Opinion - Windows Has Gone Downhill Big Time

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
jamesp33

jamesp33

Commendable
Dec 13, 2016
151
0
1,710
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.
 
in general terms, no one know what anyone wants

take as example steve ballmer, he wanted developers to do the job for him, because he didn't knew what he wanted, but he wanted it soon and he wanted it everywhere, o lots of money could be done

the new guy, seems to be more aware of the market now, he has tried to fix the windows 8 fiasco and that is where windows 10 enters

when windows 7 was released as a fix to windows vista fiasco, it was easier, just manage ram usage, fix stability for some apps and small retouches of the user interface

on windows 10, the changes are big when compared to windows 8, you do feel like you are using a os that is friendly again with desktops and laptops, tablets too

eventually the idea of a windows 10 free, completely free might happen, linux style

is a idea mentioned in the past before, but now seeing that linux is not fighting against linux now, it is not a that crazy idea
 
Windows 10 seems promising but what should happen is you should have 4 themes to pick from: Classic, Luna, Aero and Metro. That way everybody can be happy with windows 10.
 


And then people would complain about them spending too many resources on eye candy, and not enough on actual features and bug fixes.
 


 
Much like you I started in the DOS era and made the same progressions. I stayed with 98 until forced by hardware restrictions to move to XP. Now, for the same reason, I am moving (trying to move) to 7. I am not interested in being a "key-clicker". I am interested in an OS that will allow me to load and run my existing applications. My biggest beef with 7 is having to look through what feels like a thousand folders to find a program to adjust the screen resolution, there is no continuity between XP and 7. I, as a user, am not not to buy "new" versions of software for every application I am interested in. . .I did that. . .once. The applications run fine and I have yet to see any function I care about in the new versions. To me the solution would be simple, take the hardware refinements of 7 and put them in an XP shell that runs APPLICATIONS, not just the OS.
I do not understand the attraction of playing with an OS hours on end. That was what I paid Microsoft to do. They did a poor job of it overall.
And I am not interested in having to transform MS's notion of an OS (apparently designed now for toys and games) to something useful to people not centered on toys, but tools.
A move to Linux would be like going back to DOS. . .hand enter everything you want to do. . ."key-clicker" heaven! But, given the difficulty in using 7, it may be a better resolution than a program that is apparently designed to force the purchase of new application software to do an old job. This is no way to run a business selling products to "end users".
 
@Mernitz - Like you, I started way back in the DOS era. And have used every version of Windows since.

Just for a couple of examples from your comment:

Win 10 Display resolution - Literally, 3 clicks gains you access to change the resolution and desktop as you see fit.
If it were any easier, people would be changing it by accident.

Applications - They grow and change. Gain new capabilities.
Image editing, for instance. There are many things the new applications can do, that ones from the XP era simply did not have the capability for. And I'm not talking about the expensive paid things. Inexpensive or actually free.
GIMP or Paint.net simply blows away anything we had in the XP world.
Video editing - Right now, I'm trying out DaVinci Resolve. Free, and it seems to be a pretty good vid editor.

Hardware - XP and previous know nothing about how to handle an SSD. TRIM functionality, etc. That simply wasn't a thing.
Should they spend time and resources backporting all that into older OS's? Haw far back should they have to support one?
An SSD with Win98SE?, Win 95?
End Of Life.

32bit vs 64bit (or even going back to 16bit).
XP was in the crossover years between 32bit and 64bit hardware. The X64 version of XP was badly flawed.


Nothing is forcing you to move to Win 7 or later. If you like XP, and are very diligent about where you go and what you click....by all means, continue using it.
Obviously MS wants you to, but keep using XP if you desire.

Like you, I don't mess with the OS. I use applications. And Win 10 pretty much gets out of the way and lets me do that. Just like 8.1, and 7, and XP.
Win 8 was pretty flawed, in that MS was trying to merge desktop and mobile into one interface. Win 8.1 walked most of that back.

But time marches on. Things change.

(Oh, and Linux is not nearly as 'key-clicker' as you might think anymore)
 


I agree with you. Windows vista and the later ones are just harder to use. I don't like how they got rid of the Desktop properties. Now you couldn't have all of it in one place, It's now scattered everywhere and that's idiotic. I feel like Microsoft doesn't care anymore, while some will disagree. Here's why I like the old OSs, they were easy to use for me at least, only annoying thing about it was the wizards. Linux is even harder to use than the new Windows OSs. Windows 2000 and XP were good enough, They can anything you want really, The only problem with Windows XP was that it was and still is a major risk, Other than that there's no point to getting Windows 7 or 10 because let's be honest, What advantage does it give? New hardware? That's true but with older OSs you don't need new hardware because unlike the new OSs, it isn't bundled with crap you'll never use. Well, it's good for Gamers, But other than that, the new OSs are useless. Even Windows 95 can still do some modern things. New doesn't always mean better, But most of the time it will. Windows xp and Windows 2000 Won't run on new hardware that's true, But if you can a machine that does and upgrade it to the max, You can do as much and you could do on any modern PC. Probably last longer too.

 
now that you mention, i never used win xp 64 bit version, that should have been fun


fun in a bad way, poor implementation of memory addresses and poor drivers 😀

now that you mention, the idea of 128 bits and the quantum computers in the next decade, well, i don't think we will see windows 10 for more than, 6 years perhaps?

well, at least as the only os microsoft wanted it to be
 




 
We don't need 128-bit Computers for decades. There's no need for 128-bit, 64-bit is advanced enough to be the leader for a few more decades yet.
 
no, we don't need 128 bit os or cpus

we barely need 64 bit on most pcs on our houses now!

most of the android smartphones still use 32 bit cpus and os and they manage to offer all that a user might want or need

still, the quantum computers surely will end up using a 128 bit os, if not more, it is a entire field in development and there are already some clients asking for this kind of technology, computer power, microsoft is one of them
 


Sure, if all you do is facebook, instagram, and email.
No need for more horsepower.

And that phone may suffice for 'most people'.
Me, I'd find it a bit tough to design a slip on focus handle for my camera using a 5" touchscreen on the phone.
Or create/edit/manipulate a large Excel sheet.

All comes down to choice.
 
Thanks for the reply.
Hardware upgrades is why I would like (need) to change to 7.
As for using software, an example, I use ACAD14. . .old program with 16 bit installer requirement. . .will not load in 7. This was a thousand dollar program a lot of inflation ago. It does everything I need the program to do, new programs do nothing "new" that I would use, nor will I "rent" software from AutoDesk (or anyone else).
Office Pro 97 keeps my books just fine without a bunch of "glitz", why should I have to change so that Access will work? "Run in compatibility" mode does not address the issue, neither does XP Mode (or I can't get it to). The virtual machine might be a solution, if I could get it to stick.
I've ordered Mint 18.1 (both 32 and 64) on the assumption (every time I use that word it feels like the first three letters are a reflection in the mirror) the "key-clicker" mode can't be much worse than the transition from XP to 7, just a lot of new jargon and locations.
I tried Puppy, but got tired of the Hungarian everything. . .don't need another foreign language!
Again, thanks for the reply. . .are you available for Mint/Linux questions?
chuck
 


That I can agree with, 128-bit Processors probably won't even be needed in 150 years. 8K monitors will also be useless unless you want tones of apps on the screen together side by side.

 
hard? impossible, but you manage when you need to, on a 4.5 inch display 😀

yes, there is a good portion of users that don't create content, only watch content, that is why those apps and tools you mention will work just fine on such devices

that is the main reason to see a windows 8 os exist, try to respond to that type of demand from the users, something simple with a tablet/android style

also the subsequent surge of tablets, theoretically replacing desktops and laptops

when most users discovered what you mention, and adding that those tablets usually ended up broken in one way or another, convertibles, 2 in 1 recovered quickly part of the market

the rest is slowly recovering with cheap laptops with 2 or 4 cores and 2 or 4 gbs of ram

products on the market never covered all the possible experiences we now encounter to create or consume content, well consume mostly
 
I use Mint and/or Ubuntu just about every day, in a VM environment.
VirtualBox does this easily.
And it would work with XP as well.

This is my current system, running 4 x VM's and the Win 10 host.
Win 10 Pro, Server 2016, LinuxMint, Ubuntu, and the Win 10 host.
0kh8X4f.jpg
 


Yeah, everything is about looks now. Old stuff can do the job just as good but without all this eye candy which isn't needed if you want functionality. This is how the world has turned, they would rather have eye candy than functionality.
 


There's a lot of functionality in there as well.

Access to more RAM (64bit vs 32bit)
Handling new hardware (SSD)
Eye popping game graphics
On the fly video transcoding
etc, etc...
 
While that's true that's not really my point. new apps are only really good for their looks. The old stuff can do what you need to do. And while those things are pretty important that's really all that been that great. You can do what you need to with old stuff and it's way more lightweight than new apps. And while TRIM is important it doesn't mean you can use a SSD on those OSs without TRIM. New and the old have both got advantages.
 
Mernitz, you'll find Mint has got everything you need for day to day PC use and you won't need to use the command line if you don't want to. My guess, however, is you will want to.

Apart from the accounts of my business and associated correspondence, my main use of a PC is online so there's nothing I need to add on to Mint. Kali is just or penetration testing for work purposes but that also comes with all the basics.

If you do need a product wihich depends on an .exe fle, Wine and Crossover will make it work in Linux.

Faster and with no intrusive updates - what's not to love?
 
Yeah and plus, there are plenty of apps that are in Windows and don't use the PE format like Firefox for example. And plus, there's many alternatives to these Windows programs if you can't get 'em in Linux.
 
Windows 95 C has to date been the most stable version. A was terrible, because it was rushed and hadn't been put through user abuse with its variety of mismatched pc components yet. B was better because Microsoft actually listened to the user complaints and fixed a bunch of stuff. C was the best because it was finally finished. But it was simple. There was little that was fully automated. Unlike NT versions, DOS was still prevalent, and ppl knew DOS, so batch files or user fixes were easy to implement. Now with win10, unless invoking admin rights and knowing exactly what commands are needed, with what switches etc, you are stuck with windows doing everything for you, very little user participation and your pc gets to decide exactly what it wants to do and how to do it. XP and 7 were still user friendly, but with 8's new UI, say goodbye to logical progression.
 


Yeah, and DOS is more stable than people think, I've used 9x all my childhood and did it crash once? Nope. here's the thing, because NT was more stable than DOS they kept saying that NT was such an improvement in stability but it wasn't that far of a leap, Windows ME was great, but idiots kept saying it crashed non stop when it didn't really. It may not be as stable at NT, but it stable enough.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom