My opinions about some O.S. of Microsoft

[MihailMojsoski]

Windows XP

Fastest, Easiest, Not sure if safest.
This is the first OS i have ever used.
Just it is too awesome.
I used it for the first time in 2005.


Windows Vista

The most beautiful UI i have ever seen.
Very user-friendly but not that fast.
It is great.
I used it for the first time in 2014.


Windows 7

Perfect. That is all i need to say.
I used it for the fist time in 2010.


Windows 8

Too complicated for people who never used it before.
Great FPS in games, great for gaming.
I used it for the fist time in 2012.


Windows 8.1

Same as 8, just a little bit more simple.
I used it for the fist time in 2013.


Windows 10

Amazing, just not done yet.
I have tested it.
The cmd in 10 is amazing.
I used it for the fist time in 2015.


MSDOS

Better than 8.
I used it for the first time in 2015.

 

[Jody Thornton]

Well let's see. I'll step through the Windows versions I've used and give my three cents (inflation you know!)

Windows 3.1 (and 3.11 for Workgroups)

I liked it's simplicity and ease of use on top of DOS. I could always shell out for games and utilities. But it was sure lacking in terms of stability. Still I miss those days

For what it's worth, I ran Win3x apps under OS/2 2.1 and OS/2 Warp 3 a lot of the time. I stayed with OS/2 right up until August 1996. I really loved OS/2, and I've tried eComstation 2.x recently, but it really leaves a lot to be desired next to new versions of Windows.

Windows 95

You know, as bug ridden as the original Win95 Upgrade release must have been, I had no problems with it. Likely though, that was because I was still mostly running 16-bit apps, thus not really putting the OS through its paces. I used LFNs Now to use long filenames with Office 4.3 and my old 16-bit Windows programs.

I did try the Nashville Beta (Windows 96) and REALLY liked it. It would auto select icons just by hovering the mouse pointer over them, and launch without a click. I did eventually move over to Windows 95 OSR2 B, so I could use FAT32 volumes.

Windows 98

Especially when using audio editing and automation programs, Windows 98 was MUCH more stable than 95, but I soon upgraded to 98 SE, and that was even better. I had my P 200 MMX Classic all decked out to look like Windows 2000 (with icons and Tahoma...lol). Except for a couple attempts at running Windows ME, I ran 98 SE all the way up to 2003.

Windows ME

I don't think it was as all bad as many say it was. I liked the Windows 2000 look, and it had newer features like integrated USB flash drive support. But sometimes the file/open dialog screens wouldn't retain their settings if you changed them. And their were some occasional desktop fonts issues. I think Millennium Edition could be easily tweaked into working as a great OS, but in the end, I found 98 SE to just be more reliable for me.

Windows NT

I liked v3.51 because it was stable and solid, yet it had the Win3x look. But Windows NT 4.0 was a solid performer, and had the same look as Win95. I used the Server build more than the Workstation build, but my only complaint was, there way no way to add USB support (other than for keyboards and mice)


Windows 2000

Up until recently, this was my favourite version of Windows. I felt it was an exceedingly stable yet down-to-business version of Windows, with just enough glitz to make it pleasant to use (fade in menus), but without the bloat that XP had. I ran Windows 2000 on an AMD K62-450 system with 392 MB of RAM and it ran quite well. And it smoked on a Dell Optiplex PIII 866 MHz system with 512 MB of RAM.

Windows XP

In 2007, I bought an HP xw6000 system with a Xeon 2.68 GHZ CPU and 2 GB of RAM. I was all set to install Windows 2000 on it when I booted it up, and found that the preinstalled copy of Windows XP just flew on on it. So I stayed with it. And when I bought my xw8200 Workstation just three years later. I ran XP there too. It smoked with 2 Xeon CPUs even with visual styles applied. I thought I'd be perfectly happy with XP except.... (read the next one)

Windows XP x64 Edition

In November 2011, I decided to experiment with 64-bit XP. It was a natural fit for my xw8200 workstation. All of the hardware drivers (including the integrated u320 SCSI controller) were all included. Installation was a breeze. Sure there were some setup related hiccups, like getting MSE to work on it (I used the x64 build intended for Vista and 7).

But once that was all sorted out, Windows XP 64-bit Edition represented what I considered to be and still recognize as the absolute best computing platform I've ever had. I know I'd be in the minority saying that, only because most systems will not fully support it, since Microsoft looked upon XP x64 as an after thought. But since I had the right machine, it was a beautiful computing experience. Dual Xeons and 7 GB of RAM! Yum!

I ran XP 64-bit until February 2014. I really wanted to run it for longer. It ends up I found a source of updates post April-2014 and an x64 build of Pale Moon that would run on it. That means I could have run XP 64-bit Edition for another year. But a year ago February, those options were available. So I bailed and went to..... (next section please)

Windows Vista

When my boss purchased a new notebook in February 2006 preloaded with Vista, I was excited to try it out. The key word there is "was". Vista's RTM release was so slow and crash-prone. I guess it really didn't help that his notebook was only equipped with 1 GB of RAM (still huge at the time).

But move ahead two service packs later, and now on my much beefier workstation, the x64 build of Vista is quite a solid fast platform. It run pretty much as fast as XP, it's prettier, and is VERY stable. But I only ever recommend using the x64 build, and it seems to work best when used with a source that has SP2 built right in. And use it with at least 6 GB of RAM. I have 7 GB and my setup runs with aplomb.

Windows 7

I dunno, I'm sort of "meh" when it comes to Windows 7. It's certainly QUITE solid and stable, but I'm not big on the iconized thick taskbar (yes I know that can be changed) but I just like Vista better. Plus I hate the ribbon being used on some apps.

Windows 8.1

I would bypass 8, but 8.1 with Update 1 runs quite briskly (better than 7 if you ask me). Plus, install Classic Shell and hide all of the Metro/Modern elements, and you have a somewhat modern looking, better running version of Windows 7.

I plan to upgrade to it when Vista support expires in 2017. As for ribbon apps, I can just take the Paint and WordPad apps from Vista and place them in to the installation, and then I'll use the Windows 8x Ribbon Removal Script.

Windows 10

Not too thrilled so far. I liked the original TP build from November a lot better, but I hate the new Start Menu and Caption Buttons. When it's time to upgrade, I'll choose Windows 8.1, thank you very much.

 

[eatup]

To make the story short: You never appreciate something until you have another view. Tried Linux several times. Went back to XP each time. Tried W7/8.1 several times. Went back to XP each time.

MSFT (and Windows) is effectively dead for me. I ain't never gonna buy another piece of hardware that doesn't have XP drivers. My current hardware (two laptops actually and they're not the cheap, consumer grade kinds that need to be replaced ever 3-4 years) can possibly last me another 10-20 years.

I simply can't believe the crap that MSFT would put out after Bill Gates left to power the economy. MSFT has simply lost their touch. The smartest move they can ever make to regain customers like me is not Windows 10 free upgrade for W7/8.1 users, but to take the XP source code and make it work on modern machines.

 

[eatup]

MSDOS

Better than 8.
I used it for the first time in 2015.

That doesn't count. You're effectively using MSDOS every time you fire up the cmd prompt in XP/Vista/7/8.1/10.

Btw, if I could choose between a Broadwell with W8.1 or an old Merom duo core with XP, I would go with the latter. That is just how good XP is!

 

[Jody Thornton]

That doesn't count. You're effectively using MSDOS every time you fire up the cmd prompt in XP/Vista/7/8.1/10.

Btw, if I could choose between a Broadwell with W8.1 or an old Merom duo core with XP, I would go with the latter. That is just how good XP is!

Well, no that's an NT prompt, and that's a VERY DIFFERENT THING. It has more networking and service related commands that no DOS expert would EVER know. Besides, using DOS also encompasses using text based applications, managing XMS/EMS/UMB memory, Config.sys, and DOS games. I'd say that's an entirely different animal.

There is such an environment in Win9x though, or OS/2 for that matter.

 

[Jody Thornton]

MSFT (and Windows) is effectively dead for me. I ain't never gonna buy another piece of hardware that doesn't have XP drivers. My current hardware (two laptops actually and they're not the cheap, consumer grade kinds that need to be replaced ever 3-4 years) can possibly last me another 10-20 years.

You should do what I'm doing and look at the HP Z Series Workstations. They are REALLY nice and still have full support for both the x86 and x64 builds of Windows XP. I'm looking at either a Z600 or Z800 refurb with SAS drives and 16 GB of RAM.

The smartest move they can ever make to regain customers like me is not Windows 10 free upgrade for W7/8.1 users, but to take the XP source code and make it work on modern machines.

I suggested that very thing here:

http://www.tenforums.com/windows-10...ows-10-last-version-windows-9.html#post236678

One other thing: perhaps if Microsoft wanted to cater to segments of the market that felt left in the cold by Windows 10, they should create similar builds resembling older versions of Windows, but with today's security/build model:

We could have Windows Aero, It would have the default look and option of Windows 7 with glass effect and Modern/Metro apps would be removed. To simplify build updates, eradicate IE and just include Edge. The Windows component store could be updated to reflect the cleanup benefits of Windows 8x/10x. Compatibility with applications would be the same as Win8x/10x.

Then we could have Windows Classic. This build would resemble the look of Windows XP, and use the classic themeing engine, without Aero. Many of MMC snap-ins could be reworked to resemble the classic NT 5x look, but maintain the same working code beneath to simplify updates between the different OS builds. Since there would be a modern video rendering engine built in, and since Microsoft would want a consistent update system between all of their OS builds, they could just eradicate IE and include Edge here as well. And it would use the Windows Component Store to perform updates and installation. Even though I hate the WinSxS bloat, you can't ask Microsoft to go back to a Windows NT 5x security and system model.

If I were Microsoft, I would forgo including all of the 8x/10x enterprise apps in these builds, and any Modern interfacing. That would serve as a value added marketing approach to nudge users to upgrade to Windows 10. Meanwhile, the large set of users who are 7 and XP fans would be happy to have systems which work the way they like.

 

[eatup]

Well, no that's an NT prompt, and that's a VERY DIFFERENT THING. It has more networking and service related commands that no DOS expert would EVER know. Besides, using DOS also encompasses using text based applications, managing XMS/EMS/UMB memory, Config.sys, and DOS games. I'd say that's an entirely different animal.

There is such an environment in Win9x though, or OS/2 for that matter.

I can run QBasic 4.5 from XP's cmd, which is both a DOS text editor and DOS graphical program (Screen 12/13, etc), plus some other DOS programs/games like Hexxagon that don't use the extended memory that requires a driver, so cmd is effectively the same as DOS for me (in XP). In Vista/7/8.1/10, MSFT removed that ability (b/c they feared having the ability to run "graphical" DOS programs like QB in full screen could lead to various programs defeating the in-built Windows DRM mechanism). So in a way Vista/7/8.1/10's cmd isn't full-blown DOS. But the OP had used XP since 2005, so his claim that he'd used DOS the first time in 2015 didnt' sit well with me...

 

[eatup]

You should do what I'm doing and look at the HP Z Series Workstations. They are REALLY nice and still have full support for both the x86 and x64 builds of Windows XP. I'm looking at either a Z600 or Z800 refurb with SAS drives and 16 GB of RAM.



I suggested that very thing here:

http://www.tenforums.com/windows-10...ows-10-last-version-windows-9.html#post236678

One other thing: perhaps if Microsoft wanted to cater to segments of the market that felt left in the cold by Windows 10, they should create similar builds resembling older versions of Windows, but with today's security/build model:

We could have Windows Aero, It would have the default look and option of Windows 7 with glass effect and Modern/Metro apps would be removed. To simplify build updates, eradicate IE and just include Edge. The Windows component store could be updated to reflect the cleanup benefits of Windows 8x/10x. Compatibility with applications would be the same as Win8x/10x.

Then we could have Windows Classic. This build would resemble the look of Windows XP, and use the classic themeing engine, without Aero. Many of MMC snap-ins could be reworked to resemble the classic NT 5x look, but maintain the same working code beneath to simplify updates between the different OS builds. Since there would be a modern video rendering engine built in, and since Microsoft would want a consistent update system between all of their OS builds, they could just eradicate IE and include Edge here as well. And it would use the Windows Component Store to perform updates and installation. Even though I hate the WinSxS bloat, you can't ask Microsoft to go back to a Windows NT 5x security and system model.

If I were Microsoft, I would forgo including all of the 8x/10x enterprise apps in these builds, and any Modern interfacing. That would serve as a value added marketing approach to nudge users to upgrade to Windows 10. Meanwhile, the large set of users who are 7 and XP fans would be happy to have systems which work the way they like.

It's not just the looks. They could skin Win7/8.1/10 with a Luna interface and also explorer.exe XP-style and I wouldn't flock to it. It's not just the GUI. GDI+ is the best thing that ever happened to computers. And they took that away starting with Vista and replaced it with... And the font rendering (with clear-type on) in XP is more beautiful than anything that ever happened afterwards.

My dream XP 2nd ED would be the following:

A complete rewrite (not re-engineering like how they did going from XP -> Vista) to support native VHD[X] booting, USB booting/installation, >4GB of RAM, Advanced HDD format support, and DirectX 12. By rewrite, I mean there is no way they can cram in things like USB booting as the current XP code base is b/c I tried it in POS2009 (XP variant) and it didn't work. They just gotta go over the XP code line by line and modify as necessarily to make the requested new features work while leaving most of the original stuff alone!

 

[Jody Thornton]

It's not just the looks. They could skin Win7/8.1 with a Luna interface and also explorer.exe XP-style and I wouldn't flock to it. It's not just the GUI. GDI+ is the best thing that ever happened to computers. And they took that away starting with Vista and replaced it with...

My dream XP 2nd ED would be the following:

A complete rewrite (not re-engineering like how they did going from XP -> Vista) to support native VHD[X] booting, USB booting/installation, >4GB of RAM, Advanced HDD format support, and DirectX 12. By rewrite, I mean there is no way they can cram in things like USB booting as the current XP code base is b/c I tried it in POS2009 (XP variant) and it didn't work. They just gotta go over the XP code line by line and modify as necessarily to make the requested new features work while leaving most of the original stuff alone!

Problem is though, that's too much outdated extra code to support, in their mind. You know they would rather just backport code from newer OS builds to a faux XP. Now as an example, would you have them go back to the old Windows Update model? Or is the Component Store fine, as long as it can be tidied up?

By the way, I hear what you're saying on the DOS stuff.

 

[eatup]

Problem is though, that's too much outdated extra code to support, in their mind. You know they would rather just backport code from newer OS builds to a faux XP. Now as an example, would you have them go back to the old Windows Update model? Or is the Component Store fine, as long as it can be tidied up?

By the way, I hear what you're saying on the DOS stuff.

This is the reason why MSFT is effectively dead for me, b/c there can never be an XP 2nd ED. I'm kool with it though b/c like I said, I plan on using my current two non-consumer-grade laptops (with spare parts handy) for next decade or two whilst awaiting a revolution in computing.

MSFT is already third place behind Apple, Google. W10 will just be another W8.2. Within the next decade or two, I can't ever see MSFT as the top dog in the computing world let alone 3rd place. Something else will surely come along that is better than OSX/Chrome-OS/Windows/Linux combined, and that is when I will "upgrade" my ageing two-decades old PCs...

 

[Termingamer2-JD]

If they followed up 98 with 98 SE, why not they make XP SE? Same interface, same speed and such, all based off XP but with modern things in it.

Then we would get a real follow up. I would upgrade if it was good, but MS might not make it as much.

 

[xperience]

Well let's see. I'll step through the Windows versions I've used and give my three cents (inflation you know!)

Windows 3.1 (and 3.11 for Workgroups)

I liked it's simplicity and ease of use on top of DOS. I could always shell out for games and utilities. But it was sure lacking in terms of stability. Still I miss those days

For what it's worth, I ran Win3x apps under OS/2 2.1 and OS/2 Warp 3 a lot of the time. I stayed with OS/2 right up until August 1996. I really loved OS/2, and I've tried eComstation 2.x recently, but it really leaves a lot to be desired next to new versions of Windows.

Windows 95

You know, as bug ridden as the original Win95 Upgrade release must have been, I had no problems with it. Likely though, that was because I was still mostly running 16-bit apps, thus not really putting the OS through its paces. I used LFNs Now to use long filenames with Office 4.3 and my old 16-bit Windows programs.

I did try the Nashville Beta (Windows 96) and REALLY liked it. It would auto select icons just by hovering the mouse pointer over them, and launch without a click. I did eventually move over to Windows 95 OSR2 B, so I could use FAT32 volumes.

Windows 98

Especially when using audio editing and automation programs, Windows 98 was MUCH more stable than 95, but I soon upgraded to 98 SE, and that was even better. I had my P 200 MMX Classic all decked out to look like Windows 2000 (with icons and Tahoma...lol). Except for a couple attempts at running Windows ME, I ran 98 SE all the way up to 2003.

Windows ME

I don't think it was as all bad as many say it was. I liked the Windows 2000 look, and it had newer features like integrated USB flash drive support. But sometimes the file/open dialog screens wouldn't retain their settings if you changed them. And their were some occasional desktop fonts issues. I think Millennium Edition could be easily tweaked into working as a great OS, but in the end, I found 98 SE to just be more reliable for me.

Windows NT

I liked v3.51 because it was stable and solid, yet it had the Win3x look. But Windows NT 4.0 was a solid performer, and had the same look as Win95. I used the Server build more than the Workstation build, but my only complaint was, there way no way to add USB support (other than for keyboards and mice)


Windows 2000

Up until recently, this was my favourite version of Windows. I felt it was an exceedingly stable yet down-to-business version of Windows, with just enough glitz to make it pleasant to use (fade in menus), but without the bloat that XP had. I ran Windows 2000 on an AMD K62-450 system with 392 MB of RAM and it ran quite well. And it smoked on a Dell Optiplex PIII 866 MHz system with 512 MB of RAM.

Windows XP

In 2007, I bought an HP xw6000 system with a Xeon 2.68 GHZ CPU and 2 GB of RAM. I was all set to install Windows 2000 on it when I booted it up, and found that the preinstalled copy of Windows XP just flew on on it. So I stayed with it. And when I bought my xw8200 Workstation just three years later. I ran XP there too. It smoked with 2 Xeon CPUs even with visual styles applied. I thought I'd be perfectly happy with XP except.... (read the next one)

Windows XP x64 Edition

In November 2011, I decided to experiment with 64-bit XP. It was a natural fit for my xw8200 workstation. All of the hardware drivers (including the integrated u320 SCSI controller) were all included. Installation was a breeze. Sure there were some setup related hiccups, like getting MSE to work on it (I used the x64 build intended for Vista and 7).

But once that was all sorted out, Windows XP 64-bit Edition represented what I considered to be and still recognize as the absolute best computing platform I've ever had. I know I'd be in the minority saying that, only because most systems will not fully support it, since Microsoft looked upon XP x64 as an after thought. But since I had the right machine, it was a beautiful computing experience. Dual Xeons and 7 GB of RAM! Yum!

I ran XP 64-bit until February 2014. I really wanted to run it for longer. It ends up I found a source of updates post April-2014 and an x64 build of Pale Moon that would run on it. That means I could have run XP 64-bit Edition for another year. But a year ago February, those options were available. So I bailed and went to..... (next section please)

Windows Vista

When my boss purchased a new notebook in February 2006 preloaded with Vista, I was excited to try it out. The key word there is "was". Vista's RTM release was so slow and crash-prone. I guess it really didn't help that his notebook was only equipped with 1 GB of RAM (still huge at the time).

But move ahead two service packs later, and now on my much beefier workstation, the x64 build of Vista is quite a solid fast platform. It run pretty much as fast as XP, it's prettier, and is VERY stable. But I only ever recommend using the x64 build, and it seems to work best when used with a source that has SP2 built right in. And use it with at least 6 GB of RAM. I have 7 GB and my setup runs with aplomb.

Windows 7

I dunno, I'm sort of "meh" when it comes to Windows 7. It's certainly QUITE solid and stable, but I'm not big on the iconized thick taskbar (yes I know that can be changed) but I just like Vista better. Plus I hate the ribbon being used on some apps.

Windows 8.1

I would bypass 8, but 8.1 with Update 1 runs quite briskly (better than 7 if you ask me). Plus, install Classic Shell and hide all of the Metro/Modern elements, and you have a somewhat modern looking, better running version of Windows 7.

I plan to upgrade to it when Vista support expires in 2017. As for ribbon apps, I can just take the Paint and WordPad apps from Vista and place them in to the installation, and then I'll use the Windows 8x Ribbon Removal Script.

Windows 10

Not too thrilled so far. I liked the original TP build from November a lot better, but I hate the new Start Menu and Caption Buttons. When it's time to upgrade, I'll choose Windows 8.1, thank you very much.

I used Windows 95 when it came out and at that time it was a breath of fresh air, brilliant O/S. I never used 98 or 98 SE. 2000 I used in work and it was very stable. Never used ME. Xp was excellent in the end but before service pack 3 it was only Okay. Vista was a nightmare when released but with service pack 2 and lots and lots of ram it works fine. 7 is an excellent O/S it's what Vista should have been. 8 or 8.1 I just didn't get this metro crap and no start button, what were they thinking. Windows 10 first builds I initially thought was probably the best yet it's so fast and stable, it's also so secure but I'm not so sure now with the full release, it's a bit bloated for my liking and I don't like the new start menu it's neither here nor there, I've already installed classic shell. Personally I still think Linux is way way better so less complicated, it does exactly what it says on the tin, so to speak.

 

[Aunty Jack]

Call me a heretic. Call me whatever you will.

Spent a quiet afternoon installing Windows 10 as a clean install. Took my time with everything and every setting and option. Went into the "nuts and bolts" of how Windows 10 works (in as much as one can) and selected the features and apps I wanted and either uninstalled or turned off the ones I didn't want. Installed all of the updates which do improve the first release build significantly.

Read all I could on Microsoft Edge especially with regard to search engine changes away from Bing. Success, now Google is my preferred search engine. But, only by way of loading the Google page. Edge will not allow any preferred home page except Bing or MSN. After a little familiarisation Edge is easy enough to use and navigate but will, and I will admit it, baffle the casual user. Microsoft has made Edge just that little bit difficult to make changes to. However, Edge is inferior to most other popular browsers. Edge gives very poor text quality, very poor graphics quality, and response times between sites is very sub-standard. Contrast the performance and ease of use of Google Chrome to Edge, no contest. Edge is about as useful as the early Microsoft Internet Explorer bundled with Windows 98.

Speed of Windows 10. I run a fairly low specification desktop with an Intel dual core 2.41 Ghz processor, 4 Gb DDR3L RAM and intergrated Intel graphics with 1 Gb RAM built in. Probably the norm for most lower price desktops these days.

Windows 10 is noticeably faster than Windows 8.1 in many respects. This is not just my opinion but the good old fashioned "stopwatch" test. Yes, that much faster. The only OS, no make that OS's that are real speed demons are, yes at number one, XP wether it be 32 bit or 64 bit. Probably a bit faster is Linux using the XFCE desktop in either Ubuntu or Linux Mint.

Windows 10 "apps". Sorry Microsoft, some are not up to the task speed wise. I have installed 64 bit versions of my favourite media player (MPC-HC), picture viewer (XnviewMP), Acrobat Reader and that is about it. Oh, and Kingsoft Office 2012 instead of Microsoft Office. Kingsoft is my choice. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft Office except my aversion to a really cluttered menu bar and/or ribbon.

As an OS Windows 10, like Windows 8.1 can be suitably changed to be somewhat close to XP. Somewhat close but not "the real thing".

My reason for opting for Windows 10 as my everyday OS is that my desktop machine will not accept installs of any Microsoft OS earlier than Windows 8.1. Support for Windows 8.1 still continues of course but, my choice to change.

Two areas where Windows 10 really shines are, to me anyway are:-

Pagefile size. Windows XP liked about 1.5 times installed RAM. Windows 8.1 minimum comfortable pagefile is just over 3.5 Gb. Windows 10 page file default is 1.394 Gb. With only 4 Gb RAM to play with the pagefile size started to use both RAM and write the rest to the hard disk with a bit of the usual "disk thrash". No "disk thrash" with Windows 10.

And, disk clean-up. XP disk clean up could be improved quite markedly by editing the registry and deleting Compress Old Files. Windows 8.1 disk clean-up took ages to find unnecessary system files and such. I would usually go do something else around our home for 15 minutes or so and then go back to the clean-up. Windows 10 disk clean-up time, about on par with XP.

Lastly, Windows Defender (read Microsoft Security Essentials) actually works and trapped a couple of "nasties" I never saw my favourite cloud based anti-virus program (Panda) trap.

We all want different things from an Operating System. We all have our favourite Operating System.

What if ?.

What if Linux, say Linux Mint or Ubuntu could run Windows programs directly instead of through WINE. The speed and stability of Linux coupled with the ability to run Windows programs in the proper manner. WINE gives a very limited capacity to run Windows programs, if at all.

But, can anyone see a co-operation between Microsoft Inc and the Linux community to build the ultimate Operating System. I think the answer is no.

All these new Windows versions every few years, all these changes. All the creeping inability to run older Windows programs on newer Windows versions.

Has the Operating System "market" really advanced that far from XP ?.

Over to you.

Mark.

 

[xperience]

Call me a heretic. Call me whatever you will.

Spent a quiet afternoon installing Windows 10 as a clean install. Took my time with everything and every setting and option. Went into the "nuts and bolts" of how Windows 10 works (in as much as one can) and selected the features and apps I wanted and either uninstalled or turned off the ones I didn't want. Installed all of the updates which do improve the first release build significantly.

Read all I could on Microsoft Edge especially with regard to search engine changes away from Bing. Success, now Google is my preferred search engine. But, only by way of loading the Google page. Edge will not allow any preferred home page except Bing or MSN. After a little familiarisation Edge is easy enough to use and navigate but will, and I will admit it, baffle the casual user. Microsoft has made Edge just that little bit difficult to make changes to. However, Edge is inferior to most other popular browsers. Edge gives very poor text quality, very poor graphics quality, and response times between sites is very sub-standard. Contrast the performance and ease of use of Google Chrome to Edge, no contest. Edge is about as useful as the early Microsoft Internet Explorer bundled with Windows 98.

Speed of Windows 10. I run a fairly low specification desktop with an Intel dual core 2.41 Ghz processor, 4 Gb DDR3L RAM and intergrated Intel graphics with 1 Gb RAM built in. Probably the norm for most lower price desktops these days.

Windows 10 is noticeably faster than Windows 8.1 in many respects. This is not just my opinion but the good old fashioned "stopwatch" test. Yes, that much faster. The only OS, no make that OS's that are real speed demons are, yes at number one, XP wether it be 32 bit or 64 bit. Probably a bit faster is Linux using the XFCE desktop in either Ubuntu or Linux Mint.

Windows 10 "apps". Sorry Microsoft, some are not up to the task speed wise. I have installed 64 bit versions of my favourite media player (MPC-HC), picture viewer (XnviewMP), Acrobat Reader and that is about it. Oh, and Kingsoft Office 2012 instead of Microsoft Office. Kingsoft is my choice. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft Office except my aversion to a really cluttered menu bar and/or ribbon.

As an OS Windows 10, like Windows 8.1 can be suitably changed to be somewhat close to XP. Somewhat close but not "the real thing".

My reason for opting for Windows 10 as my everyday OS is that my desktop machine will not accept installs of any Microsoft OS earlier than Windows 8.1. Support for Windows 8.1 still continues of course but, my choice to change.

Two areas where Windows 10 really shines are, to me anyway are:-

Pagefile size. Windows XP liked about 1.5 times installed RAM. Windows 8.1 minimum comfortable pagefile is just over 3.5 Gb. Windows 10 page file default is 1.394 Gb. With only 4 Gb RAM to play with the pagefile size started to use both RAM and write the rest to the hard disk with a bit of the usual "disk thrash". No "disk thrash" with Windows 10.

And, disk clean-up. XP disk clean up could be improved quite markedly by editing the registry and deleting Compress Old Files. Windows 8.1 disk clean-up took ages to find unnecessary system files and such. I would usually go do something else around our home for 15 minutes or so and then go back to the clean-up. Windows 10 disk clean-up time, about on par with XP.

Lastly, Windows Defender (read Microsoft Security Essentials) actually works and trapped a couple of "nasties" I never saw my favourite cloud based anti-virus program (Panda) trap.

We all want different things from an Operating System. We all have our favourite Operating System.

What if ?.

What if Linux, say Linux Mint or Ubuntu could run Windows programs directly instead of through WINE. The speed and stability of Linux coupled with the ability to run Windows programs in the proper manner. WINE gives a very limited capacity to run Windows programs, if at all.

But, can anyone see a co-operation between Microsoft Inc and the Linux community to build the ultimate Operating System. I think the answer is no.

All these new Windows versions every few years, all these changes. All the creeping inability to run older Windows programs on newer Windows versions.

Has the Operating System "market" really advanced that far from XP ?.

Over to you.

(Quote) Excellent description of Windows 10, the question I always ask can a new O/S do anything differently than an old O/S? My answer is probably no it can't, Xp can do everything 10 can do but not as flashy.

 

[eatup]

Xp can do everything 10 can do but not as flashy.

Lol. XP is like driving a supercar --- fastest stable OS known to mankind.

And this is not coming from a novice ever-day user, but a nerd/geek/computer programmer who knows power and math crunching when he sees it.

Vista/7SP1/8.1/10 are for ppl who loving driving stationwagons!

Current situation with OSes is very much like modern day Japan and their love for the fax machine. It's very obvious Japanese ppl are not techno-phobic. So why stick with fax machines? To you and everyone else, the fax machine isn't very "flashy". But to the Japanese ppl, it's their supercar of reliable digital info transmission!

 

[eatup]

Also, want to add, true technophilia isn't defined by having the latest tech, but whatever works the best.

Japan as a country fits this definition. They have the 2nd fastest internet in the world and are still on fax machines! As such no shame in using XP as your main OS:

 

[eatup]

My opinion about MS OSes:

Win98SE -- far too unstable to be usable, even within a virtual machine.

Win2000 -- never ran Win2K until this year when I obtained an MSDN ISO from an abandonware site. Wow is all I can say. Very stable OS along with XP.

XP -- my personal favorite. All my current machines can run it. Can't see myself ever getting a new machine that doesn't support it (new or used).

Vista/7SP1/8.1/10 -- they all look and function the same to me. That's b/c they're all based on that NT6.x kernel, which IMHO is the stinkiest pile (of kernel coding) MSFT has ever commercially produced! XP was a great leap from Win2k in terms of what you could do. Vista to 10 are like baby footsteps. They might as well call Win10 Vista SP5 b/c that's what it is, no different than the original OS that was released in 2007!

 

[Skeleton11223]

Honestly, Windows 8/8.1 is a great OS. Just install classic shell and a new theme and it's almost as good as Windows 7.

 

[Jody Thornton]

Honestly, Windows 8/8.1 is a great OS. Just install classic shell and a new theme and it's almost as good as Windows 7.

Exactly. And even the views I posted earlier on Windows 8 RTM have changed DRASTICALLY. So much so, that I'm running it as we speak ...lol. I don't have the same findings that Aunty Jack has to cite Windows 10 being faster than Windows 8x. Poor fella

 

[priscus]

I just wish that I could find a MIDI-out 'setter' for Windows 10, like the applet in XP than lets me select the device for MIDI output to be my Yamaha musical keyboards (or the USB interface to it).

It is immensely frustrating! I know that it must be possible to do this, but I have been unable to find out how to.

Searched on line since W10 came out. Solutions proffered which are edited versions for earlier OSs simply do not work with W10!

Would even be prepared to use a command line script to set MIDI out, IF ONLY I could find the information needed to do this.

Pleased with some aspects of w10, but, for this reason, W10 gets the thumbs DOWN from me.