lemmyman210@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
They can’t even get 11 to work, why not start talking about 12!!
I’m losing track, but don’t they usually go good, bad, good, bad?
98 good, m.e. bad, xp good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad, so maybe 12 good?
Obviously I’m over simplifying and I skipped over 2000. But at least since 98 I feel like the trend has been pretty reliable.
Only if you ignore the NT and server releases. Otherwise, sure why not.
2000 was marketed as business and server only, like NT before it.
Consumers knew about 2000 because Me was such dogshit regular people started using 2000 despite the drawbacks.
Most consumers didn’t know or care about Windows NT, or Windows 2003, 2008, and so on.
10 felt good compared to 8 and 8.1. But that was a very low bar.
7 was the last good iteration of windows imho being that it wasn’t loaded up with a bunch of telemetry being sent to Microsoft like 10 and 11 and didn’t have the terrible UI stuff like 8 and 11.
I mean sort of except 10 was bad too. They’re just all bad since 7
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 months ago
What about windows 11 doesn’t work?
Geologist@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
For me, the ability to move your taskbar to the sides of the screen. I use an ultrawide, and have plenty of horizontal space to spare, but very little vertical.
It’s a ridiculous regression, that only exists because MS engineers are too lazy to figure out how to put all their new taskbar junk like copilot, weather, news, etc. in a vertical setting.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 months ago
Why not just turn on auto-hide of the task bar? Not the perfect fix, obviously, and they absolutely should bring back being able to move it to the side, but it at least solves the “taking up valuable space” problem.