Windows 11 is dying....

[Siwastaja]

So you might argue that Windows 95 was the one and only instance where Microsoft got major changes to the OS right first time. 

Maybe some rose-tinting in your glasses here... Remember how Windows 95 was quite late from the promised release date and when finally released, people were pretty angry with all sort of issues and missing features (like a web browser people were expecting to see), until later service releases fixed that. When we talk about Windows 95, we really remember Windows 95 OSR2 from late 1996, 1.5 years later than the original planned release date of Windows 95. So maybe not right the first time.

I consider W7 to be the very pinnacle of the old WIMP UI paradigm (windows, icons, menus, pointer), after years of fine tuning and polishing. If you like that type of UI (I do), then I don't think W7 has ever been surpassed.

I never saw how it was any better than Windows XP, really. It did the job. Then again, now I'm more than happy with xfce, which is also quite primitive.

[Siwastaja]

Windows Me

Just one of too many in the 98 series. As I said, there was nothing special in 98 to begin with; just small gradual, irrelevantly small changes to 95. And not only that, they branded it as three "different" "major" releases, 98, 98SE and 98ME within very short timeframe.

But that was also the time where normies were buying a lot of home computers, so with a massive sales volume you can have a "newly" branded product every year. Soon after the release of XP that development tapered off.

[ebastler]

So you might argue that Windows 95 was the one and only instance where Microsoft got major changes to the OS right first time. 

Maybe some rose-tinting in your glasses here...

It was great, since it came with Edie Brickell! 

[SteveThackery]

I never saw how <Windows 7> was any better than Windows XP, really. It did the job.

W7 was a big step on from XP (two steps, via Vista, of course). There was a tremendous amount of polishing in the kernel, behind the scenes. Improved handling of large amounts of RAM, faster thread scheduling. Probably the biggest change for users was UAC (introduced in Vista, I think?) - the equivalent of which Linux had had for years. Users didn't like it, so sadly it was dialled down in later versions. Also, dont forget Aero (introduced with Vista), which many people (including me) think has never been improved upon. Oh, and the ability to pin programs to the task bar.  Also, better memory protection and driver isolation.

Proper SSD support: W7 was a serious step forward over XP for SSDs, including TRIM support.

XP didn't have Windows Defender (the "better than nothing but only just" anti-virus), and compared with XP, W7 was significantly hardened against malware in most forms.

I also liked the "Libraries" concept in the W7 filing system, plus the clever ability to have Library entries for search results, which automatically update their contents. This was, apparently, a step too far for most users because it has largely been ignored since.

Windows 7 introduced Aero Snap - the first step towards the excellent windows management that left MacOS years behind.

In fact, it's a lot easier just to read the this Wikipedia article:  😅

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7

So yes, Windows 7 was BIG, and in my view very much better than XP.

EDIT:
Two more things, which probably seem trivial: the default sound theme in XP was ATROCIOUS! Do you remember the giggling children and the other patronising sounds? Secondly, the default colour scheme which always reminded me of a bag of sweets. And do you remember how XP put "My" in front of everything? "My Computer", "My Documents". FFS!  W7 felt much more "grown up" than XP.

[tatel]

And I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't think there will be a significant move to Linux on the desktop until the big commercial players port their applications to Linux. The existing Linux desktop applications are just not good enough.

Well I think that's a very personal matter that depends on a)what you need to do; b)laziness

I personally use almost exclusively Linux since about 2002. Found that i can do all I want to do. Things like FreeCAD made me pulling my hairs more than once, but, hey, with use comes learning, At the end of the day, it's enough to do what I need it to do, including things like FEM that are not available on windows offers, at least for free. By using Debian, I get easy, hassle free access to rare and quite fine apps like a virtual wind tunnel from a MIT professor, a fine, free GIS which isn't emasculated, or a mapping app for caving that is able to redraw the contours of a cave when a polygonal is corrected (which saves A LOT of work). Installs are really easy, apt does install any dependencies for me, and I never had any antivirus making my system slow. So, if you are happy with what windows gives to you, fine. It just isn't enough for me.

I have friends that used to have windows for just email, Internet and spreadsheets. Problem was, they were guys and, so, they liked to look at some boobs every now and then; after that, they usually called asking for help because their PC got syphilis, gonorrhea and AIDS. They were scared to have linux because of substituting libreoffice calc for excel. Most of them rapidly saw it was the same since hey didn't use any macros. An easy migration and now they don't need windows, which a) allows them to watch boobs recklessly, and b) allows them to use old hardware. One of these friends still uses one of the first dual core AMD athlons, which I got for him, for free because it was already "too old" in about 2015 IIRC. So, if you like to be bothered by all sorts of viruses, have your PC slow because of the antivirus, and have pockets deep enough to upgrade your hardware each time microsoft thinks it's time to milk the cow again, fine. I just don't like that, so took another road.

On the other hand I have seen a low-ranking local female officer ranting at tech staff because what was Ctrl-P on Excel became Ctrl-V in Calc, and that was obviously unacceptable. Well, laziness is still a personal matter.

I think privative business model has more to do with slow Linux adoption on the desktop. You can't do any serious paid, professional printing work without Pantone codes, and they will probably never get into Linux, because Pantone is privative, unless Pantone gets interested in having it working under linux. No one is going to do it for free. Pantone privative business model was already a thing in the 90s. So far this has not changed. Better get a Mac for that. 

Of course, you don't want to waste all the work you did to learn to use the apps you "need". I can understand that. But I'm glad I took the work to learn how to do useful work with apps that are really worse, but allow me to use an OS that is free, runs faster, safer and easier, can use much older hardware, doesn't compel me to signing into any vendor account, and doesn't spy on me.

[SteveThackery]

And I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't think there will be a significant move to Linux on the desktop until the big commercial players port their applications to Linux. The existing Linux desktop applications are just not good enough.

Well I think that's a very personal matter that depends on a)what you need to do; b)laziness

I personally use almost exclusively Linux since about 2002. Found that i can do all I want to do. Things like FreeCAD made me pulling my hairs more than once, but, hey, with use comes learning, At the end of the day, it's enough to do what I need it to do, including things like FEM that are not available on windows offers, at least for free. By using Debian, I get easy, hassle free access to rare and quite fine apps like a virtual wind tunnel from a MIT professor, a fine, free GIS which isn't emasculated, or a mapping app for caving that is able to redraw the contours of a cave when a polygonal is corrected (which saves A LOT of work). Installs are really easy, apt does install any dependencies for me, and I never had any antivirus making my system slow. So, if you are happy with what windows gives to you, fine. It just isn't enough for me.

I've said up there ^^^ somewhere that I like Linux Mint as an OS, but I don't like the applications because they look and feel like they were developed and are maintained by geeks for geeks. Which they were, and are. I haven't tried looking in the Windows ecosystem for the specialised applications you describe, although my experience is that if you can imagine it there will be a Windows application that does it. I accept there may be some rare exceptions. 😊

I also totally accept that my assessment of the Linux app ecosystem is totally subjective. What's important to me might not be for anyone else. Having said that, I think there is a fair degree of consensus about Linux apps being a bit old-fashioned, a bit geeky, with some pretty steep learning curves.

[tatel]

I've said up there ^^^ somewhere that I like Linux Mint as an OS, but I don't like the applications because they look and feel like they were developed and are maintained by geeks for geeks. Which they were, and are. I haven't tried looking in the Windows ecosystem for the specialised applications you describe, although my experience is that if you can imagine it there will be a Windows application that does it. I accept there may be some rare exceptions. 😊

I also totally accept that my assessment of the Linux app ecosystem is totally subjective. What's important to me might not be for anyone else. Having said that, I think there is a fair degree of consensus about Linux apps being a bit old-fashioned, a bit geeky, with some pretty steep learning curves.

Well, I don't think apps like Firefox or libreoffice look like made by geeks for geeks. For that matter, almost all the apps that get into the PC on a default Linux install look very much the same than windows counterparts. It's only on the specialized apps where that difference is visible. I wonder how much people has a CAD app versus how many have an office suite and a browser.

I do care for a well developed app with an intuitive use a good GUI; but to me what really matters is: can it do the work I need? I'm willing to trade many things for the ability to escape from windows, as you can see. I think it's well worth the hassle. YMMV.

[asmi]

I do care for a well developed app with an intuitive use a good GUI;

But then you contradict yourself:

but to me what really matters is: can it do the work I need? I'm willing to trade many things for the ability to escape from windows, as you can see. I think it's well worth the hassle. YMMV.

So you admitted that you're so heavily biased against Windows that you are ready to accept objectively poor user experience if it means not having to use Windows. There is a name for that behavior, and we all know it.

[paulca]

I have, so far, got two MacBook Pro's a 14" and a 16".  No Windows 11 in sight.

I have several times been tempted to go Apple to deal with W10+, but it's the cost and walled garden that's the sticking point. And global menu. Thankfully they've moved on from the single-button mouse.

Absolutely. Apple got it wrong with the single-button mouse, but stuck to it for years because, as far as Apple is concerned, they never make mistakes and their competitors never do something better.

One area where Windows has wiped the floor with MacOS for years is in windows management. Attaching windows to the sides of the monitor, arranging them in tiles or other layouts.... Apple have only recently started to catch up.

... and Windows took that back from KDE where it appeared first for a few years.  (window snapping).  You will find a lot of Windows features get back ported from improvements that KDE make in their "Windows like" UI.

[themadhippy]

and Windows took that back from KDE where it appeared first for a few years.  (window snapping). 

has windows got an "always on top " option yet?

[tatel]

So you admitted that you're so heavily biased against Windows that you are ready to accept objectively poor user experience if it means not having to use Windows. There is a name for that behavior, and we all know it.

Having to use windows is the worst user experience. Moreover, we are talking about specialized apps right now. Ask my boob-watching friends. They want a system that "just works" They can now watch boobs and to do their invoices in Calc, on machines that any windows user would consider "really obsolete". Without needing to call asking for help. For years. Not to mention microsoft accounts, AI, spyware, etc, etc, that they don't need nor want. Without having to buy new hardware when MS feels any itching in their balls.

I'm not biased against windows. I'm biased against privative software. I began in 1990 on MacOS because i was working at a newspaper. Photoshop was a MacOS back then. But, in 1998 I needed GIS software and nothing available, neither on Windows and even less on MacOS, even under student licenses, even still expensive, was nowhere near what we needed. But we could do it, using GRASS GIS for free. Yeah, it was Linux-only back then. Yeah, it was geeky. But it was the only software that allowed us to have areas of about 300 sq kilometers studied in any way, shape or form we needed. I will say it again: for free. No way we could pay the fortune they were asking for a full fledged version of ESRI or something like that. So, the benefit in migrating to Linux was obvious.

[asmi]

Having to use windows is the worst user experience. Moreover, we are talking about specialized apps right now. Ask my boob-watching friends. They want a system that "just works" They can now watch boobs and to do their invoices in Calc, on machines that any windows user would consider "really obsolete". Without needing to call asking for help. For years. Not to mention microsoft accounts, AI, spyware, etc, etc, that they don't need nor want. Without having to buy new hardware when MS feels any itching in their balls.

Lol here we have a typical staple of fanatics. Literally none of those things are true, yet you continue to parrot them like headless chicken Oh, and "Linux desktop" and "just works" do not belong in a single sentence. It requires quite a bit of maintenance as updates regularly break something (leading contenders in my experience are WiFi/BT cards - I had to fix their drivers after every update because some kind of firmware which is required for them to run get removed after update for some reason). And don't get me started on version upgrades - they are a disaster, still in this day and age. While my install of Windows dates back to 8.1 days, first being upgraded to Win10 and then recently to Win11. All while having changed a complete system once (from x99 Intel to AM4 AMD) and many less radical upgrades. Show the the Linux install which will survive such transplantation without requiring extensive manual fixing or outright reinstallation.

I run both Windows and Linux on two separate PCs as I need them both for work, so I know first hand what it takes to maintain them both over many years. And Linux has been much more maintenance-intensive than Windows. And that despite it running on "Linux-friendly" all-AMD SoC, so none of that NVidia drivers shenanigans which are known to be a big pain in the butt.

I'm not biased against windows.

Yes you are. And not only that, you are very behind regarding what modern Windows actually is.

[ebastler]

Without needing to call asking for help. For years.

Unless they want newfangled stuff like hibernation (suspend to disk). Or speakers in their laptops which don't sound like a phone landline. Or maybe they want a calendar which can be accessed from multiple devices. Then they will need help.

All of that is possible with Linux, no doubt. But don't expect a plain "user" to figure it out.

[tatel]

Lol here we have a typical staple of fanatics. Literally none of those things are true, yet you continue to parrot them like headless chicken Oh, and "Linux desktop" and "just works" do not belong in a single sentence. It requires quite a bit of maintenance as updates regularly break something (leading contenders in my experience are WiFi/BT cards - I had to fix their drivers after every update because some kind of firmware which is required for them to run get removed after update for some reason). And don't get me started on version upgrades - they are a disaster, still in this day and age. While my install of Windows dates back to 8.1 days, first being upgraded to Win10 and then recently to Win11. All while having changed a complete system once (from x99 Intel to AM4 AMD) and many less radical upgrades. Show the the Linux install which will survive such transplantation without requiring extensive manual fixing or outright reinstallation.

I run both Windows and Linux on two separate PCs as I need them both for work, so I know first hand what it takes to maintain them both over many years. And Linux has been much more maintenance-intensive than Windows. And that despite it running on "Linux-friendly" all-AMD SoC, so none of that NVidia drivers shenanigans which are known to be a big pain in the butt.

I'm not biased against windows.

Yes you are. And not only that, you are very behind regarding what modern Windows actually is.

Well I feel you are somewhat offensive. I understand it; your beloved windows is getting trashed, and you feel the need to fight that. But I have nothing to  earn by entering into any arguments here. I will just observe that a) you seem to have more problems than my absolutely-non-tech friends have, and b) windows user experience gets worse and worsewith each new version, as demonstrated by this thread existence. No amount of copium will change that.

Have a nice day

[ejeffrey]

Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?

Then Windows XP. Small gradual improvements over Windows 2000. Saw some hate for reasons unclear in retrospect, really. Then again wasn't really game-changing either. But this coincides with the proliferation of home computers - I mean the period in history where "all those normies who still didn't have a computer" finally got one, and for them Windows XP is their first OS. So around 2001-2008, just before smartphones, was era in history where home computers were more relevant than ever. And Windows XP also was one of the longest-in-use operating system. People really ended up liking it.

So what, do we have TWO good Windows (2000 and XP) after each other? Wasn't they supposed to alternate?

I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad."  It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems.  But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP.  It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon.  So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME.  It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.

It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it.  It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before.  It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.

[asmi]

Well I feel you are somewhat offensive. I understand it; your beloved windows is getting trashed, and you feel the need to fight that. But I have nothing to  earn by entering into any arguments here. I will just observe that a) you seem to have more problems than my absolutely-non-tech friends have, and b) windows user experience gets worse and worsewith each new version, as demonstrated by this thread existence. No amount of copium will change that.

Have a nice day

Lol when lies didn't work, you move on to condescension. Did that playbook ever changed? And don't think I didn't notice lack of any substance in your response.
I don't "fight" for anything, and Windows is far from being my "beloved". But objective reality is what it is. Oh, and user experience has never been better in Windows, I have next to no issues to it when it comes to experience, all my gripes with it are of technical nature. But when it comes to day-to-day usage, modern Windows is the best with nothing else being even close. Linux is useable for my purposes (FPGA design, firmware/software development), infact Vivado/Vitis tend to work better in Linux as they were clearly designed for it first and foremost, but Linux requires ongoing maintenance, which is kind of annoying. I wish Linux would be closer to being maintenance-free, when you just press a button and in updates everything automagically - like it tends to work in Windows, yet like I said, in my experience updates still break things from time to time, while the last time I had a windows update cause any issues was many years ago - and even that one was a specific incompatibility with some of my hardware's driver. I rolled it back immediately, and the problem disappeared. That problem was later fixed with a driver update.

[Cyclotron]

Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?

Then Windows XP. Small gradual improvements over Windows 2000. Saw some hate for reasons unclear in retrospect, really. Then again wasn't really game-changing either. But this coincides with the proliferation of home computers - I mean the period in history where "all those normies who still didn't have a computer" finally got one, and for them Windows XP is their first OS. So around 2001-2008, just before smartphones, was era in history where home computers were more relevant than ever. And Windows XP also was one of the longest-in-use operating system. People really ended up liking it.

So what, do we have TWO good Windows (2000 and XP) after each other? Wasn't they supposed to alternate?

I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad."  It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems.  But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP.  It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon.  So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME.  It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.

It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it.  It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before.  It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.

I was using Windows 2000 Professional at work back then. I used Windows 98SE at home until XP was released in 2001. I recall Windows 2000 Pro being a workhorse. We ran our code/products directly on it, as we were selling into the Solaris and Windows 2000 Server markets.  I remained on 2000 Pro at work till I think SP2 of XP.  SP2 was, as I recall, when XP became a viable replacement for the aging Windows 2000 Pro. SP3 was the real gem of XP, of course. I just restored two XP systems for a friend's home management platform. That was a trip down memory lane.

[asmi]

I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad."  It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems.  But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP.  It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon.  So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME.  It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.

It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it.  It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before.  It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.

I think the problem of Win2000 was the same as with Vista - it was simply too radical of a change, and software ecosystem was not prepared for it. And so XP was better for the same reason Win7 was better then Vista - by the time of it's release software ecosystem has caught up with it for the most part, so that migration happened with much less friction. I remember I had to dual-boot between Win98 and Win2000 for a while as some software just pain didn't work in the latter.

[tatel]

Lol when lies didn't work, you move on to condescension. Did that playbook ever changed? And don't think I didn't notice lack of any substance in your response.
I don't "fight" for anything, and Windows is far from being my "beloved". But objective reality is what it is. Oh, and user experience has never been better in Windows, I have next to no issues to it when it comes to experience, all my gripes with it are of technical nature. But when it comes to day-to-day usage, modern Windows is the best with nothing else being even close. Linux is useable for my purposes (FPGA design, firmware/software development), infact Vivado/Vitis tend to work better in Linux as they were clearly designed for it first and foremost, but Linux requires ongoing maintenance, which is kind of annoying. I wish Linux would be closer to being maintenance-free, when you just press a button and in updates everything automagically - like it tends to work in Windows, yet like I said, in my experience updates still break things from time to time, while the last time I had a windows update cause any issues was many years ago - and even that one was a specific incompatibility with some of my hardware's driver. I rolled it back immediately, and the problem disappeared. That problem was later fixed with a driver update.

 

[ejeffrey]

I think the problem of Win2000 was the same as with Vista - it was simply too radical of a change, and software ecosystem was not prepared for it. And so XP was better for the same reason Win7 was better then Vista - by the time of it's release software ecosystem has caught up with it for the most part, so that migration happened with much less friction. I remember I had to dual-boot between Win98 and Win2000 for a while as some software just pain didn't work in the latter.

The ecosystem was part of it, but both of them also didn't actually support what people needed to do and required significant improvements to be usable.

Windows 2000 improved stability by eliminating most direct access to hardware.  That obviously broke software that relied on it, but also the alternatives (i.e., DirectX) were not yet up to the task in terms of performance or capability.

Vista tried to fix the problem of people needing to be logged in as administrator, but they didn't fully develop the UI that made UAC actually usable.

[themadhippy]

wish Linux would be closer to being maintenance-free, when you just press a button and in updates everything automagically - like it tends to work in Windows, yet like I said, in my experience updates still break things from time to time, while the last time I had a windows update cause any issues was many years ago

my experience is the opposite,cant remember the last time i had any issues with linux,and at least the updates get carried out in the background,no sitting waiting for updates to finish installing before your able to use/power off the machine

[Siwastaja]

Then after the many versions of 98, Windows 2000. Large fundamental changes, but because those were already tested on NT, was fairly stable and usable, so generally a real improvement. This is definitely a "good" Windows, most would agree I guess?

Then Windows XP. Small gradual improvements over Windows 2000. Saw some hate for reasons unclear in retrospect, really. Then again wasn't really game-changing either. But this coincides with the proliferation of home computers - I mean the period in history where "all those normies who still didn't have a computer" finally got one, and for them Windows XP is their first OS. So around 2001-2008, just before smartphones, was era in history where home computers were more relevant than ever. And Windows XP also was one of the longest-in-use operating system. People really ended up liking it.

So what, do we have TWO good Windows (2000 and XP) after each other? Wasn't they supposed to alternate?

I think Windows 2000 counts as "bad."  It's an odd one -- It was originally promised as the OS to unify the home and business operating systems.  But while it replaced Win9x on corporate desktops, it ended up not being suitable for home use so that had to wait for XP.  It added DirectX, but still had massive compatibility issues with win9x/DOS, and poor gaming compatibility in general when games which were still *the* killer app for home computers as internet access was still uncommon.  So MS had to abandon it as a home OS and keep upgrading win98 and release winME.  It was super stable as a corporate desktop replacement for Win98, so in that sense it was good, but in the "alternating versions" theory, either Win2000 was a "bad" OS, or it wasn't in the lineup at all, and WinME was the bad one.

It also did have a lot of rough spots for end users who did adopt it.  It introduced non-tech users to mandatory sign-ins with permissions checks to people who hadn't ever seen their own computer say "permission denied" before.  It introduced a new filesystem (NTFS) to end users which they had to worry about compatiblity, especially with removable media and external drives.

Fair enough. I did use it in home environment and considered it being an improvement over 98SE; it went into right direction of unifying the two product lines, but sure enough the transition was not finished at that point. XP being not that different from the 2000 in my opinion shows though they were "almost there" with the 2000.

[asmi]

Fair enough. I did use it in home environment and considered it being an improvement over 98SE; it went into right direction of unifying the two product lines, but sure enough the transition was not finished at that point. XP being not that different from the 2000 in my opinion shows though they were "almost there" with the 2000.

Another factor that helped XP was that hardware has become significantly faster in time since Win2000 release, so many of performance issues of the 2000 were "fixed" just by brute force alone. And again the same thing happened with Vista/Win7 - Vista was not very performant on the kind of hardware which was typical at a time of it's release, but by the time of Win7 release it has improved to the point that those issues were really non-issues anymore. That's not to claim that "tock" versions in Intel parlance did not actually make any performance improvements - they did, but hardware advances helped a lot for sure.

[SteveThackery]

Well, I don't think apps like Firefox or libreoffice look like made by geeks for geeks.

Well that's not a good example, is it! Firefox is specifically designed to be identical on all platforms.

But LibreOffice? OF COURSE it looks like it's a geek's paradise. Have you actually compared it with MS Office recently? LibreOffice is highly functional but plug-ugly with a messy UI. And it's not just me saying that - go and read some reviews of it. If you want to see what a good, modern, smooth, elegant UI looks like on your Linux machine, try SoftMaker Office. Unfortunately it is paid-for after 30 days, so against the Linux religion, sadly.

For that matter, almost all the apps that get into the PC on a default Linux install look very much the same than windows counterparts.

What do you mean, "their Windows counterparts"? Are you talking about cross-platform apps? If so, well of course they look the same - they are designed that way.

I'm talking about the commonly used Windows applications, and the commonly used Linux apps. MS Office on Windows vs LibreOffice on Linux. LibreOffice does not look like MS Office. And Linux users get the god-awful Thunderbird. You can't seriously tell me that has a good, modern UI. It's complicated, visually noisy, old fashioned. I can't believe many Windows users use Thunderbird by choice - they enjoy many better alternatives.

Find me a Windows graphics editor with an interface as obscure as GIMP. It is famous for its vertical learning curve.

I do care for a well developed app with an intuitive use a good GUI; but to me what really matters is: can it do the work I need?

I would be very surprised indeed if there is a problem doing the work you need in Windows. You and I aren't that unusual - there are 1.4 billion Windows users; that's a hell of a potential user base even for pretty obscure and specialised software. Usually, if there's a demand in the Windows world, someone will be able to fill it.

I'm willing to trade many things for the ability to escape from windows, as you can see. I think it's well worth the hassle. YMMV.

Why do you want to "escape Windows"? It sounds too emotional, too irrational. The apps are where the work gets done, not the OS. And the apps in the Windows world are, in general, better than Linux apps. Why? Because Windows users are willing and accustomed to pay for software, whereas Linux users pretty much insist that their software must be free.

[nctnico]

I would be very surprised indeed if there is a problem doing the work you need in Windows. You and I aren't that unusual - there are 1.4 billion Windows users; that's a hell of a potential user base even for pretty obscure and specialised software. Usually, if there's a demand in the Windows world, someone will be able to fill it.

You'd think so but it actually isn't the case. There is a myriad of tiny tools available on Linux allowing to do the most crazy things simply from the command line. Look at xxd for example. And easy to automate using shell scripting. For example: Around 2000 I was involved in a yellow-pages -ish website and we send faxes to companies to check their listing. We're talking about sending hundreds of thousands of faxes. Back then making phone calls during the night was free so I wanted to make use of that. None of the Windows fax software was up to the task. None where clever enough to adhere to the time limit when sending the fax, instead they applied the time limit when the fax was queued -sigh-. And none where able to use my ISDN fax modem efficiently. In the end I created a small shell script to run on my Linux server which took a text file with phone numbers as input and send the faxes during the night. This worked as intended and it was sending faxes about 2 times faster compared to using Windows software. In hindsight starting with the shell script would have taken less time compared to messing around with so called professional software.

And I have many more examples. Linux can do insane things where it comes to auto-modifying text and file conversions. But it is all from the command line. In the end you can't catch 50 options with over a billion of combinations into a GUI. Even less so when trying to combine several GUI programs to perform a function together. It just doesn't work.

This is one of the reasons I switched to Linux a long time ago. Fed up with the idiosyncrasies of Windows and having proper tooling ready at my finger tips instead of browsing through Tucows or Piratebay to find some obscure tool (that in the end typically didn't quite work). A VM is good for whatever needs to run in Windows nowadays but that is becoming less and less. And when Windows starts acting up, restoring the VM (and Windows) is a matter of seconds. Gone are days with meddling with Windows to get the PC going again after some registry entry got corrupted or something.