Worst Microsoft Product?

John Galt wrote:

Worst: Windows Installer. All versions.

Very badly thought out in the first place, and getting more and more arcaine and irrelivent as time goes by. This thing is getting progressively worse, not better.

The technology and the idea isn't too bad but most implementations are. There are no good applications (including Visual Studio) that can create decent installers.
The only good installer I have seen from Microsoft is the Office setup (since 2000).

The worst application: VS 2005 because of it's alpha quality while having an exagerated price.

I'd like to slap the person responsible for the "New Hardware Wizard" repeatedly in the face. If you unplug a USB accessory (such as a dongle for Music apps) and then plug it back in a minute later, the Hardware wizard forces you to walk you though it's dumb wizard. AGAIN. What a piece of crap. Oh and this forum software isn't exactly pleasing to use.

OTOH, I like Visual Studio 2005. A lot.

A lot of visitors didnt like the comment I made when I said Windows XP was one of the worst products.  I admit, maybe a little to harsh.  I will make a withdraw and say XP was not the worst, XP was just released to soon for its time.  Microsoft screwed the pooch When XP was released.  Just less than a year earlier we had Windows 2000.  Now if Microsoft had wanted to get the NT kernel into home users hands they should have stayed with Windows Neptune, and saved XP for a later date.  Windows Server 2003 should have been Windows XP.  Many users, including myself didnt see any significant reasons to upgrade to Windows XP.  To me Microsoft didnt justify the cost of XP with the featureset.  Everyone was expecting the bomb to go off with Windows XP and all we got was a dud.  Vista in my opinion is redemption for Microsoft.  You guys definately deserve your thunder with Vista.

Well, I have to say that Managed C++ __sort __of __made __me __ill, if you catch my drift.  Outlook Express is an E-mail product that should have been dropped ages ago, and any product with a talking paper clip should be grounds for firing the designer.

uratewl wrote:

Best product would have to be Excel. You can do just about anything with that app.

I am somewhat disappointed with Excel, it's hard to devise your own data-visualisation systems, and there's a 65535 row limitation, and it displays an error message whenever you bind an axis of a graph to a whole column, which is rather annoying.

My worst is a tie between Windows ME and Edlin.

WinME becuase it was just too unstable. The old OS design with its "system resource" limitations was just pushed too far.

Edlin because they didn't include a decent editor with DOS till 5.0. I had a CAD class back (way back) in college where the teachers forced users to use edlin to customize AutoCAD menus because "that might be all you have available". After a few exercises they'd let people use the normal full screen editor that came with one of the PCB CAD progames they had installed.

Most surprisingly-best would be Windows 2000. WinME got me to upgrade to it, and it ran so much better on the same hardware. I convinced all my friends to go to it from Win98 as well. It even ran well with 128MB for one of them.

Manip wrote:

W3bbo wrote: disappointed with Excel [...] there's a 65535 row limitation

When have you ever needed more than 65535 rows? And might I suggest you are using the wrong solution for that job? Perhaps a database, or logic system might do it far better.

Excel 2007 will have 1,048,576 rows by 16,384 columns anyways.

W3bbo wrote:

disappointed with Excel [...] there's a 65535 row limitation

When have you ever needed more than 65535 rows? And might I suggest you are using the wrong solution for that job? Perhaps a database, or logic system might do it far better.

Some people tend to complain about limitations because they know that the limitation exists rather than actually being limited by it, which if you ask me, is a very illogical attitude.

XP SP2 has a limitation, a 10 connection limit on Shares and other service operated resources (e.g. Remote Registry). This limitation rarely effects anyone, unless your a small business trying to use standard XP as a file server. However, it doesn't stop anyone looking at a "comparison" chart and then complaining about "How much they need 20 connections" or 30 or 40... Either without understanding what is being limited or more likely complaining that the limitation exists to begin with.

DCMonkey wrote:

Manip wrote: W3bbo wrote: disappointed with Excel [...] there's a 65535 row limitation When have you ever needed more than 65535 rows? And might I suggest you are using the wrong solution for that job? Perhaps a database, or logic system might do it far better.

Excel 2007 will have 1,048,576 rows by 16,384 columns anyways.

What about Excel 2007 - 64bit edition?

Manip wrote:

DCMonkey wrote: Manip wrote: W3bbo wrote: disappointed with Excel [...] there's a 65535 row limitation When have you ever needed more than 65535 rows? And might I suggest you are using the wrong solution for that job? Perhaps a database, or logic system might do it far better. Excel 2007 will have 1,048,576 rows by 16,384 columns anyways.

What about Excel 2007 - 64bit edition?

I imagine they want to keep file compatiliblity. Why would you even need 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 rows anyway?

W3bbo wrote:

[quote]
Do "Microsoft Games" count? Because then I'd say "MechWarrior 3" (well, if it ran on Windows XP, that is). Although technically Microsoft owned FASA, who controlled the rights to the Battletech universe, the game was developed by Hasbro and published by Microprose (or something like that).

Mech3 still works under XP, I was actually playing it yesterday that way. You just need to run it in compatability mode for windows 98.

andur wrote:

Mech3 still works under XP, I was actually playing it yesterday that way. You just need to run it in compatability mode for windows 98.

Sorry, is that the 2D strategy game or the 3D game in which you walk in a mech and fight others?

Minh wrote:

This one is pretty bad...

Oh, but I couldn't club nearly half of the seals that I do without it.  It is a godsend.

ChrisA wrote:

The worst Microsoft products are Microsoft Java, Visual Foxpro, perfect example no one uses Visual Foxpro.  The only thing I see that Microsoft does right is its development tools.  All the Windows operating systems are not that great.  IE is perhaps the worst product eve developed.

There is a very rabid following of FoxPro users.  Don't knock it.

ChrisA wrote:

The worst Microsoft products are Microsoft Java, Visual Foxpro, perfect example no one uses Visual Foxpro.  The only thing I see that Microsoft does right is its development tools.  All the Windows operating systems are not that great.  IE is perhaps the worst product eve developed.

Then you clearly never used Netscape 4/Mozilla before the Gecko/NewLayout rewrite.

Worst Products that I've owned...

A toss up between DOS-4 and Office-97

...both products that broke working installations.


Best products

C#  and  .NET


-Spoof.

MICROSOFT WORKS WAS TERRIBLE

XP exceeded expectations, and was the piece of software that really changed my outlook on Microsoft.