▲ 47 ▼ Former Microsoft engineer explains why Windows 'sucks' now (go.theregister.com) submitted 1 year ago by leo@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show to c/news@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show 21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] 20cello@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (17 children) "Now" permalink fedilink source hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago (16 children) 2000 was awesome, XP was great, 7 was fantastic, 8 was a good core with a terrible UI, 10 continued the decline, 11 accelerated it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago* (6 children) I can't help but notice you skipped two very terrible versions in that list: M.E. Vista I feel dirty just saying them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) vista was also a good system. the market just tried to push it on people with hardware which was not up to the task. when 7 released, compatible hardware was already in place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not just hardware, drivers. Driver support was abysmal. On a decent hdd with updated drivers vista was fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago yeah because driver were previously allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted with the system and vista introduced a baselevel of security. the rollout was a mess, the os really wasn't. which is a surprise considering the development story. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'll also put Vista's bad reputation down to that it was the first version with UAC, which if I recall was set too sensitive, combined with the fact that it was something new and weird for most Windows users at the time and the fact that a lot of software didn't have time to catch up to add proper compability with the system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago it's not that it was too sensitive, it was that windows was previously a lawless land where every application had full access to the entire system. you're bound to get some compatibility issues from that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago That is correct, I never used ME and Vista at home so I didn't think to add them. And as other's have noted, the opinion on Vista is divided. permalink fedilink source parent [+] TheBat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The only complaint I have of 7 was the thick window borders permalink fedilink source parent [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago Vista and 8.1 were better permalink fedilink source parent [–] Un4tural@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Dug out my old win xp eee pc, thing does Windows things faster than my new top spec Dell precision with an ssd... And it's using 200mb ram with spinning rust from what will be near decade and a half old... The plastic is cracking away from age. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children) 8 was a good core with a terrible UI I’d argue 8 was the best windows we’ve had, ever. The UI was awkward. 8.1 however was IMO was damn near perfection. This is of course from my standpoint of “it just boots windows to then run steam” since I don’t use windows for anything but that. AND honestly if you spent a little time customizing the metro screen … it was dope. You could set your games as metro tiles. My metro screen was amazing. Now the “metro” full screen app pane is standard fare ( macOS, gnome ) and nobody bats an eye. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I preferred 8.1 and Vista over 7. 8.1 worked. You could search stuff and it'd find it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Preferring vista over 7 is a take. Vista wasn’t bad at its end of life … but idk about Vista over 7 I preferred 8 over 7 from day one, but I was used to that style of app screen from Linux already so it was an improvement for me instead of a wild workflow change permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago To me, 7 felt like a reskin of Vista with features removed. The features people complained about in Vista where in 7. I think the departure from XP is what was rough, in part because of the jump in security and in ressource usage. But by the time 7 came out, people had sold the old familly room computer and got a newer machine that could handle the additional load. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago 7 was all the average user could ever want. Snappy operations, simple and easy to navigate settings, light memory overhead, and a really nice aesthetic. Too bad we couldn't just update the backend stuff indefinitely so now we have a bloated, AI fueled privacy nightmare with a shitty bottom middle start menu with Windows 11. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago (16 children) 2000 was awesome, XP was great, 7 was fantastic, 8 was a good core with a terrible UI, 10 continued the decline, 11 accelerated it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago* (6 children) I can't help but notice you skipped two very terrible versions in that list: M.E. Vista I feel dirty just saying them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) vista was also a good system. the market just tried to push it on people with hardware which was not up to the task. when 7 released, compatible hardware was already in place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not just hardware, drivers. Driver support was abysmal. On a decent hdd with updated drivers vista was fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago yeah because driver were previously allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted with the system and vista introduced a baselevel of security. the rollout was a mess, the os really wasn't. which is a surprise considering the development story. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'll also put Vista's bad reputation down to that it was the first version with UAC, which if I recall was set too sensitive, combined with the fact that it was something new and weird for most Windows users at the time and the fact that a lot of software didn't have time to catch up to add proper compability with the system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago it's not that it was too sensitive, it was that windows was previously a lawless land where every application had full access to the entire system. you're bound to get some compatibility issues from that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago That is correct, I never used ME and Vista at home so I didn't think to add them. And as other's have noted, the opinion on Vista is divided. permalink fedilink source parent [+] TheBat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The only complaint I have of 7 was the thick window borders permalink fedilink source parent [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago Vista and 8.1 were better permalink fedilink source parent [–] Un4tural@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Dug out my old win xp eee pc, thing does Windows things faster than my new top spec Dell precision with an ssd... And it's using 200mb ram with spinning rust from what will be near decade and a half old... The plastic is cracking away from age. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children) 8 was a good core with a terrible UI I’d argue 8 was the best windows we’ve had, ever. The UI was awkward. 8.1 however was IMO was damn near perfection. This is of course from my standpoint of “it just boots windows to then run steam” since I don’t use windows for anything but that. AND honestly if you spent a little time customizing the metro screen … it was dope. You could set your games as metro tiles. My metro screen was amazing. Now the “metro” full screen app pane is standard fare ( macOS, gnome ) and nobody bats an eye. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I preferred 8.1 and Vista over 7. 8.1 worked. You could search stuff and it'd find it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Preferring vista over 7 is a take. Vista wasn’t bad at its end of life … but idk about Vista over 7 I preferred 8 over 7 from day one, but I was used to that style of app screen from Linux already so it was an improvement for me instead of a wild workflow change permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago To me, 7 felt like a reskin of Vista with features removed. The features people complained about in Vista where in 7. I think the departure from XP is what was rough, in part because of the jump in security and in ressource usage. But by the time 7 came out, people had sold the old familly room computer and got a newer machine that could handle the additional load. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago 7 was all the average user could ever want. Snappy operations, simple and easy to navigate settings, light memory overhead, and a really nice aesthetic. Too bad we couldn't just update the backend stuff indefinitely so now we have a bloated, AI fueled privacy nightmare with a shitty bottom middle start menu with Windows 11. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago* (6 children) I can't help but notice you skipped two very terrible versions in that list: M.E. Vista I feel dirty just saying them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) vista was also a good system. the market just tried to push it on people with hardware which was not up to the task. when 7 released, compatible hardware was already in place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not just hardware, drivers. Driver support was abysmal. On a decent hdd with updated drivers vista was fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago yeah because driver were previously allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted with the system and vista introduced a baselevel of security. the rollout was a mess, the os really wasn't. which is a surprise considering the development story. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'll also put Vista's bad reputation down to that it was the first version with UAC, which if I recall was set too sensitive, combined with the fact that it was something new and weird for most Windows users at the time and the fact that a lot of software didn't have time to catch up to add proper compability with the system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago it's not that it was too sensitive, it was that windows was previously a lawless land where every application had full access to the entire system. you're bound to get some compatibility issues from that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago That is correct, I never used ME and Vista at home so I didn't think to add them. And as other's have noted, the opinion on Vista is divided. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 7 points 1 year ago (4 children) vista was also a good system. the market just tried to push it on people with hardware which was not up to the task. when 7 released, compatible hardware was already in place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not just hardware, drivers. Driver support was abysmal. On a decent hdd with updated drivers vista was fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago yeah because driver were previously allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted with the system and vista introduced a baselevel of security. the rollout was a mess, the os really wasn't. which is a surprise considering the development story. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'll also put Vista's bad reputation down to that it was the first version with UAC, which if I recall was set too sensitive, combined with the fact that it was something new and weird for most Windows users at the time and the fact that a lot of software didn't have time to catch up to add proper compability with the system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago it's not that it was too sensitive, it was that windows was previously a lawless land where every application had full access to the entire system. you're bound to get some compatibility issues from that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not just hardware, drivers. Driver support was abysmal. On a decent hdd with updated drivers vista was fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago yeah because driver were previously allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted with the system and vista introduced a baselevel of security. the rollout was a mess, the os really wasn't. which is a surprise considering the development story. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago yeah because driver were previously allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted with the system and vista introduced a baselevel of security. the rollout was a mess, the os really wasn't. which is a surprise considering the development story. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'll also put Vista's bad reputation down to that it was the first version with UAC, which if I recall was set too sensitive, combined with the fact that it was something new and weird for most Windows users at the time and the fact that a lot of software didn't have time to catch up to add proper compability with the system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago it's not that it was too sensitive, it was that windows was previously a lawless land where every application had full access to the entire system. you're bound to get some compatibility issues from that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago it's not that it was too sensitive, it was that windows was previously a lawless land where every application had full access to the entire system. you're bound to get some compatibility issues from that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago That is correct, I never used ME and Vista at home so I didn't think to add them. And as other's have noted, the opinion on Vista is divided. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TheBat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The only complaint I have of 7 was the thick window borders permalink fedilink source parent [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago Vista and 8.1 were better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The only complaint I have of 7 was the thick window borders permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago Vista and 8.1 were better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Un4tural@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Dug out my old win xp eee pc, thing does Windows things faster than my new top spec Dell precision with an ssd... And it's using 200mb ram with spinning rust from what will be near decade and a half old... The plastic is cracking away from age. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children) 8 was a good core with a terrible UI I’d argue 8 was the best windows we’ve had, ever. The UI was awkward. 8.1 however was IMO was damn near perfection. This is of course from my standpoint of “it just boots windows to then run steam” since I don’t use windows for anything but that. AND honestly if you spent a little time customizing the metro screen … it was dope. You could set your games as metro tiles. My metro screen was amazing. Now the “metro” full screen app pane is standard fare ( macOS, gnome ) and nobody bats an eye. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I preferred 8.1 and Vista over 7. 8.1 worked. You could search stuff and it'd find it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Preferring vista over 7 is a take. Vista wasn’t bad at its end of life … but idk about Vista over 7 I preferred 8 over 7 from day one, but I was used to that style of app screen from Linux already so it was an improvement for me instead of a wild workflow change permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago To me, 7 felt like a reskin of Vista with features removed. The features people complained about in Vista where in 7. I think the departure from XP is what was rough, in part because of the jump in security and in ressource usage. But by the time 7 came out, people had sold the old familly room computer and got a newer machine that could handle the additional load. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I preferred 8.1 and Vista over 7. 8.1 worked. You could search stuff and it'd find it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Preferring vista over 7 is a take. Vista wasn’t bad at its end of life … but idk about Vista over 7 I preferred 8 over 7 from day one, but I was used to that style of app screen from Linux already so it was an improvement for me instead of a wild workflow change permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago To me, 7 felt like a reskin of Vista with features removed. The features people complained about in Vista where in 7. I think the departure from XP is what was rough, in part because of the jump in security and in ressource usage. But by the time 7 came out, people had sold the old familly room computer and got a newer machine that could handle the additional load. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Preferring vista over 7 is a take. Vista wasn’t bad at its end of life … but idk about Vista over 7 I preferred 8 over 7 from day one, but I was used to that style of app screen from Linux already so it was an improvement for me instead of a wild workflow change permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago To me, 7 felt like a reskin of Vista with features removed. The features people complained about in Vista where in 7. I think the departure from XP is what was rough, in part because of the jump in security and in ressource usage. But by the time 7 came out, people had sold the old familly room computer and got a newer machine that could handle the additional load. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago To me, 7 felt like a reskin of Vista with features removed. The features people complained about in Vista where in 7. I think the departure from XP is what was rough, in part because of the jump in security and in ressource usage. But by the time 7 came out, people had sold the old familly room computer and got a newer machine that could handle the additional load. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago 7 was all the average user could ever want. Snappy operations, simple and easy to navigate settings, light memory overhead, and a really nice aesthetic. Too bad we couldn't just update the backend stuff indefinitely so now we have a bloated, AI fueled privacy nightmare with a shitty bottom middle start menu with Windows 11. permalink fedilink source parent