PDA

View Full Version : Steve Ballmer Announces Windows 8 For 2012



Hutom
May 24th, 2011, 10:18 AM
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/228339/say_goodbye_to_wintel_what_microsoft_windows_8_cou ld_be.html

3Miro
May 24th, 2011, 10:58 AM
The Mayans were right, the world will end in 2012.

yetiman64
May 24th, 2011, 11:11 AM
The Mayans were right, the world will end in 2012.

& Hutom's avatar announced it here :lol:

zekopeko
May 24th, 2011, 11:17 AM
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/228339/say_goodbye_to_wintel_what_microsoft_windows_8_cou ld_be.html

Nowhere in that article is Steve Ballmer mentioned or any announcement he made. The 2012 date is pure guesswork.

EDIT: Some googling reveals that Ballmer did in fact say that but not in this article.

Grenage
May 24th, 2011, 11:25 AM
"While anything is possible, it is more likely that Windows 8 will arrive in 2012, according to multiple analysts' predictions."

I was about to say the same thing. ;)

I would personally be rather surprised if the new version came out next year.

forrestcupp
May 24th, 2011, 12:49 PM
I would personally be rather surprised if the new version came out next year.

They'll get it out next year. Originally, people were saying Q4 2011. It's still early this year and they're already well into Milestone 3.

Grenage
May 24th, 2011, 12:54 PM
They'll get it out next year. Originally, people were saying Q4 2011. It's still early this year and they're already well into Milestone 3.

Do you really think so? It looks like it's going to be quite a release, especially with the extra architecture options.

forrestcupp
May 24th, 2011, 12:58 PM
Do you really think so? It looks like it's going to be quite a release, especially with the extra architecture options.

Sure. They've already done a lot of work. They started working on it right after W7 was released. They were probably actually working on it before W7 was released, but they didn't want people to know that. You'll start hearing a lot more if they publicly release the beta like last time. I'm not saying it will be the very beginning of 2012, but it will be out sometime next year.

Grenage
May 24th, 2011, 12:59 PM
Something to look forward to; I like windows, excessive GUI boxing aside.

neu5eeCh
May 24th, 2011, 01:44 PM
Ahhhh... It's so nice to not depend on Windows anymore.

It's one of the reasons I got back into Linux. Now I won't have to dip into my wallet for all those apps that no longer (conveniently for the makers) work in Windows 8. Guess you're just gonna' have to upgrade - we-take-VISA-or-MASTERCARD-thank-you-very-much. I swear, MS and all the various third party software vendors must plan this all out. They're all salivating at the thought that Windows 8 won't be compatible - counting on it.

Copper Bezel
May 24th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Well, to be fair, there's less need to upgrade on Windows than on Linux.

neu5eeCh
May 24th, 2011, 02:05 PM
Well, to be fair, there's less need to upgrade on Windows than on Linux.

Not necessarily. For example and in my own case: When my old computer died I naturally wanted a better computer, but all the hardware came with VISTA or (soon-to-be) Windows 7. Over $600.00 dollars worth of XP software was incompatible with VISTA/Windows 7 (not including the cost of the OS itself).

Anyone who needs to purchase a new computer may, or will, need to upgrade their apps.

forrestcupp
May 24th, 2011, 02:24 PM
Anyone who needs to purchase a new computer may, or will, need to upgrade their apps.

True, but anyone who switches to Linux will definitely need to change all of their software and not be able to run a lot of their specialized software.

neu5eeCh
May 24th, 2011, 02:33 PM
True, but anyone who switches to Linux will definitely need to change all of their software and not be able to run a lot of their specialized software.

Right, but the issue (for me) is the $cost$. It doesn't cost me anything to upgrade my Linux install.

forrestcupp
May 24th, 2011, 02:46 PM
Right, but the issue (for me) is the $cost$. It doesn't cost me anything to upgrade my Linux install.

Very true.

If I didn't have MSDN access, there's no way I'd upgrade to Win8 unless I bought a new computer. The only Windows version I actually bought a retail copy of was XP. That was only because they completely changed from their old dos shell format and shifted everyone toward their NT line. That was back when you could actually save money by building your own computer. Times have changed.

aphatak
May 24th, 2011, 03:06 PM
Windows 8 already?!? The body of Windows Vista is not even cold, yet!

aaaantoine
May 24th, 2011, 03:22 PM
Actually, aphatak, the timing is about right, historically speaking. Vista was the odd duck out, with an unusually long 6- or 7-year development cycle.

VTPoet, I use many of the same apps on Windows that I use on Linux. Doesn't cost me anything.

pookiebear
May 24th, 2011, 03:22 PM
Windows 8 already?!? The body of Windows Vista is not even cold, yet!


And most of my customer's business apps don't even work in windows 7 yet either.

Merk42
May 24th, 2011, 03:46 PM
Windows 8 already?!? The body of Windows Vista is not even cold, yet!Oneiric Ocelot already?!? The body of Ubuntu 10.10 is not even cold, yet!

Skelator
May 24th, 2011, 04:13 PM
I'm a Technet subscriber so I'm looking forward to checking it out early. Windows XP and 7 are really good products that are easy to use and pay attention to detail. I may often be a Linux user, but that doesn't make Windows a bad product.

Lucradia
May 24th, 2011, 05:42 PM
I read on CNET (last year, mind you) that Windows 8 support would start in 2012, and that Windows 8 would be on tablets in 2012.

Rasa1111
May 24th, 2011, 05:47 PM
ohh how exciting! :rolleyes:

Lucradia
May 24th, 2011, 05:54 PM
The Mayans were right, the world will end in 2012.

Nope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsCAFmAIslg

^ Truths by the way.

Rasa1111
May 24th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Nope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsCAFmAIslg

^ Truths by the way.

Cool video.
Truths indeed. <3

WannabeFantasma
May 24th, 2011, 05:59 PM
Still happy with Vista :D
(I'm kind of a gamer so no other option)

But even a happier Ubuntu user on my Media PC :)

neu5eeCh
May 24th, 2011, 06:23 PM
VTPoet, I use many of the same apps on Windows that I use on Linux. Doesn't cost me anything.

At the time, I didn't. I used Sony Vegas Pro, Paint Shop Pro, WordPerfect, MS Office, Nero, Etc...

But you're right. Besides the initial cost of Windows, there's no reason to spend more money (that is, until MS revokes your license, which seems to have happened to another user here).

I see no advantages to running open source apps on Windows. From what I can tell, the only reason to use Windows is for specific hardware compatibility issues or for the sake of specific proprietary apps that aren't yet available in Linux. Other than that, can't think of a reason.

Lucradia
May 24th, 2011, 06:28 PM
I see no advantages to running open source apps on Windows. From what I can tell, the only reason to use Windows is for specific hardware compatibility issues or for the sake of specific proprietary apps that aren't yet available in Linux. Other than that, can't think of a reason.

Windows Live Messenger has an issue where no matter what I do, it may sometimes forget hours of history for the day (if I logout and log back in hours later the same day.)

Pidgin rectifies that. I roleplay via IM, so I must have logs.

forrestcupp
May 24th, 2011, 06:33 PM
I'm a Technet subscriber so I'm looking forward to checking it out early. Windows XP and 7 are really good products that are easy to use and pay attention to detail. I may often be a Linux user, but that doesn't make Windows a bad product.

I actually liked Vista a lot, especially from sp1 on. Win7 is definitely much better though.

RiceMonster
May 24th, 2011, 06:35 PM
I see no advantages to running open source apps on Windows. From what I can tell, the only reason to use Windows is for specific hardware compatibility issues or for the sake of specific proprietary apps that aren't yet available in Linux. Other than that, can't think of a reason.

Well, I can't see any reason to use desktop Linux other than to tinker with your computer, so let's call it even.

lucazade
May 24th, 2011, 06:39 PM
I actually liked Vista a lot, especially from sp1 on. Win7 is definitely much better though.

I am speechless... you liked Vista.. 8-[

Rasa1111
May 24th, 2011, 06:46 PM
Well, I can't see any reason to use desktop Linux other than to tinker with your computer, so let's call it even.

Lol! :rolleyes:

RiceMonster
May 24th, 2011, 06:50 PM
Lol! :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Do I look smart yet?

forrestcupp
May 24th, 2011, 07:04 PM
I am speechless... you liked Vista.. 8-[

From sp1 on, the only reason people disliked vista was because they were told to. By the end of its life it was pretty solid. People forget that XP was crap when it first came out too. I had a lot more problems getting xp installed when it was new than I ever did with vista.

el_koraco
May 24th, 2011, 07:08 PM
From sp1 on, the only reason people disliked vista was because they were told to. By the end of its life it was pretty solid. People forget that XP was crap when it first came out too. I had a lot more problems getting xp installed when it was new than I ever did with vista.

That may be true for standalone Vista. OEM Vista was a disaster, as is any OEM install. And, since a lot of people either had an old XP copy lying around, or friends with cracked copies, they just went the easy route. Kinda like a lot of Ubuntu users go back to the previous release after the crapstorm that new releases bring :D

lucazade
May 24th, 2011, 07:15 PM
From sp1 on, the only reason people disliked vista was because they were told to. By the end of its life it was pretty solid. People forget that XP was crap when it first came out too. I had a lot more problems getting xp installed when it was new than I ever did with vista.

well, well this is a bit simplistic view!
Vista was so bad that lasted few years and near no company adopted it. Yes, was better than WinMe but this didn't make it a good OS. The only good/decent release of Vista was probably Longhorn (the first) and not sp1.. and i'm really generous saying this :D

Rasa1111
May 24th, 2011, 07:27 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Do I look smart yet?


lol, yep..
brilliant, as always.

Telengard C64
May 24th, 2011, 07:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsCAFmAIslg

Very cool stuff.

OMG I think I'm hooked. Damn you, Lucradia!
:rolleyes:

Twitch6000
May 24th, 2011, 08:08 PM
well, well this is a bit simplistic view!
Vista was so bad that lasted few years and near no company adopted it. Yes, was better than WinMe but this didn't make it a good OS. The only good/decent release of Vista was probably Longhorn (the first) and not sp1.. and i'm really generous saying this :D

Longhorn is vista silly ;). Longhorn was the codename for it.

You can see all the codenames here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_codenames

lucazade
May 24th, 2011, 08:28 PM
Longhorn is vista silly ;). Longhorn was the codename for it.

You can see all the codenames here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_codenames

Thanks for the link... interesting..
Anyway it is a bit different: Longhorn was codename for dev releases from 2002 to mid 2005. From mid 2005 to novemeber 2006 was instead called Vista. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista

barthus
May 24th, 2011, 10:27 PM
Ahhhh... It's so nice to not depend on Windows anymore.

It's one of the reasons I got back into Linux. Now I won't have to dip into my wallet for all those apps that no longer (conveniently for the makers) work in Windows 8. Guess you're just gonna' have to upgrade - we-take-VISA-or-MASTERCARD-thank-you-very-much. I swear, MS and all the various third party software vendors must plan this all out. They're all salivating at the thought that Windows 8 won't be compatible - counting on it.

I completely agree. I'm so glad to have quit Windows and not to have changed to Mac OS X.

radar920
May 24th, 2011, 10:48 PM
I like windows7 and will most likely hang onto it as long as i can.

KL_72_TR
May 24th, 2011, 10:49 PM
Windows 8?
O my G...!
This is incredible !!!
They have been able to make it worst ?
Linus Torvalds is :guitar: ...yeah baby that's what I'm talking about!

Timmer1240
May 24th, 2011, 11:15 PM
Another Windows release I wont be needing!

toupeiro
May 24th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Its interesting to me to see how the corporate world responds to Microsoft adopting a much more aggressive release cycle. a few hundred or even thousand machines are one thing, but if you work in an environment with near 100's of thousands of machines and thousands apon thousands of applications internationally, I think companies will opt to start skipping releases as a standard practice. Question is, what pattern, and whats the fallout? After all, due to the very nature of how the oses behave respectively on a network, its FAR easier to deploy linux on a frequent turnaround at high volume with a full application suite than it is windows.

wolfen69
May 24th, 2011, 11:34 PM
http://www.dula.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/chuck-norris-who-cares-hes-a-ginger.png

Copper Bezel
May 24th, 2011, 11:46 PM
From sp1 on, the only reason people disliked vista was because they were told to. By the end of its life it was pretty solid. People forget that XP was crap when it first came out too. I had a lot more problems getting xp installed when it was new than I ever did with vista.
I guess I'm going to be the thirteenth person to quote this and respond with a snarky aside.

Vista is literally the slowest, heaviest desktop operating system to ever have a wide release, and it was shipped on machines equipped with half a gig of RAM. It was clearly intended as an engine of irritation.


Its interesting to me to see how the corporate world responds to Microsoft adopting a much more aggressive release cycle. a few hundred or even thousand machines are one thing, but if you work in an environment with near 100's of thousands of machines and thousands apon thousands of applications internationally, I think companies will opt to start skipping releases as a standard practice. Question is, what pattern, and whats the fallout?
The current pattern would probably work nicely, so that 7 would become the new XP. But enterprise applications are always slow to adopt, which is a matter of practice, even in Linux systems.

Merk42
May 25th, 2011, 02:12 AM
Its interesting to me to see how the corporate world responds to Microsoft adopting a much more aggressive release cycle. a few hundred or even thousand machines are one thing, but if you work in an environment with near 100's of thousands of machines and thousands apon thousands of applications internationally, I think companies will opt to start skipping releases as a standard practice. Question is, what pattern, and whats the fallout? After all, due to the very nature of how the oses behave respectively on a network, its FAR easier to deploy linux on a frequent turnaround at high volume with a full application suite than it is windows.It's not really anything new though, traditionally there were 3 years between major Windows versions. XP -> Vista was the odd one out.

IWantFroyo
May 25th, 2011, 02:21 AM
Most people I know use either XP or Linux. One of my friends is a huge MS fan, and he still puts Ubuntu on half of his computers (?).

I doubt Windows 8 will change that. If Vista and 7 didn't, then I'm putting my money on people sticking with XP.

Dustin2128
May 25th, 2011, 02:35 AM
http://cheatsword.webs.com/photos/Attempting%20to%20give%20a%20damn.gif

IWantFroyo
May 25th, 2011, 02:38 AM
http://cheatsword.webs.com/photos/Attempting%20to%20give%20a%20damn.gif

This made my day. :lolflag:

rpmp
May 25th, 2011, 02:45 AM
I think Ubuntu will be better than any windows.

IWantFroyo
May 25th, 2011, 02:48 AM
I think Ubuntu will be better than any windows.

+1.

Windows is necessary for some things that it shouldn't be necessary for. This is changing (happily). Hopefully, soon those who like Windows can use that, and everyone else can use whatever they want.

Lucradia
May 25th, 2011, 03:22 AM
I think Ubuntu will be better than any windows.

Maybe when it gets to play pixel shaders perfectly in wine. (Kitsu Saga)

yetiman64
May 25th, 2011, 03:45 AM
This made my day. :lolflag:
+1, good one Dustin2128, :popcorn:

Copper Bezel
May 25th, 2011, 04:15 AM
Ths .gif brings gr8 happyness 2 teh ppls!!! = ) I luvs it.

murderslastcrow
May 25th, 2011, 05:39 AM
Maybe when it gets to play pixel shaders perfectly in wine. (Kitsu Saga)

I'm pretty sure the average user doesn't judge the betterness of their OS by that criteria. XD Or at least I'd hope they care about more than that. If all you do on your computer is play Wine games, that's a different story, but that's surely the minority.

If I judged Windows' worth by how well it runs Linux applications, I'd be pretty upset, even with coLinux. But yeah, it's amusing- the kind of people who would find Linux are also the kind of people who are already invested in Windows more than the average person.

The main reason I know so many Linux users who aren't 'tech-savvy' is because I helped them find it, or they otherwise purchased a netbook. I know about 20 or more Linux users, not counting Android users. I never hear any of them but the hardcore geeks whining about Wine (lulz). And, well, I use my computer to work, not to play, so I judge it by how well I can work with it, so I'm biased, too. :\

My friends were pissed enough that they had to move on to Windows 7. It has caught on well, though- but I don't think Windows 8 will be very convincing, since people don't use Windows because they like the OS in most cases- it's usually because they're forced to use a certain application or have no idea of the alternatives.

Lucradia
May 25th, 2011, 05:43 AM
I do love Linux actually, I'd use it nonstop if I could. It's why I use it for testing wine on my desktop to add to the AppDB compatibility list, and for my netbook.

3177
May 25th, 2011, 06:21 AM
"windows 8 will probably start in 20 seconds"

HAHAHAHAHAHA
10.04.2 starts in 12 seconds on my old acer.
11.04 started in8 when it was still installed on the same computer.

BTW I tested my wifes new 4core WIN7 acer and my 2core 10.04 acer.
Windows took 28 sec. more to boot.(i realize this has nothing to do with WIN8)

pbpersson
May 25th, 2011, 06:40 AM
From sp1 on, the only reason people disliked vista was because they were told to. By the end of its life it was pretty solid.

I never did like Vista. I waited until it was mature but it seemed so much slower that XP and slower than it's successor Windows 7.

As far as I am concerned I don't want Microsoft to rush in order to meet some random release date, I would rather they take their time. We don't need another Vista!

Hutom
May 25th, 2011, 07:15 AM
Windows 8?
O my G...!
This is incredible !!!
They have been able to make it worst ?
Linus Torvalds is :guitar: ...yeah baby that's what I'm talking about!

Ha ha. Windows 7 is bad enough...do we really need a windows 8?

Canime
May 25th, 2011, 07:47 AM
This made my day. :lolflag:

Mine too.

wolfen69
May 25th, 2011, 08:46 AM
I'm putting my money on people sticking with XP.

You're probably right. XP is still extensively used in businesses.

Merk42
May 25th, 2011, 03:17 PM
Thread title Hey did you hear about {insert product} from Microsoft?
Comments Well it's Microsoft and therefore bad even though I have no idea what it is! It won't offer anything innovative, until of course those features get copied in Linux, then they are awesome.

forrestcupp
May 25th, 2011, 04:25 PM
The only good/decent release of Vista was probably Longhorn (the first) and not sp1.. and i'm really generous saying this :D


Longhorn is vista silly ;). Longhorn was the codename for it.Longhorn was not Vista. Longhorn was the codename for the OS they were working on that they ended up scrapping in favor of Vista. There used to be a leaked copy of Longhorn that some people were maintaining that you could actually download and install. It's gone now, though.


I guess I'm going to be the thirteenth person to quote this and respond with a snarky aside.

Vista is literally the slowest, heaviest desktop operating system to ever have a wide release, and it was shipped on machines equipped with half a gig of RAM. It was clearly intended as an engine of irritation.And therein is the main problem with Vista. Microsoft did itself and everyone else an extreme disservice by advertising and pushing minimum requirements that were way lower than they should have been. The problem wasn't with Vista; it was the fact that they were putting it on machines that had no business running it, and that really made Vista look bad.

You can't really expect a new OS to have the same requirements as an old one. Even today's Ubuntu won't run great on hardware that is 5 years old unless you really tweak it and force it to. Then it looks like crap, anyway.

Rasa1111
May 25th, 2011, 04:29 PM
Even today's Ubuntu won't run great on hardware that is 5 years old unless you really tweak it and force it to.

I have Ubuntu 10.10 running perfectly (and fast!) on a 9 year old machine.


Well it's Microsoft and therefore bad

Yes.

forrestcupp
May 25th, 2011, 04:39 PM
I have Ubuntu 10.10 running perfectly (and fast!) on a 9 year old machine.


With all of the effects and everything that makes it a modern, relevant OS?

tumbes2000
May 25th, 2011, 04:45 PM
I am involved in several franchises support for Windows XP is still quite strong. Only recently have I noticed some of the Point of Sale machines migrating over to Windows 7. Several of our proprietary software packages completely skipped support for Vista and waited until windows 7 and still support XP.

The machine I use now was formerly a Vista machine and was basically useless thus my willingness to try Ubuntu before paying for windows 7 software .

I have to say that windows 7 is pretty solid, basically the final version of Vista. Its more efficient than Vista, but it is much more of a system hog than XP. Many of those point of sale machines run on low power processors because they usually dont have cooling fans and a couple use solid state drive, again for heat. In those cases XP is still better because it does not need as much memory or CPU power. Many of our office machines run XP and its hard to justify the cost of upgrading them to run Windows 7 when XP still runs generally fine.

I think what will be exciting to see is how Windows 8 run on ARM processors and if they can really create an efficient OS design to run on low power processors (not Windows 7 starter). Efficiency has never been MS's strong suite.

Copper Bezel
May 25th, 2011, 07:10 PM
With all of the effects and everything that makes it a modern, relevant OS?
Does it matter? It still runs modern applications and supports modern hardware. Is it unreasonable that Windows could ship an alternative, lightweight desktop environment? Modularity to support lower-performance hardware isn't something Microsoft has never considered doing. How is it unfair to say that they seem to suck at it?

And then there's this,


You can't really expect a new OS to have the same requirements as an old one.
Which is a funny thing to bring up in context of the move from Vista to 7, is it not?

Warpnow
May 25th, 2011, 07:23 PM
I think most of the windows userbase is going to be more annoyed by the changes and fast release schedule than they will be impressed.

Lucradia
May 25th, 2011, 07:32 PM
I think most of the windows userbase is going to be more annoyed by the changes and fast release schedule than they will be impressed.

If the release schedule is faster, I hope they reduce the price.

forrestcupp
May 25th, 2011, 07:49 PM
Does it matter? It still runs modern applications and supports modern hardware. So does Windows XP, which is a 10 year old, ugly piece of dung that is only relevant because people won't come out from under their rocks. ;)


Is it unreasonable that Windows could ship an alternative, lightweight desktop environment? Modularity to support lower-performance hardware isn't something Microsoft has never considered doing. How is it unfair to say that they seem to suck at it?Lol. Most people actually complain that Microsoft puts out too many versions of Windows. That's what Starter and Home Basic are for. Anyway, they are a for-profit corporation in it for the money, and they're tied to the hardware companies. Why would they want to keep supporting 10 year old hardware? There's no money there. I'm sure the company you work for is in it for the money, too.


Which is a funny thing to bring up in context of the move from Vista to 7, is it not?
First of all, there were over 5 years from the release of XP to Vista, while there were only 2 1/2 years from Vista to 7. Obviously, there shouldn't be quite as big of a gap in system requirements.

Secondly, Windows 7 minimum requirements are slightly higher than Vista's. Vista requires a minimum of 800 MHz and 512 MB of RAM, while 7's minimums are 1 GHZ with 1 GB of RAM for 32-bit or 2 GB of RAM for 64-bit. And that's even with all of their work to get 7 to be less of a resource hog.

Copper Bezel
May 25th, 2011, 08:50 PM
Yeah, but that's based on Vista's understated system requirements to begin with. Just because 7's requirements are more honest doesn't mean that its footprint is larger.


I'm sure the company you work for is in it for the money, too.
Work for the state, actually. But I don't know why I have to make allowances for an operating system on the basis that it's designed with an ulterior motive.

aphatak
May 25th, 2011, 09:06 PM
... I'm putting my money on people sticking with XP.

I agree. My employer has 17,000 Windows desktops/laptops, and we are still on Windows XP SP3.

rg4w
May 25th, 2011, 10:45 PM
The Mayans were right, the world will end in 2012.
Actually, the Mayans themselves say "hooey" to the Western misinterpretation of the 2012 thang:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6300744/2012-is-not-the-end-of-the-world-Mayan-elder-insists.html

And it seems Microsoft is now saying "hooey" to Ballmer on Windows 8:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/microsoft-backpedals-ballmers-windows-8-comments-077?page=0,0

disabledaccount
May 26th, 2011, 12:03 AM
Secondly, Windows 7 minimum requirements are slightly higher than Vista's. Vista requires a minimum of 800 MHz and 512 MB of RAM, while 7's minimums are 1 GHZ with 1 GB of RAM for 32-bit or 2 GB of RAM for 64-bit. And that's even with all of their work to get 7 to be less of a resource hog.Formally yes, practically no. win 7 is way faster/lighter than vista.
But both win7 and vista minimum hw requirements are just a joke. 800MHz CPU? incomplete and not true -> on 800MHz P3 CPU Vista will need whole day to boot or just won't boot due to missing CPU extensions while on i5/i7/Phenom @800MHz it will boot, but having 512MB RAM user frustration will raise to level where he will destroy his PC with hammer and eat his mouse... ;)
40GB HDD? SSD may work, but 40GB HDD will have max 10-15MB/s, in reality 2-3MB/s during system boot and normal work.
Practically You need modern multicore CPU (C2D/i5-7/Athlon2/Phenom2) at minimum 1.6GHz, modern HDD/SSD and at least 2GB fast RAM for Vista/W7 - this is absolute minimum to be able to not just only launch the system.

But question is why MS publishes such stupid things officially... - I can only see one reason - there are still peoples (eg. older persons) who will buy copy of w7/Vista just because it's "new" while not having fast enough hardware. True/realistic informations could lead some of them to decide to stay with winxp.

forrestcupp
May 26th, 2011, 12:33 AM
Work for the state, actually. But I don't know why I have to make allowances for an operating system on the basis that it's designed with an ulterior motive.You don't. That's why we're on a Linux forum. ;)

But if you care about being compatible with 90% of the rest of the computing world, you just have to take what they give you. I don't have that much love for Windows. I wouldn't mind if we were all using Linux. But that's not how things are.



And it seems Microsoft is now saying "hooey" to Ballmer on Windows 8:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/microsoft-backpedals-ballmers-windows-8-comments-077?page=0,0
I'll bet Ballmer was right and they just realized it was dumb to go ahead and say something. I still think it will be out sometime next year.

Primefalcon
May 26th, 2011, 04:06 AM
All I can is thank god I am not using windows, would probably have to upgrade my hardware for a thousand or so, not to mention about 600 for a windows 8 licence just o stay current.... whereas Ubuntu will run fine on this clunker so no expenses here.....

PhillyPhil
May 26th, 2011, 04:14 AM
So does Windows XP, which is a 10 year old, ugly piece of dung that is only relevant because people won't come out from under their rocks. ;)

Until an average-Joe (Windows) user wants to run software that won't run on their current version of Windows, why on earth would they fork out cash (or find a free download) for the latest version which chews up much more system resources?

Antarctica32
May 26th, 2011, 05:24 AM
to tell you the truth, i could really care less. I stopped caring about stupid mac and windows long ago. Now the release of the next ubuntu LTS, that something different.

retbak
May 26th, 2011, 10:58 AM
From sp1 on, the only reason people disliked vista was because they were told to. By the end of its life it was pretty solid. People forget that XP was crap when it first came out too. I had a lot more problems getting xp installed when it was new than I ever did with vista.

I do not agree. The early, incredibly naggy Vista was a terrible OS and didn't improve much after the updates. It continually crashed/froze to the point that it was unusable on my new laptop.

I was fond of XP having grown up with it, but when Vista came along I had to switch to Ubuntu. Windows 7 was a huge improvement and I managed to get it really cheap but by then I was used to no antivirus/antispyware/bloatware etc. It is hard to go back!

Bitrate
May 26th, 2011, 12:07 PM
I dumped XP on my machines way back in 2008. Vista was (and still is) a bloated, insecure and flawed OS. XP is as well but the one saving grace it had is the large software base and lower resource requirements. The weak security model of XP and its tendency to suffer from code rot are what drove me off the MS platform for good. Vista was an appalling mess on release and is still a user hostile OS complete with intrusive DRM and integrated malware.

I'm now running Lucid (10.04.2) on all my machines except my laptop which uses Maverick. Everything is rock stable after some minor tweaking, which turned into a great learning experience.

As for Windows 8 - It's more Vaporware from Microsoft. They have to keep their hype machine rolling in order to grab as many suckers as possible.

More of the same bloated junkware from Microsoft. Yes, I'm critical of MS and have every right to be. I've been using their products since 1982 - well before Windows was even conceived. The DOS days were good and Microsoft's pre-PC era was even better. From 1975 to 1981 Microsoft actually made some quality software like MS BASIC and MULTIPLAN. It's a pity they can't re-ignite their creativity and produce software like that anymore. The software back then actually worked as described. Bugs were minimal unlike the bloat and sloppiness that passes for software today.

m4tic
May 26th, 2011, 12:15 PM
I dumped XP on my machines way back in 2008. Vista was (and still is) a bloated, insecure and flawed OS. XP is as well but the one saving grace it had is the large software base and lower resource requirements. The weak security model of XP and its tendency to suffer from code rot are what drove me off the MS platform for good. Vista was an appalling mess on release and is still a user hostile OS complete with intrusive DRM and integrated malware.

I'm now running Lucid (10.04.2) on all my machines except my laptop which uses Maverick. Everything is rock stable after some minor tweaking, which turned into a great learning experience.

As for Windows 8 - It's more Vaporware from Microsoft. They have to keep their hype machine rolling in order to grab as many suckers as possible.

More of the same bloated junkware from Microsoft. Yes, I'm critical of MS and have every right to be. I've been using their products since 1982 - well before Windows was even conceived. The DOS days were good and Microsoft's pre-PC era was even better. From 1975 to 1981 Microsoft actually made some quality software like MS BASIC and MULTIPLAN. It's a pity they can't re-ignite their creativity and produce software like that anymore. The software back then actually worked as described. Bugs were minimal unlike the bloat and sloppiness that passes for software today.

There's Windows 7

alexan
May 26th, 2011, 12:29 PM
If the Maya were right, that's the perfect year for me to switch back to Windows :P

gnomeuser
May 26th, 2011, 01:23 PM
The more I think about it, the more I think Google are right on target with ChromeOS. Transitioning OSes is so painful that many companies are still on Windows XP. If you are going to switch, switch to the web and never again worry (rather than worrying every 2 years when Windows or Ubuntu comes out with a new version)

zekopeko
May 26th, 2011, 02:12 PM
More of the same bloated junkware from Microsoft. Yes, I'm critical of MS and have every right to be. I've been using their products since 1982 - well before Windows was even conceived. The DOS days were good and Microsoft's pre-PC era was even better. From 1975 to 1981 Microsoft actually made some quality software like MS BASIC and MULTIPLAN. It's a pity they can't re-ignite their creativity and produce software like that anymore. The software back then actually worked as described. Bugs were minimal unlike the bloat and sloppiness that passes for software today.

That's some flawed reasoning you got there. Computers can do far more today then 30 years ago.

Lucradia
May 26th, 2011, 02:21 PM
If the Maya were right, that's the perfect year for me to switch back to Windows :P

Mayans predicted that the Age of Aquarius would begin on December 21st, 2012, which is the end of the 12th Bak'tun or whatever the heck it's called.

The joke is getting old. Also, have more mindgasm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7GJ-8SY068

forrestcupp
May 26th, 2011, 03:49 PM
Until an average-Joe (Windows) user wants to run software that won't run on their current version of Windows, why on earth would they fork out cash (or find a free download) for the latest version which chews up much more system resources?

An average Joe wouldn't, unless their OS was so old that Microsoft stopped supporting it. But a lot of computer users are tech enthusiasts who care about having up to date stuff. Most average Joes get their OS upgrades through new computer purchases, not through purchasing a retail copy of Windows. The question is why would anyone buy a new computer that is perfectly capable of running the new Windows and install Windows XP on it?

Also, you're question could just as easily be turned around and asked about Ubuntu. Why do people upgrade Ubuntu every 6 months (which is much more frequently than Windows) when their software already works for them? Ubuntu's minimum requirements aren't what they were 5 years ago, either. People do it because they want the latest and greatest, even if they don't understand what that really means.

user1397
May 26th, 2011, 04:03 PM
snip
on an extreme side note, are you still really using hardy? or have you just not updated your details? not that it matters of course, just curious :)

forrestcupp
May 26th, 2011, 04:11 PM
on an extreme side note, are you still really using hardy? or have you just not updated your details? not that it matters of course, just curious :)

Lol. No. I've intentionally left it like that because if I change it, I can never get that back. I had it on Dapper Drake Development and then changed it. I was sorry I changed it after that, so I've just left it on Hardy. It's hard to believe we're up to N's now.

mkendall
May 27th, 2011, 03:09 AM
That's some flawed reasoning you got there. Computers can do far more today then 30 years ago.

No. They just do the same old thing much faster.

Khakilang
May 27th, 2011, 04:19 AM
I haven't really get the taste of Window 7 and now Window 8?

Hutom
May 27th, 2011, 07:14 AM
Seems that people have lots of reasons not to use Windows. I just don't have the money. :(

forrestcupp
May 27th, 2011, 04:07 PM
Seems that people have lots of reasons not to use Windows. I just don't have the money. :(

That's why it's great that we have other excellent options, like Ubuntu.

73ckn797
May 27th, 2011, 04:12 PM
What is Windows?:D

PhillyPhil
May 27th, 2011, 04:23 PM
An average Joe wouldn't, unless their OS was so old that Microsoft stopped supporting it. But a lot of computer users are tech enthusiasts who care about having up to date stuff. Most average Joes get their OS upgrades through new computer purchases, not through purchasing a retail copy of Windows. The question is why would anyone buy a new computer that is perfectly capable of running the new Windows and install Windows XP on it? Because XP takes (much) less of the finite system resources that new computer has.


Also, you're question could just as easily be turned around and asked about Ubuntu. Why do people upgrade Ubuntu every 6 months (which is much more frequently than Windows) when their software already works for them? Ubuntu's minimum requirements aren't what they were 5 years ago, either. People do it because they want the latest and greatest, even if they don't understand what that really means. Really a bad comparison, because Ubuntu is free($)...but my answer: I don't know, you were the one complaining about all the people not upgrading, I was the one saying they had a valid a reason not to. ;)

PhillyPhil
May 27th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Seems that people have lots of reasons not to use Windows. I just don't have the money. :(

There are millions of people around the world who acquired Windows for free...

Lucradia
May 27th, 2011, 06:11 PM
There are millions of people around the world who acquired Windows for free...

And what if we can't? I know I can't, because I don't plan to go to college anytime soon for IT Courses. Even if I went to college, it'd be for an ENglish Major, so still, no MSDN Access.

Thus, Me = Free Windows? Nope. I have to chuck out the 100+ USD out of my own pocket. To be honest, I don't see why they give subsidies to students. Maybe if the government wants to do away the debt, they should disallow MSDN to give out subsidies? :V

forrestcupp
May 27th, 2011, 06:44 PM
Really a bad comparison, because Ubuntu is free($)...but my answer: I don't know, you were the one complaining about all the people not upgrading, I was the one saying they had a valid a reason not to. ;)It's a really good comparison, considering how you mentioned that Windows can be obtained through a "free download", just like you did again in the post below.


There are millions of people around the world who acquired Windows for free...

But we don't advocate software piracy here, do we?

Lucradia
May 27th, 2011, 07:17 PM
But we don't advocate software piracy here, do we?

This too. I hate software piracy.

cariboo
May 27th, 2011, 07:49 PM
Seeing as his name is in the thread title, did anyone else see a report on one of the Seattle TV stations about Balmer being asked to step down as CEO because of the skype purchase?

Canis familiaris
May 27th, 2011, 07:49 PM
There are millions of people around the world who acquired Windows for free...

And your point is?

Lucradia
May 27th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Seeing as his name is in the thread title, did anyone else see a report on one of the Seattle TV stations about Balmer being asked to step down as CEO because of the skype purchase?

Oh dear.

Canis familiaris
May 27th, 2011, 07:53 PM
Seeing as his name is in the thread title, did anyone else see a report on one of the Seattle TV stations about Balmer being asked to step down as CEO because of the skype purchase?

Him stepping down will be really weird. He is Mr.Microsoft for me.

Kaparen
May 27th, 2011, 07:59 PM
I dumped XP on my machines way back in 2008. Vista was (and still is) a bloated, insecure and flawed OS. XP is as well but the one saving grace it had is the large software base and lower resource requirements. The weak security model of XP and its tendency to suffer from code rot are what drove me off the MS platform for good. Vista was an appalling mess on release and is still a user hostile OS complete with intrusive DRM and integrated malware.

I'm now running Lucid (10.04.2) on all my machines except my laptop which uses Maverick. Everything is rock stable after some minor tweaking, which turned into a great learning experience.

As for Windows 8 - It's more Vaporware from Microsoft. They have to keep their hype machine rolling in order to grab as many suckers as possible.

More of the same bloated junkware from Microsoft. Yes, I'm critical of MS and have every right to be. I've been using their products since 1982 - well before Windows was even conceived. The DOS days were good and Microsoft's pre-PC era was even better. From 1975 to 1981 Microsoft actually made some quality software like MS BASIC and MULTIPLAN. It's a pity they can't re-ignite their creativity and produce software like that anymore. The software back then actually worked as described. Bugs were minimal unlike the bloat and sloppiness that passes for software today.

Actually, Windows 7 was for me the most polished/best Windows yet. I'm looking forward to Windows 8, not that I'm going to install it as my main desktop but it's always nice to check out new OS versions.

forrestcupp
May 27th, 2011, 08:44 PM
Seeing as his name is in the thread title, did anyone else see a report on one of the Seattle TV stations about Balmer being asked to step down as CEO because of the skype purchase?

The person who asked him to step down is an outside investor who doesn't even work for Microsoft. Microsoft's board says that they support Ballmer. He isn't going anywhere.

szymon_g
May 27th, 2011, 10:08 PM
<flame mode: on>
am i the only one thinking, that windows 8 Beta will be more popular on desktops than all linux distros?
<flame mode: off>

;)

weasel fierce
May 27th, 2011, 10:45 PM
<flame mode: on>
am i the only one thinking, that windows 8 Beta will be more popular on desktops than all linux distros?
<flame mode: off>

;)

Nope, but Britney Spears also sold more than Depeche Mode.

forrestcupp
May 28th, 2011, 01:41 AM
Nope, but Britney Spears also sold more than Depeche Mode.

Excellent point.

yetiman64
May 28th, 2011, 01:51 AM
Nope, but Britney Spears also sold more than Depeche Mode.

Who is Depeche Mode ? :P ... Ooops, I did it again. :popcorn:

ElSlunko
May 28th, 2011, 02:01 AM
Who is Depeche Mode ? :P ... Ooops, I did it again. :popcorn:

LOL. I'm excited to see it. I love operating systems of all kind. I've built my business around Ubuntu, but new ideas and competition is healthy for the end user.

PhillyPhil
May 28th, 2011, 02:16 AM
It's a really good comparison, considering how you mentioned that Windows can be obtained through a ''free download'', just like you did again in the post below. I don't think software being illegally shared invalidates my argument that people who don't upgrade have a valid excuse. Do you think it does?


But we don't advocate software piracy here, do we? We? I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't. I don't ignore the fact that it exists, either.


This too. I hate software piracy.

I don't, despite the fact that I actually write software for a living. It's just something you have to accept: the industry has changed, thanks to the internet.

And your point is?

If you'd prefer Windows over Ubuntu, price isn't stopping you from using Windows.

Lucradia
May 28th, 2011, 02:32 AM
I don't, despite the fact that I actually write software for a living. It's just something you have to accept: the industry has changed, thanks to the internet.

I do accept it, but as I said, I have never, and never will get MSDN Access because I hate coding, I love English, but not IT Classes. I will be stuck with having to buy Windows forever, but that's something I can live with, as Retail > OEM due to the fact Retail can be activated on more than one machine. (OEM is Restricted to a motherboard, and 7 checks: CD-ROM Drive is one check believe it or not. However, on a prebuilt system, such as one from ASUS, the windows that comes from ASUS, is tied to the motherboard's BIOS, and therefore does not do the 7-check thing.)

PhillyPhil
May 28th, 2011, 02:41 AM
I do accept it, but as I said, I have never, and never will get MSDN Access because I hate coding, I love English, but not IT Classes. Sounds to me like you have no reason to hate infringing sharing.
I will be stuck with having to buy Windows forever, but that's something I can live with, as Retail > OEM due to the fact Retail can be activated on more than one machine. (OEM is Restricted to a motherboard, and 7 checks: CD-ROM Drive is one check believe it or not. However, on a prebuilt system, such as one from ASUS, the windows that comes from ASUS, is tied to the motherboard's BIOS, and therefore does not do the 7-check thing.) There are alternatives: you're in an Ubuntu forum for example...

I don't know anything about Windows activation checks, because although I used Windows since 3.1 until several years ago when I went Linux-only I've never actually experienced one (cracked copies don't have checks...). Even my copy of 3.1 was copied off a school computer and transferred to my home computer by floppy discs. Really! ;)

Macskeeball
May 28th, 2011, 03:00 AM
Even my copy of 3.1 was copied off a school computer and transferred to my home computer by floppy discs. Really! ;)

"Don't copy... Don't copy that floppy!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI) :lol:

Lucradia
May 28th, 2011, 04:08 AM
I don't know anything about Windows activation checks, because although I used Windows since 3.1 until several years ago when I went Linux-only I've never actually experienced one (cracked copies don't have checks...). Even my copy of 3.1 was copied off a school computer and transferred to my home computer by floppy discs. Really! ;)

Windows up until 98SE did not require Internet Activation, instead, the Key was tied to the CD. If you entered an invalid Key, the CD would not accept it. I loved that, because with the Internet activation, people can hack keys easier. I don't know why Macromedia changed that with their products either.

As for alternatives, I need windows for MMORPGs that come into closed beta. I do however, test for WineHQ then go to Windows after testing is done.

Canis familiaris
May 28th, 2011, 08:34 AM
If you'd prefer Windows over Ubuntu, price isn't stopping you from using Windows.
Fair enough. Pirated Windows is probably the second most used Desktop OS after Genuine Windows (may be even the first). Ubuntu or any other OS has to compete with a free Windows really.

murderslastcrow
May 28th, 2011, 09:11 AM
What is this Windows crap, anyway? Sounds awfully complicated and full of issues for people to be talking about it so much. Does anyone actually use this OS?

But seriously now, I hope they do the best job they can with Windows 8 so it will keep the competition healthy, or at least benefit the people who don't know of Linux, or know but are too afraid/endebted to a specific application to switch. It can only be a good thing if they do well and impress their user base.

Of course, it would be better for everyone else in the technology industry if they totally bombed it. Ie. OEMS, computer technology manufacturers, people who want to promote ARM/MIPS/PowerPC on desktop computers... pretty much everyone would be better off if it were Linux/BSD vs. Apple (BSD, lol).

I don't really see a lot of unique features Windows has contributed, aside from getting consumers into computers. I don't think we need it, really, and it'd be nice if people making commercial software would realize how easy using Qt or GTK could make their lives when it comes to porting (they'd probably use Qt, because it's got a lot better development tools around it, and a larger community with tons of commercial funding).

The real question is, what kind of improvements could be made with Windows 8 that would compell users to actually buy it? Most of the people who were really pissed off about Windows Vista got a nice present in Windows 7, and they're pretty much happy with it. Unless Windows 8 is super light, holographic, or something else, they already have all the modern functionality people really begged for (multi-touch, basically). I can't see people who are driven to use Windows out of necessity buying a newer version that doesn't given them any significant improvements. There aren't too many people who have Windows 7 computers who are gasping for air, since it's really not THAT bad. (certainly not exceptionally good, either)

On one hand, Steve Ballmer said it may be one of the 'riskiest' Windows releases to date, and on the other hand there have been rumors of subscription models to match the price usually paid for Windows every 3 years. And even if Windows 8 does okay, Windows 9 had better do something crazy. I mean, I guess we'll see just how easily people can be bamboozled out of their money or not in the next few years.

forrestcupp
May 28th, 2011, 03:00 PM
If you'd prefer Windows over Ubuntu, price isn't stopping you from using Windows.
Most people view computers as starting to become obsolete after about 3 years. So if you buy a computer every 3 years, you're going to just get whatever is the latest Windows without having to pay for a retail copy. I know a lot of computer users, and I haven't known many to go out and buy a retail copy of Windows; they just get it with their computer purchase.

10-15 years ago, you could save money by building your own computer and putting a free OS on there. Times aren't like they were. Now it's usually just cheaper to buy an OEM computer that has Windows on it, especially since laptops are becoming so much more popular. So now you have a bunch of Linux users who buy a computer with Windows, complain about having to pay for Windows even though they paid less than they would for building their own, and install Linux over the OS that they complain costs them so much money.

PhillyPhil
May 28th, 2011, 03:52 PM
Windows up until 98SE did not require Internet Activation, instead, the Key was tied to the CD. If you entered an invalid Key, the CD would not accept it. I loved that, because with the Internet activation, people can hack keys easier. I don't know why Macromedia changed that with their products either.



Yeah, I remember writing keys on the CDs (even for XP).
Fair enough. Pirated Windows is probably the second most used Desktop OS after Genuine Windows (may be even the first). Ubuntu or any other OS has to compete with a free Windows really.

Yep.
Most people view computers as starting to become obsolete after about 3 years. So if you buy a computer every 3 years, you're going to just get whatever is the latest Windows without having to pay for a retail copy. I know a lot of computer users, and I haven't known many to go out and buy a retail copy of Windows; they just get it with their computer purchase.
Saving money is nice icing on the cake, but the real issue is the difference in resources needed by XP and Vista/7. Unless someone has software that must have Win7 then there are perfectly valid reasons to stay with (or even change to) XP.

Hutom
May 28th, 2011, 07:32 PM
If you'd prefer Windows over Ubuntu, price isn't stopping you from using Windows.

You guys tend to forget that majority of people on this planet (including me) live in developing countries. Unless we get a copy of Windows through our professional sources it is very difficult for many of us to afford one. I liked to work on Windows when I switched to Linux; only because I could not afford Windows and its accesories (like antivirus etc.). It is another matter that I don't like that crap anymore.

blueturtl
May 28th, 2011, 07:33 PM
For a bunch who've let Microsoft out of their lives we sure give them a lot of attention. "Look, Microsoft bought Skype!" "Look, Windows 8 is coming out!" Not a day in the Cafe without one of these threads.

Has there been any relevant development in Windows since XP? Besides adding fixes to things that weren't supposed to be broken in the first place and adding support for newer hardware? Is there any reason to care if one has moved over to Linux?

Maybe some of us are just here to protest until Microsoft changes their ways. News flash: it isn't going to happen. There is no incentive. Most people don't give a damn about how horrendous Windows is because what ever horrifying kitten-eating code and features there be, the OEMs and software vendors will work together to ensure that the system will be usable enough that most people will be content with what they get.

The operating system only matters to us fanatics.
Forget Ballmer and forget Windows 8.

Canis familiaris
May 28th, 2011, 07:43 PM
You guys tend to forget that majority of people on this planet (including me) live in developing countries. Unless we get a copy of Windows through our professional sources it is very difficult for many of us to afford one. I liked to work on Windows when I switched to Linux; only because I could not afford Windows and its accesories (like antivirus etc.). It is another matter that I don't like that crap anymore.

He is talking about illegal installations (read pirated) of Windows OS, which are even more widespread in developing countries (such as mine). Most people are either ask assemblers to build their boxes who are obliged to load it full of pirated software and are thus oblivious of piracy and there are others who don't care.
For that reason we can see so many PCs with Windows, Office, and Photoshop installed.

While there are many who are informed and like not to break software licenses, but they are few and far between.

His point is correct. Ubuntu has to either compete with OEM bundled Windows which costs next to nothing, or to pirated copies of Windows. Price does not play a significant factor for most people in choice of Windows and Linux. At least not in home use. Enterprises is a different kettle of fish.

el_koraco
May 28th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Enterprises is a different kettle of fish.

Not so much in developing countries. The laws are pretty lax, and supervision next to nonexistent. However, that means little to Linux, because the sysadmins for pirated Windows networks in SMB's and even government institutions in the developing world are nephews or sons-in-laws of the CEO/director.

Merk42
May 28th, 2011, 09:05 PM
Saving money is nice icing on the cake, but the real issue is the difference in resources needed by XP and Vista/7. Unless someone has software that must have Win7 then there are perfectly valid reasons to stay with (or even change to) XP.forrestcupp is saying that most people upgrade Windows because they upgraded (ie replaced) their hardware.
Go ahead and try and find a new Dell, HP, etc with Windows XP on it.

PhillyPhil
May 29th, 2011, 02:07 AM
You guys tend to forget that majority of people on this planet (including me) live in developing countries. Unless we get a copy of Windows through our professional sources it is very difficult for many of us to afford one. I liked to work on Windows when I switched to Linux; only because I could not afford Windows and its accesories (like antivirus etc.). It is another matter that I don't like that crap anymore.

You're missing the point: price is no barrier to Windows because you can get it for free.
Antivirus etc are all available (legally) for free.
forrestcupp is saying that most people upgrade Windows because they upgraded (ie replaced) their hardware.
Go ahead and try and find a new Dell, HP, etc with Windows XP on it.

He's saying people with XP should upgrade:
So does Windows XP, which is a 10 year old, ugly piece of dung that is only relevant because people won't come out from under their rocks. ;)

And I'm saying if their software still runs on XP there are perfectly valid reasons to use XP instead.

krapp
May 29th, 2011, 06:22 PM
Thread's too long, didn't read it, but has anybody pointed out how YET AGAIN WINDOWS APES APPLE? The only big changes to the upcoming OSX.7 also happen to be the main differences between Windows 7 and 8:



Windows Application Store
In general, the closing of gap between Windows 8 Phone OS and Windows 8

forrestcupp
May 30th, 2011, 05:25 PM
He's saying people with XP should upgrade:

No, you misunderstood. I was saying that people with Windows 7/Vista shouldn't downgrade when they buy a computer that was made to be perfectly sufficient to run it. There have been plenty of people who downgraded just because they heard that Vista was bad and when they actually tried it out, their perception was already tainted by that bias.

As time goes by, the professional reasons to stick with XP are getting fewer and fewer. It's still necessary for some businesses, but I'm mainly talking about regular users.

For the record, I never implied that people should upgrade their Windows OS on their current computer unless they need to or want to, their system can handle it, and they're not lacking in money.

User235
May 31st, 2011, 01:38 AM
It's good that Windows 8 is coming out. For business/corporate reasons, I have to keep my company on Windows (but greatly prefer Ubuntu - just a preference).

XP is light, but it is also old. Access and user permissions are a big plus to Win 7 (IMHO). And let's face it, MS is the supplier to the corporate world, Linux is not quite ready for prime time in large office environments.

So I'm looking forward to MS's new windows.

PhillyPhil
May 31st, 2011, 03:57 AM
No, you misunderstood. I was saying that people with Windows 7/Vista shouldn't downgrade when they buy a computer that was made to be perfectly sufficient to run it. There have been plenty of people who downgraded just because they heard that Vista was bad and when they actually tried it out, their perception was already tainted by that bias.

As time goes by, the professional reasons to stick with XP are getting fewer and fewer. It's still necessary for some businesses, but I'm mainly talking about regular users.

For the record, I never implied that people should upgrade their Windows OS on their current computer unless they need to or want to, their system can handle it, and they're not lacking in money.

Ok, perhaps I partially misunderstood you, but the difference between staying with XP and downgrading to XP is almost negligible for anyone remotely competent with a computer. All it takes is the time to do an install.

I don't think it's so much that there are fewer reasons for XP, but there are more reasons for Win7. For example MSI doesn't distribute XP drivers for the Geforce 330M - Vista/7 only.

As for Vista I think there's a fairly wide consensus that it wasn't very good (backed up by poor sales figures). Even MS has diplomatically said as much (not in so many words)

katykat
May 31st, 2011, 09:44 AM
First off there are important differences between XP and the Vist/7 architectures.

Mainly in bloatware.

Vista had something like 111 services (daemons) on its installs, most of which are utterly useless, some of which are absolutely dangerous (can you say REMOTE DESKTOP!). It is an absolute slug.

7 trimmed those services down to around 80, still mostly useless, and consuming enormous resources, especially with its enhanced 'security' functions that things like the Zeus Trojan slide right on by using the Remote Desktop and other backdoors, In a very real sense, Win itself is a virus.

Virus checkers are useless these days. I have gigabytes of files with worms squirming around in them, readily visible in a sandbox, but that AV and trojan detectors cannot detect. Because they arent there until the trojan downloads them via stealth encryption.

And for more standard buggers it can take up to 3 months for the software to detect them.

I use XP, which is also a pig, but I skinned it down to 28 automatic processes including sandbox, and some other added ones, 33 are on manual, such as Apache and MySQL. It looks and feels like Win2000, and can do any darn thing Win7 can, only faster and more efficiently. I even have symbolic links on XP - a simple download from one of the free SDKs.

Its the end of the Windoze line for me. I refuse to do have anything more to do with a company that feels it owns my desktop and has the right to even try to tell me what apps I can run and where I can run them from. And persistently makes software configurable firewalls which shoot the entire idea of system security straight to hell.

At least SeLinux (which does pretty much the same function of application rather than user security) does this better, easier, and permits itself to be easily toggled on and off, as well as more readily configured.

I stopped M$ 'upgrades' a long time ago, and make my own security, such as k-lining M$ and other intrusive IPs at the router level. No telnet, and suspiciious ports are blocked.

I have been able to port most of my Win apps over to Ubuntu and Fedora. I run a small online business and unfortunately much of the software is Win, but most of it runs on Linux, and recently a new Java database will obviate the need to use Win for that function.

Even on Win, half of it is Linux anyway with Cygwin, and Perl and Posix utilities. And most of the normal apps I use are from SourceForge anyway. I really do hate the Windoze registry, and one of the great joys of Linux is that it does not have one.

The one problem with Linux is that it looks clunky next to Win, but its only that way out of the box. I've used Linux on and off since v0.9 and its come a long, long way. I beleive its ready for prime time.

I think its time we can safely say goodbye to M$ now. Especially since it seems to be at the point of forking into a nightmare that may drop Intel and make its own deals with hardware makers to try to force the public to buy ever more convoluted junk.

At this point I dont care if it stops supporting XP, as I could care less. I will always maintain at least one XP disk, at least until Ubuntu learns to put a little speed behind local network file transfers. Its always a heck of a lot faster moving 100 gigs in Win than Lin.

Hutom
May 31st, 2011, 10:38 AM
You're missing the point: price is no barrier to Windows because you can get it for free.


HOW :confused: if my office does not provide me with one?

PhillyPhil
May 31st, 2011, 10:44 AM
HOW :confused: if my office does not provide me with one?

:) Are you serious? Surely there's no-one so innocent? :D
Or am I just gullible?

Seek and you shall find.

Hutom
May 31st, 2011, 11:01 AM
:) Are you serious? Surely there's no-one so innocent? :D
Or am I just gullible?

Seek and you shall find.

See my avatar? :twisted: Its OK. I was just joking.:grin:

KiwiNZ
May 31st, 2011, 11:08 AM
Please refer the Code of conduct regarding illegal activity.

I_can_see_the_light
May 31st, 2011, 06:27 PM
Well, to be fair, there's less need to upgrade on Windows than on Linux.
With a rolling release that need disappears ;)


True, but anyone who switches to Linux will definitely need to change all of their software and not be able to run a lot of their specialized software.
But that's true in most cases when switching your OS. I'm definitely going to check out KDE for windows some day, imagine running your favorite KDE app inside windows :D

On a more serious note, you should always use the right tool for your task :)

forrestcupp
May 31st, 2011, 06:30 PM
I don't think it's so much that there are fewer reasons for XP, but there are more reasons for Win7. For example MSI doesn't distribute XP drivers for the Geforce 330M - Vista/7 only.That was basically my point all along. Even though MS still has extended support for XP, the mainstream support ended in 2009. Not only that, like you said, hardware vendors are beginning to phase XP out. It's at the end of its life. In my opinion, it's better for businesses to plan ahead and begin transitioning instead of waiting until it's too late out of stubbornness.

My wife's company stuck with XP for a long time out of necessity, but they finally took the W7 plunge a couple of months ago. It has proven to be more productive.


As for Vista I think there's a fairly wide consensus that it wasn't very good (backed up by poor sales figures). Even MS has diplomatically said as much (not in so many words)I have a lot of experience with Vista. It was rough around the edges in the beginning, but so was XP. I had more problems with XP when it came out than I did with Vista. After updates and service packs, Vista was not a bad OS at all, provided it was run on hardware that could handle it.

Like I keep saying, the "wide consensus" was stoked by everyone else's poor reviews and opinions, and it became a snowball effect. People were saying Vista was horrible just because that's what everyone else was saying. There were a lot of people who said Vista was crap and they hadn't even tried it; they were just parroting what others said.

Vista was not anywhere near as bad as what everyone claimed it was. And MS never admitted that it was a bad OS. They admitted that the sales were bad.

I_can_see_the_light
May 31st, 2011, 06:52 PM
Windows Live Messenger has an issue where no matter what I do, it may sometimes forget hours of history for the day (if I logout and log back in hours later the same day.)
Unless you need voice and video there's really no need to use WLM, can't believe how bloated it is in comparison.


Even today's Ubuntu won't run great on hardware that is 5 years old unless you really tweak it and force it to. Then it looks like crap, anyway.
Strongly disagree with this, my 5 year old laptop has no problem running ubuntu with Compiz and my 7 year old desktop is working fine also.

Lucradia
June 1st, 2011, 02:43 AM
Unless you need voice and video there's really no need to use WLM, can't believe how bloated it is in comparison.

I try to use pidgin whenever I can, but it can't send files to people, nor receive any.

I also currently have to use meebo due to Windows Live Network issues where some people's messages won't be delivered to me.

I_can_see_the_light
June 1st, 2011, 09:10 AM
I try to use pidgin whenever I can, but it can't send files to people, nor receive any.
Yeah, the file transfers over MSN are really poor, they don't use p2p for that. There's an alternative 'backend' for the MSN protocol though, msn-pecan (http://code.google.com/p/msn-pecan/) which should support direct file transfers. It looks like there's a Windows version as well.

I don't use MSN much so the default plugin is working OK in my case.

PhillyPhil
June 1st, 2011, 09:41 AM
That was basically my point all along. Even though MS still has extended support for XP, the mainstream support ended in 2009. Not only that, like you said, hardware vendors are beginning to phase XP out. It's at the end of its life. And my point was that if you don't need a driver for a 330M (for example) the costs of upgrading way well outweigh the benefits.
In my opinion, it's better for businesses to plan ahead and begin transitioning instead of waiting until it's too late out of stubbornness. Probably true. I was thinking individuals.


My wife's company stuck with XP for a long time out of necessity, but they finally took the W7 plunge a couple of months ago. It has proven to be more productive. Forgive me for being a little skeptical, but how does Win7 make one more productive over XP?


After updates and service packs, Vista was not a bad OS at all, provided it was run on hardware that could handle it. I think you've pretty much summed up Vista's 'goodness' right there! ;)


Like I keep saying, the ''wide consensus'' was stoked by everyone else's poor reviews and opinions, and it became a snowball effect. People were saying Vista was horrible just because that's what everyone else was saying. There were a lot of people who said Vista was crap and they hadn't even tried it; they were just parroting what others said.But those negative reviews and opinions at the core of the snowball had to come from somewhere, didn't they?

PEM59
June 2nd, 2011, 12:09 AM
Wasn't Ballmer the "Genius" Behind Windows "Hasta La" Vista?

Hutom
June 2nd, 2011, 06:59 AM
A brief view on the features of Windows 8

Apps can be launched faster from a tile-based Start screen; thus replacing the Start menu with a customizable full screen view of apps
Apps can be switched between in a fluid manner
Snap and resize an app to the side of a screen; thus enabling multitasking capabilities
Developers can use common Web technologies such as HTML5 and JavaScript to create apps for PCs

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20068142-248.html
http://tech2.in.com/news/windows/computex-2011-microsoft-previews-windows-8-os/222652

Lucradia
June 2nd, 2011, 08:38 AM
And remember,

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-20067814-250.html

Windows 8 is the first Windows Mainstream to go down in system requirements.

YesWeCan
June 2nd, 2011, 07:36 PM
4:15-4:16 p.m.: Steven: Using Windows for tablets is better for all the stuff Windows can bring to users.
Walt: Like viruses and crapware?
lmao :P

More news:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/article2044332.ece

RefinersFire
June 6th, 2011, 09:36 PM
I don't like Vista or Windows 7 that much. I prefer Ubuntu. Windows XP Pro SP3, IMHO, was the best Windows. I barely use my Windows 7. That said, I can't stand the look of Windows 8 whatsoever. Guess what. I won't buy Windows 8 just like I didn't buy Vista or Windows 7. I was a computer technician for a large corporation and they threw out two broken computers; I got free parts, and two keys (actual COAs). I wouldn't have paid for my Windows Vista or 7. I just wouldn't have ran it.

lulled
June 6th, 2011, 09:44 PM
It's clear that Linux users tend to dislike Microsoft but one thing I can't understand: why waste time talking about Windows when you don't like Windows?
I hate Apple and all of their over-hyped products (and above all, the fanboys), so I basically don't waste my time reading about them.

Just for the record: I don't hate Microsoft. It seems non-sense to me that I'll bash Windows now that I know how to use another operating system, for the first time I ever touched a computer, it had DOS installed. The first time I ever saw an internet page, I was using MS Internet Explorer.

Just a thought.

forrestcupp
June 6th, 2011, 10:37 PM
It's clear that Linux users tend to dislike Microsoft but one thing I can't understand: why waste time talking about Windows when you don't like Windows?
I hate Apple and all of their over-hyped products (and above all, the fanboys), so I basically don't waste my time reading about them.
Exactly! I hate Linux and you don't see me whining and moaning about it. :D

Just joking.