4 ms·

Windows 10 was a horrible release. With the passage of time, it has become just about usable (although not really in my opinion). When it came out, though, it h

Windows 10 was a horrible release. With the passage of time, it has become just about usable (although not really in my opinion). When it came out, though, it had an immense amount of bloatware (candy crush), idiotic auto-updating, sample-your-DNA levels of spyware, Cortana rubbish, identical settings in two places, and a whole host of other unpleasantness. All for what, the dark theme? I fucking despised Windows 10. This myth of alternate-releases-good died with Windows 10. Heck, Windows 8.1, with it's full screen start menu, was still a better release in my opinion.

ynx 5y ago
Re: Candy Crush - technically, those icons on the start menu were served up via XML tile specifications, and it wasn't installed until you clicked. Source: Over the years, an app I had my hand in was on one of the rotations.
- helmholtz 5y ago
  Doesn't matter. It'd be one thing if I was talking about some cheap Chinese Android phone, but I'm not. It's Windows. It's supposed to be the pinnacle of Microsoft. If not, atleast something with a modicum of integrity. But seems Microsoft disagrees with that.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  I don't care how they technically implement the icons. It's my start menu, and not their billboard. If they want ad space, they better set up a monthly payment to my account.
klodolph 5y ago
IMO Vista was better than people give it credit for. ME and 8 were the truly bad releases (I used both, ME is super unstable and 8’s UI is a total mess).
- Causality1 5y ago
  Vista was fine except for all the OEMs installing it on $300 Office Depot shitboxes. I still miss being able to have My Computer as a menu across the top of my desktop.
- minimaul 5y ago
  Vista ran positively well on decent hardware. On a relatively recent (at the time) processor and ideally more than 1GB of RAM and it was absolutely fine. It's reputation for instability was heavily due to early NVIDIA WDDM drivers being utterly crashtastic - this is something that did eventually get resolved. At the time I had an ATI card and it was perfectly stable.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    It was teeth-grindingly bad even on 2GB of RAM.
- vdqtp3 5y ago
  If you could ignore the UI, 8 was actually a great OS underneath...which is why 8.1 was pretty solid, they fixed the UI
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  No, it wasn't. At least in my experience, Vista with 2 GB of RAM was dog slow on a mechanical hard drive. So slow, that I eventually replaced it with Linux and got my start into Linux in the first place.

ynx 5y ago

Re: Candy Crush - technically, those icons on the start menu were served up via XML tile specifications, and it wasn't installed until you clicked. Source: Over the years, an app I had my hand in was on one of the rotations.

helmholtz 5y ago
Doesn't matter. It'd be one thing if I was talking about some cheap Chinese Android phone, but I'm not. It's Windows. It's supposed to be the pinnacle of Microsoft. If not, atleast something with a modicum of integrity. But seems Microsoft disagrees with that.
selfhoster11 5y ago
I don't care how they technically implement the icons. It's my start menu, and not their billboard. If they want ad space, they better set up a monthly payment to my account.

klodolph 5y ago

IMO Vista was better than people give it credit for. ME and 8 were the truly bad releases (I used both, ME is super unstable and 8’s UI is a total mess).

Causality1 5y ago
Vista was fine except for all the OEMs installing it on $300 Office Depot shitboxes. I still miss being able to have My Computer as a menu across the top of my desktop.
minimaul 5y ago
Vista ran positively well on decent hardware. On a relatively recent (at the time) processor and ideally more than 1GB of RAM and it was absolutely fine. It's reputation for instability was heavily due to early NVIDIA WDDM drivers being utterly crashtastic - this is something that did eventually get resolved. At the time I had an ATI card and it was perfectly stable.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  It was teeth-grindingly bad even on 2GB of RAM.
vdqtp3 5y ago
If you could ignore the UI, 8 was actually a great OS underneath...which is why 8.1 was pretty solid, they fixed the UI
selfhoster11 5y ago
No, it wasn't. At least in my experience, Vista with 2 GB of RAM was dog slow on a mechanical hard drive. So slow, that I eventually replaced it with Linux and got my start into Linux in the first place.