Windows 8 is the new XP

[Eureka]

So Win8 will be installed on 90% of the computers and will be supported in 2025. Got it.

 

[nemesismk2]

lol huh? i HATE XP for work, it is insanely inefficient & completely unreliable!!!! and for gaming u use XP??? what kind of gaming is that?? its not even an option for BF3, so it doesn't exist for gaming as far as DX10/11 titles are concerned.

Win7 is the new XP, its gonna be around for another 10 years easily cause its just that good.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=10&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=164

Win7 has only recently had more users than Windows XP. Now that Win8 has replaced Win7 i can't see there being any new users of the older Win7.

 

[lyssword]

Metro is a load of shit, whenever you play games and scroll to side of the window that taskbar pops up and if you click there it kicks you out of game

 

[mikeymikec]

http://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=10&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=164

Win7 has only recently had more users than Windows XP. Now that Win8 has replaced Win7 i can't see there being any new users of the older Win7.

Microsoft will keep Win7 available to buy new until they're certain they won't suffer another Vista-style backlash. I suspect the reason why Win7 recently overtook WinXP's market share (leaving Vista with a marginal percentage) is either because a lot of people tried to / got away with avoiding Vista, or quickly jumped from Vista to a Win7 PC.

If Vista had turned out to be a decent replacement for XP, Vista would have a dominant market share which, though steadily giving way to Win7.

XP has one other factor which I think people have already mentioned, legacy apps/hardware support.

I'm not sure that now is a good time for Microsoft to make such a bold move with Win8's UI. Win7's explorer should have been the default UI for non-tablets/phones (with the option to switch). I'm sure that a lot of people will like the Win8 UI, but forcing it is not the ideal path of adoption.

 

[nemesismk2]

Microsoft will keep Win7 available to buy new until they're certain they won't suffer another Vista-style backlash. I suspect the reason why Win7 recently overtook WinXP's market share (leaving Vista with a marginal percentage) is either because a lot of people tried to / got away with avoiding Vista, or quickly jumped from Vista to a Win7 PC.

If Vista had turned out to be a decent replacement for XP, Vista would have a dominant market share which, though steadily giving way to Win7.

XP has one other factor which I think people have already mentioned, legacy apps/hardware support.

I'm not sure that now is a good time for Microsoft to make such a bold move with Win8's UI. Win7's explorer should have been the default UI for non-tablets/phones (with the option to switch). I'm sure that a lot of people will like the Win8 UI, but forcing it is not the ideal path of adoption.

this is all good information

 

[mikeymikec]

Most of it is opinion, but I'm confident that the prediction in the first paragraph will come true - XP was available to purchase all through Vista's era, then quickly went off the market after Win7 came along. There is probably some regional variation of availability as well to consider.

 

[nemesismk2]

Most of it is opinion, but I'm confident that the prediction in the first paragraph will come true - XP was available to purchase all through Vista's era, then quickly went off the market after Win7 came along. There is probably some regional variation of availability as well to consider.

After reading various negative reviews of Vista I totally ignored it sticking with Windows XP. It wasn't until Windows 7 that i considered replacing Windows XP but at the time I decided just to get another computer so I have Windows XP and Windows 7 available.

 

[Mem]

After reading various negative reviews of Vista I totally ignored it sticking with Windows XP. It wasn't until Windows 7 that i considered replacing Windows XP but at the time I decided just to get another computer so I have Windows XP and Windows 7 available.

I was one of the first to upgrade to Vista back in 2007 ,glad I did not read other opinions,it was stable and solid OS,manufacturers were slow to get drivers out however so not Vista's fault.
I also upgraded to Win7 when it was released and again no issues,guess what?... I upgraded three Win7 PCs to Win8 Pro again with no issues and very glad I did the upgrade.


I'm just waiting now for all the crap and FUD about Win8 ,seen some FUD threads in OS forums ,amazes me how this always comes along even when its unjust.


For the record I wish people would get over XP its day as long been and gone and so are all those horrible security holes,I take Vista,Win7,Win8 or even Linux over XP anyday.
Last remark,I'm very impressed how smooth Win8 is,both in polish/upgrade and general use,can't fault it so far(not keen on Metro still as a desktop user but not a real issue).

 

[ultimatebob]

The big difference is that you could TURN OFF the new Start menu in Windows XP and run it like a Windows 2000/98/NT system.

Microsoft didn't give us that option this time, and is forcing us to use third party software to get back the old GUI. Worse yet, that third party software will probably break the first time we need to install a service pack.

 

[fire400]

whether a start menu breaks or not, another update will be released for it, there're several versions of it from diff. developers, one of them will get it right.

aero-"GLAZZ" only worked for so long in vista until the sp's released prevented normal operation of glazz or rendered it useless. glazz let people get the see-through feel even when maximized on a window, with respect to the primary start menu bar and other windows, theme-wise. i complained about that one.
then win7 came out and then no one really cared anymore (at least i didn't) because maximizing the windows didn't change the aero feel.

win7 has 3rd party programs that allow the start bar to resemble XP in the utmost exacts.

i paid $5 bucks for the start8... so my upgrade was $40 (pro) + $5 (s8). i can't complain too much yet...

 

[KentState]

There's something wrong with your computer and/or its configuration, not XP.

XP is horrible for work. 64 bit support is poor as well as multiple processors, native SSD, USB 2.0/3.0, DX10+ and so on.


As far as Windows 8, until touch monitors are readily available with a good quality panel, I see no advantage over 7.

 

[Skel]

I don't think it's really fair to compare Win8 with WinXP as the reasons for hating it are completely different. I do however remember a lot of people hated WinXP and swore they'd never use it. A lot of those people that swore they'd never move from 2000 were on these forums, but I honestly couldn't tell you who they were.

 

[mikeymikec]

whether a start menu breaks or not, another update will be released for it, there're several versions of it from diff. developers, one of them will get it right.

I wouldn't count on it. Microsoft can be quite stubborn at times, for example the Win7 chkdsk memory saturation bug. No other version of Windows (NTx) does this, and Microsoft says it isn't a bug. The first time I encountered it, responsiveness was shot to hell and I was wondering "is my brand-new system low on memory or something?", open Task Manager, sure enough, all available RAM had been consumed by chkdsk.exe. That's not a bug though, because... it was designed that way because... umm, yeah.

I contacted Steven Sinofsky about it and got a terse response telling me that it was my imagination. At some point I'll do a YouTube clip showing my typical apps cold-starting with and without a full chkdsk running.

Microsoft has decided that Win8 won't have a Start Menu. I would put down a fair bet that they won't U-turn.

 

[mikeymikec]

XP is horrible for work. 64 bit support is poor as well as multiple processors, native SSD, USB 2.0/3.0, DX10+ and so on.

XP was released in 2001. At that time, there wasn't any x86-64 (unless you count Itanium - I don't), I'm not aware of any SMP issues with it though I've only set up a few SMP machines and not running XP, SSD wasn't around then, USB 2.0 was only on paper and no USB 3.0 at all, or DX10 and so on. I think you would have to be pretty unreasonable to expect an OS to support most of the things you mentioned.

I guess it depends on what your work involves on which OS you should be using. Having said that, I do think that people running XP should have some sort of plan in place for upgrading/replacing it due to security update concerns post April 2014. If it wasn't for that deadline, a lot of people would be perfectly fine on WinXP until their needs changed (and for a lot of people, their needs hardly change at all).

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't think it's really fair to compare Win8 with WinXP as the reasons for hating it are completely different. I do however remember a lot of people hated WinXP and swore they'd never use it. A lot of those people that swore they'd never move from 2000 were on these forums, but I honestly couldn't tell you who they were.

I wasn't on this forum then, but I would have said that back then Apart from Luna there's not a lot of difference between Windows 2000 Professional and XP though. Native wifi support is the first thing that springs to mind.

 

[nemesismk2]

XP is horrible for work. 64 bit support is poor as well as multiple processors, native SSD, USB 2.0/3.0, DX10+ and so on.


As far as Windows 8, until touch monitors are readily available with a good quality panel, I see no advantage over 7.

I find XP is very reliable for work because it's so easy to use. I agee with your comment about poor 64Bit support with XP. I find DX10 useless for work lol

I've never liked Windows 7 but will be trying out Windows 8 to see if it's better for me. If it is then i am sure i will retire my copy of Windows 7.

 

[zephxiii]

XP is horrible for work. 64 bit support is poor as well as multiple processors, native SSD, USB 2.0/3.0, DX10+ and so on.


As far as Windows 8, until touch monitors are readily available with a good quality panel, I see no advantage over 7.

Even with touch monitors....who the hell wants to raise up their hand/arm all the time to interact with a screen? I know i don't.

 

[Annon2255]

Metro is a load of shit, whenever you play games and scroll to side of the window that taskbar pops up and if you click there it kicks you out of game

I've played several games so far (MW3, Civ 5, Fallout NV) and haven't had this problem. Pretty sure when my games launch it's on the desktop with metro minimized, and I don't get the settings menu to pop up when I scroll to the side of the screen either. Not sure why you're having problems.

So far I'm enjoying windows 8. Things are smoother and quicker. I'm getting used to metro UI, though I tend to split time between metro and desktop (Mainly as I'm using two monitors, so I can't stretch metro onto both.) I'm having no problems with drivers, games or anything at all. I think people just need to give it an honest chance. Microsoft sees this as the future and I'm willing to adapt to benefit from what makes the OS better than previous versions.

 

[pmv]

Even with touch monitors....who the hell wants to raise up their hand/arm all the time to interact with a screen? I know i don't.

Exactly. A recipe for severe arm-ache in short order.

(Which, as an aside, makes it funny how frequently the vertically-oriented touch-screen trope crops up in science fiction movies, including the Star Treks, I think - Star Fleet must pay out a lot in industrial injury compensation for RSI)

 

[cmdrdredd]

I've played several games so far (MW3, Civ 5, Fallout NV) and haven't had this problem. Pretty sure when my games launch it's on the desktop with metro minimized, and I don't get the settings menu to pop up when I scroll to the side of the screen either. Not sure why you're having problems.

So far I'm enjoying windows 8. Things are smoother and quicker. I'm getting used to metro UI, though I tend to split time between metro and desktop (Mainly as I'm using two monitors, so I can't stretch metro onto both.) I'm having no problems with drivers, games or anything at all. I think people just need to give it an honest chance. Microsoft sees this as the future and I'm willing to adapt to benefit from what makes the OS better than previous versions.

shhh...he was playing cut the rope

 

[lyssword]

well maybe it has something to do with preview version, this was like 3 months ago, maybe its fixed, but I had problems with it in age of empires

 

[pakotlar]

We still use XP at the office and I don't see any problems with it at this point. It does everything, works smoothly and is nice and peppy. At some point over the next 6 months or so, we'll probably end up migrating to Win 7, but we will DEFINITELY not be going to Win 8 - ever.

Ever?

 

[pakotlar]

I think all of the talk about how bad Vista was in comparison to 7 is pretty hilarious because 7 is vista with 2 years of service packs, and 2D acceleration. The vast majority of the codebase is vista, MS themselves commented on the acceptance of 7 being seemingly in spite of Vista.

People rationalize their choices. 7 is at best a minor improvement over Vista. It feels faster, people like that, but mostly they hate Vista. Why they hate it they couldn't tell you except in some nitpicky bs way.

7 had the advantage a ~200MB lower footprint, which seemed impressive in comparison to Vista and the general feeling that a newer OS should not take up more memory than the previous OS unless it sucks and the developers are incompetent hampsters. Who the hell cares about 200MB today, or even at 7 release? Vista hate had nothing to do with reality imo, it had to do with people's difficulty in making tradeoffs, no matter how ridiculously inconsequential those tradeoffs are.

 

[balane]

Installed W8. Wife left me, dog died, gold fish went belly up and zombies tried to eat my brain. Didn't see that one coming. Uninstalled, won the lottery, boinked my hot neighbor and won a free Ipad. What a day....

Sorry about the iPad.

 

[rchiu]

We still use XP at the office and I don't see any problems with it at this point. It does everything, works smoothly and is nice and peppy. At some point over the next 6 months or so, we'll probably end up migrating to Win 7, but we will DEFINITELY not be going to Win 8 - ever.

That's the thing. Consumers and general public will move on to the latest and the greatest release from MS as they buy new PC/Laptops. So most will move to Windows 8 regardless of all the complains. My self for example, I would not go and upgrade my Win 7 to Win 8, but when I build new machines, most likely I would get Win 8.

But business is a whole different story. They don't like to change, and they have to consider the tens and hundreds business application they use every day, and have to choose the lowest OS versions commonly supported by their business application. For every change, there is big cost in testing, debugging or re-developing their application.

That's why most companies are still on XP. With XP getting way too old, the next logical step is Win 7 for most companies and that's what most business is doing right now, upgrading their OS to Win 7. Win 8 is too new, and most serious business app won't test against it cause it doesn't offer any business benefit. Some mobile app solution may be developed for tablets, but for desktop, most business will stay with win 7.

You are absolutely right. Business are going to move to win 7 and stay there for another 10 years just like XP. Win 8 will NOT be the next XP, Win 7 will.