Is that reallywhat you think? Were you even there? Maybe you have gone senile?
Are you going for a chronological order there since you are mixing the 9x and nt products?
You also missed some fairly important releases.
The windows 95 OSR reelases for a start.
The orig win 95 basically lacked apps. It was a new direction,the old ones did not use it well (I ackowledge win32 was sort of available on win 3 so it was not like there were none). However it was a good step and not crap.
Win 92 OSR2 (where fat32 support came in) was great. (released 1 year after the original, at which point people buying the retail version were getting royally shafted, but thats windows for you!)
And OSR2 +IE4 (with dekstop update (or OSR2.5 which installed it for you unless you refused) was practically win 98 (ok win 98 simplified the installation process somewhat).
NT (I shall assume you mean 4 from your order). Yes this was great. I used it for a while myself. IIRC you needed IE 4 and the desktop upgrade again for the niceties. However gam,ing moved on and lack of hardware directx support pushed me back towards.
Win 98. It was good I don;t see a problem.
Win 98 SE. Not much of an update but also good,.
Windows 2000. Yes this came next not ME. Excellect DX supprot on NT finally! used itfrom Beta2!
Me. Pointless release made for people scared of nt. Not needed as 2000 was well up to the job. Probably made to appease some idiots with obsolete hardware with no NT drivers, probably from some company too cheap to make them (NT has been around a while now, I think most people just assumed there were no drivers, I had no problems).
XP at launch. I agree with you. However mostly because win 2000 was still well supported and it really needed a lot more on the hardware front to work. (it was good but you needed money for hardware!)
XP Later on (SP1 on). Your hardware had caught up and a dfresh install was way easier than 2000 + updates. 2000 Stoppped getting some updates so it was time for XP.
Vista. Good direction, bad implementation. XP Still good enough. So mostly agreeing there!
Vista SP1. Vastly improved here and because it was getting to be an issue, was the only op[tion is you had anything but under specced hardware. By than I mean 64 bit. XP 64 was good, and I admit I missed that even though I used it for a while myself, however it was nothing more than a test and was abandoned without updates. I went back to xp 32 bit. But the next time I upgraded I wanted to use my full 4gb (it was cheap enough to have that then even if lots of available machines gave you less (ram is cheap don't let it be a bottleneck, 16gb is my recomended minimum these days, just because you can for not a lot). So to sum uop Vista SP1 (especially 64 bit). Good.
Windows 7. Just a slight polishing of Vista Sp1. Nothing special. Only reason I moved is because I was given a free key! I admit there are a few nice improvements. But not a lot over vista sp1 and most are just default configuration settings!
Win 8. I agree. Big steaming pile of something. I am dual booting with 7 (a free key again) but cannot remember the last time I booted 8. Yes 8 is faster. (muchly though the configuration defaults again). But metro (or tifkam) I don't need or indeed want. A win 7 start menu I do, and yes the typing is there in win 8 but I resent having to go to the metro screen to do it. No thanks.
I may have to use it one day though. If something I have to use ends up needing it then I will just have to put up with the pain of configuting it my way but untill then no thanks.