As MS roles out new versions of Windows I have been thinking ‘how can these guys sell a new interface, complicate the functionality and require people to double and triple the hardware requirements so they can keep people on board with MS products?’ The biggest problem I have is MS forcing people to upgrade by stopping the support for older products. So if you want a secure/stable OS then you need to follow MS with every version of Windows they put out, even when their systems are inherently insecure.
To start this discussion off I would like to briefly describe what I have noticed about different versions of Windows and hope people will add to my list or agree that most new versions of Windows have been useless and superficial.
Windows 9x = Useless and if Linux was where it is now back then we would all be using it today.
Windows 2000 = the entire reason I didn?t jump ship and go Linux all the way. Thank you for Windows 2000.
Pros: Stable-just about eliminated the BSOD. Better organized by implementing a directory structure to distinguish between different user files helped backing up and saving important files.
Cons: Still allows most programs to require admin rights to run.
Windows XP = useless improvements and a new flashy interface that doubled our hardware requirements.
Pros: Better USB support and SP2.
Cons: Still allows most programs to require admin rights to run. Doubled hardware requirements from Win2000. Runs wizards by default for every configuration. No ?Classic Mode? to be rid of flashy interface and configuration wizards.
Windows Vista = useless improvements by its release and didn?t make good on any projected improvements except strict driver signing in 64-bit edition.
Pros: Directory layout improved (shorter directory names too). Got rid of the ?My . . .? naming convention from early Windows daze. Cool but function-less Aero interface. Navigation with the Windows Explorer address bar. Even better USB support and new flashy icons (useless!). Broke most of the programs that require admin rights hence forcing programmers to write better programs that won?t make our OS vulnerable to all sorts of attacks and users who download ?free? software.
Cons: Doubled and tripled the hardware requirements again. Over complicated networking-Pick a zone: Home, Work or Public (Why?? Just firewall the connection like WinXP SP2)? Complicated the network browser even further (Just give us back the Network Neighborhood that worked in Win98) The UAC is not needed for every little thing I do especially if I am logged in as admin. The useless, flashy login page. Windows sidebar is a useless resource hog and shouldn?t be default (how about get rid of useless sidebar and install Telnet by default).
Those are the obvious changes that have been made over the years that I have consistently noticed. Most of the changes have been for no reason other than to impress teenagers. Keep in mind I am operating from a admin prospective and want functional efficiency and would like MS to work on functionality and less on wizard-like processes that are meant to cater to end-users/noobs/lamers.
My main contention is Windows 2000 was a great OS (add msconfig) and XP SP2 was a good improvement but put the benefits of XP SP2 on Windows 2000 because business doesn?t need the jelly icons. It doesn?t make Excel add columns faster.
Making the interface more attractive only appeals to people who don?t understand or concern themselves with efficiency. A similar statement can be made about the gaming industry as well which is why I can?t find a Wii anywhere!
