The Windows 8 fans keep claiming that ‘oh, Windows 8 hatred is nothing new, everyone always hates the new version of Windows’.
Of course it’s a pure myth, as anyone who’s used Windows for years could tell you.
Windows 3.1/3.11 were major improvements over 3.0; for a start, they didn’t crash all the time. No-one said ‘uh, 3.1 sucks, I’m sticking with 3.0’, or, if they did, it was soon followed by ‘oh damn, it’s crashed again’.
Windows 95 was a major improvement over 3.11. No-one said ’95 sucks, I’m sticking with 3.11′, though increased hardware requirements discouraged upgrades. No-one said ‘this start menu sucks, I want Program Manager back’.
Windows 98 was basically 95 SP2.
Windows ME was widely hated because it was a downgrade from 98 which had no reason to exist other than to keep the Windows 9x team employed a bit longer.
When XP was released, many people stuck with 98 because of the increased hardware requirements, but it was an significant improvement once they bought a new PC that could run it well.
Vista was widely hated because it was slow and bloated.
7 fixed the speed and bloat and is now at least on the same level as XP, if not an upgrade.
8 is a clunker for desktops, it may be viable on tablets.
I don’t see how anyone can claim ‘everyone always hates the new version of Windows’, unless they’ve only used Windows since XP. Most versions of Windows have been clear and significant upgrades over the previous version; the only big failures have been ME and Vista, though Windows 8 looks to be a good candidate for the list.