So I've started thinking about why people hated windows vista and windows 8. To me they were both awesome operating systems and never really got the credit they deserved. Windows Vista seems to have been hated because it was a power hungry, memory hogger operating system. And windows 8 was hated because it was a change from what people are use to in regards to the start menu.
So I've started thinking about previous versions of windows and why they're hated. Lets start with win 95, because in reality that is what started this "modern" age of OS. So lets go ...
win 95 - loved
win 98 - great upgrade
win me - POS that always crashed and no one loved
win 2000 - around the same time as win me, and, imo, one of the best OS of all time. One would argue though that win 2000 was more aimed at businesses.
win xp - everyone seemed to LOVE this OS. I think this was because it was a mix of 2000 and ME, with an "improved" interface with better compatibility.
win vista - hated because it seemed to be a memory hogging, power hungry os, which I think was because people who used windows 98 and upgraded to XP found there inadequate hardware was to slow for cutting edge software at the time... And windows UAC was hated because it was an inconvenience to allow a programs access to the OS's roots "all the time"... Security was improved but people hated it...
win 8 - arghhh ugly interface...
win 8.1 - at least i'm not forced to boot into the metro ui anymore....
win 10 - ahhhh love it!
So it looks like every 2nd version of windows is the most favourite/loved (or hated depending on which version you start with). Do you think this means that win 11 will be no good, and people will hate it purely because it's after a great version?
Personally I've been impressed with every windows version, and think they all deserve credit, especially windows 8 because it was trying to break away from what we where use to... Much like what windows 95 did to windows 3...
hmmmmm
>>52136341
>win 10 - ahhhh love it!
lol
But I think Windows 10 will be forced upon us, unfortunately. I'll make the jump when everyone gets done beta-testing it.
>>52136378
From public reception, this seems to be accurate...
op you forgot win 7. Which was the best of all time
>98, 2000, XP
Okay, but not that great. I have had experiences with all of these where the OS would completely freeze. Can't move the mouse, can't do anything but hard reboot. And that was even without viruses.
>Vista
Little experience with this, because for most of Vista's time, I was using just Linux (and then later, OS X for maybe 2 years). My experience with Vista on other people's computers was actually not that bad. I would say it was actually an improvement over XP, so long as it was run on a reasonably modern computer.
>7
A rather solid, functional OS. Boot times weren't the best though.
>8, 8.1
I actually liked these. Once you remove all of the clutter from the start screen and customize it a bit, it makes for a very interesting interface to see all of your applications. I just put all of my desktop applications into logical groups (programming related, other productivity, games, system administration, etc...) and threw them all up there. It was sometimes faster than searching for an application to launch.
>10
No realistic improvements over 8.1, in my opinion.
>>52136378
good luck forcing it on enterprises
>>52136341
Vista was a masterpiece ahead of its time, the PC manufacturers underestimated the resource needs and did not release drivers on time.
Vista SP2 was sexier than Windows 7/8/10 but support was dropped prematurely and people abandoned the ecosystem. I still use Vista on my C2D desktop.
Aside from Windows 2000, there is not a single release of Windows that lived up to my expectations, not even XP.
>>52136500
>good luck forcing it on enterprises
Unfortunately, it's already in the process.
I was shocked to see that my dumb boss was using W10 with relative ease. He even understood the new multi-tasking features.
This is a Windows that we will be forced to like eventually. It's about when, not if.
>>52136341
>win 10 - ahhhh love it!
P O O I N L O O
O
O
I
N
L
O
O
I have nothing against Vista. Yeah, it used a lot of resources but other than that there's not much I'd change.
Windows 8 was easily the worst.
>>52136548
>Vista was a masterpiece ahead of its time, the PC manufacturers underestimated the resource needs and did not release drivers on time.
Microsoft themselves lowered the requirements for "Vista-ready" too low, don't blame the PC manufacturers on that. And at release, Vista was honestly pretty shit. It only became good around the release of SP1, which fixed most of the big issues save for resource use.
>Why is every 2nd Windows hated?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
>>52136570
we started upgrading from xp to 7 just 2 years ago, the last ones just this summer because some internal apps weren't ready by a supplier and i bet this will be the same when win7 will reach it's end.. then again, it's a gov., and those happen to do some workaround for some big bucks for m$
>>52136341
>win xp - everybody seemed to LOVE this OS
No, everybody loved XP SP2. You can still find tons of forum posts from back in 2001 with people hating XP and bitching about "having to upgrade their computers" just like they did with Vista.
Vista was fucking great from the start and only a "resource hog" if you tried it to run it on a P3 with 256MB of RAM. I ran that fucker on a P4 with 512MB of RAM and had zero problems.
>>52136801
>Vista on a P3 with 256MiB or RAM
It won't install unless at least 512MiB are present. Why lie?
>NT 4: 6 service packs
>2000: 4 service packs
>XP: 3 service packs
>2003 and Vista: 2 service packs
>7: 1 service pack
>8: 1 "service pack" (8.1) not even called as such anymore
>why.jpg
>>52136963
7 itself was just a service pack for vista. MS these days mostly just repackages the same shit under a different look.
>>52136963
>7 itself was just a service pack for vista. MS these days mostly just repackages the same shit under a different look.
fucking c'mon, ms has a fucking huge market share and could screw up dozen times with the shitload money they have, why dont they even try some bigger, change, not fucking us in the anusbin the process?
>>52136341
Except that every Windows since 8 has been shit bundled with spyware?
And Windows 95, 98 were liked despite being subsequent releases, as were win 2000 and win xp.
>>52136341
nice work pajeet
>>52136570
i work at small company, there are ~15 PCs, all of them are xp, noone even thinks about switching to 7, out servers run slackware and admins cant even update it anymore because it will break everything, their hardware is so old it can brea any minute now, its over for them, i seriously have find a new job before it happens
>>52136341
>Windows 95/98 were good
I want this memay to die
Post Win 9x gore
>>52138215
I've been using 8.1 for quite awhile now and I've learned to enjoy it. I just simply moved all the fucking apps I never use into a far corner where I never have to look at them and moved all the things that I do like into the front. Also looking for programs I need is super easy.
>>52136341
>win95
It got off to a rocky start due to being essentially incomplete. OSR2 (especially 2.5) was much better. Really should have been a separate release.
>win98
Was a fucking mess at release. Again, the version remembered most fondly is SE.
>me
Yeah it was shit that MS couldn't fix because there's only so much you can build onto a swamp castle before it finally sinks for good.
>2000
It absolutely was aimed at businesses and was never intended to be a home consumer OS. It was great.
>XP
A bit of a mess at first, like 95. And like Windows 95, the second service pack made it much better.
>Vista
Microsoft was absolutely fucked over by OEMs on this one. It was a good OS on release, but almost nobody had bothered updating their drivers for it.
>7
Essentially Vista SP3, rebranded.
>8
MS bought into the tablet meme hard.
>10
Great OS, albeit still a bit buggy. Shame about the fucking spyware.
>>52136963
MS has product lifecycle support policies that extend support for an OS if there's a SP released. MS doesn't want to support OSes for very long anymore, but instead of changing the policy, they simply don't release SPs. It's why a fresh install of W7 SP1 now takes days to fucking fully update with security patches and shit.
