If you switch that metric from good/bad instead of success/failure, it makes more sense. Something doesn't have to have been objectively good to be sucessful.
Here's how I remember it:
3.1 was the first windows GUI for mass consumption, and was successful, and pretty decent for it's time.
95 was also succesful, but I remember it being very, terribly unstable. Moreso than 3.1.. i put it in the bad column based on that.
98 improved on this and added a lot. Good.
ME was utter dogshit.
Kernels changed from ME to XP, so I make the link there. Microsoft did provide a direct upgrade path from ME to XP.
XP was awesome
Vista was horrid.
7 was awesome
Now 8. If they continue the pattern, 8 will suck.
It seems like there's a micro pattern like "new UI paradigm" >> "polish and improve new UI". 98 improved on 95, 7 improved on vista, XP improved on 2K.
Here's how I remember it:
3.1 was the first windows GUI for mass consumption, and was successful, and pretty decent for it's time.
95 was also succesful, but I remember it being very, terribly unstable. Moreso than 3.1.. i put it in the bad column based on that.
98 improved on this and added a lot. Good.
ME was utter dogshit.
Kernels changed from ME to XP, so I make the link there. Microsoft did provide a direct upgrade path from ME to XP.
XP was awesome
Vista was horrid.
7 was awesome
Now 8. If they continue the pattern, 8 will suck.
It seems like there's a micro pattern like "new UI paradigm" >> "polish and improve new UI". 98 improved on 95, 7 improved on vista, XP improved on 2K.