Very well covered article on how 8 drew perhaps the highest scrutiny of all previous series of Windows up to that point @ronjor I guess i can see, and understand the stomach drop Windows 7 users met when confronted with a totally changed interface and such. Worth noting to this very day that i personally have never used Windows 7. Skipped from XP to 8. However was in great anticipation of 9 but that one still eludes conventional wisdom why they bypassed it entirely.
I didn't read the whole article but the only thing wrong about Win 8 were those stupid live tiles. Other than that it was a decent OS and actually better than Win 10 which became way too bloated (loads of svchost.exe processes) causing it to use a lot more RAM than Win 8. Basically, Win 10 is Win 8 but with a normal start menu, better protection provided by Windows Defender, plus a whole lot of pointless background services. I also hate the stupid Microsoft Store, I rather download software directly via websites. I'm guessing that Win 11 has become even more bloated.
I read you loud and clear on that @Rasheed187 agree completely. Perfect assessment if they ask me. Looks like your right
On some low end hardware, Windows 8/8.1 runs much faster than Windows 10 does. On some computers where Windows 10 runs too slowly to be usable, Windows 8 runs really well. Windows 11 is faster than Windows 10, but not as fast as Windows 8. Windows 11 even ran pretty well on a 16 year old laptop with 1GB of RAM.
My old Belnea laptop (1GB RAM) struggled with Vista. My guess is it was designed with XP in mind. It ran properly with Trusty Tahr (Ubuntu). I couldn't believe the difference.
Windows 8 was made for the next gen of computers, thats something the article tells. that time also windows phones appeared but at least both did not match. today any smartphone is used as windows 8 was designed for, apple introduced it. what i have in mind that a first look a lot of people scared users - "what a mess". they did not think further and rejected windows 8 since then, most of them also rejected windows 10 for same reason which is not that different with tiles but has parts of the old start menu. and ofc, each windows needed some more memory - surprise surprise. but running XP at least with 1gig ram it runs same slow as windows 7 with 1gig. but those machine are idd ancient and had its lifes. i would ask those how many times such users replaced the refrigerator, tv, stereo and other electrical stuff while they keep a computer/pc for 20 years.
1GB was enough for XP, but not Vista. Having said that, when I first installed Vista, my laptop only had 1GB and it ran fine. Perhaps your CPU wasn't powerful enough to run Vista well. The laptop I was running Vista on, was purchased just before its release and had a fairly powerful CPU for the time.
It surprises me that Win 11 can run on such an old laptop. All I know is that when I boot up Win 8.1, it uses only 1GB of RAM, while Win 10 uses about 3GB with the exact same apps running, well except for Win Defender. So that's why I came to the conclusion that Win 10 is bloated as hell, especially because of those zillions of svchost.exe processes running in the background. I call this bad design and I don't expect Win 11 to be any better.
Yeah, it wasn't too powerful at all. It was all I could afford at the time. TBH 1GB RAM sounded relatively good in 2008.
All the complaints and constant harangue is many times justified by dissatisfied and perplexed Windows user's. And therein lies my dear fellow gal's & guy's members why i wholeheartedly continue to see things as they SHOULD be. No, not just for those as myself and others who been and still are fervent diehard Windows 8.1 user's. Some frankly find it one of Microsoft's best O/S's without making comparisons forward (windows 10/11 users) or backwards (satisfied windows 7 users). Why doesn't Microsoft just bite the bullet for one time in their storied history and end it once-and-for-all. Revisit one last time the now unsupported Windows 7 & 8, and formulate/fashion a final Service Pack for those, thoroughly test it both ways in-house/quality control and offer those user's a channel to FINALLY enhance both function, stability and of course security. That would IMO go a lot further on their own behalf instead of the "hurry let's build another version quickly and flee the last one's". Leaving behind as is evident, unfinished business. They would almost certainly shed that stigma they been under which as i said is not only justified in many respects, but eliminate the tarnish to their reputation and would take the world by storm. Wishful thinking maybe but the present course they been on doesn't exactly make for any level of user/client confidence that they once held. The only thing that does seem is changed is they've grown fat and lazy, not inspirational or innovative. A retool of sorts of now unsupported versions for a final stab at it i think would bolster their image, please a massive consumer base both home and business, and propel some real ingenuity which they seem they are so lack of anymore. By now i am sure most of us are sick and tired of holding our breath hoping for the best every time an update is released for Windows 10/11 knowing full well that a truly Professional O/S Industry Leader can (or should) deliver a quality product & update without chancing a mishap as so often seems to happen with whoever is managing that end of the spectrum with them.
I loved Win 8 metro and all, it was fast, futuristic, a real change from the stale looking Vista and Win 7. Win 10 is still the best OS I've used so far, fast, stable, secure and most importantly all its upgrades since 2015 were free. I don't know about Win 11, my computer doesn't meet the minimum system requirements to run it but I'm pretty sure on a new machine it would be terrific, although I'm not buying a new computer yet simply to have Win 11...
a personal view to the things. but let me comment this. yes, pity that win7 never got an official SP2, yes, they already focussed on windows 8 that time. no, each windows had and has is issues when updating, yes, any software had and has some issues when upgrading. but windows is no "single software" as we might understand, its a bunch of a lot, yes, the developers are sitting anywhere and communication is not always the best one. further, i dont like the current ceo. and yes, he pushed microsoft to cloud and forgot end users. too many examples for this behavior and why i left almost all except windows from ms behind. your demand for a final service pack already has been denied with "eol". out of curiosity is ofc that microsoft separat end users and business users with the paid extended service update for XP and 7. but even when end users get into benefit - however performed - of ESU they are knowing that also ESU has its end. but a lot of those refuse it, several reasons possible. world wide 16 per cent of machines using windows 7 - 2.5 years after eol (without esu). some could recommend microsoft not to ignore this fact, but why should they respect it when windows and its code base is at least 3 versions ahead? and its code base has changed because some or most drivers do not work like before. technically spoken i had windows 7 x64 installed on my older machine, but i could not install windows 8/10 x64 because it is blocked by design. on the other hand there exist no driver for x64 for my scsi device. i appreciate you using window 8(.1), but you and me have to face it that its getting eol next year, and i did not read about some ESU. and i wont count on it because microsoft has also some kind of ESU for windows 10, called "LTSB" and "LTSC". LTSC is getting - based on current informations - updates since jan'2027 which is 2 years after end users got eol. LTSC 2021 is latest, but it might also the last one because in 2024 win11 LTSC is coming up, 3years cycle for LTSC. for the time being for each windows - xp had the longest period (for end users) - 2001 to 2014, win7 from 2009 to 2020, win8 similar - 2011 to 2023, win 10 from 2015 to 2025.
