• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    what was once a quality OS (sure,it had its faults and flaws, but I’ll concede that Win7 was objectively a good OS) has now morphed into a combination of spyware and adware.

    The last objectively good Microsoft OS that didn’t have any significant user-hostile features was Windows 2000, IMO. Windows 7 – specifically, before invasive “telemetry[sic]” started getting backported to it from 10 – was just the last version before the hostility got bad enough to get me to switch.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Besides the backported bullshit from windows 10 (which could be removed, admittedly, you’d have to know it was there, and which package to uninstall…so not exactly newbie friendly), what was hostile about windows 7?

      I used it from release day until EOL and I found it to be the best version of windows ever and the pinnacle of the platform, before it started taking a hard drive with Windows 8 and fell off the cliff with 10/11.

      Windows 10/11 is why I’m on linux now, and on linux to stay.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Besides the backported bullshit… what was hostile about windows 7?

        “Activation,” same as XP and Vista. That’s why I said 2000 was the last “good” version with no hostile features at all: it was the last version (except for ME, which wasn’t “good”) that didn’t require activation.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Okay, let me rephrase: to the extent that any Microsoft OS could be described as “objectively good,” Windows 2000 was the last one of them.

        • rah@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Okay, let me rephrase for you: in choosing which of Microsoft’s stinking piles of shit was the least stinky, some people chose Windows 2000. However, most people just left the stinky area and didn’t look back.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            You do realize I was conceding your point, right? You don’t have to be a jerk about it.

      • Joker@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Windows 2000 was a good operating system by any measure. It was rock solid, capable, well-supported, could scale from desktop to large enterprise deployments and everything in between, reasonably secure compared to their previous operating systems, etc. I never did like Microsoft operating systems, but Windows 2000 was actually good. It was a breath of fresh air at the time. We had NT 4, which was stable and reliable, but was limited by a lack of DirectX and became cumbersome in large deployments. Then we had Windows 95/98/ME, which was the garbage that crashed all the time.

        • rah@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Windows 2000 was a good operating system by any measure

          ROFL