--- title: Software may be getting worse, but it used to be horrible description: Software quality may be declining as code production outpaces bug fixing, but old software was far worse. Windows, with around 95% market share, crashed from... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/software-may-be-getting-worse-but-it-used-to-be-horrible-1mfo1gvgg twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: Software may be getting worse, but it used to be horrible | daily.dev og:description: Software quality may be declining as code production outpaces bug fixing, but old software was far worse. Windows, with around 95% market share, crashed from... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/software-may-be-getting-worse-but-it-used-to-be-horrible-1mfo1gvgg og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/1Mfo1GVgg.png og:image:alt: Software may be getting worse, but it used to be horrible og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 630 og:locale: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Software may be getting worse, but it used to be horrible **[Hacker News](https://daily.dev/sources/hn)** · 13 min read · 0 upvotes · 0 comments ## Summary Software quality may be declining as code production outpaces bug fixing, but old software was far worse. Windows, with around 95% market share, crashed from time to time because of buggy device drivers and resource leaks, producing the infamous Blue Screen of Death. Many applications lacked autosave, hard drives needed manual defragmentation, advertising malware accumulated, and physical media like CDs and cartridges degraded over time. At Google Docs in 2010, the Ctrl+S shortcut ranked among the top 5 non-editing user actions despite doing nothing, as users were traumatized from years of lost work. The author concludes modern software, despite its bloat, beats the old shipped-once, crash-prone era. ## Full article daily.dev links to this article rather than hosting it. Read it at the original source: ## Questions this post answers ### Why did old Windows computers get the Blue Screen of Death so often Old Windows systems crashed frequently mainly due to buggy device drivers shipped on floppy disks or CDs that couldn't be updated, plus the operating system's own flaws in reclaiming resources from exited programs, which caused the system to slowly degrade until it crashed. _Anyone comparing today's OS stability to the past can explore more software reliability history on daily.dev._ ### Why did Windows computers need manual disk defragmentation back in the day Older Windows filesystems stored files across spinning magnetic hard drive platters, and as files were added and removed, they became fragmented into multiple disk locations, slowing read speeds. Windows did not handle defragmentation automatically back then, so users had to manually run Disk Defragmenter periodically, unlike many modern filesystems which handle this in the background. _Developers curious about filesystem evolution can follow more computing history deep dives on daily.dev._ ### What was the TURBO button on old PCs used for The TURBO button slowed a computer's processor down on purpose, because many early programs and games were written assuming a fixed 4.77MHz clock speed on IBM's original 8088 processor. As CPUs got faster, those timing-dependent applications became unusable, so the TURBO button let users throttle the CPU back down to a speed those older programs expected. _Anyone tracing how hardware constraints shaped software design can dig into more retro-computing stories on daily.dev._ ## Community take How the wider developer community reacted, aggregated from 1 discussion and 157 comments across hackernews (as of 2026-10-27). **TL;DR:** Discussion is split: many argue reliability genuinely improved (fewer BSODs, better testing, better accessibility) while others insist UX, polish, and architecture have degraded due to subscriptions, analytics-driven design, and AI-generated slop with low-value tests. **Sentiment:** 20% positive · 35% mixed · 45% skeptical **The case for** - Several note modern software crashes far less often (e.g. almost no BSODs since Windows 7) compared to the past. - Some report testing, accessibility, and library upkeep have genuinely improved on projects they work on. - A few argue old UIs are remembered through rose-tinted nostalgia and were actually ugly, slow, and inconsistent. **The pushback** - Many argue consumer UX has gotten worse due to subscription models, analytics-driven design, and removal of user control/customization. - Commenters are skeptical that more AI-generated tests indicate real quality, citing vacuous or copy-the-output tests. - Some blame enshittification and business incentives (constant redesigns, hidden menus) rather than technical necessity for perceived decline. - A concrete anecdote describes a UX bug causing real financial loss, suspected to stem from careless/AI-assisted development. - Several say line-of-code or test-count metrics are poor proxies for actual software quality. **By community** - hackernews (heated): Commenters argue fiercely over whether software is actually improving (reliability, testing) or degrading (UX, bloat, enshittification), with no clear consensus. **Hottest debate:** Whether increased test coverage and AI-assisted development represent genuine quality improvement or just superficial metrics masking worse software. **Open questions** - Is there a reliable, non-nostalgia-biased way to measure whether software quality has actually declined? - Does more AI-generated test code correlate with real reduction in bugs, or just inflate coverage numbers? - Is the perceived UX decline driven by genuine design regression or by broader audiences with different expectations now using software? **Highlights** > “Software is degrading for obvious reasons” is just painfully lazy. Where are the metrics of degradation? Where are the claims of specific reasons, and the evidence of causality? If the complaint is vibe coding makes bad software, I largely believe it, but I absolutely believe that vibe arguing makes tissue paper arguments. “Everyone knows” and “it’s obvious” are flimsy things to rest arguments on. I’m writing dramatically better software for all the reasons this post says obviously make worse software. Testing has gotten much easier, and bug fixing has gotten much easier. I looked at a pre-AI project I did a couple of years ago: test to code LOC was 0.15:1. The projects I work on now are around 1.3:1. The old project had no accessibility considered at all, the new ones are nicely done aria and beyond. Old project is stuck on old libraries because upgrading is a major pain. New projects take new libraries (after cooldown) no matter the effort. So I’m left thinking that perhaps some people, too lazy to use the new powers of new tools, churn out the same or worse quality code/essays. But I am seeing a lot of very high quality software that simply wouldn’t have been possible before, and I believe the same could be done with essays by leveraging these tools to research and find real data beyond “it’s obvious”. But that does take a lot more work. > — [brookst on hackernews · 8 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50257897) > Dawg, you clearly haven't used any consumer-grade software in the past 5 years. Everything across the board is a worse experience and there in some cases are limitations that make no sense. Use any app such as Spotify or Uber Eats, its a worse experience than it was 5 years ago, hands down. Everyone outside of our bubble knows it. > — [rkozik1989 on hackernews · 2 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50258000) > I have long suspected that one of the driving issues is the continued need for people in the org to keep justifying their existence. From the consumer POV you can make a great app that does the thing great, and then that's it. Pay once upfront. Just security updates and maybe light compatibility updates after. Instead we get constant toying and adjusting, and even worse, get pigeon holed into a monthly subscription to bankroll the $200k salaries needed to pay the team that hides the menu button every 6 month to boost screen time. > — [WarmWash on hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50258514) > Amen to that. For the first time in my life terrible UX costed me money and I'm highly suspicious that fucked up UX is because of AI slop. Basically, I tried to buy a train ticket on sbb.ch (it was an eurostar crossing the border, so I couldn't do it through the app). I selected the day and start looking at the available trains. Before continuing I logged in with swisspass to get my halb-tax discount applied. Once done the page reloaded, I got the updated prices, I selected the train at the time I wanted and I purchased the ticket. Only when I got the ticket delivered on my app screen I notice that it was for the current day and I couldn't reimburse it. Basically, the page reload after the swisspass login changed the date to the current one and, of course, I didn't notice. It is now fixed, but it costed me 90 bucks and couldn't really do anything because technically is my fault for not noticing it was on the wrong day. > — [marcyb5st on hackernews · 1 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50260017) > Definitely rose-tinted glasses when people look back at Windows XP and earlier in particular. So many HN posts waxing poetic about how great the UIs were then. No! They were ugly, unreliable, inconsistent, and slow. It was a bad OS. Being gray and having small buttons doesn’t make it automatically more powerful or functional. > — [rafram on hackernews · 6 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50258014) **Source threads** - [hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50257548) · 198 points · 157 comments ## Similar posts on daily.dev - [State of the Windows: What is going on with Windows 11?](https://daily.dev/posts/state-of-the-windows-what-is-going-on-with-windows-11--i7oygxckl) · Hacker News · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [The Downfall and Enshittification of Microsoft in 2026](https://daily.dev/posts/the-downfall-and-enshittification-of-microsoft-in-2026-bm8puwaqv) · Lobsters · 0 upvotes · 0 comments --- Tags: [#windows](https://daily.dev/tags/windows), [#computing-history](https://daily.dev/tags/computing-history) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/software-may-be-getting-worse-but-it-used-to-be-horrible-1mfo1gvgg) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/dailydotdev","https://github.com/dailydotdev","https://www.linkedin.com/company/daily-dev-ltd"]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://daily.dev/#website","url":"https://daily.dev","name":"daily.dev","publisher":{"@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization"},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://daily.dev/search?q={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"Software may be getting worse, but it used to be horrible","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/software-may-be-getting-worse-but-it-used-to-be-horrible-1mfo1gvgg","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/software-may-be-getting-worse-but-it-used-to-be-horrible-1mfo1gvgg"},"datePublished":"2026-10-27T13:24:51.715Z","dateModified":"2026-10-27T15:41:13.668Z","description":"Software quality may be declining as code production outpaces bug fixing, but old software was far worse. Windows, with around 95% market share, crashed from...","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/1663a1f85644ad07211bd5b7a0c9ac11?_a=AQAEuop","thumbnailUrl":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/1663a1f85644ad07211bd5b7a0c9ac11?_a=AQAEuop","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Hacker News","inLanguage":"en","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180}},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Hacker News","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/t_logo,f_auto/v1/logos/hn","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/hn"},"commentCount":0,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/software-may-be-getting-worse-but-it-used-to-be-horrible-1mfo1gvgg","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":0},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":0}],"keywords":"windows,computing-history","timeRequired":"PT13M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hacker News","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/hn"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Software may be getting worse, but it used to be horrible"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/software-may-be-getting-worse-but-it-used-to-be-horrible-1mfo1gvgg#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"Why did old Windows computers get the Blue Screen of Death so often","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Old Windows systems crashed frequently mainly due to buggy device drivers shipped on floppy disks or CDs that couldn't be updated, plus the operating system's own flaws in reclaiming resources from exited programs, which caused the system to slowly degrade until it crashed. Anyone comparing today's OS stability to the past can explore more software reliability history on daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why did Windows computers need manual disk defragmentation back in the day","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Older Windows filesystems stored files across spinning magnetic hard drive platters, and as files were added and removed, they became fragmented into multiple disk locations, slowing read speeds. Windows did not handle defragmentation automatically back then, so users had to manually run Disk Defragmenter periodically, unlike many modern filesystems which handle this in the background. Developers curious about filesystem evolution can follow more computing history deep dives on daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What was the TURBO button on old PCs used for","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The TURBO button slowed a computer's processor down on purpose, because many early programs and games were written assuming a fixed 4.77MHz clock speed on IBM's original 8088 processor. As CPUs got faster, those timing-dependent applications became unusable, so the TURBO button let users throttle the CPU back down to a speed those older programs expected. Anyone tracing how hardware constraints shaped software design can dig into more retro-computing stories on daily.dev."}}]} ```