X-Received: by 2002:a37:a13:: with SMTP id 19mr7090334qkk.497.1632319388302;
        Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: ...!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.1.1
Subject: Re: windows iterations (was: Re: disk to VHD)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion
References: <si5gfm$q85$1@dont-email.me> <si5lqv$1c0$1@dont-email.me>
 <si5tnb$ih5$1@dont-email.me> <si7ao6.9rg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
 <si748l$ul6$2@dont-email.me> <si7og7.a0o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
 <iqp1quFn88dU1@mid.individual.net>
 <si83hd.6b4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <si9p9m$f4f$1@dont-email.me>
 <iqv9r1FtdtlU2@mid.individual.net> <oRua$xLUiyShFwLD@255soft.uk>
From: RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar>
In-Reply-To: <oRua$xLUiyShFwLD@255soft.uk>
Lines: 299
Message-ID: <vIG2J.15879$Im6.7503@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@blocknews.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:03:07 UTC
Organization: blocknews - www.blocknews.net
Bytes: 15596
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:03:06 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15192
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------jJgeEzr3u7DAzqk0C47glIP0"
Content-Language: en-CA
X-Original-Bytes: 15051

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------jJgeEzr3u7DAzqk0C47glIP0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2021-09-22 8:59 a.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> 
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than its 
>> predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm 
>> concerned, is version 7 to 8.
>>
> I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was 
> good) - though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you 
> sometimes have to consider minor variants to make it work):
>>
> (I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
> 3. - usable

I liked it but didn't see the point of the software at the time. Much of 
the good stuff was in DOS.

> 3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time

It allowed you to get onto the Internet so it was definitely good. It 
doesn't multitask well for some but I'm a "one application at a time" 
type of guy anyway so I didn't see the issues, even on my very outdated 
hardware at the time.

> 95 - first with the modern GUI; fair (poor at USB)

It was pretty good, especially with the Plus pack. However, the winnuke 
crap people used all the time showcased how vulnerable it was security-wise.

> 98 - fixed some of 95, but unfinished in some ways

I found it awful.

> 98SE - good (towards the end, let down by USB, though there was the - 
> third-party - universal USB driver)
My go-to OS until Windows 2000 came out.
> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its 
> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though 
> that's partly true of the '9xs)

Garbage in every way. Stability was clearly not the developers' concern 
at this point in time.

> XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back

You forgot 2000 which was stellar in every possible way. XP was an 
improvement on something that was already very excellent.

> Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come to 
> light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least 
> because user access control was rather vicious

I didn't see the issue, to be honest. I was part of the beta-testing 
process and found bugs to report on a daily basis. When they froze the 
code and released it to the public, I couldn't believe it: clearly, what 
I was running was nowhere near ready for the public. However, what the 
public DID get wasn't that bad as long as your hardware wasn't already 
outdated. Some features have since disappeared such as the animated 
wallpaper but it wasn't as bad as people say. Most people don't realize 
that 7 is basically just a re-released version of Vista.

> 7 - mostly liked, after initial resistance to any new variant

It was little more than an optimized version of Vista whose performance 
was close enough to XP that people didn't mind upgrading. I think that 
people are probably still holding onto it to this day since none of the 
newer stuff responds as quickly.

> 8 - mostly hated, mainly for the "tiles" interface (which was only the 
> default)
It was the same as 7 except for the absence of the Start button (you had 
to go to the lower-left corner instead). I understand what they tried to 
do with the tiles but a Start menu would have been better.
> 8.1 - fixed some of the worst aspects of 8, but still not very popular

Same as 8 except that the Start button re-appeared. I couldn't see any 
other improvements, personally.

> 10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning. Some 
> - probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike the 
> (without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
> Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot 
> different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.

Not bad but some of its issues are hard to ignore, notably how Bluetooth 
ceases to function for no good reason every so often, same as the 
wireless. The continued confusion between the new Settings panel and the 
old Control Panel drag it down as well.

> 11 - ?
>
> That's initially the "consumer" ones: the business area also had 
> NT3.51 (Windows 3.1 UI, roughly, but more robust - but rather stark), 
> then NT4 ('9x/XP interface; generally considered better, but needed 
> more powerful hardware - many companies used 3.51 and 4 in parallel as 
> the 3.51 machines still had a lot of life left in them). The two 
> streams more or less merged at XP - though there were variants of all 
> versions aimed more at home (often called Home) and business (often 
> called Pro) from then on (as well as other versions - sometimes a very 
> minimal version aimed at the least hardware capable of running the 
> version at all, sometimes a version aimed at schools, sometimes a top 
> level version {sometimes called Ultimate}). [I haven't heard any 
> mention of variants of 11, but I'd be surprised if there aren't.]
>
> There, that should provoke lots of arguments (-: [Though that 
> wasn't/isn't my intention.]

I find 11 to be quite good so far, especially since the Bluetooth and 
wireless issues are mostly resolved. There is a lag in getting to the 
context menu but it doesn't ruin the overall experience. It's clearly 
better than 10, in my opinion, even in the beta stages.

-- 
@RabidHussar
Proud LibreOffice <http://www.libreoffice.org> & Thunderbird 
<http://www.thunderbird.net> donor
Supporter of independent journalism
John 15:18
--------------jJgeEzr3u7DAzqk0C47glIP0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-09-22 8:59 a.m., J. P. Gilliver
      (John) wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:oRua$xLUiyShFwLD@255soft.uk">On
      Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake
      <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ken@invalidemail.com"><ken@invalidemail.com></a> wrote (my responses usually follow
      points raised):
      <br>
      []
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">I almost always think each new version of
        Windows is better than its predecessor. The one flagrant
        counterexample, as far as I'm concerned, is version 7 to 8.
        <br>
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was
      good) - though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you
      sometimes have to consider minor variants to make it work):
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      (I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
      <br>
      3. - usable
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <p>I liked it but didn't see the point of the software at the time.
      Much of the good stuff was in DOS.<br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:oRua$xLUiyShFwLD@255soft.uk">3.1
      (and 3.11) - good for their time
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <p>It allowed you to get onto the Internet so it was definitely
      good. It doesn't multitask well for some but I'm a "one
      application at a time" type of guy anyway so I didn't see the
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========