kolderman wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:09:

I use Win7 exclusively as my "retro emu" box - think DosBOX, ScummVM, SCVA, Munt, etc. No native gaming - that's for another OS dual-booted on the same PC - WinXP.

That's cool, IMHO. Seven was the last real OS, before the Software-As-A-Service mantra became the norm:
It was the pinnacle, so to say, when personal computing as we know it had its heyday.

Edit: Quote added.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:16:

That's cool, IMHO. Seven was the last real OS, before the Software-As-A-Service mantra became the norm: It was the pinnacle, so […]
Show full quote

kolderman wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:09:

I use Win7 exclusively as my "retro emu" box - think DosBOX, ScummVM, SCVA, Munt, etc. No native gaming - that's for another OS dual-booted on the same PC - WinXP.

That's cool, IMHO. Seven was the last real OS, before the Software-As-A-Service mantra became the norm:
It was the pinnacle, so to say, when personal computing as we know it had its heyday.

Edit: Quote added.

Last real MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM! 😉

I miss Monkey Boy......

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:16:

That's cool, IMHO. Seven was the last real OS, before the Software-As-A-Service mantra became the norm: It was the pinnacle, so […]
Show full quote

kolderman wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:09:

I use Win7 exclusively as my "retro emu" box - think DosBOX, ScummVM, SCVA, Munt, etc. No native gaming - that's for another OS dual-booted on the same PC - WinXP.

That's cool, IMHO. Seven was the last real OS, before the Software-As-A-Service mantra became the norm:
It was the pinnacle, so to say, when personal computing as we know it had its heyday.

Edit: Quote added.

Yes Win7 is my favorite Windows and it is nice to have an excuse to run it. That way I get to run all the great OSs from DOS to Win10 (skipping Me/Vista/8 of course).

gerry wrote on 2021-06-07, 15:34:

vintage is a better word than retro i'd agree...

gerry wrote on 2021-06-07, 15:34:

for PCs there isnt a reliable dividing line, i used to think of 15 years as being a good start - but then think of the differences between a PC from 1980 and 1995, and one from 2006 and 2021 - the earlier jump is the greater one (in terms of its continued capacity to do current things). for instance you'd struggle to get online with the excitement of the WWW with a 1980 PC in 1995, but with some careful choices in terms of OS you can still do so with a 2006 64 machine today

for me, in PC terms, 32 bits is vintage/retro and 64 bits isn't, with a fuzzy line of demarcation for the earlier 64 bit machines

I agree to that basically, but it's even worse/better (depends on your point of view) - you don't need a "careful choice" of a 2006 64-Bit machine, you even can still enjoy the most of today's WWW with an early 2000's PC and WinXP (maybe even Win2k).

I don't like Win7 very much, it's a compromise for running some newer software - even with classic design enabled and Classic Shell installed...it's really annoying and illogical to configure/handle . First I also hated WinXP, but after SP2 came out I became comfortable with it and it superseded Win98 SE in daily use more and more. Everything after Win7 is out of the question. Hopefully ReactOS evolves into a replacement of WinXP for daily use.

kind regards
soggi

soggi wrote on 2021-06-08, 05:09:

I don't like Win7 very much, it's a compromise for running some newer software - even with classic design enabled and Classic Shell installed...it's really annoying and illogical to configure/handle . First I also hated WinXP, but after SP2 came out I became comfortable with it and it superseded Win98 SE in daily use more and more. Everything after Win7 is out of the question. Hopefully ReactOS evolves into a replacement of WinXP for daily use.

kind regards
soggi

I'm of the same thinking.
Starting with Vista if felt like MS was trying to be fancy for the sake of been fancy. "Lets use Dynamic links for profile location rather then a simple registry key, but we'll still keep that as well" for example.

Working in IT I spend just about all day supporting Win10 systems. If all your doing is opening a program (99% of users have icons on desktop bypassing the mess of a start menu) it's fine.
But doing actual IT tasks like joining to domains, even something simple like removing the US keyboard layout it's a mess.

So I've no love for Win7 but at least it was still designed for desktop users, not touch screen tablet users or whatever which Win10 seems more focused on even though that must be less then 5% of installed devices.
I still use Win7 on my 2 personal laptops, only used for surfing the web anyway so while I don't really care which OS they had truth I'm very happy to keep them on Win 7 for a while yet.

I didn't like XP at first simply because it felt "dumbed down" It was the first OS that didn't allow you to select which accessories would be installed during setup and the Fisher Price or Teletubbies theme.
Windows 2000 felt more professional. I think I was converted around SP1. built in Wifi and Remote Desktop access winning me over.

I kinda always had a soft spot for XP, though:

Re: How different is Windows 9x from NT? Are they not the same?
(^Older thread)

Long story short: It was advanced enough to lend a helping hand (to the user),
without trying to manipulate the user.
That was something negative introduced in Vista.
That UAC, which like a hyperactive mother constantly tells you what not to do. 😉

Also, stability. For someone coming from 98SE, XP was very compatible with Windows 98 applications, but also very forgiving.
It didn't kernal panic, it healed itself (restores DLLs silently) and so on.

If it was really necessary, though, the user could overwrite DLLs manually in safe-mode.
Also, no driver signatures were required yet.
Users could write their own drivers and share them.

Edit: Edited.

XP was the last variant of MS Windows ever to have been on any of my systems. Hard to believe that was 15 years or so ago though.

I might try out the 2020xp thingy I linked too earlier.

chinny22 wrote on 2021-06-08, 09:00:

Starting with Vista if felt like MS was trying to be fancy for the sake of been fancy...

To be honest, I doubt I ever did a Vista installation...just installed an early alpha/beta of "Longhorn" in 2003/4/5 (!?) on a Pentium II I think (installation and booting took some time xD). When Vista has been finally released in 2007 it turned out it was quite underwhelming, so I kept the Win98SE/WinXP dual boot although I had the possibility to get a free copy of Vista via MSDNAA (I just archived all available versions).

But as you say later in your posting...

chinny22 wrote on 2021-06-08, 09:00:

I didn't like XP at first simply because it felt "dumbed down" It was the first OS that didn't allow you to select which accessories would be installed during setup and the Fisher Price or Teletubbies theme.

...Microsoft tried to by fancy with XP already. First thing I do after an installation is the deactivation of Luna and other idiotic things just eating up resources like "shadows under menus"/"... mouse pointer" or "translucent selection rectangle".

It took a bit to find the best configuration back in the days, but since then I have my standard configuration I'm happy with.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-08, 17:58:

I might try out the 2020xp thingy I linked too earlier.

You can try ReactOS too - it behaves like a thin XP/2003. If you know how to come along with XP, you won't have any problems with ReactOS. And yes...it's free...it's Open Source...it's FOSS!

kind regards
soggi

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-08, 17:37:

That UAC, which like a hyperactive mother constantly tells you what not to do. 😉

Sorry, I feel that UAC was the pain we had to go through to change software developer's attitudes to administrator access.

In addition, UAC worked overtime in the background to virtualize many of admin only things old programs used to do to actually improve compatibility of Windows with software written that didn't understand proper user permissions. So much software was written with the assumption that it could do whatever it wanted to the system.

Of course, users only ever saw the tip of the iceburg and love to cry about the slight inconvenience it caused. Usually they go disable it and then cry even further when their systems get eaten by the malware they installed themselves, and the malware would have a field day because it had admin access by default and could go about and trash the system at will.

soggi wrote on 2021-06-09, 02:03:

You can try ReactOS too - it behaves like a thin XP/2003. If you know how to come along with XP, you won't have any problems wit […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-08, 17:58:

I might try out the 2020xp thingy I linked too earlier.

You can try ReactOS too - it behaves like a thin XP/2003. If you know how to come along with XP, you won't have any problems with ReactOS. And yes...it's free...it's Open Source...it's FOSS!

kind regards
soggi

I never found ReactOS very enticing at all and remember when it was trying to be NT4 comparable. Personally I don't care if it is FOSS or not. I just want an OS to do what I want when I want to do it and not get in my way.

I personally hate any fanboiesm including FOSS.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-09, 03:44:

I never found ReactOS very enticing at all and remember when it was trying to be NT4 comparable. Personally I don't care if it is FOSS or not. I just want an OS to do what I want when I want to do it and not get in my way.

When did you try ReactOS last time? It's on the XP+/2003+ road for years. You don't have to care if it is FOSS or not, but the big advantage is that you can reach the developers via the official website, Twitter or anything else and it is not so hard to find a sympathetic ear if you you've got a problem - unimaginable in the case of Microsoft (WinNT4/2k/XP/2003).

I don't want to enforce sth., just want to say "give it a try" - latest builds are available here.

kind regards
soggi

soggi wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:21:

When did you try ReactOS last time? It's on the XP+/2003+ road for years. You don't have to care if it is FOSS or not, but the b […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-09, 03:44:

I never found ReactOS very enticing at all and remember when it was trying to be NT4 comparable. Personally I don't care if it is FOSS or not. I just want an OS to do what I want when I want to do it and not get in my way.

When did you try ReactOS last time? It's on the XP+/2003+ road for years. You don't have to care if it is FOSS or not, but the big advantage is that you can reach the developers via the official website, Twitter or anything else and it is not so hard to find a sympathetic ear if you you've got a problem - unimaginable in the case of Microsoft (WinNT4/2k/XP/2003).

I don't want to enforce sth., just want to say "give it a try" - latest builds are available here.

kind regards
soggi

I try it once it is completed thanks.

ReactOS team will never be finished working on ReactOS, sadly. Or not sadly, depending on how we look at it:

They started before my little sister was even born and now she moved away with her friend.

Anyway. ReactOS is a friendly project with a big goal.

Re-programming Windows from scratch is a huge undertaking.
Kudos to all the layman programmers which are working on it.

Personally, I think ReactOS is a neat project.
And in theory, it can be used to replace Windows for special purposes already.

Especially, if licensing fees are an issue.
Or if newer hardware becomes incompatible with the real thing.

Just think of BIOS/CSM.. ReactOS could provide XP compatibility on UEFI-only machines.

Maybe it will even get binary translators/emulators to ensure Win32/x86 compatibility on future x86_64 CPUs. It's all possible.

For example :
Imagine, if you once wrote a machine control software for Win9x/NT4/2k but these real OSes are no longer available legally.

Instead of telling your customers it's their business to get hands on used copies of them,
you could bundle ReactOS with your machinery/control software.

If they go in the hundreds, it might be worth it.
And if we consider how crappy Win CE used to be, it's not a far stretch, even. 😉

I would consider W7 retro-ish. It has no direct support, and while it's still alright for daily tasks I don't think it's taken into consideration for new software releases. If it runs, it runs, if not, it isn't officially supported anyway. I wouldn't argue vehemently if someone calls it retro. Also it released almost 12 years ago and it's only the extended support that ended recently. Mainstream support ended years ago.

Namrok wrote on 2021-06-04, 23:46:

Thinking about when Vista came out, I'm not sure there is anyone old enough to be nostalgic for it. At least not in that midlife crisis kind of way which seems to define retro.

Vista is a couple of years newer than XP, but it was so unsuccessful that got abandoned at the same time both by Microsoft and by third parties. Steam support ended on the same day for Vista and XP. The only major difference is that Vista has a decent 64bit version unlike XP and it has DX10 support.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:32:

I try it once it is completed thanks.

No problem, just a suggestion - it's YOUR decision.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-09, 05:42:

ReactOS team will never be finished working on ReactOS, sadly. Or not sadly, depending on how we look at it:

But they moved on in the last few years, development sped up in my opinion.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-09, 05:42:

They started before my little sister was even born and now she moved away with her friend.

Oh yes, but hopefully they'll make it on the long run... If I remember correctly, I got noticed of ReactOS in 2006 (!?).

Jo22 wrote on 2021-06-09, 05:42:

Personally, I think ReactOS is a neat project.
And in theory, it can be used to replace Windows for special purposes already.

Especially on older hardware ReactOS is an option to replace Win2k/XP with an ongoing developed OS. As a bonus you'll get new features not integrated into Win2k/XP.

kind regards
soggi

soggi wrote on 2021-06-09, 06:35:

No problem, just a suggestion - it's YOUR decision. […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:32:

I try it once it is completed thanks.

No problem, just a suggestion - it's YOUR decision.

kind regards
soggi

It sure is and I don't think I'm missing out on anything inportant.

Windows 7 still has some support left in the form of the embedded version until October 14, 2024 so in my opinion it is not retro!
I consider Windows 5.X and any previous version to be retro as it is very difficult to be used on the modern web but 6.X and later are not retro even if for example 7 is out of support it still can be used on the modern web!

The term is totally subjective, and different from vintage. Since Windows 7 only has retro purposes and no other future facing value to me, I'll happily call it retro.

I'm sure you could still use Windows 3.11 to make a lot of your documents, so even an objectively vintage system isn't retro in every case. Arguably only being partially obsolete won't make it current ever again, though.

Since Win7-64 is still my main driver and many hardware vendors provide updated drivers for 7, not vintage in my book. I have a slipstreamed install CD with NVMe & USB 3.0 drivers to make installs a cinch on modern hardware as well. Most games that say Win 10 usually just need some jock strap adjustments to run in Win7 and of course there is wufuc. I will see a small update come across once in a great while. Thoroughly enjoying not enjoying Windows 8, 10 and whatever crap comes along after 7.

I still rock Windows 7 ultimate 64bit as my daily OS on mine and my wife's PC's. We both can't stand 10