When did Microsoft stop developing Windows to be good?
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?
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.
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)
I remember all the nicknames from when XP came out. I don't remember which was more common; disco windows, or teletubby windows.
In my neck of the woods it was called fisher price windows lol
I gamed on Win2k until I couldn't anymore because of requirements. It was excellent.
I eventually ended up on XP, and the first thing I did was shut off the Fisher Price skin. It still never ran quite as good as Win2k.
It's all been downhill since Windows 7. All versions of windows after 7 are just windows 7 with extra bloatware, garbage and Ads.
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.
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).
I switched to linux a while ago, back when windows 11 was 1st announced and never looked back. Looks hard, but as long as you don't think you can use a Linux distro the same way you use windows, you'll be fine. Think of a Linux distro as "desktop android". Downloading stuff from the internet should be your last resort, after going to the built-in app center.
Having switched about a year ago now, I can say at least for me the switch to linux has been fairly painless. There has been bumps and snags, but it's pretty much worked out of the box for 99% of the things I use on a daily basis. I still have my desktop dual booting for the small handful of things that aren't compatible. But at this point, I'd suspect that I spend on average an hour a month with windows loaded.
They lost their way with Windows 8, tried to make both desktop and tablet users happy but lost both.
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.
Yeah, every UI change since 7 has been for the worse, increasing the number of steps required to get work done.
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.
How bad is security if you still have Windows 7 installed today?
Looks like 3% of windows users worldwide could help answer that question. Well, up to 3%… guessing not too many of them are too savvy.
I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that those machines are corporate owned and running legacy systems that are hanging on by a thread.
Every year someone talks about replacing Ol’ Smoky but the new system would need to go through validation and that costs time and money so they limp along for another year
I try to not connect mine to the internet anymore
Vista* but otherwise yes
I would have been happy to pay for continued improvements to DirectX and Vulcan and increasing security and minor useful incremental changes over time keeping the same Windows 7 playbook running. I wish I lived in the timeline where our greatest complaint with Windows is that it hasn't changed very much in the last 15 years.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Windows 7 and 8.1 were good, 8 was a disaster.
I don't mind 10 really, after you disable all the "recommendations". 11 is terrible.
I kept using 7 until the end and only switched to 10 because I had no alternative. But I've been very happy with LTSC.
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.
The same is happening with Windows 11 as well. People don't want to upgrade to it. With its pervasive adware and information gathering. The only reason the company I work for is buying Windows 11, is that you can't buy Windows 10 anymore.
Phones can have exponential growth in hardware capabilities, but the bigger thing is they don't need to get more powerful.
All the app makers want their apps to work on any device, so a 10yo budget phone with 1/60th the horsepower of a modern flagship will work just fine with most apps, and New phones are just way overpowered for what they actually do.
One another factor is hardware manufacturers started to screech at them to make Windows even cheaper for them, because Android is technically free (save for the driver licenses) in exchange for user data collection, so they started to kneel.
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.
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.
The literal entirety of the retail market across the planet has a concept called a "loss leader". You take a monetary hit on Product A with the expectation that people will come in for that AND by virtue of the service being readily available, also buy Product B, C, D, etc. I imagine, if done with minimal intrusiveness, Microsoft could easily do the same with Windows.
On paper as a concept it works. I'm not sure I'm savvy enough to understand the actual issues though.
They employ a lot of this strategy (the ads, the 'subscribe to Microsoft 365 today' 'your computer is at risk to ransomware because you aren't paying us for onedrive'). Except the "loss" part. In fact, I think it's rare nowadays to find a "loss" leader, they seem to have settled around at worst "barely profitable" in business. Too many loss leaders had pretty terrible business outcomes, so it seems to be an unpopular thing to expose your business the risk of going negative margin at any significant scale. Like this disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Opener
I think there are two eras that have some overlap:
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.
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.
weren't going to profit as much*
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.
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.
Microsoft has always made windows good... ... ... For them.
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!
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.
Windows 7 was the last one. Windows 10 is usable, but it was created with advertising in mind.
Vista
7 was good though
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah cause showing people ads is not anti-competitive
showing people ads is not anti-competitive
Sure. Sort of. But this isn't about competition per se, it's about abuse of an already dominant market position.
The ultimate purpose of ensuring competitive markets wherever possible is to protect and benefit consumers. Since firms that dominate their markets tend abuse that position to price-gouge or reduce the quality of their products without fear that their customers will go elsewhere -- because they can't -- foiling anti-competitive practices is part of that consumer protection mandate -- but only part. Preventing harm being done to consumers by market-dominating firms once they've attained that position is another part.
The fact that Microsoft has so many of their users captive (because their job makes them use Windows, or because it runs software they can't get elsewhere, etc.) and is now forcing exposure to advertising upon them should run afoul of the consumer protection goals of anti-trust law.
The fact that they were once brought to heel just for bundling a browser that you could completely ignore with Windows, and yet face no regulatory blowback from literally forcing their captive audience to view advertising is what irritates me to no end.
They hated him because he told them the truth.
„Shoving ads down people’s throats“ - ftfy
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.
Depending on who you ask, Vista or 8.
+1 for 8
That’s where they started to suck
NT 3.5 was the last version I’d consider “good” without reservation.
10
Vista, no question
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.
You know what's also good "built in AV"? Good design with code that's open to review. There's not nearly as much performance cost to good security if you start from a good foundation. Saying windows is slower because it's doing more security and more anti-virus is like saying I only run slow because I trip over my own feet. Like, no shit, but that's no excuse.
And singing the praises of updates and rollback systems that are like a decade behind everything else and still a consistent pain point for users is a little bit of weird fanboyism too.
I wouldn't say the updates are 'like a decade behind everything else'. Like most things in software, there's a really broad array of what is available from really bad to really good and a lot of things are in between. If we're comparing major OS architectures in terms of market share, then we're comparing what, 6 things? Anyway. I'm a fan first of the ideologies and designs present in the linux/BSD world but I'm not willing to overgeneralize the difficulty of what has been achieved in other corners...and I guess mostly I'm sick of ignorant people saying "XP is the best, why can't I use it on my institutional device". My point about how the updates are actually good now was about pointing at the stupidity of thinking that the older versions were better when they quite clearly were not. It's not as simple as "oh the old stuff was so much better than now". That's reductivist thinking that doesn't even try to understand the massive complexity of the problems of computing and software development today. We are constantly increasing the amount of overhead that we are putting into our software, and people are wondering why things are not just endlessly getting faster when we're improving the hardware year over year. It's like folks complaining about the idea of "planned obsolecence" when that obsolescence is a consequence of all the additional shit that you are requiring a computer to do. I'm not just talking about one vendor here, or one operating system, I'm just tired of these kinds of statements with so little thought behind them.
Massive overhead for no reason is what "slower" means.
Linux has better security and even heavy distros don't come anywhere close to being the massive resource hog Windows is. For "features" that downgrade the experience.
When their market share peaked and they had to find other ways to make the line go up
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.
I think they tried on 8 to make something and it was a flop then they flipped their whole business model upside down when they released 10
I suppose the weird surprise lesson of the Windows 8 fiasco is no matter how badly they bollixed it up, they wouldn't lose enough customers that they could afford break a lot more of the user experience than they ever originally thought.
Even Vista, while people had issues*, still provided a largely familiar interface and didn't go out of its way to break muscle memory and traditional workflows.
IMO, Vista wasn't as bad as is commonly held. A lot of the problem was that it was more resource-intensive than previous systems-- it really asked for decent graphics cards and 2Gb memory, but they sold a lot of cheap machines with 512Mb and crappy shared-memory chipsets that only qualified as "Vista Basic Capable" so that the manufacturers wouldn't have to formally declare them obsolete. Some drivers had teething trouble, but switching to 64 bit was going to have growing pains anyway.
I'm on 11 and don't see it either because I turned it off a long time ago and it has yet to turn back on, ever.
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
Best home screen ever
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?
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
To be fair, in both your examples(macOS, Android) the cost of the OS is borne by the cost of the device, same as if you got an OEM installed windows device from a retailer. That’s not a huge point of difference
And they use the fact that they are the default or almost a defacto monopoly. Why advertise your product when people buy it anyway? Why make it good when a bad product makes more money? Of cause there are memes like "the best advertisement for linux is windows 10" and while it might be the best advertisement, most people stay with what they have or are even forced to use it at work (like me).
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.
Candy Crush didn't even exist until 8 was the latest Windows, so I'm gonna say Windows 8
It was all downhill after Bob.
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.
Truth be told, Vista wasn't bad, it needed a bit of polish here and there but most importantly, you needed a good PC to run it smoothly.
And it was riddled with issues due to lack of 64bit driver support. You could have released 7 instead of vista and ended up with some of the same issues.
I've long thought it was fine and subjected to misplaced ridicule.
Windows ME, however....
And I was one of the very few who were lucky enough to have one.
And it lasted me like, 11 years.
It had the annoying habit of asking "Are you sure you want to run this?" too often; and early cheaper consumer-grade PCs that were really just moderately nice XP machines that could on paper even boot and run Vista that in reality were slow and had poor driver support. I had a Vista machine that was fairly powerful for the day and had decent driver support, like Gateway put some give a shit into it, and it was pretty okay.
Probably when the MBAs appeared at their offices.
So when Steve ballmer was hired in 1980, before they had even released MS-DOS? Seems like a pretty early start on deciding to ruin windows.
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.
AVD, because broadcom fucked up VMware good.
Windows 7 was the last good one, maybe windows 10 still not that bad in my opinion.
Windows 10 was half decent as an operating system to be honest, just doesn't stack up to 7. 8/8.1 is where the enshittification began and it continued with 11.
It's never been great
Windows 2000
When was Windows 1 released?
redacted
That's not the question though, they may have backwards compatibility as a sacred cow, but the theme of their changes as of 8 and newer has broadly been more about trying to force other Microsoft agendas rather than trying to just make a better product.
Though I have had some older titles that work better with wine, or even older where I need dosbox to run it.
Any long-time windows users frustrated with how things are going really should try installing Linux Mint and just see how it goes. No need to nuke windows, just dual boot for now.
There are plenty of things that can end up keeping somebody on Windows, and admittedly I have not switched over all my machines at home yet. But for general usage, it’s such a night and day difference between the OS designed to be nice to use and the OS designed according to a complex matrix of corporate goals. And that’s using a distro that’s the opposite of stripped down and light weight.
I’m able to dual boot at work, and at this point I only fire up windows occasionally to make sure it doesn’t get out of date and isolated from the network or something. Even using outlook and doing video calls on Teams works great with the web versions in Firefox.
This is me, though I use Kubuntu atm, since mint wasn't playing nice with my Nvidia card a few months ago.
Most things work flawlessly except a few games and some programs. (If anyone knows a fantastic Excel replacement that doesn't suck please let me know)
There are very few items worth keeping Windows for. I have window on a VM on my MacBook for one specific program for work.
On my desktop, I used to dual boot but deleted my windows install after a couple of years.
All the games I play on Steam work on Linux. There are some multi-player games that have anticheat that don't work well with Proton.
Besides that, if you're a professional and you need a software like Photoshop or Ableton or whatever, when you can't get by with the open source alternatives, then I think it's a valid reason. Although even in that case, I prefer MacOS
MacOS is a little annoying at first because it has a bunch of safety rails but with some tweaking, you can get it more or less functionally identical to Linux.
It's weird to not see any posts about Azure. I remember watching a keynote from Microsoft's CEO several years ago where he explicitly said the company's focus was on Azure and cloud applications, and that the role of Windows was simply to get you there. That's it. This is also inline with comments about Win7 being the last good OS because that's about when the transition started.
Windows 1.0; November 20, 1985.
I was going to say, post 3.11, but maybe you're right ;-)
It used to be "skip the evens". But since they themselves skipped 9, now it's "skip the odds".
when they made it free
Satya Nadella.
I agree on the ads and bundled services, but the "windows is slow" stuff is horseshit. A tight build of Linux boots more quickly no doubt, but a fresh Win10 or 11 install, even with bloat, is up in under 30 seconds, and runs swiftly out of the box. This isn't "slow" by any definition.
Again, let's hate the other shit, let's hate on that together.
Yeah I might have phrased that wrong. On my computer windows uses about 40% of my laptop cpu with nothing else running, but I do agree that it isn't really show
That seems very odd to me. My installs never got that bad. Not calling you a liar, just saying your out of the box experience was way shittier than mine.
After 95.
According to South Park the movie, Windows 98
Windows 8 marked the point in my opinion. It's when they tried to start locking down the operating system and focusing heavily on the cloud. The adware began in this era as well.
Vista I think
Windows Vista was the start in my eyes. XP (pro) was amazing. And then Vista came out and it broke a lot of things. Security was garbage, applications would constantly lose root files
Vista only lasted 2 years before they went back and turned it into Windows 7 with a few small tweaks, but more or less the exact same thing
98, XP, 7, 10: Good.
ME, Vista, 8, 11: Bad.
It's Star Trek Movies all over again. We just need to hang on for Windows 12.
98 still had plenty of jank, but it was worlds better than 95. I would add 3/3.11 to the "good" list if only because that was basically the only other option for a lot of people and it did what it needed to. I don't recall personally seeing windows 1 or 2.
edit: I guess I could throw NT mostly into the good section, but I mostly just did tech support for it rather than using it.
12 is in a weird cybersecurity limbo. It's supposed to have a top-notch built in anti-virus and firewall, but Microsoft has said the same thing for Vista, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Yet systems are still getting compromised. If Microsoft included a VPN with insurance guarantee of function, I'd be 1000% on board
probably 8 or 10
Ever since it's not their biggest source of revenue anymore
just after windows 7.
It always was like that. Have you heard of Windows Vista? ME?
XP is cool though.
Windows 11 seems to be fine, despite everyone whining constantly.
The ads everyone cries about? Can be disabled with a single option.
Slowness? Haven't experienced it.
11 didn't introduce anything, for me, that I couldn't already do. Some of the desktop management features aren't that bad and the UI is fine I guess. If you don't like it, turns out it's pretty easy to replace with a different shell.
Privacy concerns are pretty legitimate, but with about as much effort as getting a Linux distro set up and working you can lock that stuff down.
As someone who recently switched it is incredibly easy to get Linux Mint set up and working, far easier than tracking down where to find all the annoying ad settings I want to disable in Windows.
No, tracking down the settings to disable isn't that difficult, but I shouldn't have to, and Linux is even easier.