4 ms·

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

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.
    - basch 3y ago
      Vista to Vista SP2 was more significant of a performance improvement than Vista SP2 to 7 RTM. What you described was a combination of marketing and a change in behavior. They skipped 7 because it would be confusing for 10 to be NT 7. They skipped 8 for the same reason, and 9 for the reason you described. Nothing about those choices changes that from 2000 to 8.1 there were only one major kernel build number changes, and it was from XP to Vista. Although unpopular, Vista was the biggest leap between any two versions, and part of its lack of popularity was that it was a breaking change that broke most drivers. It also didn't help that they were certifying underpowered machines as compatible. The conversation I started was about the frequency of major build number increments, not what number they chose to signify a change.

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.
  - basch 3y ago
    Vista to Vista SP2 was more significant of a performance improvement than Vista SP2 to 7 RTM. What you described was a combination of marketing and a change in behavior. They skipped 7 because it would be confusing for 10 to be NT 7. They skipped 8 for the same reason, and 9 for the reason you described. Nothing about those choices changes that from 2000 to 8.1 there were only one major kernel build number changes, and it was from XP to Vista. Although unpopular, Vista was the biggest leap between any two versions, and part of its lack of popularity was that it was a breaking change that broke most drivers. It also didn't help that they were certifying underpowered machines as compatible. The conversation I started was about the frequency of major build number increments, not what number they chose to signify a change.