Every 2nd microsoft OS is bad. Its normal for them. XP good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad.
Uh, no.
95 bad, 98 bad, 98SE good only compared to 98, XP actually decent, Vista only really bad because of the change in how drivers were handled and there not being a robust library of them because of it, 7 THE GOD KING OF WINDOWS OSes…The Best, The Pinnacle. The Peak. The Top of the bell curve, 8 was shit, 10 was more shit than 8, 11 is just spyware.
If you’re calling 95 bad i don’t think you spent a lot of time in 3.1. Resolving IRQ conflicts, configuring winsock.DLL, whatever the hell else. 95 had its issues, especially on the gaming side, but it was leaps and bounds better than what came before. Meanwhile 98SE was good enough to keep people, especially gamers, on it for a long time.
Seriously. Windows 7 was the first genuinely stable OS from Microsoft.
Everything before it required regular reformating. Granted, the frequency of the reformating less over time, but still required it. Like, Win95/98 required it like every 3 months, XP every 6 months to a year, just to avoid the bloat and slowing down and issues. Same with reboots, it didnt have to be rebooted every time you ran a program, either.
Windows 7? My longest run between formats was like 4-5 years iirc, and that was due to hardware changes, not due to any performance or maintenance need. Ans for reboots? Only time that computer ever got rebooted is when a windows update demanded it, or when the power went out. Neither of which was particularly frequent.
It was also slick, agile, easy to use. You didnt have to think about shit when you used windows 7, you just did shit.
I’m not a fanboy, despite what this sounds like, but 7 was legitimately the best Windows OS, hell it wouldnt take much twisting for me to say it was the best Desktop OS, period. It was the first time ever that I was able to use the computer, and not have to stop and think “Well, I just finished running a heavy game, I need to reboot before I do something else” I just stopped one heavy task, gave the background processes a second to finish up, then went right to another heavy task without issue or concern.
It also had a very good UI. But Windows always had the best UI, by comparison, in the market, cause they spent billions on developing it so that the most computer illiterate could pick it up and use it with 15 minutes of instruction.
No. They’re all bad, some are just worse than others. You’ve all just been stockholm syndromed into thinking better of the “less bad” ones.
Everything after w7, id agree. Windows 7 was actually legit. It ran fine on my amd athlon with 512MB ram. Ran dolphin back in the day too. Now after that it was all shite
No 7 sucked too. It just came off the back of Vista which was a real hot mess, so 7 appeared better.
The thing is, Microsoft has always had an adversarial (or abusive) relationship with its customers, forcing things on them that most of them don’t want. Like active desktop and IE integration in Windows 9x, “activation” and Fisher Price UI in XP, bloated (for the time) Aero UI that required a 3D capable GPU in Vista, UAC in Vista, forced automatic updates in 7, abandoning the start menu in favor of that awful tile UI in 8.x, telemetry you can’t disable in 10, a start menu that acts more like an app store and advertising place in 10, forced TPM and Microsoft accounts in 11 … the list is endless. And then when they back down on one thing, people are like: “Hurray, the czar heard us! Windows is actually good now!” … forgetting all the other things they have been forced to swallow in the past.
Actually 2K, ME, XP
2K December 1999, ME June 2000, XP October 2001
So the good bad good is preserved
I generally agree, but I feel like Windows 8.1 was a vast improvement on 8. It was really more like Windows 9 with a Windows 8 theme.
