7mo ago

Learn how to count with Bill Gates

You're viewing a single thread.

74 comments

Quality, but what about ME, and arguably 3.11. Does NT cover both 3.5.1 and 4? (my memory is hazy about earlier)
- 8.1 as well
  
  Bob
  
  I see 8.1 as 9. Will never not.
- Fuck you. Bringing up ME and making me relive the memories. Even as a kid, I couldn't stand it wanted 98 back.
  ME and Vista are by far the worst to date.
  
  ME and Vista are by far the worst to date.
  11 is trying its darnedest.
  
  Really? I do not see much difference compared with 10, other than shifted start button.
  
  Well aside from that, which shouldn't have been set by default imo, it has more bugs, ridiculous system requirements, requires a ms account even more than before and runs worse.
  I guess however bad the versions before it might have been, they at least kind of had a point? 11 is just a shitty reskin to squeeze out those sweet licensing dollars. They didn't even bother changing the version number in the older releases.
  
  I switched mostly to Linux when windows 8 was released, but I don't mind 11. It looks quite nice, the start menu is pretty good and normal again compared to the ugly full screen shitshow from windows 8 and the weird hybrid thing from windows 10 and most of that foreign mobile metro crap from windows 8 is gone again or reintegrated into the desktop.
  Having tabs in the explorer is also super nice.
  
  I personally never had any issues with Vista. Even deferred win7 for 4-5 years until I got curious. Though I did have a system made for it, so that was part of it.
  
  Vista was a nightmare unless you had OEM equipment that wasn't just vista compatible, but MADE FOR VISTA. Your experience was an aberration, most people got 'vista compatible' PCs that were running vista but made with XP sp1 in mind. So you'd see these systems that had no hardware graphics acceleration beyond onboard anemic garbage trying to run menus with DOF blur and soft overlays just gagging, and god forbid you had to troubleshoot/support some software on some shit like this, it was a nightmare.
  The rest of the people upgraded from XP to Vista themselves, and the smart ones went "OH FUCK NO" and went back in droves.
  
  8 was quite bad too
  
  8 only gets hate because people lost their minds with the start menu change.
  
  It had multiple personalities disorder. Two e-mails, two browsers, two settings. It was confusing as hell.
  
  I actually liked it then, you could just roughly click in the area and would hit the right shortcut.
  
  I liked the start page. I don't use icons on the desktop though. Being able to pull up a customized shortcut screen was quite nice.
  
  I can appreciate what you're saying, but it's a terrible idea to force a tablet paradigm in non-touch screen scenarios. 8 would have been fine if you could choose your start bar. Don't say this wasn't possible, because there was third-party software to make that happen.
  
  I never said it was impossible to keep the old style. Though I do refuse that the start page is only useful to touchscreens. I would have preferred a bit more options than just large or small squares, but it still was a nice way to keep shortcuts close at hand without having them on the desktop. Bringing the shortcut screen over top of everything is much more useful than keeping the shortcuts at the bottom, on the desktop.
  Frankly, I found it ridiculous that the start page got so much hate while stuff like bing searches being forced into the local machine search gets no reaction.
  
  Ever tried to use all the hidden features on the sides and corners? Absolute nightmare with a mouse, fairly reasonable with touch. The UX was very dependent on the hardware being used.
  And I hate the bing search bar, too, don't worry. Never used Cortana, occasionally use the search at the bottom of the screen, only select from installed apps or documents. I already know how to use a web browser, thanks, and they all let me choose my search engine, too.
  
  Never really had a problem with the hidden side menu, though I didn't care for it either.
- ~~I don't know if they reclassified it at some point, but back on those days 3.5 was titled "Windows for Workgroups" and 4.0 was the first to be known simply as "NT".~~
  Forget what I said, I recalled an old memory from childhood of a 3.5 upgrade box for people running Windows for Workgroups.
  NT 4.0 is definitely what popularized that version prior to Windows 2000 and XP. Most people who just say "Windows NT" are thinking about 4.0.
  
  3.11 was WfW, and ran on top of DOS just like 3.1 did.
  NT 3.51 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like 3.1/3.11 on the surface. NT 4 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like Win95.
  Win 95/98/Me also ran on DOS, though it was more tightly integrated than it was in the 3.1 days.
  Win 2k and everything after was based on NT.
  
  I remember the early win 3.11 to win 95 days when it was still easier to exit to dos to install a lot of software because no one was writing windows interfaces for anything.
  Now I'm wondering if I still have my Doom .WADs saved somewhere...
- Replace NT in this list with ME and you have all the consumer versions. NT versions 3.5 and 4 were the business versions in parallel with 95, 98, and ME.
  
  Win2k wasn't consumer. It was the business offering at the same time as ME, which may be surprising to some. Xp was their successor, merging the business and personal lines.
  
  I remember using Windows 2000 at school. That OS was solid. Far more reliable and stable than what I was running at home (Windows 98, first edition).
  
  Yeah, those were the days, back when more often than not a Windows upgrade was also an improvement. As much as I loved Win2k, WinXP was even better. Let's not talk about Vista and while Win7 was nice, it wasn't much of a UX improvement.
- Also 98SE, is that just covered by 98? I don't think it should be there's a reason they released a second edition.

74 comments