Re: Hrm, no
Well, I thought the change from 95 to 98SE was good (never had occasion to use 98 before SE).
I thought the change from 98SE to 2000 was great. I wasn't so thrilled going from 2000 to XP, but altogether it was minor other than aesthetics and activation (which can really be a pain at times).
I didn't like Vista much for the following reasons: It used a lot more resources for no substantial purpose; some settings/menus were changed, but there was no consistency, so they were sometimes more obvious and sometimes much more obscure, and you had to relearn them regardless; it broke when running updates much more often than recent versions of Windows, sometimes requiring a re-install to fix.
Windows 7 was only an improvement over Vista; it had some of the shortcomings, but at least it tended to work right and update correctly.
Windows 8 was incredibly annoying because of its split personality, and its switching between personalities without warning. The Modern UI interface was not terribly practical for the desktop, but it would not stay in the desktop interface without a great deal of cajoling (for one thing, setting default apps to not be Modern UI ones, which a lot of them started out as). Also, the start screen never fit in with the desktop and never properly separated desktop apps from Modern UI apps. Windows 8.1 was a slight improvement.
I haven't yet tried Windows 10. This is mostly because I'd like to have some idea where the garden path Microsoft is leading me down actually ends up before I take up the "free" upgrade. I expect it to be an improvement over 8, but I'm not expecting it to be as no-nonsense and practical as Windows 2000, for example, was during its support period.
I'm somewhat insulated from this issue since at home I'm in Linux 99 percent of time (probably more than that), and at work my Windows virtual machine will be version 7 for a while yet, and I use Linux a lot there as well.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
