You try 1000 variations in alpha/beta stage, not 2 months before the RTM. But, as usual, they prefer to sell a system that is a beta and eventually ffix it in the next release Win 2k and ME were the beta of XP Vista was the beta of 7 Win 8X was the beta of W10
how i rate each windows i've used windows 3.1 / 3.11 = good, the odd general protection fault here and there but dos was king. windows 95 = ok, stuff worked. dos still king. windows 98 = buggy, so many blue screens and explorer errors. games ran ok (dos) windows 98 se = better than 98, more stable. windows me = trash, bye bye real dos. windows 2000 = stable, great windows xp = great but did have some issues, hello dosbox. windows vista = uac sucks, signs of bloating, hello sexy ui. windows 7 = uac sucks, more bloat, best os since xp in regards to performance and games windows 8 = garbage at launch, appx, metro trash, start menu? goodbye sexy ui. my desktop now runs like a tablet / phone. windows 8.1 = still crappy like 8 but more stable, few more trash apps on the rubbish start screen. windows 10 = better than 8.x but even more bloat, apps and a crappy new start menu which lacked all the customisation of the 7 menu. windows 10 new builds > more bloat, more apps, more extra features, more bugs with each build. core os stable but lots of broken stuff in various updates (mostly the crappy appx / uwp stuff) stop breaking sh*t! windows 11 = not rtm but is pretty crappy right now, downgrade from 10 in terms of ux. it's been a rocky journey for us pc users. still waiting for windows to turn good again, maybe by 12 or whatever number they skip to after 11, the os will be awesome again. after lying about 10 being the final, you just know they will do another after 11, they can't help themselves. i don't think it's about trying something new, at this point they are just lifting ideas from other software and making it sound fresh and new for windows, when we've seen it before, somewhere else. 4th modern os since 7 and they still can't make a feature complete start menu and the settings app, wtf? how have they managed to make the app look even more crappy than the 10 version? it's now more compact but everything is different...it was bad enough in 10 trying to put all the control panel stuff there as well as a host of other "extra settings" for privacy and other junk. now it's all re-organised and looks like the control panel on an android phone. for my install of windows 10 on a few pc's here at home, i've had to gather together various bits of software to keep things nice and usable. i.e. looking like a mix between windows xp & 7. as close as possible as they were my favourite windows os's and i'm used to. i've hated upgrading but it had to be done to stay up-to-date with stuff. list of stuff; - oldnewexplorer - to make explorer windows look better, more classic - taskbow - for classic taskbar item right click menu and close option - quick launch on taskbar - open shell menu with one of the best w7 skins w/ taskbar skin too (default blue colours) - default w7 wallpaper - replacement network activity tray icon with w7 icon - t-clock for old style clock flyout - various additions to control panel, old items restored plus extra useful stuff - dosbox with w3.11 - winxshell as a shell alternative (not used as primary, waiting for it to get better) - volume2 (replacement volume tray icon for when the windows one is finally turned crap) - eject usb replacement apps for when the windows one is ruined. - replacement apps for all the stuff in the settings apps (display settings, personalize) it's a huge a*s list but it's all the stuff i need to keep windows how i like it and not how ms wants it to be. not thrilled about windows 11, will just mean more customisation but will continue to follow it's progress.
Mostly agree But win2k was really awful when it was released just like Vista. Win2k become usable with service packs, but when that happened XP was already a thing (XP is just 1.5 years younger than its beta win2k) For some reason people, when referring to old OSes always think to W2KSP4 which was OK, and Vista SP0 which was totally crap and not to W2Ksp0 (which was crap) and Vista SP2+ which was (and is) a good OS
i used server 2008 beta in the vista age loved it very much now im on server 2016 and wanting to upgrade to server 2022 or win11 but the hyper-v is too secure, any modding will break it
yeah i guess i can agree, service packs have always made windows releases better. i wish we had those instead of whole new builds of windows. all that results in is ms constantly breaking sutff. i don't care for hyper-v, i just use virtualbox as it's portable. i disable / uninstall the hyper-v packages, more bloat i don't need.
i run as-ssd on vmware and hyper-v placed on ramdisk hyper-v comes first however checkpoint management is bad
Server 2008 was (and IS) way less bloated than Vista. it lacked also most of the endless intensive disk task that plagued Vista SP0 That's why I still use (and suggest to use) "Web Server2008" which is practically Vista which lacks either the client bloat and all the server roles except IIS (which is included in Vista anyway), it was also supported for more time than Vista.
for what uses? gaming VMs ? everything can work on this today ? i also used the web edition that time btw i tried to make vista beta / longhorn work on hyper-v couldnt :X it would be nice to see the OS between xp and vista what bloat was added or didnt
Hyper-V isn't exactly a competitor of VBX or VMware although they overlaps in many areas. You can do things with Hyper-V which are complicate or impossible on VBX/VMware and viceversa. The good news is that vbx and hyper-v can coexist since 1803. VMware and HV can coexist since Vmware 15.5.5 and windows 2004 That's a relative advantage given Hyper-V is included in any x64 windows since win8
I use it natively (in my mutiblpe boot machines), it's practically one of the smallest footprint OS MS ever produced (the x86 ISO is 1.7GB or so), Perhaps can be used proficiently given there are still supported browsers (MyPal for example), Kodi works well, MPC-HC works well, Vmware 10 and VBX 5.44 both works well on X86
bloat-less is more gonna play with in hyper-v Code: Index : 3 Name : Windows Server 2008 Datacenter (Full Installation) Description : This option installs the complete installation of Windows Server. This installation includes the entire user interface, and it supports all of the server roles. Size : 6,410,423,879 bytes
I forgot to say that an x86 Webserver 2008 can see natively 4GB of ram (if you need more you can use PAEPatch) x86 Datacenter and Enterprise can see natively 64GB
As far as 7/Vista UI and later versions of Windows: there is disagreement about themes, visual styles, general UI design and people (including myself) get passionate about that. Some like transparency, some don't. Some like sharp corners, some rounded. Etc. Win7 did allow you to use basic themes (non-aero) which were very light on resources and good for those who didn't like transparency, etc. Besides this, extensive visual style modding was possible, allowing for everything from sharp corners, rounded, slightly rounded, transparent or opaque, etc. And not in a botched way that would bluescreen or have undesirable side-effects or limited function. Almost anything could be done with the UI and in a way that didn't put a load on system resources. So there is a difference between what MS provides as default themes and having to live with that (due to lack of options and modding ability) and having a UI you don't quite like but that you can change almost infinitely. In this regard (one that counts!) Win7 UI was better in every way than Win10 for example. I don't think we'll ever see another MS OS that will allow us that much freedom to mod the UI as was possible with Win7, which just means that what do they decide to provide will be largely what we'll have to live with. I'm glad they took the translucency lessons to heart, realizing this naturally evokes the experience of depth in a UI (so important because it's basically a 2D flat surface you're looking at). For now, title bars on apps (not explorer windows themselves) are entirely opaque and will probably stay that way for now. Explorer top bar is now slightly translucent -- actually if someone didn't tell me about it I may not have noticed, it is so slight. I can't really foresee anyone who likes opacity having a problem with that level of translucency tbh Options provided by MS will, as always, be welcome (and will probably be lacking). I do hope that the explorer translucency means that we will be able to weak the level of translucency via mods and tweaks, either making it entirely opaque or more transparent. For now, having explorer slightly translucent and following the dark/light color scheme, but then opening an app that has a purple title bar because that's the accent color, is pretty damn ugly. They should really extend the explorer "title bar" (I guess it's not really called that anymore for explorer) to the app title bars for consistency.
@parafer A good and sane aesthetics are obviously appreciated, but ergonomics and functionalities should come first. Stupid example you want to know the network status on XP you need two muose clicks. In vista SP0 you neded something like 7/8 more steps + UAC confirmation on each step. Win 7/ Win 10 Anniversary improved this but XP way is still better. Since 1703 things started to get worse again because you have to fight with the new stupid Ssettings thing instead of the good control panel items. Good look, themable things, ton of functionality and simplicity aren't mutually exclusive (look at Opera 12 or Vivaldi for example) but seem that MS forgot that after the XP era. Using an OS with a sleek GUI that lacks functionality is like going out with a bombshell pinup that comes with a chicken sized brain.
Of course, but then again the new right-click desktop context menu overlay I don't think is intended as aesthetics by MS, I think they really believe it simplifies access to various oft-needed functions and tries to make it coherent with new explorer. Of course, they're wrong I do see what they're trying to do and it may be good for certain users, but like I said, without it being optional or customizable it becomes a matter of having to click twice to gain access to the functions you could get to beforehand with one click. And burying things deeper that power users use daily is not excusable. I also don't see how their own programmers can live with that... anyone who needs to be productive will hate reduced accessibility. The start menu, etc., I'm not too worried about since there will definitely be solutions for those. I did find a way to add cascading context menu to This PC (and Recycle Bin as a side-effect ) so that will work for certain things. I always install a custom "System Tools" cascading context menu to desktop so I can have quick access to various Windows utils and some added ones like Autoruns; I also added some extra signout/restart/shutdown context menus and some other functions. So yeah, when they blocked direct access to the desktop right-click menu, that is just inexcusable Besides these glaring things I don't see a strong case for UI over function that Win10 already didn't mess up -- and it wasn't due to glam UI, just sucky UI
Yep they are triyng th have a relevant (and not bloated) actions menu that intelligently adds items as needed.but given MS isn't apple and can't force every developer to update their apps, is not going to work (or will start working when the nxt Windows wil broke something else. For now the effect is the same You have in Linux when you use a KDE app on a Gnome desktop each one managing its own menus. I'm not worried as well. but MS should. The existence of Classic Shell or Startisback is not an excuse to put there a downgraded Stert menu. The existence of AMM is not an excuse to idiotify the taskbar. The Modern Settings is unforgivable. Is not possible that they haven't made it right in a decade. I can understand that W8 had it half backed but not W11. Comeon! We aren't talking about Joe the plumber that in his spare time writes some code as hobby, we are talking of one of the biggest SW company in the world with 160,000 employers!