←back to thread

Windows needs to stop showing tabloid news

(www.tomshardware.com)
1725 points taubek | 8 comments | 27 Mar 23 05:20 UTC | HN request time: 1.013s | source | bottom
Show context
oliwarner ◴[27 Mar 23 07:25 UTC] No.35323842[source]▶
I left Windows in a hail of Vista bugs, over a decade ago. I've seen it get worse and worse in that time, both in UX rot and anti-consumer "features".

I'm almost impressed with what people willingly put up with.

Not here to eulogize over what I moved to, but I think it's important people consider why they're still using Windows. It's not your friend.

replies(25): >>35323955 #>>35323965 #>>35324039 #>>35324043 #>>35324084 #>>35324164 #>>35324166 #>>35324208 #>>35324306 #>>35324395 #>>35324506 #>>35324511 #>>35324612 #>>35324623 #>>35324638 #>>35324690 #>>35324705 #>>35325020 #>>35325068 #>>35325510 #>>35326228 #>>35326712 #>>35328686 #>>35331593 #>>35359281 #
1. SergeAx ◴[27 Mar 23 13:55 UTC] No.35326712[source]▶
There's a rule for Windows versions: you should skip every second one. So the right sequence is:

install Windows 95

skip Windows 98

install Windows 2000

skip Windows ME

install Windows XP

skip Windows Vista

install Windows 7

skip Windows 8

install Windows 10

skip Windows 11

This is so consistent that I beleive there are two teams inside MS alternately developing next version.

They say, though, that Windows 11 is the last version and there will be only updates since. I really hope this is not the case.

replies(3): >>35326771 #>>35326778 #>>35327309 #
2. dagw ◴[27 Mar 23 14:01 UTC] No.35326771[source]▶
They say, though, that Windows 11 is the last version and there will be only updates since. I really hope this is not the case.

It was actually Windows 10 they said that about, so...

replies(1): >>35330208 #
3. warner25 ◴[27 Mar 23 14:02 UTC] No.35326778[source]▶
The ads are baked into Windows 10 too, although might be worse in 11.
4. yamtaddle ◴[27 Mar 23 14:43 UTC] No.35327309[source]▶
Win95 was widely regarded as being shit prior to the C version IIRC (I had A, though, and always really liked it...)

Win98se was considered damn good, compared to what had come before. Disruption for little benefit, at launch, though.

2K was only for businesses, bad driver support and lacking in some software support on account of using the NT kernel before hardware & software vendors were expecting home users to have it.

ME was a pointless refresh of 98. Buggier and with system menus subtly messed-with to no purpose. The first miss-step of the Vista/8 variety.

XP was good by SP3. Not so much at launch.

Vista, yeah, slow as hell while adding nothing.

7 was still slow as hell, but wasn't as ugly and our hardware had gotten better so it was less-noticeable. Not much to recommend it aside from "XP's going out of support, and it's less-ugly than Vista".

8 was pointless and ugly, like Vista.

10 was another 7: de-uglified 8, but not much else going for it. Adware and shitware and spyware galore. This leaves 7 as the last "good" Windows.

11's 10 on steroids, so, two scoops of shit instead of one.

replies(2): >>35327695 #>>35328440 #
5. xxs ◴[27 Mar 23 15:09 UTC] No.35327695[source]▶
The GP list misses 8.1 which I consider the last actually good Windows, and the support has dwindled, esp. with the push of DX12... and AMD outright no supporting it at all, when it comes to GPUs.
6. fifteen1506 ◴[27 Mar 23 16:08 UTC] No.35328440[source]▶
Windows Vista was good by SP1 but required 2GB of RAM. WinSxS disk usage was only fixed on Win7, though.

I actually miss all those transparent windows :)

replies(1): >>35329446 #
7. ridgered4 ◴[27 Mar 23 17:20 UTC] No.35329446{3}[source]▶
> Windows Vista was good by SP1 but required 2GB of RAM. WinSxS disk usage was only fixed on Win7, though.

Was it? I remember they added a tool that claimed it would clean it up but in practice it didn't seem to do much.

I thought Windows 10 just papered over the whole mess by doing an in place upgrade of the whole OS every 6-12 months.

8. genewitch ◴[27 Mar 23 18:17 UTC] No.35330208[source]▶
right, because apple said Mac OS X (1998 or so) was the last version they were going to release.

from new era Macs it went 7, 8, 9, X. Then intel macs, still macos X.

I do know they're up to version 16 or something of whatever the OS is called these days. probably just MacOS.

I didn't believe either of them!