Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What are this issues that need to be overcome, keeping in mind that this is not a retail release yet?Well, that's nice. Not sure it's nice enough to overcome Win10's other issues. But it's a nice gesture.
Humm,
Is MS like Star Trek movies????
Every other one is good.
XP good
Vista was a virus
win7 good
Win 8 is the bastard step child that even a mother could not love
Win 10 could be good (according to a few)
So... 2000 was bad? NT 4 was good? NT 3.5 was bad? I don't really buy that argument. MS has shipped some dogs, but not all the problems were due to Windows itself.Humm,
Is MS like Star Trek movies????
Every other one is good.
This is great news! I love Aero Glass, and it gives the UI that extra little bit of eye candy that I enjoy. Helps with aesthetics and for my eyes to see the edges of some windows.
I like it.
Rose-tinted glasses there, buddy.Humm,
Is MS like Star Trek movies????
Every other one is good.
XP good
Vista was a virus
win7 good
Win 8 is the bastard step child that even a mother could not love
Win 10 could be good (according to a few)
Rose-tinted glasses there, buddy.
XP was NOT a good OS, and had all kinds of issues at launch:
- Driver compatibility issues.
- Software compatibility issues.
- Performance issues.
- LOTS of complaints about system requirements being absurdly high.
- Lack of new features (vs. Windows 2000).
- Huge security holes.
- Huge stability issues.
- Took until Service Pack 2 to patch most (or all) of the above issues.
XP had EXACTLY the same problems Vista had, and both OS's took until SP2 to get right... yet one is "good," and the other is "bad"? Give me a break.
So... 2000 was bad? NT 4 was good? NT 3.5 was bad? I don't really buy that argument. MS has shipped some dogs, but not all the problems were due to Windows itself.
For example, Vista's security popups were more obtrusive than it needed to be, but it was still a problem primarily caused by poorly written applications not treating system areas and user areas properly (i.e. assuming administrator account privileges to write everywhere). Vista actually did a service in that regard by forcing developers to stop doing such stupid things. Most applications now get admin popups only when there is literally a good reason for doing so since it actually requires higher privileges than a standard user has. And since ME is often brought up, the move to a different driver model led to many problems from device makers (especially VIA) that cleared up with time passing. The OS itself was no worse than 98SE in most cases otherwise (some test stuff put in that made its way to XP excluded... some of that was initially buggy).
"Aero" never went away (GPU accelerated UI), they simple took away the transparency and changed the name on Windows 8 to reflect it as the default theme.
Rose-tinted glasses there, buddy.
XP was NOT a good OS, and had all kinds of issues at launch:
- Driver compatibility issues.
- Software compatibility issues.
- Performance issues.
- LOTS of complaints about system requirements being absurdly high.
- Lack of new features (vs. Windows 2000).
- Huge security holes.
- Huge stability issues.
- Took until Service Pack 2 to patch most (or all) of the above issues.
Don't forget, Microsoft had to divert development resources and back-port features that were meant to be part of the Longhorn project (what would eventually become Windows Vista). They really couldn't afford to have both Windows ME and Windows XP fail in the consumer space, one directly after the other. The end-result is that XP with SP2 might as well be considered Windows XP "Second Edition"
XP had EXACTLY the same problems Vista had, and both OS's took until SP2 to get right... yet one is "good," and the other is "bad"? Give me a break.
XP had issues but they were not of the same type at all.
XP first was a upgrade from 98/ME not 2000. 2000 was never mass adopted by consumers and was actually aimed at the business space.
We’ve also heard loud in clear that many Windows Insiders want to see Aero Glass from Windows 7 make a comeback. We’ve been working out how to satisfy this request, and are trying some things out with this build to see how you like them. We’re running a little A/B test with this build. 50% of you will normal transparency on the Start menu and taskbar while the other 50% will see a blur effect on the Start menu and taskbar (like frosted glass). If Windows Insiders really like the blur effect, we will add it to more areas and even consider making it the default instead of standard transparency. Which one did you get? Send us feedback about it via the Windows Feedback app!
I stopped reading there. You have no idea what you are talking about. XP was never derived form 98/Me, it was directly derived from 2000, aka NT5.0.
I stopped reading there. You have no idea what you are talking about. XP was never derived form 98/Me, it was directly derived from 2000, aka NT5.0.
But it was intended as an upgrade for 98/Me based machines, ergo a consumer OS. That person did not specifically say it was descended from the 9x kernel.
Any consumer who skipped Windows 2000 was missing out.
I realize this includes a LOT of people, but my statement stands. If you chose any of those OS over 2000 (during the time when 2000 was out), for any reason, you were dumb. Any Windows "power user" would have been running 2000, period.
I ran leaked releases of 98, 98SE, ME and 2000 and I've also run RTMs of all of them and 2000 was the only one that was anywhere near good. (That's a little unfair because 2000 wasn't out when 98* came out, but I don't care - it was a hell of a lot better and, unlike NT4, completely usable as a desktop/workstation and not just as a server. And yes I know there were workstations with NT4 but personally I just hated using NT4 for that.)
Also, the people saying XP was crap at first are right. I myself swore never to use it but SP2 won me over (and SP3 actually made it worse IMO but I did use SP3 for the security patches). And they are also right that Vista was like that. With service packs, Vista is decent. I still don't like it because they screwed up certain things like the comdlg32 file chooser (why did they have to make it so huge and yet more of a pain to use?) but it got to the point where it was OK. It's just that by the time they (mostly) fixed Vista, 7 was either out or very close to out.
It's also correct to say that XP is a direct descendant of 2000.
I stopped reading there. You have no idea what you are talking about. XP was never derived form 98/Me, it was directly derived from 2000, aka NT5.0.
Outside of people who pirate all their OSs, the choice of which OS they use is generally determined by what came on the system. Windows 2000 Pro systems were generally priced $100 or higher than one with a consumer Windows OS.Any consumer who skipped Windows 2000 was missing out.
I realize this includes a LOT of people, but my statement stands. If you chose any of those OS over 2000 (during the time when 2000 was out), for any reason, you were dumb.
Outside of people who pirate all their OSs, the choice of which OS they use is generally determined by what came on the system. Windows 2000 Pro systems were generally priced $100 or higher than one with a consumer Windows OS.
Also preventing wide adoption among consumers were compatibility problems with devices (Win9x had better hardware support) and software. And don't even start with the problems Windows gamers would have (largely a problem that XP adoption fixed as more games and software were made compatible with NT). Windows XP addressed many of the general compatibility issues that limited 2000's appeal. It's short-sighted to ignore the problems people would have had trying to use an NT kernel OS before XP was released.
*snipski*
I have no sympathy for people who simply go to a store and buy some product without research. (Though many of those people wouldn't even care that they missed out on Windows 2000, so, eh, whatever.)