modernponderer

Really? XP was better than 2000? Based on what? Take a look at this if you really think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_XP Also, Windows 10 is already far better than 8.1 at least based on the return of Previous Versions alone.

Yes I read the post. Yes, I know what the point is. And neither do I like that serious features (Windows 7 Backup, anyone?) are being systematically removed. But that doesn't mean the functionality is not there. You just need to know how to get to it. It's been true all along that 3rd party software is often better than Microsoft's own implementations (Classic Shell, anyone?). As a professional software engineer who uses my systems for highly technical and complex things I can unreservedly say that I get more out of Windows (I'm presently running Win 8.1 x64 Pro/MCE) now than I got back when DOS was still involved. Way more. Bear in mind that I've been tweaking and augmenting operating systems to get the most they can give going back since well before Windows was even Bill Gates' wet dream. I'm not even remotely talking about an "out of box" experience nor "technically challenged user" experience. At the expert level an argument that Win 9x is even remotely in the same league as an NT-based OS is just ludicrous. At the top of the list of things that I clearly remember held me back in "the bad old days": The inability to trust a computer to just run right for more than a short time and not corrupt data. The inability to process a LOT of data without some failure. Having to be distracted by things like de-corrupting disks on bootup, or even just booting up at all. Dealing with a poor quality display. Having stuff just degrade for no apparent reason. And that was with computers 1,000 times less powerful than we enjoy today. Now, even though we do thousands or even millions of times more things, I get my work done and the OS just runs for weeks, stepping out of the way and doing what I need. I find paying attention to it is FAR less necessary now than ever before once it's set up well. It's not about running the OS. It's about the system facilitating what you need to get things done. And for that - for me at least - there's none better than an adeptly configured and augmented Win 8.1 system. Windows 10 is still too new to fill those shoes, but who knows what it will become? Your mileage may vary. -Noel Okay, but look at Windows 2000. Released in 1999, this OS has basically none of the problems you're describing, yet also virtually none of the degradation issues that XP and later do. It's really such a shame that so much hardware and software simply doesn't support 2000 these days - although I've noticed that even XP support is now being dropped in many cases, and not just by the big names...

I'm assuming you're responding to my post... I agree that 9x was obviously not exactly something to hold up as an example of a great OS line if only because of the stability issues, but did you actually read the topic? It's about features being removed since then, not so much that the Windows versions back then were all that awesome otherwise...

If by this you are asking why posting in the intro thread doesn't increase your post count... it would be because you don't increase posts in any of those general forums. So what happens is you only get posts increase if you post in the "technical" sections. No, if I were asking that I would have asked exactly that, just as I actually did when I posted the first post in this very topic. The question you quoted is rather different.

Browsing through an otherwise totally unrelated board, I found this little gem: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/156-windows-computing/243305-microsoft-oses-decreasing-functionality-since-98se.html Is this knowledge slowly spreading to the masses? (And look, it even points out that XP was already on the downhill slope, unlike what many here seem to think...)

Sorry for the bump, but I do feel that I need to ask this: are you implying that an introduction post is unconstructive?

As you can see, I've technically been here for quite a while, but I haven't really been active for much of that time. Therefore, I'd like to introduce myself to the community here once again, and perhaps actually participate meaningfully this time around...

I noticed that posts in the Introduce Yourself! forum don't increase post counts, and I'd like to state that I highly disagree with this. I can understand why it's (apparently) implemented in the Funny Farm, but I really dislike that new members continue to have 0 posts even after introducing themselves. In fact, it almost seems like you're trying to discourage (new!) members from posting there at all.

Hi!

The beta was open until November.

In fact, the orb is taken from Vista.

Siginet does that also apply for WinXP 64-bit, cos I would like to make such customised XP CD, which includes XP 32-bit and one 64-bit version on one disk, ofcourse slimmed down Ummm... nice bump...

Even after nLiting, it's a sluggish elephant compared to a virgin 98se install. Linux is comparable to 2K/XP but much more complex and difficult to maintain. Win9x being low performance? Quite possibly ME, but definitely not 95/98/98se. They are fast and efficient. In fact, if you took an nLited XP and changed all the icons, names, themes, etc. so that it looked exactly like 98se, you'd still feel the difference. The NT-series of OSs have a distinctly higher response time and sluggishness that is very apparent. I've tried this before, so I know.Regarding driver support, I am quite surprised to see that some hardware manufacturers actually have realmode DOS drivers, regularly updated, for their newest products. Windows XP is the standard. Linux, Windows 9x, and even Windows ME are not.

No. It's because WinXP is the very first and only stable, reliable, secure, and compatible system. Period. B) It controls over 90% of the market.

Yahoo! works... Currently using it (NOT testing, BUT using! )...