Official - Windows 10 Worst Crap Ever!

[jaclaz]

The issue - as often happens - is the lack of memory (not RAM, actual historical memory).

When XP came out it did not offer to the user *anything* more than Windows 2000 (in practice) exception made for bells and whistles, and - as a matter of fact - until SP1 (or SP1a) arrived it was not even fully suitable for professional use.

The enhancements (compared to Windows 2000) under the hood were not appreciated initially (in the business/enterprise), essentially because of the need for much more powerful machines, the requirement on disk was almost tripled ( from 650 MB to over 1500 MB) and the requirement for RAM was almost doubled (to actually work on the machines, 128 MB of RAM was more than reasonable for 2000, but you had to have 256 MB for XP).

On the home side, just as it will later happen for Vista, the new OS was proposed by OEM's on seriously underpowered machines and home users (who had never even seen 2000 and all had 95 and 98) had new, shining, machines that were much slower than their counterparts and introduced a lot of little nuisances in common use (such as user management) no more "real" DOS, etc.

Of course a very little amount of programs, for several years, took advantage of the "enhancements" introduced in Windows XP

Also remember how untiil at very least late 2003, all the servers were (and remained) Windows 2000, so for three years or more until Server 2003 came into use, most enterprise "backbones" were using 2000 technology.

And if I had 25 cents for each time a user asked me to get back Kodak Imaging (from 2000) instead of the new "fax viewer" and 50 cents for all the machines where I installed the files (coming from NT4) to fix the issues with "Simple File Sharing" :

ftp://www.bf.lu.lv/pub/Service_Pack/WinXP/droshiiba/Security_Tab.html

on corporate networks I wouldn't be rich, but surely much more well off.

The basic issue was the "paradigm shift" of unifying (with XP) a "same" OS both for professionals and home users, managing obviously to make both categories somehow unhappy.

You want an example of the non-enhancements in XP?

Take the FAT32 drivers on USB:

https://msfn.org/board/topic/125116-fat16-vs-fat32-vs-ntfs-speed-on-usb-stick/

Now, if you compare (on relatively modern hardware) an updated XP (SP 2 or later) against a (necessarily outdated) Windows 2000 (SP4)  you can find quite a few improvements in XP when compared to Windows 2000 SP4, but it would be not a "fair" comparison.

jaclaz

[UCyborg]

I thought deleting Manage Wireless Networks GUI in Windows 8 was going to be the most radical idea they'd come up with. Nope, here came the new way to manage file associations. To associate a program with all file types it can open, you're supposed to click through all file types and associate them one by one instead of having a button to associate them all with a single click. The Explorer interface also has ability to sort, but who needs that, right? /s Let's just remove the old interface and make it redirect to Settings app, also crash Explorer while at it.

Some other bugs/oddities I've encountered in the current supposedly stable build that come to mind:

• Error message about not enough memory resources being available instead of copyright message in the Command Prompt in WinPE.
• Various Explorer/shell glitches:
  • Trying to delete a file from the root of plain removable storage device presents a file confirmation dialog always shows file size as 0 bytes and file modification date is missing.
  • Accent color change makes the file view scroll up (forcing usage of the old ListView control fixes that).
  • IFileCopyHook interface is broken.
• Aero Peek is buggy with partial rendering of window frames and offsetting their positions (Aero Glass fixes that).
• Inconsistent behavior when a network adapter connected to internet has *NdisDeviceType set to 1 in registry; login/lock screen indicates internet connectivity, tray icon in the taskbar doesn't (the popup when you click it says Connected).
• Programs' thumbnails used in alt-tab interface and taskbar program buttons' popups are lost when a fullscreen game switches to non-desktop resolution.
• At various places throughout the OS, where text must be shortened to fit, an ellipsis isn't always appended.

Also, shouldn't the notifications/notification center appear on the monitor with the main taskbar?

Edited July 21, 2018 by UCyborg
Forgot about the text shortening bug

[NoelC]

(In reply to Jaclaz) Yes, but so far as I can see the ONLY improvement over Windows 8.1 so far in Windows 10 is better ability to manage multiple monitors at different DPI scales.  The latest Windows 10 releases don't tend to lose icon locations as often as their predecessors.

Other than that, the concept the that OS is to be improved after release is simply not ringing as true as when Microsoft thought developing the next generation operating system was a path to success.

Seems to me all they're doing now is just hanging more and more application software all over the kernel.  120 running processes to support an empty desktop?  :-O

My *LATEST* complaint is that Microsoft is systematically making all the documentation for programming less and less usable.  Note, for example, the definitions of the function parameters in this:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/winuser/nf-winuser-drawtext

Thing is, they're doing this and it doesn't raise a big stink in the world because most folks are users and don't care about such things.  But it WILL affect the new applications being developed.  Microsoft is systematically - and not surprisingly - forcing people out of "legacy" development.

-Noel

[dencorso]

Android will kill Windows. Wait and see.

[NoelC]

I don't doubt it.  Thing is, Dave Cutler's virtual memory OS design is actually superior to Unix IMO, and it'd be a shame to see it die with Windows (after it died once with DEC).

-Noel

Edited July 21, 2018 by NoelC
Added "IMO"; I don't mean to cause conflict

[greenhillmaniac]

The only usable version of Windows 10 that exists is the Server 2016/LTSB 2016 variant because (you've guessed it) it had almost 2 years of constant patching. Those versions don't have any UWP processes or telemetry (if tweaked properly) running in the background. They don't suffer from annoying bugs, like basic Windows mouse functions being completely bugged out (7-Zip and even regedit suffer from this in the latest 1803 version)!

These kinds of basic usability bugs never seem to get caught by Microsoft unless someone explicitly makes a fuss of it on social media (and even then...)

When even Windows can't implement the Windows API properly you know something's f***ed: https://sourceforge.net/p/sevenzip/discussion/45797/thread/e730c709/

[dencorso]

5 hours ago, NoelC said:

I don't doubt it.  Thing is, Dave Cutler's virtual memory OS design is actually superior to Unix IMO, and it'd be a shame to see it die with Windows (after it died once with DEC).

Good things never die (for long): OpenVMS! I'm considering moving there... Current State of the x86-64 Port

[jaclaz]

15 hours ago, dencorso said:

Good things never die (for long): OpenVMS! I'm considering moving there... Current State of the x86-64 Port

I thought that the good ReactOS guys were "slow" and (sometimes) a tad bit fixated on the minutiae (said in a friendly way , I know that their resources are scarce), but compared to this Open VMS  people here, they definitely seem kids.

Of course I am perfectly ignorant of the difficulties involved , and definitely a "hairy reasoner" (and a grumpy one, while at it), but more than two years and the thingy doesn't even boot to print on the screen "Hello, world"

Cannot say why exactly, but the apparent pride with which they enthusiastically announce their first two "proof points" somehow makes me cringe.

Don't get me wrong, I hope that the remaining difficulties will soon be overcome and that the road map will be respected, but even if everything goes according to plans, we have a full year before the start of the (maybe) availability of the new OS.

jaclaz

P.S. I am not sure which is the latest-latest roadmap, but I believe it is this one, instead:

http://www.vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20180605.pdf

Edited July 22, 2018 by jaclaz

[xpclient]

On 7/21/2018 at 3:12 PM, jaclaz said:

When XP came out it did not offer to the user *anything* more than Windows 2000 (in practice) exception made for bells and whistles, and - as a matter of fact - until SP1 (or SP1a) arrived it was not even fully suitable for professional use.

That's all your subjective opinion and your perspective of looking at things which you are trying to pass as facts. My own eXPerience was quite different. XP gave me no issues right from RTM and whatever minor regressions it had were easily fixable. Despite increasing the requirements on paper, it booted faster than Windows 2000 and was generally more responsive, very fast. Due to improved defragmenter, faster chkdsk, and prefetcher, apps started faster.

Visually it was a treat but if you didn't like it, you could go back - you had all the options, you always had a "classic" option or could simply copy the missing app from earlier version. But XP was more than that. Logon and logoff were faster, there was no stupid Regsitry size limit. Reliability was a step ahead with the ability to go back to older driver with Last Known Good Config if the new one broke the system. The MFU list in the Start menu alone was a huge productivity boost. You could finally click the Start button by shoving the pointer into the corner - no more requirement to precisely position it over Start.

There was simultaneous multithreading, bigger addressable memory space, better memory management even for low RAM systems, better Registry performance, a kernel heap resistant to fragmentation, a more reliable NTFS thanks to a redundant Master File Table copy.

ClearType was yet another big advancement. Compared to Windows 2000, XP had far superior USB and WiFi stacks, System Restore and a Task manager that doesn't truncate filenames at 8.3. Video playback was smoother, audio DPC latency was lower and battery life was longer. Inclusion of RDP and quick user switching was a blessing. Apps that stopped responding were indicated better with window ghosting.

Finally there was just 1 Regedit. Explorer was much faster with WebView gone. Any annoying features like the Search Dog could be disabled to return to the saner Windows 2000-search UI. Port forwarding in a network behind a NAT was eliminated due to UPnP. Unicode language support was vastly improved. And we got some really neat tools as part of the updated PowerToys.

All this was before SP1 and SP2. There were dozens of under-the-hood and user experience improving changes well worth the upgrade with no performance tradeoff, at least for me. In fact it was always faster than 2000. It's a pity you remember it differently. I remember getting super-impressed by what it brought - the visually pleasing theme as well as including the superior responsiveness.

But let's not turn this into another XP vs 2000 thread. I will give you the satisfaction of saying XP was only bells and whistles without any objective and convincing arguments to back it up with.  It doesn't matter any more as Windows 10 is the crappiest crap of all crap and only gets worse over time due to the insurmountable bloat getting piled up by more bloated updates.

Edited July 23, 2018 by xpclient

[Anixx]

In my experience, WinXP was slower than Win2000. And please do not cite "prefetcher", it makes ANY operating system slower in my experience, so I always disable it.

Most important, WinXP was MUCH, MUCH more buggy than Win2000. In Win2000 I haven't spotted a single bug, in WinXP I could name some 15-20 that I faced.

Most of the bugs were visual glitches, sometimes related to the theme engine though. The most annoying bug for me was that the start button would go pushed only after the menu apeared, and not when clicked. Another annoying bug was that the language panel would make the taskbar thick in Classic theme, so I would always take the internat.exe files from Win2000 and replace the layout indicator with it. It would reside in system tray.

I also disliked the artwork of WinXP, including the icon theme and how some visuals intended for Luna would still be pushed in Classic theme (such as the aforementioned language panel which was sized for Luna taskbar). The logon window in Classic theme would have weird window metrics and colors imitating Luna. Console window would somtimes disrespect theme settings. And so on and so on...

I admit, WinXP had some very useful functions compared to Win2000, such as system restore, ability to arrange icons on the desktop by a grid (this was possible on Win2000 via third-party software), Wi-Fi management, ClearType. But overall WinXP had much worse quality and visual consistency. It also was slower.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Anixx

[jaclaz]

4 hours ago, xpclient said:

That's all your subjective opinion and your perspective of looking at things which you are trying to pass as facts. My own eXPerience was quite different.

Sure they are opinions , but there is another little thing, called experience (amount of and dating since ).

Not at all to attempt to endorse my opinions indirectly by boasting my (unfortunately) old age, but it seems to me clear enough that besides different opinions, we had different experiences with computers in different periods, and probably also at a different scale/with a different final scope.

What was the first NT family OS you actually worked (not played) on? [1]

How many machines did you have migrated from NT 4.0 Workstation to Windows 2000 (and/or  from NT 4.0 Server to 2000 Server) and maintained in year 2000-2001? [2]

How many machines did you have migrated from 98 or 2000 to XP and maintained  in 2002-2003 ? [3]

How many servers did you have migrated from 2000 Server to 2003 Server and maintained  in 2003-2004 ? [4] 

Please understand how my involvement with the PC's and their OSes comes only partially by my personal interest in this field, the main part has always been connected with using them as tools to make some professional work.

4 hours ago, xpclient said:

Compared to Windows 2000, XP had far superior USB and WiFi stacks,

To attempt to bring you back in the right timeframe - Wi-Fi began to be largely used  only after 2003 (i.e. 802.11g) as the earlier versions (802.11 and 802.11b) were way too costly and slow to have any practical utility, this is a Wired article about that time:

https://www.wired.com/2003/05/wifirevolution/

Quote

What makes the new standard so alluring? Wi-Fi is cheap, powerful, and, most important, it works. A box the size of a paperback, and costing no more than dinner for two, magically distributes broadband Internet to an area the size of a football field. A card no larger than a matchbook receives it. The next laptop you buy will probably have Wi-Fi built in. 

At the time the good MS guys were (obviously) all-in on XP and Windows 2000 was already considered "dead".

If you go back in time and look for actual hardware pre-2003, you will soon find that:

1) there were NO phones or tablets (at all)
2) there were very few laptops/portables with Wi-Fi card embedded/included

Same goes for USB, Windows 2000 was actually released BEFORE USB 2.0 was even approved. 

jaclaz

 

 

Answers in my case:

[1] NT 3.1
[2] 40-60
[3] 40-60
[4] 3

[aviv00]

https://news.softpedia.com/news/microsoft-warns-july-2018-updates-break-down-net-framework-and-apps-too-522062.shtml

Microsoft Warns July 2018 Updates Break Down .NET Framework (And Apps Too)

Windows falling a part

[Anixx]

On 7/21/2018 at 1:40 PM, UCyborg said:

At various places throughout the OS, where text must be shortened to fit, an ellipsis isn't always appended.

I was apalled by how much places in Win7 had text not fitting in Russian locale. I never encountered such problem on XP and before. The problem remains in Win 8.1

Edited July 23, 2018 by Anixx

[Tripredacus]

2 hours ago, jaclaz said:

To attempt to bring you back in the right timeframe - Wi-Fi began to be largely used  only after 2003 (i.e. 802.11g) as the earlier versions (802.11 and 802.11b) were way too costly and slow to have any practical utility

The timeline appears correct. It was around this time that Sony had been putting wireless built into their VAIO notebooks (and unfortunately RAID1 on their VAIO desktops).. but those were not rosy times. In fact it had major problems back then and my own experiences with wifi made me sit on that technology until draft-N products were being sold at retail. Remember those early days of wireless, before smart phones but a large majority of households had cordless phones... that ran on the same or similar frequencies (including microwaves) as the wireless devices in VAIO notebooks, meaning you could not access the internet while you were on the phone or cooking a snack!

[jaclaz]

2 hours ago, Tripredacus said:

The timeline appears correct.

You mean that - even for a mere second - there was any doubt about that? 

I will tell you something more, until late 2004/early 2005 internet "on the move" was used ONLY for work.

Professionals traveled with their own laptops with a PCMCIA rectius Cardbus  with a SIM and used the cellular network to connect to the internet.

In hotels, period circa 2005-2010, at least here in Italy, Wi-Fi was usually provided for a (often rather high[1]) fee (and again almost only professionals on the move actually used it).

jaclaz

[1] If I remeber correctly (and I do  ) something in the range of 3 Euro/h for 1 hour, 6 Euro for 6 hours, 12 Euros for 24 hours.