There's a reason why people say 2000 and 7 were the best Windows releases ever.
Windows NT needed way high-end hardware to be usable at the time. (Even Linux did, if you wanted to use a Win95-like GUI and not be limited to the text-only CLI.) Windows 95 was a hack, but it was still miles better than pure MS-DOG and 16-bit versions of Windows.
> Windows 98 ...introduced completely unnecessary IE integration and the Active Desktop nobody used.
Completely unnecessary? Used ChromeOS lately? Guess what, that integrates the web browser at a far deeper level than Win98 ever did. And Active Desktop-equivalent technologies are only coming back into use very recently, with things like Web Notifications, ActivityPub, Progressive Web Apps and the like.
> Windows XP ... looked like Fisher-Price ...
Except that you could disable the Fisher Price bits, either in XP or as late as Vista and Windows 7.
That's the entire point; it uses the web browser because the web browser became an operating system (in the "application platform" sense of the word, not in the "kernel" sense) in its own right, and ChromeOS is Google's attempt to follow it to its conclusion. This is categorically different than Windows' deep and arbitrary integration of Explorer.
Nope, Internet Explorer had its own "application platform" for the browser at the time, known as ActiveX. Of course ActiveX came with huge security drawbacks, not unlike Windows 9x itself, but OTOH it was somewhat usable compared to the security-oriented Java "applets". And ActiveX components did find some use in Windows 98, much like the web-based components in ChromeOS.
Windows 7's adoption of online-only functionality dwarfs XP's.
Vista and Windows 7 are extremely similar. I've easily fooled several Windows 7 die-hards that they were using Windows 7 while they were in-fact using Windows Vista. They are virtually the same operating system. Microsoft did the same in a series of television commercials.
Spyware and application telemetry are not the same thing. I don't know why I continue to beat this drum, though, it never sways anyone, facts be damned.
The suggestions (yes, they are arguably ads) are easily turned off and never return, and this setting syncs across devices logged into the same Microsoft account.
No operating system is perfect, and no company is perfect. Is there any other fucking massive tech company in the middle of a huge turnaround like Microsoft is? I can't think of any.
Yet, many people will always have a very special place in their heart for attacking Microsoft, and they'll never relent, no matter what Microsoft do.
I do NOT understand it.
More: I don't want to use my computer as a media consumption device.
So for me, all the new UI changes are counterproductive. But that's me. Others have different usage profiles; whether it's a net win or a net loss depends on the customer mix.
Am I missing something?
There was an issue a LONG time ago when the tiles were more front and center but they dumped that a while ago.
Seriously, if you haven't tried Windows 10 since it first came out, try it - I held out on Windows 7 for years, but I'm really glad I switched.
Going from 16 bit cooperative to 32 bit preemptive in the 3.x to 9x change, useful.
Going to multiple accounts with permissions in the 9x to XP change, useful.
Rearranging the UI time and again since Vista, and sucking up CPUs with scannning processes, so what?
Note that I really only used Windows at work, anyway (instead of Linux, or more recently OSX), and I managed to avoid the post-7 cluster-bomb entirely at my current job.
Some new features:
- Cortana (I don't use it, but I know lots of people that do)
- The Windows Store and UWP apps
- High DPI support (this is something MS does very well compared to Linux desktops)
- Windows Hello (I find this really for signing in with a fingerprint)
- BitLocker (this is a bit one, IMO)
- Device Guard (Enterprise only, AFAIK. Very usual in certin environments)
- Windows Defender (it's now a 1st class AV - I have no reason to use anything else)
- Window Defender Exploit Guard
- Windows Defender Credential Guard
- Windows Defender ATP (only for large enterprises, but it's amazing)
- Windows S mode (this is a pretty big deal, and it's suitable for a lot of consumers, even if it's not exactly HN users' target market)
- Improved VPN support
- Built-in snipping tool (WIN + SHIFT + S)
- Dark mode (I like this)
- Improved Start Menu (IMO)
- Task switcher
- Action centre
- Improved command prompt (even supports copying with CTRL-C, how incredible!)
- Edge (OK, maybe moot now)
- Multiple desktops (yes, I know these have been a feature of Linux window systems for decades)
I imagine I've left out quite a bit too.
The state of Windows update is terrible to me. Say what you will about Linux, but updating on most distros is a breeze compared to Windows.
You get plenty of time to prepare for the reboot that's coming. You can even delay it by a day or more.
It isn't Windows' fault that you aren't prepared for it when it comes; it's yours.
Give the users freedom to choose when to reboot, and even to choose whether they want to. Some users will continue to manage to get infected with malware despite constantly being disrupted by the constant reboots, others never installed a single security patch and yet would never be infected due to what they do (or what they don't, to be more accurate.) But that's their choice and theirs alone.
Unfortunately it seems companies are far more authoritarian and would rather breed a docile obedient type of users in which to force their ideas on and control.
I will resist the urge to post that old Benjamin Franklin quote again.
Good, because like everyone else who does, you'd probably misrepresent what he actually meant by it.
I'll take the updates and reboots. I don't know what exploits are coming tomorrow, and I know very little about the ones currently in the wild. My SSD allows reboots carrying updates to happen in just a minute or two.
I will do my due diligence and protect myself.
If you don't want to, don't use Windows, then you won't have anything Windows-related to complain about.
> Unfortunately it seems companies are far more authoritarian and would rather breed a docile obedient type of users in which to force their ideas on and control.
You are on drugs or are otherwise compromised logically. Tech companies are nowhere nearly as organized as would be required to make this a reality.
You're saying that the manufacturer of an OS that requires reboots for certain fixes to be patched onto the operating system is actually an authoritarian regime grooming its users toward a manufactured Idiocracy?
I'll have whatever you're having. It sounds like LSD but only for geopolitical concerns.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3250464/microsoft-wind...
No forced updates, no store apps, no Cortana.