4 ms·

Can I just take a minute to reminisce on how it seems XP and 7 were the best MS OSes out there and everything before or since has been inferior to those few glo

Can I just take a minute to reminisce on how it seems XP and 7 were the best MS OSes out there and everything before or since has been inferior to those few glorious years of XP and 7. Sure it had issues but at least it wasn't an actively hostile bloated piece of adware it is now.

sva_ 3y ago
I think people who say such things may just idolize the time ('the good old times')
- dijit 3y ago
  maybe, but they were also warmly received at the time they were released too.
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  What feature does windows 10 have that 7 didn't, that you find useful? Personally the only thing I can think of is the slightly better calculator.
  - speedgoose 3y ago
    WSL.
    - RobotToaster 3y ago
      The only useful feature of windows 10 is linux?
      - speedgoose 3y ago
        It’s not the only useful new feature but certainly the best one for most people on HN. Combining windows and Linux so well is great.
- junon 3y ago
  Not me. I miss XP because of its stability and consistent UI. I miss 7 for similar reasons. Vista was a flop and I don't miss it even though "Vista times" were very nice for me. 10 and 11 have been unmitigated disasters.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    > I miss XP because of its stability Ah yes, the grand stability of plugging in the wrong USB accessory into the wrong USB port and the computer crashing. Great times :)
    - junon 3y ago
      I don't remember this being the case. Keep in mind driver issues are not XP specific.
  - remh 3y ago
    The stability only came with Service packs though. Initial XP had terrible security. I remember installing an out of the box xp in early 2000 and without doing anything it was infected by malware within 15 minutes of being put online.
  - MikusR 3y ago
    The stability of connecting a fresh XP install to internet and immediately getting exploited.
hiatus 3y ago
You think XP was better than 2k? For me, nothing beats Windows 2000. I kept coming back to it even with SP3 and later.
- stevekemp 3y ago
  Same for me, Windows 2000 had the stability of Windows NT4, but with added support for USB stuff. Windows 2000 was the best version I ever used, though I admit I'd switched to Linux pretty soon after it was released.
- nocoiner 3y ago
  Windows 2000 was such a good OS. Incredibly stable, reasonably performant, great aesthetics and a reasonably consistent interface throughout.
jmillikin 3y ago
Each version of Windows has had its upsides and downsides. My favorite in terms of looks and behavior is Windows 2000, and it's still in the top 5 when I think of desktop UIs that don't try to grab the user's attention. It was also much lighter on resources than XP, and didn't have poorly-animated dogs hiding behind the menus. But oh man, let me tell you, the first time I experienced one of the newer versions restart its graphics driver without losing state was magical. I can't remember how many hours I lost to blue screens with a stack trace deep inside some ATI/nVidia dll, and to this day I can get a kernel panic in Linux if I tickle the GPU the right way, but modern Windows has proper GPU driver isolation and they did it without wrecking performance. I wish it were somehow possible to run the pre-XP interface on the modern OS.
- basch 3y ago
  Im not a fan of the transition away from information density to giant touch buttons controlling interface design, BUT turning off transparency and animations is two clicks, and, although maybe my computer is powerful enough (despite not being technically compatible), Windows 11 is pretty snappy with effects turned off. And realistically, turning off most animations has been a recommendation for every version of Windows for decades.
capableweb 3y ago
Every Windows release since the dawn of time have been hated up until the next release was made. Windows 7 was hated until Windows 8 was released, then suddenly Windows 7 was great. Except Vista maybe, which was hated no matter what.
- bena 3y ago
  That's not true. 95 and 98 were well received. ME was garbage. XP was liked, mainly because it wasn't ME and also the first consumer NT kernel. Vista was hated for many good reason. 7 was liked mostly because it wasn't Vista. 8 was despised because it had a lot of just bad UI choices. 10 was liked because it undid all of that. So it kind of flip flops. Microsoft makes a bunch of changes that everyone hates. Then they roll back a lot of them in the next OS. That being said, 11 is shaping up to be a debacle. But don't worry, 12 will drop all the things you hate about 11 but keep things they really wanted to include.
  - basch 3y ago
    >Microsoft makes a bunch of changes that everyone hates. Then they roll back a lot of them in the next OS. That doesn't really describe Vista to 7. Windows 7 was largely Vista Service Pack 3, with some interface tweaks to give it is own visual marketing identity. The Kernel Version Numbers are a better hint at what is going on than the marketing releases, or the service packs. Windows 2000 was NT5, XP was NT 5.1 (which was mostly a dos compatibility layer on top of 2000, so it could run consumer games and such.) Vista was NT6, 7 was NT6.1, 8 was NT6.2 8.1 was NT6.3.
    - bena 3y ago
      Kernel Version numbers are also kind of sus because they often choose numbers based on what programs are checking for rather than anything else. Windows 10 uses 10.x, skipping right over 7, 8, and 9. Like the reason we don't have a "Windows 9", because programs check for that to see if they're running on Windows 95 or 98 because it uses the 9x kernel. Vista to 7 was significant. An operating system is more than just the kernel.

sva_ 3y ago

I think people who say such things may just idolize the time ('the good old times')

dijit 3y ago
maybe, but they were also warmly received at the time they were released too.
RobotToaster 3y ago
What feature does windows 10 have that 7 didn't, that you find useful? Personally the only thing I can think of is the slightly better calculator.
- speedgoose 3y ago
  WSL.
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    The only useful feature of windows 10 is linux?
    - speedgoose 3y ago
      It’s not the only useful new feature but certainly the best one for most people on HN. Combining windows and Linux so well is great.
junon 3y ago
Not me. I miss XP because of its stability and consistent UI. I miss 7 for similar reasons. Vista was a flop and I don't miss it even though "Vista times" were very nice for me. 10 and 11 have been unmitigated disasters.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > I miss XP because of its stability Ah yes, the grand stability of plugging in the wrong USB accessory into the wrong USB port and the computer crashing. Great times :)
  - junon 3y ago
    I don't remember this being the case. Keep in mind driver issues are not XP specific.
- remh 3y ago
  The stability only came with Service packs though. Initial XP had terrible security. I remember installing an out of the box xp in early 2000 and without doing anything it was infected by malware within 15 minutes of being put online.
- MikusR 3y ago
  The stability of connecting a fresh XP install to internet and immediately getting exploited.

hiatus 3y ago

You think XP was better than 2k? For me, nothing beats Windows 2000. I kept coming back to it even with SP3 and later.

stevekemp 3y ago
Same for me, Windows 2000 had the stability of Windows NT4, but with added support for USB stuff. Windows 2000 was the best version I ever used, though I admit I'd switched to Linux pretty soon after it was released.
nocoiner 3y ago
Windows 2000 was such a good OS. Incredibly stable, reasonably performant, great aesthetics and a reasonably consistent interface throughout.

jmillikin 3y ago

Each version of Windows has had its upsides and downsides. My favorite in terms of looks and behavior is Windows 2000, and it's still in the top 5 when I think of desktop UIs that don't try to grab the user's attention. It was also much lighter on resources than XP, and didn't have poorly-animated dogs hiding behind the menus. But oh man, let me tell you, the first time I experienced one of the newer versions restart its graphics driver without losing state was magical. I can't remember how many hours I lost to blue screens with a stack trace deep inside some ATI/nVidia dll, and to this day I can get a kernel panic in Linux if I tickle the GPU the right way, but modern Windows has proper GPU driver isolation and they did it without wrecking performance. I wish it were somehow possible to run the pre-XP interface on the modern OS.

basch 3y ago
Im not a fan of the transition away from information density to giant touch buttons controlling interface design, BUT turning off transparency and animations is two clicks, and, although maybe my computer is powerful enough (despite not being technically compatible), Windows 11 is pretty snappy with effects turned off. And realistically, turning off most animations has been a recommendation for every version of Windows for decades.

capableweb 3y ago

Every Windows release since the dawn of time have been hated up until the next release was made. Windows 7 was hated until Windows 8 was released, then suddenly Windows 7 was great. Except Vista maybe, which was hated no matter what.

bena 3y ago
That's not true. 95 and 98 were well received. ME was garbage. XP was liked, mainly because it wasn't ME and also the first consumer NT kernel. Vista was hated for many good reason. 7 was liked mostly because it wasn't Vista. 8 was despised because it had a lot of just bad UI choices. 10 was liked because it undid all of that. So it kind of flip flops. Microsoft makes a bunch of changes that everyone hates. Then they roll back a lot of them in the next OS. That being said, 11 is shaping up to be a debacle. But don't worry, 12 will drop all the things you hate about 11 but keep things they really wanted to include.
- basch 3y ago
  >Microsoft makes a bunch of changes that everyone hates. Then they roll back a lot of them in the next OS. That doesn't really describe Vista to 7. Windows 7 was largely Vista Service Pack 3, with some interface tweaks to give it is own visual marketing identity. The Kernel Version Numbers are a better hint at what is going on than the marketing releases, or the service packs. Windows 2000 was NT5, XP was NT 5.1 (which was mostly a dos compatibility layer on top of 2000, so it could run consumer games and such.) Vista was NT6, 7 was NT6.1, 8 was NT6.2 8.1 was NT6.3.
  - bena 3y ago
    Kernel Version numbers are also kind of sus because they often choose numbers based on what programs are checking for rather than anything else. Windows 10 uses 10.x, skipping right over 7, 8, and 9. Like the reason we don't have a "Windows 9", because programs check for that to see if they're running on Windows 95 or 98 because it uses the 9x kernel. Vista to 7 was significant. An operating system is more than just the kernel.