Nowadays Windows is filled with adware and is fairly slow, but it wasn’t always like this. Was there a particular time where a change occurred?
Windows 2000 was the peak - rock solid with no visual fluff. XP was 2000 with a childish skin on it and it’s all downhill from there.
Oh man that was one of the few windows distros I never felt too compelled to reinstall. Perf just never degraded that much with a reasonably defragged drive (jesus I am dating myself with that statement)
I’ve always believed that 2k was the best software they ever produced.
I remember all the nicknames from when XP came out. I don’t remember which was more common; disco windows, or teletubby windows.
In my neck of the woods it was called fisher price windows lol
Its been a gradual decline over many years. I’d say the tipping point was Microsoft Edge or Windows 10 itself - that’s around the time the explicit attempts to “monetise” users started.
When Windows went “free” the focus became how to extract as much money per user all the time, so the advertising and edge based spying / data harvesting stepped up a gear.
Its not a surprise looking back - the drive for all these companies with stock holders is “growth”. That really means growth in the share price which means growth in revenue or profits amongst other tricks. Everytime a new generation of managers comes through they scrape the barrel for ideas and things get worse and worse.
I only use windows at work now; I’ve migrated all my devices to Linux (desktpp, laptop, media PC)
Windows is far from being free. Buy a laptop, you also automatically buy a license for windows, typically about $100. Build your own computer, need to pay for a license as well. They just hide the cost a bit, but you still need to pay all the same.
I think what they reference is that it is free to upgrade. You could upgrade 7 to 10 and 10 to 11 for free, used to be you have to buy a new one. Now you have one time entry fee to the ecosysyem and then they keep you (though they sidestepped this with some system requirements for Win 11 now)
Fair point, but they’ll try to turn it into a subscription before long.
Wimdows as a Service is already a thing.
It’s all been downhill since Windows 7. All versions of windows after 7 are just windows 7 with extra bloatware, garbage and Ads.
It’s true, if it was still supported I would downgrade from 10.
But it’s not, I guess I’ll have to shift my main computer to linux sooner or later. I am not enjoying the thought if I’m totally honest. I just want the change to be over and not have to live through the interregnum.
The old world is dying; the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.
It’s likely easier than you expect. Most Linux distros come with the ability to read and write to the same file system that Windows uses, so other partitions than your install partition can be carried over. This isn’t ideal because the that FS has some issues, but it does function fine. I’ve still got a drive that’s mostly media on that filesystem.
The biggest issue is if you depend heavily on particular pieces if software that don’t have native Linux versions, though wine may be able to work around that and, if not, a virtual machine can likely handle it.
It’s really not too big of an issue to switch. You’ve likely tinkered with Windows to make it not garbage than you’ll have to do with Linux (though you have a lot of options to go further if you want).
Yesterday.
Yesterday I finally looked up how to manually add a program to the main menu on my Ubuntu machine.
There is no default way to do it. I did multiple searches for the information, which I couldn’t get from reddit because the browser can’t login for some reason that I haven’t figured out yet. You either wrestle with massive configuration files, or you have to manually install a program called “Main Menu”. That provides an interface which is completely bespoke to do what is effectively adding shortcuts into a folder structure.
So I went through the process of figuring out what this unaccountably bespoke, third party specialised application wanted from me before I could customise the items on the main menu of my own machine. After all that… it crashed. I tried again, and nothing happened. It just… wouldn’t run the command any more.
I ended that travesty of an excursion into Linux’s many mountains of madness by giving up. I still haven’t added the shortcut. I decided I had actual work to do.
In Windows you do that by… adding shortcut files to a folder structure using a file explorer, literally the same way you manipulate files in every other context.
Every time someone tells me Linux is “easy” I have a new, fresh, utterly bonkers story of how impossible the entire experience is, because I am currently, actively trying. I have been trying Linux for 15 fucking years. Stop with the gaslighting. It is a nightmare.
15 years ago, I read all about how easy Linux is now:
https://slrpnk.net/comment/9790061
Nothing has fundamentally changed.
This is not a request for help. I do not want you to solve this current problem for me. I can do that myself. The problem is that these problems are neverending and people just cannot accept that it is a huge problem. Please, I beg you, open your eyes, acknowledge the issue, and stop lying.
I agree with you, there are many things about Linux that technically work, but are rough around the edges. I know said you’re not looking for solutions, but I could offer some generic advice, have you tried using KDE as your desktop?
GNOME (which is what Ubuntu ships with by default) is not the best for easy user customization. It can be done, but as you said expects things done a certain way. I like KDE because it’s more similar to Windows in that it gives you a bit more customization out of the box.
Fedora KDE Spin is my recommendation, but if you want to stick with Ububtu then Kbuntu is also popular.
Yeah, the “Linux is easy” rhetoric doesn’t really do Linux any favors. If you’ve been told “Linux is easy” and it’s not, then you have a tendency to give up because “well if it’s easy for everyone else but I can’t figure it out, I guess it’s just not for me.”
Trying to convert someone to Linux needs to be an honest conversation, and “Linux is easy” isn’t honest. There will be growing pains. You will need to re-learn things. You will need to google things. You will get an insane amount of toxic “lul rtfm noob” responses from the community if you ever have the audacity to ask for help. If you’re lucky, they’ll at least include a link to the relevant documentation.
But at least that’s honest, and will give the person realistic expectations. They won’t go into it expecting a direct 1:1 Windows replacement, only to be disappointed. People who say “Linux is easy” are like the vegan trying to convince you that soy bacon tastes exactly like the real thing, in an attempt to convert you. When it tastes worse than the real thing, you’ll just be disappointed and less likely to convert to veganism in the future.
I want to be clear, I didn’t say it’s easy. I said it’s easier than you probably expect. The biggest thing is you have to accept that it isn’t Windows and you’ll have to learn it, like you did for Windows at some point in time. Expecting it to work the same as Windows is where most issues come in.
I’ve heard riding a unicycle isn’t that hard, but if you try to ride it like a bike and expect it to do the same then you’re probably going to be in pain.
I switched to linux a while ago, back when windows 11 was 1st announced and never looked back. Looks hard, but as long as you don’t think you can use a Linux distro the same way you use windows, you’ll be fine. Think of a Linux distro as “desktop android”. Downloading stuff from the internet should be your last resort, after going to the built-in app center.
I’m going to say Win8 & 8.1.
Say what you will about the UI, they did great work on the underlying kernel, file system and APIs. If they’d continued to refine it, it’d be damn near perfect.
They really started to lose the plot with 10; it kept a lot of what made 8 good (and steals a lot of goodwill from 8) but you can see the adware and telemetry start to creep in.
The next best I’d have to give to Vista, which also did some much needed revitalization, only to see 7 get the glory because Microsoft flubbed the hardware requirements and vendors were sloppy with drivers.
My favourite is NT3.5: full microkernel, no GDI in kernel space, no printer drivers in the kernel, less registry issues. We’d have skipped a lot of pain from the 90s and 2000s had Microsoft not went backwards with 9x and NT4.
vendors were sloppy with drivers
Didn’t they arbitrary remade the way drivers are packed and installed so old hardware would be rendered obsolete? I feel like many producers owe MS money for that one trick. Especially since office peripherals come to chipped tanks and subscription services after that, while old and reliable tech became unusable unless you mess with drivers for a while.
Windows 7 and 8.1 were good, 8 was a disaster.
I don’t mind 10 really, after you disable all the “recommendations”. 11 is terrible.
I kept using 7 until the end and only switched to 10 because I had no alternative. But I’ve been very happy with LTSC.
Windows 7 exists, and there’s no need to improve upon perfection. But there’s no money in releasing nothing, so they release ad-filled “upgrades” to bring in more money from the doofuses who buy it.
Yeah, every UI change since 7 has been for the worse, increasing the number of steps required to get work done.
I heard someone refer to what happened from XP to 10 as “onioneering” because they just added layers.
TIL Windows is an ogre…
To be fair, 10’s Settings screen makes dealing with wifi and bluetooth much easier than 7
Yeah but they had to do that because bluetooth became much more commonplace between 7 and 10.
Although I’m not sure if it was like that out of the box or it was improved with an update.
I wasn’t using bluetooth with 7, so you could be right. But if I need to fiddle with wifi beyond just changing what AP I’m connected to, the network settings I typically want to look at, eg disabling adapters or manually setting an IP address, were available in fewer steps in 7 versus 10.
This is something Apple got right. OS X 10.0 was good and they’ve made lots of incremental changes but didn’t just arbitrarily change the whole “centered application dock at the bottom and menu bar at the top” situation. When new form factors emerged, they just made a new interface and didn’t try to hot glue a mouse/touchpad OS and touchscreen OS together for the fuck of it.
How bad is security if you still have Windows 7 installed today?
Looks like 3% of windows users worldwide could help answer that question. Well, up to 3%… guessing not too many of them are too savvy.
I try to not connect mine to the internet anymore
I would have been happy to pay for continued improvements to DirectX and Vulcan and increasing security and minor useful incremental changes over time keeping the same Windows 7 playbook running. I wish I lived in the timeline where our greatest complaint with Windows is that it hasn’t changed very much in the last 15 years.
Vista* but otherwise yes
Their objectives went south around windows 8.
They screwed up execution before, certainly, and in never was a huge fan, but they were at least trying to make what they sincerely thought was a intrinsically good desktop experience until 8.
Windows 8 was when they had the fear of Android and iOS and the Microsoft phone os was failing on its own, so the mission for Windows 8 was to throw the desktop user experience under the bus for the sake of trying to bolster the phone platform, and maybe make PCs that were tablet like. Also seeing Apple and Google succeed with Internet account based access to the devices was a motivation to get people into an online ecosystem that would have the way to indefinite monthly payments and an app store where they could take a cut off all the application vendors’ revenue.
The whole saga with the Metro UI is sad to me too, in retrospect I like that some big player was doing something entirely different to Android and iOS.
The touch gestures and animations on Metro UI IMO still are the smoothest and nicest I’ve seen.
I feel (probably mistakenly) that if they didn’t barge the mobile UI into desktops, that it would’ve benefitted both Windows 8 and Windows Phone. Still have that flat design for the brand consistency but a more sane start menu.
Not to mention that Win8 itself (in my experience) was the best performing Windows for modern PCs, it had a lot of minor optimisations and not as much bloat as Win10. I daily drove it until the support date completely ended for it, but with OpenShell of course.
The literal entirety of the retail market across the planet has a concept called a “loss leader”. You take a monetary hit on Product A with the expectation that people will come in for that AND by virtue of the service being readily available, also buy Product B, C, D, etc. I imagine, if done with minimal intrusiveness, Microsoft could easily do the same with Windows.
On paper as a concept it works. I’m not sure I’m savvy enough to understand the actual issues though.
They employ a lot of this strategy (the ads, the ‘subscribe to Microsoft 365 today’ ‘your computer is at risk to ransomware because you aren’t paying us for onedrive’). Except the “loss” part. In fact, I think it’s rare nowadays to find a “loss” leader, they seem to have settled around at worst “barely profitable” in business. Too many loss leaders had pretty terrible business outcomes, so it seems to be an unpopular thing to expose your business the risk of going negative margin at any significant scale. Like this disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Opener
I must be behind. I’ve been under the impression that pulling people in on a minor less meant greater margins. Perhaps COVID had a significant adverse impact on that as well.
The correct answer is “whenever you discovered there was an alternative”. Windows has always been shit, but before you thought there was no alternative so you were used to it, ever since you started using something different you’ve grown less tolerant of problems. It’s like someone who’s always had a low end PC and played games on minimum at 30fps, it’s “okay” but the moment you play something on maximum at 144fps your normal experience feels sluggish and bad (even though nothing really changed with it).
I think windows is the same thing, which is why most people will tell you the last good version of windows was the one they were using when they migrated over to Linux.
How was windows XP bad? It did all I asked it to do, it was compatible with all the software I needed and, in general, “it just works”. I remember trying openSUSE back in the day, and being underwhelmed by it. Then I ran Kubuntu for a bit but, even though it had cool software for listening to music and such, I couldn’t use it to game. So I went back to windows because Linux just didn’t have anything for me.
Nowadays, I’d completely agree. Win10 does whatever it wants when it wants, even when it seems mostly tamed. It’s not terrible and it “works”, but yeah I’m switching to Arch before Win11 comes, for real.
Linux has come a long way and Windows has gone down the enshittification route; but it wasn’t like this back in the 00s.
XP was the response to Linux. Before that, windows was a crash fest, remember 98, or Millennium?
Linux was rock stable, so microsoft had to do something and started yo use their server core in the home version of windows.
So you mean “Microsoft developed Windows to be good” like OP said.
XP was the response to Linux. Before that, windows was a crash fest, remember 98, or Millennium?
Linux was rock stable, so microsoft had to do something and started yo use their server core in the home version of windows.
They just realized trying to maintain NT and 9x core was foolish. Trying to put the hardware abstraction layer from Windows 2000 (NT 5) into 9x for Millennium Edition was AWFUL. So they scrapped the entire idea of a separate home core, 9x died, and Windows XP (NT 5.1) was born.
But NT was already good. Windows 2000 SP4 was a fantastic OS for its time, as was XP.
Gotta remember that the 9x core versions (95, 98, ME) were (in some ways) practically a separate OS masquerading as Windows.
I barely remember using win98, it was the first OS I used when I was very little. But I don’t remember it being so prone to crashing. At least not fatally crashing. Of course, by the time I was just playing around with paint and shareware games, not doing any serious work, so I wouldn’t know if it was bad.
But that still means it isn’t as straightforward as “windows was always bad, linux was always good”.
Windows 10 was initially developed to stop the very negative reaction to Windows 8. Around that time, it became clear to Microsoft that they weren’t going to profit on Windows itself any more and the future was in the cloud.
Windows did a lot of underhanded things to keep people updating Windows and Office before, but it wasn’t trying to sell services as a way to keep the company up and running.
When it became more profitable for them to develop it to be shit
Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0) was the last great version of windows. It was fucking fantastic.
I’ve also heard great things about Windows server 2008, but I had departed from the entire Microsoft sphere years before that.
*nix4Lyf!
There’s not much competition, they can’t make more money to increase shareholder value by improving the product because they pretty much have all the marketshare they need.
The only way to make more money is by monetizing your data and selling you more and more ads. Which they will do more and more year after year since they need to increase profits year after year for shareholders.
I dunno, but it might have something to do with external factors. Like, once upon a time Microsoft was sued by the US government under anti-trust laws for bundling a web browser in their operating system. Now MS force their users to experience unavoidable advertising when they try to use their own computers, and there’s not a peep from regulators.
Yeah cause showing people ads is not anti-competitive
showing people ads is not anti-competitive
Sure. Sort of. But this isn’t about competition per se, it’s about abuse of an already dominant market position.
The ultimate purpose of ensuring competitive markets wherever possible is to protect and benefit consumers. Since firms that dominate their markets tend abuse that position to price-gouge or reduce the quality of their products without fear that their customers will go elsewhere – because they can’t – foiling anti-competitive practices is part of that consumer protection mandate – but only part. Preventing harm being done to consumers by market-dominating firms once they’ve attained that position is another part.
The fact that Microsoft has so many of their users captive (because their job makes them use Windows, or because it runs software they can’t get elsewhere, etc.) and is now forcing exposure to advertising upon them should run afoul of the consumer protection goals of anti-trust law.
The fact that they were once brought to heel just for bundling a browser that you could completely ignore with Windows, and yet face no regulatory blowback from literally forcing their captive audience to view advertising is what irritates me to no end.
They hated him because he told them the truth.
„Shoving ads down people’s throats“ - ftfy
Windows 7 was the last one. Windows 10 is usable, but it was created with advertising in mind.
If you just want opinions then I would say Windows 7.
It was excellent.
By Windows 10, though, they had moved to tiles and there were influences from tablets and mobile on the main OS, which was still terrible on those devices.
And it’s been downhill since then.
When their market share peaked and they had to find other ways to make the line go up
The interface is garbage. I moved from windows 7 to linux with KDE desktop years ago, and my attempt to navigate Windows 11 lately was a disaster.
How do you fuck it up so hard?
