The good and bad releases of Windows

Across the history of the development of Windows, each major iteration of this operating system family has that bad/good cycle.

Windows 95 was a massive step-up in usability, but required a lot more from hardware than Windows 3.1x did. But: better memory protection, which gave it a huge advantage over the classic MacOS, which didn't have it yet.

Windows 98 and 98SE added a bit more reliability. Introduction of Windows Update: anyone who regularly cared to install updates, was reasonably safe.

W98 ended up being the most versatile of the 9x line in terms of hardware support, as it supported both VxD and WDM driver types, and had built-in USB support (not perfect, but still).

Windows Me had multimedia additions, but lacked VxD driver support (ostensibly to make it more stable), and wasn't particularly popular.

Windows 2000 was actually really great, but was often overlooked by regular PC users, and maybe appeared more technical.

Windows XP consolidated the back-end of Windows 2000 and the ease-of-use of the 9x line, such as very visibly separating regular users from administrators.

Better security with a built-in firewall, though many back-end security improvements came with XP Service Pack 2.

Windows Vista was the bad one, and was pre-installed on a lot of computers that were too underpowered for it; think 5400 RPM hard drive, 1 GB RAM, out of which 3/4th was taken by the OS alone after launch. In real life, it required at least 4 GB RAM and maybe even an SSD. Even 2 GB of RAM would have been okay.

Vista only had better security with User Account Control and a built-in anti-virus app. It introduced desktop widgets in lieu of Active Desktop.

Windows 7: When it was good, then it was really good. I believe it would run well on 4 GB RAM.

Windows 8.x? The back-end was certainly improved, but the UI was terrible: the removed Start menu in favour of the start screen, and outsized UWP apps. Probably the last Windows OS to work ok with 4 GB RAM.

Windows 10...
❌ The worst was the forced non-consensual upgrade. Shrink-wrap licence agreements do not count for this. It would have been much easier to permit voluntary-only downloads for those that wanted it through the support life of Windows 7 and 8.

☑️ Okay, at least the operating system offered like ten years of support in addition to the time spent with Windows 7 or 8. Hopefully, there would be more years of support to come, since a large number of computers have been shut out by Windows 11.

Windows 10 requires at least 8 GB RAM and an SSD drive to run well. It can run on 4 GB RAM, but barely. Also, the last to support a traditional BIOS.

The UI is decent.
✔️ The biggest upside is, allows people to find apps with just a few keystrokes instead of having to search through the menus: press Win key, type the first letters of a program you need. This requires indexing, and an SSD drive. An SSD drive is worth the speed improvements.

✔️ Live Tiles are nice. I also get to play Angry Birds (obtained via Windows Store). Easy notification area quick access buttons for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.
⨉ Downside: deprecation of useful Control Panel items in favour of Settings. Control Panel items are no longer sorted up-to-down in columns, which is awful. (This has continued in Windows 11, too.)

For some things, the Settings window is actually great, including the part, that many textual items can be easily copied and then later pasted elsewhere.

For very specialized sites tested only for WebKit/Blink, I've chosen to use the built-in Microsoft Edge instead of Chrome.

Windows 11 is the odd one out, again. Yes, it's got better security, and I get to have the full ten years of updates support in addition to the time I used Windows 10 on a new machine.

⨉ But: the taskbar UI has been borked (no expandable app windows), Live Tiles were removed in favour of Widgets, and those do not work at all.
✔️ Upside: Volume and brightness controls in the same notification pop-out; more Dark Mode support (esp. in File Manager).

⨉ Angry Birds 2 still continues crashing, apparently on trying to download in-game ads. I've upgraded to Windows 11 only because of Angry Birds 2 often crashing in Windows 10, but to no avail.

---

The terrible part about Microsoft specifying low minimum requirements for its operating systems, is, that many computer makers have sold and continue to sell cheap kit with just these minimum requirements, such as 4 GB RAM for both Windows 10 and 11.

I still see new notebooks on sale with just 4 GB of RAM memory. I've seen others with only 4 GB RAM, and no other way to upgrade, than to use a USB drive that meets the requirements for ReadyBoost functionality.

And this is not new: Windows 95 had very low minimum system requirements: a 386 DX CPU and 4 MB RAM, depending on features selected.

On a computer with a 486 DX CPU and 8 MB RAM, this was just enough to run the operating system, the Microsoft Exchange e-mail client, and Netscape 3.0. (Netscape 4.x would require a PC with a least 16 MB RAM.)

Windows 98 somehow ran on a PC with 16 MB RAM.

Windows XP required a 233 MHz CPU and 64 MB RAM. Yes, it worked, but very slowly. I've seen this happen in a local library.

The minimum amount of RAM that Microsoft specifies for Windows 11 is four gigabytes, which is too little: since the commit size of Windows 11 Pro is 4.8 GB after launch, 8 GB should be counted as the absolute minimum in order to leave some breathing space for other apps that people will install and use.

Users desperate for new must-have functionality would certainly live with the slow performance, aware, that certain new functionality is perhaps a must-have. But Microsoft specifying far too low amounts of RAM as minimum for its operating systems that clearly require more in real life, is something that is bound to leave many current and future Windows users very disappointed, if they upgrade (or are forced to upgrade), or if they buy underpowered computers.