4 ms·

> Since I already committed to ditching my partner in favor of a more attractive ex… This was a funny sentence to read, as my first thought as I started the ar

> Since I already committed to ditching my partner in favor of a more attractive ex… This was a funny sentence to read, as my first thought as I started the article was “Windows users are starting to remind me of people stuck in cycles of abusive relationships.” Windows has been in a cycle of abusively bad releases followed by sheepish "sorry, we learned our lesson" releases for nearly thirty years. What is the author’s plan for five years from now, just hope that Windows 12 isn't garbage? All I can figure is that every generation spawns a new set of users who never knew any better, a segment of them reaching the breaking point, but can't be bothered to influence the next generation. regardless: this is always who Windows was. Get out and get help.

volkercraig 9mo ago
Don't get me wrong, If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, but Win 95, XP, and 7 were functional, usable and stable OS's. 8 got a lot of flak for it's horrible UI changes, but under the hood it was actually a big improvement to 7. It's been steadily downhill since 7 though. Integration of spyware got it's foothold in 8 and now that we are at 11, you've got a completely spyware ridden OS, and then on top of that, basic things like context menus, audio drivers, screenshot tools, and connecting monitors to laptops is broken. Many of these issues were ironically the same issues that stopped me from running Ubuntu Dapper Drake when I first installed it. It's just an unacceptably bad product from Microsoft, and if businesses weren't vendor locked (specifically the business I work for) I'd never even look at it, much like I don't look at Lotus or Corel products.
- cogman10 9mo ago
  Windows 7 was effectively just vista but enough time had passed that the required hardware to run it was easy to get a hold of. The biggest problem with Vista is you had a lot of Windows XP computers running happily on 256 and 512MB of ram. That made updating to Vista REALLY painful to a lot of people. I think people forget about how little resources 95, 98, and XP needed to run. XP was also criticized for being a hog when it first came out. People viewed Windows 2000 as being the good windows right up until memory became more abundant. You couldn't run XP on a machine with 64MB of ram, but you could run windows ME and 98 on that same machine.
  - noahbp 9mo ago
    I don't think we should excuse Microsoft for bloating Windows because memory became abundant.
    - cogman10 9mo ago
      A lot of that bloat is due to compatibility and the 32bit -> 64bit transition. Linux has suffered from the 32/64 bit problem as well for quite some time. The only difference is because of opensource it's been easier to slowly kill off the 32bit ecosystem. That's not been an option for windows.
      - LtWorf 9mo ago
        This has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of RAM needed.
        cogman10 9mo ago
        Absolutely it does, for 2 different reasons. First up, the nature of dlls is that the same dll for multiple applications gets saved in memory just once. If you have 2 windows applications and one is 32bit and the other 64bit, then both of those applications end up loading up effectively the same dlls, but one is compiled for 64bit apps and the other 32. That nearly doubles the amount of ram needed in a mixed system. But then there's just the fact that 64bit code by it's nature uses and passes around 64bit pointers everywhere. That's not quite as significant but it does have an effect. The other part that ends up adding to the memory consumption is from XP on microsoft added compatibility layers. What those effectively did is distribute a different set of dlls based on the application being launched. So now instead of having 1 copy of the dlls like you did with 95, 98 and ME you can end up with potentially 3 or 4 different dlls. And that's ultimately exploded as more versions of windows have been released.
        LtWorf 9mo ago
        If you'd ever opened a directory of a program in windows you'd know that they always bring their own dlls, windows is not debian.
- traceroute66 9mo ago
  > If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, To be fair, I agree they are overdue for a truly awful release. I mean, there was Windows Me and then 7 years later Windows Vista. Those were truly Gold medal awful podium releases. Even with Windows 11 I don't think we've hit that level in the cycle just yet.
  - dijit 9mo ago
    Absolutely not. ME was unstable but had charm, it deserved a lot of the dislike because NT was just so good... and they really should not have removed Real-Mode; that would have been the reason to use ME over NT2000... Vista though? If you genuinely gave me a patched Vista and said that it was a viable alternative to 11... I would 100% take that 10/10 times. Vista's problem was that it was heavy and people sold devices that could barely run the basic version as if they were fully compatible.. Widgets were a bit of a misstep too, but I mean, you can ignore them. Oh and the new driver system meant that you needed totally new drivers for everything; and annoyingly the UAC dialog just got in everyones grill: but we still have that! And anyway after SP2; Vista was a pretty good OS, especially on reasonable hardware for the time. I would genuinely rather sniff farts all day and use Vista, than be forced into using the consumer version of Windows 11. My IT department doesn't suck when it comes to trimming down Windows, but it's still not ideal, you can feel the shit constantly trying to break through.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
- basch 9mo ago
  8 and 8.1 were two full different releases as well. 8.1 was much better than 8. The Kernel Version Numbers are a better hint at what is going on than the marketing releases. Windows 2000 NT5, XP NT 5.1 Vista NT6, 7 NT6.1, 8 NT6.2, 8.1 NT6.3

volkercraig 9mo ago

Don't get me wrong, If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, but Win 95, XP, and 7 were functional, usable and stable OS's. 8 got a lot of flak for it's horrible UI changes, but under the hood it was actually a big improvement to 7. It's been steadily downhill since 7 though. Integration of spyware got it's foothold in 8 and now that we are at 11, you've got a completely spyware ridden OS, and then on top of that, basic things like context menus, audio drivers, screenshot tools, and connecting monitors to laptops is broken. Many of these issues were ironically the same issues that stopped me from running Ubuntu Dapper Drake when I first installed it. It's just an unacceptably bad product from Microsoft, and if businesses weren't vendor locked (specifically the business I work for) I'd never even look at it, much like I don't look at Lotus or Corel products.

cogman10 9mo ago
Windows 7 was effectively just vista but enough time had passed that the required hardware to run it was easy to get a hold of. The biggest problem with Vista is you had a lot of Windows XP computers running happily on 256 and 512MB of ram. That made updating to Vista REALLY painful to a lot of people. I think people forget about how little resources 95, 98, and XP needed to run. XP was also criticized for being a hog when it first came out. People viewed Windows 2000 as being the good windows right up until memory became more abundant. You couldn't run XP on a machine with 64MB of ram, but you could run windows ME and 98 on that same machine.
- noahbp 9mo ago
  I don't think we should excuse Microsoft for bloating Windows because memory became abundant.
  - cogman10 9mo ago
    A lot of that bloat is due to compatibility and the 32bit -> 64bit transition. Linux has suffered from the 32/64 bit problem as well for quite some time. The only difference is because of opensource it's been easier to slowly kill off the 32bit ecosystem. That's not been an option for windows.
    - LtWorf 9mo ago
      This has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of RAM needed.
      - cogman10 9mo ago
        Absolutely it does, for 2 different reasons. First up, the nature of dlls is that the same dll for multiple applications gets saved in memory just once. If you have 2 windows applications and one is 32bit and the other 64bit, then both of those applications end up loading up effectively the same dlls, but one is compiled for 64bit apps and the other 32. That nearly doubles the amount of ram needed in a mixed system. But then there's just the fact that 64bit code by it's nature uses and passes around 64bit pointers everywhere. That's not quite as significant but it does have an effect. The other part that ends up adding to the memory consumption is from XP on microsoft added compatibility layers. What those effectively did is distribute a different set of dlls based on the application being launched. So now instead of having 1 copy of the dlls like you did with 95, 98 and ME you can end up with potentially 3 or 4 different dlls. And that's ultimately exploded as more versions of windows have been released.
        LtWorf 9mo ago
        If you'd ever opened a directory of a program in windows you'd know that they always bring their own dlls, windows is not debian.
traceroute66 9mo ago
> If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, To be fair, I agree they are overdue for a truly awful release. I mean, there was Windows Me and then 7 years later Windows Vista. Those were truly Gold medal awful podium releases. Even with Windows 11 I don't think we've hit that level in the cycle just yet.
- dijit 9mo ago
  Absolutely not. ME was unstable but had charm, it deserved a lot of the dislike because NT was just so good... and they really should not have removed Real-Mode; that would have been the reason to use ME over NT2000... Vista though? If you genuinely gave me a patched Vista and said that it was a viable alternative to 11... I would 100% take that 10/10 times. Vista's problem was that it was heavy and people sold devices that could barely run the basic version as if they were fully compatible.. Widgets were a bit of a misstep too, but I mean, you can ignore them. Oh and the new driver system meant that you needed totally new drivers for everything; and annoyingly the UAC dialog just got in everyones grill: but we still have that! And anyway after SP2; Vista was a pretty good OS, especially on reasonable hardware for the time. I would genuinely rather sniff farts all day and use Vista, than be forced into using the consumer version of Windows 11. My IT department doesn't suck when it comes to trimming down Windows, but it's still not ideal, you can feel the shit constantly trying to break through.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
basch 9mo ago
8 and 8.1 were two full different releases as well. 8.1 was much better than 8. The Kernel Version Numbers are a better hint at what is going on than the marketing releases. Windows 2000 NT5, XP NT 5.1 Vista NT6, 7 NT6.1, 8 NT6.2, 8.1 NT6.3