Windows 7 was pretty, it was customisable, it was stable. And microshaft had yet to start fucking about with ads everywhere and invasive “features”. Peak windows right there.
XP was also pretty good for its time. At that point Linux and OSX had caught up and surpassed it in many ways, but it did what it had to without getting in the way.
95 was an innovator if anything, ahead of pretty much anything else on desktop at the time, even if it DID fart and die whenever someone looked at it funny.
It was always a proprietary creation by an anticompetitive tech megacorp, and therefore bad from THAT angle, but it didn’t start being truly shite from a pure user experience angle until like. 8.
Win 7 was ok but remember, it still came with three control panels, a fucking registry and 8bit palette drwatson icon in system32 along with gigabytes of absolutely useless shit.
It was good for a windows, but it was still windows.
The registery is much easier to break, much harder to debug and much harder to fix, UNIX config is more human-friendly, I’ll never mess with the registery again
The technology behind the registry is fine (which is what I think @VinesNFluff meant)
But it’s execution in Windows was ass
In theory, a configuration manager with DB-like abilities (to maintain relationships, schematic integrity, and to abstract the file storage details), isn’t a bad idea
Also add that registry exponantionally growing over time bad documented and not easy way to clean it up and thus as time going windows start booting up longer and longer
But it’s a perfectly functional and sensible solution for storing system configurations.
No. It was not. The concept was OK, but the execution was not. Even Microsoft didn’t know what was in there. The design was horrific. They could have used keywords, they could have had a data dictionary, they could have standardized it. They could have made it not get corrupted by glancing at it.
But they didn’t, at least not for a long time. And it still sucks, just a little less.
I’ll add that a lot of the issues people have with the registry have less to do with the registry itself (it’s just – A database of settings. Nothing shocking about that) and a lot to do with Windows’ philosophy and the problems that creates.
Like yes, the registry of a computer that has been running windows for a few years is a bloated mess which creates a bunch of problems of its own – But that’s not in and of itself because the registry is a centralised binary database.
Rather it is because – Well. Microsoft. Tech corporations in general. Want computers to behave like magic boxes. Not machines you have to learn to operate. This means that whenever you install something or modify something on windows, you are left in the dark as to a lot of the stuff going on under the hood. Windows error messages are very obscure and nonspecific. When you install something, do you know what it has added to your registry? What dlls it has dropped around your machine? And with so many third party programmes and utilities dropping into the system, that shit builds up, and not even an experienced user will fully know what has built up unless they’ve been making a deliberate effort to keep track.
Compare that to Linux, which is made by nerds FOR nerds… And so everything is thoroughly documented. With the general unspoken understanding that a. You will sooner or later go under the hood and mess about in there; and b. If something fucks up, whether it is directly your fault or not, you’re the one who will have to fix it, so here’s ALL the receipts on how shit works so you CAN do that.
I’d want a registry that was compartmentalized meaning each app gets an area to store its own configuration and the apps can only modify their own settings (without root permissions).
Apps should never be expected to modify system settings directly but only through system calls.
Some Linux packages achieve this kind of behavior by adding an additional user which owns their configuration directories. That always felt hacky to me.
I have an old rig for old games and I still have Win7 SP1 installed on that. It never gets updates as it’s not connected to the internet. I know everything works there and thus it is now a time capsule. Never change a running system lol
You’ve perfectly summarized my own feelings toward the best versions of Windows. Thank you. I feel more centered seeing it summarized so well in writing.
I’ll add that I found Vista cool and interesting on a technical level, even while the practical outcome was pretty awful.
I always get pooped on when I say this, but I didn’t like 7. it brought the confusing libraries, ugly glass theme, and all computers I used it on, explorer (file manager, taskbar) crashed a lot and had to do win+r -> explorer.exe to get it going again.
I liked vista, but I only used it on my very first pc and for not much else but web browsing. I also liked 8.1, just needed to tweak it a bit, like replace that horrible start menu. I had instructions for myself for all kinds of registry stuff that needed to be done to a fresh install.
hated 10 from the beginning because it immediately seemed like it fights back too much, forcing microshit down your throat, and all that spying crap.
and finally when I saw 11…well, I’ve used mint for about two years now.
People who don’t like Glass Themes can’t be my friends. Frutiger Aero looks like happiness and a better time when technology was exciting instead of alarming.
You are otherwise entitled to your opinion (fwiw I never used those libraries and still don’t know what they were FOR) and I entirely believe your experience of having instability. Windows just be like that sometimes. No pooping here.
I totally forgot about explorer just s****ing the bed randomly in 7 lmao.
XP was bloated to hell and back, and yeah 10 was okay overall but the “kiddie gloves” hostility towards users sucked, especially hiding away control panel and trying to get rid of it altogether in 11 is what pushed me to Linux.
It still does shit the bed regularly for me (at least, at work), on win 11; address bar in file explorer just randomly stops accepting input, new tabs get stuck showing whatever was on the previous tab, etc
explorer (file manager, taskbar) crashed a lot and had to do win+r -> explorer.exe to get it going again.
This still happens on up-to-date Win10 occasionally. I’ve seen it on multiple machines, hardware tests good. A variant I’ve seen is that the Start button responds to click (changes color) but does not open the menu.
95 can suck eggs… The GUI was largely items they had co-developed with IBM for the next release of OS/2 that they instead split last minute due to contractual arguments since Microsoft wanted a larger cut of profits. There’s more depth of course but tldr version.
It’s a large part of why 95 was so crashy until osr2.5… it was largely 32 bit GUI stuck onto rushed 16 bit DOS with some quick protected mode hooks.
That said, XP was the first version I could stand.
95 was an innovator if anything, ahead of pretty much anything else on desktop at the time, even if it DID fart and die whenever someone looked at it funny.
Pretty good at collecting every virus under the sun and beginning the anti consumer practices.
95 was an innovator if anything, ahead of pretty much anything else on desktop at the time
Huh? Coming from an Amiga it really didn’t seem innovative. Or OS2 or BeOS (which ran circles around Win 95) or Macs. Windows 95 was still just another dos program on top of a shell.
Windows 95 was still just another dos program on top of a shell.
That’s just straight up misinformation. Even 3.1 wasn’t really like that anymore (though, it was closer). Windows 9x uses DOS as a bootloader, and retains the original DOS components for backwards compatibility, but loads into a fully 32-bit kernel with preemptive multitasking and many features DOS couldn’t dream of touching. It is built atop the original 16-bit DOS, and inherits a lot of jank from that, which is why eventually they ditched it to use the developed-from-the-ground-up NT kernel everywhere instead (and broke compatibility with a lot of old hardware and software because of it, much to the chagrin of the users–)
Huh? Coming from an Amiga it really didn’t seem innovative. Or OS2 or BeOS (which ran circles around Win 95) or Macs.
OS/2 and Windows are siblings, with most of OS/2 being written by the same people within Microsoft. Windows NT is what happened when Microsoft decided to backstab IBM (again) to increase their profit margin (as I myself have said, Microsoft has always been bad from the ‘evil megacorp’ angle).
BeOS was, at the time, an operating system only for Be’s own PowerPC based workstations (and workstation != desktop, especially in those days) – Though there were talks to bring at least parts of it to desktop as the basis for MacOS Copland, that didn’t go through (instead Apple vored NeXT and used its nutrients to make OSX). – It didn’t get a public, user-facing, desktop release that a mere mortal could buy until 1997 (on PPC Mac. 98 for the x86 PC version), which in mid-90s tech terms is like a geological epoch later. Are we also going to compare Doom 2 to Half Life and shit on Doom 2 for being behind HL?
MacOS at the time was still using Cooperative Multitasking (which is what Win 3.0 used, and is unreliable af because any crashed program takes out the entire OS with it) and wouldn’t get true Preemptive Multitasking until OSX in '99.
The amiga did get Preemptive Multitasking to the desktop first (in '86, even. Commodore seriously didn’t know what they had, or they would have ruled the roost), but preemptive multitasking wasn’t the only feather in 9x’s hat.
DirectX was so good at doing what it did (acting as a layer of abstraction between gamedevs and hardware, allowing them to just ask the library to draw and play stuff, and it would figure itself out with the hardware) that alternatives like SDL took another 3 years to exist and much longer to catch up – And it was necessary, because the PC space, unlike the likes of the Mac or Amiga, was an industry standard rather than being controlled by one company, and users could have any combination of wacky third party video and soundcards, and DirectX just dealt with it.
And Plug-and-Play, while buggy as fuck to the point that it really only worked when it wanted, was something that hadn’t been done before. Adding new hardware and the OS just figures that shit out, no reboot required? Unheard of.
Edit: BeOS in 97, not 98. Still retains the whole ‘this was a geological epoch by 90s tech standards’ comment though.
Well I appreciated all of that believe it or not. I still stand by windows 95 being basically a hybrid with the bootload from DOS, but I understand your distinction. But because while windows 95 was 32 bit preemptive, it still had 16 bit applications running at the same time that were cooperative multitasking such as User.dll. They pushed processes to User.dll It still was this weird hybrid sitting on top of several 16 bit processes.
As an Amiga user by early 1988, and access to DEC Alphas and Sun workstations, windows 95 seemed very late to the party. But you are right that in hindsight, windows 95 solved a lot of problems for working with generic hardware for the masses.
But also remember that DirectX at launch was not easy to work with. Microsoft had licensed OpenGL from silicon graphics, and later bought the graphics engine for DirectX from Rendermorphics. OpenGL would be at windows 95 launch far better performing, and directx still hard to write for and limited graphic functionality. But they continued to improve it and you are right they supports sound, joysticks, graphics, one stop shop eventually.
@VinesNFluff@westyvw but win9x still using dos drivers, so it is dos application. 32 bit dos application running on untouched dos system. Yes, it implements full 32 bit OS
It isn’t. It has its own Driver model. DOS drivers are installable and can be called up for backwards compatibility, but windows drivers are different and incompatible.
Not really
Windows 7 was pretty, it was customisable, it was stable. And microshaft had yet to start fucking about with ads everywhere and invasive “features”. Peak windows right there.
XP was also pretty good for its time. At that point Linux and OSX had caught up and surpassed it in many ways, but it did what it had to without getting in the way.
95 was an innovator if anything, ahead of pretty much anything else on desktop at the time, even if it DID fart and die whenever someone looked at it funny.
It was always a proprietary creation by an anticompetitive tech megacorp, and therefore bad from THAT angle, but it didn’t start being truly shite from a pure user experience angle until like. 8.
Win 7 was ok but remember, it still came with three control panels, a fucking registry and 8bit palette drwatson icon in system32 along with gigabytes of absolutely useless shit.
It was good for a windows, but it was still windows.
Nothing wrong with the Registry
It’s a different way of handling things compared to how Linux (and most unixes) does it with 18391823 text files
But it’s a perfectly functional and sensible solution for storing system configurations.
The registery is much easier to break, much harder to debug and much harder to fix, UNIX config is more human-friendly, I’ll never mess with the registery again
The technology behind the registry is fine (which is what I think @VinesNFluff meant)
But it’s execution in Windows was ass
In theory, a configuration manager with DB-like abilities (to maintain relationships, schematic integrity, and to abstract the file storage details), isn’t a bad idea
But the registry as it is today is pure pain
In theory having a database of configuration settings isn’t a horrible idea.
But the execution was terrible.
Also add that registry exponantionally growing over time bad documented and not easy way to clean it up and thus as time going windows start booting up longer and longer
No. It was not. The concept was OK, but the execution was not. Even Microsoft didn’t know what was in there. The design was horrific. They could have used keywords, they could have had a data dictionary, they could have standardized it. They could have made it not get corrupted by glancing at it.
But they didn’t, at least not for a long time. And it still sucks, just a little less.
A centralized place to store settings (e.g. the registery) isn’t a bad idea in and of itself.
That.
I’ll add that a lot of the issues people have with the registry have less to do with the registry itself (it’s just – A database of settings. Nothing shocking about that) and a lot to do with Windows’ philosophy and the problems that creates.
Like yes, the registry of a computer that has been running windows for a few years is a bloated mess which creates a bunch of problems of its own – But that’s not in and of itself because the registry is a centralised binary database.
Rather it is because – Well. Microsoft. Tech corporations in general. Want computers to behave like magic boxes. Not machines you have to learn to operate. This means that whenever you install something or modify something on windows, you are left in the dark as to a lot of the stuff going on under the hood. Windows error messages are very obscure and nonspecific. When you install something, do you know what it has added to your registry? What dlls it has dropped around your machine? And with so many third party programmes and utilities dropping into the system, that shit builds up, and not even an experienced user will fully know what has built up unless they’ve been making a deliberate effort to keep track.
Compare that to Linux, which is made by nerds FOR nerds… And so everything is thoroughly documented. With the general unspoken understanding that a. You will sooner or later go under the hood and mess about in there; and b. If something fucks up, whether it is directly your fault or not, you’re the one who will have to fix it, so here’s ALL the receipts on how shit works so you CAN do that.
I’d want a registry that was compartmentalized meaning each app gets an area to store its own configuration and the apps can only modify their own settings (without root permissions).
Apps should never be expected to modify system settings directly but only through system calls.
Some Linux packages achieve this kind of behavior by adding an additional user which owns their configuration directories. That always felt hacky to me.
Anyone who saw Mac at the time would know what pretty was for interfaces. Windows has never been pretty.
I have an old rig for old games and I still have Win7 SP1 installed on that. It never gets updates as it’s not connected to the internet. I know everything works there and thus it is now a time capsule. Never change a running system lol
You’ve perfectly summarized my own feelings toward the best versions of Windows. Thank you. I feel more centered seeing it summarized so well in writing.
I’ll add that I found Vista cool and interesting on a technical level, even while the practical outcome was pretty awful.
I always get pooped on when I say this, but I didn’t like 7. it brought the confusing libraries, ugly glass theme, and all computers I used it on, explorer (file manager, taskbar) crashed a lot and had to do win+r -> explorer.exe to get it going again.
I liked vista, but I only used it on my very first pc and for not much else but web browsing. I also liked 8.1, just needed to tweak it a bit, like replace that horrible start menu. I had instructions for myself for all kinds of registry stuff that needed to be done to a fresh install.
hated 10 from the beginning because it immediately seemed like it fights back too much, forcing microshit down your throat, and all that spying crap.
and finally when I saw 11…well, I’ve used mint for about two years now.
People who don’t like Glass Themes can’t be my friends. Frutiger Aero looks like happiness and a better time when technology was exciting instead of alarming.
You are otherwise entitled to your opinion (fwiw I never used those libraries and still don’t know what they were FOR) and I entirely believe your experience of having instability. Windows just be like that sometimes. No pooping here.
I totally forgot about explorer just s****ing the bed randomly in 7 lmao.
XP was bloated to hell and back, and yeah 10 was okay overall but the “kiddie gloves” hostility towards users sucked, especially hiding away control panel and trying to get rid of it altogether in 11 is what pushed me to Linux.
It still does shit the bed regularly for me (at least, at work), on win 11; address bar in file explorer just randomly stops accepting input, new tabs get stuck showing whatever was on the previous tab, etc
Oh god I’m so sorry. I haven’t willingly touched my Win11 boot in probably close to a year so I didn’t realize things were that bad.
This still happens on up-to-date Win10 occasionally. I’ve seen it on multiple machines, hardware tests good. A variant I’ve seen is that the Start button responds to click (changes color) but does not open the menu.
95 can suck eggs… The GUI was largely items they had co-developed with IBM for the next release of OS/2 that they instead split last minute due to contractual arguments since Microsoft wanted a larger cut of profits. There’s more depth of course but tldr version.
It’s a large part of why 95 was so crashy until osr2.5… it was largely 32 bit GUI stuck onto rushed 16 bit DOS with some quick protected mode hooks.
That said, XP was the first version I could stand.
7 was actually pretty good.
com/com 😂
Pretty good at collecting every virus under the sun and beginning the anti consumer practices.
Huh? Coming from an Amiga it really didn’t seem innovative. Or OS2 or BeOS (which ran circles around Win 95) or Macs. Windows 95 was still just another dos program on top of a shell.
That’s just straight up misinformation. Even 3.1 wasn’t really like that anymore (though, it was closer). Windows 9x uses DOS as a bootloader, and retains the original DOS components for backwards compatibility, but loads into a fully 32-bit kernel with preemptive multitasking and many features DOS couldn’t dream of touching. It is built atop the original 16-bit DOS, and inherits a lot of jank from that, which is why eventually they ditched it to use the developed-from-the-ground-up NT kernel everywhere instead (and broke compatibility with a lot of old hardware and software because of it, much to the chagrin of the users–)
OS/2 and Windows are siblings, with most of OS/2 being written by the same people within Microsoft. Windows NT is what happened when Microsoft decided to backstab IBM (again) to increase their profit margin (as I myself have said, Microsoft has always been bad from the ‘evil megacorp’ angle).
BeOS was, at the time, an operating system only for Be’s own PowerPC based workstations (and workstation != desktop, especially in those days) – Though there were talks to bring at least parts of it to desktop as the basis for MacOS Copland, that didn’t go through (instead Apple vored NeXT and used its nutrients to make OSX). – It didn’t get a public, user-facing, desktop release that a mere mortal could buy until 1997 (on PPC Mac. 98 for the x86 PC version), which in mid-90s tech terms is like a geological epoch later. Are we also going to compare Doom 2 to Half Life and shit on Doom 2 for being behind HL?
MacOS at the time was still using Cooperative Multitasking (which is what Win 3.0 used, and is unreliable af because any crashed program takes out the entire OS with it) and wouldn’t get true Preemptive Multitasking until OSX in '99.
The amiga did get Preemptive Multitasking to the desktop first (in '86, even. Commodore seriously didn’t know what they had, or they would have ruled the roost), but preemptive multitasking wasn’t the only feather in 9x’s hat.
DirectX was so good at doing what it did (acting as a layer of abstraction between gamedevs and hardware, allowing them to just ask the library to draw and play stuff, and it would figure itself out with the hardware) that alternatives like SDL took another 3 years to exist and much longer to catch up – And it was necessary, because the PC space, unlike the likes of the Mac or Amiga, was an industry standard rather than being controlled by one company, and users could have any combination of wacky third party video and soundcards, and DirectX just dealt with it.
And Plug-and-Play, while buggy as fuck to the point that it really only worked when it wanted, was something that hadn’t been done before. Adding new hardware and the OS just figures that shit out, no reboot required? Unheard of.
Edit: BeOS in 97, not 98. Still retains the whole ‘this was a geological epoch by 90s tech standards’ comment though.
Well I appreciated all of that believe it or not. I still stand by windows 95 being basically a hybrid with the bootload from DOS, but I understand your distinction. But because while windows 95 was 32 bit preemptive, it still had 16 bit applications running at the same time that were cooperative multitasking such as User.dll. They pushed processes to User.dll It still was this weird hybrid sitting on top of several 16 bit processes.
As an Amiga user by early 1988, and access to DEC Alphas and Sun workstations, windows 95 seemed very late to the party. But you are right that in hindsight, windows 95 solved a lot of problems for working with generic hardware for the masses.
But also remember that DirectX at launch was not easy to work with. Microsoft had licensed OpenGL from silicon graphics, and later bought the graphics engine for DirectX from Rendermorphics. OpenGL would be at windows 95 launch far better performing, and directx still hard to write for and limited graphic functionality. But they continued to improve it and you are right they supports sound, joysticks, graphics, one stop shop eventually.
Well damn. A person who disagrees with me and is nice and eloquent about it, even teaching me some new information.
Mad respect, stranger.
@VinesNFluff @westyvw but win9x still using dos drivers, so it is dos application. 32 bit dos application running on untouched dos system. Yes, it implements full 32 bit OS
It isn’t. It has its own Driver model. DOS drivers are installable and can be called up for backwards compatibility, but windows drivers are different and incompatible.
@VinesNFluff it has, but in difference with NT kernel it keeps using DOS (with all it’s 16 bit limits, slow interrupts, etc…) and keeps it in memory
@westyvw > Pretty good at collecting every virus under the sun
Not really.
It did have some fails security-wise but 99% of exploits happened on non-updated machines which also had firewall disabled.
98 was far worse in that regard.