Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

taz-nz t1_j9x9kzb wrote

Reply to comment by astromaddie in Windows 10 users are being offered a Windows 11 upgrade despite not meeting the requirements by GOR098

Actual list of major Windows releases:

Win 95 average

Win 95(B) OSR2 good

Win 95 (C) bad (test bed for 98)

Win 98 bad

Win 98 SE average (livable when running 98lite to remove crashtasic active desktop)

Win ME bad (basically test bed for Win XP features)

Win XP average

Win XP SP1 average-good

Win XP SP2 good

Win XP SP3 great

Win XP 64bit hot garbage.

Win Vista average (bad for old hardware & software and underspec'd machines)

Win Vista 64bit SP1 & SP2good (5-20% performance bump over Win XP on same hardware)

Win 7 good

Win 7 SP1-onwards great

Win 8 bad

Win 8.1 average

Win 10 good

Win 10 1709-onwards great

Win 11 average-good

Yeah there is totally a good bad cycle, if you just put on the ross tinted glasses, and ignore 80% of major releases.

−14

astromaddie t1_j9xa6nj wrote

Thanks for the “every reply has to be an argument” reddit treatment. If you ignore the post-release updates to the system, and paint broad strokes because this is just nerd humour and stop taking everything so seriously, you’ve got:

  • Win95: good
  • Win98: bad
  • WinXP (skipping ME because it was a weird mid-cycle release testbed): good
  • Win Vista: bad
  • Win7: good
  • Win8: bad
  • Win10: good
  • Win11: bad

Microsoft has almost always had good longterm support for their OSes to iron things out, so if you include every major update of course there’s no pattern.

14

Jristz t1_j9xrep2 wrote

You skipped 8.1 but I gonna use the same argument you did for ME and call 8.1 "weird mid-cycle"

1

taz-nz t1_j9xbjec wrote

You're modifying the list to fit your narrative, not reality.

Many of the Windows versions you list as good, didn't start out that way, you list Vista as bad when it was actual good if you were running descent spec system (I can point you to benchmarks that's show it was faster than XP on the same hardware). You ignore a whole Windows release because it doesn't fit your narrative.

It's dishonest.

−14

EndUserGamer t1_j9xc74a wrote

Yeah, but there is some truth here. Every other OS has nearly always been the way to go.

5

taz-nz t1_j9xhto0 wrote

Except if you skipped Windows 98, there was a whole range of games, software and hardware (USB) you couldn't use.

Windows XP had some major hate when it was release, people called it the Playmobil OS due to the colour scheme, and a host of older hardware and software wasn't supported due to changes in Kernel and Driver model.

Skipping Windows Vista was easy to do due to the hate train everyone got on, but if you had a 64bit CPU you were wasting a huge chunk of your systems performance. (Windows XP 64bit wasn't an option, as it was just a cut down version of Server 2003 and had major compatibility issues.)

Windows 11 isn't a bad OS, it just requires modern hardware features, my biggest issues with it is I can't move the taskbar to the top of the screen without a hack or third-party software, and I'm not a fan of the new start menu, but I pin most Apps I use to the taskbar so really doesn't matter. But it's stable it supports new hardware features, it's still works like Windows (no Windows 8 how do I use this thing).

−4