If this is indeed windows 11 my guess its is a tweener OS kind of like win 98 SE was to XP. Simply put a way to cash in before the dive in to the data harvesting subscription model they have been salivating over a long time. When that happens a lot of long time users may find a different alternative and leave.
[Leaked] Windows 11 info
- Thread starter uc50ic4more
- Start date
Amen!
It has been about 40 years....
Surely this will help Microsoft who lost a significant amount of the large enterprise market to MacOS last year (Mac jumped from 17% market penetration in 2019 to 23% in 2020). I hear that end users and tier 1 support loves arbitrary UI changes…
Reminds me of Codename Longhorn when the betas for the upcoming Windows Vista OS came out. Built a high-spec'd computer to run the resource intensive OS with it's eye candy and fancy animations. What a rolling dumpster of an OS that is. Took two service packs to fix up the OS and much user intervention to get it running smooth.
Last edited:
As a user, I too "love" those arbitrary UI changes. I used to use Quicken for my finances, until they forced you "upgrade" every 2 or 3 years to maintain functionality. Not a fan of subscription software, but that would have been preferable than having to install a new version with buttons and menus moved around for no reason. I think some software managers like to make changes to the product just for change sake.
As for w11, I guess they have long scrapped the new file system that was rumored years ago?
Changing GUI constantly keeps software people employed, and users pissed off.
User Interfaces keep changing because we are still at the very beginning of the infancy of the Information Age. Think of where mechanized industry sat in 1860 - and maybe reflect that to this day automobiles routinely (read: yearly) "update" disruptively with additions, improvements and sometimes frustrating alterations.
If you want stable (as in "doesn't crash" as well as in "doesn't change") and secure and private and easy, use a Linux distribution made for those purposes (Any one of the handful of RHEL clones, maybe Debian Stable, maybe Ubuntu LTS) and you'll have years and years of blissful UI boredom.
If you want stable (as in "doesn't crash" as well as in "doesn't change") and secure and private and easy, use a Linux distribution made for those purposes (Any one of the handful of RHEL clones, maybe Debian Stable, maybe Ubuntu LTS) and you'll have years and years of blissful UI boredom.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Experience the Power of Windows 11 OS, Computers, & Apps
Explore the versatility of Microsoft’s Windows 11 operating system. Find out how our latest Windows OS gives you more ways to work, play, and create.
www.microsoft.com
I can already hear my poor Intel GPU screaming in agony!MacOS hasn't changed much either and I can still play WoT on it
MS seems to make every other OS awful… as far back as I can remember, XP was good, Vista broke everything, W7 was excellent, W8 was absolute trash, W10 was an improvement over 8 (I use that loosely though)…
I use both OSX and Win 10(Parallels) same computer and enjoy both. Look forward to Win11
That being said 1/4 my day is spent in a terminal window .
That being said 1/4 my day is spent in a terminal window .
To be fair OSX does that too and that's why they mandate a mid to high end GPU to even run an OS doing nothing more than eye candies.
Yup, every other release, seems like the first time they come out with a new one they are buggy, then a cleanup of the bad stuff, then they come out with a new one that broke other stuff, then they fix them, again and again.
95 was near-unusable, 98 was productive, Windows ME was... I don't even know what that was, 2000 was productive and so was XP. The 2000 -> XP progression was the only time they seem to have deviated from their "get it wrong, then get it right" pattern. Vista was worse-than-useless, 7 was productive, 8 was pointless, 10 is productive.
no, there was an 8.1 j/k They needed another chance to get their wrongheadedness perfect.
Just remember, @ Microsoft Quality is Job 1.1
Windows 11 Specs and System Requirements | Microsoft
Find an overview of Windows 11 specs and features from Microsoft. Learn about the device specifications, versions and languages available for Windows 11
www.microsoft.com
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You missed a few there
3.0 was... interesting. This was improved significantly with 3.1 and then 3.11 (WFWG) was the best of the 16-bit family.
NT 3.5 was significantly better though, but less usable.
Windows 95 was also VERY buggy, their first foray into a 32-bit shell on top of a 16-bit subsystem (DOS). Most of this was fixed with Windows 95B.
Windows NT 4 was basically the 95 GUI on top of the NT subsystem (32-bit) already developed for NT 3.5x and was also VERY stable but again, had limited support for a lot of applications, in particular games.
Windows 98 was also VERY buggy (I was on the beta team) and it was no surprise that we ended up with a revised version, Windows 98SE, which, like with 95B, fixed most of these issues.
Windows ME was a complete disaster. They were already working on the GUI for Windows 2000 and so they basically took Windows 98, slapped a whole pile of features they had planned for Win2K onto it along with the GUI and never bothered making it right.
Windows 2000 - the first commercial-geared NT-based OS. I have some of the Alpha and beta builds here still somewhere when it was still called NT 5. By this time apps were actually getting designed for the NT OS's, so it was a very good replacement for Windows 98SE if you wisely skipped ME.
Windows XP - basically a GUI and subsystem upgrade to Windows 2000 with more DirectX support with a focus on improving gaming performance and making the OS more attractive. It was excellent.
Windows Longhorn (Vista) - What was supposed to be Windows 7 was delayed and features weren't ready, so, instead of delaying the release further, they cobbled together most of the finished features on top of an improved NT subsystem and released it as Vista. Their support for it was.... lacking. And pretty much disappeared when 7 arrived on scene.
Windows 7 - What Longhorn was supposed to be. One of MS's best OS's.
Windows 8 - They were working on what would eventually be the GUI for 10. The idea involved the use of tiles, which enabled a unified interface across all types of devices, which, at the time, put a focus on smartphones and tablets. Since the existing GUI's were wholly inappropriate for those two applications this "tile" driven interface was developed. It was, like 95 and 98, followed by an "improvement" release in the form of Windows 8.1.
Windows 10 - Where we are at currently. Huge public beta, and this new philosophy of periodically rolling out all new builds of the product has been very interesting, and very difficult for systems admins and software developers, as some of these builds break applications. So, unlike with previous updates where the core OS remained pretty much unchanged, these build updates introduce huge changes; basically a whole new OS. It's a moving target, and that has put increased pressure on systems teams for testing and hold-backs.
I'm sure I've missed some bits, but I remember most of my early OS experience history pretty vividly
You missed a few there
3.0 was... interesting. This was improved significantly with 3.1 and then 3.11 (WFWG) was the best of the 16-bit family.
NT 3.5 was significantly better though, but less usable.
Windows 95 was also VERY buggy, their first foray into a 32-bit shell on top of a 16-bit subsystem (DOS). Most of this was fixed with Windows 95B.
Windows NT 4 was basically the 95 GUI on top of the NT subsystem (32-bit) already developed for NT 3.5x and was also VERY stable but again, had limited support for a lot of applications, in particular games.
Windows 98 was also VERY buggy (I was on the beta team) and it was no surprise that we ended up with a revised version, Windows 98SE, which, like with 95B, fixed most of these issues.
Windows ME was a complete disaster. They were already working on the GUI for Windows 2000 and so they basically took Windows 98, slapped a whole pile of features they had planned for Win2K onto it along with the GUI and never bothered making it right.
Windows 2000 - the first commercial-geared NT-based OS. I have some of the Alpha and beta builds here still somewhere when it was still called NT 5. By this time apps were actually getting designed for the NT OS's, so it was a very good replacement for Windows 98SE if you wisely skipped ME.
Windows XP - basically a GUI and subsystem upgrade to Windows 2000 with more DirectX support with a focus on improving gaming performance and making the OS more attractive. It was excellent.
Windows Longhorn (Vista) - What was supposed to be Windows 7 was delayed and features weren't ready, so, instead of delaying the release further, they cobbled together most of the finished features on top of an improved NT subsystem and released it as Vista. Their support for it was.... lacking. And pretty much disappeared when 7 arrived on scene.
Windows 7 - What Longhorn was supposed to be. One of MS's best OS's.
Windows 8 - They were working on what would eventually be the GUI for 10. The idea involved the use of tiles, which enabled a unified interface across all types of devices, which, at the time, put a focus on smartphones and tablets. Since the existing GUI's were wholly inappropriate for those two applications this "tile" driven interface was developed. It was, like 95 and 98, followed by an "improvement" release in the form of Windows 8.1.
Windows 10 - Where we are at currently. Huge public beta, and this new philosophy of periodically rolling out all new builds of the product has been very interesting, and very difficult for systems admins and software developers, as some of these builds break applications. So, unlike with previous updates where the core OS remained pretty much unchanged, these build updates introduce huge changes; basically a whole new OS. It's a moving target, and that has put increased pressure on systems teams for testing and hold-backs.
I'm sure I've missed some bits, but I remember most of my early OS experience history pretty vividly
Now hold on a second, your nuke plants are not going to have the track record of your OS right?
I think if they don't care for backward compatibility Windows could have been more stable although also not as useful. This of course isn't a big issue today with all those web based apps and games remaster / remake, but back then it was a big deal. Steve Jobs was wise abandoning the old ship and go into fashion business instead of chasing the enterprise business like PC did, mandating backward compatibility.
When Windows start those driver signing and certification program a lot of the stability problem got cleaned up, and many older hardware support got dropped. Creative Lab pretty much threw in the towel and I end up with a bunch of old hardwares trashed despite perfectly functional (Dell laptop's webcam, SoundBlaster Live that was still useful in an old PC updated to Windows 7, some USB3 VGA display adapter, etc).
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, they were an unfortunate casualty of the WHQL process, but there were some pretty good aftermarket drivers produced for the emu10k stuff.
I have a lot of old Creative Labs hardware here too, I think I still have an SB 16 with the CD-ROM controller and all the jumpers for IRQ, MEM...etc.
Similar threads
