43 ms·

It's going to be one of those "every other version is good". Windows 95 (crap) Windows 98 (good) Windows ME (crap) Windows XP (good) Windows Vista (crap)

It's going to be one of those "every other version is good". Windows 95 (crap) Windows 98 (good) Windows ME (crap) Windows XP (good) Windows Vista (crap) Windows 7 (good) Windows 8 (crap) Let's just wait and see what the EU commission has to say about this. I call another multi billion euro fine :)

Strom 15y ago
Your timeline has a bug. Where is Win 2000? Also what about 98SE and NT?
- pyre 15y ago
  Depend on how you want to lay it out. Windows NT was a parallel line of development. Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0 (it was originally meant to be the release that bridged the Win9x and WinNT lines). When they finally released Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1), it was the released that merged the two lines into a single product line going forward and running on the NT kernel. Also, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but Windows 98 was just like Windows 98 SP1, no? If that's the case, why aren't you arguing for all of the service packs on WinNT, WinXP, WinVista, etc.
pilif 15y ago
... and you conveniently left out Windows 2000 and NT4 which both were rather good and would have screwed up your list and thus destroyed your argument. I agree though that the EU might be interested in something like this, but it wouldn't be Microsoft they go after but the OEMs to force them to allow users to install their own keys or at least turn off the signature validation.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- bostonpete 15y ago
  I thought the same thing (about 2000 & NT) but then it occurred to me that those versions were (I believe) considered part of the business-oriented (rather than consumer-oriented) NT line, so maybe the list above is reasonable.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hmottestad 15y ago
  If Microsoft is pressuring OEMs to block Linux and other operating systems, then Microsoft gets the axe. Microsoft's case with IE hasn't really made them favorable to the EU.
yardie 15y ago
You are missing 95B, 98SE, NT, and 2000. Also, Vista wasn't crap. Microsoft lowered the system requirements to appease intel and their OEMs. So no surprise it runs like crap on a 4 year old laptop. 2 years later when 7 came out everyone had 2 year newer laptops 7 looks great.
- lawtguy 15y ago
  Vista itself may not have been crap, but the whole Vista experience certainly was. In addition to the artificially lowered requirements, drivers were a huge problem. Because they changed the driver model, drivers frequently weren't available (at least at first) and when they were available they were frequently buggy. That may not directly be Microsoft's fault, but if your Vista is blue screening, you don't really care who's fault it is. You can see the same with with corporate IT departments: many of them decided not to upgrade to Vista. Why bother when Vista has marginal improvements with lots of bugs? Instead they stuck with the rock solid XP and waited until Microsoft (and the vendors) fixed things (Win7). I expect corporate IT will view Windows 8 the same way: Metro is a big headache they'll want to avoid. They aren't going to be deploying Metro apps (at least not at first) and they'd probably disable Metro to avoid confusing users. If Microsoft is hoping to make Win8 the corporate standard, they'll have to do it via tablets. Presumably if everyone is using Win8 tablets, they'll eventually want Win8 on their desktop/laptop. Otherwise, I'd expect many IT departs to skip 8 and wait for 9.
hmottestad 15y ago
Down voting :D Yay I still stand by my list. 98SE is missing, but I don't really count a second edition of one operating system to be a new operating system, though that might also go for ME. Windows 2000 and NT4 are not here, because they are enterprise software (anyone here tried playing games on Windows 2000, most of the games I tried in my childhood did not even install on 2000). I have also left out Windows CE. Which is utter crap. HP even put a dedicated reset button on the front of their devices running CE 2.x because it was used so often. It became very popular though and is still used in many gps units. Mind you though, Windows Phone was based on CE until version 7. They were popular with the enterprise because of exchange sync and the general support in windows. Everyone else used blackberries and palms and now of course iphones and androids. I have also left out Windows Server editions. Though these have mostly been rather good because you didn't need a college graduate to install and configure them, though many were just as slow and buggy as their client counterparts.
rbanffy 15y ago
To be fair, 3.0, 3.1 and WfW 3.11 were fine. 1.x and 2.x were horrible.

Strom 15y ago

Your timeline has a bug. Where is Win 2000? Also what about 98SE and NT?

pyre 15y ago
Depend on how you want to lay it out. Windows NT was a parallel line of development. Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0 (it was originally meant to be the release that bridged the Win9x and WinNT lines). When they finally released Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1), it was the released that merged the two lines into a single product line going forward and running on the NT kernel. Also, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but Windows 98 was just like Windows 98 SP1, no? If that's the case, why aren't you arguing for all of the service packs on WinNT, WinXP, WinVista, etc.

pilif 15y ago

... and you conveniently left out Windows 2000 and NT4 which both were rather good and would have screwed up your list and thus destroyed your argument. I agree though that the EU might be interested in something like this, but it wouldn't be Microsoft they go after but the OEMs to force them to allow users to install their own keys or at least turn off the signature validation.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bostonpete 15y ago
I thought the same thing (about 2000 & NT) but then it occurred to me that those versions were (I believe) considered part of the business-oriented (rather than consumer-oriented) NT line, so maybe the list above is reasonable.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hmottestad 15y ago
If Microsoft is pressuring OEMs to block Linux and other operating systems, then Microsoft gets the axe. Microsoft's case with IE hasn't really made them favorable to the EU.

yardie 15y ago

You are missing 95B, 98SE, NT, and 2000. Also, Vista wasn't crap. Microsoft lowered the system requirements to appease intel and their OEMs. So no surprise it runs like crap on a 4 year old laptop. 2 years later when 7 came out everyone had 2 year newer laptops 7 looks great.

lawtguy 15y ago
Vista itself may not have been crap, but the whole Vista experience certainly was. In addition to the artificially lowered requirements, drivers were a huge problem. Because they changed the driver model, drivers frequently weren't available (at least at first) and when they were available they were frequently buggy. That may not directly be Microsoft's fault, but if your Vista is blue screening, you don't really care who's fault it is. You can see the same with with corporate IT departments: many of them decided not to upgrade to Vista. Why bother when Vista has marginal improvements with lots of bugs? Instead they stuck with the rock solid XP and waited until Microsoft (and the vendors) fixed things (Win7). I expect corporate IT will view Windows 8 the same way: Metro is a big headache they'll want to avoid. They aren't going to be deploying Metro apps (at least not at first) and they'd probably disable Metro to avoid confusing users. If Microsoft is hoping to make Win8 the corporate standard, they'll have to do it via tablets. Presumably if everyone is using Win8 tablets, they'll eventually want Win8 on their desktop/laptop. Otherwise, I'd expect many IT departs to skip 8 and wait for 9.

hmottestad 15y ago

Down voting :D Yay I still stand by my list. 98SE is missing, but I don't really count a second edition of one operating system to be a new operating system, though that might also go for ME. Windows 2000 and NT4 are not here, because they are enterprise software (anyone here tried playing games on Windows 2000, most of the games I tried in my childhood did not even install on 2000). I have also left out Windows CE. Which is utter crap. HP even put a dedicated reset button on the front of their devices running CE 2.x because it was used so often. It became very popular though and is still used in many gps units. Mind you though, Windows Phone was based on CE until version 7. They were popular with the enterprise because of exchange sync and the general support in windows. Everyone else used blackberries and palms and now of course iphones and androids. I have also left out Windows Server editions. Though these have mostly been rather good because you didn't need a college graduate to install and configure them, though many were just as slow and buggy as their client counterparts.

rbanffy 15y ago

To be fair, 3.0, 3.1 and WfW 3.11 were fine. 1.x and 2.x were horrible.