The 10 worst software programs ever

[MacBytes]

Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: The 10 worst software programs ever (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040820101929)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[stoid]

2. Microsoft OS/2.
Later taken over by IBM, this 1987 joint venture was going to be the next great operating system, according to Steve Ballmer.

Yay for the other Steve! ;) :D

[Abstract]

Why are all the worst programs of all time in the 80's? Sure, they weren't as developed and sophisticated back then, but in that era, I'm sure some of these things weren't THAT bad.

I'm only saying this because I was scrolling down, waiting to see Windows ME on that list, but surprisingly, I didn't.

[mainstreetmark]

I'm just glad none of my programs made this list! *grin*

[stcanard]

My god, could the author of this article be more off base? Just because a program disappeared, doesn't mean it was a flop:

10. Microsoft Bob

-- And just where do you think the technology for all of Microsoft's Intellisense came from? And does he not recognize those annoying icons that pop up to help neophytes through tasks in office?

7. Windows 1.0

-- Yeah, you know, I just don't think that Windows thingy is going to go anywhere

2. OS/2

-- It's amazing how many people seem to think this OS is dead. It's lived on a serious life as an embedded system. Walk into any major store and look at the IBM logo on their cash registers. What OS do you think they are running?

Maybe my definition of a flop is different, but I would have expected to see really bad software that never went anywhere. First iterations of what have become mainstays just don't fit in my book.

[Golem]

Why are all the worst programs of all time in the 80's? Sure, they weren't as developed and sophisticated back then, but in that era, I'm sure some of these things weren't THAT bad.


Want to bet:)

20 odd years years ago I was working for a computer store and we were selling pc's+apple II and some incredibly expensive box that had a colour screen and has since vanished into history. I think the Lisa 1 was out but we werent selling it.

Anyway a Sales team came out to sell us on this next great thing called visi on.

They did their thing and I had a chance to sit down with it. 30 seconds later I had crashed it so hard it had to be reinstalled. They reinstalled and i had another go, crashed it again...and a third time. This was on a top of the line stock standard XT or AT and after the third time they just gave up:)

[wordmunger]

Maybe my definition of a flop is different, but I would have expected to see really bad software that never went anywhere. First iterations of what have become mainstays just don't fit in my book.
Yeah, but those were the only programs I'd actually heard of. There has to be a balance between "Joe's Widgets" -- programs that were amazingly bad but no one's ever heard of them, and programs that might be bad in some peoples' eyes but actually became very popular (such as Windows XP).

I think a better list might include "upgrades" that were actually downgrades, such as Windows ME.

[drumpat01]

I defeniftly think that Windows ME should have been on there. I remember seeing my friends brand new Dell computer that had windows ME on it. When you would move around a window frame, glitches would appear on the desktop, like holes in the picture or the picture would pixilate. What a joke of an OS.

[haddiscoe]

Huh? Why isn't DBase IV on this list. That was truly one of the great software disasters of all time.

[montex]

How could they leave Microsoft Publisher off the list? Whenever I get a Publisher file in my shop, they always have something wrong with them. It's a program that makes me feel "dirty" every time I am forced to deal with it. Note that I don't "use" Publisher, I "deal" with it. It is consistently the biggest piece of crap I've encountered in my career and I pray for the day Publisher is wiped from the face of the Earth!

[valve83]

This program I am forced to use, called I-32 Forms Design, is an awful piece of software. User interface inconsistencies abound. The main screen scrolls to the top, and then back down to the current position EVERY KEYSTROKE. It's seizure-inducingly awful. And there are separate tools for everything, even though it should be easy based on what the user is doing to differentiate between them...for example, I would never try to resize a textbox from the middle. Sigh.

I totally agree on Windows ME. I tried it once on my old computer just to see, and it was far, far worse than any other version of Windows ever. Makes me cringe, and it's better at freezing than the upper part of my favorite kitchen appliance.

[wdlove]

I don't really even recognize any of those programs. Guess that's because the Apple Ship of State has steered us down the best lane.

[themadchemist]

My god, could the author of this article be more off base? Just because a program disappeared, doesn't mean it was a flop:


Note that the author uses the word 'worst,' not 'flop.' He isn't commenting on whether a particular brand or software series fared well in the long run; rather, he points out what he thinks are the very worst individual pieces of software, down to the version.

[kerb]

Windows 97 was far worse then ME

[macsrus]

How about Mac OS 1 through 9

They were all terrible too...

But OS X.... is a thing of beauty

[macsrus]

Windows 97 was far worse then ME

You mean 98?

As far as Windows 95/98/ME go.... Win98 Second edition was by far the best...

[bousozoku]

OS/2 is a winner overall, but Microsoft really made a mess of promoting and supporting their version of OS/2. Of course, IBM got busy for a while and then, let it go. I think that Microsoft was never happy with implementing an IBM design.

I really don't understand why he attacked Modula-2. For quite a while, it was taught in Europe and was a better-than-C replacement for Pascal. I still appreciate that Modula-2 gets its integration information from compiled modules, not source files. It's easier to produce stable code quickly than with C and the code runs nearly as fast. Had it caught on here, we might not be seeing so many buffer overflow errors and therefore, machine exploits.

Lotus Symphony was pretty bad but it was an integrated solution like AppleWorks or Microsoft Works and, where I was working at the time, we had it on every desktop since buying Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect was prohibitive.

Lotus Jazz was interesting in how quickly it failed. I remember one review where they showed the print ad of the Jazz dancer and asked if he was in that position because he hurt himself trying to use the software.

[Loge]

OS/2 was superior to Windows 3.0 at around the same time. It's just IBM didn't realise they were being screwed until it was too late.

[Nermal]

OS/2 is a winner overall, but Microsoft really made a mess of promoting and supporting their version of OS/2.

So they renamed it to NT and tried again. Look where it is now!

As for Symphony, I think I still have it somewhere. That and AllWays, the GUI addon.

[stcanard]

So they renamed it to NT and tried again. Look where it is now!


I'm not sure if you meant this literally, but NT was actually a complete ground-up redesign. It's more VMS than OS/2.

[bousozoku]

I'm not sure if you meant this literally, but NT was actually a complete ground-up redesign. It's more VMS than OS/2.

You would hope so, but it wasn't so. WinNT 3.51 showed up with many things from OS/2. It was only when WinNT 4 arrived that they had at least hidden the original nature of the code. Supposedly, the also put a modified Mach kernel in it. Of course, OS/2 Warp had one.

[Nermal]

You can still find files like os2.exe (or it might be .dll) in XP :rolleyes:

[iMeowbot]

NT's OS/2 support was at a higher level than the kernel. As it was originally developed, NT didn't have a user interface at all, but these modular personality thingies that would allow the OS to morph. There was an OS/2 personality (text mode only by the time it shipped, PM was left out), a POSIX personality, and of course the Windows one that most people know.

the underlying structure of NT does bear a passing resemblance to VMS, but it would be a mistake to think that it's the same. Early VMS wasn't much of an operating system, and that's what NT most closely resembles. Much of the stuff that made VMS cool, like real clustering, SMP, seamless networking and in incredibly comprehensive security model, was contributed by people who came from different parts of DEC. Those people didn't go to Microsoft, and it shows.

[pianojoe]

I really don't understand why he attacked Modula-2. For quite a while, it was taught in Europe and was a better-than-C replacement for Pascal. I still appreciate that Modula-2 gets its integration information from compiled modules, not source files. It's easier to produce stable code quickly than with C and the code runs nearly as fast. Had it caught on here, we might not be seeing so many buffer overflow errors and therefore, machine exploits.



Cheerio!