5 ms·

It seems to frequently be true that Microsoft releases a horrifying nightmare OS, polishes is up and removes hated features, and then releases a new version. It

It seems to frequently be true that Microsoft releases a horrifying nightmare OS, polishes is up and removes hated features, and then releases a new version. It's been a bit of a pattern. Windows 8 -> Windows 10 Windows Vista -> Windows 7 and even before that: Windows Me -> Windows 2000 -> Windows XP was a pretty solid chain that shows it over three releases (personally I think XP was buggier, I don't know what the idea was there other than to make some more money?).

jonathanlydall 5y ago
> Windows Me -> Windows 2000 This isn’t a transition which existed. Windows ME didn’t get replaced by 2000, they were both released around the same time. In terms of OS evolution, there were two separate branches, Windows NT and Windows 95. On the 95 branch: 95 > 98 > ME > Discontinued On the NT branch: NT 3.5 > NT 4 > 2000 > XP > Vista > 7 > 8 > 10 > 11 Non-business users were originally only ever on the 95 branch, then when it was discontinued they were transitioned to Windows XP, but the neutered home edition, which has been the model since.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Fair, I switched from 98 to 2000 to XP because Me had such an incredibly bad experience. From a technology stack side I realize you are right, but I did not experience the UI of Windows ME as a successor to 98 and instead experienced it as a proto-win2k. I'm talking about the UI evolution more than the kernel, which I realize is more subjective. I do think there is a "paid forced beta -> better after overton window shift" pattern from for instance Vista to 7 and 8 to 10. Those were extremely obviously intended to be the same UI, the first with an extremely questionable UI and the second with a stabilized UI. From a UI perspective, in the context of a useful work computer, Windows 8 was an absolute failure. Windows 10 I only tolerate because it's gotten most of the bugs worked out and Windows 7 is no longer getting security updates... I fully intend to skip Windows 11 and wait for the next one if I can possibly do so. It will I'm sure still have a UI mess that makes it even less pleasant than Windows 10, as (in my opinion) Windows 7 was better than Windows 10 and I would have preferred they just keep fine tuning that UI. I just want my OS to be an OS instead of an experience, and for things to just iterate better rather than see massive overhauls for what they must know is mostly a business OS. It's such a strange approach, I guess they're just worried about going the way of Sun or IBM by not adopting the latest trends. Or maybe they have a business team and a home computer team and the latter is trying to keep up with Apple while the prior is begging them to stop...
Joeri 5y ago
Microsoft has a tick tock approach to consumer OS releases, where every other OS is “the good one”. Windows me - bad Windows xp - good Windows vista - bad Windows 7 - good Windows 8 - bad Windows 10 - good Windows 11 - bad For a bad release windows 11 is pretty good. This gives me hope that windows 12 will be their best ever. This is why it would have been smart of them to stick to windows 10 like they planned, but like picking at a scab they just couldn’t let go of the idea of rearranging the deck chairs and rechristening the ship as windows 11.
- sph 5y ago
  The "good" releases are good relatively to the crap ones they've succeeded, not on their own. As if they wanted to pay for QA only every other release.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >Microsoft has a tick tock approach to consumer OS releases Nice idea but it just doesn't fit. Windows 95/98/Me were all poor. XP was widely panned when it came out because existing hardware wasn't quite good enough and it was riddled with security issues. Rememebr SP2? Where did 8.1 go? Windows 10 is full of the stuff people are complaining about in this thread.
  - lproven 5y ago
    I disagree. 95 good. 98 bad. 2000 good, XP bad (for me), Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 8.1 better but not great, 10 OK, 11 bad. As always: https://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/complicatedcover154.jpg https://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/complicatedcov... ("I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." -- Ben Goldacre)
- kasabali 5y ago
  > For a bad release windows 11 is pretty good. ...and for a good release Windows 10 is pretty bad. Despite all the flak it got at the time, Windows 8.1 (plus StartIsBack to hide metro crap) is still the best Windows released in the last decade.
vishnugupta 5y ago
I really need to dig very deep into my memory; wasn't Windows ME kind of dead on arrival? And MS themselves half acknowledged it by releasing XP within a few months.
- jaclaz 5y ago
  No, there was a shift. The Win9x/ME (please read as DOS based) series of OS was intended for home users. The NT/2K was intended for business users. Only as an example most games at the time would not have run on NT/2K, and Win9x/Me was essentially single-user only. For some reasons with XP the good MS guys decided to force down the throat of pro/business users (that were very, very, very happy about Windows 2000) the bells and whistles and graphics they didn't ask for and force down the throat of home users (that were very, very happy about Windows 98, not so much about ME [0]) the complexities of the NT, user access, permissions, NTFS, and other things that at the time made no sense whatever. Basically they (the MS guys) unified the two branches into one and the result was (of course) a compromise. [0] I know it is hard to say this, but ME, beside some quirks that there was no time to fix, was not as bad as it has been depicted, as a matter of fact the "best" bastard retro system you can make today is a Windows 98 with selected components of ME integrated/backported or a ME with some features of 98SE brought back, the failure of ME (not entirely unlike the later Vista one) was greatly induced (IMHO) by two factors, underpowered hardware and issues with drivers, both - if you want - essentially the responsibility of OEM's.
  - vishnugupta 5y ago
    That was a good bit of context, thank you! I wasn’t aware that XP was meant to be an upgrade for 98/ME (home users) as well as for 2000 (business users). Talk about posing off both set of customers at the same time. I personally didn’t mind ME and liked XP, but then it was as a student who didn’t do anything serious with computers so it doesn’t count much.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    > that were very, very happy about Windows 98, not so much about ME [0] I disagree somewhat. The 9x family didn't handle multitasking well and had driver issues, frequently leading to lock-ups and BSODs. The architecture didn't handle isolation well, but NT did. Windows NT mostly stayed out of people's way in XP unless they looked for those menus. It was a huge problem for Vista, though.

jonathanlydall 5y ago

> Windows Me -> Windows 2000 This isn’t a transition which existed. Windows ME didn’t get replaced by 2000, they were both released around the same time. In terms of OS evolution, there were two separate branches, Windows NT and Windows 95. On the 95 branch: 95 > 98 > ME > Discontinued On the NT branch: NT 3.5 > NT 4 > 2000 > XP > Vista > 7 > 8 > 10 > 11 Non-business users were originally only ever on the 95 branch, then when it was discontinued they were transitioned to Windows XP, but the neutered home edition, which has been the model since.

neltnerb 5y ago
Fair, I switched from 98 to 2000 to XP because Me had such an incredibly bad experience. From a technology stack side I realize you are right, but I did not experience the UI of Windows ME as a successor to 98 and instead experienced it as a proto-win2k. I'm talking about the UI evolution more than the kernel, which I realize is more subjective. I do think there is a "paid forced beta -> better after overton window shift" pattern from for instance Vista to 7 and 8 to 10. Those were extremely obviously intended to be the same UI, the first with an extremely questionable UI and the second with a stabilized UI. From a UI perspective, in the context of a useful work computer, Windows 8 was an absolute failure. Windows 10 I only tolerate because it's gotten most of the bugs worked out and Windows 7 is no longer getting security updates... I fully intend to skip Windows 11 and wait for the next one if I can possibly do so. It will I'm sure still have a UI mess that makes it even less pleasant than Windows 10, as (in my opinion) Windows 7 was better than Windows 10 and I would have preferred they just keep fine tuning that UI. I just want my OS to be an OS instead of an experience, and for things to just iterate better rather than see massive overhauls for what they must know is mostly a business OS. It's such a strange approach, I guess they're just worried about going the way of Sun or IBM by not adopting the latest trends. Or maybe they have a business team and a home computer team and the latter is trying to keep up with Apple while the prior is begging them to stop...

Joeri 5y ago

Microsoft has a tick tock approach to consumer OS releases, where every other OS is “the good one”. Windows me - bad Windows xp - good Windows vista - bad Windows 7 - good Windows 8 - bad Windows 10 - good Windows 11 - bad For a bad release windows 11 is pretty good. This gives me hope that windows 12 will be their best ever. This is why it would have been smart of them to stick to windows 10 like they planned, but like picking at a scab they just couldn’t let go of the idea of rearranging the deck chairs and rechristening the ship as windows 11.

sph 5y ago
The "good" releases are good relatively to the crap ones they've succeeded, not on their own. As if they wanted to pay for QA only every other release.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Microsoft has a tick tock approach to consumer OS releases Nice idea but it just doesn't fit. Windows 95/98/Me were all poor. XP was widely panned when it came out because existing hardware wasn't quite good enough and it was riddled with security issues. Rememebr SP2? Where did 8.1 go? Windows 10 is full of the stuff people are complaining about in this thread.
- lproven 5y ago
  I disagree. 95 good. 98 bad. 2000 good, XP bad (for me), Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 8.1 better but not great, 10 OK, 11 bad. As always: https://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/complicatedcover154.jpg https://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/complicatedcov... ("I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." -- Ben Goldacre)
kasabali 5y ago
> For a bad release windows 11 is pretty good. ...and for a good release Windows 10 is pretty bad. Despite all the flak it got at the time, Windows 8.1 (plus StartIsBack to hide metro crap) is still the best Windows released in the last decade.

vishnugupta 5y ago

I really need to dig very deep into my memory; wasn't Windows ME kind of dead on arrival? And MS themselves half acknowledged it by releasing XP within a few months.

jaclaz 5y ago
No, there was a shift. The Win9x/ME (please read as DOS based) series of OS was intended for home users. The NT/2K was intended for business users. Only as an example most games at the time would not have run on NT/2K, and Win9x/Me was essentially single-user only. For some reasons with XP the good MS guys decided to force down the throat of pro/business users (that were very, very, very happy about Windows 2000) the bells and whistles and graphics they didn't ask for and force down the throat of home users (that were very, very happy about Windows 98, not so much about ME [0]) the complexities of the NT, user access, permissions, NTFS, and other things that at the time made no sense whatever. Basically they (the MS guys) unified the two branches into one and the result was (of course) a compromise. [0] I know it is hard to say this, but ME, beside some quirks that there was no time to fix, was not as bad as it has been depicted, as a matter of fact the "best" bastard retro system you can make today is a Windows 98 with selected components of ME integrated/backported or a ME with some features of 98SE brought back, the failure of ME (not entirely unlike the later Vista one) was greatly induced (IMHO) by two factors, underpowered hardware and issues with drivers, both - if you want - essentially the responsibility of OEM's.
- vishnugupta 5y ago
  That was a good bit of context, thank you! I wasn’t aware that XP was meant to be an upgrade for 98/ME (home users) as well as for 2000 (business users). Talk about posing off both set of customers at the same time. I personally didn’t mind ME and liked XP, but then it was as a student who didn’t do anything serious with computers so it doesn’t count much.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > that were very, very happy about Windows 98, not so much about ME [0] I disagree somewhat. The 9x family didn't handle multitasking well and had driver issues, frequently leading to lock-ups and BSODs. The architecture didn't handle isolation well, but NT did. Windows NT mostly stayed out of people's way in XP unless they looked for those menus. It was a huge problem for Vista, though.