|
I find this thread hilarious at present. In the IT community, Windows is regarded as a game of leap frog. Every even release is crap, every odd one is ...tolerable, as features are added in the even releases while problems are fixed in the odd ones. Leaving out NT and 2000 which were business OSes designed for servers and not ome/personal computers, it went like so:
Windows 3.0 - much more powerful than previously but very problematic
Windows 3.11 - problems are mostly if not all nailed down
Windows 95 - reinvented, loads of new features, many badly implemented
Windows 98/98SE - about as perfect as a graphical OS could be without making it into a serious Unix-like OS.
Windows ME - loads of new features with absolutely no purpose, it was like MS got lost in play toys instead of serious OS development
Windows XP - this is where NT/2000 basically got merged with the home/home office OS, making Windows a serious operating system for the first time. People still use this as a lot of the features of newer OSes are seen as unnecessary by hardcore users.
Windows Vista - lots of eye candy and lots of under-the-hood stuff, much of which didn't work very well until you got your hands dirty messing with its internals, often with the help of third party programs and utilities.
Windows 7 - fixed most of the Vista problems and is considered a "more advanced" XP. Very clean and doesn't have the few limitations that XP does, which let a lot of die0hard XP lovers/Vista haters to justify upgradding.
Windows 8 - once again MS went for eye candy and simplified user interface crap to make it more "accessible" for non-computer users, and did very little for IT, geeks, gamers and other serious computer users. Made a lot of casual computer users/Facebook junkies/smart phone users happy but a huge majority of current Windows users refused to adopt it. 8.1 is a dubious improvement but a lot of people are waiting to see if 9 will continue the trend of odd numbered versions of Windows being worthwhile.
|