Opinion - Windows Has Gone Downhill Big Time

jamesp33 · Jan 21, 2017

Now you can close this thread if you want, this is just my opinion. Remember Windows 95, Windows Xp and all that? You know, The legendary OSs. Yeah, Remember when Windows 95 came out? It was amazing, It added so many features that we use day to day and was fully compatible with DOS and 16-bit apps. Then after we got Windows NT 4.0 which is known for having a tones of service packs... it was stable and was meant for business. Then we had Windows 98 which added some new cool stuff like Driver model and all that but other than that, Just a refine of Windows 95. Nothing goes downhill until quite a few releases later. Now we have Windows 2000 which was fast, stable, and another business OS. Didn't stop home users using it after they saw the next release. Now for Windows ME which people hate, so is it bad? No, it didn't add a whole big list of features but the features was useful, like system restore and automatic updates. Now for Windows Xp, this OS is what some people call unstoppable.It refuses to die and combined Windows 2000 and Windows ME together making it crammed with features.
Now for Vista, this OS people hate even more than Windows ME, this OS was just too advanced for the PCs then, So people said it's "Slow" when it was their PCs fault. Vista was filled with new features, a new UI, and much more. It even added more than XP. Now here's where it goes downhill, Another refinement. Its name is Windows 7 and is classed as the best OS of all time, It wasn't really an improvement, It was just a service pack really. It added new tweaks and had more drivers due to popularity but that's it. Now here's where Microsoft doomed them self, Windows 8, This is the WORST piece of software on the planet. All it did was remove features and make the user interface terrible, WORST OS EVER. Windows 10 is good in my opinion but Aero fans disagree. So I explained the history of Windows 95 to Windows 10 but let's do a list of things that have been removed through those travels: Desktop Properties, Windows Gadgets, Windows Movie Maker, Windows DVD Maker, Advanced Appearance, Many Useful tools, Windows Media Center And I could go on for ages. The fact is that Windows just isn't as good anymore. Why? Because Microsoft just doesn't do as much as they did before. Windows Won't ever have a bigger jump than the one from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95. Windows Just doesn't feel the same, And never will.

atljsf · Jan 21, 2017

windows 95 was a pita, xp didn't worked well until service pack 2

this is all the same, windows 10 is all the same as windows xp was, new, weird, different and with lots of holes

nothing new

all is the same

it feels the same because it is new, different and is broken

i was on the testing program, it was nice to see it grow, we reported problems and they heard us, they fixed things and asked us our opinion

a very interesting experience i must say, i learned alot about activation, updates, recovery procesess

from where i see it, they finally tried to improve and asked someone how to improve, that is new

the thing is working alot better than most of their old os and will be supported for a long time

you are right, it doesn't feel the same and hopefully never will

dudeman509 · Jan 21, 2017

Windows 7 was the polished version that Vista should have been. Even on brand new computers at the time (like the laptop I got just after I finished college), Vista ran terribly, even compared to 7 on the same machine.

XP still remains my favorite OS of all time. I used it nearly 10 years either on my home computers or at work. The service packs and everything else really bloated it up near the end of its lifespan. Even on a fresh install, going from XP to XP SP3 slowed the thing down immensely.

Windows 8 was a failed attempt at revolutionizing inputs to an OS (touch screens mainly), but they went overboard with it and people pushed back. It was good to see them listen to the customers with 8.1 and 10 rather than just forcing what they wanted to do down our throats (or a lot of people probably would have just stayed at 7 as long as they did XP).

In the last 5 years, I feel like there haven't really been huge breakthroughs in the performance of computers - not NEARLY as much as they changed between the Win 98 and XP era, or nearly as much as they changed between XP and Win 7's release. SSDs proliferating the market have made one of the biggest speed differences I've seen. Usually people would just buy a new computer because they felt their old ones were crawling with today's applications or the latest operating systems. Today, almost any generation i-series processor has enough power to do just about anything of you ask of it, so much less incentive to upgrade.

atljsf · Jan 21, 2017

vista was a error for one single deatail it was a better experience with a dual core cpu or at least hypertreading enabled

also, 512 of ram, minus the ram used by the integrated gpu, was a ridiculous situation

once you added 1 gb of ram, well, it ran very well i must say, i retired a vista laptop a year ago, it was fast responsive with 1 gb of ram

about breaktroughs, well 8 cores on a desktop pc, for me, is a wonder, but, that exist for smartphones now

lets wait for windows quantum os for quantum computers, that will be interesting

all the coputing power you can imagine, to use whatsapp web and watch youtube videos! don't forget facebook!

jamesp33 · Jan 21, 2017

atljsf :

I don't see how Windows Xp was weird. What's so weird about it? That it used something more modern?

And Windows 95 at the time wasn't a pain in the <mod edit>. I'll tell you something that it was though, a huge leap. People really liked it and it later got the name as "Most Important OS".

One thing I agree with is that Windows XP before service pack 2 is filled with holes.

<Language people, language>

jamesp33 · Jan 21, 2017

atljsf :

2 GB of RAM is speedy for Vista. It was just too advanced for the time. That's why Windows 7 is classed as faster because the computer were better in 2009 but yet Windows 7 is only a tiny bit faster than Windows vista on a PC with the same specs.

USAFRet · Jan 21, 2017

Vista vs 7 is not merely speed.
The overbearing UAC in Vista was a larger problem.

XP? Didn't become good until SP3.
And initially, it was ridiculed almost as hard as Win 8 was. Just for the look and feel.

WinMe?
Well...let's not talk about that one.

95?
It was a great leap, only because it marked the change from commandline to GUI.
Initially, it was a pain to configure.

Win 8 was rock solid. Just that the UI was badly flawed. MS's attempt to merge desktop and mobile. 8.1 walked most of that back.

The only problem with Win 10 is...it is simply new and different.
It's great to look back through rose colored glasses at the old OS's, and gloss over their issues.

atljsf · Jan 21, 2017

xp, as a friend described it, the playskool os

looks like a toy, plasticine if you like, the desktop looked like a weird theme for windows 2000 and refused to work with most of the previous scanners and printers, released at the same as the os

some of that hardware, being released by friends of microsoft, never released real drivers for it

it was a hard separation for most, the first entrance to ntfs, all had to be learned again, while most of the stuff looked almost identical as windows 98 se

Saga Lout · Jan 22, 2017

I start the day on one of two netbooks - the one I'm on now running XP Pro with SP3 and the other running Windows 10. This XP one is an Atom with 1GB of RAM and is faster than the other which has 2GB RAM.

This old EeePC is far quicker and of course, never has to take ten minutes to restart after updates. I've had it for ten years and it wasn't new then.

XP is the best for me and I started out on Windows 2 nearly thirty years ago. I progressed through 3.11, '95', '98, 2000 and XP. I skipped Millenium and Vista and both versions of 8 and I can only say it's been downhill all the way.

When I need real speed and privacy, I go for my Mint and Kali machines.

atljsf · Jan 22, 2017

a old light os on a old light hardware, well, one meant to work ell with the other

sounds reasonable

very few files have to be loaded form hard disk, mechanical hard disk for a atom runing at 1.6 or less

this days you need a ssd to load more files on less time

big surprise, time has passed and we discover that new os requires different hardware

i feel shocked!

perhaps we should go back to quantum bigfoot hard disks on parallel ata hard disks!

16 megabytes of ram to load comfortable windows 95, no you need 32 for windows 98se!

what a abuse!

compare a 15 year old os, now abandoned to a new os on regular hardware, the same case that happened with vista, well, there is no point on that

now, complain about errors present on windows 10, that has more sense

for example, a specific error, real, that required a patch

windows 10 1607 required a patch, why? the os after update refsed to open most if not all external hard disks over 1 terabyte of size, reporting a raw partition was detected and asking user to format

solution? a patch for that patch, it took almost 2 weeks to com out that patch iirc

complaint about that kind of stuff, not about a acer laptop running xp, that should run well on 384 megabytes of ram, it ran on 64 megabytes! i know, i tried that!

lets complain about uefi, secure boot, how to recover files from a livecd with those enabled, that kind of stuff that really affect us, not because you found annoying windows 8 or that a update that took 10 minutes was annoying for you

i find no updates annoying, lack of antivirus or apps terrible, enjoy xp with those conditions

Saga Lout · Jan 22, 2017

You went all round the point and still missed it. Old OS can still be viable on old machines without having to chase the latest of either. If you've got a stopwatch on every file you save, you've got time on your hands.

You also missed the point about updates - XP doesn't have any.

atljsf · Jan 22, 2017

perhaps i did but i am looking at more details than you, who only thinks on low specs os and low specs machine, old as dirt

the picture is bigger and not only hardware requirements must be considered

xp now is only viable for offline stuff, use it online and you will have a great time reinstalling

i didn't missed the point about xp, i mentioned it as a 15 years old os, microsoft only supports popular os for 10 years more or less, that is 5 years without big patches, small patches, any patches

i didn't mentioned it because a old os mus not be used online, it is security risk, so shouldn't be mentioned, if anyone that uses it doesn't know that, after all the publicity against the usage of a old abandoned and unpatched os, well, you had it comming

Saga Lout · Jan 22, 2017

The other point you missed was when I wrote "I start the day on one of two netbooks" and compared the XP with the more powerful one running Windows 10. That's just for catching up with Tom's before I open my business which runs on higher end desktops.

If you laid back a while on being so confrontational and opinionated, you wouldn't miss so many points.

jamesp33 · Jan 22, 2017

I use Windows ME on the web and I never get hacked or any of that. Windows ME isn't very popular so why would people hack into ME machines? It's not worth the hackers time. Windows ME is pretty secure along with the older ones because barely anyone uses them. Windows XP was the second most popular OS until support ended so that's why Xp is a security risk. If you were gonna hack a machine what one would it be? Xp or 98? If you're in your right mind you'd pick Xp because it's worth the hackers time.

I've used Windows 95 and 98 Second Edition on 16 MB of RAM and they are at the same speed.

And do you know what I mean by "Downhill"? Did I ever say that Windows xp was better than all the other new OSs? Not of what I remember. What I mean by downhill is the innovation has just Died since Windows Vista. Windows 7 was just patches and Windows 8 was just a plain out failure, But they are better than Xp for anyday use due to hardware support, Speed, security, and just home use. But Windows Xp was important while Windows 7 was just a simple refine. Imagine If you still had a OS for home use and a OS for business? It would be stupid. And Windows Xp Saved us from the ever lasting classic UI. Windows 10 is pretty promising though, It had some nice new stuff. I never said the older OSs were better for security, easy use and all that. Windows 7 and 10 is the best for home use, But Xp just plain out added more. Can't people get that?

USAFRet · Jan 22, 2017

You currently use WinMe?

In the light of greater functionality and security, the only thing to ask is....Why?

jamesp33 · Jan 22, 2017

I don't use it that often. I like Windows ME, It's more my style, It also never crashes unless I upgrade the RAM.

atljsf · Jan 22, 2017

i have a win xp machine, just for fun, also dualboot with linux, not for fun, to do something real with it, since it is a old machine, windows 7 runs very slow, a pata hard disk is not a fast hard disk, so linux is welcome

the only use for a xp machine now is compatibility o certain apps that won't work well on virtualbox

so many companies run windows 8 or 10 and virtualbox with windows xp to run countable apps, specific apps, scanner apps, stuff that developer abandoned 10, 20 years ago and doesn't work in windows 7 or 10 under compatibility mode

jamesp33 · Jan 22, 2017

atljsf :

The only reason Windows Xp doesn't support new apps is due to end of support. Just wait till 2020, Then all the attackers will focus on Windows 7. That's when I'll go back to windows Xp laughing at Windows 7. Not so popular now eh? That's when Windows 10 will become the most popular. To be honest, I think Windows 10 deserves respect, It added some nice things. The only reason it gets hate is because people can have their precious Aero. It's nice to have transparency but not everywhere like.

atljsf · Jan 22, 2017

windows xp still can't stop most of the usb driven attacks, so now is insecure and in the future will be too, windows 7 unpatched behaves like win xp, same as vista

currently there is a java based virus with a autorun that attacks all those 3 unpatched os

about aero, well having linux and desktop effects is nice, but those do use gpu and if on a laptop, battery, so the less resources used, the more pages you can open as fast as possible

jamesp33 · Jan 22, 2017

Aero was power hungry and just plain out ugly IMO. It was was just blur everywhere. And the basic theme is no better.

scottfree1_01 · Jan 25, 2017

Windows should be seen and not heard. All the metro crapware is the biggest waste of code since "BOB".

MS has put millions of man hours in windows and I can show them a bug that persists since the move from 3.1 , and I can give you the fix, where as MS hasn't fixed the code, the error message is a snipe hunt. MS support morons can not seem to provide anything but the canned waste of time answer ever when you SCREAM the solution at them.

"Speech Recognition could not start because the language configuration is not supported"

Fix?

Your need ms office voice recognition exe running (which I forget the file name cause it ain't MY JOB to remember it)

jamesp33 · Jan 25, 2017

That's true, But that's not what I'm talking about. these last releases haven't added features than we really need. Just a waste of space. Windows 7 was just a refine and was probably meant to be like that. For all we know Microsoft could of made Windows Vista hard to use in the first place. Think about it, It's a great way to get money.

And don't get me started on the Control Panel. That was terrible after Windows XP. Like why did you remove the Desktop Properties. Idiotic I say, Made it harder to find everything.

Saga Lout · Jan 26, 2017

Harping back to the title of this thread, yes, of course I agree. That may be ewhy they gave Windows 10 away instead of trying to charge for it.

They might come back this July and demand a rental style payment to continue using it for another year. If you don't pay, they might reduce the functionality, reverse all the Privacy settings you altered to their original defaults and remove your abilty to use any browser other than the dreaded Edge.

I've never been so glad I don't depend on Windows systems. I have to keep abreast of them to carry on working as a PC fixer but my own systems are Mint and Kali.

atljsf · Jan 26, 2017

charge for it each year?

it is a possibility but doesn't sound good for microsoft to do this i think, they wouldn't look that well doing it, it will force them to control every license they and they currently hardly do that with office or with windows server

but they already are doing it, with office 365, the office uninstalls itself iirc, and the cloud gets locked however it was before the end of the licensed period

their idea of release for free windows 10 was mostly to unify efforts, kill the other platforms they released in the past so only support one os

it worked mostly for home users but in enterprise environment, it didn't worked, people using windows 7, remained on windows 7

i have been using windows 10 since 2015, i must say that is very stable and very fast, i feel like using linux in some moments!

now, if there wasn't virus on window 10, well, one can dream!

jamesp33 · Jan 26, 2017

This is what I mean. I wish a good CEO would work for Microsoft, because the one who's there doesn't know what we really want.

Opinion - Windows Has Gone Downhill Big Time

Commendable

Honorable

Dignified

Honorable

Commendable

Commendable

Titan

Honorable

Retired Mod

Honorable

Retired Mod

Honorable

Retired Mod

Commendable

Titan

Commendable

Honorable

Commendable

Honorable

Commendable

Distinguished

Commendable

Retired Mod

Honorable

Commendable

Share this page