Wait for windows 8

csmager said:
You try installing Windows 95/98/Me without DOS installed first! Those OS's still have plenty of the 16-bit code from Win 3.11 in. Other than NT, I don't think Windows has ever had a complete rewrite.
Click to expand...

Seriosuly, you have trouble installing win95(+) without DOS installed first?

How old are you? :p
 
If they discount preorders of Win8 like they did Win7 then I'd grab a copy without even looking at it, because I'm struggling to think of ways they could screw it up and I could do with a "Pro" flavour to replace my Home Premium Win7 (can't justify buying another copy of 7 so I'll wait).

The last bad version of Windows was Windows ME so I don't really subscribe to this tick/tock good/bad release cycle theory.
 
LinktoInsanity said:
Agree completely with 1. and 3. but with point 2 (yes I've numbered them) Windows 1 evolved up to Windows 3.11 32s and then got replaced with Windows 95, which was a complete rebuild. Before 95 Windows wasn't even an operating system! (Try installing earlier versions of Windows without DOS installed first!)

And yes PhillyDee, Vista is a terrible resource hog, even with Superfetch disabled. Windows 7 on the same systems is very very quick.
Click to expand...

Really...?

My computers say no...

Vista did and still does use almost exactly the same resources as Windows 7 (at least in my experience anyway). I must be one of the few that actually had a slight slowdown going from Vista to 7 though so...;)
 
I had Vista running on the computers that i have that are now running 7.
In vista, they were slow, bad tempered, annoying to use and generally unpleasant. On 7, they are fast, efficient and simple to interact with.

It's not a case of insufficient hardware or manufacturer's bloat, these were clean installs of vista performed by me. it was just lousy.
 
Aod said:
I had Vista running on the computers that i have that are now running 7.
In vista, they were slow, bad tempered, annoying to use and generally unpleasant. On 7, they are fast, efficient and simple to interact with.

It's not a case of insufficient hardware or manufacturer's bloat, these were clean installs of vista performed by me. it was just lousy.
Click to expand...

Clean install of Vista on my machines were all fine.
 
Aod said:
I had Vista running on the computers that i have that are now running 7.
In vista, they were slow, bad tempered, annoying to use and generally unpleasant. On 7, they are fast, efficient and simple to interact with.

It's not a case of insufficient hardware or manufacturer's bloat, these were clean installs of vista performed by me. it was just lousy.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine if you did them again now, with the same drivers you're using in Windows 7, there would be less of a gap.

Almost all issues with Vista were with drivers and other compatibility issues. You would have had the same issues with Windows 7 if it was released at the same time.
 
i never really saw what people disliked about vista, yes it was more resource hungry than xp, so people upgrading their os without upgrading their hardware would have noticed a performance hit, but people that bought hardware that was designed with vista in mind, with the 2GB of ram vista needed, it ran fine. as for windows 7 being faster, yes it does appear it i suppose, but thats only because most people remember vista as being slow, so will not get over that. but if you install both on the same pc with the same programs in start up, open taskmanger you will see they both use roughly the same amount of cpu and ram. its just because of the UAC in vista that was a bit too in your face, it gives the impression windows 7 is quicker and smoother, but im sure if you actually sat down with 2 idententical pcs side by side, one with vista one with win7 and did exactly the same tasks, you probably wouldnt see a difference.

anyways, back to the original post, from my experience in the shop i work in, windows 7 wasnt as big a success as vista. we have had a lot less people upgrading their machines from xp/vista to windows 7 ones than we did when vista was launched. maybe this is microsofts thinking with windows 8, people with xp/vista will be 2-3 OS's out of date so will assume its time for an upgrade, even though they are pretty much only getting windows 7, which is pretty much only vista with a few tweaks. so they are actually only upgrading 1 OS at most if they are xp users, if they are vista users they are just getting some extra eyecandy and a few features/tweaks thrown in over their previous OS. its good marketing, but slightly misleading.
 
I'll be going to windows 8 only because support for vista ends this time next year. Hopefully there will be more reason for me to upgrade when more details surface, but for now, vista is serving me well.
 
This is what annoys me when are they going to sort this out. Ordinary people are going to get fed up with having to reinstal a new os every couple of years just so they can have a few new stuff.

Why cant they just have it like with linux or something where you just get updates, you dont have to backup anything or wipe the harddrive, you just pay for updates that you want. If they dont do it someone else will.
 
Calabi said:
This is what annoys me when are they going to sort this out. Ordinary people are going to get fed up with having to reinstal a new os every couple of years just so they can have a few new stuff.

Why cant they just have it like with linux or something where you just get updates, you dont have to backup anything or wipe the harddrive, you just pay for updates that you want. If they dont do it someone else will.
Click to expand...

A lot of the time, stuff is built from the ground up, and adding as an update will just cause more issues than it will solve.

I really think there is no need to update to the latest O/S each time a new one is released. As long as your not on outdated tech like windows XP ;)
 
FallshirmjAEger said:
A lot of the time, stuff is built from the ground up, and adding as an update will just cause more issues than it will solve.

I really think there is no need to update to the latest O/S each time a new one is released. As long as your not on outdated tech like windows XP ;)
Click to expand...

I very much doubt they are built from the ground up. I'm betting windows 7 has quite a lot of Windows Xp in it.

Even so how can they possibly justify building things for the ground up constantly with little to no gain.

Its reasonably simple to mitigate the problems with updates separating the os its kernels and software and whatever. Its software it can be virtual, theres all kinds of tricks they can use to make it perfectly viable and less problematic to do.
 
The only version of Windows that was properly crap was Me.

I certainly didn't have any problems with 98 or Vista? Sadly Vista's problem was that it had to follow XP, and people rejected it out of hand simply because of that.
 
Tute said:
The only version of Windows that was properly crap was Me.

I certainly didn't have any problems with 98 or Vista? Sadly Vista's problem was that it had to follow XP, and people rejected it out of hand simply because of that.
Click to expand...

I never had any dealings with Me. What was wrong with it?
 
Other than the fact it came out after Win2kpro, not a lot really.
A lot of people seem to rate 98se above it but I thought it was no worse. It needs slightly more power, but enthusiasts had systems capable of running it just fine. No ability to boot into DOS, not ideal but by that time most people didn't need to run DOS mode applications. Finally there were a few driver issues with certain hardware but in my experience this was typically due to software refusing to install due to not detecting Win9x rather than necessarily a flaw in the OS itself.

What really annoyed me however was that I seem to be the only person that wanted to call it WindMill, not Me :(

I think the real problem MS had is that win2kpro came out a good 6 months beforehand and piracy was on the rise as more and more people were getting online. So people would get hold of Win2kpro (which was pretty damn expensive if you wanted it for home use) via dubious means and then obviously by comparison WindMill wasn't much cop.
 
Last edited:
HangTime said:
Other than the fact it came out after Win2kpro, not a lot really.
A lot of people seem to rate 98se above it but I thought it was no worse. It needs slightly more power, but enthusiasts had systems capable of running it just fine. No ability to boot into DOS, not ideal but by that time most people didn't need to run DOS mode applications. Finally there were a few driver issues with certain hardware but in my experience this was typically due to software refusing to install due to not detecting Win9x rather than necessarily a flaw in the OS itself.

What really annoyed me however was that I seem to be the only person that wanted to call it WindMill, not Me :(

I think the real problem MS had is that win2kpro came out a good 6 months beforehand and piracy was on the rise as more and more people were getting online. So people would get hold of Win2kpro (which was pretty damn expensive if you wanted it for home use) via dubious means and then obviously by comparison WindMill wasn't much cop.
Click to expand...

Be serious here, Windows ME was awful. Microsoft had dragged the GUI-over-DOS system too far by the time ME came out, when i used it, it was so incredibly unstable, sometimes it'd crash just sitting there.

not to mention that, with DOS at it's creaky-beating heart, ME was essentially 16-bit with a 32-bit emulator providing enhanced functionality, but this isn't exactly ideal and the system really did tend to fall over if you asked too much of it. imagine you were writing a word document and hadn't saved in a while, and you open up paint to edit an image for the document, but your hard-drive's busy and paint doesn't load properly... *BAM* windows falls over and you lose your document. fantastic...

the fact that NT4 came out in 1996 and was superior in stability (though not functionality) to ME which was released four years later left a sour taste in peoples mouths.
 
Last edited:
andy_mk3 said:
I doubt MS would replace 7 so quickly, it's a great OS. Also I hated Vista, before and after SP1, it was slow, hogged memory and generally painful to use!
Click to expand...

What is the point of RAM if not to use it? Sounds like you ran Vista on a PC that was barely capable of running it if it was that bad- this was the main problem with Vista, it got bundled with computers unable to run it properly, and people installing it on computers that again weren't capable to run it.

Windows 7 is pretty much Windows Vista with a new interface and ever so slight tweaks, the thing that's changed is the base level of hardware has increased a lot since Vista came out, that in itself has given the illusion of 7 being a lot better than Vista upon release, as the hardware requirements for both were pretty much the same.

I used Vista from release up until major builds of Windows 7 started coming out, and I had no issues with it. Windows Vista was a perfectly fine Operating System, I moved to Windows 7 simply because I preferred the user interface more, with the grouped buttons and mouse gestures, but beneath all of that they're the same operating system.
 
kylew
Windows 7 is pretty much Windows Vista with a new interface and ever so slight tweaks, the thing that's changed is the base level of hardware has increased a lot since Vista came out, that in itself has given the illusion of 7 being a lot better than Vista upon release, as the hardware requirements for both were pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

I always said that Win 7 was a service pack for Vista.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom