Windows 10

Beasty

Beasty

Beasty

Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2009
Posts
2,573
Location
Nottingham
To be honest I had gotten used to 8 and really prefer it :p I don't miss the start menu at all so not that fussed about its return now.

These days I use my desktop for very few things, gaming and a bit of browsing so just have the programs pinned on start etc, I've removed all the other blarney.

I like the idea of windowed apps again, there's a few radio apps that are a pain to use currently so that will be nice.
 

this_is_gav

this_is_gav

this_is_gav

Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2005
Posts
6,243
Location
North of Watford Gap
Mynight said:
Assuming 8.1 was counted as a new version.
Click to expand...

Which it shouldn't be. It's barely even a service pack and is free to Windows 8 users. Microsoft did similar with the USB version of Windows 95 and Windows 98SE and the service packs for XP (most notably).

Windows 8 was a perfectly solid OS. Some had GUI issues with it, but as an OS it was better than Windows 7.

Windows 10 (or 9, or 8.2 or whatever you want to view it as) is Microsoft's way of admitting the Start screen implementation of Windows 8 was a poor choice (doesn't bother me in the slightest personally, but it certainly could have been done better) and they're trying to win people over.

The OS itself wasn't flawed under the hood in the way that Windows 98 and ME were. Vista was solid, but too 'heavy' for many of the computers intended to run it. Stick Vista on a modern PC with an SSD and it would fly similarly to Windows 7 does. It wasn't broken, just poorly optimised.
 

DeathStorm

DeathStorm

DeathStorm

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,330
Location
Eltham
this_is_gav said:
Which it shouldn't be. It's barely even a service pack and is free to Windows 8 users.
Click to expand...

It was still a new version, considering the flak they were taking charging for it was never an option and it was supposed to address some of the complaints.

this_is_gav said:
The OS itself wasn't flawed under the hood in the way that Windows 98 and ME were. Vista was solid, but too 'heavy' for many of the computers intended to run it. Stick Vista on a modern PC with an SSD and it would fly similarly to Windows 7 does. It wasn't broken, just poorly optimised.
Click to expand...

Vista was not solid, you're thinking of the fully patched and supported Vista which was a different beast from the mess we got on release.

The average punter doesn't care what's under the hood or who is ultimately to blame (I vaguely recall poor driver support being one of the major issues), first impressions count. It's not all bad, I'm sure Microsoft learnt some valuable lessons from Vista.
 

this_is_gav

this_is_gav

this_is_gav

Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2005
Posts
6,243
Location
North of Watford Gap
DeathStorm said:
It was still a new version, considering the flak they were taking charging for it was never an option and it was supposed to address some of the complaints.
Click to expand...
It was a service/feature pack in all but name and activation. The differences between 8 and 8.1 were minimal.

DeathStorm said:
Vista was not solid, you're thinking of the fully patched and supported Vista which was a different beast from the mess we got on release.
Click to expand...

The OS was fine on release. Drivers were a complete mess though and that caused the instability and the thousands of unsupported scanners and printers in particular (bloody printer manufacturers and their annual releases with a slightly different shape).
 

Varsh

Varsh

Varsh

Associate
Joined
24 Oct 2008
Posts
424
Location
W-s-M
Mr-White said:
I heard 8.1 users get free upgrades and 7 will be £30, apparently Microsoft want people off older versions.

MW
Click to expand...

If it's going to be that cheap then I'm going to go with the Ultimate Edition this time around. Going with Windows 7 Home Premium at the time was good because I never thought I would need more than 16GB RAM... oh how wrong I was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom