4 ms·

> objectively I don’t think you understand what objectively means. When it comes to things like this, it almost always boils down to personal preference. Whic

> objectively I don’t think you understand what objectively means. When it comes to things like this, it almost always boils down to personal preference. Which is subjective not objective.

kennysoona 2y ago
I think a case can be made for Windows 7 being objectively the best windows in terms of stable features, user surveys, other objective indications of user satisfaction. We could look at things like serious incidents, compatibility issues, various widespread problems, etc. Your comment implies Windows versions could not be ranked objectively, which suggests an objective criteria could not be established. I disagree.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  How do you choose which categories matter most? That’s subjective. User satisfaction and user serveys are subjective. Also the stability of features often depends on where along the life of Windows you measure. For example XP post-SP3 is a very different OS to XP pre-SP1. So how do you decide where to measure? That’s also subjective. Not to mention the subjective question about what “stable” means and how you compare stability There’s been enough arguments on HN regarding that last point alone. For example Windows 2000 has crashed fewer times for me than Windows 7. Does this mean that Windows 2000 is now “objectively” the better OS? You might argue that the sample size is too small, but who decides the sample size? Are you including or excluding specific datapoints? Of course you are, which means “better” is then defined by the sampled data (for example the power-user vs novice ratio for windows 2000 will be different to Me and 7). And thus it’s subjective again because who decides which datapoints are important and why? Are we talking about “better” for web browsing? Home server tasks? Software development? Video editing? Etc. who decides that and why? What about “better” for memory or CPU footprint? That matters more to other people. We might think that because we are making measurements that this isn’t subjective but those measurements are still a matter of personal judgement. Edit: as an aside, this is precisely why I never use absolutes in a professional capacity. It’s easy to “say X is better than Y!” but it demonstrates far more professional experience to say “it depends. Tell me what your requirements are.”
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    I find it fitting here to reassert the last point from my previous reply: Your reasoning here implies Windows versions, or any operating systems can not be ranked objectively, which suggests an objective criteria can not be established. I disagree. The approach to accomplishing that can be a discussion, but not one relevant to the point I made above - it need only be acknowledged that it is possible.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      I’m not saying operating systems cannot be ranked objectively. I’m saying the GPs statement was far far far too broad to be objective. If they said “highest rated for performance X according to Y” (where X and Y are defined measurements), then it would be an objective statement. However just saying something is “objectively the best” doesn’t make it objective.
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        > I’m not saying operating systems cannot be ranked objectively. I’m saying the GPs statement was far far far too broad to be objective. > If they said “highest rated for performance X according to Y” (where X and Y are defined measurements), then it would be an objective statement. So you are saying OSes can only be compared objectively on specific features, and not in an overall capacity? > However just saying something is “objectively the best” doesn’t make it objective. True, which is why I said I believe a case could be made. This being a HN comment I'm not taking too seriously, I'm not going to put in the work to do so, I'm more interested just to see casual discussion and see people who might agree or disagree, without worrying too much about the semantics of the claim.
        hnlmorg 2y ago
        > So you are saying OSes can only be compared objectively on specific features, and not in an overall capacity? Depends. “Better” is a subjective term so if you were to discuss overall capacity objectively then you would need to explain why you arrived at that conclusion. Otherwise it’s left to interpretation (ie subjective). For example: I could make several well reasoned arguments why I consider Windows 2000 to be better. Others could do the same for XP. We are all correct for our own interpretation of “best”.
LeFantome 2y ago
Hard to disagree in principle. However, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 7, and Windows 10 are all crowd-rated quite a bit more favourably than Windows Vista, Windows 8, and Windows 11. So, it seems that there are objective criteria after-all.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  You’re talking about a collection here whereas the GP singled out one specific OS without any parameters describing how that judgement was made. And it’s there’s a very broad range of parameters that need to be agreed upon. Those parameters will differ from one person to another. And the fact that the GP has been downvoted in oblivion further demonstrates how others disagree with their statement. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the peer-moderation though but rather using is a datapoint to illustrate that if 7 is “objectively” the best then there shouldn’t be any room for interpretation — and yet people are interpreting “best” differently. See my other comment for examples.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    Eh, I think the downvotes are more for questioning why someone would move to Linux (Which I wasn't questioning so much as the claim they were dying t get away from Windows) in a way that was perceived as rude rather than my ranking Windows 7 above other versions.
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      You can try to argue that, and you might be right, however plenty still spoke up in disagreement with your ranking of Windows though. So my point still stands
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        I don't see people speaking up disagreeing with W7 being the best, one guy said 10 was objectively better, but he didn't respond for us to be able to discuss. If you search best versions of windows, pretty much every single result is giving it to win7. I think that's sufficiently convincing evidence for my point. Also, in response to comment being downvoted as though that indicated something, your comment disagreeing with my first comment is more downvoted than my own, indicating more people disagree with your contention than with my ranking.

> objectively I don’t think you understand what objectively means. When it comes to things like this, it almost always boils down to personal preference. Which is subjective not objective.

kennysoona 2y ago

I think a case can be made for Windows 7 being objectively the best windows in terms of stable features, user surveys, other objective indications of user satisfaction. We could look at things like serious incidents, compatibility issues, various widespread problems, etc. Your comment implies Windows versions could not be ranked objectively, which suggests an objective criteria could not be established. I disagree.

hnlmorg 2y ago
How do you choose which categories matter most? That’s subjective. User satisfaction and user serveys are subjective. Also the stability of features often depends on where along the life of Windows you measure. For example XP post-SP3 is a very different OS to XP pre-SP1. So how do you decide where to measure? That’s also subjective. Not to mention the subjective question about what “stable” means and how you compare stability There’s been enough arguments on HN regarding that last point alone. For example Windows 2000 has crashed fewer times for me than Windows 7. Does this mean that Windows 2000 is now “objectively” the better OS? You might argue that the sample size is too small, but who decides the sample size? Are you including or excluding specific datapoints? Of course you are, which means “better” is then defined by the sampled data (for example the power-user vs novice ratio for windows 2000 will be different to Me and 7). And thus it’s subjective again because who decides which datapoints are important and why? Are we talking about “better” for web browsing? Home server tasks? Software development? Video editing? Etc. who decides that and why? What about “better” for memory or CPU footprint? That matters more to other people. We might think that because we are making measurements that this isn’t subjective but those measurements are still a matter of personal judgement. Edit: as an aside, this is precisely why I never use absolutes in a professional capacity. It’s easy to “say X is better than Y!” but it demonstrates far more professional experience to say “it depends. Tell me what your requirements are.”
- kennysoona 2y ago
  I find it fitting here to reassert the last point from my previous reply: Your reasoning here implies Windows versions, or any operating systems can not be ranked objectively, which suggests an objective criteria can not be established. I disagree. The approach to accomplishing that can be a discussion, but not one relevant to the point I made above - it need only be acknowledged that it is possible.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    I’m not saying operating systems cannot be ranked objectively. I’m saying the GPs statement was far far far too broad to be objective. If they said “highest rated for performance X according to Y” (where X and Y are defined measurements), then it would be an objective statement. However just saying something is “objectively the best” doesn’t make it objective.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      > I’m not saying operating systems cannot be ranked objectively. I’m saying the GPs statement was far far far too broad to be objective. > If they said “highest rated for performance X according to Y” (where X and Y are defined measurements), then it would be an objective statement. So you are saying OSes can only be compared objectively on specific features, and not in an overall capacity? > However just saying something is “objectively the best” doesn’t make it objective. True, which is why I said I believe a case could be made. This being a HN comment I'm not taking too seriously, I'm not going to put in the work to do so, I'm more interested just to see casual discussion and see people who might agree or disagree, without worrying too much about the semantics of the claim.
      - hnlmorg 2y ago
        > So you are saying OSes can only be compared objectively on specific features, and not in an overall capacity? Depends. “Better” is a subjective term so if you were to discuss overall capacity objectively then you would need to explain why you arrived at that conclusion. Otherwise it’s left to interpretation (ie subjective). For example: I could make several well reasoned arguments why I consider Windows 2000 to be better. Others could do the same for XP. We are all correct for our own interpretation of “best”.

LeFantome 2y ago

Hard to disagree in principle. However, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 7, and Windows 10 are all crowd-rated quite a bit more favourably than Windows Vista, Windows 8, and Windows 11. So, it seems that there are objective criteria after-all.

hnlmorg 2y ago
You’re talking about a collection here whereas the GP singled out one specific OS without any parameters describing how that judgement was made. And it’s there’s a very broad range of parameters that need to be agreed upon. Those parameters will differ from one person to another. And the fact that the GP has been downvoted in oblivion further demonstrates how others disagree with their statement. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the peer-moderation though but rather using is a datapoint to illustrate that if 7 is “objectively” the best then there shouldn’t be any room for interpretation — and yet people are interpreting “best” differently. See my other comment for examples.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  Eh, I think the downvotes are more for questioning why someone would move to Linux (Which I wasn't questioning so much as the claim they were dying t get away from Windows) in a way that was perceived as rude rather than my ranking Windows 7 above other versions.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    You can try to argue that, and you might be right, however plenty still spoke up in disagreement with your ranking of Windows though. So my point still stands
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      I don't see people speaking up disagreeing with W7 being the best, one guy said 10 was objectively better, but he didn't respond for us to be able to discuss. If you search best versions of windows, pretty much every single result is giving it to win7. I think that's sufficiently convincing evidence for my point. Also, in response to comment being downvoted as though that indicated something, your comment disagreeing with my first comment is more downvoted than my own, indicating more people disagree with your contention than with my ranking.