When did Microsoft stop developing Windows to be good?
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?
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)
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.
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.
I think there are two eras that have some overlap:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When their market share peaked and they had to find other ways to make the line go up
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
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
It was all downhill after Bob.
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.
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.
It's never been great
Windows 2000
When was Windows 1 released?
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.
when they made it free
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.
According to South Park the movie, Windows 98
After 95.
Vista I think
Satya Nadella.
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.
probably 8 or 10
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
just after windows 7.
It always was like that. Have you heard of Windows Vista? ME?
XP is cool though.
Ever since it's not their biggest source of revenue anymore
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.
Google has worked hard to break up Microsoft's monopoly and Windows-Office lock in effect. The way Google designed Android and the eco system around it pushed out the model where you fully own your device. ("own" as in be in full control of what you bought).
Nowadays people are used to get things for the price of their personal data and/or spending half of the time using their device by watching ads.
As I see it, Microsoft has just adjusted their offering on the consumer market to what people are used to today.
Past times will always be better.