The update will install much faster than 24H2.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 year ago (10 children)

They can't even get 11 to work, why not start talking about 12!!

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'm losing track, but don't they usually go good, bad, good, bad?

    98 good, m.e. bad, xp good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad, so maybe 12 good?

    Obviously I'm over simplifying and I skipped over 2000. But at least since 98 I feel like the trend has been pretty reliable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    2000 was marketed as business and server only, like NT before it. On the IT side of things, 2000 was rock solid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Consumers knew about 2000 because Me was such dogshit regular people started using 2000 despite the drawbacks.

    Most consumers didn’t know or care about Windows NT, or Windows 2003, 2008, and so on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    For me, the ability to move your taskbar to the sides of the screen. I use an ultrawide, and have plenty of horizontal space to spare, but very little vertical.

    It’s a ridiculous regression, that only exists because MS engineers are too lazy to figure out how to put all their new taskbar junk like copilot, weather, news, etc. in a vertical setting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)