Windows 7 vs Windows 10??

[NorthGuy]

It might make sense to rephrase the question...  to something like,  "Does it make sense to keep using Windows 7 in a specific situation".

I think the question is - what do you do if you decided not to use Windows 10 because it gives Microsoft full control of your computer and you don't want to consent?

Because if you consent, there's really no question, just go with Windows 10.

[westfw]

W7 always seemed to suffer from more bit-rot bloat over time than XP (or W10, but that may be that W10 hides it better.)
It would seem to be OK on a new system, and before you knew it there would be all sorts of "stuff" running that you didn't think you had ever installed, bringing your previously-reasonable cpu/ram combination to a crawl.(or so it seemed to me.  I didn't wind up using many W7 systems for long; corporate was stuck back at XP, and most of the home systems for the kids and what not seemed to go from XP to 8.)
I don't have many complaints about W10, aside from its auto-update and telemetry stuff (which might have been in W7 as well.)  W10 even seems to run pretty well in smallish VMs...

[rsjsouza]

W7 always seemed to suffer from more bit-rot bloat over time than XP (or W10, but that may be that W10 hides it better.)

Your perception is interesting; in my experience things were terrible until 2000 came along, and XP was an improvement but I still saw myself reinstalling every two years. I skipped Vista and have several Win 7 installs that never required reinstall. Windows 8 and 10 seem to me the exact experience as 7, but the telemetry puts me off from 10.

[themadhippy]

Ive found every other release  since 98 have been good , xp,7 and 10 have been fine.Me, vista and 8,forget about it.

[SilverSolder]

It might make sense to rephrase the question...  to something like,  "Does it make sense to keep using Windows 7 in a specific situation".

I think the question is - what do you do if you decided not to use Windows 10 because it gives Microsoft full control of your computer and you don't want to consent?

Because if you consent, there's really no question, just go with Windows 10.

I understand there are ways to "hush up" Windows 10 so it becomes housebroken in that regard?

[Wuerstchenhund]

Ive found every other release  since 98 have been good , xp,7 and 10 have been fine.Me, vista and 8,forget about it.

I actually liked Vista, I was an early adopter and when it was retired I was rather sad to see it go. In terms of UI, I preferred the Vista UI over the changes that came with Windows 7.

The widespread hate for Vista was not founded in rationality and primarily came up after that idiot Peter Gutman wrote a series of speculative papers about Vista DRM and how it essentially would rape your daughter and kill your family in their sleep. Most of the claims were quickly debunked as BS but of course that didn't prevent "social media" (and subsequently, many computer relaed media outlets) from spreading the crap as truth.

Having said that, Vista certainly *did* have a number of issues after release, but so did every Windows version prior and after Vista. What made it worse, though, that many hardware vendors (including Nvidia and AMD!) sat on their asses instead of having their Vista drivers ready for launch, despite the very long public beta phase.

But that was mostly resolved by the time SP1 came along. And in the end, Vista wasn't any worse than Windows 7, and performed similarly well.

[Karel]

What made it worse, though, that many hardware vendors (including Nvidia and AMD!) sat on their asses instead of having their Vista drivers ready for launch, despite the very long public beta phase.

PC manufacturers and microsoft should never have released hard/software with buggy drivers, no matter who is to blame.

[Wuerstchenhund]

What made it worse, though, that many hardware vendors (including Nvidia and AMD!) sat on their asses instead of having their Vista drivers ready for launch, despite the very long public beta phase.

PC manufacturers and microsoft should never have released hard/software with buggy drivers, no matter who is to blame.

That's simply impossible, you can not create software which is 100% bug free. Also, software doesn't exist in a vacuum, it runs in a logical and physical environment which, itself, is not (and cannot be) free from bugs.

For a software developer, the aim is not to write bug-free code (which would be futile), the aim is to write solid, well structured code and then use software testing to identify and fix the bugs that users are most likely to see. Ideally, the majority of users don't experience any bugs during normal operation.

Every Windows version had bugs when it was released (and they all do), as has every other operating system in existence. The same is true for hardware drivers. It's just the way it is.

When Vista came out, it had some really annoying bugs like the progress dialog for the file copying/moving process (which used to be stuck on 'Calculating' for excessive amounts of time). In addition, some of the processes important for the GUI were running at lower priority, making Vista appear sluggish. On the upside, Vista didn't delete user data (like some of the Windows 10 versions had done), and Microsoft was addressing the problems quite quickly.

However, what wasn't acceptable was when even 6 months after Vista's public release Nvidia and ATI graphics drivers would still regularly crash, or when other major manufacturers were still listing "coming soon" for their Vista drivers even after SP1 had already been released. 

[Karel]

Ok, let me phrase it in a different way.

PC manufacturers and microsoft should never have released hard/software with drivers that weren't ready for release, no matter who is to blame.

[Mr. Scram]

According to Merriam-Webster, obsolete can be applicable here if used in the sense of something no longer current. However, another meaning is something no longer used or useful, and that is certainly the crux of the matter - it will depend on personal opinion.

A piece of software will never be out of usefulness even if its hardware no longer exists, as one could still use the ideas and implementation methods in another piece of software. I don't have hardware-absent software, but I have all sorts of obsolete (= not current) OSes here in my vault (DOS, Windows 3.11, 95, 98, etc.) that are not obsolete (!= no longer useful), as I needed to revamp an old piece of hardware and used DOS6.22 + Windows 3.11 here. So, the word can cause duplicity.

A similar case could be that an analog TV set on its own has become obsolete in both senses for over the air broadcast in the places where the traditional bands were sunset. By using an external VCR, HDTV downconverter or other gadget, it just becomes obsolete (= not current) but still very useful.

Again, anyone is invited to read "past End of Life" or "dead" if the term "obsolete" bothers them. They're also invited to write Keysight an angry letter.

[Mr. Scram]

I actually liked Vista, I was an early adopter and when it was retired I was rather sad to see it go. In terms of UI, I preferred the Vista UI over the changes that came with Windows 7.

The widespread hate for Vista was not founded in rationality and primarily came up after that idiot Peter Gutman wrote a series of speculative papers about Vista DRM and how it essentially would rape your daughter and kill your family in their sleep. Most of the claims were quickly debunked as BS but of course that didn't prevent "social media" (and subsequently, many computer relaed media outlets) from spreading the crap as truth.

Having said that, Vista certainly *did* have a number of issues after release, but so did every Windows version prior and after Vista. What made it worse, though, that many hardware vendors (including Nvidia and AMD!) sat on their asses instead of having their Vista drivers ready for launch, despite the very long public beta phase.

But that was mostly resolved by the time SP1 came along. And in the end, Vista wasn't any worse than Windows 7, and performed similarly well.

It's remarkable how divergent the public perception of various versions of Windows and practical reality are. As soon as earned or not negative press starts to develop, it seems to tend to escalate to draconian proportions. This isn't helped by press outlets mostly repeating each other at launch. Versions other than the early versions of Windows Vista are remarkably similar to Windows 7, yet stating this leads to silly discussions more often than not. Vista is bad. Windows 7 is good. Windows 8 is bad. No discussion possible. Nuance is seemingly prohibited when it comes to discussions about the various versions of Windows and trying to apply any gets you dismissed as a Microsoft lacky. Yet if we don't actually properly establish what is good and what is bad, we don't have any hope of Microsoft actually retaining the good and disposing of the bad.

[SilverSolder]

I actually liked Vista, I was an early adopter and when it was retired I was rather sad to see it go. In terms of UI, I preferred the Vista UI over the changes that came with Windows 7.

The widespread hate for Vista was not founded in rationality and primarily came up after that idiot Peter Gutman wrote a series of speculative papers about Vista DRM and how it essentially would rape your daughter and kill your family in their sleep. Most of the claims were quickly debunked as BS but of course that didn't prevent "social media" (and subsequently, many computer relaed media outlets) from spreading the crap as truth.

Having said that, Vista certainly *did* have a number of issues after release, but so did every Windows version prior and after Vista. What made it worse, though, that many hardware vendors (including Nvidia and AMD!) sat on their asses instead of having their Vista drivers ready for launch, despite the very long public beta phase.

But that was mostly resolved by the time SP1 came along. And in the end, Vista wasn't any worse than Windows 7, and performed similarly well.

It's remarkable how divergent the public perception of various versions of Windows and practical reality are. As soon as earned or not negative press starts to develop, it seems to tend to escalate to draconian proportions. This isn't helped by press outlets mostly repeating each other at launch. Versions other than the early versions of Windows Vista are remarkably similar to Windows 7, yet stating this leads to silly discussions more often than not. Vista is bad. Windows 7 is good. Windows 8 is bad. No discussion possible. Nuance is seemingly prohibited when it comes to discussions about the various versions of Windows and trying to apply any gets you dismissed as a Microsoft lacky. Yet if we don't actually properly establish what is good and what is bad, we don't have any hope of Microsoft actually retaining the good and disposing of the bad.

Windows 8 had the issue of forcing a touchpad GUI on desktop users.  People are resistant to change even at the best of times, but that was going too far.  Windows 10 obviously reined that back quite a bit, and still managed to keep some of the good ideas in the expanded START menu.

[Mr. Scram]

Windows 8 had the issue of forcing a touchpad GUI on desktop users.  People are resistant to change even at the best of times, but that was going too far.  Windows 10 obviously reined that back quite a bit, and still managed to keep some of the good ideas in the expanded START menu.

Sure, mistakes were made. The amount of flak Windows 8 and Microsoft got was in no way proportional to any actual issues people could have had though. People got hung up on what literally were cosmetic changes and it was permanently discarded, just like that.

[nctnico]

Yet if we don't actually properly establish what is good and what is bad, we don't have any hope of Microsoft actually retaining the good and disposing of the bad.

For Microsoft it is very simple: what is good sells, what is bad doesn't. I assume you are aware any technical property of a product doesn't matter (and hasn't for a long time). The UI of Windows8 was a step too far for most users so it didn't sell which automatically makes it bad and the discussion ends right there. XP showing the UI long before it finished loading everything is another fine example of how a poor technical choice lead to make people feel the product starts faster.

Even in cars you see such 'product perception' tactics; cars get tuned to give a perception of fast accelleration while technically a much faster accelleration is possible but it would make the car feel extremely dull to drive.

[Mr. Scram]

For Microsoft it is very simple: what is good sells, what is bad doesn't. I assume you are aware any technical property of a product doesn't matter (and hasn't for a long time). The UI of Windows8 was a step too far for most users so it didn't sell which automatically makes it bad and the discussion ends right there.

It's what you get for catering to the masses.

[SilverSolder]

[...] any technical property of a product doesn't matter (and hasn't for a long time). [...]

Cars are a perfect example of that.  You get a "facelift" every few years, and the same underlying technology goes on, and on, with relatively slow and conservative changes where reliability is everything. 

And that is a good thing! - you get the best of both worlds:  a refreshed "look" every few years so sales&marketing have something to talk about, and customers feel they are getting something new and fresh,  while keeping proven designs and processes behind the scenes.

I really think Microsoft has taken a wrong turn with "the last version of Windows, ever" -  I suspect they will eventually end up going back to cosmetic/marketing driven releases, like what happens with cars!

[Wuerstchenhund]

It's remarkable how divergent the public perception of various versions of Windows and practical reality are. As soon as earned or not negative press starts to develop, it seems to tend to escalate to draconian proportions.

Yes, but then that's "social media", a self-reinforcing echo chamber where facts don't matter and where the loudest voices shape consensus.

This isn't helped by press outlets mostly repeating each other at launch.

Indeed. In the early days of computing (i.e. '70s) to early 2000's there were some really good computer-related magazines, which by now have either disappeared or morphed into the parroting publications we have today.

But that's a general problem with journalism which has somewhat shifted from doing investigations to repeating what press releases and social media tell us. Being a tech journalist has never been particularly well paid but in the last 15 years or so being a journalist changed from being employed to being a gig worker, and those with expertise had little problems to find other, better paying jobs somewhere else.

Versions other than the early versions of Windows Vista are remarkably similar to Windows 7, yet stating this leads to silly discussions more often than not. Vista is bad. Windows 7 is good. Windows 8 is bad. No discussion possible. Nuance is seemingly prohibited when it comes to discussions about the various versions of Windows and trying to apply any gets you dismissed as a Microsoft lacky.

Yes, that is unfortunately true. I found it's often better in OS related conversations to not mention Windows 8.1 (which for me was the best version of Windows yet, I like the GUI, and I love the full screen Start menu; thankfully MS has left that functionality in Windows 10).

It's very difficult to overcome the established consensus of an echo chamber. And that's not just limited to operating systems.

Yet if we don't actually properly establish what is good and what is bad, we don't have any hope of Microsoft actually retaining the good and disposing of the bad.

I would agree, but right now I think the only thing Microsoft really cares is its strategy to move to a SaaS model, which includes Windows. To deviate from that would require a leadership change at Microsoft (i.e. Nadella would have to go), and considering that they are raking in profits at this moment it seems to be unlikely that this happens.

[tautech]

I found it's often better in OS related conversations to not mention Windows 8.1 (which for me was the best version of Windows yet, I like the GUI, and I love the full screen Start menu; thankfully MS has left that functionality in Windows 10).

I didn't mind 8.1 either after years of using 7 and used a dual boot of them both for a while until 10 came out.
A visit to a PC tech mate and a little while using 10 there showed me I need bite the bullet and go with the times too.
No regrets.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Windows 8 had the issue of forcing a touchpad GUI on desktop users.  People are resistant to change even at the best of times, but that was going too far.

Yes, but that is really more a problem with people being mentally stuck (it still amazes me how many people still stick to the old Windows 95 look and feel). If we took this attitude as a guidance then we'd still be running MSDOS

Also, saying the Windows 8/8.1 GUI was just for touchscreens misses the point, because touch support was only a part of it. The idea was to give the user interactive tiles in the Start screen which would provide dynamic information without the need to actually launch a program. For this to make sense, the Start screen had to become full screen. Obviously, this didn't work out mostly due to the lack of support from other vendors (it also didn't help that 99% of the stuff in the Windows App Store was plain crap), but it was an interesting idea (which is still alive in Windows 10, although slightly altered).

The same is true for the full screen Start menu. Especially when lots of programs are installed, the full screen menu gives a lot more room for the necessary short cuts than the old-style hierarchic menu structure in previous Windows versions (and finding software by typing the first few letters of the program's name works even better than under Windows 7).

I found that the full screen Start menu actually works pretty well especially on large high resulution screens, and I know that I'm by far not the only person who actually liked it. Of course, for that to happen you actually need to give it a chance and not cling mentally to a menu structure which was hot shit in 1995.

Of course Windows 8/8.1 wasn't perfect. Windows 8 had some UI and other issues but a lot of that was fixed with 8.1. The biggest problem however was that the new Metro style apps only worked in full screen mode which was a major limitation, and uptake from ISVs was far below what MS hoped it to be. Also, the replacement for the Control Panel was rather limited (a problem that still exists in Windows 10), but the old Control Panel was still there and alive so there wasn't really any loss over Windows 7 in this regard.

There were even 3rd party tools for those that felt the urge to make Windows 8 look like Windows 95. And behind the UI Windows 8 was simply the better and much more secure OS than Windows 7, so there was was really no rationally behind the shunning Windows 8 got. But clearly, rationality never had a role in it in the first place.

Windows 10 obviously reined that back quite a bit, and still managed to keep some of the good ideas in the expanded START menu.

What MS did was implementing what some of the 3rd party tools did for Windows 8/8.1 with what would have been the logical next step after Windows 8.1 anyways (and in the process, making the full screen menu worse). And still, the same crowd that complained about Windows 8 still complained about Windows 10.

The only difference is that, this time, both of their much beloved alternatives (XP, W7) are now dead in the water, so unless they want to get stuck with an increasingly insecure OS which won't be supported by new software or games they have to move on, and for that only Windows 10 makes any sense (Win 8.1 support end in 2023 which isn't too far off).

[rsjsouza]

It is interesting to say how the Windows 95 interface was "hot" at the time it was launched. This was not unanimous at all, since the entire collection of software hidden behind a minuscule start menu without search capabilities was very counterproductive. The proof is how desktops around the world were/are littered by a disorganized collection of icons that link to most used documents and applications a user deems necessary. The hierarchical organization of applications of pre-95 Windows had its appeal.

The full screen start menu is better than the minuscule tree that expands at the left of the screen but that is where its strength ends, as XP and newer already had a search for the application name. Still worse than simply double-clicking on an icon at the Desktop area, but useful for the rare and not so common application.

Windows 8/8.1/10 decided it was a good idea to add file and internet search to the Start menu and therefore hits can become quite confusing. Yes, I know you can disable it, but fighting with the UI is far from ideal, especially if you are trying to provide help to someone over the phone. One good move is the expanded customization of the start menu, allowing more programs and some hierarchy for the icons pushed there. Even still, it is a few extra clicks to get there when compared to a single click on the desktop.

All this to say that the old methods die hard and we still see pre-95 elements still being used at large around the user base. No amount of shaming or evolutionary UI modifications will mean a complete departure from the past.

[Wuerstchenhund]

It is interesting to say how the Windows 95 interface was "hot" at the time it was launched. This was not unanimous at all, since the entire collection of software hidden behind a minuscule start menu without search capabilities was very counterproductive.

To be fair, "hot" was meant as a somewhat sarcastic expression for something which at that time was one of the latest UX  features in Windows

I agree that the Win95 Start menu wasn't particularly great (I'd say it was 'workable'), which makes it even more mind boggling that so many people hang on to it for so long.

The proof is how desktops around the world were/are littered by a disorganized collection of icons that link to most used documents and applications a user deems necessary. The hierarchical organization of applications of pre-95 Windows had its appeal.

Well, to be fair most of the time the desktop shortcuts are there because so many software installers insist to place another icon for the software they are deploying on the desktop, often without asking the user.

Developers ignoring Microsoft Style Guides have been a bane of Windows since forever.

The full screen start menu is better than the minuscule tree that expands at the left of the screen but that is where its strength ends, as XP and newer already had a search for the application name. Still worse than simply double-clicking on an icon at the Desktop area, but useful for the rare and not so common application.

Windows 8/8.1/10 decided it was a good idea to add file and internet search to the Start menu and therefore hits can become quite confusing. Yes, I know you can disable it, but fighting with the UI is far from ideal, especially if you are trying to provide help to someone over the phone. One good move is the expanded customization of the start menu, allowing more programs and some hierarchy for the icons pushed there. Even still, it is a few extra clicks to get there when compared to a single click on the desktop.

Disabling web search in Windows 8.1 (Windows 8 did not have web search) was a simple checkbox but in Windows 10 Microsoft has certainly made this unnecessary complicated.

But don't underestimate the power of the search function. Because (to my surprise!) I found that I was quicker just typing the first few letters of a program than moving my hand to the mouse then the mouse cursor to the icon, and then clicking on it. It's the same reason every sane program offers keyboard shortcuts, because it allows you to do your task without having to take the hand off the keyboard.

Also including local files in the search was very useful, because as long as I can remember a part of the document name I can quickly open any document anywhere on my drive without having to dig through the directory structure in Explorer or the application.

Same for settings.

All this to say that the old methods die hard and we still see pre-95 elements still being used at large around the user base. No amount of shaming or evolutionary UI modifications will mean a complete departure from the past.

Yes, but this is also often the reason we can't have nice things. And you'd have to be pretty stuck in your ways to want to even think about making Windows 7 to resemble the Win95 desktop. I understand change is difficult insisting that every new Windows version after Win 95 or 98 looks and feels like this has made the change that will come eventually much more difficult and painful than if they just had followed the changes that came with every Windows version in between.

[NorthGuy]

Yes, but this is also often the reason we can't have nice things. And you'd have to be pretty stuck in your ways to want to even think about making Windows 7 to resemble the Win95 desktop. I understand change is difficult insisting that every new Windows version after Win 95 or 98 looks and feels like this has made the change that will come eventually much more difficult and painful than if they just had followed the changes that came with every Windows version in between.

I don't see it that way. I use PCs for work - I usually have one or few applications open and I work with them for a long time. I work with software, not with the OS. All I want from the OS, is not to get on the way. I evaluate the progress of OS not in the interface, but mostly in technical details: 95 didn't support Unicode but NT did,  NT didn't support USB but 2k did, W7 doesn't support SSD but W10 does.

[rsjsouza]

It is interesting to say how the Windows 95 interface was "hot" at the time it was launched. This was not unanimous at all, since the entire collection of software hidden behind a minuscule start menu without search capabilities was very counterproductive.

To be fair, "hot" was meant as a somewhat sarcastic expression for something which at that time was one of the latest UX  features in Windows

I agree that the Win95 Start menu wasn't particularly great (I'd say it was 'workable'), which makes it even more mind boggling that so many people hang on to it for so long.

At the time OS/2 had, in my opinion, a great balance between the Windows 3.x desktop organization and the Applications bar located at the bottom of the screen - something that OSX borrowed many years later (but probably Apple claims to have invented it). Even at that time several third party applications re-configured the Windows UI to add these elements (I don't recall their names, though).

The proof is how desktops around the world were/are littered by a disorganized collection of icons that link to most used documents and applications a user deems necessary. The hierarchical organization of applications of pre-95 Windows had its appeal.

Well, to be fair most of the time the desktop shortcuts are there because so many software installers insist to place another icon for the software they are deploying on the desktop, often without asking the user.

I used to believe that as well but, in my experience working with people from various companies, the amount of word docs, excel spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations plastered in the desktop of countless hosts indicate that the practicality of having these at your fingertips beats any hierarchy by a mile. 

Developers ignoring Microsoft Style Guides have been a bane of Windows since forever.

Yep. That was one of the huge contributors to the bad press that Vista got when MS tried to enforce proper user/superuser separation from third party applications.

The full screen start menu is better than the minuscule tree that expands at the left of the screen but that is where its strength ends, as XP and newer already had a search for the application name. Still worse than simply double-clicking on an icon at the Desktop area, but useful for the rare and not so common application.

Windows 8/8.1/10 decided it was a good idea to add file and internet search to the Start menu and therefore hits can become quite confusing. Yes, I know you can disable it, but fighting with the UI is far from ideal, especially if you are trying to provide help to someone over the phone. One good move is the expanded customization of the start menu, allowing more programs and some hierarchy for the icons pushed there. Even still, it is a few extra clicks to get there when compared to a single click on the desktop.

Disabling web search in Windows 8.1 (Windows 8 did not have web search) was a simple checkbox but in Windows 10 Microsoft has certainly made this unnecessary complicated.

But don't underestimate the power of the search function.

No worries; I don't. However, the added clutter that Windows 10 adds to results confuses inexperienced people (the vast majority of users). I know this by my own experience.

All this to say that the old methods die hard and we still see pre-95 elements still being used at large around the user base. No amount of shaming or evolutionary UI modifications will mean a complete departure from the past.

Yes, but this is also often the reason we can't have nice things. And you'd have to be pretty stuck in your ways to want to even think about making Windows 7 to resemble the Win95 desktop. I understand change is difficult insisting that every new Windows version after Win 95 or 98 looks and feels like this has made the change that will come eventually much more difficult and painful than if they just had followed the changes that came with every Windows version in between.

We sure can have "nice things", but it doesn't mean we like them.  Case in point: the software houses are pushing their UI newfangled trends at every new release - the latest being the ethereal visual appeal with light grey on white or the complete flattening of icons, images and buttons.
 
I have no idea where the Win95 desktop idea came from, though. 

[Wuerstchenhund]

I don't see it that way. I use PCs for work - I usually have one or few applications open and I work with them for a long time. I work with software, not with the OS. All I want from the OS, is not to get on the way. I evaluate the progress of OS not in the interface, but mostly in technical details: 95 didn't support Unicode but NT did,  NT didn't support USB but 2k did,

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

You say you don't work with the OS, you work with programs (and a limited number at that). Fair enough.

So if all you do is launch the programs, what's the point of making a newer version to look like Windows 95 then? Because if you "work with software, not with the OS" then it shouldn't really matter what the Start menu looks like or what color the icons have. So if the OS is so irrelevant as you say, why even bother? Even more so that later Windows versions didn't make it any harder to launch programs, nor made they any changes to how programs are launched.

As to 'evaluating an OS not on the UI but on technical details', you miss that UI changes are as much technical as everything else. Most of the UI changes aren't just plugged out of thin air but have a lot of actual human factors and ergonomics research behind it. Also, increasing computing resources also enabled other functionality which was out of the question back then (like adaptive search).

Ignoring the UI means you are ignoring the one part that makes for the interface between user and machine.

Reverting a newer Windows version to the clunky old Win95 interface (which was mostly defined by the limitations in technology of that time) is no different than if you had disabled W2k's built-in USB support in W2k or disabled all CPU cores except one when moving from a single core to a multi-core PC. No-one would ever suggest to do something like that, but for some reason this very suggestion is made to revert to a lackluster interface of a bygone era for the sake of 'just because'.

It doesn't really make a lot of sense.

W7 doesn't support SSD but W10 does.

Windows 7 does support SSDs (it's actually the first Windows version to do so), it has TRIM support and through updates even supports NVMe drives. What it lacks are standard NVMe drivers that come with the OS (which need to be installed manually), and NVMe firmware updates often don't work (it's fine for SATA and SAS drives).

The next step up was Windows 8/8.1 which has full NVMe support, so if you ignore the UI as you said then the next step would have been Windows 8/8.1 not 10.

[Wuerstchenhund]

At the time OS/2 had, in my opinion, a great balance between the Windows 3.x desktop organization and the Applications bar located at the bottom of the screen

The object-oriented approach IBM used for the OS/2 WPS was certainly interesting but the concept was so far off that many users struggled with it.

The application bar (called LaunchPad) was only introduced later with Warp 3.0 and wasn't exactly a novel concept (CDE, the back then default UNIX desktop, has had it for longer, I believe AmigaOS had that, too, and then there was IndigoMagic from SGI which had that as well).

something that OSX borrowed many years later (but probably Apple claims to have invented it). Even at that time several third party applications re-configured the Windows UI to add these elements (I don't recall their names, though).

Mac OS X didn't borrow from OS/2. Most of the Mac OS X UI elements were derived from NextStep/OpenStep, a UNIX variant created by NeXT for its series of M68k based workstation. NeXT was founded by Steve Jobs after he was ousted from Apple in the '80s.

Well, to be fair most of the time the desktop shortcuts are there because so many software installers insist to place another icon for the software they are deploying on the desktop, often without asking the user.

I used to believe that as well but, in my experience working with people from various companies, the amount of word docs, excel spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations plastered in the desktop of countless hosts indicate that the practicality of having these at your fingertips beats any hierarchy by a mile. [/quote]

You are right, corporate users are the worst when it comes to littering the desktop and local and networked folders with copies of the same spreadsheet at various stages. Often even the authors don't know which of the copies is the current one.

Sharepoint helps a lot to avoid that, but it's a rather fragile software and difficult to setup properly.

Developers ignoring Microsoft Style Guides have been a bane of Windows since forever.

Yep. That was one of the huge contributors to the bad press that Vista got when MS tried to enforce proper user/superuser separation from third party applications. [/quote

Indeed. It's still a problem, i.e. some installers want to install into AppData which is just for settings 

But don't underestimate the power of the search function.

No worries; I don't. However, the added clutter that Windows 10 adds to results confuses inexperienced people (the vast majority of users). I know this by my own experience.

I agree, I don't like many of the UI changes in Windows 10 either. The full screen mode of the start menu is actually worse than on Windows 8/8.1, and has the nasty habit of occasionally shifting icons so they partially cover others. I also miss transparency.

Luckily, most of our work systems run on Linux (Red Hat/SUSE) but considering that GNOME is horrible on a completely different scale than the Windows UIs I'm glad that we use Red Hat mostly on servers only (RH uses GNOME). Thankfully, SUSE supports KDE which is a lot better (even though it's also far from perfect).

We sure can have "nice things", but it doesn't mean we like them.  Case in point: the software houses are pushing their UI newfangled trends at every new release - the latest being the ethereal visual appeal with light grey on white or the complete flattening of icons, images and buttons.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the flat monochrome designs we get these days. But luckily sometimes it's just that it's butt ugly while the actual functionality behind is quite good.
 

I have no idea where the Win95 desktop idea came from, though. 

I think it started as something called "System" which was supposed to resemble the same functionality as the Apple menu on classic Mac OS, and later morphed into a program launcher.