• neidu3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Kind of, to varying degrees. Posting the ones I’ve actually used enough to have an opinion:

    • Win 3 through 3.11 and below: Limited
    • Win 9x: unstable
    • Win ME: don’t get me started
    • Win 2k: Decent, actually. At least after a couple of service packs
    • Win XP: Win 2k with teletubbies theme
    • Win Vista: “users are too stupid to be allowed to do this just like that”
    • Win 7: Decent, actually
    • Win 8: worst UI ever
    • Win 8.1: sometimes MS actually listens to feedback

    EDIT: While I absolutely hated using Vista, I think it’s unfair to complain about its performance compared to that of Win XP. XP was 6-7 years old at the time of Vista release - of course it’s going to demand less of your PC.

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 days ago

      Win 10: ‘the final version of Windows’ actually kinda decent

      Win 11: “when we said f’inal version of Windows’ we meant it’s the final version that your old ass computer would run. Go buy a new one.”

    • AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      This lines up with my own takes on Windows versions. I think 8 was better than people give it credit for. I never minded the UI personally, and it was fast and responsive.

    • harmsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I think it’s unfair to complain about its performance

      I disagree. If your software runs like a damn snail on inexpensive current-gen hardware, then it’s not worth using.

    • Matriks404@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Windows 8.1 was amazingly good, simple and fast, if you ignored whole Metro thing. You could also install 3rd party start menu alternative, if you needed it.