Nowadays Windows is filled with adware and is fairly slow, but it wasn’t always like this. Was there a particular time where a change occurred?
Windows 2000 was the peak - rock solid with no visual fluff. XP was 2000 with a childish skin on it and it’s all downhill from there.
I’ve always believed that 2k was the best software they ever produced.
Nah, that would surely be a game or something. Maybe Age of Empires II?
Oh man that was one of the few windows distros I never felt too compelled to reinstall. Perf just never degraded that much with a reasonably defragged drive (jesus I am dating myself with that statement)
I remember all the nicknames from when XP came out. I don’t remember which was more common; disco windows, or teletubby windows.
In my neck of the woods it was called fisher price windows lol
I gamed on Win2k until I couldn’t anymore because of requirements. It was excellent.
I eventually ended up on XP, and the first thing I did was shut off the Fisher Price skin. It still never ran quite as good as Win2k.
Windows 10 was initially developed to stop the very negative reaction to Windows 8. Around that time, it became clear to Microsoft that they weren’t going to profit on Windows itself any more and the future was in the cloud.
Windows did a lot of underhanded things to keep people updating Windows and Office before, but it wasn’t trying to sell services as a way to keep the company up and running.
weren’t going to profit as much*
Their objectives went south around windows 8.
They screwed up execution before, certainly, and in never was a huge fan, but they were at least trying to make what they sincerely thought was a intrinsically good desktop experience until 8.
Windows 8 was when they had the fear of Android and iOS and the Microsoft phone os was failing on its own, so the mission for Windows 8 was to throw the desktop user experience under the bus for the sake of trying to bolster the phone platform, and maybe make PCs that were tablet like. Also seeing Apple and Google succeed with Internet account based access to the devices was a motivation to get people into an online ecosystem that would have the way to indefinite monthly payments and an app store where they could take a cut off all the application vendors’ revenue.
The whole saga with the Metro UI is sad to me too, in retrospect I like that some big player was doing something entirely different to Android and iOS.
The touch gestures and animations on Metro UI IMO still are the smoothest and nicest I’ve seen.
I feel (probably mistakenly) that if they didn’t barge the mobile UI into desktops, that it would’ve benefitted both Windows 8 and Windows Phone. Still have that flat design for the brand consistency but a more sane start menu.
Not to mention that Win8 itself (in my experience) was the best performing Windows for modern PCs, it had a lot of minor optimisations and not as much bloat as Win10. I daily drove it until the support date completely ended for it, but with OpenShell of course.
The literal entirety of the retail market across the planet has a concept called a “loss leader”. You take a monetary hit on Product A with the expectation that people will come in for that AND by virtue of the service being readily available, also buy Product B, C, D, etc. I imagine, if done with minimal intrusiveness, Microsoft could easily do the same with Windows.
On paper as a concept it works. I’m not sure I’m savvy enough to understand the actual issues though.
They employ a lot of this strategy (the ads, the ‘subscribe to Microsoft 365 today’ ‘your computer is at risk to ransomware because you aren’t paying us for onedrive’). Except the “loss” part. In fact, I think it’s rare nowadays to find a “loss” leader, they seem to have settled around at worst “barely profitable” in business. Too many loss leaders had pretty terrible business outcomes, so it seems to be an unpopular thing to expose your business the risk of going negative margin at any significant scale. Like this disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Opener
I must be behind. I’ve been under the impression that pulling people in on a minor loss meant greater margins. Perhaps COVID had a significant adverse impact on that as well.
Even before covid, I think companies got a bit skiddish about actually going negative. Probably still do on little things, but I think Microsoft at least makes Windows pay for itself while also using it as you would use a loss leader.
I think there are two eras that have some overlap:
-
Microsoft developed new versions of Windows to be more compelling by adding features, capabilities, new hardware compatibility, etc. I think this was the main era they were in from the inception of Windows to somewehere in the XP-Vista-7 era, and fully ended a couple years into Win 10.
-
Microsoft developed new versions of Windows mainly as spyware to extract data from and about users to exploit themselves or sell to other parties. I believe this started late in the Win 7 era and really took off mid-Win 10 and is continuing to escalate.
Note: I don’t think they ever really cared about their users needs or wants, because their main business strategy has always been elimination of competition as much as the law would allow. No one asked for the caramel pepperoni milkshake that was Win 8’s half desktop half tablet UI, they incorrectly thought they could horn in on the iPad market if they half assed it just enough. Most of Win 10’s history has been “Microsoft is going all in on [trendy bullshit]!” 6 months later “Microsoft is ripping out all support for [trendy bullshit].” Their inferior voice assistant, 3D, AR, AI, all this stupid crap no one wants. Microsoft’s attempts at anticipating what users want in a computer platform began and ended with Microsoft Bob.
-
When it became more profitable for them to develop it to be shit
Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0) was the last great version of windows. It was fucking fantastic.
I’ve also heard great things about Windows server 2008, but I had departed from the entire Microsoft sphere years before that.
*nix4Lyf!
Not really slower, just more shit going on under the hood than ever before. Considering all of the novel ways to attack the operating system, the ubiquity and level of integration of computing in everything, the OS is a much higher value target than it used to be back in the days of Xp-7. However, MS has introduced numerous security features and significantly improved the built in AV. 10/11 is a hell of a lot more secure, but there is a performance cost to that. That and the software we run on top of it has only gotten more resource hungry and complex as well. There are also things that you might hate but are worlds better than they used to be. Updates are a lot faster, support automatic rollback and are practically flawless compared to the broken mess they used to be. We now have things that were never possible before, like first party tools to convert a MBR/BIOS-boot system to UEFI boot.
I’ll concede the point about service advertisements, however depending on the edition that is suppressable. MS is not alone in its sinful capitalism however, MacOS is full of stuff like that too, they’re just sneakier/more subtle about it. MS will have you griping about their promoted services or apps; Apple will have you licking their boots and not realizing it because you’ve deluded yourself. The only operating systems that are really free are the ones no company fully owns. I work with multiple different operating systems in an IT job, and the notion that it is acceptable to run old versions of Windows in this day and age or that they were objectively better is just nostalgic horseshit. It was always a corporate product, you’re just chafing against that now.
You know what’s also good “built in AV”? Good design with code that’s open to review. There’s not nearly as much performance cost to good security if you start from a good foundation. Saying windows is slower because it’s doing more security and more anti-virus is like saying I only run slow because I trip over my own feet. Like, no shit, but that’s no excuse.
And singing the praises of updates and rollback systems that are like a decade behind everything else and still a consistent pain point for users is a little bit of weird fanboyism too.
I wouldn’t say the updates are ‘like a decade behind everything else’. Like most things in software, there’s a really broad array of what is available from really bad to really good and a lot of things are in between. If we’re comparing major OS architectures in terms of market share, then we’re comparing what, 6 things? Anyway. I’m a fan first of the ideologies and designs present in the linux/BSD world but I’m not willing to overgeneralize the difficulty of what has been achieved in other corners…and I guess mostly I’m sick of ignorant people saying “XP is the best, why can’t I use it on my institutional device”. My point about how the updates are actually good now was about pointing at the stupidity of thinking that the older versions were better when they quite clearly were not. It’s not as simple as “oh the old stuff was so much better than now”. That’s reductivist thinking that doesn’t even try to understand the massive complexity of the problems of computing and software development today. We are constantly increasing the amount of overhead that we are putting into our software, and people are wondering why things are not just endlessly getting faster when we’re improving the hardware year over year. It’s like folks complaining about the idea of “planned obsolecence” when that obsolescence is a consequence of all the additional shit that you are requiring a computer to do. I’m not just talking about one vendor here, or one operating system, I’m just tired of these kinds of statements with so little thought behind them.
Massive overhead for no reason is what “slower” means.
Linux has better security and even heavy distros don’t come anywhere close to being the massive resource hog Windows is. For “features” that downgrade the experience.
I dunno, but it might have something to do with external factors. Like, once upon a time Microsoft was sued by the US government under anti-trust laws for bundling a web browser in their operating system. Now MS force their users to experience unavoidable advertising when they try to use their own computers, and there’s not a peep from regulators.
Yeah cause showing people ads is not anti-competitive
showing people ads is not anti-competitive
Sure. Sort of. But this isn’t about competition per se, it’s about abuse of an already dominant market position.
The ultimate purpose of ensuring competitive markets wherever possible is to protect and benefit consumers. Since firms that dominate their markets tend abuse that position to price-gouge or reduce the quality of their products without fear that their customers will go elsewhere – because they can’t – foiling anti-competitive practices is part of that consumer protection mandate – but only part. Preventing harm being done to consumers by market-dominating firms once they’ve attained that position is another part.
The fact that Microsoft has so many of their users captive (because their job makes them use Windows, or because it runs software they can’t get elsewhere, etc.) and is now forcing exposure to advertising upon them should run afoul of the consumer protection goals of anti-trust law.
The fact that they were once brought to heel just for bundling a browser that you could completely ignore with Windows, and yet face no regulatory blowback from literally forcing their captive audience to view advertising is what irritates me to no end.
„Shoving ads down people’s throats“ - ftfy
They hated him because he told them the truth.
They must’ve stopped with Windows 11 because I’m still on Windows 10 Pro and don’t see even a fraction of the BS I keep hearing about Windows having.
I think they tried on 8 to make something and it was a flop then they flipped their whole business model upside down when they released 10
I’m on 11 and don’t see it either because I turned it off a long time ago and it has yet to turn back on, ever.
From the very beginning, it always had particular features which were designed to make things worse for the users for some business reason for Microsoft. After XP, though, the work in the core OS was basically done - it wasn’t slow or lacking important features or unstable (relatively speaking, at least), and so the only changes being made to it from then on were adding crappiness to it for some reason related to business priorities or just simple stupidity. And so, it entered its slide.
After XP, though, the work in the core OS was basically done
There were a lot of big things happening in computer hardware: migration to 64-bit instruction sets and memory addressing, multicore processors, the rise of the GPU. The security paradigm also shifted to less trust between programs, with a lot of implementation details on encryption and permissions.
So I’d argue that Windows has some pretty different things going on under the hood from what it was 20 years ago.
Windows 7 was the last one. Windows 10 is usable, but it was created with advertising in mind.
windows 8 is a strong candidate, because that was their huge push into trying to remodel the OS in the image of mobile OSes. you had to perform quite the exorcism to get it functional. i skipped Vista so I’m not the best source on this but my understanding is that the issue with Vista is less that it was loaded with dark patterns and trying to be a walled garden and more just an unfortunate time to be an OS with the technology and security landscapes changing.
of course, while the base OS wasn’t necessarily always the problem, Microsoft has anti-competitive practices going back even further and you could argue Windows stopped being good when MS started bundling Internet Explorer with it, so it all depends where you draw the line. might be safest to say their last truly good OS was MSX-DOS just because they abandoned it before they could do anything scummy
Best home screen ever
To be honest I’d go as far back as XP and say that was fine, 7 was also but I’ve never liked the start menu etc since and the forced updates really just wind me up.
Probably when the MBAs appeared at their offices.
It’s never been great
If you just want opinions then I would say Windows 7.
It was excellent.
By Windows 10, though, they had moved to tiles and there were influences from tablets and mobile on the main OS, which was still terrible on those devices.
And it’s been downhill since then.
