Windows POS Pro 2010 (or whatever) - better or worse than Vista?

[Phil]

Do you think the version of Windows after Vista will be better than, or worse than Vista?

In general, the versions seem to "zigzag" in usability, e.g. Windows 3.1 - bad, Windows '95 - good, Windows ME - bad, Windows XP - good, Windows Vista - bad.

Wonder if this bodes well for the 2010 version?

[a5chen]

I hope so. I'm on the verge of upgrading my laptop to XP.

[ultrafilter]

It's hard to imagine how they could do any worse.

[Brad Gile]

Originally Posted by Phil

Do you think the version of Windows after Vista will be better than, or worse than Vista?

In general, the versions seem to "zigzag" in usability, e.g. Windows 3.1 - bad, Windows '95 - good, Windows ME - bad, Windows XP - good, Windows Vista - bad.

Wonder if this bodes well for the 2010 version?

You need to separate MS OS's by whether they sprang from DOS or not.

1. DOS descendants
Windows 3.0 was the first real GUI offered by MS. It was unstable and highly dependant on DOS. Bad.

Windows 3.1 greatly improved stability, but had the same DOS dependencies. OK.

Windows 95 had minor DOS dependencies and was revolutionary for MS operating systems. Good.

Windows 98 stems from 95 but had real problems. Bad

Windows ME was a disaster. Bad

2. Non-DOS systems (NT branch)
Windows NT 3.5 and Windows NT were very good as long as your hardware met rigid requirements. Otherwise, big problems. Not for the average user.

Windows 2000 (aka Win NT 5.0) was a huge improvement over its predecessor NT 4.0. Definitely Good.

Windows XP (aka Win NT 5.1) further improved the NT line. With SP2, XP is excellent but still has security concerns. Definitely Good.

Vista went overboard on security and created major headaches for many users. Definitely Bad.

The DOS branch died with ME and is now irrelevant. The NT branch is what we now have. The history shows no real trend. MS knows it cannot let XP die before they get an acceptable successor for Vista, so they are supporting XP until 2014. I think it safe to predict that the next MS operating system will be far more palatable to mainstream users than Vista is now.

[campbell]

I'm not going to speculate on vaporware.

I'll probably still be using my Mac G5 in 2010 (since I've been using it since 2004 and still going strong).... and our 3 XO laptops (Redhat Linux), and our Mac G3 (um... OS9? Can't remember), and my Thinkpad from 1996 (Windows 98).... oh right, and the Gateway tablet PC I'm using right now, that has XP on it. Unless Apple gets off its ass and finally produces a tablet Mac.

Dangit.

[Brad Gile]

Originally Posted by campbell

I'm not going to speculate on vaporware.

I'll probably still be using my Mac G5 in 2010 (since I've been using it since 2004 and still going strong).... and our 3 XO laptops (Redhat Linux), and our Mac G3 (um... OS9? Can't remember), and my Thinkpad from 1996 (Windows 98).... oh right, and the Gateway tablet PC I'm using right now, that has XP on it. Unless Apple gets off its ass and finally produces a tablet Mac.

Dangit.

Whatever floats your boat.
Since starting with DOS and an IBM PC in 1982, Windows OS's have worked fine and dandy for me, as have the MS Office and developer products. I really don't care who makes the OS and software as long as it works for me. I'm currently using XP on my desktops and do have a laptop with Vista, which I plan to "upgrade" to XP when I can generate the energy to do so.

[enyj]

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

It's hard to imagine how they could do any worse.

You might not want to hold your breath or bet anything valuable on that...

[GadgetGeek]

Originally Posted by Brad Gile

You need to separate MS OS's by whether they sprang from DOS or not.

1. DOS descendants
Windows 3.0 was the first real GUI offered by MS. It was unstable and highly dependant on DOS. Bad.

Windows 3.1 greatly improved stability, but had the same DOS dependencies. OK.

Windows 95 had minor DOS dependencies and was revolutionary for MS operating systems. Good.

Windows 98 stems from 95 but had real problems. Bad

Windows ME was a disaster. Bad

2. Non-DOS systems (NT branch)
Windows NT 3.5 and Windows NT were very good as long as your hardware met rigid requirements. Otherwise, big problems. Not for the average user.

Windows 2000 (aka Win NT 5.0) was a huge improvement over its predecessor NT 4.0. Definitely Good.

Windows XP (aka Win NT 5.1) further improved the NT line. With SP2, XP is excellent but still has security concerns. Definitely Good.

Vista went overboard on security and created major headaches for many users. Definitely Bad.

The DOS branch died with ME and is now irrelevant. The NT branch is what we now have. The history shows no real trend. MS knows it cannot let XP die before they get an acceptable successor for Vista, so they are supporting XP until 2014. I think it safe to predict that the next MS operating system will be far more palatable to mainstream users than Vista is now.

You missed "BOB". OMGWTFBBQ

[JMO]

I am still reflecting on the ambiguity of the acronym POS. Just sayin'

[lewisje]

Originally Posted by JMO

I am still reflecting on the ambiguity of the acronym POS. Just sayin'

Well you know POS machines are often POSes