I still think 10 is a waste of space and would be using only linux or 7 if not for gamepass (old distant friends have xboxes only). I still run 7 on my living room PC and its honestly a better experience then 10. If not for end of life (that lets face it are mostly arbitrary at this point) there is little reason to upgrade, even the few things not in things 7 or 10 (like auto HDR support or new Direct X) are simply withheld for no reason and often people have worked out how make it work anyway.
I am old enough to remember how each new windows addressed a flaw in the last (even if that flaw was made up). Here is off the top of my head some examples (leaving out the better NT line) :
Windows 95: Upgrade from 3.1 in most ways, first time dos was really secondary.
Windows 98: Much better USB support and more “plug and play”
Windows ME: Fixed the issue of people having hard drive space.
Windows XP: Massive upgrade in supported hardware, usability etc.
Windows Vista: People thought this sucked (it did) but the main reason was that it (and x64 XP) supported more then 4 gigs of ram.
Windows 7: Was not Vista and much more efficient.
Windows 8: Fixed the perceived flaw that your PC should really be a phone for some reason?
Windows 9: DAMN IT MICROSOFT LEARN TO COUNT!
Windows 10: Was not a Phone OS. Things like gamepass are supported. Told this was the last windows.
My theory is that after 98 windows started to follow the “this one shit, next one good” pattern. ME was shit, XP was great, Vista was shit, 7 was great, 8 was shit, 10 is good. Obviously 11 is shit and if the pattern holds the next one will be good again.
The issue with that theory is that the “good” keep getting worse and the “shits” plumb the depths more and more with each cycle.
They look good when comparing it with the last one but I would say ME (I used ME as a teen I know it) was better then Vista and Vista was better then 8 and 8 was better then 11.
Microsoft decided to skip Windows 9 because, after doing a lot of research, they found that a lot of commonly used legacy software had implemented compatibility hacks which involved checking for “Windows 9” to detect when the software was running under either Windows 95 or Windows 98.
Instead of breaking a lot of software or requiring a lot of updates (some of which could even be from vendors who were no longer in business) they decided to work around the problem by just skipping straight to 10.
Edit: My mistake, I responded to the wrong comment. But I’m gonna leave it here because I already typed it.
You skipped 2k, the first NT intended for consumer use. If you ask me it’s been downhill ever since, some security stuff they added certainly makes sense but 2k was the last actually coherent OS Microsoft published. Oh they also added search which is useful because who the fuck can find settings nowadays, how many different interfaces to various settings does Windows 10 have? Twenty?
The did name it something else. They named it 10. A lot of programs had checks for windows version looking for 9 for 95/98 which would cause issues without updates. So it’s better to avoid it altogether.
That’s an urban myth. Programs check for the internal windows version major and minor number which doesn’t resemble the official name in any way. The version for Windows 9x was version 4 and the version for Windows 9 (if it existed) would have been 7.
I’m sorry but as someone who remembers Win 3.0 I have to say that Win 95 was a fucking revelation when it came out. The taskbar with star menu paradigm made many a man cross their legs.
I hated ME so much when I had it but looking back it was not nearly as bad as say 8. And once you learn how to delete the evergrowing windows files safely it was fine.
I still think 10 is a waste of space and would be using only linux or 7 if not for gamepass (old distant friends have xboxes only). I still run 7 on my living room PC and its honestly a better experience then 10. If not for end of life (that lets face it are mostly arbitrary at this point) there is little reason to upgrade, even the few things not in things 7 or 10 (like auto HDR support or new Direct X) are simply withheld for no reason and often people have worked out how make it work anyway.
I am old enough to remember how each new windows addressed a flaw in the last (even if that flaw was made up). Here is off the top of my head some examples (leaving out the better NT line) :
My theory is that after 98 windows started to follow the “this one shit, next one good” pattern. ME was shit, XP was great, Vista was shit, 7 was great, 8 was shit, 10 is good. Obviously 11 is shit and if the pattern holds the next one will be good again.
The issue with that theory is that the “good” keep getting worse and the “shits” plumb the depths more and more with each cycle.
They look good when comparing it with the last one but I would say ME (I used ME as a teen I know it) was better then Vista and Vista was better then 8 and 8 was better then 11.
Microsoft decided to skip Windows 9 because, after doing a lot of research, they found that a lot of commonly used legacy software had implemented compatibility hacks which involved checking for “Windows 9” to detect when the software was running under either Windows 95 or Windows 98.
Instead of breaking a lot of software or requiring a lot of updates (some of which could even be from vendors who were no longer in business) they decided to work around the problem by just skipping straight to 10.
Edit: My mistake, I responded to the wrong comment. But I’m gonna leave it here because I already typed it.
Version check on Windows 9x was done by comparing with the number 4, which was the internal version number, not with the marketing name.
You skipped 2k, the first NT intended for consumer use. If you ask me it’s been downhill ever since, some security stuff they added certainly makes sense but 2k was the last actually coherent OS Microsoft published. Oh they also added search which is useful because who the fuck can find settings nowadays, how many different interfaces to various settings does Windows 10 have? Twenty?
I agree the NT line was better, but I left it out.
B-but seven ate nine…
I for one expect my computer operating system company to be able to count to at least 10.
Genuinely I’ll give Michaelsoft credit on skipping 9, they did that to avoid SEO poisoning windows 9x variants.
What? if that was a good enough reason to skip 9 they could have called it something else. What happened was that marketing said 10 is cooler.
The did name it something else. They named it 10. A lot of programs had checks for windows version looking for 9 for 95/98 which would cause issues without updates. So it’s better to avoid it altogether.
That’s an urban myth. Programs check for the internal windows version major and minor number which doesn’t resemble the official name in any way. The version for Windows 9x was version 4 and the version for Windows 9 (if it existed) would have been 7.
I’m sorry but as someone who remembers Win 3.0 I have to say that Win 95 was a fucking revelation when it came out. The taskbar with star menu paradigm made many a man cross their legs.
Well as someone who also was there, I agree. That was why I wrote “first time dos was really secondary”, that was not a slight on dos.
Me and 8 gave me a good chuckle, great list.
I hated ME so much when I had it but looking back it was not nearly as bad as say 8. And once you learn how to delete the evergrowing windows files safely it was fine.