On 14/07/2026 in message <1134u9j$8otv$1@dont-email.me> Paul wrote:
They could ask their AI to make a list of the failed concepts
in the OS.
Is Win11 the current Vista? Will it get better if Win12 appears?
All the "unpopular" ones - basically Vista and 8 - did bring some things
we now take for granted, some of which are definitely improvements.
On 2026/7/14 10:10:39, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2026 in message <1134u9j$8otv$1@dont-email.me> Paul wrote:
They could ask their AI to make a list of the failed conceptsIs Win11 the current Vista? Will it get better if Win12 appears?
in the OS.
Ah, you're referencing the popular "every second version is good/bad"
meme, are you?
There does seem to be _something_ in it.
3.1 was OK, within its limitations.
95 was such a big change that it's hard to say. It brought a lot of new things, most of which have become the norm.
98 _was_ an improvement (especially USB).
98SE was an improvement.
Me wasn't _bad_ as such, just didn't really make much impact.
XP was good, or at least popular.
(Yes, I'm aware that prior to - and to some extent including - XP, there
were two threads - the "home" one, 95/98/98SE/Me, and the NT
"professional" one. [And yes, I know that's an oversimplification.]
XP-64 was arguably more NT than XP.)
Vista is widely considered to have been bad, though it has its advocates
and did introduce some things (though some in a rather clunky manner).
7 was (is) liked.
8 (and 8.1) was (were) widely disliked, mainly for forcing the metro way
of working. (You could get the old desktop, but things were clunky.)
[I forget why there wasn't a 9.]
10 was - is - liked, though not seen as _that_ different from 7.
11 seems to be curate's egg/marmite; many dislike it, if only because of
its forcing (without many shenanigans) of new hardware for little
perceived improvement. Some do like it though.
All the "unpopular" ones - basically Vista and 8 - did bring some things
we now take for granted, some of which are definitely improvements.
J. P. Gilliver graced us with on 7/14/2026 7:48 AM:
On 2026/7/14 10:10:39, Jeff Gaines wrote:Agree with most of your comparisons. I liked a number of innovations in >Vista but it was so buggy (well known from many Beta Test reports) but
On 14/07/2026 in message <1134u9j$8otv$1@dont-email.me> Paul wrote:
They could ask their AI to make a list of the failed conceptsIs Win11 the current Vista? Will it get better if Win12 appears?
in the OS.
Ah, you're referencing the popular "every second version is good/bad"
meme, are you?
There does seem to be _something_ in it.
3.1 was OK, within its limitations.
95 was such a big change that it's hard to say. It brought a lot of new
things, most of which have become the norm.
98 _was_ an improvement (especially USB).
98SE was an improvement.
Me wasn't _bad_ as such, just didn't really make much impact.
XP was good, or at least popular.
(Yes, I'm aware that prior to - and to some extent including - XP, there
were two threads - the "home" one, 95/98/98SE/Me, and the NT
"professional" one. [And yes, I know that's an oversimplification.]
XP-64 was arguably more NT than XP.)
Vista is widely considered to have been bad, though it has its advocates
and did introduce some things (though some in a rather clunky manner).
7 was (is) liked.
8 (and 8.1) was (were) widely disliked, mainly for forcing the metro way
of working. (You could get the old desktop, but things were clunky.)
[I forget why there wasn't a 9.]
10 was - is - liked, though not seen as _that_ different from 7.
11 seems to be curate's egg/marmite; many dislike it, if only because of
its forcing (without many shenanigans) of new hardware for little
perceived improvement. Some do like it though.
All the "unpopular" ones - basically Vista and 8 - did bring some things
we now take for granted, some of which are definitely improvements.
was very late causing Bill'em Gates to push it out before it was
properly ready.
Win7 is still my favorite Windows OS in terms of performance and
aesthetics (Aero desktop) and skeuomorphic icons. But, alas, I'm force
to use Win10 and eventually Win11 in order to take advantages of new >hardware.
Vista also suffered a lot from being released on underpowered
hardware. A lot of OEMs shipped it on PCs and laptops with too little
RAM and too-slow storage-devices. Add to that the (necessary) cut-back
on apps that demanded administrator privileges triggering UAC prompts,
and Vista got off to a very rocky start.
But running more responsibly coded applications and on fast hardware,
the Vista experience was pretty similar to Windows 7 (Win7 had a
number of tweaks that made the whole thing feel more polished, but
generally Vista was a lot more bearable than initial reviews might
have indicated.
#
The whole 'every other Windows version is good' is silly anyway, just
because there's no agreed upon order for the list, and everyone just
ignores the versions that don't fit the criteria. Windows 3.0 and
Windows 3.1 were significantly different but most people count them as
the same. Where do you stick the early Windows NT line (up to 2K)? Do
we count Windows CE? Windows 98SE? Windows 8.1?
The best you can really say is that some versions of Windows were
better than others. ;-)
On 2026/7/16 15:58:30, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
[]
Vista also suffered a lot from being released on underpowered
hardware. A lot of OEMs shipped it on PCs and laptops with too little
RAM and too-slow storage-devices. Add to that the (necessary) cut-back
Indeed. Though to some extent, you have to assess a version in the
context of the hardware generally available at the time, not least
taking account of the minimum spec.s Microsoft mentioned. (98 or XP go
like SSS* on hardware that came out some years after they did.
on apps that demanded administrator privileges triggering UAC prompts,
and Vista got off to a very rocky start.
That certainly didn't help.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:23:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> said this thing:
On 2026/7/16 15:58:30, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
[]
Vista also suffered a lot from being released on underpowered
hardware. A lot of OEMs shipped it on PCs and laptops with too little
RAM and too-slow storage-devices. Add to that the (necessary) cut-back
Indeed. Though to some extent, you have to assess a version in the
context of the hardware generally available at the time, not least
taking account of the minimum spec.s Microsoft mentioned. (98 or XP go
like SSS* on hardware that came out some years after they did.
Indeed. Vista's problems weren't /entirely/ Microsoft's fault. After
all, it was the OEMs that built the the things, knowing quite well
that they didn't have the performance to run the OS at anything more
than a crawl. In fact, they knew their computers were so underpowered
many of them hacked dual-boot 'instant-on' linux installs that let you
access your data (mostly email and calendar apps) without having to
wait for Vista to load up first.
But Microsoft did happily stick their "Vista ready" stickers on pretty
much any computer that shipped with the OS, regardless of how unfit
the PC was for the task. Had they been a bit more conservative with
their certifications, Vista very likely would have had a much better reception.
on apps that demanded administrator privileges triggering UAC prompts,
and Vista got off to a very rocky start.
That certainly didn't help.
It was, in my experience, one of the biggest complaints about the new
OS; the constant badgering by the OS really annoyed a lot of users. It
made the OS feel backwards and unfriendly in comparison to XP.
I'm actually glad Vista did that, because it did break a lot of
developers of a lot of bad habits that Microsoft had, for years,
turned a blind eye to. Constantly flagging apps that were demanding
admin privileges --often when they didn't need them-- forced those
developers to write better code. But the average user just saw a lot
of annoying prompts that they didn't used to see when using XP, and
pointed the finger at Microsoft rather than the app-developers.
The fact that you don't see these prompts as often anymore (and
usually only when you expect to see them, like when installing apps)
shows that Microsoft's tactics worked... but on top of all of Vista's
other problems, it was a hard-won victory.
Vista was the first ('consumer' line) system with real file-level security. So that was a big change for those (XP and other) users who
were not familiar with such systems. For me, someone who was used to
Real Systems (TM) (Unix/UNIX), i.e. file permissions, ACLs, etc., it
just felt like home.
On 2026-07-17 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
-a-a Vista was the first ('consumer' line) system with real file-level
security. So that was a big change for those (XP and other) users who
were not familiar with such systems. For me, someone who was used to
Real Systems (TM) (Unix/UNIX), i.e. file permissions, ACLs, etc., it
just felt like home.
Not true; Windows NT3.1, Windows 2000, and Windows XP all had file level security before Vista.
On 2026-07-17 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Vista was the first ('consumer' line) system with real file-level security. So that was a big change for those (XP and other) users who
were not familiar with such systems. For me, someone who was used to
Real Systems (TM) (Unix/UNIX), i.e. file permissions, ACLs, etc., it
just felt like home.
Not true; Windows NT3.1, Windows 2000, and Windows XP all had file level security before Vista.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-17 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Vista was the first ('consumer' line) system with real file-level
security. So that was a big change for those (XP and other) users who
were not familiar with such systems. For me, someone who was used to
Real Systems (TM) (Unix/UNIX), i.e. file permissions, ACLs, etc., it
just felt like home.
Not true; Windows NT3.1, Windows 2000, and Windows XP all had file level
security before Vista.
I implicitly excluded NT and 2000 by mentioning "'consumer' line". (I
used NT and 2000 at work, but got XP as a 'consumer'.)
But I don't remember that XP already had file level security. Any idea
why it was not 'in your face' (in the way) in XP, but was in Vista?
when most of the firm was actually using W98SE
On 2026-07-17 18:56, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-17 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Vista was the first ('consumer' line) system with real file-level
security. So that was a big change for those (XP and other) users who
were not familiar with such systems. For me, someone who was used to
Real Systems (TM) (Unix/UNIX), i.e. file permissions, ACLs, etc., it
just felt like home.
Not true; Windows NT3.1, Windows 2000, and Windows XP all had file level >> security before Vista.
I implicitly excluded NT and 2000 by mentioning "'consumer' line". (I used NT and 2000 at work, but got XP as a 'consumer'.)
I think your claimed division into 'consumer' and 'professional'
versions of Windows somewhat specious, because many major versions had sub-versions labelled such as 'Home' or 'Professional', demonstrating conclusively that such particular major versions were aimed at both markets.
and also I used W2k Pro on my PCs at home.
But I don't remember that XP already had file level security. Any idea why it was not 'in your face' (in the way) in XP, but was in Vista?
Perhaps you upgraded from a version based on FAT32, so ended up with XP
on FAT32 and saw no difference, whereas I upgraded from a version
already based on NTFS, so ended up with XP based on NTFS and saw no difference?
Certainly I don't remember it being much different from
Windows 2000 in that respect
(but oh!, that childishly cluttered human
interface, rather resembling a mobile above a baby's cot, yecch!).
No it was/is NTFS. One of these days, I'll fire it up again and will
check, but I'm quite sure.
On Sat, 7/18/2026 2:02 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
No it was/is NTFS. One of these days, I'll fire it up again and will check, but I'm quite sure.
An OEM machine with WinXP on it would be using NTFS.
It's only hobbyists who would use FAT32, and they would
use a third-party formatter to get around the 32GB limit.
When I did my WinXP install, I used the "two partition method".
One partition has the file set off the CD copied into it. The second partition is the target for the OS installation. You make
an MSDOS boot floppy, then run the Setup.exe in the file collection partition, and do the install from there. The I/O done by MSDOS
absolutely sucks. There's some sort of crazy caching scheme
in there that stalls every once in a while. The experience is
almost as epic as some of our modern OSes, in terms of causing
hair loss.
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:58:40 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> said this thing:
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
maybe one of the early NTs. After that we moved whole-heartedly either
to CD-ROMs (and later, USB memory sticks) or --when possible--
networked images. I don't think I've ever had the 'privilege' of
installing any of the Win9x line from floppy. I knew people did it...
and I was always glad I was able to avoid doing so. It seemed a
painful method.
(I'm trying to remember if we ever used ZIP or SYQUEST disks as
install medium. I don't recall doing so... but I wouldn't rule it out
either. I'm halfway tempted to pull out one of my retro-PCs to see if
it would even work ;-)
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:58:40 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> said this thing:
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
maybe one of the early NTs. After that we moved whole-heartedly either
to CD-ROMs (and later, USB memory sticks) or --when possible--
networked images. I don't think I've ever had the 'privilege' of
installing any of the Win9x line from floppy. I knew people did it...
and I was always glad I was able to avoid doing so. It seemed a
painful method.
On Sun, 7/19/2026 12:22 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:And, IIRR, floppies (except the first one) of more than 1.44M capacity -
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:58:40 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> said this thing:
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
maybe one of the early NTs. After that we moved whole-heartedly either
to CD-ROMs (and later, USB memory sticks) or --when possible--
networked images. I don't think I've ever had the 'privilege' of
installing any of the Win9x line from floppy. I knew people did it...
and I was always glad I was able to avoid doing so. It seemed a
painful method.
(I'm trying to remember if we ever used ZIP or SYQUEST disks as
install medium. I don't recall doing so... but I wouldn't rule it out
either. I'm halfway tempted to pull out one of my retro-PCs to see if
it would even work ;-)
You'd need a driver to do that. Would they have made a (MSDOS) driver
for a ZIP ? I have a ZIP250, and I think it still works.
It's not like it has seen a lot of use. Maybe on a good day,
5MB/sec or so. Perhaps an older model was slower than that.
A CD might be in the same ballpark.
In the WinXP era, whatever driver reads the files off the media,
wasn't the best. Like, if you virtualize a WinXP install, even
if the virtual media can arrange a decent I/O rate, your install
goes no faster.
Paul
On Sun, 7/19/2026 12:22 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
(I'm trying to remember if we ever used ZIP or SYQUEST disks as
install medium. I don't recall doing so... but I wouldn't rule it out
either. I'm halfway tempted to pull out one of my retro-PCs to see if
it would even work ;-)
You'd need a driver to do that. Would they have made a (MSDOS) driver
for a ZIP ? I have a ZIP250, and I think it still works.
It's not like it has seen a lot of use. Maybe on a good day,
5MB/sec or so. Perhaps an older model was slower than that.
You youngsters! In the late 60s/early 70s, we installed (HP) RTE (Real
Time Executive) systems from *papertape* [1], tens and tens of boxes/
reels of them. And if you made one error or got one (mostly reading
checksum) error, it was back to square one. THAT was painful! :-)
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:58:40 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> said this thing:
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
maybe one of the early NTs. After that we moved whole-heartedly either
to CD-ROMs (and later, USB memory sticks) or --when possible--
networked images. I don't think I've ever had the 'privilege' of
installing any of the Win9x line from floppy. I knew people did it...
and I was always glad I was able to avoid doing so. It seemed a
painful method.
You youngsters! In the late 60s/early 70s, we installed (HP) RTE (Real
Time Executive) systems from *papertape* [1], tens and tens of boxes/
reels of them. And if you made one error or got one (mostly reading
checksum) error, it was back to square one. THAT was painful! :-)
[...]
[1] The destination was a hard-disk, but the source was papertape. Later there were hard-disks with one removable platter (cartridge) and one
fixed one and one could install from such a removable disk cartridge ('Grandfather disk'). Bliss!
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:58:40 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> said this thing:
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
maybe one of the early NTs. After that we moved whole-heartedly either
to CD-ROMs (and later, USB memory sticks) or --when possible--
networked images. I don't think I've ever had the 'privilege' of
installing any of the Win9x line from floppy. I knew people did it...
and I was always glad I was able to avoid doing so. It seemed a
painful method.
You youngsters! In the late 60s/early 70s, we installed (HP) RTE (Real
Time Executive) systems from *papertape* [1], tens and tens of boxes/
reels of them. And if you made one error or got one (mostly reading
checksum) error, it was back to square one. THAT was painful! :-)
[...]
[1] The destination was a hard-disk, but the source was papertape. Later there were hard-disks with one removable platter (cartridge) and one
fixed one and one could install from such a removable disk cartridge ('Grandfather disk'). Bliss!
HP Basic and we only had the source code in a printed manual, along with
a thick HP Manual outlining the instruction set. I was tasked to "learn
"Those were the days, oh yes those were the days"
On 2026/7/19 23:38:4, Sailfish wrote:
[]
HP Basic and we only had the source code in a printed manual, along with
a thick HP Manual outlining the instruction set. I was tasked to "learn
We had thick manuals of HP BASIC that came with our 9836. I remember the glossary therein had my favourite definition of all time:
Recursion: see Recursion
:-)
[]
"Those were the days, oh yes those were the days"Ah yes, Hairy Mopkin, 1968-11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MULUjW0SOfI
On 2026/7/19 18:34:17, Paul wrote:
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
Only 2 or 3 of them, too, for a whole OS! (And I think some earlier
DOSes might even have fitted on one.)
On Sun, 7/19/2026 2:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:58:40 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> said this thing:
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
maybe one of the early NTs. After that we moved whole-heartedly either
to CD-ROMs (and later, USB memory sticks) or --when possible--
networked images. I don't think I've ever had the 'privilege' of
installing any of the Win9x line from floppy. I knew people did it...
and I was always glad I was able to avoid doing so. It seemed a
painful method.
You youngsters! In the late 60s/early 70s, we installed (HP) RTE (Real Time Executive) systems from *papertape* [1], tens and tens of boxes/
reels of them. And if you made one error or got one (mostly reading checksum) error, it was back to square one. THAT was painful! :-)
[...]
[1] The destination was a hard-disk, but the source was papertape. Later there were hard-disks with one removable platter (cartridge) and one
fixed one and one could install from such a removable disk cartridge ('Grandfather disk'). Bliss!
Us youngsters, learn what the inter-record mark is on the paper tape,
roll back one record, and continue loading. The paper tape read
I had for the mini, wasn't exactly a prince, but once you knew the
paper tape format a little bit, it wasn't so bad. Once you know the
trick, you don't have to start over (which is what I was doing
initially).
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:58:40 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
[snip]
Installing windows 98 off 19 floppy (read cruchy) disks was hell too.
I thought Win95 was the last version available on floppies.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 19:35:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/7/19 18:34:17, Paul wrote:
I think the last OS I used floppy-disks to install was DOS 6.x... or
Only 2 or 3 of them, too, for a whole OS! (And I think some earlier
DOSes might even have fitted on one.)
Indeed they did.
On computers with only one floppy disk drive, one would load the OS,
then insert another disk to load the app, and then take it out and
insert a third disk to hold the data.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 32:22:21 |
| Calls: | 1,028 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,332 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (35K bytes) |
| Messages: | 271,558 |