6 ms·

> I'm trying not to have a panic attack that "Windows 98" unambiguously counts as retrocomputing now though. Oh you can totally go up to Windows XP for this de

by pjerem 3y ago

> I'm trying not to have a panic attack that "Windows 98" unambiguously counts as retrocomputing now though. Oh you can totally go up to Windows XP for this denomination. Some would argue you may even go to 7. Windows 10 is 9-10 years old and nobody ever cared or will ever be nostalgic about Windows 8 which is 12 years old so it’s not unreasonable to consider anything before that, "Retro".

danirod 3y ago
> Some would argue you may even go to 7. This is highly subjective, but I'd consider Windows 7 as retro at this point. As of 2024, Windows 7 is 14 years old. Windows 95, for instance, was already 14 years old the year when Windows 7 was released (2009). And Windows 95 was already seen as "retro" by that time.
- adrianmsmith 3y ago
  I guess it's more than Windows 7 and Windows 10/11 share a lot in common in terms of their architecture, which programs run on them etc. I am typing this on Windows 7 and lots of programs e.g. utorrent still produce new versions which run fine on Windows 7, so I'm thinking many of the older Windows APIs are still in use and haven't changed much. Whereas Windows 95 vs Windows 7 are very different architecturally with one being clearly superior to the other, and also Windows 95 was at the start of its series and got more mature with Windows 98 etc. and Windows 7 was already mature.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ThunderSizzle 3y ago
I really can't believe Windows 10 is 10 years old and is still a heaping pile of trash. I'm so glad I switched to Mint 3 years ago after being pissed at Windows 10 for 3 years. The only thing keeping me on Windows really was gaming, and all of that works perfectly for me thanks to Steam.
- mavamaarten 3y ago
  Is it really that bad? It doesn't have my preference either, but I've never really understood why people think it's that bad. Especially with Windows 11, it's honestly a nice visual improvement over 10 imo. The fact that it's spyware is a different discussion, I'm mainly talking about usability and stability here.
  - toyg 3y ago
    I still use 10 every day. I think detractors are mostly annoyed that its terminal facilities are still subpar out of the box (even with Windows Terminal).
    - MisterTea 3y ago
      > I think detractors are mostly annoyed that its terminal facilities are still subpar out of the box (even with Windows Terminal). All the spyware, forced updates and restarts causing loss of work forcing you to wrestle your own computer into submission via tweaking a plethora of knobs and levers that MS subverts with updates. But terminals...
      - toyg 3y ago
        I restart once a month, when compulsory updates are rolled out, and it's hardly a sacrifice if user programs are half-decent (i.e. sessions are restored, something every good browser or editor can do these days). As for spyware and subverted preferences, Apple does it worse; and many Linux updates will carelessly break DE stuff too... so it's all much of a muchness to me.
      - bdw5204 3y ago
        You can set "Active Hours" to include up to 18 hours of the day effectively limiting forced restarts to whenever you are sleeping. They also only seem to happen when you leave the computer idle. Combine this with hibernate and you can delay an update indefinitely. It is still annoying to deal with but manageable especially on single boot machines.
sirwhinesalot 3y ago
I know a guy who actually liked all the Metro nonsense. I'm sure he's nostalgic about Windows 8 these days. Not me though.
wizzwizz4 3y ago
The folk over at Retrocomputing Stack Exchange disagree: https://retrocomputing.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1155/278 https://retrocomputing.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1155/278 > For one, it still has about half a percent desktop share (60+% in Armenia). While this may sound small, it's still a huge number of everyday users — not to mention all the appliances, kiosks and other control systems running XP. Per Statcounter, XP makes up 0.39% of desktop Windows machines now, which is more than Windows 8. I'm not sure what to conclude from that.
- jasomill 3y ago
  Windows 8.1 and 10 were free upgrades from 8 with identical system requirements and similar performance on supported hardware. Windows Vista was a paid upgrade from XP with increased system requirements and poor performance on low-end supported hardware.

by pjerem 3y ago

danirod 3y ago

> Some would argue you may even go to 7. This is highly subjective, but I'd consider Windows 7 as retro at this point. As of 2024, Windows 7 is 14 years old. Windows 95, for instance, was already 14 years old the year when Windows 7 was released (2009). And Windows 95 was already seen as "retro" by that time.

adrianmsmith 3y ago
I guess it's more than Windows 7 and Windows 10/11 share a lot in common in terms of their architecture, which programs run on them etc. I am typing this on Windows 7 and lots of programs e.g. utorrent still produce new versions which run fine on Windows 7, so I'm thinking many of the older Windows APIs are still in use and haven't changed much. Whereas Windows 95 vs Windows 7 are very different architecturally with one being clearly superior to the other, and also Windows 95 was at the start of its series and got more mature with Windows 98 etc. and Windows 7 was already mature.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ThunderSizzle 3y ago

I really can't believe Windows 10 is 10 years old and is still a heaping pile of trash. I'm so glad I switched to Mint 3 years ago after being pissed at Windows 10 for 3 years. The only thing keeping me on Windows really was gaming, and all of that works perfectly for me thanks to Steam.

mavamaarten 3y ago
Is it really that bad? It doesn't have my preference either, but I've never really understood why people think it's that bad. Especially with Windows 11, it's honestly a nice visual improvement over 10 imo. The fact that it's spyware is a different discussion, I'm mainly talking about usability and stability here.
- toyg 3y ago
  I still use 10 every day. I think detractors are mostly annoyed that its terminal facilities are still subpar out of the box (even with Windows Terminal).
  - MisterTea 3y ago
    > I think detractors are mostly annoyed that its terminal facilities are still subpar out of the box (even with Windows Terminal). All the spyware, forced updates and restarts causing loss of work forcing you to wrestle your own computer into submission via tweaking a plethora of knobs and levers that MS subverts with updates. But terminals...
    - toyg 3y ago
      I restart once a month, when compulsory updates are rolled out, and it's hardly a sacrifice if user programs are half-decent (i.e. sessions are restored, something every good browser or editor can do these days). As for spyware and subverted preferences, Apple does it worse; and many Linux updates will carelessly break DE stuff too... so it's all much of a muchness to me.
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      You can set "Active Hours" to include up to 18 hours of the day effectively limiting forced restarts to whenever you are sleeping. They also only seem to happen when you leave the computer idle. Combine this with hibernate and you can delay an update indefinitely. It is still annoying to deal with but manageable especially on single boot machines.

sirwhinesalot 3y ago

I know a guy who actually liked all the Metro nonsense. I'm sure he's nostalgic about Windows 8 these days. Not me though.

wizzwizz4 3y ago

The folk over at Retrocomputing Stack Exchange disagree: https://retrocomputing.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1155/278 https://retrocomputing.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1155/278 > For one, it still has about half a percent desktop share (60+% in Armenia). While this may sound small, it's still a huge number of everyday users — not to mention all the appliances, kiosks and other control systems running XP. Per Statcounter, XP makes up 0.39% of desktop Windows machines now, which is more than Windows 8. I'm not sure what to conclude from that.

jasomill 3y ago
Windows 8.1 and 10 were free upgrades from 8 with identical system requirements and similar performance on supported hardware. Windows Vista was a paid upgrade from XP with increased system requirements and poor performance on low-end supported hardware.