Are you excited for Windows 8?

[dawks]

There's no lack of free alternatives. I've been using Linux on my home desktop for probably over 7 years now.



Progress is a shame? The team working on Win8 isn't the same one that finished up Win7, they can do both at the same time. I think 6mo might be a bit much, but I think a yearly or 18mo refresh for client OSes is awesome.

I'd pose the question of why do we need a 'refresh' every 12-18mo? At this point, Windows 7 is very mature and feature rich, all thats really coming is small incremental changes now. What if those dev's could focus efforts on new more helpful/productive software?

I'm just challenging the instinct humans have that 'the grass is always greener', when we're really at a good place already. Other than financial incentive for Microsoft, theres no real need for a new version of Windows. While im not suggesting we should stop innovating, I'm just questioning the value of the current method.

 

[smitbret]

Just got my OEM copy of Win 7 Professional in the mail yesterday. I'm so pumped to finally graduate from Win XP. Didn't get a chance to install it last nig........... WTF!!!!!?????? There's a Windows 8?

 

[piasabird]

Still Using Vista. I am rather unimpressed with offerings from Windows. Their stupid browser keeps trying to block everything when I watch Video online. If Vista was such a lousy OS they should have given you the next one for free.

Why should consumer's accept a sub-par product? What exactly did they improve? What big innovation are they delivering?

 

[lxskllr]

Some of us only dream of being able to drop ~$400 on a gfx card. There are plenty of us just behind the curve with secondhand purchased parts. To us, it is an egregious expense.

I'd suggest Linux then. It's absolutely free, and you get updates for life. It offers superior customization, and in many ways a better user experience. As a bonus, you'll get eye candy that blows Windows away, at a fraction of the resource usage. Choice is yours, but you can't blame MS for wanting to make money. That's their whole reason to exist; not so you have Windows to use ;^)

 

[Nothinman]

I'd pose the question of why do we need a 'refresh' every 12-18mo? At this point, Windows 7 is very mature and feature rich, all thats really coming is small incremental changes now. What if those dev's could focus efforts on new more helpful/productive software?

I'm just challenging the instinct humans have that 'the grass is always greener', when we're really at a good place already. Other than financial incentive for Microsoft, theres no real need for a new version of Windows. While im not suggesting we should stop innovating, I'm just questioning the value of the current method.

I'd say that's more the Linux method. Ubuntu puts out a release every 6mo but it's usually full of incremental changes from the last. Only occasionally do they do something big and invasive like making Unity the default WM.

There's no reason MS has to putt out a full release every time, they could easily put out new features as individually downloadable and/or "feature packs" that bundle a lot of them.

 

[nemesismk2]

I will try out Windows 8 but to be honest I don't really like Windows 7 so probably will not like Windows 8 so mabe it's a case of Ubuntu here I come.

 

[GeekDrew]

IMO, there should be no less than a 5 year gap between major OS releases. It takes a *lot* of resources (money, but moreso time) to change operating systems in an enterprise environment. My organization is just now starting to roll out Windows 7; we'll probably continue to use Windows 7 until Windows 10 (or its equivalent), because it is extremely difficult for us to migrate to new operating systems.

 

[Nothinman]

IMO, there should be no less than a 5 year gap between major OS releases. It takes a *lot* of resources (money, but moreso time) to change operating systems in an enterprise environment. My organization is just now starting to roll out Windows 7; we'll probably continue to use Windows 7 until Windows 10 (or its equivalent), because it is extremely difficult for us to migrate to new operating systems.

You're not forced to upgrade with every release, MS does a crazy job of supporting old software. XP is coming up on 10 years now so I'm sure Win7 will be close to the same.

 

[Lemon law]

It's not just MS, every company in the world does that. There's a reason Apple releases new phones every year, Ford releases new cars every year, etc. And frankly, the cost of Windows is probably one of the lowest in a person's budget. If you buy OEM you get the license for fraction of the full cost and even if you buy it straight retail you it ends up being less than $10/mo if you use it for just 2 years and most people get 5+ out of a Windows license.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I gotta admit, it makes some sense, the same fools who want to keeping showering Microsoft with money, buy a new apple phone every year, and while they are at it why not buy a new car every year too.

My cell phone is 7 years old, it works fine, and I pay less than $10.00 a month. How Much do you pay for your new apple phone every month?

As for me I am still on Windows XP and don't plan to change in the near future.

 

[Anubis]

You do not like the ribbon in Office? I love it and think if it was an apple idea the world would love it.

the ribbon sucks.

we are planning to move from XP + office 2k3 to win 7 + office 10 this summer at work.

i can almost guarantee that no work will get done for months because of the ribbon alone.

as for win 8 i dont really care because it really cant offer me or most people anything more then what 7 does now

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'm still looking for a reason that affects me enough to change from XP.

 

[Nothinman]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for me I am still on Windows XP and don't plan to change in the near future.

You'll be losing security patches soon and slowly but surely software will stop working on it without lots of work. If you don't want to pay for Win7 that's fine, but don't do the Internet a disservice and stick using XP either.

I'm still looking for a reason that affects me enough to change from XP.

Same as above. Why don't you just install Win2K and cling to that? It's sooo much faster than XP!!!

 

[lowrider69]

Can't say i'm excited about Windows 8. I stayed with XP up until early 2010, I skipped Vista entirely but I had to deal with it for work. I'm gonna hang with Windows 7 for quite a while.

 

[GeekDrew]

You're not forced to upgrade with every release, MS does a crazy job of supporting old software. XP is coming up on 10 years now so I'm sure Win7 will be close to the same.

Oh, I know... but official support isn't all I'm talking about.

 

[lxskllr]

I've been pretty hip on Debian, and Linux in general lately. I imagine I'll have some kind of Windows as long as I want to play Windows games, but I haven't needed it in a few months now. Vista is my primary Windows, and I have a copy of Win7. As long as games run under one of those, I'll never buy another Windows.

 

[Nothinman]

Oh, I know... but official support isn't all I'm talking about.

If you're not concerned with official support why do you care what MS does at all?

 

[GeekDrew]

If you're not concerned with official support why do you care what MS does at all?

I said it's not all, I didn't say that it wasn't important. It obviously is.

End users complain that they have to use an old OS at work. It's a pain, but we can just tell them to STFU.

Vendors limit support for applications to certain operating systems. I can't blame them. Supporting numerous operating systems is frequently painful.

Speaking of supporting numerous operating systems, from an enterprise standpoint, it's a huge pain. There's something different about each OS release, sometimes slight, but just different enough to make it annoying. I just.... bah. I hate operating system changes, mainly from supportability and automation standpoints. Well, there's cost, too, but that's a secondary concern, IMO.

 

[Nothinman]

I said it's not all, I didn't say that it wasn't important. It obviously is.

End users complain that they have to use an old OS at work. It's a pain, but we can just tell them to STFU.

Vendors limit support for applications to certain operating systems. I can't blame them. Supporting numerous operating systems is frequently painful.

Speaking of supporting numerous operating systems, from an enterprise standpoint, it's a huge pain. There's something different about each OS release, sometimes slight, but just different enough to make it annoying. I just.... bah. I hate operating system changes, mainly from supportability and automation standpoints. Well, there's cost, too, but that's a secondary concern, IMO.

I don't disagree with any of that, but that's part of the cost of using Windows. If you want slow, evolving upgrades and long term consistency then Windows obviously isn't the right product.

 

[HeXen]

For tablets, they really need a seperate interface. Ever use W7 on a 10" touchscreen? it sucks and 3rd party apps obviously are not designed for fingers either. So the ARM support doesnt interest me.

doesn't look like 8 will really be anymore efficient to get things done than XP,vista,7 was.
still stuck with the constant cluttering and corruption possibilities of the registry, the yellow sub folder after subfolder business like heiarchy where files for each app scattered throughout multiple folders in many areas to be not found via a horrible search function

i'd much rather see efficiency changes, like tabbed file manager and filtering of file types that serve no purpose to the typical end user, like cab and dll files..they just clutter the screen. a tabbed organized start menu like how KDE desktop is. Smart file managment so that file types can go to their respective folders automatically along with executable folders and smart folders..eliminate the subfolders

 

[Cogman]

Jesus Christ on a crutch, why do we all play the microsoft OS upgrade game??????????

Its called calculated obsolesce, as microsoft has zero incentive to design a proper Modern OS, when they can withhold obvious design improvements today, and then they can rip off us all off again when they release windows 10.

Huh? What on earth do you consider a "proper Modern OS"?

I don't know any software company (MS included) that says something like "You know what, this feature would make our product the best in the market, lets not include it! We'll just leave it on the back burners in case we need it!"

Rather, they look for new features/programs and refuse to make them work for their old OSes. This is much more related to them wanting to save money than it is to them trying to screw over the customer. Why should they work for free on a product that is most likely already bought by everyone who will buy it?

$100 is hardly extravagant when it comes to the software that makes everything work. And even then, most people don't actually buy a copy of it, rather they get their OS when they buy a new computer from some retailer.

 

[HeXen]

Huh? What on earth do you consider a "proper Modern OS"?

he's probably referring to some of the software technologies that have been in Linux and OSX for years.
Think about it the next time you click on "Defrag" or so easily execute a malware without executing it or when you search/download/install your driver or the next time you realize you cannot really change your desktop interface or know the pleasures of package management....etc, etc.

Overall, MS is not an agile developer, they expect users and 3rd party to evolve and work around it...that is not the methodology of a modern "proper OS".

 

[GeekDrew]

I don't disagree with any of that, but that's part of the cost of using Windows. If you want slow, evolving upgrades and long term consistency then Windows obviously isn't the right product.

Not using Windows isn't an option. End-user training is a large concern, but the ultimate reason it won't work is that no vendors write the type of software we need on a non-Windows platform.

 

[GeekDrew]

For tablets, they really need a seperate interface. Ever use W7 on a 10" touchscreen? it sucks and 3rd party apps obviously are not designed for fingers either. So the ARM support doesnt interest me.

doesn't look like 8 will really be anymore efficient to get things done than XP,vista,7 was.
still stuck with the constant cluttering and corruption possibilities of the registry, the yellow sub folder after subfolder business like heiarchy where files for each app scattered throughout multiple folders in many areas to be not found via a horrible search function

i'd much rather see efficiency changes, like tabbed file manager and filtering of file types that serve no purpose to the typical end user, like cab and dll files..they just clutter the screen. a tabbed organized start menu like how KDE desktop is. Smart file managment so that file types can go to their respective folders automatically along with executable folders and smart folders..eliminate the subfolders

Filtering of cab and dll files? That's why folders and files can be hidden. End-users shouldn't need to see them. Don't complain about apps putting files scattered all over the place, unless it's an MS app. That's usually a sign that the app developers don't have a clue, or are trying to do something that's best done a different way. That's not fault of the o/s.

I assume you must not like hierarchies at all? Do you not organize your files in any fashion?!? I sure as hell would not want specific file types to go to a pre-decided location. I want them to be saved exactly where I tell them to be.

 

[shortylickens]

Windows usually needs at least 2 whole versions to make any serious improvements.
2.0 to 3.0 to 3.1 to 3.11
95 to 98
98 to ME to XP
XP -> Vista -> 7 (which isnt actually 7 but 6.1)

So I bet I wont be impressed until Windows 9.

 

[Cogman]

he's probably referring to some of the software technologies that have been in Linux and OSX for years.
Think about it the next time you click on "Defrag" or so easily execute a malware without executing it or when you search/download/install your driver or the next time you realize you cannot really change your desktop interface or know the pleasures of package management....etc, etc.

Overall, MS is not an agile developer, they expect users and 3rd party to evolve and work around it...that is not the methodology of a modern "proper OS".

Umm.. Linux Oses STILL have fragmentation issues, they are about on the same level as NTFS fragmentation issues (Much better than FAT32, granted).

The difference is that most linux filesystems don't support online fragmentation (not enough desire).

Also, I don't count linux package management or driver support as its absolute strong point. Ever try to install a driver NOT supported by the distro? Nothing in windows driver installations compares to the difficultly of having to either recompile the kernel or compile a driver module for the kernel that you have.

As for Malware, that comes with being the biggest fish in the pond. Any other OS can have malware.

As for changing the Desktop interface... ummm, that isn't a strong point of OSX either. That is really something that most consumers AREN'T going to do.

So again, the question is, What is windows missing that make it not "A modern OS".