All the versions were pretty good through Windows 95. Then there was a little decline in quality through 98 up to Vista but they still weren't necessarily bad. Then the whole OS shit the bed after that...

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly I think the tick tock concept is pretty valid.

3.1: Stable, usable, good GUI for it's time.

95: Unstable mess, pretty, but so many blue screens

98: after reaching 98:SE it was basically almost as stable as 3.1, while having most of the UI improvements of 95... all in all a pretty solid OS.

ME/2000: Microsoft split off into 2 equally unusable variations. ME, which was just an unstable mess, like as bad as windows 95 without any real improvements, and 2000, which was far more stable and usable, but could run like 25% of software.

XP: So they finally combined overall the pros of both ME and 2000, got a pretty stable well loved OS, with more or less the ability to run most legacy software.

Vista: Oh god kill it with fire... it's like ME all over again, unstable, buggy, and an enormous jump in resources needed just to run it.

Windows 7: ah ok so they finally made what's the propor upgrade from XP.

Windows 8: What the heck is this... full screen... it's like they wanted to make a tablet OS, but failed to make a good tablet. or tablet OS for that matter... it's just a horrid hybrid of desktop OS and tablet OS that did neither well.

Windows 10 - Kind of figured out what it was supposed to be... though the start of the bloat, unavoidable ads, xbox integration etc..

Windows 11 - Lets keep going, more co-pilot... more things you never asked for shoved down your throat.