When did you last use Windows 9x?

[Crono]

Technically it is. Windows 7 is actually Windows 6.1. Most of the changes are under the hood to streamline things, much like what Apple did with Snow Leopard around the same time.

Haven't tried Windows 8 yet but a lot of people are complaining about Metro and the simplified desktop UI. As usual, MS is late to the party as both Ubuntu and OSX have had something similar for awhile. Mind you Microsoft's does look better executed.

Metro is good for the mobile computing world, and will have little effect (after the initial reaction of people new to Win 8/Metro) on users who aren't using touchscreens.

Metro is just an added UI on top of Windows 7. Most of the people complaining about it haven't actually played around with Windows 8; you don't need to use the tiles, you can go to the regular Windows desktop UI we are all familiar with.

I can't wait to get a convertible ultrabook/tablet with Windows 8. I like the live tile scheme on Windows Phone, as well.

 

[lxskllr]

Metro is just an added UI on top of Windows 7. Most of the people complaining about it haven't actually played around with Windows 8; you don't need to use the tiles, you can go to the regular Windows desktop UI we are all familiar with.

I can't wait to get a convertible ultrabook/tablet with Windows 8. I like the live tile scheme on Windows Phone, as well.

The problem is they're pushing Metro with everything. They're focusing on locking down the system, and turning it into an appliance. Metro apps have no place on the desktop. I don't like mobile interfaces, even on mobile devices.

 

[Crono]

The problem is they're pushing Metro with everything. They're focusing on locking down the system, and turning it into an appliance. Metro apps have no place on the desktop. I don't like mobile interfaces, even on mobile devices.

The problem is full desktop interfaces suck on touchscreens and small screen devices. The Fisher-Price kind of interface actually makes phones and tablets significantly easier and faster to use. Microsoft knows this. And instead of a two-pronged approach - having a full blown OS for tablets/phones and an OS for desktops, like Apple has - they want a unified (or at least more unified) OS, not just a unified theme (Metro). What they ultimately want is at least a generation more away: a OS experience that scales and plays well across any Microsoft device you own. Windows Phone, Xbox 720, desktop, Windows tablet or ultrabook or whatever else is on the horizon. Shared cloud storage, shared settings, shared apps: you just switch between devices at your convenience, whether it be at work, in your car, or stationed at home.

They also realize an app store (which actually is another Linux-first idea, though the phrase "app store" was popularized by the iPhone) is an easy distribution system and way to screen programs and make Windows a more secure "ecosystem" (I hate that application of the word).

Microsoft is learning from Apple. They want to put users in their sandbox, but they also want to offer some flexibility (like Google does with Android). But they want to leave the old Windows desktop system behind, adapting to the new world of tightly controlled OS environments in both the mobile and (quickly shrinking) desktop computing spheres.

 

[lxskllr]

They also realize an app store (which actually is another Linux-first idea, though the phrase "app store" was popularized by the iPhone) is an easy distribution system and way to screen programs and make Windows a more secure "ecosystem" (I hate that application of the word).

The difference between GNU/Linux and Apple/MS? "app stores" is GNU/Linux gives you freedom. If Synaptic doesn't have what I want, or I want a different version, I'm free to install it. "Security" is a bullshit excuse for eliminating freedom. MS along with Apple dreams of a PPV universe, where they control every machine that gets used, and what gets used on it. A jail cell is "secure" also.

Microsoft is learning from Apple. They want to put users in their sandbox, but they also want to offer some flexibility (like Google does with Android). But they want to leave the old Windows desktop system behind, adapting to the new world of tightly controlled OS environments in both the mobile and (quickly shrinking) desktop computing spheres.

They're trying to tell people that hand held devices aren't computers so they don't expect the same flexibility or freedom. They're hoping people don't notice the sleight of hand, and accept it silently. Desktop computers(and I'm including notebooks in this group) aren't going anywhere. They'll be around for a long time to come, and compromises will trickle up from portable computers to desktops if people allow it to happen.

 

[Crono]

The difference between GNU/Linux and Apple/MS? "app stores" is GNU/Linux gives you freedom. If Synaptic doesn't have what I want, or I want a different version, I'm free to install it. "Security" is a bullshit excuse for eliminating freedom. MS along with Apple dreams of a PPV universe, where they control every machine that gets used, and what gets used on it. A jail cell is "secure" also.


They're trying to tell people that hand held devices aren't computers so they don't expect the same flexibility or freedom. They're hoping people don't notice the sleight of hand, and accept it silently. Desktop computers(and I'm including notebooks in this group) aren't going anywhere. They'll be around for a long time to come, and compromises will trickle up from portable computers to desktops if people allow it to happen.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying.
But Microsoft feels compelled to change, just like the players in the mobile space have. It probably isn't a change for the better for power users, but the average consumer either won't care or will be happy with the changes.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't disagree with anything you are saying.
But Microsoft feels compelled to change, just like the players in the mobile space have. It probably isn't a change for the better for power users, but the average consumer either won't care or will be happy with the changes.

People need to care, that's why I'm bitching about it. It's likely I'll never use Win8, so I don't have a horse in this race as far as that goes, but it can potentially affect me in years to come. Freedom in computing is important, but it's also hard to quantify. You can't point to the freedom, and say "look how good that works. Isn't the gui great on that freedom?". Lack of freedom shows up every time a product changes, and drops the format it used to use. It's alluded to when people click a video online, and it won't play for them, and the control is unseen when good developers can't get their product to the people.

If I can get one person to care by me bitching, then it's worth the effort. With enough people bitching, policy can be changed. Some people will never care. They're happy poking buttons on facebook with drool coming out of the corner of their mouths. That's fine. If those that care get policy changed, even the mouth breathers benefit. It isn't right to sit idly by and say nothing though.

 

[FoBoT]

at least 3-4 years, probably 5+ yrs

 

[dagamer34]

Technically it is. Windows 7 is actually Windows 6.1. Most of the changes are under the hood to streamline things, much like what Apple did with Snow Leopard around the same time.

Haven't tried Windows 8 yet but a lot of people are complaining about Metro and the simplified desktop UI. As usual, MS is late to the party as both Ubuntu and OSX have had something similar for awhile. Mind you Microsoft's does look better executed.

I'm not sure you know what a service pack is but Windows 7 most certainly isn't one. Microsoft can't change the major version number anymore because too many hardware vendors lazily tie support to it. Calling Windows 7 "Windows 7.0" would break a ton of apps for no apparent reason. Windows 8 is "Windows 6.2" even though a LOT has changed.

 

[dagamer34]

The problem is they're pushing Metro with everything. They're focusing on locking down the system, and turning it into an appliance. Metro apps have no place on the desktop. I don't like mobile interfaces, even on mobile devices.

Not to push any buttons, but I don't remember any pre-Android linux phones selling very well. And even most people consider Android too complicated with the dizzying number of options available.

 

[lxskllr]

Not to push any buttons, but I don't remember any pre-Android linux phones selling very well. And even most people consider Android too complicated with the dizzying number of options available.

I'm not a big fan of Android. I consider it the best of a set of bad options. I don't have an issue with /hiding/ features. That's a worthwhile goal. It takes more thought, and work to pull off correctly, but you're still giving users freedom. I can't support the outright ban of features, and locking things down though.

 

[Crono]

Not to push any buttons, but I don't remember any pre-Android linux phones selling very well. And even most people consider Android too complicated with the dizzying number of options available.

Yup. And no one stops to remember that Windows Mobile was the original (or at least first widespread) "smartphone" before the iPhone took off. Symbian and Palm are essentially gone. Blackberry isn't doing too well. Nokia's lot is tied to Windows Phone now.

I actually liked Windows Mobile a great deal, it was pretty much what Android is now, though not open-source. It had a ton of programs, you could overclock/underclock the processor with third party apps, emulators ran on it, there were some custom ROMs and customization options, you could read ebooks on it, watch videos, etc.

 

[Fritzo]

I still use Windows 98 every couple of months.

We have some ancient UPS systems with a serial port interface card. We have an old THinkpad laptop with Win98 on it that has a serial port to connect to it.

 

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

Maybe 2 years ago. Fired up 98 in VirtualBox to play a game. But it still wouldn't run. Tried several possible solutions. Got nowhere. Gave up on it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

What, no love for Bob?

 

[lxskllr]

What, no love for Bob?

It's the incongruous room! The fires on, but the windows are open. The sun's blasting through one window, but it's twilight in the other :^D

 

[jupiter57]

I am using XP (SP3) on this laptop.
First comp had DOS, upgraded to Win 3.11, next machine came with Win 98 SE, stuck with that from '98 until 2004 when I finally made the switch to XP!
I despised Vista, but my other (Main) Laptop now has Win 7.
Don't care much for it, but I imagine I will eventually get used to it.

I'm an Old Fart that doesn't like change.
:biggrin:

 

[Merad]

Jeez, it's probably been since 2005 or so for me. At that time I was working an IT job and we still supported some Win95 machines (crappy, beat up pieces of junk out in warehouses). I think it was around that same time that I upgraded my parents to XP from 98SE.

 

[pelov]

The problem is they're pushing Metro with everything. They're focusing on locking down the system, and turning it into an appliance. Metro apps have no place on the desktop. I don't like mobile interfaces, even on mobile devices.

You know what's funny is that Canonical faced, or faces the issue still, with the Unity interface. Unlike Metro though, it's unobtrusive. The first iteration was an amalgamation of plague and puppy blood that caused mass suicides but since then it's come quite a long way. In fact I actually kinda like it now... (don't kill me). Where Canonical got it right is that it's not as Fisher-Price as Metro and moreover it doesn't feel like two entirely different desktop spaces and have two completely different sets of applications. Instead it's just a single user interface that you can either keep or opt out of, XFCE/Gnome/KDE or whatever Hannah Montana Linux uses now.

Having used both Win8 and Ubuntu w/ Unity I've found I prefer Unity by a Texan mile. Unlike Metro it's not shoved down your throat without an alternative. Launching an application in Unity is easier and doesn't have to take up your entire desktop and your entire life and it's far more customizeable. Furthermore, there's no 2 sets of applications (unless you install two desktop environments but that's your own damn fault).

MS stole some good things from Linux (the "app store" [TM Apple] is one but they fucked that up too) but they can learn quite a bit from Unity. I suppose that it's a matter of MS trying to cram everything from phones to PCs into a single OS but using the desktop iteration feels like you're being anal raped with a smartphone by an smirking ogre-headed Ballmer.

 

[lxskllr]

You know what's funny is that Canonical faced, or faces the issue still, with the Unity interface. Unlike Metro though, it's unobtrusive. The first iteration was an amalgamation of plague and puppy blood that caused mass suicides but since then it's come quite a long way. In fact I actually kinda like it now... (don't kill me). Where Canonical got it right is that it's not as Fisher-Price as Metro and moreover it doesn't feel like two entirely different desktop spaces and have two completely different sets of applications. Instead it's just a single user interface that you can either keep or opt out of, XFCE/Gnome/KDE or whatever Hannah Montana Linux uses now.

I'm ok with Unity. I did my share of complaining when it came out, but a lot of that was because the Ubuntu I loved using was going in a different direction, and I didn't want to follow. It's a beautiful desktop, and it works ok, though not to my preference. I switched to Debian and Xfce, but I wish Canonical well. I like the fact they have a vision for a complete system, and are slowly getting all the pieces tied together. I'm not a big fan of a dual use desktop, where one style is used for both tablets, and desktops, but of the few different kinds I've tried, Unity makes the best compromises, and gives an acceptable, if not ideal experience on either device type.

 

[Bateluer]

Some time in early 1999, I think. Shortly after the release of Windows 2000 and a boiling point of frustration with Win98.

 

[eplebnista]

personal use, around 2005. worked on a 98 machine last year though(recommended retiring it).

 

[blankslate]

Sometime in 2001 was the last time I used a 9x machine.

It was an old laptop with a AMD K5 CPU

some 512 megs of RAM and a 6 gig HD.

 

[gmaster456]

I used it a couple weeks ago to play an old western slots game. I won $50.

 

[alkemyst]

I have seen win 95/8 being used in production environments to still control machinery.

 

[IGemini]

I have a machine I'm making for old school gaming (circa 3dFX) that'll run 95 or 98SE. The video driver is being really elusive though.