Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Software > Operating Systems

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-01-2012, 01:05 AM   #51
Zaap
Diamond Member
 
Zaap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raduque View Post
He's listing consumer OSes. Windows 2000 was never a "consumer" OS.
Plenty of consumers used 2000, the same way plenty of consumers use the Professional and Ultimate versions of every Microsoft OS since.

I was in that camp that after using 2000 on my computers, there was no way in hell I was ever going to be dragged back to using any 9x variant.

Quote:
BTW, there's nothing wrong with Vista.
There was so much wrong with Vista when it first came out that I made money 'upgrading' people's PCs and laptops back to Windows XP to restore their sanity. But of course, they all must have imagined how horrid it was, just like Microsoft imagined the huge loss they took on the whole thing.

Or maybe (as with Metro) it was all just me subliminally telling them how horrible it was, and people independent of each other all taking my word for it in order to pay me to return their computers to a previous OS. Now I'm sending out the same vibes against Metro it seems!

I remember how glacially slow Vista made things; brand new laptops (with plenty of RAM by the way) that felt much worse than the older systems they replaced.

People that just noodle with computers and don't do anything real with them probably didn't notice (just like people that just noodle around all day with kludge like Metro probably don't mind it either.) People that actually get things done with their computers and want every bit of the speed they paid for HATED that steaming POS.

I recall clearly companies like Dell charging a $50 premium for new PCs with XP rather than Vista. It speaks volumes how bad something is when people pay a hefty premium for an older version. Vista may have since been improved, but it left a bad impression with a lot of people right out the gate to the point where they never wanted to see it again. Me included. I still run across the occasional laptop or PC running Vista and just think to myself "What a waste."
__________________
Z68X-UD3H-B3 | 2600K | 16GB 1600 | HD6870 1GB | OSX 10.9.2 + Win 7 x64

Last edited by Zaap; 05-01-2012 at 01:08 AM.
Zaap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 03:05 AM   #52
AE-Ruffy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaap View Post
Plenty of consumers used 2000, the same way plenty of consumers use the Professional and Ultimate versions of every Microsoft OS since.

I was in that camp that after using 2000 on my computers, there was no way in hell I was ever going to be dragged back to using any 9x variant.


There was so much wrong with Vista when it first came out that I made money 'upgrading' people's PCs and laptops back to Windows XP to restore their sanity. But of course, they all must have imagined how horrid it was, just like Microsoft imagined the huge loss they took on the whole thing.

Or maybe (as with Metro) it was all just me subliminally telling them how horrible it was, and people independent of each other all taking my word for it in order to pay me to return their computers to a previous OS. Now I'm sending out the same vibes against Metro it seems!

I remember how glacially slow Vista made things; brand new laptops (with plenty of RAM by the way) that felt much worse than the older systems they replaced.

People that just noodle with computers and don't do anything real with them probably didn't notice (just like people that just noodle around all day with kludge like Metro probably don't mind it either.) People that actually get things done with their computers and want every bit of the speed they paid for HATED that steaming POS.

I recall clearly companies like Dell charging a $50 premium for new PCs with XP rather than Vista. It speaks volumes how bad something is when people pay a hefty premium for an older version. Vista may have since been improved, but it left a bad impression with a lot of people right out the gate to the point where they never wanted to see it again. Me included. I still run across the occasional laptop or PC running Vista and just think to myself "What a waste."
Brand new laptops with mediocre graphics cards and processors. The problem is microsoft lowered the recommended specs at the last minute in order to accommodate all vendors that wanted to sell cheap computers. I had no problem with vista, it was snappy and a welcome improvement in UI over XP on all of my machines.

Hell even windowsME wasn't bad. It was fine all throughout the beta, just lacked some driver support for some of my hardware, only when they enabled active desktop did the shit hit the fan

Last edited by AE-Ruffy; 05-01-2012 at 03:08 AM.
AE-Ruffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 04:19 AM   #53
Pretty Cool
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 872
Default

Saying XP cost more that Vista would be true if you are comparing apples to apples. For instance, XP Home versus Vista Home Premium. From what I remember when I bought a Dell, XP Home cost the same as Vista Basic. Vista Home Premium was more that XP Home. I do not recall what the Pro versions cost.

Anyway in my opinion, the worse part of Vista was Superfetch. Once you disabled it or changed the default options, the computer was actually usable. An over-active UAC would be my #2.

As far as Windows 8 goes, we shall see. To me, Metro does not matter that much to me as I am sure their will be 3rd-party options if I do not like it. If the speed of Win 8 is as good or faster than Windows 7, then I see myself using it. I certainly would not go out of my way to get 7 if the computer came bundled with 8.
Pretty Cool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 09:45 AM   #54
Mem
Lifer
 
Mem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London
Posts: 20,358
Default

Win7 is my favorite OS followed by Vista(never had any issues with Vista and I used it since day 1) however I still can't get my Audigy 4 sound card to work with Win8 infact even my onboard sound does not work so gave up in the end.Anyway that'll probably be fixed with a new driver down the road.




Metro I can see the big appeal to touchscreeen/tablet users however its going to be very interesting how desktop users take to it or don't when Win8 is officially released.


I'm getting use to navigating around Win8 but it feels sort of clumsy for me as a desktop user.
I'll keep an open opinion until we see the final version down the road.
__________________
No.6: "I've Resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own." .
Mem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 10:42 AM   #55
Fritzo
Lifer
 
Fritzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 37,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mem View Post
Win7 is my favorite OS followed by Vista(never had any issues with Vista and I used it since day 1) however I still can't get my Audigy 4 sound card to work with Win8 infact even my onboard sound does not work so gave up in the end.Anyway that'll probably be fixed with a new driver down the road.




Metro I can see the big appeal to touchscreeen/tablet users however its going to be very interesting how desktop users take to it or don't when Win8 is officially released.


I'm getting use to navigating around Win8 but it feels sort of clumsy for me as a desktop user.
I'll keep an open opinion until we see the final version down the road.
I had the same problem. My Sound Blaster XFI is detected, it says it's working, but no sound. It gives a device error if you fiddle with the sound settings.
__________________
Also, from now on, I shall refer to you as "Peaches."
Fritzo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 12:04 PM   #56
Zaap
Diamond Member
 
Zaap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AE-Ruffy View Post
Brand new laptops with mediocre graphics cards and processors. The problem is microsoft lowered the recommended specs at the last minute in order to accommodate all vendors that wanted to sell cheap computers. I had no problem with vista, it was snappy and a welcome improvement in UI over XP on all of my machines.
The same machine with XP= blazing fast. The same machine with Windows 7= blazing fast. The same machine with Vista = sluggish, clunky and a PITA to use. The problem was Vista, not the hardware of every other computer that was brought back to life with XP or eventually 7. Only computer noodlers didn't notice. Other people weren't concerned as much with looking at UI elements all the time, they wanted their machines to perform as intended.

All of this is history already- even Microsoft admitted that Vista was a dud, and hurried 7 to market to keep from bleeding out. Anyone can look up the premium that people paid to 'upgrade' back to XP. Dell was charging as much as $150 extra for XP to exactly the types that aren't computing navel-gazers: business users who needed to get things done.


Quote:
Hell even windowsME wasn't bad.
Heh. All I can say is you have a very low bench of expectations from an OS. ME was one of the worst OS's ever foisted upon the public.
__________________
Z68X-UD3H-B3 | 2600K | 16GB 1600 | HD6870 1GB | OSX 10.9.2 + Win 7 x64
Zaap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 12:17 PM   #57
Fritzo
Lifer
 
Fritzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 37,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaap View Post
The same machine with XP= blazing fast. The same machine with Windows 7= blazing fast. The same machine with Vista = sluggish, clunky and a PITA to use. The problem was Vista, not the hardware of every other computer that was brought back to life with XP or eventually 7. Only computer noodlers didn't notice. Other people weren't concerned as much with looking at UI elements all the time, they wanted their machines to perform as intended.

All of this is history already- even Microsoft admitted that Vista was a dud, and hurried 7 to market to keep from bleeding out. Anyone can look up the premium that people paid to 'upgrade' back to XP. Dell was charging as much as $150 extra for XP to exactly the types that aren't computing navel-gazers: business users who needed to get things done.



Heh. All I can say is you have a very low bench of expectations from an OS. ME was one of the worst OS's ever foisted upon the public.
One of Vista's big problems was they threw in everything they could thing of into the system startup. The entire "Windows Live" pack came preloaded and would start on boot. Nothing like a 100MB clunky Outlook Express clone that deems itself necessary to start in the background every time the computer turns on.

WTF happened to Windows Live Mail anyway? Outlook Express was like 6MB in size and worked wonderfully. How can you add 90+MB of code to a mail client that does the same thing???
__________________
Also, from now on, I shall refer to you as "Peaches."
Fritzo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 12:28 PM   #58
Mem
Lifer
 
Mem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London
Posts: 20,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaap View Post
The same machine with XP= blazing fast. The same machine with Windows 7= blazing fast. The same machine with Vista = sluggish, clunky and a PITA to use. The problem was Vista, not the hardware of every other computer that was brought back to life with XP or eventually 7. Only computer noodlers didn't notice. Other people weren't concerned as much with looking at UI elements all the time, they wanted their machines to perform as intended.

All of this is history already- even Microsoft admitted that Vista was a dud, and hurried 7 to market to keep from bleeding out. Anyone can look up the premium that people paid to 'upgrade' back to XP. Dell was charging as much as $150 extra for XP to exactly the types that aren't computing navel-gazers: business users who needed to get things done.



Heh. All I can say is you have a very low bench of expectations from an OS. ME was one of the worst OS's ever foisted upon the public.
Vista was not that bad,main problem was a lot of driver issues in the beginning but once they were sorted and SP1 came out out no real issues,I rather run Vista then XP which has too many security holes or even use Linux then XP which I do.

Has to hardware well XP was released way back in 2001 so yes it'll run on hardware better then Vista which was designed for modern PCs,remember Dos and how little hardware that needed to run?...its all relative ...

I could point out some of the old business and consumer software that would not run on Vista so you had to upgrade the software ,part of reason why Dell and others offered downgrade to XP,can't blame Vista for that....Gamers know they have to upgrade their hardware for gaming and have no issues doing so but when it comes to software ie old business companies etc just hate to upgrade due to cost,again its all relative they want to have their cake and eat it but don't want to fork out,if they want freebies stick to Linux.


Win7 improves on Vista but not that much (not surprising since Win7 is based off Vista,how many people forget that?)and I have used them all for many years,infact the old PC hardware I used for Vista gave me 3 years of happy gaming etc...Win7 at launch also had good driver support due partly to Vista etc...

Getting back on topic ie Win8(lets forget about XP its a very old OS that's needs to be retired and forgotten about) I will say Win8 has been very stable for me apart for the sound issues I have ie Win8 says its working fine but still no sound coming out of my speakers.
__________________
No.6: "I've Resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own." .

Last edited by Mem; 05-01-2012 at 12:52 PM.
Mem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 03:41 PM   #59
Zaap
Diamond Member
 
Zaap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mem View Post
Vista was not that bad,main problem was a lot of driver issues in the beginning but once they were sorted and SP1 came out out no real issues,I rather run Vista then XP which has too many security holes or even use Linux then XP which I do.
True, they did improve it. It was just so awful at first some of us swore off it for life- I stayed with XP then moved straight to Windows 7 (which is the best Windows OS ever) and never looked back. You still couldn't pay me enough to pollute any computer I rely on with Vista, even a greatly improved version. Windows 7 is actually lean and clean and much better designed.
__________________
Z68X-UD3H-B3 | 2600K | 16GB 1600 | HD6870 1GB | OSX 10.9.2 + Win 7 x64
Zaap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 09:31 PM   #60
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A sandpit with casinos
Posts: 4,929
Default

I don't even get what the point of the metro interface is for desktops?? What exactly can you do on it that is quicker than just pinning apps to the taskbar like we do in Windows 7.

My win 7 taskbar has all my key apps pinned to it. These take up about 98% of my time on the PC. It's just one click and the app launches.

How does Metro improve on that? People that support Windows 8 never answer this key question. It seems to me Metro just adds another layer for no reason.
__________________
Intel i7 4790K, GIGABYTE Z97X-UD5H, 16GB G.SKILL Ares DDR3 1866MHz , ASUS R9 280X DirectCU II TOP 3GB, Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB + 3 x 1TB Samsung F3, 1 x 2TB Seagate Barracuda. Windows 8.1 Pro

Late 2013 13" Macbook Pro, Intel Core i5-4258U 2.4Ghz, Intel Iris 5100 GPU, 8GB ram, 256GB SSD
StinkyPinky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:44 PM   #61
C1
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,623
Default

http://webserver.computoredge.com/on...52f32d59c2f660

Microsoft Devolution and Windows 7/8
Please inform younger readers about the M$ campaign of FUD that it traditionally uses when bringing out a supposedly better (it usually isn't) O/S.

I have both Windows 7 and the RC 8 (both 32 & 64 bit flavors) and after some evaluation, I've made the decision to remove and replace with the XP editions. The only people who need them are people who have software that demands you use Windows 7 or you don't mind the resource hogging eye candy. It actually is slower even on a dual core system with the required memory (which is double the same amount for the XP O/S!).

XP will probably suffer the same fate as NT5 (aka Windows 2000) and all previous versions. If Microsoft has added a "kill switch" to XP, the "gray market" has solutions to that problem.

I still run 98se and NT5 systems. There are a ton of games out there that work best with DirectX 9c and the older O/S on the computer.

And I'm not even talking about better Linux alternatives.

—Art Blackwell, Evergreen, CO
C1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:10 PM   #62
Jodell88
Diamond Member
 
Jodell88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sweet T&T
Posts: 7,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C1 View Post
http://webserver.computoredge.com/on...52f32d59c2f660

Microsoft Devolution and Windows 7/8
Please inform younger readers about the M$ campaign of FUD that it traditionally uses when bringing out a supposedly better (it usually isn't) O/S.

I have both Windows 7 and the RC 8 (both 32 & 64 bit flavors) and after some evaluation, I've made the decision to remove and replace with the XP editions. The only people who need them are people who have software that demands you use Windows 7 or you don't mind the resource hogging eye candy. It actually is slower even on a dual core system with the required memory (which is double the same amount for the XP O/S!).

XP will probably suffer the same fate as NT5 (aka Windows 2000) and all previous versions. If Microsoft has added a "kill switch" to XP, the "gray market" has solutions to that problem.

I still run 98se and NT5 systems. There are a ton of games out there that work best with DirectX 9c and the older O/S on the computer.

And I'm not even talking about better Linux alternatives.

—Art Blackwell, Evergreen, CO
spam?
__________________
“Defend the weak, protect both young and old, never desert your friends. Give justice to all, be fearless in battle and always ready to defend the right." - The law of Badger Lords
Jodell88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 06:41 AM   #63
Mem
Lifer
 
Mem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London
Posts: 20,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodell88 View Post
spam?
SPAM and FUD,no way XP is better then Win7,why anybody would want to still use XP which is over 10 years old over Win7 is beyond me,throw in the security holes and how many viruses are spread via XP users over the net.


AMD 1700+ with 1GB Ram and nforce 2 board I use to beta test Win7 with and it was fine,don't know how low you want to go for minimum hardware for Win7.


I will say if you can't afford to upgrade to 7 use Linux,that's what I did to replace XP as a stop gap before I installed Win7 on all my PCs(except one of my PCs which is dual boot Linux/Win7 for Linux learning).

XP's time has been and gone,you can't keep living in the past.
__________________
No.6: "I've Resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own." .

Last edited by Mem; 05-03-2012 at 06:43 AM.
Mem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 10:31 AM   #64
ultimatebob
Lifer
 
ultimatebob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Connecticutistan
Posts: 16,878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaap View Post
Correct-inated.

So they did have two *goods* in a row. Technically, they should be in line for another double-good but I suspect 2000 was just the good crew getting to do two in a row.

I'm still inclined to believe my pet theory of two alternating design teams at MS: the BoB/ME/Vista/W8 crew (aka, the sorry hacks, or the house of rotten ideas) and the 98/2000/XP/W7 crew (aka, the clean-up-the-hacks'-mess-crew).

Once again, it'll be nice when the clean-up-the-hacks'-mess-crew is back at bat.
Windows NT4 was good as well, and that came out after Windows 95 but before Windows 98. Once you installed Internet Explorer 4, you could get most of the pretty GUI addons from Windows 98 like the quick launch bar added to NT4.

So, technically, they had 3 good OS releases in a row before Windows ME screwed up the streak.

Personally, I think that Windows 8 will be great on a tablet or a touch screen PC, but rubbish on anything else. The new menu layouts are just a pain in the ass to use with a mouse or a touchpad.

Last edited by ultimatebob; 05-03-2012 at 10:34 AM.
ultimatebob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:05 PM   #65
Batmeat
Senior Member
 
Batmeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Compman55 View Post
I was excited about windows 7, and when vista came out I was equally excited, its just ms and vendors did not work together for compatibility.

Keep in mind MS track record.

Win 3.0 = Crap
Win 3.1 = Good
Win95 = Crap
Win98 = Good
WinME = Crap
WinXP = Good
WinVista = Crap
Win7 = Good
Win8 = Crap
Win (whatever) = Good
Nailed it, except you forgot Win2k. Sucked until SP3 came for it.
Batmeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:33 PM   #66
Fritzo
Lifer
 
Fritzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 37,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultimatebob View Post
Windows NT4 was good as well, and that came out after Windows 95 but before Windows 98. Once you installed Internet Explorer 4, you could get most of the pretty GUI addons from Windows 98 like the quick launch bar added to NT4.

So, technically, they had 3 good OS releases in a row before Windows ME screwed up the streak.

Personally, I think that Windows 8 will be great on a tablet or a touch screen PC, but rubbish on anything else. The new menu layouts are just a pain in the ass to use with a mouse or a touchpad.
The problem with Windows NT is it would't run anything. We used to say "You can use Windoes, but not WindoesNT".
__________________
Also, from now on, I shall refer to you as "Peaches."
Fritzo is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.