[ssl-3]

Man. I remember people saying the same thing about Windows for Workgroups 3.11, before they eventually moved into the Windows 95/98 era, abandoned Windows (or computing in general) altogether, or died or something.

Then, the same thing happened with Windows 98SE.

And Windows 2000.

And Windows XP.

And...

[RetroTechie]

Those were actual upgrades, though.

According to many, Windows UI/UX peaked in the Win2k/XP/Win7 era.

Among those, significant improvements: memory management, new/more stable drivers, 64-bit support, better use of multi-core cpu's, etc.

But since then: increased telem.. ehm, spying. Pushing ads everywhere. Mostly pointless UI overhauls again & again for little end-user benefit. If any.

It's sad that giants like MS seem so hell-bent on enshittifying their flagship products. Just imagine what could have been if MS had kept supporting, improving internals, and adding drivers to the 'oldie' OSes mentioned above. Or stick to minor upgrades leaving OS look & feel intact.

Sure there's tech limitations. But I dare you: name some application(s) that would be impossible on say, Win7 due to fundamental issues in its design (assuming MS & app developer were both on board to smooth out wrinkles). Anyone?

[simonblack]

Remember the days of Mini-Microsoft? They were a group who tried to improve Microsoft from the inside. They weren't successful.

I once tried to convince them that Microsoft should 'do an Apple' by using Linux under the hood the same way that Apple used BSD under the hood.

That would free up a lot of the programming workload of Windows by putting it onto the Linux community, and allow Microsoft to concentrate on the Windows Desktop alone, the same way that Apple concentrated on the Apple Desktop while leaving BSD to the BSDers.

I still believe this would be a win-win for Microsoft and its users alike.

However, Microsoft has always been about the Benjamins, and not about good things for its users.

[BirAdam]

Heresy. 2K was never a bad choice.

lol. J/k

For real tho, every Windows version after 3.x was bad at first. Then people moved, and then the next one was worse.

[rnd0]

Except for Vista. People hated vista but everyone I encountered seemed to love the next one ...windows 7.

(I liked the look of Vista, and it ran OK on my machine; but I still went with 7)

[ssl-3]

I was doing a fair bit of freelance support when Vista came out, so I actually bought a retail copy of it (from a real store, in a box, with a disc!) to install and to use, so that I might actually understand it enough to feel right with charging Real Money to support it semi-efficiently.

It was my experience that it was mostly fine. It had teething problems, as many things do. It had lasting quirks that were frustrating.

But generally, it worked well enough for me -- given other options. I never once said to myself "Self, this particular version of Windows is repugnant and filthy, and I want to go back to Windows XP now!!!"

(...because, as any Win2k fanboy would heartily remind anyone at the least-significent mention: Windows XP was a Skittles-colored turd. But Win2k was really old in computer-years by the time Vista came 'round, so that wasn't very viable either.)