30 years of wandows
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
20 comments displayed.
#1
-
lupusluzulu (01/10/2016) [-] I feel Win8.1 should be included since it was such a significant change from Windows 8.
#9 to #1
-
anon (01/11/2016) [-]
So is he also suppose to include win95 OSR2, WIN 98SE, WIN XP SP1, and SP2 and SP3. I can understand including point releases on earlier versions but not newer ones. Older software did not receive a seamless update though an auto-update system like now days. you didn't update 3.1 to 3.1.1 over the internet.
#2 to #1
-
fatminion (01/10/2016) [-] as should windows 3.1. I didn't know a single person that had Windows 3.0. We either had 3.1 or 3.1.1 or NT. NT isn't even on here. And the first one says "reversi can be seen in the screenshot" but it's actually in the screenshot from the second one.
This comp wasn't that good. I should re-do it and make it way better.
PS I was born in '85, so I'm as old as Windows! (actually a bit older- I turn 31 tomorrow
This comp wasn't that good. I should re-do it and make it way better.
PS I was born in '85, so I'm as old as Windows! (actually a bit older- I turn 31 tomorrow
#5
-
OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-] >people still give Vista **** despite Vista SP2 essentially being identical to the Win 7 they say is so much better
#11 to #8
-
OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-] The bottom line is that Vista greatly increased the requirements compared to XP. People that upgraded didn't have hardware that was quite up to par, making the experience less than stellar. Everyone with decent hardware had an alright experience, though it wasn't quite as good as XP, but to be fair, XP had already had a couple service packs and quite a few updates itself by that point.
#12 to #11
-
miasaki (01/11/2016) [-]
I understand your statement for the most part, other than the last portion.
"Everyone with decent hardware had an alright experience, though it wasn't quite as good as XP, but to be fair, XP had already had a couple service packs and quite a few updates itself by that point. "
Are you stating that a newly released product should not surpass its predecessor in functionality and stability? We all know they tend not to to some extent, but they still should.
"Everyone with decent hardware had an alright experience, though it wasn't quite as good as XP, but to be fair, XP had already had a couple service packs and quite a few updates itself by that point. "
Are you stating that a newly released product should not surpass its predecessor in functionality and stability? We all know they tend not to to some extent, but they still should.
#15 to #12
-
OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-] Vista was a big project. It changed Windows quite a bit under the hood. It wasn't just a fresh coat of paint like the transition from 2000 to XP was. A large portion of the features and enhancements in the first service pack were originally planned to be included at release but were left out due to time constraints. There were going to be issues. There always are with major software releases.
XP already had most of its service packs and major updates by the time that Vista launched. It was simply a more refined product compared to the newly released Vista. Fast forward a few years, and Vista gets its final service pack. Roughly 6 months after that, Windows 7 releases and everyone pretends that it's the second coming of Christ even though that had the same product earlier that same year with Vista. That's not to say that everything before SP2 was bad though. Vista as a whole was fine, and people just really rode it hard while it was going through the typical new OS issues.
XP already had most of its service packs and major updates by the time that Vista launched. It was simply a more refined product compared to the newly released Vista. Fast forward a few years, and Vista gets its final service pack. Roughly 6 months after that, Windows 7 releases and everyone pretends that it's the second coming of Christ even though that had the same product earlier that same year with Vista. That's not to say that everything before SP2 was bad though. Vista as a whole was fine, and people just really rode it hard while it was going through the typical new OS issues.
#20 to #15
-
miasaki (14 hours ago) [-]
Ah, at the time I only used Vista on school comps as they were donated or bought on the cheap. I did not have much of an issue with it other than stability and how much ram it ate up just opening IE (I know, IE is **** and all, school had stupid restrictions), granted the towers themselves did not have much RAM, it did not help that load times for just about anything were horrible. I was not as interested in Comp's back then so they could have been terrible systems, but for the ones that we did get updated to 7 (Which were some of the same rigs), it ran better in terms of boot, opening files and we did not crash as much. Again, I was not as interested in comps, so I cannot say how well maintained they were.
As for everyone treating W7 as the seconds coming, its the tech industry, it moves at a lightning pace. If you have a product line that's not improving upon itself constantly (And significantly) then its eventually going to be left behind and ignored for one reason or another. Also, regardless how similar the two were at one point, Vista had a bad rep and its a decent business move just to get rid of the name.
Tyvm for the info, its neat hearing a different side of a usually one sided matter.
As for everyone treating W7 as the seconds coming, its the tech industry, it moves at a lightning pace. If you have a product line that's not improving upon itself constantly (And significantly) then its eventually going to be left behind and ignored for one reason or another. Also, regardless how similar the two were at one point, Vista had a bad rep and its a decent business move just to get rid of the name.
Tyvm for the info, its neat hearing a different side of a usually one sided matter.
#3
-
vincatvangogh (01/11/2016) [-] Should I upgrade from 7 to 10? I've been comfortable with 7 for the past few years, but I'm not sure if 10 would be an improvement or a setback for me. Any tips?
#6 to #3
-
bladeariet (01/11/2016) [-] Ehhhh. prolly not. I went from 8 to 10. just to get rid of 8. the start menu is ok but in order to get a proper control you have to look for it. honestly there isn't really a point. I'd have 7 if I could.
#10 to #7
-
mikhailovych ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-] In my opinion no
If you do install 10 make sure you check through your privacy settings, there is a lot of **** in there you'll probably want off
If you do install 10 make sure you check through your privacy settings, there is a lot of **** in there you'll probably want off
