To those who don't remember: Windows XP was met with mixed reception due to it's ugly UI, high system requirements, and instability on release. Those who found out how to get around WinME's driver issues stayed for even longer than those who were previously on Win95/98. Kids of that era really liked it though, because it looked playful, and/or it was their first introduction to computing.
I remember windows making fun of the Aqua interface in macs for the same reason, but I liked it then and hate that they've been removing colors from the OS over time. One of the reasons I switched to linux was to be able to easily customize the various icons to make them more visible.
The golden rule of the internet. Anything hated at release has a high chance of becoming beloved once those who grew up with become adults.
Truly bad stuff at release simply ends up forgotten.
Nostalgia is way more powerful than rage
XP actually wasn't great on release, though I don't know anybody who clung to ME, considering it was itself a huge dumpster fire. It wasn't until SP1 hit that XP got really good.
Most of us were just riding out 98SE as long as we could until MS got their shit together. Some people had 2000, but it wasn't really a consumer-class OS; it was meant more for the enterprise.
That's interesting, because here in brazil, people loved windows xp on release. The general sentiment was that windows 95, 98 and me were too buggy and unstable, while xp gave a better experience.
Thats an interesting wrinkle I hadn't considered. Was the release in Brazil done at the same time? Maybe XP benefitted from additional patches before the Brazilian release.
It makes sense, because back then, things would get released in here much later than the global releases. I found no information on the local release date of windows xp, to know for sure, though.
Why do you say that current quantum computers are fake? As far as I'm aware they exist at a small scale. At this point isn't it mostly of a matter of getting costs down and cooling them so you can get enough q-bits to do something really useful?
Because I used to be involved in a tiny bit of it.
Don't get me wrong, they are a beautiful invention in the intersection of physics and engineering. But the algorithms that people are interested in were executed only on ion computers... which are not that great in the sense of scaling. The supercubit quantum computers, which you are probably talking about, are only good for stimulating themselves for a fraction of a second. And don't make me start to talk about neutral atoms, NV centers and "liquid light" platforms.
The only good they are making is sucking money for fundamental physics from big cats like google, amazon, putin and ccp
lemmy.ohaa.xyz
Hot