I remember it like this. Windows XP and earlier was a horrible era for stability and security and the world was overall less connected. Phones were always on and always connected. The iPhone was honestly the first stable internet device, that didn't sleep or pause, and the first internet device many people had that wasn't infected by viruses.
No it wasn’t. XP was quite solid in terms of stability, miles beyond its predecessors. You have to remember that its mediate predecessor was Windows ME.
It was also far more secure, but it was still not nearly secure enough.
> ”Upon its release, Windows XP received critical acclaim, noting increased performance and stability (especially compared to Windows Me)…”
gizajob · · focus · HN ↗
Yeah because Apple has broken that idea over and over and over. The anti-unix unix.
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
goalieca · · focus · HN ↗
dpark · · focus · HN ↗
Huh? Windows XP was the first NT-based release for home users. It was a milestone in stability.
sporadicism · · focus · HN ↗
dpark · · focus · HN ↗
It was also far more secure, but it was still not nearly secure enough.
> ”Upon its release, Windows XP received critical acclaim, noting increased performance and stability (especially compared to Windows Me)…”
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP
sporadicism · · focus · HN ↗
> It was also far more secure, but it was still not nearly secure enough.
That's one way to say "plagued by a decade of botnets."
> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP
Now google XP blue screen of death. Still alive and well then.
If the bar is Microsoft's most loathed release, then I guess you could call it stable and secure.
anthk · · focus · HN ↗