Arthur Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 It's the same old Microsoft cycle, good OS, bad OS, Good OS Not that BS again!
sparkeh Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Not that BS again! BS? The graphic don't lie, you saw the graphic right?
sparkeh Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 I'll bite - elaborate? Bet he didn't see the graphic.
Arthur Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) you saw the graphic right? Indeed I did. The graphic don't lie Yes it does! The problem is that it assumes XP was good throughout the entire 12 years of its existence. It has been both good and bad! Even if you ignore that support is ending in four months or so, XP has been 'bad' for quite a while. Edit. Vista wasn't bad either after the first service pack was released and manufacturers got their act together regarding drivers. Most of the people who didn't like it were the ones who were running it on low-spec hardware (512MB RAM!!!). Edited December 10, 2013 by Arthur
tmcd35 Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Yes it does! The problem is that it assumes XP was good throughout the entire 12 years of its existence. It has been both good and bad! Ah, yes - but we refer you back to the graphic. XP is surrounded by ME on one side and Vista on the other. Can't say there was ever a time - no matter how bad XP might have been - that I'd ever have ditched it in favour of either. I think we should have an ME uptime compitetion. I once made 30minutes without a BSOD
localzuk Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 I have a confession - I liked ME. It rarely had issues for me for some reason, but I had a habit of doing a complete reinstall every 3 months for my machine at that time...
BJG Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 I have a confession - I liked ME. Get him. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h0qmwEOkyM4/T-s6v0jytiI/AAAAAAAAAPU/GexKntbly2k/s1600/Kennett.jpg 4
Arthur Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 XP is surrounded by ME on one side and Vista on the other. ME was awful, but Vista ran far better than XP did on my home PC (a Q6600 with 8GB RAM). Other than the file copy bug which was fixed with SP1, I didn't have any problems with Vista.
LosOjos Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 I have a confession - I liked ME. It rarely had issues for me for some reason, but I had a habit of doing a complete reinstall every 3 months for my machine at that time... I wanted to like ME because it was the first OS I ever installed on a new machine. It's constant BSODs and conflict errors very nearly made me give up on IT! Was so relieved when I found out I wasn't the only one who was having so many problems with it (this period just about pre-dated me having Internet access - EduGeek would have been a life saver back then!)
themightymrp Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Vista wasn't bad either after the first service pack was released I hate to say it but I agree! I ran Vista from first day of release up until Win 7 had been out for 6 months, and it was alright! Superior to ME at any rate. It was also a good grounding for moving into Windows 7
Quackers Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 A service pack 2 install of Vista I don't mind using but the original vista could not do basic things right. File copying bug taking twice as long to copy files compared to XP, open network shares was painfully slow due to the tcpip autotune thing they introduced taking 5 mins to open the shared area here. Add things such windows activation for volume license users they introduced, the fact it needed so much ram compared to XP to run well , then all the changes in the OS deployment and you have one nasty OS.
sted Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 again i disagree never had any issues with me and vista at least x64 worked fine for me imo people installed it on hardware that wasnt up to the job. as to win 8/8.1 i much prefer them to 7 i dont get the hate start screen is fine i dont miss start menu at all
zag Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Windows 9 coming soon? Microsoft will map out its plans for the successor to Windows 8.1 – which might be named Windows 9 – at a company event in April, according to a recent report. Microsoft will start a discussion around the next iteration of its client operating system at its Build Conference on 2 to 4 April in San Francisco, California. "Threshold", believed to be the code name for a wave of Microsoft updates which includes the newest client OS, is expected to start shipping a year later, in April 2015. The whole process will purportedly be similar to the Blue/Windows 8.1 update wave. Microsoft will REVEAL ALL with 'Windows 9' shindig in April
Arthur Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Windows 9 coming soon? Are you looking forward to it? www.edugeek.net/forums/news/129972-windows-9-april-2015-a.html
zag Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 This is a better quote for this thread In some ways, the most interesting thing about Threshold is how it recasts Windows 8 as the next Vista. It's an acknowledgment that what came before didn't work, and didn't resonate with customers. And though Microsoft will always be able to claim that Windows 9 wouldn't have been possible without the important foundational work they had done first with Windows 8—just as was the case with Windows 7 and Windows Vista—there's no way to sugarcoat this. Windows 8 has set back Microsoft, and Windows, by years, and possibly for good.
tmcd35 Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Windows 9 coming soon? Microsoft will REVEAL ALL with 'Windows 9' shindig in April Shh, don't tell anyone. I'll get in alot of trouble if Microsoft find out I've got these. I've managed to obtain some early screenshots of the new UI 1
Arthur Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Windows 8.1 Update 1 Screenshots (Courtesy of WZor). Release date is 11 March 2014 apparently.
Gatt Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Looks like the de-Metro'ing is beginning then.....
gshaw Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Those right click menus seem an odd thing to change, maybe it's just because it's an early build? Makes it much less touch friendly on the Start Screen, unless MS are splitting it and this is a desktop only version? Finally an obvious power button though, amazing how such simple things were missed out for so long.
Gatt Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Considering WZor's previous leaks being damn near accurate - this looks interesting As for the "standard" UI Right Click - I suspect this may be in keeping with rumours about making METRO/Modern UI less "In your face" on non touchy-feely devices.. And agree wtih @gshaw that if this is the first step to splitting it up then it'll be very welcome!
gshaw Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) All Win8 has needed since its release is the ability to optimise the UI based on the hardware running it. That means on tablets enable Metro by default, large easy to hit menus like it has now and so on. When a desktop with large display detected use more of the classic Win32 UI etc but have the pure tablet option there as an option if the user wants it. Hopefully MS have realised that forcing one way of using their OS on users isn't what people want, 8.1 gave back some control now they need to continue that with 8.11 (so much more snappy than update 1 ) Was just thinking earlier on how to combine the Start Menu and Start Screen if you wanted both, something like press the Windows key on the desktop for Start Menu, double press for Start Screen or something similar perhaps? 8.1 on the newer tablets coming out is finally getting towards a competitive product, just hope MS don't got too OTT and change everything again with the Win9 announcement... Edited January 25, 2014 by gshaw
Arthur Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 When a desktop with large display detected use more of the classic Win32 UI etc What would you class as a desktop though? The tablet in the video below is a "desktop". Hopefully MS have realised that forcing one way of using their OS on users isn't what people want It isn't anything to do with people being inherently lazy and hating anything new different then? something like press the Windows key on the desktop for Start Menu, double press for Start Screen or something similar perhaps? That sounds like a terrible solution. Teachers would never be able to handle that! The old-style Start Menu is never coming back anyway. Time to move on!
gshaw Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) A desktop would be something that classes itself in WMI as not a laptop, has no touch input device and doesn't have a battery It isn't anything to do with people being inherently lazy and hating anything new different then? Nope, it's being sensible and realising doing a second rate version of Apple isn't a good idea and MS target market (especially in business) don't appreciate having choice and control removed for no apparent reason. Again some sense won out on the 8.1 release and better GPO support etc became available so more of that type of thinking and less Apple In some places it was simply poor design e.g. MS telling us it was technically impossible to put a graphic wallpaper behind the Start Screen in 8.0, that's the sort of choice I'm talking about. Same for the stupid full screen search remedied in 8.1 and so on. As I said MS got back on track with 8.1 and simple additions like a visible power button (and battery for mobile devices) will help the user experience if they make it into Update 1. I hated 8.0 but now use 8.1 on desktop, laptop and after finally seeing some decent tablets at BETT will probably go for one of those too, attention to detail is what makes the difference between those two releases. That leaked screenshot has to be either a desktop enhanced version or very early pre production as the cascading menu on a touch screen would be a nightmare to navigate! Edited January 25, 2014 by gshaw
Arthur Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 A desktop would be something that classes itself in WMI as not a laptop, has no touch input device and doesn't have a battery Ah! I see. MS got back on track with 8.1 and simple additions like a visible power button (and battery for mobile devices) help the user experience. You're right. 8.1 is what 8.0 should have been, although even with the forthcoming improvements in Update 1, I bet people will still find something to complain about. That leaked screenshot has to be either a desktop enhanced version or very early pre production as the cascading menu on a touch screen would be a nightmare to navigate! Perhaps this is what the Start Screen looks like when a mouse is attached? As soon as a pointing device is disconnected, it reverts back to the touch interface?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now