5 ms·

Why is it that MS only gets every second version of Windows right? Vista, 8 and 11 were all a step back for usability and stability, while 7 and 10 were solid

Why is it that MS only gets every second version of Windows right? Vista, 8 and 11 were all a step back for usability and stability, while 7 and 10 were solid with a decent user interface. Perhaps they just get bored with something that’s working well, and start tinkering (“Let’s move the WLAN control 2 layers removed from the system tray and also make”, “The Explorer context menu has too much stuff for power users”).

Suppafly 2y ago
They always try to introduce visual changes to the GUI before they introduce the underlying OS changes that support those visual changes. Vista was essentially XP with the GUI for Windows 7, Windows 8 was essentially the Windows 10 GUI with the Windows 7 OS, etc. 11 is just 10 with broken GUI updates, 12 will be the finalized version of the 11 GUI with the actual underlying OS updated as well.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Vista was Longhorn redone with COM instead of .NET, after the whole internal drama from pro C++ folks, after Sinofsky took over. Window 8 was .NET redone by the same folks, as the original idea from Ext-VOS, COM getting IInspectable, in addition to IUnknown, while Type Libraries replaced by .NET metadata. Windows 10 was the reunification of WinRT programming models across devices.
- dist-epoch 2y ago
  You got it completely wrong. There were massive changes in Vista, new audio stack, new default permissions, new USB stack, new networking stack, new graphics stack, which caused tons of compatibility problems.
  - senderista 2y ago
    Indeed, and this is underestimated (esp. security improvements). But let's face it, some of it was just half-baked at release. Source: I was there
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    I may be wrong in some of the specifics, but the truth still is that every other version is half-baked OS changes with the main selling point to consumers being the upgraded GUI changes, while the actual working OS comes as the next version.
- jborean93 2y ago
  While yes they did introduce GUI changes they also introduced a lot more fundamental changes. Typically the second release is seen as better because it's usually a refined version or at least the changes had more time to perculate. For example Vista introduced many things that changed the fundamental nature of Windows, UAC (split tokens, integrity levels, etc), new audio stack, overhaul of IPv6, new display driver model. A lot of these new driver changes and the extra hardware requirements caused a lot of issues whereas when 7 came out the requirements were no longer as burdomsome and manufacturers had more time to release better drivers. Windows 8 introduced UWP silos, new startup process, Hyper-V as a client. 8.1 and 10 were definitely more iterations on the GUI and other features to make it a bit more palatable.
underlipton 2y ago
I liked 8 more than 10. The wonky interface was preferable to the ridiculous, unavoidable Windows Update regime and telemetry. I halfway believe that they make every other release bad on purpose, in order to make the poison pill of the next one easier to swallow (post Vista->7, when they realized that this was a viable strategy).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 2y ago
Windows 10 is still a steaming pile of shit. Just because the start menu eventually started to bring all of you applications and they made 11 even less performant and more intrusive it does not make 10 any "good".
JohnFen 2y ago
I wouldn't call Win 10 a "good" release. It's just not as horrible as Win 8. It didn't even meet the level that the likes of Win 7 achieved.
- timw4mail 2y ago
  I kind of miss Windows 7 visually. Even if it was just a polished version of Vista.
jemmyw 2y ago
Windows 9 was their best effort. Minimal interface, it really got out of your way.
hulitu 2y ago
> Why is it that MS only gets every second version of Windows right? Right ? It is actually more like "less wrong".

Suppafly 2y ago

They always try to introduce visual changes to the GUI before they introduce the underlying OS changes that support those visual changes. Vista was essentially XP with the GUI for Windows 7, Windows 8 was essentially the Windows 10 GUI with the Windows 7 OS, etc. 11 is just 10 with broken GUI updates, 12 will be the finalized version of the 11 GUI with the actual underlying OS updated as well.

pjmlp 2y ago
Vista was Longhorn redone with COM instead of .NET, after the whole internal drama from pro C++ folks, after Sinofsky took over. Window 8 was .NET redone by the same folks, as the original idea from Ext-VOS, COM getting IInspectable, in addition to IUnknown, while Type Libraries replaced by .NET metadata. Windows 10 was the reunification of WinRT programming models across devices.
dist-epoch 2y ago
You got it completely wrong. There were massive changes in Vista, new audio stack, new default permissions, new USB stack, new networking stack, new graphics stack, which caused tons of compatibility problems.
- senderista 2y ago
  Indeed, and this is underestimated (esp. security improvements). But let's face it, some of it was just half-baked at release. Source: I was there
- Suppafly 2y ago
  I may be wrong in some of the specifics, but the truth still is that every other version is half-baked OS changes with the main selling point to consumers being the upgraded GUI changes, while the actual working OS comes as the next version.
jborean93 2y ago
While yes they did introduce GUI changes they also introduced a lot more fundamental changes. Typically the second release is seen as better because it's usually a refined version or at least the changes had more time to perculate. For example Vista introduced many things that changed the fundamental nature of Windows, UAC (split tokens, integrity levels, etc), new audio stack, overhaul of IPv6, new display driver model. A lot of these new driver changes and the extra hardware requirements caused a lot of issues whereas when 7 came out the requirements were no longer as burdomsome and manufacturers had more time to release better drivers. Windows 8 introduced UWP silos, new startup process, Hyper-V as a client. 8.1 and 10 were definitely more iterations on the GUI and other features to make it a bit more palatable.

underlipton 2y ago

I liked 8 more than 10. The wonky interface was preferable to the ridiculous, unavoidable Windows Update regime and telemetry. I halfway believe that they make every other release bad on purpose, in order to make the poison pill of the next one easier to swallow (post Vista->7, when they realized that this was a viable strategy).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

marcosdumay 2y ago

Windows 10 is still a steaming pile of shit. Just because the start menu eventually started to bring all of you applications and they made 11 even less performant and more intrusive it does not make 10 any "good".

JohnFen 2y ago

I wouldn't call Win 10 a "good" release. It's just not as horrible as Win 8. It didn't even meet the level that the likes of Win 7 achieved.

timw4mail 2y ago
I kind of miss Windows 7 visually. Even if it was just a polished version of Vista.

jemmyw 2y ago

Windows 9 was their best effort. Minimal interface, it really got out of your way.

hulitu 2y ago

> Why is it that MS only gets every second version of Windows right? Right ? It is actually more like "less wrong".