I have been running Microsoft Os's since the DOS days. Not because I ever loved Microsoft, but because microsoft had a basic monopoly on the huge legacy base of X 86 Software. As my other comment becomes my first 8028 based computer felt every bit as fast as far modern computers feel now. As I attribute that real lack of improvement to the Microsoft commitment to ever more bloated OS's.
But still until the Microsoft introduction of windows 3.1, Apple and the Macantosh was the only OS that truly supported a graphical User interface. Even if Windows 3.1 was still DOS being run by an artificial Windows overlayer. But still compared to my old 80286 computer, it took 8X the ram and a far faster Pentium to run the bloatware. And even better, the required hard disk sizes increased even faster. But no rest for the wicked, as soon windows 95 soon came out, As finally Microsoft finally had a true GUI that was run by a Windows and not by DOS. But still windows 95 was not very stable, and IMHO, Windows 98 was not any better as Blue screens of death became common occurrences and new facts of life. But still, after a blue screen of death, I could simply reboot to safe mode, not do anything in safe mode, exit safe mode, and reboot fully cured for a while. Until the next blue screen of death occurred.
But still I then eagerly paid Microsoft another $100 for Windows XP home and a clone builder another small fortune to migrate to Windows XP. As finally, at long last I found a Microsoft OS that worked and was stable. And when my first Microsoft XP computer died of hardware failure, I could reuse the same OS and buy another computer even cheaper. And with a bigger hard drive and a faster processor. Without paying Microsoft another dime. As I had a long and happy experience with win XP, as I learned the in and outs of the win XP OS. Even if I had to learn to use third party security software to patch the holes in win XP security designs as I also keprt windows fully patched with windows updates and added XP service packs 1,2 and three. As I asked myself, why should anyone sane rush to upgrade to Vista and Window's 7 that are even more bloated. And even better yet, the price for Vista full or Win7 full doubles from a $100 in XP to $200. Nor was my mind changed when I inherited a Vista based laptop, as my reaction was and still is, oh God yeech yuck what a turd of an OS. Gone was my run menu, gone was my ability to use most features of the control panel, and it became very difficult to access hidden files or folders. I later got a chance to play with another win 7 based laptop, and found win7 somewhat better than Vista, but at a cost of finding it even worse than vista in terms of being to access OS diagnostics.
But when one of my last XP computers finally died of motherboard failure, I happened to be in big box store shopping for something else, and found a last years model computer super discounted to $248.00. With a i5 processor and a 1.5 terribyte hard drive running windows 7. Plus it comes with a coupon to upgrade to windows 8 for almost nothing. But that win 8 upgrade will be another god no yeech yuck if that win8 upgrade is metro based, but maybe an option if I am able to ditch metro. Advice needed.
Facebook
Twitter