Apart from it's relative slowness and resource problems and the fact it introduced Microsoft's web oriented newspeak and the dreadful, quasi forcible integration of the web browser into the operating system, this OS is probably one of the most versatile and still works well especially on older machines and has the advantage of still runnning on top of DOS, which allows real control.
If it wasn't for the later OS's better integration with recent hardware and obviously better web integration best suited for the corporate world and collaborative computing (which is NOT necessarily a "good" thing especially for power users who much prefer the original file and directory interface of old such as myself) and if it wasn't for Microsoft's forcible integration with many of the latest computers (would could have thought they would have gained such total control in the computing world so as to even dictate what OS is allowed at the BIOS level!!!), this and comparable OSes of the time would probably still be running on many more machines, with actual _enhancements_ instead of the hindrances feebly veiled behind a pretext of 'convenience' and 'security' that is relentlessly imposed upon us all the time.
Do any of you remember the "Windows 98 Lite" power user install, that concentrated on removing all web integration from the OS? How fast and efficient this OS was?
Why are so many power users accepting an OS that is probably 90% based on bloated, inefficient code and has become almost impossible to fully contol? Because their livelihood depends on what the masses have been told they want without realizing they have been subtly converted to Microsoft's imperialistic worldview.
You know something is wrong when the largest software company in the world has to promote its OS through TV commercials or has to hire celebrities in deceptive, smart appearing commercials to promote it.
Keep Up with TechRepublic