow. I had to do a major hardware upgrade to get satisfactory performance on it. I am now using Windows 7 on all my computers but it is still too early for it to get my vote.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Win 7.

The NEXT best operating system from Microsoft will be whatever comes after Win 8.

With all the 'new' stuff like "Metro" that they're putting into Win 8, I'm predicting it'll be a Vista-like disaster.

Right now, the Air Force is JUST NOW upgrading machines to Win 7. Many of these are being upgraded from XP - a lot of users didn't want Vista.

As a developer, I can tell you I'm a little sick and tired of MS constantly introducing new technologies to try and catch lightning in a bottle. Now we're supposed to throw away all our old stuff in favor of this new Metro look? A look that is, quite frankly, being FORCED on us? Those tiles look like an evolution of a 1980s concept, if you ask me. Then again I might just be rather irritated because of WinMo 7 throwing away the compatibility they'd had since the beginning - and suddenly apps that I'd developed that worked under WinCE, WinMo5 and 6 no longer work.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

djlong said:


> The NEXT best operating system from Microsoft will be whatever comes after Win 8.


I agree. Microsoft has a track record of having every other OS release being a disaster.
Count back from Windows 7 (Good), and see if every other one was terrible.

Ill wait on Windows 9


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, I'm not quite sure about the counting back, but for me it was 3.1, 98, XP (SP 2), and 7. In each case, the release "fixed" the prior release which was Microsoft's attempt to do something significantly more, embracing hardware advances.

I love 7 as it seems to have fixed most issues with Vista and it does have that nifty "wayback machine" Virtual PC XP which allows me to look back at some otherwise inaccessible files. Someone is going to have to do a lot of 'splainin' to convince me to use 8. I also am looking forward to 9.

I still believe that Beta Testers should include a significant number of households consisting of one "blue collar" working parent and three or more kids at least two of whom are under 12. When whatever you're testing works 85% of the time in those households, it's ready for public release. Just because a few part-time computer nerds like me can make it work does not make it ready for prime time.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

djlong said:


> Win 7.
> 
> The NEXT best operating system from Microsoft will be whatever comes after Win 8.
> 
> ...


From what I've read, it is supposed to be very easy to disable the "metro" tiles and use a Win7 type interface in Win8. I think Microsoft has learned their lessons and knows that they need to server both the home and corporate crowds, so I wouldn't discount Wiin8 yet...


----------



## JTAnderson (Oct 13, 2007)

RasputinAXP said:


> I can make it dorkier: Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is missing, and that's where networking became completely functional.


WfWG also introduced VFAT.


----------



## subeluvr (Jan 14, 2007)

Without a doubt... Windows for Workgroups 3.11

Solid platform and *ini* files you could work with.

Pre registry and a GUI that wasn't a resource hog.

or...

OS/2


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Win7. I feel sorry for those that don't have it.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Drew2k said:


> From what I've read, it is supposed to be very easy to disable the "metro" tiles and use a Win7 type interface in Win8. I think Microsoft has learned their lessons and knows that they need to server both the home and corporate crowds, so I wouldn't discount Wiin8 yet...


It's not yet. On my developer's copy I still had to edit the registry to kill Metro.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> From what I've read, it is supposed to be very easy to disable the "metro" tiles and use a Win7 type interface in Win8. I think Microsoft has learned their lessons and knows that they need to server both the home and corporate crowds, so I wouldn't discount Wiin8 yet...


Yeah, but for me they'll have to do a lot more 'splainin' than that. A Win7 type interface on Win8 sounds like a new OS with an interface cobbled together on top of it.

Win7 has relatively quickly developed a confidence in the product within the individual consumer community. It seems to be slowly catching on in the Windows enterprise community, perhaps coupled with Sharepoint 2010. That community is still heavily committed to XP or even 2000 in a surprising number of cases I'm pretty familiar with.

IMHO, as with all new versions, Win8 will start "in the hole" with problems - it can't be avoided based on history. And it could set back what might have been a serious transition from the older versions by the corporate community.

IT folks have never been able to spend money without oversight even if it sometimes seems like it. The problem MS has now is that senior execs and their assistants everywhere have iPads - it's part of appearing very 21st Century. Using Sharepoint works just ok with the iPad.

The object lesson is IBM. IBM was the PC world in the late 1980's. Then Compaq was selling significantly more units by the mid-1990's and by 2000 so were Dell and HP. Bean-aware corporate execs with rather long stares were saying to IT folks "but I read about these cheaper PC's running Microsoft, like the Compaq I bought my kid that works great. Bring me competitive bids."

Unless Win8 represents a system with an iPad/iPhone full integration App like that promised Office App, Microsoft may find itself in the same position IBM did.

It's not hard to imagine a corporate IT world where Linux dominates the server industry and iOS and Android dominate the connected user equipment end, with Microsoft relegated to being known as the MS Office company. It could happen within a decade.

In the end, we may talk about "the PC" v Apple, but the fact is in the desktop world the real subject is Microsoft OS domination v Apple (yes, with a niche for Linux). It's whatever happens in the smart phone/tablet world that will determine how this will look a decade from now. And it may very well be the end of the desktop as we know it (something I find disconcerting).

Everything I read about Win8 looks very "me too." I'm not sure that's going to be good enough this time, compared to when Windows version 3.1 finally replaced MS-DOS.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Click around this page... 

http://www.therestartpage.com/#

Mike


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Windows XP - Here's why.
1. It saved Microsoft's desktop OS business. Not only was it salvation from ME, but it also provided a much needed safety net for businesses while MS fixed Vista with the full kernel overhaul. Remember, you still order the "downgrade to XP" until just fairly recently.
2. It was the OS that transitioned most effectively to multi-media and it led the social media explosion.
3. After 9-1/2 years, it still holds the largest market share, although it's likely to relinquish the title in 2012.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I would upgrade our work computers to Windows 7 (currently running XP) except there is no "upgrade" path. I would have to reinstall all the business apps, reconfigure them all to interact with each other (email, etc), and if one thing didnt work the way it used to, the boss would blow a gasket. 

Peachtree would be the biggest obstacle, since the upgrades are so often, and its been so long, I dont even know if there is an original disc at work anymore. Then there is Outlook, Excel, and several other apps.

I dont know why Microsoft chose not to provide a direct XP to WIndows 7 upgrade path.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Davenlr" said:


> I would upgrade our work computers to Windows 7 (currently running XP) except there is no "upgrade" path. I would have to reinstall all the business apps, reconfigure them all to interact with each other (email, etc), and if one thing didnt work the way it used to, the boss would blow a gasket.
> 
> Peachtree would be the biggest obstacle, since the upgrades are so often, and its been so long, I dont even know if there is an original disc at work anymore. Then there is Outlook, Excel, and several other apps.
> 
> I dont know why Microsoft chose not to provide a direct XP to WIndows 7 upgrade path.


That's the rub. If some elements of a fully integrated system force consideration of other options at a time when hardware is transforming how people work and when a large group of people have moved on to unintegrated hardware, then MS is staring at the potential that humbled IBM - individual players create a momentum away from the installed base.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Did you know that Windows XP (per captia) is attacked 10 times more than Windows 7. YOu'd have to be crazy to want to stay with Windows XP.

Please - if you're still on XP, please be sure you're running SP3 and update your AV software daily. And run the malicious software removal program (sent thru Windows Update) monthly.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

I voted for Windows 7 but I think the answer is actually Windows 7 for home and Windows XP for business.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Really curious - why did you pick XP (obviously, for those that did)?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Click around this page...
> 
> http://www.therestartpage.com/#
> 
> Mike


HOooollly Cow! I noticed the Mac screen's countdown was actually working, and sure enough, it "restarted". So it's not just a collection of screen shots, it's a working model - nostalgia city.

BTW, I voted "none" in the poll......


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Pink Jazz said:


> *A NOTE TO MAC USERS: Please do not make any comments such as "All versions of Windows sux" or anything similar.*


If it sucked, I would not be running WIN7-64 on my OSX Lion based iMac. 

I did have most of the versions on the list. I skipped ME, but not Vista.  For me, 3.0 was the one that started it as many people were still on DOS. I remember I had just gotten a IBM 486 computer and decided to use all that HHD space to put on Win 3.0 which was the newest. Then I got Word for Windows as back then there was also Word for DOS. Once I got used to it, I never went back to Word Perfect. This would have been c. 1991. But 3.0 is what I think started with Windows programs trend and the move away from DOS. This trend then gained steam with 95 and 98 and it brought computers to the home and the internet.


----------



## Pink Jazz (Jan 2, 2012)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Really curious - why did you pick XP (obviously, for those that did)?


Well, XP was a refined version of 2000 for the business market, and it also finally moved the home user off the old DOS platform. Windows Me really pushed the DOS platform to its limits, which made it unstable (in fact, Me wasn't originally supposed to exist; Microsoft initially planned a consumer version of 2000 that was codenamed "Neptune").


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Herdfan said:


> If it sucked, I would not be running WIN7-64 on my OSX Lion based iMac.
> 
> I did have most of the versions on the list. I skipped ME, but not Vista.  For me, 3.0 was the one that started it as many people were still on DOS. I remember I had just gotten a IBM 486 computer and decided to use all that HHD space to put on Win 3.0 which was the newest. Then I got Word for Windows as back then there was also Word for DOS. Once I got used to it, I never went back to Word Perfect. This would have been c. 1991. But 3.0 is what I think started with Windows programs trend and the move away from DOS. This trend then gained steam with 95 and 98 and it brought computers to the home and the internet.


When did the OS move off running DOS underneath the GUI? Is DOS now completely gone?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> When did the OS move off running DOS underneath the GUI? Is DOS now completely gone?


Yes. Windows NT 3.1 (?) was the first to boot directly to the kernel. It had the ability to run DOS as a VM underneath, but was a true Windows OS. This kernel became the basis for XP.

You can still access the Command Line even in WIN7, just like you can in Mac OS X.


----------



## Pink Jazz (Jan 2, 2012)

Herdfan said:


> You can still access the Command Line even in WIN7, just like you can in Mac OS X.


Hence why in NT-based versions it is known as "Command Prompt" instead of "MS-DOS Prompt".


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Pink Jazz said:


> Hence why in NT-based versions it is known as "Command Prompt" instead of "MS-DOS Prompt".


But it's still called "DOS Prompt" by us oldtimers when we're in a hurry. 

And there is a difference in command and cmd .


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> HOooollly Cow! I noticed the Mac screen's countdown was actually working, and sure enough, it "restarted". So it's not just a collection of screen shots, it's a working model - nostalgia city.
> 
> BTW, I voted "none" in the poll......


It's pretty cool, showing all those different Windows/OS2/Mac, etc. I got the link from a friend.

Mike


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Really curious - why did you pick XP (obviously, for those that did)?


Scroll up.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Bertelson said:


> It's pretty cool, showing all those different Windows/OS2/Mac, etc. I got the link from a friend.
> 
> Mike


You're too modest! It's one of the best links posted here, ever! :hurah:


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Pink Jazz said:


> *A NOTE TO MAC USERS: Please do not make any comments such as "All versions of Windows sux" or anything similar.*


Can Windows Users? I have only been in use of 95,98,2000. and XP. All of these have given me enough issues to not have a favorite. Like asking what parking meter you find the best.
Got to use it, but don't have to like it.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Definitely Windows ME.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Definitely Windows ME.


Definitely? Surely you jest.

No wonder you're grumpy...


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

billsharpe said:


> Definitely? Surely you jest.
> 
> No wonder you're grumpy...


 I'm not jest, I'm TBlazer07. Maybe you were quoting the wrong person?

However I am still running it on my I7-2600K overclocked to 4.6GHZ. Dual boots to Win 98 (1st edition).


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> I'm not jest, I'm TBlazer07. Maybe you were quoting the wrong person?


Well, no, you're the right one. Right under your name you are identified as "Grumpy Grampy."

I have used every home version of Windows so far and ME is the only one that has really disappointed me.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

billsharpe said:


> Well, no, you're the right one. Right under your name you are identified as "Grumpy Grampy."
> 
> I have used every home version of Windows so far and ME is the only one that has really disappointed me.


 You're obviously missing the best of the best.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

Windows 3.1 was the first completely usable version of windows and lasted many years.

Windows 98 [really it was 98SE that] finally stabilized the modern Windows we know today with USB support, decent networking and internet support, and the all-too-familiar task bar.

Windows 2000 was hands-down the most rock-solid modern business OS out there, and is still in use in many locations, especially in server form.

Windows XP again became a rock-solid standard for both the business and consumer; and again is still in very widespread use. In fact the world's largest Active Directory structured network (owned but he US Navy, I might add) runs Windows XP and her server variants to this day.

Windows 7 finally stabilized the fanciness that was brought forth in Windows Vista. It's now fast becoming the de-facto standard in business as well. The Navy begins its transition to Windows 7 and her server variants this year.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> Without a doubt, Windows 7.
> 
> And I'm sure Win8 will be even better.


I'm sure your dreadfully wrong on both counts.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Best version of Mickey$oft's WindUp OS? Like asking for the best tasting dung if you ask me.

It is a desktop OS hacked to become a multi user OS hidden by a moronospheric interface that half works (and changes every major version requiring re-certification), requires incredible maintenance to keep it "safe" from intrusion, and it has taught the world that locking up and requiring reboots is normal (and acceptable).

When it's on Microsoft why trouble shoot? Just reboot.

As I learn more about the different operating systems the more sensible UNIX/LINUX becomes.

Don "really this must be a trick question right?" Bolton


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> I'm sure your dreadfully wrong on both counts.


I love that my opinions, which are subjective, are wrong in your eyes. And I love that you can't even bother to offer a reason. Cut and run ... I love it.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

Drew2k said:


> I love that my opinions, which are subjective, are wrong in your eyes. And I love that you can't even bother to offer a reason. Cut and run ... I love it.


Windows 7 will mature into a great OS, I'm sure of it. However with Windows 8 being so radically different, I expect it to be the next "Vista" or "Me". Honestly, Microsoft has had a +/- release record in this century... 2000 (good), Me (bad), XP (good), Vista (bad), 7 (good)...


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> You're obviously missing the best of the best.


There you go again with your choice of adverbs...

Obviously?

I don't think so. :nono2:


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

"" said:


> I read somewhere that about 47% of the Windows based computer use Widows XP. I have a friend hat has Windows 7. I do not lie Windows 7. To me that does not seem user friendly. Even the email application on 7 has too many options. I prefer the simpler Outlook Express


----------



## JcT21 (Nov 30, 2004)

i used windows xp for years and loved it. i also liked vista. i guess im one of the few that didnt have any problems with it at all. it was very stable and fast on my system. i used windows vista business edition since its launch and use it today on another computer. i have windows 7 professional on my main computer and it is flawless and my favorite so far.

i have also used the windows 8 preview and dont care too much for it. unless you got a touch screen i see no point in using it. i hope microsoft makes 2 versions of windows 8, one for touch screens and one for the average desktop pc. that metro UI is horrible.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> I love that my opinions, which are subjective, are wrong in your eyes. And I love that you can't even bother to offer a reason. Cut and run ... I love it.


You offered no reasons in support of your statement so I can offer no counterpoints.

As Microsoft moves closer and closer to moving their largely unknown wireless phone software to the desktop, I'm not optimistic about the result.

As a starting point (it actually began with Vista), I offer the "I know where you put it, but I moved it somewhere else" roaming feature.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JcT21 said:


> i have also used the windows 8 preview and dont care too much for it. unless you got a touch screen i see no point in using it.


This is beginning to make the rounds among those giving advice on purchasing new computers: make sure what you buy is going to work with (or includes) a touch screen.


> i hope microsoft makes 2 versions of windows 8, one for touch screens and one for the average desktop pc. that metro UI is horrible.


Don't hold your breath. If Metro is to catch on, it is going to have to be the only choice. dosshell (Explorer) aside, Microsoft hasn't offered much in the way of alternatives since Windows for Workgroups.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dirtyblueshirt said:


> Windows 7 will mature into a great OS, I'm sure of it.


It is taking much longer for Win 7 to catch on than it did XP and XP is pushing 10 years old. There's lots of users still stuck with Vista for one reason or another (typically because their hardware isn't up to it).

Maturing in Microsoft terms seems to mean getting progressively slower and requiring twice the resources that it did at release.

I only hope that the development community gets tired of .net as its killing our machines.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

harsh said:


> As a starting point (it actually began with Vista), I offer the "I know where you put it, but I moved it somewhere else" roaming feature.


:rotfl:


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

"JcT21" said:


> i used windows xp for years and loved it. i also liked vista. i guess im one of the few that didnt have any problems with it at all. it was very stable and fast on my system. i used windows vista business edition since its launch and use it today on another computer. i have windows 7 professional on my main computer and it is flawless and my favorite so far.
> 
> i have also used the windows 8 preview and dont care too much for it. unless you got a touch screen i see no point in using it. i hope microsoft makes 2 versions of windows 8, one for touch screens and one for the average desktop pc. that metro UI is horrible.





"" said:


> What did you not like about Windows 8?
> 
> Where did you download the preview?


----------



## ghontz1 (Mar 25, 2010)

98SE,XP and Windows 7 64 bit.I had limited or no problems at all.I love everything about win 7,it is the most stable of all of them.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

"ghontz1" said:


> 98SE,XP and Windows 7 64 bit.I had limited or no problems at all.I love everything about win 7,it is the most stable of all of them.


I still prefer XP because it has a simpler interface. The less option spit me the better. I just sent my laptop out to have Windows 7 replaced with Windows XP.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

My current favs are Win 7 - 64 bit and XP.

But Windows 98 SE holds a special place for me as running the widest range of programs and code in it's DOS based Windows environment.

Making programs for this 98 machine was easy and produced stable executable code.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

What about "Bob"? :sure:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Nick said:


> What about "Bob"? :sure:


Bob lasted about four and a half minutes...that is unless someone bought a GW2K. IIRC that was the only PC maker to bundle Bob. :grin:

Back in my Usta-B-in-IT days, we were beta testing Win95 and saw a demo of Bob. At first everyone honestly thought it was just a joke...it had to be right?!? Then we were told Microsoft would be releasing Bob soon and would retail for $100. :eek2:

PCMag (or was it PCWorld) had it in the top ten worst tech of all time. Right up there with Windows Millennium and Sony's rootkit CDs (how did anyone at Sony actually think that was a good idea). :lol:

Mike


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Bob lasted about four and a half minutes...that is unless someone bought a GW2K. IIRC that was the only PC maker to bundle Bob. :grin:
> 
> Back in my Usta-B-in-IT days, we were beta testing Win95 and saw a demo of Bob. At first everyone honestly thought it was just a joke...it had to be right?!? Then we were told Microsoft would be releasing Bob soon and would retail for $100. :eek2:
> 
> ...


I STILL won't buy anything Sony - media OR electronics - from that fiasco.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

The best thing that came out of Bob was Melinda.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> What about "Bob"? :sure:





Mike Bertelson said:


> Bob lasted about four and a half minutes...that is unless someone bought a GW2K. IIRC that was the only PC maker to bundle Bob... :grin:
> 
> Mike


"What about Bob's" was the name of a local restaurant in McAlester, OK. I went there once with my son and his family, and have the mug to prove it.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Nick said:


> "What about Bob's" was the name of a local restaurant in McAlester, OK. I went there once with my son and his family, and have the mug to prove it.


It was also a pretty funny movie. 

Mike


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Bertelson said:


> It was also a pretty funny movie.
> 
> Mike


+1

Pretty clever of that restaurant... might have been called just "Bob's", until a bunch of folks deciding on where to go for lunch kept saying, "What about 'Bob's'?"


----------

