Re: Nice for abandonware
"MS inflicted Win9x, not much more than Win3.x with the VFW & Win32s bundled optimised for gaming on businesses that would have been far better using NT3.5 or OS/2 Warp. A burden for them and business till XP (Win 5.1, Win2K was the unfinished Win 5.0). Idiots, though commercially sucessful, it was the source of most of the stupid design decisions and badly written SW on NT after 1995."
A lot of people who are now rabid Linux fanboys and general MS haters (or was at some point, like me in my younger days) switched to Linux from Win95/98 and still think "Windows" is like that
Win95* was a pretty darn impressive hack with a lot of sheer sorcery needed to build an environment that's simultaneously a new 32-bit system with all the bells and whistles, still very backwards compatible with 16-bit Windows and DOS stuff (even to the point of supporting DOS-only hardware drivers!) and had good performance on the systems of the day.
But this came at great costs in terms of stability, functionality and elegance. Which people without an understanding of the underlying reasons behind it - and more importantly, having never tried NT in any meaningful way - quickly assumed was because of "M$" incompetence when writing their "Windoze" (after all, Linux was clearly better, and also made you feel superior to common users after mastering it or even managing to install it and getting X running in high res).
So if they had just started pushing NT sooner, maybe we would have less annoying Linux fanboys...
Still, I'm not sure I can blame them for not doing it at that point in time. I really think the 9x stop-gap was needed to get people to start developing the shiny new Win32 applications, and NT wasn't exactly nice with 8 or even 4MB RAM which were common then.
They should probably have skipped Win Me though and simply launched XP at that point in time...
* Actually the biggest change from a technical viewpoint was arguably when Windows got 32BFA, which arrived in the 3.11 minor release, but...