5 ms·

I don’t know why they always alternate a good with a bad release. Technically Windows 12 should be good.

_mlbt 1y ago
People always say that, but it’s not really been completely true. < 3.1 Bad 3.1 Good 3.11 WfW Good NT 3.5 Okay 95 Good NT 4.0 Good 98 Good Me Bad 2000 Good XP Good Vista Bad 7 Good 8 Bad 8.1 Okay 10 Good 11 Bad There just really isn’t a pattern to it.
- karmakaze 1y ago
  NT 3.51 Best These are also mixing two separate streams: Win3.x/9x/ME and NT+
- NikkiA 1y ago
  The only 'bad' thing about Vista was it's change (and thus deprecation of many drivers) of driver model. Once tweaked and with good native drivers it was the first good 64bit windows - far more reliable than XP64. At least until 7 came out.
- acheron 1y ago
  Windows 3.0 was good. 3.1 was a minor improvement.
  - Narishma 1y ago
    3.0 was ok but a bit rough around the edges and it crashed a lot. 3.1 was a substantial improvement in that regard. It also brought major features like TTF fonts, the registry, a usable file manager, audio and video support, and networking in the Workgroups version.
- tonyedgecombe 1y ago
  >95 Good That's arguable, I thought it was poor at the time.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    Windows users have low expectations. I still have PTSD from all the problems 9x caused me.
  - _mlbt 1y ago
    On well supported hardware 95 was a major upgrade. The Start menu, long file names, preemptive multitasking, plug and play hardware, and Direct X gaming support. In many ways it even surpassed MacOS at the time.
- hyperman1 1y ago
  When Win10 started, it was clearly Bad. No good reason for updates, invasive privacy-breaking telemetry, updates at random moments of the day, and everything was a little different but nothing was better. People flat out refused to upgrade when it was given for free. Microsoft had to force it trough windows update, and did multiple rounds of breaking software people explicitly installed to block the upgrade. When did it become good? WSL and DirectX 12 were real changes, but all in all, my impression is that the user has been frog boiled over the years, with 2K,XP and 7 becoming distant memories.
  - supportengineer 1y ago
    I remember that too. Microsoft was more aggressive and hostile towards the user than ever before.
- nobleach 1y ago
  XP was the last that I really REALLY used. I've had Windows 7 (on my work machine that I didn't use) and I have a Windows 10 machine that I boot from time to time when I want to mess with recording gear. But I kinda fell into "they're all bad, I was just used to them". I'll give my prime example. I used to know Device Manager/Control Panel SO well. I could just get things done. Now I have to hunt around forever to do any sort of hardware related task. In their attempt to make it "so easy, even your grandma could use it" they've alienated power users. My grandma still has to call me to help her attach a printer... but now I have to say, "I dunno... let me watch a YouTube video and pray that it matches the sub-version that you're using".
- mhitza 1y ago
  I don't know how good Windows 95 was in practice, but in our country where 99.9% of internet cafes didn't have licenses, or service pack updates (if they even had any for the 95 variant), it was a pretty easy Windows to DoS via the netbios vulnerability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinNuke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinNuke
- timbit42 1y ago
  There is a pattern when you remove the versions few people used.
NikkiA 1y ago
Win 11 and Vista have been unfairly maligned, with some minor tweaks (and start11) both are solid performant windows releases.
- znpy 1y ago
  Windows Vista was essentially unusable on release unless you had very high-end hardware. A couple of weeks after release the first step after getting a new computer was changed from "downloading firefox" to "downgrade to windows xp". Unironically, many people did that.
  - NikkiA 1y ago
    And that unusuability was mostly due to the driver model change, once native Vista drivers appeared it performed better than XP/XP64 unless you were running old video hardware that couldn't handle aero - in which case you were still better off running Vista with the classic UI, although that did entail forgoing the Luna styling.
    - ack_complete 1y ago
      Even with native WDDM drivers it performed poorly in desktop graphics, because Vista also removed all GDI hardware acceleration support. This caused many 2D graphics operations to execute in software, or worse, an even slower mix of hardware and software rendering. Windows 7 improved on this by re-adding hardware acceleration for some GDI primitives and adding aperture windows to reduce DWM memory footprint.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  Windows 11 is the only version of Windows I’ve used where the taskbar routinely crashes on login and refuses to load.
- mystified5016 1y ago
  I think the vista hate is well earned. Remember when Microsoft had to trick users into trying it by calling it 'Mojave' instead?
ruined 1y ago
they should’ve just skipped 11 like they skipped 9
- omoikane 1y ago
  The story I heard[1] was that Microsoft skipped 9 because people used to check for "Windows 9" prefix string to identify 95 and 98: if(version.StartsWith("Windows 9")) { /* 95 and 98 */ } else { [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/ckwq83x/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/...
  - chuckadams 1y ago
    It's a story all right, but that's all it is. Windows has a GetVersion function that returns a struct of major/minor/build, and they're all ints. That's how you've always checked for versions, with older versions checking against a single int that contained both major/minor. Microsoft had no reason to support blatantly stupid development practices that no one ever actually did. They were trying to avoid brand confusion with the consumer, because even people who know about versions will still do a mental double take at seeing "Windows 9", expecting another digit. The confusion might not last long, but it still detracts from the brand.
    - omoikane 1y ago
      > no one ever actually did. There is an example further down that thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/ckxe8n9/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/... https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/secure/attachment/18777/PlatformDetailsTask.java https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/secure/attachment/18777/Platfo... /** Performs computation and returns the result, or throws some exception. */ public HashSet<String> call() throws Exception { final String arch = System.getProperty("os.arch"); String name = System.getProperty("os.name").toLowerCase(); String version = System.getProperty("os.version"); if (name.equals("solaris") || name.equals("SunOS")) { name = "solaris"; } else if (name.startsWith("windows")) { name = "windows"; if (name.startsWith("windows 9")) { if (version.startsWith("4.0")) { version = "95"; } else if (version.startsWith("4.9")) { version = "me"; } else { assert version.startsWith("4.1"); version = "98"; } } else { ...
SirMaster 1y ago
It feels like Windows 12 will be riddled with AI stuff nobody wants and ads, and forced to be online and connected to Microsoft in some way.

People always say that, but it’s not really been completely true. < 3.1 Bad 3.1 Good 3.11 WfW Good NT 3.5 Okay 95 Good NT 4.0 Good 98 Good Me Bad 2000 Good XP Good Vista Bad 7 Good 8 Bad 8.1 Okay 10 Good 11 Bad There just really isn’t a pattern to it.

karmakaze 1y ago
NT 3.51 Best These are also mixing two separate streams: Win3.x/9x/ME and NT+
NikkiA 1y ago
The only 'bad' thing about Vista was it's change (and thus deprecation of many drivers) of driver model. Once tweaked and with good native drivers it was the first good 64bit windows - far more reliable than XP64. At least until 7 came out.
acheron 1y ago
Windows 3.0 was good. 3.1 was a minor improvement.
- Narishma 1y ago
  3.0 was ok but a bit rough around the edges and it crashed a lot. 3.1 was a substantial improvement in that regard. It also brought major features like TTF fonts, the registry, a usable file manager, audio and video support, and networking in the Workgroups version.
tonyedgecombe 1y ago
>95 Good That's arguable, I thought it was poor at the time.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Windows users have low expectations. I still have PTSD from all the problems 9x caused me.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  On well supported hardware 95 was a major upgrade. The Start menu, long file names, preemptive multitasking, plug and play hardware, and Direct X gaming support. In many ways it even surpassed MacOS at the time.
hyperman1 1y ago
When Win10 started, it was clearly Bad. No good reason for updates, invasive privacy-breaking telemetry, updates at random moments of the day, and everything was a little different but nothing was better. People flat out refused to upgrade when it was given for free. Microsoft had to force it trough windows update, and did multiple rounds of breaking software people explicitly installed to block the upgrade. When did it become good? WSL and DirectX 12 were real changes, but all in all, my impression is that the user has been frog boiled over the years, with 2K,XP and 7 becoming distant memories.
- supportengineer 1y ago
  I remember that too. Microsoft was more aggressive and hostile towards the user than ever before.
nobleach 1y ago
XP was the last that I really REALLY used. I've had Windows 7 (on my work machine that I didn't use) and I have a Windows 10 machine that I boot from time to time when I want to mess with recording gear. But I kinda fell into "they're all bad, I was just used to them". I'll give my prime example. I used to know Device Manager/Control Panel SO well. I could just get things done. Now I have to hunt around forever to do any sort of hardware related task. In their attempt to make it "so easy, even your grandma could use it" they've alienated power users. My grandma still has to call me to help her attach a printer... but now I have to say, "I dunno... let me watch a YouTube video and pray that it matches the sub-version that you're using".
mhitza 1y ago
I don't know how good Windows 95 was in practice, but in our country where 99.9% of internet cafes didn't have licenses, or service pack updates (if they even had any for the 95 variant), it was a pretty easy Windows to DoS via the netbios vulnerability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinNuke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinNuke
timbit42 1y ago
There is a pattern when you remove the versions few people used.

NikkiA 1y ago

Win 11 and Vista have been unfairly maligned, with some minor tweaks (and start11) both are solid performant windows releases.

znpy 1y ago
Windows Vista was essentially unusable on release unless you had very high-end hardware. A couple of weeks after release the first step after getting a new computer was changed from "downloading firefox" to "downgrade to windows xp". Unironically, many people did that.
- NikkiA 1y ago
  And that unusuability was mostly due to the driver model change, once native Vista drivers appeared it performed better than XP/XP64 unless you were running old video hardware that couldn't handle aero - in which case you were still better off running Vista with the classic UI, although that did entail forgoing the Luna styling.
  - ack_complete 1y ago
    Even with native WDDM drivers it performed poorly in desktop graphics, because Vista also removed all GDI hardware acceleration support. This caused many 2D graphics operations to execute in software, or worse, an even slower mix of hardware and software rendering. Windows 7 improved on this by re-adding hardware acceleration for some GDI primitives and adding aperture windows to reduce DWM memory footprint.
_mlbt 1y ago
Windows 11 is the only version of Windows I’ve used where the taskbar routinely crashes on login and refuses to load.
mystified5016 1y ago
I think the vista hate is well earned. Remember when Microsoft had to trick users into trying it by calling it 'Mojave' instead?

ruined 1y ago

they should’ve just skipped 11 like they skipped 9

omoikane 1y ago
The story I heard[1] was that Microsoft skipped 9 because people used to check for "Windows 9" prefix string to identify 95 and 98: if(version.StartsWith("Windows 9")) { /* 95 and 98 */ } else { [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/ckwq83x/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/...
- chuckadams 1y ago
  It's a story all right, but that's all it is. Windows has a GetVersion function that returns a struct of major/minor/build, and they're all ints. That's how you've always checked for versions, with older versions checking against a single int that contained both major/minor. Microsoft had no reason to support blatantly stupid development practices that no one ever actually did. They were trying to avoid brand confusion with the consumer, because even people who know about versions will still do a mental double take at seeing "Windows 9", expecting another digit. The confusion might not last long, but it still detracts from the brand.
  - omoikane 1y ago
    > no one ever actually did. There is an example further down that thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/ckxe8n9/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comment/... https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/secure/attachment/18777/PlatformDetailsTask.java https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/secure/attachment/18777/Platfo... /** Performs computation and returns the result, or throws some exception. */ public HashSet<String> call() throws Exception { final String arch = System.getProperty("os.arch"); String name = System.getProperty("os.name").toLowerCase(); String version = System.getProperty("os.version"); if (name.equals("solaris") || name.equals("SunOS")) { name = "solaris"; } else if (name.startsWith("windows")) { name = "windows"; if (name.startsWith("windows 9")) { if (version.startsWith("4.0")) { version = "95"; } else if (version.startsWith("4.9")) { version = "me"; } else { assert version.startsWith("4.1"); version = "98"; } } else { ...

SirMaster 1y ago

It feels like Windows 12 will be riddled with AI stuff nobody wants and ads, and forced to be online and connected to Microsoft in some way.