info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
windows iterations (was: Re: disk to VHD)
2 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 22, 2021, 9:00:31 AM9/22/21
to
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than its
>predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm concerned,
>is version 7 to 8.
>
I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was good)
- though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you sometimes have
to consider minor variants to make it work):
>
(I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
3. - usable
3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time
95 - first with the modern GUI; fair (poor at USB)
98 - fixed some of 95, but unfinished in some ways
98SE - good (towards the end, let down by USB, though there was the -
third-party - universal USB driver)
Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though
that's partly true of the '9xs)
XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come to
light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least because
user access control was rather vicious
7 - mostly liked, after initial resistance to any new variant
8 - mostly hated, mainly for the "tiles" interface (which was only the
default)
8.1 - fixed some of the worst aspects of 8, but still not very popular
10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning. Some -
probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike the
(without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot
different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.
11 - ?
That's initially the "consumer" ones: the business area also had NT3.51
(Windows 3.1 UI, roughly, but more robust - but rather stark), then NT4
('9x/XP interface; generally considered better, but needed more powerful
hardware - many companies used 3.51 and 4 in parallel as the 3.51
machines still had a lot of life left in them). The two streams more or
less merged at XP - though there were variants of all versions aimed
more at home (often called Home) and business (often called Pro) from
then on (as well as other versions - sometimes a very minimal version
aimed at the least hardware capable of running the version at all,
sometimes a version aimed at schools, sometimes a top level version
{sometimes called Ultimate}). [I haven't heard any mention of variants
of 11, but I'd be surprised if there aren't.]
There, that should provoke lots of arguments (-: [Though that
wasn't/isn't my intention.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS
Limited (m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than its
>predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm concerned,
>is version 7 to 8.
>
I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was good)
- though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you sometimes have
to consider minor variants to make it work):
>
(I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
3. - usable
3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time
95 - first with the modern GUI; fair (poor at USB)
98 - fixed some of 95, but unfinished in some ways
98SE - good (towards the end, let down by USB, though there was the -
third-party - universal USB driver)
Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though
that's partly true of the '9xs)
XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come to
light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least because
user access control was rather vicious
7 - mostly liked, after initial resistance to any new variant
8 - mostly hated, mainly for the "tiles" interface (which was only the
default)
8.1 - fixed some of the worst aspects of 8, but still not very popular
10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning. Some -
probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike the
(without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot
different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.
11 - ?
That's initially the "consumer" ones: the business area also had NT3.51
(Windows 3.1 UI, roughly, but more robust - but rather stark), then NT4
('9x/XP interface; generally considered better, but needed more powerful
hardware - many companies used 3.51 and 4 in parallel as the 3.51
machines still had a lot of life left in them). The two streams more or
less merged at XP - though there were variants of all versions aimed
more at home (often called Home) and business (often called Pro) from
then on (as well as other versions - sometimes a very minimal version
aimed at the least hardware capable of running the version at all,
sometimes a version aimed at schools, sometimes a top level version
{sometimes called Ultimate}). [I haven't heard any mention of variants
of 11, but I'd be surprised if there aren't.]
There, that should provoke lots of arguments (-: [Though that
wasn't/isn't my intention.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS
Limited (m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
RabidHussar
Sep 22, 2021, 10:03:08 AM9/22/21
to
On 2021-09-22 8:59 a.m., J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than its predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm concerned, is version 7 to 8.I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was good) - though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you sometimes have to consider minor variants to make it work):
(I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
3. - usable
I liked it but didn't see the point of the software at the time.
Much of the good stuff was in DOS.
3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time
It allowed you to get onto the Internet so it was definitely
good. It doesn't multitask well for some but I'm a "one
application at a time" type of guy anyway so I didn't see the
issues, even on my very outdated hardware at the time.
95 - first with the modern GUI; fair (poor at USB)
It was pretty good, especially with the Plus pack. However, the
winnuke crap people used all the time showcased how vulnerable it
was security-wise.
98 - fixed some of 95, but unfinished in some ways
I found it awful.
98SE - good (towards the end, let down by USB, though there was the - third-party - universal USB driver)
My go-to OS until Windows 2000 came out.
Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though that's partly true of the '9xs)
Garbage in every way. Stability was clearly not the developers'
concern at this point in time.
XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
You forgot 2000 which was stellar in every possible way. XP was
an improvement on something that was already very excellent.
Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come to light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least because user access control was rather vicious
I didn't see the issue, to be honest. I was part of the
beta-testing process and found bugs to report on a daily basis.
When they froze the code and released it to the public, I couldn't
believe it: clearly, what I was running was nowhere near ready for
the public. However, what the public DID get wasn't that bad as
long as your hardware wasn't already outdated. Some features have
since disappeared such as the animated wallpaper but it wasn't as
bad as people say. Most people don't realize that 7 is basically
just a re-released version of Vista.
7 - mostly liked, after initial resistance to any new variant
It was little more than an optimized version of Vista whose
performance was close enough to XP that people didn't mind
upgrading. I think that people are probably still holding onto it
to this day since none of the newer stuff responds as quickly.
8 - mostly hated, mainly for the "tiles" interface (which was only the default)
It was the same as 7 except for the absence of the Start button (you
had to go to the lower-left corner instead). I understand what they
tried to do with the tiles but a Start menu would have been better.
8.1 - fixed some of the worst aspects of 8, but still not very popular
Same as 8 except that the Start button re-appeared. I couldn't
see any other improvements, personally.
10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning. Some - probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike the (without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.
Not bad but some of its issues are hard to ignore, notably how
Bluetooth ceases to function for no good reason every so often,
same as the wireless. The continued confusion between the new
Settings panel and the old Control Panel drag it down as well.
11 - ?
That's initially the "consumer" ones: the business area also had NT3.51 (Windows 3.1 UI, roughly, but more robust - but rather stark), then NT4 ('9x/XP interface; generally considered better, but needed more powerful hardware - many companies used 3.51 and 4 in parallel as the 3.51 machines still had a lot of life left in them). The two streams more or less merged at XP - though there were variants of all versions aimed more at home (often called Home) and business (often called Pro) from then on (as well as other versions - sometimes a very minimal version aimed at the least hardware capable of running the version at all, sometimes a version aimed at schools, sometimes a top level version {sometimes called Ultimate}). [I haven't heard any mention of variants of 11, but I'd be surprised if there aren't.]
There, that should provoke lots of arguments (-: [Though that wasn't/isn't my intention.]
I find 11 to be quite good so far, especially since the Bluetooth
and wireless issues are mostly resolved. There is a lag in getting
to the context menu but it doesn't ruin the overall experience.
It's clearly better than 10, in my opinion, even in the beta
stages.
--
@RabidHussar
Proud LibreOffice & Thunderbird donor
Supporter of independent journalism
John 15:18
@RabidHussar
Proud LibreOffice & Thunderbird donor
Supporter of independent journalism
John 15:18
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 22, 2021, 10:45:14 AM9/22/21
to
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 at 10:03:06, RabidHussar <ra...@huss.ar> wrote (my
> 3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time
>
>It allowed you to get onto the Internet so it was definitely good. It
Actually, I used the internet more under DOS (with a variant of the -
ITIW - KA9Q suite) in those days, only firing up W3.1 if I wanted to use
a web page. (I. e., email, FTP, etc. was fine - I think I even used Lynx
sometimes. Was still on dialup.)
>doesn't multitask well for some but I'm a "one application at a time"
I was too, then. (Well, DOS encouraged that!)
>type of guy anyway so I didn't see the issues, even on my very outdated
>hardware at the time.
> 95 - first with the modern GUI; fair (poor at USB)
>
>It was pretty good, especially with the Plus pack. However, the winnuke
I never felt tempted to get the Plus! pack!
>crap people used all the time showcased how vulnerable it was
>security-wise.
> 98 - fixed some of 95, but unfinished in some ways
>I found it awful.
I don't remember enough about it.
> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS
> (though that's partly true of the '9xs)
>
>Garbage in every way. Stability was clearly not the developers' concern
>at this point in time.
Seemed rushed, and not to offer anything much beyond 98SE. And some
things removed IIRR.
> XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
>You forgot 2000 which was stellar in every possible way. XP was an
>improvement on something that was already very excellent.
I did indeed forget 2000. Though I think it was still part of the NT
sequence, rather than the "home" sequence. Though some overlap, I think
of the NT sequence as mainly NTFS-based, with the home sequence based on
FAT (and variants). Came together in XP (which could run on FAT, but by
default didn't).
[I preferred FAT, but Everything - the Voidtools utility - doesn't work
anything like as well on FAT; I think that was the clincher, as I find
Everything very useful.]
experience with Vista was helping an old chap who'd been given a Vista
laptop, which was as slow as molasses; I don't think it actually didn't
work, but wait times were bad, to the extent that I more than once
thought of paving it and installing XP. Reading what _others_ were
saying, I think the pain of the UIC _was_ great.
>don't realize that 7 is basically just a re-released version of Vista.
I've read it said as "Vista was an early 7" [as I said above] (-:
> 7 - mostly liked, after initial resistance to any new variant
>It was little more than an optimized version of Vista whose performance
>was close enough to XP that people didn't mind upgrading. I think that
>people are probably still holding onto it to this day since none of the
>newer stuff responds as quickly.
Hmm.
useful if you don't have a touch screen, which most even laptops didn't
(certainly not machines with separate monitors). Actually, I'm not aware
large touch screens are that common, even now.
> 8.1 - fixed some of the worst aspects of 8, but still not very
> popular
>Same as 8 except that the Start button re-appeared. I couldn't see any
>other improvements, personally.
I'll admit I have minimal experience of the 8s, so based on what I've
read others saying. (Brief plays with it in shops - remember shops!? -
it seemed more alien than anything before, and to some extent since.)
haven't much experience of using it.)
>the wireless. The continued confusion between the new Settings panel
>and the old Control Panel drag it down as well.
Agreed, the confusion is bad - with two and a half ways of getting to
things: Settings, and the two ways the Control Panel can be sorted.
(Plus Device Manager as a third way for some things.)
> 11 - ?
>
> That's initially the "consumer" ones: the business area also had
> NT3.51 (Windows 3.1 UI, roughly, but more robust - but rather
> stark), then NT4 ('9x/XP interface; generally considered better, but
> needed more powerful hardware - many companies used 3.51 and 4 in
> parallel as the 3.51 machines still had a lot of life left in them).
Then 2000.
> The two streams more or less merged at XP - though there were
> variants of all versions aimed more at home (often called Home) and
> business (often called Pro) from then on (as well as other versions
> - sometimes a very minimal version aimed at the least hardware
> capable of running the version at all, sometimes a version aimed at
> schools, sometimes a top level version {sometimes called Ultimate}).
> [I haven't heard any mention of variants of 11, but I'd be surprised
> if there aren't.]
>
> There, that should provoke lots of arguments (-: [Though that
> wasn't/isn't my intention.]
>
>I find 11 to be quite good so far, especially since the Bluetooth and
>wireless issues are mostly resolved. There is a lag in getting to the
>context menu but it doesn't ruin the overall experience. It's clearly
>better than 10, in my opinion, even in the beta stages.
Your "clearly" is perhaps different from some. I've not used it at all,
but from what I've seen on here, most of those who've tried it seem to
give the impression that "there's nothing* wrong with it, but I don't
see that much that's a game-changer improvement either". (*other than
teething troubles.) The fact that the installer - or tester - demands
certain things (hardware) that the OS itself doesn't actually need to
run (so far) is a bit of a con, though; whether - since that fact has
leaked out - M$ relax those requirements, or actually implement
something that really needs them (which would be seen by some as being
done in a fit of pique [others will see it as a good security measure -
the TPS module thing - or just a good clear-out of old hardware - the
generations thing]), we'll just have to see.
responses usually follow points raised):
>On 2021-09-22 8:59 a.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>
>> I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than
>> its predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm
>> concerned, is version 7 to 8.
>
>
> I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was
> good) - though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you
> sometimes have to consider minor variants to make it work):
>
> (I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
> 3. - usable
>
>I liked it but didn't see the point of the software at the time. Much
>of the good stuff was in DOS.
Indeed.
>On 2021-09-22 8:59 a.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>
>> I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than
>> its predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm
>> concerned, is version 7 to 8.
>
>
> I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was
> good) - though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you
> sometimes have to consider minor variants to make it work):
>
> (I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
> 3. - usable
>
>I liked it but didn't see the point of the software at the time. Much
>of the good stuff was in DOS.
> 3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time
>
>It allowed you to get onto the Internet so it was definitely good. It
ITIW - KA9Q suite) in those days, only firing up W3.1 if I wanted to use
a web page. (I. e., email, FTP, etc. was fine - I think I even used Lynx
sometimes. Was still on dialup.)
>doesn't multitask well for some but I'm a "one application at a time"
>type of guy anyway so I didn't see the issues, even on my very outdated
>hardware at the time.
> 95 - first with the modern GUI; fair (poor at USB)
>
>It was pretty good, especially with the Plus pack. However, the winnuke
>crap people used all the time showcased how vulnerable it was
>security-wise.
> 98 - fixed some of 95, but unfinished in some ways
>I found it awful.
>
> 98SE - good (towards the end, let down by USB, though there was the
> - third-party - universal USB driver)
>My go-to OS until Windows 2000 came out.
I stayed with it a long time.
> 98SE - good (towards the end, let down by USB, though there was the
> - third-party - universal USB driver)
>My go-to OS until Windows 2000 came out.
> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS
> (though that's partly true of the '9xs)
>
>Garbage in every way. Stability was clearly not the developers' concern
>at this point in time.
things removed IIRR.
> XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
>You forgot 2000 which was stellar in every possible way. XP was an
>improvement on something that was already very excellent.
sequence, rather than the "home" sequence. Though some overlap, I think
of the NT sequence as mainly NTFS-based, with the home sequence based on
FAT (and variants). Came together in XP (which could run on FAT, but by
default didn't).
[I preferred FAT, but Everything - the Voidtools utility - doesn't work
anything like as well on FAT; I think that was the clincher, as I find
Everything very useful.]
>
> Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come
> to light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least
> because user access control was rather vicious
>
>I didn't see the issue, to be honest. I was part of the beta-testing
>process and found bugs to report on a daily basis. When they froze the
>code and released it to the public, I couldn't believe it: clearly,
>what I was running was nowhere near ready for the public. However, what
>the public DID get wasn't that bad as long as your hardware wasn't
>already outdated. Some features have since disappeared such as the
>animated wallpaper but it wasn't as bad as people say. Most people
I think you're in the minority - perhaps being an "insider". My main
> Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come
> to light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least
> because user access control was rather vicious
>
>I didn't see the issue, to be honest. I was part of the beta-testing
>process and found bugs to report on a daily basis. When they froze the
>code and released it to the public, I couldn't believe it: clearly,
>what I was running was nowhere near ready for the public. However, what
>the public DID get wasn't that bad as long as your hardware wasn't
>already outdated. Some features have since disappeared such as the
>animated wallpaper but it wasn't as bad as people say. Most people
experience with Vista was helping an old chap who'd been given a Vista
laptop, which was as slow as molasses; I don't think it actually didn't
work, but wait times were bad, to the extent that I more than once
thought of paving it and installing XP. Reading what _others_ were
saying, I think the pain of the UIC _was_ great.
>don't realize that 7 is basically just a re-released version of Vista.
> 7 - mostly liked, after initial resistance to any new variant
>It was little more than an optimized version of Vista whose performance
>was close enough to XP that people didn't mind upgrading. I think that
>people are probably still holding onto it to this day since none of the
>newer stuff responds as quickly.
>
> 8 - mostly hated, mainly for the "tiles" interface (which was only
> the default)
>It was the same as 7 except for the absence of the Start button (you
>had to go to the lower-left corner instead). I understand what they
>tried to do with the tiles but a Start menu would have been better.
It sort of coincided with the explosion in 'phones; tiles are a lot less
> 8 - mostly hated, mainly for the "tiles" interface (which was only
> the default)
>It was the same as 7 except for the absence of the Start button (you
>had to go to the lower-left corner instead). I understand what they
>tried to do with the tiles but a Start menu would have been better.
useful if you don't have a touch screen, which most even laptops didn't
(certainly not machines with separate monitors). Actually, I'm not aware
large touch screens are that common, even now.
> 8.1 - fixed some of the worst aspects of 8, but still not very
> popular
>Same as 8 except that the Start button re-appeared. I couldn't see any
>other improvements, personally.
read others saying. (Brief plays with it in shops - remember shops!? -
it seemed more alien than anything before, and to some extent since.)
>
> 10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning.
> Some - probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike
> the (without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
> Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot
> different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.
>
>Not bad but some of its issues are hard to ignore, notably how
>Bluetooth ceases to function for no good reason every so often, same as
How much of that is just your (or a few like you) experience, though? (I
> 10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning.
> Some - probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike
> the (without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
> Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot
> different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.
>
>Not bad but some of its issues are hard to ignore, notably how
>Bluetooth ceases to function for no good reason every so often, same as
haven't much experience of using it.)
>the wireless. The continued confusion between the new Settings panel
>and the old Control Panel drag it down as well.
things: Settings, and the two ways the Control Panel can be sorted.
(Plus Device Manager as a third way for some things.)
> 11 - ?
>
> That's initially the "consumer" ones: the business area also had
> NT3.51 (Windows 3.1 UI, roughly, but more robust - but rather
> stark), then NT4 ('9x/XP interface; generally considered better, but
> needed more powerful hardware - many companies used 3.51 and 4 in
> parallel as the 3.51 machines still had a lot of life left in them).
> The two streams more or less merged at XP - though there were
> variants of all versions aimed more at home (often called Home) and
> business (often called Pro) from then on (as well as other versions
> - sometimes a very minimal version aimed at the least hardware
> capable of running the version at all, sometimes a version aimed at
> schools, sometimes a top level version {sometimes called Ultimate}).
> [I haven't heard any mention of variants of 11, but I'd be surprised
> if there aren't.]
>
> There, that should provoke lots of arguments (-: [Though that
> wasn't/isn't my intention.]
>
>I find 11 to be quite good so far, especially since the Bluetooth and
>wireless issues are mostly resolved. There is a lag in getting to the
>context menu but it doesn't ruin the overall experience. It's clearly
>better than 10, in my opinion, even in the beta stages.
but from what I've seen on here, most of those who've tried it seem to
give the impression that "there's nothing* wrong with it, but I don't
see that much that's a game-changer improvement either". (*other than
teething troubles.) The fact that the installer - or tester - demands
certain things (hardware) that the OS itself doesn't actually need to
run (so far) is a bit of a con, though; whether - since that fact has
leaked out - M$ relax those requirements, or actually implement
something that really needs them (which would be seen by some as being
done in a fit of pique [others will see it as a good security measure -
the TPS module thing - or just a good clear-out of old hardware - the
generations thing]), we'll just have to see.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I hope you dream a pig.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Ken Blake
Sep 22, 2021, 11:16:44 AM9/22/21
to
On 9/22/2021 5:59 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>>I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than its
>>predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm concerned,
>>is version 7 to 8.
>>
> I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was good)
Not me.
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>>I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than its
>>predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm concerned,
>>is version 7 to 8.
>>
> I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was good)
> - though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you sometimes have
> to consider minor variants to make it work):
>>
> (I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
> 3. - usable
> 3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time
back in those days:
Windows 3.11 was almost identical to 3.1. It just added a few fixes that
had been available separately and a few new drivers.
You probably meant Windows for Workgroups 3.11. That *was* different,
but please don't mix it up with Windows 3.11.
> 95 - first with the modern GUI; fair (poor at USB)
> 98 - fixed some of 95, but unfinished in some ways
> 98SE - good (towards the end, let down by USB, though there was the -
> third-party - universal USB driver)
> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though
> that's partly true of the '9xs)
thought it was fine.
> XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
> Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come to
> light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least because
> user access control was rather vicious
> 7 - mostly liked, after initial resistance to any new variant
> 8 - mostly hated, mainly for the "tiles" interface (which was only the
> default)
> 8.1 - fixed some of the worst aspects of 8, but still not very popular
> 10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning. Some -
> probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike the
> (without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
> Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot
> different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.
> 11 - ?
We'll see.
> That's initially the "consumer" ones: the business area also had NT3.51
> (Windows 3.1 UI, roughly, but more robust - but rather stark), then NT4
> ('9x/XP interface; generally considered better, but needed more powerful
> hardware - many companies used 3.51 and 4 in parallel as the 3.51
> machines still had a lot of life left in them).
The two streams more or
> less merged at XP - though there were variants of all versions aimed
> more at home (often called Home) and business (often called Pro) from
> then on (as well as other versions - sometimes a very minimal version
> aimed at the least hardware capable of running the version at all,
> sometimes a version aimed at schools, sometimes a top level version
> {sometimes called Ultimate}). [I haven't heard any mention of variants
> of 11, but I'd be surprised if there aren't.]
>
> There, that should provoke lots of arguments (-: [Though that
> wasn't/isn't my intention.]
--
Ken
RabidHussar
Sep 22, 2021, 12:10:34 PM9/22/21
to
On 2021-09-22 10:43 a.m., J. P.
Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 at 10:03:06, RabidHussar <ra...@huss.ar> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On 2021-09-22 8:59 a.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 16:57:21, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
I almost always think each new version of Windows is better than
its predecessor. The one flagrant counterexample, as far as I'm
concerned, is version 7 to 8.
I vaguely favour the alternating principle (every _second_ one was
good) - though each had _something_ worthwhile to add (and you
sometimes have to consider minor variants to make it work):
(I never used 1 and 2. Hardware probably wasn't up to it anyway.)
3. - usable
I liked it but didn't see the point of the software at the time. Much
of the good stuff was in DOS.
Indeed.
3.1 (and 3.11) - good for their time
It allowed you to get onto the Internet so it was definitely good. It
Actually, I used the internet more under DOS (with a variant of the - ITIW - KA9Q suite) in those days, only firing up W3.1 if I wanted to use a web page. (I. e., email, FTP, etc. was fine - I think I even used Lynx sometimes. Was still on dialup.)
My first Internet experience was through a shell account (Delphi Internet) and you didn't have a choice but to browse the web through lynx. I thought it was neat but once I realized that I could get graphics, I switched over to Windows 3.1 and the Mosaic browser.
< snip >
Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS
(though that's partly true of the '9xs)
Garbage in every way. Stability was clearly not the developers' concern
at this point in time.
Seemed rushed, and not to offer anything much beyond 98SE. And some things removed IIRR.
It truly was a waste of time. It added the basic video editor and system restore but otherwise, it was a pointless upgrade. The system restore was also completely useless since it ran as poorly in the past as it did in the present.
< snip >
I didn't see the issue, to be honest. I was part of the beta-testing
process and found bugs to report on a daily basis. When they froze the
code and released it to the public, I couldn't believe it: clearly,
what I was running was nowhere near ready for the public. However, what
the public DID get wasn't that bad as long as your hardware wasn't
already outdated. Some features have since disappeared such as the
animated wallpaper but it wasn't as bad as people say. Most people
I think you're in the minority - perhaps being an "insider". My main experience with Vista was helping an old chap who'd been given a Vista laptop, which was as slow as molasses; I don't think it actually didn't work, but wait times were bad, to the extent that I more than once thought of paving it and installing XP. Reading what _others_ were saying, I think the pain of the UIC _was_ great.
Vista _was_ bad, don't get me wrong. However, I'm the type to routinely clean the system's cache and defragment so I didn't get an experience as poor as those who never bother with such things. Vista was like a car whose oil needed to be changed ever 100 kilometres.
< snip >
10 - now entering the same phase as 7, i. e. nostalgia beginning.
Some - probably many on the 10 'group - like it a lot; some dislike
the (without jumping through hoops) unblockable updates aspect.
Arguably, 10 is actually several iterations; 10 21H1 is quite a lot
different from the original 10, though the overall is much the same.
Not bad but some of its issues are hard to ignore, notably how
Bluetooth ceases to function for no good reason every so often, same as
How much of that is just your (or a few like you) experience, though? (I haven't much experience of using it.)
Well, it's an issue I've seen on my old laptop, the new one and even my father-in-law's computer in addition to the work computer they provided for me two years ago as well as last year. So, it seems like a general problem.
< snip >
I find 11 to be quite good so far, especially since the Bluetooth and
wireless issues are mostly resolved. There is a lag in getting to the
context menu but it doesn't ruin the overall experience. It's clearly
better than 10, in my opinion, even in the beta stages.
Your "clearly" is perhaps different from some. I've not used it at all, but from what I've seen on here, most of those who've tried it seem to give the impression that "there's nothing* wrong with it, but I don't see that much that's a game-changer improvement either". (*other than teething troubles.) The fact that the installer - or tester - demands certain things (hardware) that the OS itself doesn't actually need to run (so far) is a bit of a con, though; whether - since that fact has leaked out - M$ relax those requirements, or actually implement something that really needs them (which would be seen by some as being done in a fit of pique [others will see it as a good security measure - the TPS module thing - or just a good clear-out of old hardware - the generations thing]), we'll just have to see.
There is a slight chance that Windows 11 will be worse at release
than it currently is but I consider it to be very solid and I
can't imagine anyone complaining about it. On the other hand,
Windows users are innovators in whining so it remains to be seen
what they will notice which, to this point, hasn't bothered me.
Mark Lloyd
Sep 22, 2021, 12:54:10 PM9/22/21
to
On 9/22/21 7:59 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[snip]
> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though
> that's partly true of the '9xs)
It IS running on top of DOS, they just tried to hide that fact.
ME did have the advantage of including the USB storage driver, but
otherwise wasn't better than 98SE. However not worse unless you count
the more fragile help system.
Also, you left out the best version: 2000
> XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
> Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come to
> light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least because
> user access control was rather vicious
The first with the "assume you're a thief" system misleadingly labeled
"activation".
[snip]
--
94 days until the winter celebration (Saturday, December 25, 2021 12:00
AM for 1 day).
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true." Ayn Rand
[snip]
> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though
> that's partly true of the '9xs)
ME did have the advantage of including the USB storage driver, but
otherwise wasn't better than 98SE. However not worse unless you count
the more fragile help system.
Also, you left out the best version: 2000
> XP - good, in general; certainly affectionately liked looking back
> Vista - good in theory (sort of an early 7), but that's really come to
> light with hindsight: at release it wasn't much liked, not least because
> user access control was rather vicious
"activation".
[snip]
--
94 days until the winter celebration (Saturday, December 25, 2021 12:00
AM for 1 day).
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true." Ayn Rand
Mark Lloyd
Sep 22, 2021, 1:03:25 PM9/22/21
to
On 9/22/21 11:10 AM, RabidHussar wrote:
[snip]
>>> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
>>> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS
>>> (though that's partly true of the '9xs)
>>>
>>> Garbage in every way. Stability was clearly not the developers' concern
>>> at this point in time.
>>
>> Seemed rushed, and not to offer anything much beyond 98SE. And some
>> things removed IIRR.
>
> It truly was a waste of time. It added the basic video editor and system
> restore but otherwise, it was a pointless upgrade. The system restore
> was also completely useless since it ran as poorly in the past as it did
> in the present.
When I was setting up an old system (for testing old browsers) I had a
choice of using 98SE or ME. ME was the obvious choice since it comes
with the USB storage driver, which I was going to need.
[snip]
--
94 days until the winter celebration (Saturday, December 25, 2021 12:00
AM for 1 day).
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true." Ayn Rand
[snip]
>>> Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its
>>> adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS
>>> (though that's partly true of the '9xs)
>>>
>>> Garbage in every way. Stability was clearly not the developers' concern
>>> at this point in time.
>>
>> Seemed rushed, and not to offer anything much beyond 98SE. And some
>> things removed IIRR.
>
> It truly was a waste of time. It added the basic video editor and system
> restore but otherwise, it was a pointless upgrade. The system restore
> was also completely useless since it ran as poorly in the past as it did
> in the present.
choice of using 98SE or ME. ME was the obvious choice since it comes
with the USB storage driver, which I was going to need.
[snip]
--
94 days until the winter celebration (Saturday, December 25, 2021 12:00
AM for 1 day).
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
RabidHussar
Sep 22, 2021, 4:18:41 PM9/22/21
to
On 2021-09-22 12:54 p.m., Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On 9/22/21 7:59 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[snip]
Me ("Millennium edition") - not _much_ liked, though it has its adherents; arguably first not something running on top of DOS (though that's partly true of the '9xs)
It IS running on top of DOS, they just tried to hide that fact.
ME did have the advantage of including the USB storage driver, but otherwise wasn't better than 98SE. However not worse unless you count the more fragile help system.
Also, you left out the best version: 2000
My understanding was that the 9x editions of Windows were indeed based on DOS but I had this argument with Peter Köhlmann on comp.os.linux.advocacy a few years ago and he assured me that it was its own OS and that DOS was neither needed nor running underneath it. Windows 9x had DOS support and would allow you to run some applications within it and others through a reboot into DOS proper but I guess he's right in saying that it doesn't run _atop_ the legacy system.
< snip >
Frank Slootweg
Sep 23, 2021, 6:34:47 AM9/23/21
to
RabidHussar <ra...@huss.ar> wrote:
[...]
Can you please stop posting in multipart/alternative format, i.e.
a text/plain part (good) *and* a text/html part (not good and
redundant)?
Thanks.
I assume it's just an error in the configuration of your News account
in Thunderbird.
[...]
Can you please stop posting in multipart/alternative format, i.e.
a text/plain part (good) *and* a text/html part (not good and
redundant)?
Thanks.
I assume it's just an error in the configuration of your News account
in Thunderbird.
Paul
Sep 23, 2021, 11:49:43 AM9/23/21
to
don't make it through in at least some of these groups.
*******
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CvIG2J.15879%24Im6.7503%40fx09.iad%3E
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.1.1
From: RabidHussar <ra...@huss.ar>
Message-ID: <vIG2J.15879$Im6....@fx09.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:03:07 UTC
Content-Type: multipart... <=== HTML email setting
*******
Paul
RabidHussar
Sep 23, 2021, 1:27:22 PM9/23/21
to
intentionally sent both versions but I didn't know that it would cause
issues.
--
@RabidHussar
Proud LibreOffice <http://www.libreoffice.org> & Thunderbird
<http://www.thunderbird.net> donor
Pure blood
Ken Blake
Sep 23, 2021, 2:02:03 PM9/23/21
to
--
Ken
Frank Slootweg
Sep 24, 2021, 6:27:35 AM9/24/21
to
RabidHussar <ra...@huss.ar> wrote:
> On 2021-09-23 11:49 a.m., Paul wrote:
> > Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> RabidHussar <ra...@huss.ar> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Can you please stop posting in multipart/alternative format, i.e.
> >> a text/plain part (good) *and* a text/html part (not good and
> >> redundant)?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> I assume it's just an error in the configuration of your News account
> >> in Thunderbird.
> >
> > Those messages are getting filtered off here, as multipart
> > don't make it through in at least some of these groups.
[...]
> On 2021-09-23 11:49 a.m., Paul wrote:
> > Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> RabidHussar <ra...@huss.ar> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Can you please stop posting in multipart/alternative format, i.e.
> >> a text/plain part (good) *and* a text/html part (not good and
> >> redundant)?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> I assume it's just an error in the configuration of your News account
> >> in Thunderbird.
> >
> > Those messages are getting filtered off here, as multipart
> > don't make it through in at least some of these groups.
> I'll send in plain text by default. It wasn't an error on my part; I
> intentionally sent both versions but I didn't know that it would cause
> issues.
Thanks. For me they didn't cause problems, but as Paul mentioned,
> intentionally sent both versions but I didn't know that it would cause
> issues.
articles which have a text/html part might get dropped by some News
servers and hence will not propagate to other News servers. But in any
case, posting in text/plain *plus* text/html format is wasteful, because
the text/html part does not add any value/functionality.
0 new messages