this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
325 points (94.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26734 readers
1802 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 89 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I’ve always believed that 2k was the best software they ever produced.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

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)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's all been downhill since Windows 7. All versions of windows after 7 are just windows 7 with extra bloatware, garbage and Ads.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

It's true, if it was still supported I would downgrade from 10.

But it's not, I guess I'll have to shift my main computer to linux sooner or later. I am not enjoying the thought if I'm totally honest. I just want the change to be over and not have to live through the interregnum.

The old world is dying; the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's likely easier than you expect. Most Linux distros come with the ability to read and write to the same file system that Windows uses, so other partitions than your install partition can be carried over. This isn't ideal because the that FS has some issues, but it does function fine. I've still got a drive that's mostly media on that filesystem.

The biggest issue is if you depend heavily on particular pieces if software that don't have native Linux versions, though wine may be able to work around that and, if not, a virtual machine can likely handle it.

It's really not too big of an issue to switch. You've likely tinkered with Windows to make it not garbage than you'll have to do with Linux (though you have a lot of options to go further if you want).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (27 children)

Yesterday.

Yesterday I finally looked up how to manually add a program to the main menu on my Ubuntu machine.

There is no default way to do it. I did multiple searches for the information, which I couldn't get from reddit because the browser can't login for some reason that I haven't figured out yet. You either wrestle with massive configuration files, or you have to manually install a program called "Main Menu". That provides an interface which is completely bespoke to do what is effectively adding shortcuts into a folder structure.

So I went through the process of figuring out what this unaccountably bespoke, third party specialised application wanted from me before I could customise the items on the main menu of my own machine. After all that... it crashed. I tried again, and nothing happened. It just... wouldn't run the command any more.

I ended that travesty of an excursion into Linux's many mountains of madness by giving up. I still haven't added the shortcut. I decided I had actual work to do.

In Windows you do that by... adding shortcut files to a folder structure using a file explorer, literally the same way you manipulate files in every other context.

Every time someone tells me Linux is "easy" I have a new, fresh, utterly bonkers story of how impossible the entire experience is, because I am currently, actively trying. I have been trying Linux for 15 fucking years. Stop with the gaslighting. It is a nightmare.

15 years ago, I read all about how easy Linux is now:

https://slrpnk.net/comment/9790061

Nothing has fundamentally changed.

This is not a request for help. I do not want you to solve this current problem for me. I can do that myself. The problem is that these problems are neverending and people just cannot accept that it is a huge problem. Please, I beg you, open your eyes, acknowledge the issue, and stop lying.

load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Windows 7 exists, and there's no need to improve upon perfection. But there's no money in releasing nothing, so they release ad-filled "upgrades" to bring in more money from the doofuses who buy it.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, every UI change since 7 has been for the worse, increasing the number of steps required to get work done.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I heard someone refer to what happened from XP to 10 as "onioneering" because they just added layers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, 10's Settings screen makes dealing with wifi and bluetooth much easier than 7

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago

This is something Apple got right. OS X 10.0 was good and they’ve made lots of incremental changes but didn’t just arbitrarily change the whole “centered application dock at the bottom and menu bar at the top” situation. When new form factors emerged, they just made a new interface and didn’t try to hot glue a mouse/touchpad OS and touchscreen OS together for the fuck of it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Its been a gradual decline over many years. I'd say the tipping point was Microsoft Edge or Windows 10 itself - that's around the time the explicit attempts to "monetise" users started.

When Windows went "free" the focus became how to extract as much money per user all the time, so the advertising and edge based spying / data harvesting stepped up a gear.

Its not a surprise looking back - the drive for all these companies with stock holders is "growth". That really means growth in the share price which means growth in revenue or profits amongst other tricks. Everytime a new generation of managers comes through they scrape the barrel for ideas and things get worse and worse.

I only use windows at work now; I've migrated all my devices to Linux (desktpp, laptop, media PC)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Windows is far from being free. Buy a laptop, you also automatically buy a license for windows, typically about $100. Build your own computer, need to pay for a license as well. They just hide the cost a bit, but you still need to pay all the same.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I’m going to say Win8 & 8.1.

Say what you will about the UI, they did great work on the underlying kernel, file system and APIs. If they’d continued to refine it, it’d be damn near perfect.

They really started to lose the plot with 10; it kept a lot of what made 8 good (and steals a lot of goodwill from 8) but you can see the adware and telemetry start to creep in.

The next best I’d have to give to Vista, which also did some much needed revitalization, only to see 7 get the glory because Microsoft flubbed the hardware requirements and vendors were sloppy with drivers.

My favourite is NT3.5: full microkernel, no GDI in kernel space, no printer drivers in the kernel, less registry issues. We’d have skipped a lot of pain from the 90s and 2000s had Microsoft not went backwards with 9x and NT4.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

vendors were sloppy with drivers

Didn't they arbitrary remade the way drivers are packed and installed so old hardware would be rendered obsolete? I feel like many producers owe MS money for that one trick. Especially since office peripherals come to chipped tanks and subscription services after that, while old and reliable tech became unusable unless you mess with drivers for a while.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

Windows 7. Some may say 8.1 if they were willing to tolerate it, but most will agree that Win7 was the last “true” OS that wasn’t riddled with adware and telemetry collection.

Microsoft lost a lot of money on Win8 (and by extension, 8.1). That made them rethink their business model, and they shifted away from selling the OS. Instead, they gave the OS away and made money on the data collection. Because Win8 made them realize that the world didn’t want or need a new OS every other year.

It’s the same reason people don’t upgrade their cell phones every year anymore. At first, the hardware changes were meaningful, and you actually got large upgrades with every new iteration. You were noticeably behind if you had a phone that was two or three years old. But now that modern hardware design has slowed down, (and hardware changes are more akin to updates on existing hardware), people don’t feel like they’re behind if they put off upgrading for two or three years.

And this reluctance to upgrade hardware meant people and businesses weren’t constantly buying a new OS every year. So Microsoft lost a lot of money when Win8 launched and everyone collectively went “actually, I’m good with my current computer.”

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 months ago

I think there are two eras that have some overlap:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

[–] HobbitFoot 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The correct answer is "whenever you discovered there was an alternative". Windows has always been shit, but before you thought there was no alternative so you were used to it, ever since you started using something different you've grown less tolerant of problems. It's like someone who's always had a low end PC and played games on minimum at 30fps, it's "okay" but the moment you play something on maximum at 144fps your normal experience feels sluggish and bad (even though nothing really changed with it).

I think windows is the same thing, which is why most people will tell you the last good version of windows was the one they were using when they migrated over to Linux.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How was windows XP bad? It did all I asked it to do, it was compatible with all the software I needed and, in general, "it just works". I remember trying openSUSE back in the day, and being underwhelmed by it. Then I ran Kubuntu for a bit but, even though it had cool software for listening to music and such, I couldn't use it to game. So I went back to windows because Linux just didn't have anything for me.

Nowadays, I'd completely agree. Win10 does whatever it wants when it wants, even when it seems mostly tamed. It's not terrible and it "works", but yeah I'm switching to Arch before Win11 comes, for real.

Linux has come a long way and Windows has gone down the enshittification route; but it wasn't like this back in the 00s.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

XP was the response to Linux. Before that, windows was a crash fest, remember 98, or Millennium?

Linux was rock stable, so microsoft had to do something and started yo use their server core in the home version of windows.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago

Microsoft has always made windows good... ... ... For them.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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!

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago

There's not much competition, they can't make more money to increase shareholder value by improving the product because they pretty much have all the marketshare they need.

The only way to make more money is by monetizing your data and selling you more and more ads. Which they will do more and more year after year since they need to increase profits year after year for shareholders.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago

Windows 7 was the last one. Windows 10 is usable, but it was created with advertising in mind.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago

7 was the peak of the curve, with everything starting a downward trend with 8.

7 was genuinely the best windows operating system. It was stable, slick, easy to use, and generally unobtrusive to what you were trying to do, and you didnt have to do daily reboots or regular reformats to clean up after it like you had to do with all its predecessors.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Depending on who you ask, Vista or 8.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

+1 for 8

That’s where they started to suck

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

When their market share peaked and they had to find other ways to make the line go up

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's the jump from Windows 8.1 to 10 imo. That was when their strategy shifted from Windows being a sold as a product in-itself towards being used as a vessel to push people towards other, more profitable Microsoft services.

In the modern age of PCs, it's just not profitable to sell an operating system as an end product anymore because consumers expect the OS to be available free of charge, like it is on Apple products and Android devices, so the only people actually paying for Windows are OEMs who pay like $5/key, which isn't enough to sustain a profitable OS without bundling a bunch of third party shitware, steering you towards paid Microsoft services like OneDrive/Office 365, and selling all your data

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When did they start bundling candy crush? Xp? Or 7? That was when the enshittification started.

Not due to that app itself, and it was a slow start and it took a while, but that was when stuff started being "pushed" instead of merely "present", like, say pinball or solitaire.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I'd say Windows 8.1 was the last "good" one (as in B tier good), and Windows 7 was the last great one. Everything went downhill from here.

And yes, I'm considering Vista as part of the good ones.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

It was all downhill after Bob.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

The interface is garbage. I moved from windows 7 to linux with KDE desktop years ago, and my attempt to navigate Windows 11 lately was a disaster.

How do you fuck it up so hard?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Probably when the MBAs appeared at their offices.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›