We tried using Windows 10 for real work and ... oh, the horror Every time I've looked at Windows 10, it hasn't been long before I've run away screaming. As recently as May the ISO was nowhere near ready for prime time. Testing Windows 10 seemed to me like volunteering to be an unpaid drug trial guinea pig – it would be painful and could potentially give you horrible side effects, and you …
Win98=bad, Win98SE=good, WinME=bad. But then you have the problem of Win2k (good, but released before ME, and XP, which (eventually, admittedly), was better than 2k.
I wonder how many niggles are still lurking around from the NT 3.51 days - the display control panel from there lasted until WinXP.
Yes, they most certainly did. Windows 9 should have been a return to the classic interface of Windows 7 , perhaps keeping the tweaks and optimizations under the hood from Windows 8. Basically like New Coke was replaced by Coke Classic and simply became Coke again. Where is my Windows Classic?
I hope you do know that the replacement for New Coke was not, not at all, Classic Coke. I have a store down the street that gets the original recipe Coke from a bottling plant in Mexico that's independent of the Coke multinational. You can tell the difference immediately once you taste it.
Did you ever think about that either they are using 20+ years old syrup or they don't use any sanctioned coke syrup at all? Why would they have "the original" when nobody else has it???
Coke tastes different in each country because of the water (and maybe also different syrups)
So they also don't have anything more "original" than just another version....
Coke tastes different in each country because of the water (and maybe also different syrups)
The real issue is actually a combination of the syrups and sugar. For example, in the US coke uses high fructose corn syrup because, well, the corn growers have to push their product somehow. In Mexico it's actually real sugar. Very different taste and one of the reasons why I prefer Mexican coke over US coke. Mexican beers are better too.
Coke is different for all or most countries. Coke for south america is much sweeter than what's sold stateside
Actually... ironically its the reverse that's likely more true. Given that High Fructose Corn Syrup tends to be more highly concentrated then plain old Cain Sugar. It just happens that Corn Syrup is way cheaper to procure then the real stuff that, that gets reportedly used in Mexico. Though I gather that this use is almost extensively only used for Export to the USoA these days, and the average Mexican on the Street, is drinking the same Corn Syrup Drinks, like the rest of us.
"I hope you do know that the replacement for New Coke was not, not at all, Classic Coke."
"Coca-Cola" was replaced by ""the new taste of Coke" aka New Coke.
The replacement for New Coke was "Coca-Cola Classic" which was simply renamed to Coke in 2009.
"Coca-Cola Classic" has High-Fructose Corn Syrup [apart from "Kosher for Passover" Coke], Old Coke had cane sugar, so no, the Coke sold after New Coke was not the same Coke as before New Coke.
"Mexican Coke" as sold in the U.S. may have cane sugar or HFCS.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2010.255/full
Why does everyone show a different list of Windows versions when making that tired old quote about every other version being good (or bad)?
Perhaps because if you use the actual list, it's not so clear cut.
First off, there are the major DOS-based versions:
1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME
But that's not quite right, because there are minor versions with significant updates, and splits within. So you've really got:
1, 2, 2.1(/286), 2.1(/386 -- first release with protected mode), 3, 3.1, 3.11, 3.2 (Chinese), 3.1x/3.2 with Win32 (32-bit extensions), 95, 95 SP1, 95 OSR1 (first release with IE bundled), 95 OSR2, 95 OSR2 USB Supplement, 95 OSR2.1, 95 OSR2.5, 98, 98SE, ME.
Then in (pseudo-)parallel development, you have the NT versions:
3*, 4, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10
But then there are the minor versions of those:
3.1*, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000, 2000 SP1-4, XP, XP SP1-SP3, Vista, Vista SP1-SP2, 7, 7SP1, 8, 8.1, 10
* The first version of NT was 3.1, to keep the numbers parallel with the DOS-based version of Windows the GUI was from.
Finally, interleaving those based on release date, you have (NT in bold)
1
2
2.1(/286)
2.1(/386 -- first release with protected mode)
3
3.1
Windows for Workgroups 3.1,3.11
NT 3.1*
3.2 (Chinese)
3.1x/3.2 with Win32s (32-bit extensions halfway compatible with NT)
NT 3.5
NT 3.51
95
95 SP1
95 OSR1 (first release with IE bundled)
95 OSR2
95 OSR2 USB Supplement
95 OSR2.1
95 OSR2.5
NT 4.0
98
98SE
2000
ME
2000 SP1-4
XP
XP SP1-SP3
Vista
Vista SP1-SP2
7
7SP1
8
8.1
10
Now, I've taken some liberties with this list, not including most x.0x releases because they generally did not include much new functionality, but NT 3.51 and all of the 95 OSRs did include some major functionality changes. Although the later NT version Service Packs often did include significant functionality changes (most notably XP SP3 which made XP somewhat secure, and Vista SP1, which made Vista actually work) but since at that point there weren't parallel versions, I combined the SPs into a single entry because that makes them a single cumulative set of functionality updates.
So even this list is debatable, but it's a damned sight closer than any other I've seen. Still, it shows how absurd the alternating quality hypothesis is -- not because you can't come up with a list in which the odd versions are good, but because there are so many ways to crop and shuffle this list that you can just as easily come up with an equally definitive list which proves that the even versions are the good ones, or the prime-indexed ones, or whichever particular pattern you'd prefer.
Windows 8.1 was the release in between so it's par for the course.
Windows 8.1 is the best OS Microsoft have ever made despite what the troglodytes say.
Seriously, who actually uses a start menu when since Xp sp2 it's been easier to hit the windows key and type the first few letters of the app then enter. This hasn't changed in any subsequent OS and it makes me squirm to watch supposed IT people laboriously pour over the menu searching for an icon.
"Windows 8.1 is the best OS Microsoft have ever made despite what the troglodytes say."
In terms of what's under the hood I can agree with that, it is much quicker and more efficient, night and day compared to 7. Sadly the schizo UI where both flavors are partially complete is a clusterfunt, it reminded me of the worst Linux desktops from over 15 years ago for all the wrong reasons. :(
It's not just me either, our kids (all <7) find Win 8.1 tricky, but they're fine with Linux Mint & Mate when they borrow my lappy - despite spending 10x more time using 8.1.
Back to command line, eh? Just type the app name and press enter.
Totally trivial, who needs GUI at all?
You appear to confuse "easy to use" with "efficient", and there is a VAST gap in between the two.
Learning keyboard and text shortcuts is probably the most beneficial exercise for staff to engage in (followed immediately by learning the use of "styles" in whatever wordprocessor they have been given) as it seriously speeds up work, and cuts down on issues such as RSI - the latter is mainly caused by mice, not keyboards.
The most direct impact the introduction of the Microsoft ribbon had in Word was that a lot of the shortcuts got changed which pretty much nuked productivity for shortcut speed users like me. Add to that the fact that on system fail I could not re-activate a copy of MS Office and the decision to ditch MS Office completely in favour of LibreOffice was easy. That was 4 years ago and it's now a company standard, which has the nice side effect that we can work across all operating systems without any significant changes.
I know of several airlines that tried to switch to GUI booking systems in favour of the mainframe screens, and then switched back as it emerged that it was easier to get people started on it, but those who had learned mainframe codes were almost twice as fast. In other words, some upfront investment in training paid off over time in significantly higher handling speeds, plus less debugging because the GUI coders left out difficult functions. That grumpy text-only screen with 1 character menu options was FAR more efficient, especially when combined with a PC's keyboard buffer :).
Last but not least, on OSX there really is no faster way to start up an app than using Spotlight unless you want to have all your app in the dock (which in my case would need a *very* wide screen :). It does, however, require you to known the name of the application so you may initially start off with looking them up first (digressing slightly, in that case I prefer the way Linux and Windows work over OSX as I like a bit of structure - Macs just lump it all in /Applications and tough luck if you like some structure).
So, in summary, GUIs are easy - command lines are efficient. The two rarely meet..
> You appear to confuse "easy to use" with "efficient", and there is a VAST gap in between the two.
The OP has correctly pointed out that you have reverted back to a decent command line (Unix) versus a really bad one (DOS). The visual flimflam is just a distraction from this fact.
People who do not know how what may be installed in the computer, or people who do not know that the system settings can be accessed via: compmgmt.cpl
And so on.
This stupidity of typing the first few letters of something works very well when you know what you are looking for.
"Windows 8.1 is the best OS Microsoft have ever made despite what the troglodytes say.""
Hmmm ... MS Windows 8.1 is the only Windows release I know of that regularly switches focus away from the active window, in spite of whatever activity you are pursuing in said open window.
I wasn't previously aware that pissing off your customers was ranked so highly by Microsoft.
I am one of those 'supposed IT people' who had never resorted to hitting that Windows key since everything I needed are usually placed somewhere on the desktop. Those programs I use frequently sit on the task bar. Someone else WILL squirm if they see me hitting the Windows key and type in the beginnings of the program when I could just do a single click on the icon sitting at the task bar. Together with judiciously placed shortcuts, I get my work done with minimum fuss.
Phew, what a mess.
It looks to me as if MS have decided to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Having said that, habitual users of Windows may find it less confusing than I did just by looking at the screen shots and reading the description. I haven't used Windows since Win98SE.
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Andrew Orlowski on one point. I cannot see how MS can have this all tidied up by the 29th, maybe the upgrade really is "free" because it's a beta release and MS know it.
Good luck and may the force be with you, you might need it.
Win10 is the worst release EVER.
Windows 10 takes billions of hours of developer applications and makes them not compatible.
Windows 10 is a worthless piece of junk.
Windows 10 has NO PROGRAMS that run anymore, yet it allows you to install it anyway, even though they do not F work! A complete POS OS.
95% of old Win7 programs DO NOT WORK.
ZERO BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
