BrikoX@lemmy.zipM to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 2 days agoWindows 12 release is pushed back at least another year as Microsoft announces Windows 11 version 25H2www.tomshardware.comexternal-linkmessage-square12fedilinkarrow-up117arrow-down12file-text
arrow-up115arrow-down1external-linkWindows 12 release is pushed back at least another year as Microsoft announces Windows 11 version 25H2www.tomshardware.comBrikoX@lemmy.zipM to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square12fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareHylactor@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·2 days agoI’m losing track, but don’t they usually go good, bad, good, bad? 98 good, m.e. bad, xp good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad, so maybe 12 good? Obviously I’m over simplifying and I skipped over 2000. But at least since 98 I feel like the trend has been pretty reliable.
minus-square𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-213 hours ago 95 good 98 bad 98se good m.e. bad xp good Vista bad 7 good 8 bad 8.1 ok? Sort of 10 goodish 11 bad 12 personally, I think it will be worse Edit: added 95 Edit 2: I deliberately left out those versions marketed for businesses (2000, NT, Server, etc.)
minus-squaresorghum@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·edit-22 days ago2000 was marketed as business and server only, like NT before it. On the IT side of things, 2000 was rock solid.
minus-squareaeronmelon@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·2 days agoConsumers knew about 2000 because Me was such dogshit regular people started using 2000 despite the drawbacks. Most consumers didn’t know or care about Windows NT, or Windows 2003, 2008, and so on.
minus-squarefloofloof@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·2 days ago10 felt good compared to 8 and 8.1. But that was a very low bar.
minus-squaresorghum@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·2 days ago7 was the last good iteration of windows imho being that it wasn’t loaded up with a bunch of telemetry being sent to Microsoft like 10 and 11 and didn’t have the terrible UI stuff like 8 and 11.
minus-squarescott@lemmy.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down2·2 days agoI mean sort of except 10 was bad too. They’re just all bad since 7
minus-squaresupernicepojo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 days agoOnly if you ignore the NT and server releases. Otherwise, sure why not.
I’m losing track, but don’t they usually go good, bad, good, bad?
98 good, m.e. bad, xp good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad, so maybe 12 good?
Obviously I’m over simplifying and I skipped over 2000. But at least since 98 I feel like the trend has been pretty reliable.
Edit: added 95
Edit 2: I deliberately left out those versions marketed for businesses (2000, NT, Server, etc.)
2000 was marketed as business and server only, like NT before it. On the IT side of things, 2000 was rock solid.
Consumers knew about 2000 because Me was such dogshit regular people started using 2000 despite the drawbacks.
Most consumers didn’t know or care about Windows NT, or Windows 2003, 2008, and so on.
10 felt good compared to 8 and 8.1. But that was a very low bar.
7 was the last good iteration of windows imho being that it wasn’t loaded up with a bunch of telemetry being sent to Microsoft like 10 and 11 and didn’t have the terrible UI stuff like 8 and 11.
I mean sort of except 10 was bad too. They’re just all bad since 7
Only if you ignore the NT and server releases. Otherwise, sure why not.