Every other windows usually sucks
win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
Windows 8 can be used without ever going into metro ui.
win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)
win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)
Again, absolute crap.
win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)
win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)
I mostly agree that every other Windows version pretty much sucks, and that Millenium was garbage. However, I noticed that you omitted Windows 2000, which was the business alternative to Windows ME, and was one of the most stable and best performing operating systems Microsoft ever put out.
Actually Lanx' list was perfectly consistent with regard to what versions he included, those all follow a lineage of being consumer oriented releases from 3.1 onwards. If you were to include Windows 2000 then it makes no sense, because it then becomes a list of consumer oriented versions with one corporate version included (another reason this good/bad thing is nonsense is that everyone seems to just include whatever random versions of Windows they like to shoehorn it into fitting their false pattern). If you include 2000 then why aren't you also including the various NT versions that 2000 was derived from as well? Or why aren't you just including everything, including CE versions?
Also, did you guys actually use 2000 for any length of time or are you just repeating the same tired cliches said by uninformed people all over the web? Sure, 2000 (and NT in general) is technically superior to 9x, but at the time 2000 was obviously completely useless if you wanted to use a graphics card, or play Half-Life or something. I don't think people can tell the difference between user experience quality - which is dependant on a number of factors, and technical quality. Vista was technically sound, much moreso than XP was upon release, but the general ecosystem at the time made it less compelling, due to the steeper hardware requirements, incompatible software, driver issues, etc. - i.e the exact same things people complained about when XP was released. Am I really the only person on the Internet that has a functioning memory?
Here's what I'd say a fair summing up of the Windows versions was, without the rose-tinted glasses and trying to fit a silly cliche:
Windows 1.0-3.1 (not even a real OS, just a frontend and application suite for MS-DOS essentially) > Windows 95 (awful), Windows 98 (awful), Windows 98SE (slightly less awful), Windows Me (awful)
Windows NT (irrelevant) > Windows 2000 (sound), Windows XP (rubbish) > Windows XP SP1 (OK), Windows XP SP2 (good), Windows XP SP3 (good) > Windows Vista (rubbish) > Windows Vista SP1 (OK), Windows Vista SP2 (good) > Windows 7 (good)
I think the reccomended migration is XP --> Win 7 --> OS X
Profosist - thanks!
There was some tweaking in there that was very helpful.
Why do they have to keep moving and changing everything? Like the "ribbon" in Office a few years ago, they seemed to take the really important stuff like "Tools" and "Options" and "View" and scattered the pieces willy-nilly throughout the (greatly bloated) new menu system.
As much as I would like to switch everything back to "Classic" setup, I know that will just prolong my agony. Time to start learning where everything is, all over again.
I love the Win7 Ribbons, so easy to find the page you need with the scroll wheel!
can you elaborate? I am not familiar with this feature.
wtf are Libraries and Collections
My experience is that once you start using Win 7, you WON'T want to go to XP.I agree and I am typically resistant to upgrading operating systems as well.
It is significantly better.
I've done an all right job of just ignoring Libraries and Collections altogether. Has no effect on my Windows Explorer usage other than some superfluous visual cruft in the sidebar.
I dont see why all of think you think that win 8 is going to suck so much if you dont want metro dont use it.
I've got nothing against it, yet, really. But also have no burning desire for it, yet, really. Hell I just went to Windows 7!well if you have the newer hardware there are going to be a ton of improvements as to how the OS deals with it. I wish they would just puiblish a huge list of all the major things they changed between OSs because to show you all the improvements i would have to dig through a years worth of news.
I am sure option to disable metro will be in release verison.
If you can skip metro completely and still have all the standard Win7 features, and if they fixed the audio output switching stupidity I might think about it. The audio thing irritates me enough to switch from Win7 if I'm not losing anything I currently use and don't have to put up with Metro. :)
I don't use the start menu anyway, Launchy does me fine there.
It's a completely separate operating environment. They just happen to both boot at the same time.
When i was playing with the devo prerelease it booted in to metro and you would choose to go to the desktop from there. Unless you have everything layed out on your desktop how are you going to get to your programs?
Again, I haven't played with it since maybe the first or second week after the Dev pre-release so maybe stuff has changed, but it seemed much more linear than that to me.
Apparently Microsoft is also removing the ability for businesses to boot to the desktop.
"And those with hopes that Microsoft would allow businesses, at least, to boot directly to the desktop should prepare for disappointment," he added. "That feature not only isn't happening, it's being removed from Windows Server 12 (Windows 8's stable mate) as well."
Paths never seem to go up more than a level or 2, most of my files look like they top out at "harry" although I know that it is actually "C:\users\harry" so why is it so stubborn about not saying so?
The whole multi-user thing was a blip anyway, and not really worth bothering with, everyone in the developed world surely has their own computer(s) by now rather than sharing some beige family desktop. Sharing computers feels as bad as sharing toothbrushes to me. I've never actually used the whole "My Documents" and user specific folder things, but then I have a completely convoluted setup with multiple drives and a Drobo, etc.
I can't think of a major OS that isn't multi-user and don't understand calling it a "blip".
There was a time when Windows was not multi-user... it is a blip in that it is something left over from those times.
I can't think of a major OS that isn't multi-user and don't understand calling it a "blip".What about Android? And it's a blip in terms of the way people actually use their computers. Computers are cheap and ubiquitous enough now that everyone I know has their own computer, if not several. No-one shares a single PC like they did in the 90's.
Yes. I'm not confusing anything though, I said "multi-user thing". I just think it's a generally pointless area these days. I'm not actually trying to make any kind of point about it.
Yes. I'm not confusing anything though, I said "multi-user thing". I just think it's a generally pointless area these days. I'm not actually trying to make any kind of point about it.