Read more.Quote:
First release required 192KB of RAM and two floppy disk drives.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
First release required 192KB of RAM and two floppy disk drives.
And it's a shame that having finally just about got it right with Win 7, they then had to go and right royally bollix it up again with the W8 UI.
All IMHO, of course.
Awww old memories, I liked windows 3.0 used to paint and game on it :D
Still reckon the best desktop version was 2000 personally, although Win 7 is pretty damn close too.
I was so sad when my 2000 install CD finally delaminated :(
With the exception of ME (should have been killed in favour of 2000) and Vista (too late, too different without enough testing at launch) I've thought all versions of Windows offered solid progress in the general right directions... funny to think it's younger than me though, how the world changes.
I like 8, 8.1 and look forward to 9... I'd just like them to bundle Stardocks Modern Mix like functionality so I don't have to go full screen for MUI apps (and settings) when I'm otherwise in desktop mode.
Happy Birthday Windows, don't get drunk and "network" with OS-X in the pub car park...
I'm always surprised that no-one seems to notice that Windows releases follow the same trend as Star Trek movies - good, bad, good, bad and so on (or vice versa). Whilst it might be stretching things a bit - Win 1 (iffy), Win2 (better), Win3 (iffy), Win3.1(1) (good), Win95 (iffy), 95-OSR2 (usb, TCP/IP, internet etc) (better), 98 (iffy), 98SE good, ME (bad), XP (good), vista (bad), Win7 (good), Win8 (poor), 8.1 (well, there's an exception to every rule, right?)
Of course, you gotta fit NT4 and Win2k in there somewhere which probably breaks things, but it
does seem like something of a trend ;)
Yep I've definitely noticed that trend too. :P Win 8.1 doesn't necessarily break the rule if you consider it a service pack, which it essentially is with a bit of fancy marketing probably intended to get people who deliberately skipped 8 to give it another chance.
Also I didn't consider Vista *that* bad; sure it was quite different on the surface, but for the most part stuff still kind of worked correctly, things still happened predictably, and they added some seriously long-overdue upgrades to the OS, notably the security system. Unfortunately they did make it a bit obtrusive to the point you had idiots claiming to be pros going around recommending people disable it completely, their reasoning being 'if you can click it, so can a virus', clearly demonstrating they had no clue how it worked. /rant
^ So judging from that logic, Windows 9 should be a good one. Hehe.
I look at the picture of windows 1.0 and all I see are early versions of windows 7 and 8 without the 'polish' lol
I switched from xp to vista nearly on release, can't say I have that bad a memory of it compared with xp, you just had to 'understand' why your memory was always full lol
Seeing as it has the foundation code' of win 7 and 8, it can't have been that bad :)
Problem with Vista was RAM! It didn't work well unless you had at least 2Gb. I saw plenty of Vista laptops with 512Mb - They where awful - slow and unresponsive. Also SP1 helped a lot. Still really glad to get Win7!
Can someone please explain why exactly windows 8 is bad? People don't like the interface? Please explain how the MUI is worse than the start menu. It runs stable, it runs faster and it uses less resources. Yes that sounds awful!
Because it's such a change, and most people loathe change DeAnt
The problem I have with it is that they have taken away the access points to most of the functionality, changed how the UI works and appears to have inconsistent menus. What replaces it is not intuitive and there is no help/pointers. My girlfriend (who is what I call an average user) hates it too. And judging by your comment and what I've seen and the fact Microsoft has done a U-turn seems to suggest that's the popular opinion!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeAnt28790
Windows 8 isn't bad. But, as Facebook has demonstrated numerous times, when you radically change something people are used to they instantly hate it (but they also come round to it later on to the point they wonder what they were moaning about). Still, I still have Start8 on both my 8.1 machines and have the choice of using either (which is something MS should have done). Personal opinion is that I have no real need for the new Start Screen on a desktop where the old system worked just fine but it doesn't make 8/8.1 a bad OS at all, just different.
Vista was poor from the start. It also didn't help that Microsoft backported many of it's features in to XP SP2, which diminished the need for it. By SP2 they had fixed a lot of it's issues but it was far too late by that point. Having said that, I was running a Vista SP2 install on a Core 2 Duo rig with 2GB and it still wasn't perfect. The hard drive would grind for up to an hour after powering up which made it sometimes a pain for it to use until it was properly ready.
I ran ME for about 2 weeks before I replaced it with Windows 2000. The former was horrible. Constant crashes, hangs, freezing - unusable. The latter was such a polar opposite. It was a joy to use. Stable, reliable and had so many excellent built in features which just made user and network management so much better. None of my Windows 9x/Me install CDs ever saw the light of day again. Windows 7 is the only other MS OS that has had me go 'Wow... this is actually brilliant!' Even when running the betas 7 was already looking to be a great OS and it was. Didn't even need a service pack fix it - it was just good from the off.
XP... just an 'enhanced' looking version of 2000 really. Well, if you liked that horrible default theme. Royale Noir was much nicer. XP SP2 probably should have been released as a new OS but instead we got it all for free... which was nice.
Oh yeah I'd almost forgotten about that part. :/ TBF though XP started to chomp through the memory with all of the updates and service packs; I remember it running OK on, and often shipping with, 128MB on release - 512MB was barely enough with SP3. Of course, updates still have a nasty habit of eating up far more HDD space than they have any right to, but that's a different matter...Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesemp
As for why 8 is awful, have you been living in a cave? :P Of course, not everyone dislikes it, but from what I've seen there are certain points a lot of people agree on. And I'm not just immediately against change; Vista was a change, and aside from some of the problems it brought with it, I didn't at all mind it. 8 is just bad. I don't care if it's stable, it's just consistently bad then.
And I don't necessarily agree it's faster or lighter on resources - a load of points MS made about speed are frankly marketing BS, for example I kept seeing something along the lines of '8 boots so fast we had to artificially delay it so people could enter the BIOS' - which clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of how a PC works, considering POST (and therefore time to enter BIOS setup) is entirely independent from the OS.
I tried 8 quite early on, before it was popular to hate it, and I took an immediate dislike to it (I've gone into reasons plenty of times before, so I can't really be bothered going over the not-insignificant list of issues again). I persisted to allow myself to adjust, and just found myself just finding more reasons to dislike it as I continued to use it. During my time using it I didn't observe what I'd consider lower resource usage, and it didn't feel remotely faster/more responsive.
Again, you can't just dismiss everyone's opinion of something as dislike of change.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpreston
I never experienced that problem. Perhaps it was indexing on a fresh install? In which case it was lowest priority and wouldn't have slowed any usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpreston
I also took to 7 from the RC, and used that as my main OS, although it did cause semi-frequent BSODs. That stopped with the final release though, and £50 was a reasonable preorder price.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpreston
I personally don't think forcing people to pay for essential updates to fix critical problems is remotely reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpreston
Every thing seems to be getting around 30 years old & I can remember the early beginnings of then all! (ZX80,CPM,MSDOS, compact disc etc..etc)
Does this mean I'm getting old too? :surprised:
By the way, Windows was alway a pain!:help:
Happy birthday Windows.
I didn't start using Windows 'till 3.1 myself, but never looked back since. GG MS :)
Please someone - ban him for trying to start the "Windows 8 sucks. No it isn't - you just don't like change" argument/debate again!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeAnt28790
(joking)
Sure does. Although you know you've reached "that certain age" when you start a tech discussion with "do you remember when ...". That said, there's a ZX80 and an Amstrad CPC464 in the Museum of Scotland - took the kids the other day and they couldn't believe that the ZX80 was a personal computer - they assumed it was some kind of iPad prototype. And as for the Osbourne-1 ....Quote:
Originally Posted by thedearleader
Also interesting - to me personally - to see how Windows has developed as it went along (I've got Win3.11/95/98 disks in the loft), plus how Linux has also come along. Don't you just love progress! Actually what would be neat is if Microsoft released some of these old versions as free downloads. Amazing how quickly Windows98 runs on modern hardware (driver issues permitting).
Here's looking forward to Windows9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irien
This. As I said, I still rate 2000 very highly. In fact, I rate most of the NT line pretty highly. NT 4 was good. 2000 (NT 5) was better. XP was NT 5.1: little more than a look & feel overhaul so they could flog 2000 as an appealing consumer OS - which they needed to do because ME bombed so badly. So they took 2000, made it prettier, and sold it to consumers by the bucket load. I don't think I've ever run a Win XP machine with default look and feel - straight back to the Win 2000 look and feel every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpreston
Vista - which I guess is theoretically NT 6 - was a resource hungry (although as others have mentioned, XP with SP3 only really ran smoothly with 1GB or RAM...) abomination, IMNSHO. It had some interesting ideas, but none of them were well implemented, and it was facing massive inertia as XP was stable and had been in use for more than 5 years (and almost 7, if you count it as a polished Win 2000) when Vista was released. Win 7 - which confusingly is actually Win NT 6.1 - was again little more than a usability and look and feel service pack over Vista, but it appeared to do so much more than that: resource usage went down, usability went up, and it sold like hot cakes.
Windows 8/8.1 is an odd bunny though. It runs well and does everything I want from a computer, yet somehow I'm still not quite comfortable with it. There's nothing I particular dislike about it, and using it on a laptop with a touchpad, the Win 8 gestures are actually quite nice to play with: but somehow it just doesn't fit. That said, I've got friends who hate it and friends who love it. I'm just a bit "meh". But I don't see the point in using 3rd party hacks to add back the start menu etc. when the OS doesn't actually need it: I'm slowly getting my start screen, desktop and taskbar set up to do basically the same job and it does work. It just doesn't quite feel right... ;)
But, for me anyway, that IS the point in third-party hacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I have no objection to UI changes per se. It can be a huge step forward. But .... W8 changes do nothing to help my usage, and mean I have to learn a new way of doing things, in order to wind up with a method that 'feels wrong', and for what reason? Because MS want to leverage tablet and phone sales on the back of an existing userbase of Windows users.
If MS had included a switch that allowed people to use the new UI or the old, familuar one, I'd have no problem - I'd just switch to 'classic' and that'd be that. And the fact that numerous third-party tools enable exactly that prove the lie from MS that it's too hard to do. Hogwash.
MS try to force their new UI on everyone for their benefit, not ours, to try to prop up competitiveness in phones and tablets, because they're getting their clock cleaned by Apple and Android.
So, personally, it's Win8 with those third party hacks, or it's no Win 8 at all, for me. Without the hacks, my machines either stay as they are (which several are anyway, as they're still on XP, but those weren't going to either 7 or 8 anyway), or they go Linux. What they're not doing is going Win8 /MUI.
And THAT is the point of those hacks .... it means I can use my machines how I want to, not how MS want me to. For those that are happy with MUI, great, I'm happy you're happy. But I'm not happy with it, and am NOT going to get used to MUI, because MS want me to. It wastes my time, slows me down and offers me nothing I want, and is an utterly unneccesary (to me) pain in the gluteus. The hacks remove the pain.
I'd actually like to try that myself, I might see if I can get 98 running in a VM, but I suspect I may hit a few problems with drivers like you say. However it may turn out to be somewhat disheartening to see how some things have gotten rather bloated. I understand the need for features etc, but there's a lot to be said for minimalism IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
And again I'm with Saracen on 8; however the third party apps AFAIK don't completely cure MUI (which is essentially a second UI bolted onto Windows, IMO running something like Ubuntu in VM seamless mode behaves more reasonably), don't certain gestures you make on the touchpad/mouse still jarringly bring up some irrelevant screen, for example?
Oh and for the record, I also want to completely avoid any argument in relation to this - there really isn't one to be had. I accept some people are OK with 8, I personally loathe it, and my opinion cannot simply be dismissed as fear-of-change/luddite-ism simply because someone doesn't agree with my reasoning, which happens to essentially parallel Saracen's, which saves me re-typing it. :P
Also, I'm not opposed to change. Just to change I don't want.
For instance, the Ribbon toolbar changes to Office as part of "Fluent".
I know a lot of people truly detest these. That especially includes irregular/occasional Office users, many of whom have grown accustomed to the menu structure over many years.
Personally, I took to it like a duck to water. It was a bit weird for a day or two, and after that, I preferred it. A lot. But I know a lot of people that did not, and still do not agree with that.
Again, MS said it's "not possible" to put the menus back. Beg to differ, MS. Several third party tools do exactly that, allowing people to upgrade and benefit from new features without having to relearn everything from File/Open onwards.
What I really expect is to be given the option to adopt a new UI, not have MS try to shove it down my throat, especially if the reason for it merely to leverage their hardware sales of other devices.
And I bought it and used it. It wasn't until Win 3.1 with its integrated networking that windows really took off. Well done, Microsoft, may you have another 30 years of success.
I'd have to agree with you. The NT series was good, ME was truly awful, Vista a resource black hole, and I want to like 8 but struggle as it is not comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I did like DOS, and only switched at 98SE.
Way too old.
Agree with most of this - although I still hate the Office ribbon - finding the old menus more logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I operate on a simple principle - changes that make my tasks faster, add features or are more logical are good. Conversely, changes that make things slower (Vista UAC), remove features (multiple app windows in 8) or require more steps and/or thought are "bad". MUI fails on the last of those, and arguably the first two as well.
Still interested to see that it's the hard charging power users that (generally speaking) don't like 8. The novice folks (that I know at least) really quite like and "get" it.
However, based on past experience (complaints against Windows 3.1, 95 and Vista that got fixed in Windows 3.11, 98 and 7 respectively) I assume that Windows 9 will be worthwhile. And that's my lesson from 30 years of Windows - sometimes Microsoft get it right, sometimes they don't (Active Desktop); but what I want them to do is keep trying, keep pushing the OS forward. Otherwise, the market will shift to Linux.
Agreed. It clearly fails all three though IMO. Sure, Vista UAC did slow things down, but at least that was the by-product of a useful change in the security system. And TBH things gradually improved as random non-system apps stopped needlessly requiring elevated privileges. 8 has no such excuse - the flaws are caused by deliberate UI changes!Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
I'm not surprised you dislike Ribbon. That's far from an uncommon feeling. Most of my friends and colleagues, when we've discussed it, agree with you. Me? I'm happy enough with Ribbon, but I'm happy enough with the old menu's too. Given the choice, I'd use Ribbon, but if it went and I got menus back, I'd shrug and say "okay".Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
My primary objection to W8 is much the same as yours. It's not that the UI is changed, but (according to my analysis) why it changed, and quite how. And that we are forced to use it .... short of third-party tools, if we want to upgrade our desktop OS to keep pace with current versions.
The way the UI now works seems to me to be targeted at tablet-type devices, and for touch-sensistive screens at that. And, of course, most desktop systems don't have touch screens, and the typical usage of them (like accounting, admin, WP, etc) doesn't lend itself to touch, either. I get that touch works for a tablet. I'm using one now, hand-held, and it works for me because it has a touch screen. Ditto smart-phones. But for my desktop use, be it accounts, WP, Photoshop, audio editing, or a host of other things, the notion of a touch screen adds nothing and in fact, would be a nuisance to use, because I'd have to keep stretching out to tap the screen, and constantly leaving it a mess of fingerprints in the process.
Therefore, I struggle to see the benefit of a UI centred around touch when, for desktops, touch is generally unavailable, adds little or no functional benefit to use, and is not suited to most desktop tasks.
Yet, it's foisted on us, with no option, from MS, to disable MUI to allow me to continue to use MY PC how I want to. All it would need is a option to ignore MUI. And the only rationale I can credit for MS doing this is for a "common" interface on desktop and handheld devices, because it would hugely help MS sell handheld hardware if everybody already knew how to use it. I.e. they are seeking to force desktop users to adopt a paradigm and UI not suited to desktop for THEIR benefit, not the users, And as far as I' m concerned, they can shove that where the sun don't shine. In other words, it's about marketing to try to leversge Windows against Android and iPad/iPhone, because MS see declining desktop OS revenues, and huge uptick in phone/tablet sales.
That is, they are sacrificing desktop user experience and user convenience on the altar of future profits, rather than actually developing a phone and/or tablet UI that will induce people to buy Windoes hardware rather than Apple/Android because it's actually better.
Whether this will work for them or not, I don't know. I can only speak for my reaction, which is that I will not even consider either a phone or tablet based on a Windows OS, while this continues (which probably means permanently, knowing MS), regardless of price, feature set or performance. MS handheld products are on my personal "hell will freeze over first" list.
Whether the market will move to Linux or not, I don't know. I do know, for a cold hard fact that some will, and indeed, some already have, as a result of this. Including, so far, partially, me. But whether it'll ever be more than a sufficiently small number of users that MS will simply shrug it off, if they actually notice at all .... ? Dunno.
I do know quite a few non-techy users that either go pale at the thought of Linux, or go "huh? What?" at the mention of it, having never heard of it. But .... plonk those users that went pale in front of a Linux system, like Ubuntu, and it doesn't take them very long to, first, work out how to get most things done, and second, decide that it's not actually that different in day-to-day usage to Windows, due to a polished and attractive GUI, and nothing to be intimidated about. And a couple of those non-techy users have asked me to rebuild their systems with Ubuntu, and a basic collection of applications (you know, the usual email, browser, Office suite, security, AV, etc) rather than put up with MUI. And for them, that's a permanent loss of upgrade revenue stream to MS, and a permanent and on-going saving for those users, no longer paying for MS upgrades .... or apps.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall of an Apple board meeting, or a Google-Android management team, when Win 8 and MUI comes up for discussion. I rather suspect I'd see a fair bit of smug grinning and maybe even a few high fives .... because these "upstarts" have the MS behemoth jumping through hoops like a Mexixan jumping bean on hot coals.
All I want from MS re: Win 8 is the OPTION to disable MUI and go back to the classic mode. Short of that, bye-bye Windows, hello Linux for me .... over time, of course.
Still a bit miffed I never got to use Windows prior to 3.0..........Although to be fair, I probably didn't want or need to ;)
I do remember 3.1/3.11 lasting as long (or even longer) than Windows XP though.......my first professional job with Windows was to devise a network-enabled rollout of 3.11 (Windows for Workgroup) for a 3 office site that was running DOS 5 clients with Novell Netware servers......oh, those were the days!!
Well as windows is now 30, maybe we could class win8/8.1 as a midlife crisis and see what happens at 40 :D
Bits start ceasing proper function, and shortly after that, some stop working at all, and all the joints start creaking and aching?Quote:
Originally Posted by aramil
In 97' I was doing network admin. classes with Windows. I remember all the hype of Windows 95 both versions. TCP/IP better? I recall crashing the whole computer lab network by changing a registry setting on my computer. I was thinking this registry thing is going to be a problem. I glad I don't have to use Windows today for work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irien
Windows pre 3.1 wasn't worth getting excited about - the step change was Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - probably as ground breaking as Win 2K - Oh yes, I forgot Windows 95 - also known as Mac '84 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LeetyMcLeet
Happy birthday MS!! :rockon: :clapping:
IMHO, ms should add a option in settings, allowing you to select what device you are using.
If you were using a tablet/anything else with a touchscreen interface, it will remain the same. But, if you have a desktop/laptop, it should allow you to continue using your mouse and keyboard, with a proper start menu re-introduced.