this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
483 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

87627 readers
3868 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago

They have the wallpaper locked at work somehow. Thanks for the reminder I need to stylise my cursor again. Black with green border.

At home, I’ve been Windows free for a few years now.

[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Windows 95 had a more successful launch. Believe me: I was there for it, and I had to run tech-support for half a dozen friends’ computers at the time, not to mention several family members.

And I had already been running Chicago betas for several months. What a shit show that was…

And these were the days before most people had either a functional Internet connection or any sort of home networking, so any kind of real fix or updates had to come through the sneakernet via floppies.

I was legit working for Dell tech Support when Windows 98 came out, and that really wasn’t so bad. except for the whole USB 2.0 thing…

[–] affenlehrer@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I was a kid at the time with a pirated copy of W95. I had memorized the W95 license key (wasn't that difficult but I finally forgot it) because I had to reinstall it so often. I think at least once a month.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

17195-OEM-0001875-01864

Yeah, I reinstalled that much that I remember it.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I freed up a couple of spare brain cells on that sort of thing back in the day once it was discovered around the schoolyard that Windows 95 (in addition to Office and a couple of other M$ products) would happily accept a CD key of all ones: 111-1111111. I don't think this was applicable to the OEM versions, though. Windows 98 meanwhile would take a key of 12345-12345-12345, etc.

I still have the Windows 2000 MSDN CD key memorized. From XP onwards, the... alternative... activation methods did not require knowing license keys anymore.

One wonders what it was like to be a member of mankind in an era when all you had to memorize was actually useful information.

[–] Quazatron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Me too, at work, on a dozen machines. ALL THIRTY TWO FLOPPY DISKS.

[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I had a w98 and xp key memorized at one point

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

I'm pretty sure I still have an index card somewhere with an XP key on it. I very nearly had it memorized.

[–] limerod@reddthat.com 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are you a masochist, if you continue to rely on Windows when it keeps on accumulating new bugs and issues?

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because you see a claim online you think all users suffer from it?

[–] limerod@reddthat.com 1 points 18 hours ago

Claim? It has been well known windows has persistent issues not limited to its anti-user practices. I wince when I need to use it at work or help fix issues for my coworkers.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

this information is going to be soooooo useful for the fediverse types /s

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›