Each version of Windows has had its upsides and downsides.

My favorite in terms of looks and behavior is Windows 2000, and it's still in the top 5 when I think of desktop UIs that don't try to grab the user's attention. It was also much lighter on resources than XP, and didn't have poorly-animated dogs hiding behind the menus.

But oh man, let me tell you, the first time I experienced one of the newer versions restart its graphics driver without losing state was magical. I can't remember how many hours I lost to blue screens with a stack trace deep inside some ATI/nVidia dll, and to this day I can get a kernel panic in Linux if I tickle the GPU the right way, but modern Windows has proper GPU driver isolation and they did it without wrecking performance.

I wish it were somehow possible to run the pre-XP interface on the modern OS.

Im not a fan of the transition away from information density to giant touch buttons controlling interface design, BUT turning off transparency and animations is two clicks, and, although maybe my computer is powerful enough (despite not being technically compatible), Windows 11 is pretty snappy with effects turned off. And realistically, turning off most animations has been a recommendation for every version of Windows for decades.

You think XP was better than 2k? For me, nothing beats Windows 2000. I kept coming back to it even with SP3 and later.

Same for me, Windows 2000 had the stability of Windows NT4, but with added support for USB stuff.

Windows 2000 was the best version I ever used, though I admit I'd switched to Linux pretty soon after it was released.

Windows 2000 was such a good OS. Incredibly stable, reasonably performant, great aesthetics and a reasonably consistent interface throughout.

Every Windows release since the dawn of time have been hated up until the next release was made. Windows 7 was hated until Windows 8 was released, then suddenly Windows 7 was great. Except Vista maybe, which was hated no matter what.

That's not true. 95 and 98 were well received. ME was garbage. XP was liked, mainly because it wasn't ME and also the first consumer NT kernel. Vista was hated for many good reason. 7 was liked mostly because it wasn't Vista. 8 was despised because it had a lot of just bad UI choices. 10 was liked because it undid all of that.

So it kind of flip flops. Microsoft makes a bunch of changes that everyone hates. Then they roll back a lot of them in the next OS.

That being said, 11 is shaping up to be a debacle. But don't worry, 12 will drop all the things you hate about 11 but keep things they really wanted to include.

>Microsoft makes a bunch of changes that everyone hates. Then they roll back a lot of them in the next OS.

That doesn't really describe Vista to 7. Windows 7 was largely Vista Service Pack 3, with some interface tweaks to give it is own visual marketing identity.

The Kernel Version Numbers are a better hint at what is going on than the marketing releases, or the service packs. Windows 2000 was NT5, XP was NT 5.1 (which was mostly a dos compatibility layer on top of 2000, so it could run consumer games and such.) Vista was NT6, 7 was NT6.1, 8 was NT6.2 8.1 was NT6.3.

Kernel Version numbers are also kind of sus because they often choose numbers based on what programs are checking for rather than anything else. Windows 10 uses 10.x, skipping right over 7, 8, and 9.

Like the reason we don't have a "Windows 9", because programs check for that to see if they're running on Windows 95 or 98 because it uses the 9x kernel.

Vista to 7 was significant. An operating system is more than just the kernel.

Vista to Vista SP2 was more significant of a performance improvement than Vista SP2 to 7 RTM.

What you described was a combination of marketing and a change in behavior. They skipped 7 because it would be confusing for 10 to be NT 7. They skipped 8 for the same reason, and 9 for the reason you described.

Nothing about those choices changes that from 2000 to 8.1 there were only one major kernel build number changes, and it was from XP to Vista. Although unpopular, Vista was the biggest leap between any two versions, and part of its lack of popularity was that it was a breaking change that broke most drivers. It also didn't help that they were certifying underpowered machines as compatible.

The conversation I started was about the frequency of major build number increments, not what number they chose to signify a change.

I think people who say such things may just idolize the time ('the good old times')

Not me. I miss XP because of its stability and consistent UI. I miss 7 for similar reasons. Vista was a flop and I don't miss it even though "Vista times" were very nice for me. 10 and 11 have been unmitigated disasters.

The stability only came with Service packs though. Initial XP had terrible security. I remember installing an out of the box xp in early 2000 and without doing anything it was infected by malware within 15 minutes of being put online.

> I miss XP because of its stability

Ah yes, the grand stability of plugging in the wrong USB accessory into the wrong USB port and the computer crashing. Great times :)

I don't remember this being the case. Keep in mind driver issues are not XP specific.

The stability of connecting a fresh XP install to internet and immediately getting exploited.

What feature does windows 10 have that 7 didn't, that you find useful?

Personally the only thing I can think of is the slightly better calculator.

WSL.

The only useful feature of windows 10 is linux?

It’s not the only useful new feature but certainly the best one for most people on HN. Combining windows and Linux so well is great.

maybe, but they were also warmly received at the time they were released too.