this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
997 points (98.7% liked)
Funny
11860 readers
2059 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's mostly due to your age. Older people say it peaked at XP, younger people are saying it peaked at 10. Truth is, they're all kinda the same shit.
Nah. XP was huge when it came out because NT was so much smoother and more stable than the Windows 9x product line: it was nearly as stable as 2000 with a more modern DE than Windows 95-ME.
But Windows 7 did everything XP did bigger and better. It’s no shocker that all the Windows-like Linux DEs look like forks of Widows 7.
Is it though? From a privacy perspective I think Windows 10 quite clearly started introducing some shady surveillance practices which were absent in earlier versions. Of course, 11 took that waaay further, but 10 was a turning point imo.
I think it's a hard case to make that 7 wasn't objectively better than XP.
Windows 10 did roll back some of the more egregious stuff from Windows 8, but still was sort of committed, sort of not. You had a platform with multiple personalities, multiple right click context menus, multiple 'control panel' with a new one being emphasized, but not actually completed, so it's an awkward mix of the platform they had suceeded with and a platform they wished it could be (combined with telemetry). Forced microsoft accounts and using the desktop as a platform to promote products and services....
Yeah I think a fair argument can be made that WIndows 7 was the ultimate execution of the general vision that started with Windows NT, and what came after was something else that also happened to have bits of that original product hanging on.
I'm not too terribly excited by any Windows in particular, but I can recognize something categorically different they wanted to do starting with 8 that remains partially executed to this day, starts to emphasize Microsoft's interests at the expense of the users, and a direction that no one really asked for.
Exactly this. 7 was absolutely the peak of Windows. Everything after was enshittification, and everything prior was still less user-friendly and rough around the edges.
And anyone arguing XP was peak should try installing XP and try connecting to wifi. Talk about a mess. XP was only a marginal upgrade over 98/2000, but with some glossy paint. 7 was the first time Windows felt modern.
95, 98, xp, and 7 were all great; each improved on the last. But 7 was the true peak. 10 was pretty good and unfortunately was the turning point into enshitification.
95/98 was another operating system, though. Windows ~~98~~ ME (forgot about that one) was the last OS in the original Windows series– that Windows that was basically just a graphic shell for DOS.
IIRC, XP was the 5^th^ version of Microsoft's fork of OS/2. OS/2 was rebranded as Microsoft NT in its 3^rd version due to the success of the brand Windows and the failure of OS/2 despite OS/2 having been the superior OS.
Do not make me find the pic of The Dude.
I might be slowly turning into Jeff Bridges.
Edit: missed the joke. My opinions about windows are grounded in my own experience, obviously. I'm the 'wait for the first SP' person historically. 10 was the first time I was not excited to install a new operating system. Everything was behind shitty UI that took away simple functionality. Funny enough I'd go back to it over 11 lol.