»

[Retro_71]

PS win 8 not even worth pirating....... waste downloads.

[persia]

The problem is that Microsoft has refused to fork Windows. Apple realised the desktop and tablet top were different environments and forked OS X into iOS. Microsoft seems to think people using a tablet are interested in running desktop software and vice versa. Standard Windows programs are shi'ite on a tablet, and tablet apps are painful on a desktop.

Metro should not be on a desktop and the castrated desktop should not be on tablets. Two OSs off of one source.

[Duce]

You need to do your homework on what the different Windows 8 variants actually are (RT and Pro).

RT (ARM version) is very much a tablet only experience, but I readily agree W8 Pro and the hybrid Metro/traditional user experience it offers is still a complete nightmare to use on x86.

[gertsy]

Originally Posted by persia

The problem is that Microsoft has refused to fork Windows. Apple realised the desktop and tablet top were different environments and forked OS X into iOS. Microsoft seems to think people using a tablet are interested in running desktop software and vice versa. Standard Windows programs are shi'ite on a tablet, and tablet apps are painful on a desktop.

Metro should not be on a desktop and the castrated desktop should not be on tablets. Two OSs off of one source.

So are you saying they should have separate OS versions for Tablet V desktop or not ? I'm confused cos they do.

[Duce]

My point exactly - Windows 8 is entirely forked.

Windows 8 RT for ARM devices. These will not run standard x86 code, obviously - though recompiling for RT is supposedly "easy". Loading of apps on these devices will occur in a very similar manner as iOS uses, ie; MS Marketplace.
These devices are the ones going after the iPad and Android tablets, consumption and simple data entry devices.

Windows 8 Pro: for x86 devices, the "Surface" Pro type tablets with x86 chips and your standard desktop machines. Installing apps on these will follow the same routine as it does now with Windows, no limitations.

[psxphill]

Originally Posted by Retro_71

Windows 8 tried it and then uninstalled it the same day.
Win 8 = Vista.. there seems to be a pattern one crap OS followed by one good one, anyone remember Windows ME??

ME -- Xp (and no i didn't forget win 2000 which was a great OS but not for home users)
Vista -- 7
8 -- ?

Vista wasn't as bad as the moaners made out.
Windows 2000 was better than 95/98/98SE/ME. NT4 was the one that no games supported.

As you seem convinced that Microsoft make a good OS and then a bad one then Windows 8 is more important for you than it is for someone that will actually run it.

If you try to get used to it, you'd have noticed it's actually quite good. Although even Microsoft aren't suggesting that everyone should install the release preview on their everyday machine.

[Duce]

NT wasn't marketed towards the end consumer in the least, of course it didn't support games well.

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by psxphill

If you try to get used to it, you'd have noticed it's actually quite good. Although even Microsoft aren't suggesting that everyone should install the release preview on their everyday machine.

See, with XP, I didn't have to get used to it. It built naturally and intuitively on the things I knew from Windows 95/98, and let me switch off anything I found awkward. "You don't like it because you haven't tried to like it" is such a weak argument that you don't even hear moms using it to get their kids to eat their peas.

[Ilwrath]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

See, with XP, I didn't have to get used to it. It built naturally and intuitively on the things I knew from Windows 95/98, and let me switch off anything I found awkward. "You don't like it because you haven't tried to like it" is such a weak argument that you don't even hear moms using it to get their kids to eat their peas.

Meh... I think you're remembering with rose tinted glasses, because you like XP, now. The level of bitching about XP in the early days was immense, too. Yet everyone got over it, and loves it, now. 10 years ago, you had tons of people saying how they'd stick to 98SE forever. I don't think you'll find anyone wanting to run that much, anymore.

I really liked Windows 7's interface. Other than the retarded start menu that always needs expanding and extra clicks. IMHO, the old fly-out menus were faster, more organized looking, and required less clicks. Personally, I think a lot of people agreed with me that the new start menu was braindead. Microsoft's own studies showed how start menu usage had dropped dramatically. Unfortunately, they took this data as the green light to kill the start menu instead of fixing it. Ah well... That's Microsoft for ya... They never met a problem they couldn't find a potentially undesirable solution to. LOL!

Personally, I would probably like Metro, if the implementation were somehow complete. If the computer somehow functioned as a cohesive whole with the tile interface, I think it'd be a pretty interesting concept. But as it stands, Metro just becomes a strange tile-based launcher for applications into the legacy desktop, which adds a lot of confusion. Then, some applications will have both Metro and legacy versions... Then you can end up with one Internet Explorer launched in Metro, one in legacy, and they can end up with different toolbars and viewable content in each. d'oh! My less skilled users will be completely befuddled.

[Nostalgiac]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

There are a couple issues with Windows 7. First off, not everybody likes big thick borders

could be my eyes of course and how steady my hand is, but I do like them. So much easier to grab. On my Fedora KDE laptop I keep on cursing when trying to grab a window border to resize it

and on the main topic: I tried last years dev preview, earlier this years whatever preview... no way I'm going to move to w8, not even when they paid me.

Tom UK

PS, for completeness: big box on windows 7, up to date laptop on Fedora 17, netbook on MacOS, so no OS religion involved

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by Ilwrath

Meh... I think you're remembering with rose tinted glasses, because you like XP, now. The level of bitching about XP in the early days was immense, too. Yet everyone got over it, and loves it, now. 10 years ago, you had tons of people saying how they'd stick to 98SE forever. I don't think you'll find anyone wanting to run that much, anymore.

I'm speaking for myself and nobody else, thanks. I wasn't thrilled about the increased system requirements of XP over 98/2000, but the interface was never a problem.

[XDelusion]

Really? Wow I am so excited let me tell you.

I sure hope I can install it over AROS or MorphOS.

Better yet, if it'll run on my classic Amiga and work as an update to Workbench 3.1 I'll be so very happy!

Thanks for posting this important piece of news!!!

[B00tDisk]

Originally Posted by billt

Some system sellers are offering a free coupon as well if you buy a Win7 system now. I saw a few of those promotions as I was recently shopping for a laptop.

And I observe the following pattern as far back as my experience with MS Windows goes:

98SE good
ME BAD
XP good
Vista BAD
7 good
8 ...

Did you use Win2k? It was pretty solid.

[B00tDisk]

I can get 8 (and 7 and whatever else I want) for free from the school (MSDN Dreamspark library), but I'll be damned if I'll give up Win7.

No, MS, **** you, I do my computing on a computer. Not a phone, not a tablet, but an actual computer workstation.

[kedawa]

I don't really agree with the notion that Windows alternates between good and terrible.
In my experience, every version of windows since 2000 gets better under the hood and worse in the user interface.