Technology

59201 readers

3755 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

345

Leaks confirm low takeup for Windows 11 (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

225 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Leaks confirm low takeup for Windows 11::Time to rethink Windows 10 support cycle then?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

I still think 10 is a waste of space and would be using only linux or 7 if not for gamepass (old distant friends have xboxes only). I still run 7 on my living room PC and its honestly a better experience then 10. If not for end of life (that lets face it are mostly arbitrary at this point) there is little reason to upgrade, even the few things not in things 7 or 10 (like auto HDR support or new Direct X) are simply withheld for no reason and often people have worked out how make it work anyway.

I am old enough to remember how each new windows addressed a flaw in the last (even if that flaw was made up). Here is off the top of my head some examples (leaving out the better NT line) :

Windows 95: Upgrade from 3.1 in most ways, first time dos was really secondary.
Windows 98: Much better USB support and more "plug and play"
Windows ME: Fixed the issue of people having hard drive space.
Windows XP: Massive upgrade in supported hardware, usability etc.
Windows Vista: People thought this sucked (it did) but the main reason was that it (and x64 XP) supported more then 4 gigs of ram.
Windows 7: Was not Vista and much more efficient.
Windows 8: Fixed the perceived flaw that your PC should really be a phone for some reason?
Windows 9: DAMN IT MICROSOFT LEARN TO COUNT!
Windows 10: Was not a Phone OS. Things like gamepass are supported. Told this was the last windows.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My theory is that after 98 windows started to follow the "this one shit, next one good" pattern. ME was shit, XP was great, Vista was shit, 7 was great, 8 was shit, 10 is good. Obviously 11 is shit and if the pattern holds the next one will be good again.

[–] noevidenz@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Microsoft decided to skip Windows 9 because, after doing a lot of research, they found that a lot of commonly used legacy software had implemented compatibility hacks which involved checking for "Windows 9" to detect when the software was running under either Windows 95 or Windows 98.

Instead of breaking a lot of software or requiring a lot of updates (some of which could even be from vendors who were no longer in business) they decided to work around the problem by just skipping straight to 10.

Edit: My mistake, I responded to the wrong comment. But I'm gonna leave it here because I already typed it.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Version check on Windows 9x was done by comparing with the number 4, which was the internal version number, not with the marketing name.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)