Maybe XP or 7 based on how snappy it feels? But they’re not really comparable.
TTY is still a thing in Linux and Windows removed that in XP. GUI can vary from classic feeling to more modern than Windows. Package management is leaps and bounds better than Windows.
Windows XP and 7 are a good one to say to Windows users because they’ll remember them as comparatively light and debloated, which is how Linux feels, even though Linux is very much modern.
The features I use Linux for never were in Windows and probably never will be.
Windows 13
You wish...
Never they are reaching 13 the way they are heading
I wouldn't make that comparison. There are too many differences to list.
Yeah I would classify it as sort of like if they released a new version of Windows where they removed all the bloat, made it not look hideous, and fixed every annoying decision they'd made over the last 30+ years in all aspects of everything across the entire OS lol. So basically if they removed literally everything that made it identifiable as Windows and replaced it with something not shit.
The question is kind of impossible to answer because the two are so different. It doesn't make sense to compare Linux to a version of Windows.
Also:
One side (myself included) is usually disgusted at Windows for being so bloated, full of spyware and dark patterns, closed, untrustworthy, fraudulent and inefficient. So personally, I'd rate Linux to be as good as a non-existing future version of Windows that's never going to appear.
While the other side (most "average users") are usually disgusted at Linux because Fortnite, Photoshop and that random stupid thing they bought at some store don't run on it. As stupid as it sounds but that is usually enough reason for an average user to not like Linux. Also, he'd have to install it himself because it's not preinstalled. Also a major hurdle for that kind of user. Unfortunately, the majority of users. Users like that probably rate Linux as bad as something like MS-DOS or Win 3.x because they feel that Linux is limiting them, but at the same time don't want to change anything about their software choices.
The main problem is that common users are usually tied to specific proprietary software (or specific formats which can only be opened by specific proprietary software) which ties them to Windows, and anything that doesn't run that software cannot be an alternative for them. That's probably also the reason why MacOS isn't more popular because it also can't run everything, but it's still better than Windows. So unless those users change their habits and the software they use, they will always be shackled to Windows and remain on that sinking ship until they're literally beneath the ocean, because they never realize a sinking ship.
I'm a hobby photographer. I have to keep a windows machine in my house just so I can run some of the software I need for my photography.
I've transitioned what I can to linux equivalents, and digiKam and Darktable are my daily drivers now, but Darktable is a HUGE learning curve for someone who hasn't used it before. You are literally starting again with learning how to edit your images. It's not simply a case of learning "how to do the same things in a new environment" but "learning a new paradigm, almost from the ground up". I love Darktable, but it took a dedicated desire not to run windows software and then months of practice before I could start to reproduce things that I could do in Lightroom in minutes with little experience.
And on top of that, dedicated noise reduction software (which requires a good GPU) basically doesn't exist on linux, and is next to impossible to run with wine or even VMs, because of the reliance on a GPU. And that means I have to keep a windows machine around to run my noise reduction. Dual booting doesn't even work, because that means my photo workflow suddenly needs a reboot. So, a second machine, which is not ideal...
Which is a lot of words to say that it's not always about being resistant to change or accepting alternatives. Sometimes there are no alternatives, and sometimes the "change" is a HUGE change. Unless a photographer is driven by ideological reasons to move off Windows like I was, it's not going to be worth the hit for most people. And even then, I still have to run a windows box too...
I compare every version at every time in history, and at every comparison, Linux wins.
I wouldn’t
I use xfce as a desktop, so based purely on looks windows xp. The problem is the enshitification of windows, improvements in one area drags it's screaming backwards in other ways, I'm looking at you control panel, you get dumber and less helpful every time I look at you.
windows 2000.
just like today it's clearly rock solid to everyone; including to those who hate windows; and has a big following but still not mainstream and is getting cockblocked by better financed alternatives.
Windows XP. It does what you want with very little nonsense, and can require a bit of technical finagling.
Dépends…
- games: windows 3.1
- office work: windows 98
- security: can’t say, windows 3048 maybe
- printer/camera/GPS/anything that needs a proprietary driver: windows 1.0
why games get windows 3.1? Lot of steam games work well on Linux some even work better than on windows 10.
Windows 3.1 can not play any game developed in the past 20 years or so.
Maybe that’s just me, but my games won’t run. Probably because of DRM or anti cheat I don’t know. Anyway I keep a windows computer for gaming and I wouldn’t want to.
Windows quantibulous
