Windows 8 2012

NathanE · 23 Sep 2009 at 22:11

feriso said:
How come, i thought it was the other way around

Definately not. 20 year old design versus a 40 year old design.

People rarely praise the handling of a car from the late 60's compared to one from the late 80's, do they? Same goes for operating systems.

Mobius 1 · 23 Sep 2009 at 22:12

should i cancel my pre order of windows 7 and hold out til 8 comes out?

Burnsy2023 · 23 Sep 2009 at 22:14

NathanE said:
Definately not. 20 year old design versus a 40 year old design.

People rarely praise the handling of a car from the late 60's compared to one from the late 80's, do they? Same goes for operating systems.

I'm sorry dude, but that analogy is deeply flawed. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, arguing about which is better is as useful as the Mac vs PC debate.

Macro · 23 Sep 2009 at 22:18

-Tauren- said:
should i cancel my pre order of windows 7 and hold out til 8 comes out?

Yes, absolutely, although just before Windows 8 comes out Windows 9 will only be 3 years away so you may need to postpone again...

As already posted, with the exception of Vista (mainly because it was stopped halfway through the original project and restarted) desktop OS from MS have pretty much always been every 3 years or so.

NathanE · 23 Sep 2009 at 22:41

Burnsy2023 said:
I'm sorry dude, but that analogy is deeply flawed. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, arguing about which is better is as useful as the Mac vs PC debate.

Was just trying to keep it simple for the guy.

LeJosh · 23 Sep 2009 at 22:44

I'm glad this thread is alive. My friend was convinced Windows 7 was there last O/S and I retaliated with lots of :rolleyes:

and tried to convince otherwise.

feriso · 23 Sep 2009 at 22:58

NathanE said:
Was just trying to keep it simple for the guy.

Simple I am not, you can explain in quite a bit of detail and I will still understand... I do have a bit of knowledge in OS structure/programming

slylittlefox · 23 Sep 2009 at 23:43

NathanE said:
Was just trying to keep it wrong for the guy.

Fixed

Seriously though - as Burnsy has pointed out - to say that NT is a more advanced/competent/whatever kernel is stupid.

NathanE · 24 Sep 2009 at 09:18

slylittlefox said:
Fixed

Seriously though - as Burnsy has pointed out - to say that NT is a more advanced/competent/whatever kernel is stupid.

Nah NT is a far better basis for building a general purpose OS. Asynchronous I/O, Threads... these are things a Unix kernel does not offer. To port Windows onto such a kernel would take monumental amounts of work. I don't think Unix has been significantly updated for over a decade... so things like Hyper-threading would need to be reimplemented as well.

Sure I grant it to Burnsy that comparing the two is unfair because they are completely different tools for different jobs. But a comparison was needed in order to show why the idea of porting Windows onto such a primitive kernel would be a bad one.

bledd · 24 Sep 2009 at 09:26

LeJosh said:
I'm glad this thread is alive. My friend was convinced Windows 7 was there last O/S and I retaliated with lots of and tried to convince otherwise.

Does your friend take hard drugs every day

Guest2 · 24 Sep 2009 at 09:32

I still run XP as do the majority of poeple. 2000 was the first good OS (IMO)

Dark_Angel · 24 Sep 2009 at 09:49

blastman said:
everybody misses out ME. I think microsoft perfer it that way!!!

ME doesn't exist. We pretend it doesn't, MS doesn't remind us. It is a relationship that serves both parties well.

paradigm · 24 Sep 2009 at 09:49

Guest2 said:
I still run XP as do the majority of poeple. 2000 was the first good OS (IMO)

Lol, what a mind-numbingly narrow view.

NT4 was a superb OS, just because you weren't in a position to utilize its potential doesn't make it any less of a "good" OS than 2000 was.

dave_beast · 24 Sep 2009 at 11:06

What about Windows before 95, i.e Windows 1, OS2, 3.1 and not forgetting 98se

paradigm · 24 Sep 2009 at 11:23

dave_beast said:
What about Windows before 95... not forgetting 98se

Does not compute.

Oh, and Windows 1 wasn't particularly worthwhile, given its lack of mouse support. Windows 2 was better, and was the first real platform I used on top of MSDOS (remember, Windows 1, 2 and 3 weren't operating systems, just window managers that sat on top of the OS, MSDOS - excluding NT based on windows 3).

3.1 isn't really worth mentioning when 3.11 brought a lot more to the table.

NT 3.51 was a great OS, bringing 32-bit execution to the mainstream.

OS2 / OS2/Warp were both ass.

LeJosh · 24 Sep 2009 at 11:27

bledd. said:
Does your friend take hard drugs every day

Hard drink more like.

He also tried to convince me he read it on the MS website.

Guest2 · 24 Sep 2009 at 11:33

paradigm said:
Lol, what a mind-numbingly narrow view.

NT4 was a superb OS, just because you weren't in a position to utilize its potential doesn't make it any less of a "good" OS than 2000 was.

Not really. I use XP and most of my mates do. Everyone in our business and other businesses i know still use XP with a rare few using Vista.

I was about 13 when i was using Win2k and it was better than 3.1, 95 and 98/98se in that it didnt crash 10 times a day (I said im my opinion anyway and im my opinion, it was the first good os)

paradigm · 24 Sep 2009 at 11:34

Guest2 said:
Not really. I use OS and most of my mates do. Everyone in our business and other businesses i know still use XP with a rare few using Vista.

I was about 13 when i was using Win2k and it was better than 95 and 98/98se in that it didnt crash 10 times a day (I said im my opinion anyway and im my opinion, it was the first good os)

What does any of that have to do with the fact that there were great operating systems BEFORE windows 2000.

Just because you didn't use them doesn't mean that they were any less intuitive.

Burnsy2023 · 24 Sep 2009 at 11:36

I think NT4 was a great OS. In fact many businesses stayed on NT4 before they moved straight to XP. 2000 was better for a number of reasons one of which was driver support, but that's not to say NT4 wasn't a great OS for it's day.

braveheart · 25 Sep 2009 at 16:10

I would think Windows 8 may look really nice and new look with features,etc.. to replace Windows 7 if it come out 2011/2012 or later so better wait until few years time as you know when Vista released in 2007 that 2 and half years ago as we run the clock so fast as we now in 2009 as Windows 7 is near release in October so W8 may come out soon than we thought - I may wait until W8 release than buying Windows 7 cos I dont have problems with Vista 64 since 2007.