5 ms·

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 Vi

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.
      - hnlmorg 2y ago
        Then you need to look harder because comments are definitely there
        kennysoona 2y ago
        There is one comment explicitly disagreeing saying 10 was better, the others are not disagreeing about the ranking if W7 at all so much as making the same point that subjectivity can play a part in considering what is the best, which is not something I ever disagreed with. One comment is just saying they didn't see what was great about W7 that it just seemed like vista, and other comments clarify things for that user.
        hnlmorg 2y ago
        I disagree. Go have another read of the comments. I counted at least 3 before I stopped reading.
        kennysoona 2y ago
        You're probably misinterpreting some. Like there is one that says NT is the best...or maybe 2000...but that person is not disagreeing with ranking but making the point that subjectivity plays a part.
        hnlmorg 2y ago
        I disagree about misinterpreting them. But glad you're now identifying that others have also disagreed with your opinion about which was the best.
        kennysoona 2y ago
        You disagree about a lot of things even when the evidence isn't subjective or open to interpretation in the least. Fascinating. As previously stated, it's not merely an opinion that W7 is the best, but an objective argument supported by reasoning and evidence, also both objective. But by all means, let's keep discussing this despite your proclamations to want to be done.
kennysoona 2y ago
Exactly, and I think Windows 7 would be ranked generally over 2000 and certainly XP as well. It wasn't just technological progress, but a solid level of refinement over various past implementations.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  You need to account for the era of release though. If you do, then Windows 2000 is easily the better OS, in my personal opinion. And hence the subjective part: I disagree with your selection of criteria. We might just have to agree to disagree though it’s been an interesting conversation nonetheless.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    > You need to account for the era of release though. Sure, I account for that. > And hence the subjective part: I disagree with you’re selection of criteria I explicitly haven't listed an entire set of criteria, although I'd be curious to se which version of Windows you would think could be put forward as better objectively. Pretty sure Windows 7 has all types of aware and highest scores for user satisfaction and what not, so a cursory review of the available data would seem to align with my ranking. But, still, which version do you think beats Windows 7 since you disagree based on the few qualifiers I listed? You seem like an XP man, is it XP?
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      No. I don’t like XP. For me it would be Windows 2000. When it was released its competition was - Mac OS 9 (which was about as reliable as Windows 98) - OSX wasn’t yet released. But when it did, it wasn’t particularly great for existing Mac users. It took a few years for OSX to really gain momentum. - Linux (who’s desktop support was still immature) - BeOS 5 (which was bloody awesome, but also very niche) - Windows Me (easily the worst desktop OS Microsoft have ever produced. Say what you will about Vista, but its flaws were a combination of its ambition and Microsoft “certifying” it for hardware that wasn’t powerful enough. Whereas Me just sucked in every conceivable and irredeemable way). Windows 2000 was the first time Microsoft but focus on the little details. For example Notepad was finally given hot keys like ctrl+s to save. In fact I’d argue it was the last time Microsoft put refinement above new features too. It was the first time we saw a workstation OS suitable for home use (aside perhaps BeOS but much as I love BeOS, NT was a more sophisticated engineering feat). Windows 2000 was the first time a windows release didn’t double the system requirements. A trend that then continued again right up until around 7/8. Windows 2000 was rock solid. I only managed to crash it twice and one of those times was because I was playing around with an undocumented Windows API — so that really was my own fault. Windows 2000 was the last time was unified UI across all of the OS management tools. Except for the font management which was still a 16-bit app. Microsoft have only gotten worse at this since too. It was also the prettiest too (but that’s entirely subjective). Windows 2000 was the OS that shipped the most sane defaults. Though there was still some WTF moments like the terminal port being open. Since then though, I’m constantly fighting with Windows trying to dumb everything down. Windows 2000 is what proved to the world that Microsoft could release a half decent OS that supports SMP and doesn’t require a DOS bootloader. It was a real game changer of an OS and released at the time when everything else on the market was garage too. Which just goes to demonstrate just how much of a game changer it was. It was, in my opinion, not only the first Microsoft OS that didn’t completely suck in every conceivable way. But arguably the only good OS they’ve ever released because everything since has been fraught with compromises. Including 7. XP pre-SP2 was basically an uglier 2000 with twice the CPU and memory footprint. After SP2 XP grew into its own entirely. But by that point desktop Linux was good enough to run as my primary OS. Edit: the opinions here are both my own, and my professional experience managing desktop and server IT infrastructures for small businesses at that time. And at that time, Windows 2000 changed everything. If 7 hadn’t been released then Microsoft could have kept supporting XP and most people would have been perfectly happy. But if 2000 wasn’t released then Microsoft would have been in the same deep shit that Apple were with their repeated failed attempts at creating a successor to Mac OS prior to re-hiring Steve Jobs.

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.
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      Then you need to look harder because comments are definitely there
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        There is one comment explicitly disagreeing saying 10 was better, the others are not disagreeing about the ranking if W7 at all so much as making the same point that subjectivity can play a part in considering what is the best, which is not something I ever disagreed with. One comment is just saying they didn't see what was great about W7 that it just seemed like vista, and other comments clarify things for that user.
        hnlmorg 2y ago
        I disagree. Go have another read of the comments. I counted at least 3 before I stopped reading.
        kennysoona 2y ago
        You're probably misinterpreting some. Like there is one that says NT is the best...or maybe 2000...but that person is not disagreeing with ranking but making the point that subjectivity plays a part.
        hnlmorg 2y ago
        I disagree about misinterpreting them. But glad you're now identifying that others have also disagreed with your opinion about which was the best.
        kennysoona 2y ago
        You disagree about a lot of things even when the evidence isn't subjective or open to interpretation in the least. Fascinating. As previously stated, it's not merely an opinion that W7 is the best, but an objective argument supported by reasoning and evidence, also both objective. But by all means, let's keep discussing this despite your proclamations to want to be done.

kennysoona 2y ago

Exactly, and I think Windows 7 would be ranked generally over 2000 and certainly XP as well. It wasn't just technological progress, but a solid level of refinement over various past implementations.

hnlmorg 2y ago
You need to account for the era of release though. If you do, then Windows 2000 is easily the better OS, in my personal opinion. And hence the subjective part: I disagree with your selection of criteria. We might just have to agree to disagree though it’s been an interesting conversation nonetheless.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > You need to account for the era of release though. Sure, I account for that. > And hence the subjective part: I disagree with you’re selection of criteria I explicitly haven't listed an entire set of criteria, although I'd be curious to se which version of Windows you would think could be put forward as better objectively. Pretty sure Windows 7 has all types of aware and highest scores for user satisfaction and what not, so a cursory review of the available data would seem to align with my ranking. But, still, which version do you think beats Windows 7 since you disagree based on the few qualifiers I listed? You seem like an XP man, is it XP?
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    No. I don’t like XP. For me it would be Windows 2000. When it was released its competition was - Mac OS 9 (which was about as reliable as Windows 98) - OSX wasn’t yet released. But when it did, it wasn’t particularly great for existing Mac users. It took a few years for OSX to really gain momentum. - Linux (who’s desktop support was still immature) - BeOS 5 (which was bloody awesome, but also very niche) - Windows Me (easily the worst desktop OS Microsoft have ever produced. Say what you will about Vista, but its flaws were a combination of its ambition and Microsoft “certifying” it for hardware that wasn’t powerful enough. Whereas Me just sucked in every conceivable and irredeemable way). Windows 2000 was the first time Microsoft but focus on the little details. For example Notepad was finally given hot keys like ctrl+s to save. In fact I’d argue it was the last time Microsoft put refinement above new features too. It was the first time we saw a workstation OS suitable for home use (aside perhaps BeOS but much as I love BeOS, NT was a more sophisticated engineering feat). Windows 2000 was the first time a windows release didn’t double the system requirements. A trend that then continued again right up until around 7/8. Windows 2000 was rock solid. I only managed to crash it twice and one of those times was because I was playing around with an undocumented Windows API — so that really was my own fault. Windows 2000 was the last time was unified UI across all of the OS management tools. Except for the font management which was still a 16-bit app. Microsoft have only gotten worse at this since too. It was also the prettiest too (but that’s entirely subjective). Windows 2000 was the OS that shipped the most sane defaults. Though there was still some WTF moments like the terminal port being open. Since then though, I’m constantly fighting with Windows trying to dumb everything down. Windows 2000 is what proved to the world that Microsoft could release a half decent OS that supports SMP and doesn’t require a DOS bootloader. It was a real game changer of an OS and released at the time when everything else on the market was garage too. Which just goes to demonstrate just how much of a game changer it was. It was, in my opinion, not only the first Microsoft OS that didn’t completely suck in every conceivable way. But arguably the only good OS they’ve ever released because everything since has been fraught with compromises. Including 7. XP pre-SP2 was basically an uglier 2000 with twice the CPU and memory footprint. After SP2 XP grew into its own entirely. But by that point desktop Linux was good enough to run as my primary OS. Edit: the opinions here are both my own, and my professional experience managing desktop and server IT infrastructures for small businesses at that time. And at that time, Windows 2000 changed everything. If 7 hadn’t been released then Microsoft could have kept supporting XP and most people would have been perfectly happy. But if 2000 wasn’t released then Microsoft would have been in the same deep shit that Apple were with their repeated failed attempts at creating a successor to Mac OS prior to re-hiring Steve Jobs.