BrikoX@lemmy.zipM to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 1 day agoWindows 12 release is pushed back at least another year as Microsoft announces Windows 11 version 25H2www.tomshardware.comexternal-linkmessage-square11fedilinkarrow-up110arrow-down11file-text
arrow-up19arrow-down1external-linkWindows 12 release is pushed back at least another year as Microsoft announces Windows 11 version 25H2www.tomshardware.comBrikoX@lemmy.zipM to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square11fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareHylactor@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·1 day agoI’m losing track, but don’t they usually go good, bad, good, bad? 98 good, m.e. bad, xp good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad, so maybe 12 good? Obviously I’m over simplifying and I skipped over 2000. But at least since 98 I feel like the trend has been pretty reliable.
minus-squaresorghum@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·edit-21 day ago2000 was marketed as business and server only, like NT before it. On the IT side of things, 2000 was rock solid.
minus-squareaeronmelon@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·23 hours agoConsumers knew about 2000 because Me was such dogshit regular people started using 2000 despite the drawbacks. Most consumers didn’t know or care about Windows NT, or Windows 2003, 2008, and so on.
minus-squarefloofloof@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 day ago10 felt good compared to 8 and 8.1. But that was a very low bar.
minus-squaresorghum@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·23 hours ago7 was the last good iteration of windows imho being that it wasn’t loaded up with a bunch of telemetry being sent to Microsoft like 10 and 11 and didn’t have the terrible UI stuff like 8 and 11.
minus-squarescott@lemmy.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down2·1 day agoI mean sort of except 10 was bad too. They’re just all bad since 7
minus-squaresupernicepojo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoOnly if you ignore the NT and server releases. Otherwise, sure why not.
I’m losing track, but don’t they usually go good, bad, good, bad?
98 good, m.e. bad, xp good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad, so maybe 12 good?
Obviously I’m over simplifying and I skipped over 2000. But at least since 98 I feel like the trend has been pretty reliable.
2000 was marketed as business and server only, like NT before it. On the IT side of things, 2000 was rock solid.
Consumers knew about 2000 because Me was such dogshit regular people started using 2000 despite the drawbacks.
Most consumers didn’t know or care about Windows NT, or Windows 2003, 2008, and so on.
10 felt good compared to 8 and 8.1. But that was a very low bar.
7 was the last good iteration of windows imho being that it wasn’t loaded up with a bunch of telemetry being sent to Microsoft like 10 and 11 and didn’t have the terrible UI stuff like 8 and 11.
I mean sort of except 10 was bad too. They’re just all bad since 7
Only if you ignore the NT and server releases. Otherwise, sure why not.