Evolution of Windows

Linux be like:

Linux would be more like a random assortment of planks, slabs of glass, paint cans, and a handwritten set of assembly tips and tricks.
Ipchains: What the fuck did i do?

Win 7 was definitely the pinnacle of Windows.

With that out of the way, I want to say that I am one of the very few that actually liked Windows 8. Especially on touch devices it worked flawlessly. I was upset when they removed the swipe gestures in Windows 10, like alternating between two apps. On Desktop it could have used a "Windows 7" mode.

Obligatory: Windows 11 is the worst so far. The level of disrespect this software shows towards the user is next level. And this downwards spiral seems to pick up the pace.

Also: Linux is awesome! All who are still hoping that Windows will again respect you one day: just get out now. The more people move to Linux, the better it will be supported.

Edit:

https://lemmy.zip/post/51119369

I rest my case.

The biggest issue with Linux is the culture. I get that longtime users get and understand how to use it. They understand the commands. They know what -r and -n do.
I still look at my microwave daily to remember what the buttons do. There's only 6 buttons and a dial. Although, 7 buttons. I just remembered the dial is also a button. It's the start button.
Point is, I'm not going to learn terminal. I'm going to point the thing. Then I'm going to drag the thing. And I'm going to double click the thing.
I've attempted to learn terminal since 2014. I have a 0% success rate doing anything. Even copy/pasting other peoples commands. I always get an error, and I don't understand the error. So I google the error, and then I don't understand the explaination.
The way I have always explained it is, the OS is like a car. And terminal is how mechanics diagnose and fix the car. I tried changing my oil once, and blew up the car.
- Thanks to distros like Bazzite there really isn’t a need to learn the terminal.
- I've been on Mint for like two years and have not opened the terminal yet. You do not have to be a developer or even a power user to run Linux. It's just another operating system.
- They know what -r and -n do
  No we don't magically know that. We know that we have to look it up in the manual to know that.
- If you haven't checked it out here, the culture is actually super helpful.
  Also, look up the "man" command. Everything you need to know about every command is already built into your OS, you just have to access the "man file" for it.
- Linux is not for everyone. If you don't like it, don't use it. The terminal is used so much because it's often the quickest way of doing things - instructions in WIndows are like "click on that icon, scroll down to this and choose that, then select that tab..." but with a terminal it's like "copy and paste this into a terminal". It's a powerful and useful tool. There are distros like Ubuntu which try to avoid doing terminally stuff, but it's just so useful it's difficult not to use it.
- Did you delete /etc? (friendly, sympathetic, Gnuification of Win jokes))
- It's not a culture thing. You'd have the same issues in Windows if there was a problem. Plenty snarky and dismissive answers. Some people just want an appliance and that's okay.
  The biggest issue is that people end up running on poorly or non supported hardware. Buy a system from a company that designs with Linux in mind. System 76 Tuxedo etc. 90% of the issues are gone, poof. The final bit is dependence on or inability to leave a piece of software. There are options for most things on Linux. But not everything, and not always as you're familiar with. If that's a deal breaker, it's a dealbreaker. And that's too bad but understandable. No shade.
- (Only tangentially related, but) To be fair, most microwaves are needlessly complex and/or have terrible user interface. I stand by all any microwave needs is one or two knobs, and that’s it. One for time of course, and another for power selection if desired.
  I always hate using new microwaves at work break rooms or such because somehow they are all different and I feel like a caveman trying to figure them out every time.
I do kinda dig the Vision of Windows 8, y'know? Huge focus on Convergence, the unified design language of Metro, Windows Phone's slick design...
Problem is they didn't stick the landing at all, threw everything good in the trash with 10, set the trash can on fire with 11.
Call me crazy but I do think Metro was a much more cohesive design motif than the Fluent that Microsoft slapped on right at the end of 10 and still haven't decided how to handle on 11.

No no, we're not doing this. We're not pretending Vista wasn't absolute dog shit.

I used it and didn’t mind it at the time. I personally never ran into any issues with it, and then upgraded to 7 when I got a chance.
It was certainly more stable than ME, which I also had the pleasure of running.
Vista will always have a special place in my heart. I learned so much from Vista, like 'Oh, wdym I can't go back to XP?" "This is a torrent, and this is an ISO." "This is how you install an OS." "Wdym they're stopping support for XP?" and "This is what Ubuntu is."
- Bro vista was such garbage my father, the kinda guy who helps salesmen sell you extra features (believes new = quality/posterity), asked me if it was possible to go back to XP after a week of Vista.
  It's not like vista didn't work, it just took 800 years to open any application, and longer to open two at once. He just wanted to play Diablo 2 bro lol
It works though because compared to XP, I'd pick XP every time.

Windows 1.0: Just four sticks tied together with rough twine, not attached to any building or anything. Just held in the frame of the photograph in mid air by a pair of really hairy hands.

Windows 12: Same as Windows 11, except missing a window on the door all together.

Windows ME: The driver's side window of a clown car.

Windows 95: Identical to Windows 98.

(There are a lot more like CE, NT, 2000, Server, FLP, RT, Mobile, etc, but I'll end my list there.)

Also, the photo gives way too much credit to Vista. Also, everything from XP and after should at least have bars on the windows. Having to phone home to activate was always unreasonable. The fact that things are way worse now doesn't mean earlier versions were unrestrictive by a long shot. (And believe me. People in XP's era were also horrified at how restrictive and enshittified XP was compared to previous versions.)

Windows 13: The "window" is back in but actually it's just a 1 way mirror so they can look in but you can't look out
Windows 95: Identical to Windows 98.
No because it worked most of the time

Vista needs way more glass and bubbles.

Milennium:

Another one of these with no Win 95…😩

Seriously, 98 was just the third addition of 95, it wasn't really some big thing of its own.
- You could also put Windows 98 Second Edition in there with some niceties.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98
Nor Millennium Edition or Windows 2000
Millennium Edition was so bad, it had all the blue screens of their predecessor and successor combined.

Windows ME

Where Win95

Where Windows 2000

Where Windows NT

I don't get why everyone's so hostile to Windows Me. It was a perfectly good operating system for its time. It certainly didn't crash on me any more than 98 did before it, or XP did after it. And it had some genuine improvements grandfathered in from Win2000.

That said, I'm now a Linux user, so my opinions are invalid /j

ME was basically a less stable 98. I used it for years until the hard drive failed, and it wasn’t the worst thing ever. It was definitely a step down from 98 though, and XP blew it out of the water.
Windows ME had the same fixed 64KB user resources and 64KB GDI resources memory limits as Windows 95 and Windows 98 for system resource allocation regardless of how much actual RAM you had. Since ME was more resource-intensive than the previous versions, you could run out of these resource allocations while still having very much free RAM much faster.
The end-result was the computer becoming unusable even though you had resources available that the OS could have otherwise used. Certain inefficient applications like I believe Quicken could snarf up all of the system resources so you had to restart with everything you could disabled to run that one application. Same computer on Win2K would run circles around WinME.
I think it was overall a step down from win2k but that was the best software Microsoft has ever shipped.
You are in the minority with your experience. Either you lucked out on ME or you had especially bad luck with XP.
Brand name PCs were being sold in 2000 with ME installed, that fresh out of the box would hang just trying to load the applications that were shipped with it.

In XP, the original Office Word95 assistants were my study buddies for countless hours. This is my homage to them.

Fuck Clippy. He's a wind chime now.

Win95 and Win2K forgotten again.

And millennium edition. Everyone forgets ME...god I wish I could. I was stuck with it for years
- Oh crud. Did that even have a different kernel version?

Still can't get over them making a big deal about 10 being the last one ever.

They didn't. A single low level.employee misspoke at a trade show and the press/internet commentators made a big deal out of it.
- I specifically remember "last version of windows" in the commercials and stuff, but I looked it up after reading your comment, and you appear correct. Mandella effect, or just faulty memory?

Mmm, windows 9. My childhood is flooding back to me.

Would have swapped 8 and vista. Vista was awefull. 8 was very special but 8.1 was actually good... but I was one of the few wierdos with an windows phone, so I liked the design.

The Oas was actually pretty solod. The only real problem was the removal of the start menu and traditional interface for non-touch computers. It's just that it was a huge fucking problem that destroyed the perception of Win8 even after the issue was addressed.
If Metro had been the alternative interface and the traditional experience the default, it would have been celebrated as a great OS.

NT/2000 always gets left out of these, I ran 2000 on an old PC for years past XP and Vista even. But all it was doing was running a vinyl and laser cutter.

They forgot 95 and ME as well.
- ME would just be a brick wall.
  And I would happily go back to using 2000 if I could. I held out all the way up to about 2012, at which point the number of games that wouldn't run out of the box got to an untenable amount. :(

Windows 7. Best ever. Miss those days.

What version is this one?

W2K was the shizzle