Windows 8 unveiled

2011-06-07 09:31:39

#76

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7030|Moscow, Russia

burnzz wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
Shahter wrote:
lol, man, nobody has been able to answer why would i bother with windows 7 over xp if not for the lack of support by hardware/software developers, and you already ask about windows 8.
I agree actually. There seems to be a mentality "we have to upgrade".

Many business ask the same question and have no need for anything else as well, especially hospitals.
we're 50/50 win7/xp at the moment. we have a volume license for Office, OEM for windows http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/21025/ss/lowing.png

we are 100% xp. even have downgrade option with every OEM license we got with our PC'es. sorry, but not enough functionality (hardly any, actually) for 600mb of excess shit sitting in memory.

@CapnNismo: microsoft added absolutely nothing new since XP. the "dinosaur" beats vista and seven in... well... everything actually. UAC can not stand for security, sorry. and, sorry again, but no mega-fetch, uber-fetch or super-duper-fetch can stand for an abstraction layer between file system and user interface and applications they've been advertising when this shit had been called "longhorn". interface alone - and kinda ugly one at that - does not make a new operating system.
i said it before and i still stand by my opinion: if not for the lack of support i'd never leave XP for vista or seven. no reason to, none whatsoever.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-06-07 09:33:20

#77

bugz: Fission Mailed; +3,311|6567

CapnNismo wrote:
Seriously, ebug?

I can't understand why anyone would want to use XP. It's such a dinosaur.

Federal Government = no OS upgrade until they FULLY test everything and make sure it's compatible with all corporate standard software. Which pretty much means when Windows 8 has been out for 6 months, these machines will get 7.

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/ebug122

2011-06-07 09:35:32

#78

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6922

ebug9 wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
Seriously, ebug?

I can't understand why anyone would want to use XP. It's such a dinosaur.
Federal Government = no OS upgrade until they FULLY test everything and make sure it's compatible with all corporate standard software. Which pretty much means when Windows 8 has been out for 6 months, these machines will get 7.

6 months? Haha, as standard deployment, I'd say 2 years after W8 is out.

Besides, practically all apps are going web-based. So, as long as the latest versions of IE continues to work under XP, the only compelling reason to go beyond XP is Microsoft Office.

2011-06-07 09:37:38

#79

bugz: Fission Mailed; +3,311|6567

Ilocano wrote:
ebug9 wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
Seriously, ebug?

I can't understand why anyone would want to use XP. It's such a dinosaur.
Federal Government = no OS upgrade until they FULLY test everything and make sure it's compatible with all corporate standard software. Which pretty much means when Windows 8 has been out for 6 months, these machines will get 7.
6 months? Haha, as standard deployment, I'd say 2 years after W8 is out.

A few government branches here are in the process of upgrading to 7.

My last job (Statistics Canada) is still in the process of "upgrading" to Vista and has been for the last 3 years *sigh*. God knows why they didn't wait it out after hearing about all the early issues.

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/ebug122

2011-06-07 09:46:14

#80

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6752

Shahter wrote:
if not for the lack of support i'd never leave XP for vista or seven.

it's not Micro$oft support. it's Bentley Software support, it's AutoDesk Autocad support, it's ESRI ArcGIS support. hell, we have some programs that i have to keep a functioning Windows 2000 install working, so some files can be viewed from a project started in 1999 . . .

2011-06-07 09:54:27

#81

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7030|Moscow, Russia

burnzz wrote:
Shahter wrote:
if not for the lack of support i'd never leave XP for vista or seven.
it's not Micro$oft support. it's Bentley Software support, it's AutoDesk Autocad support, it's ESRI ArcGIS support. hell, we have some programs that i have to keep a functioning Windows 2000 install working, so some files can be viewed from a project started in 1999 . . .

umm... i don't get it, man. for russian people twice and slowly, please: you have to keep old OS'es installed because some of the stuff you run does not work on newer, right? well, i completely understand that, we still run an NT server here because nobody alive knows how to migrate certain stuff from it to 2003, but that's not my point.

XP is still better that anything released after it, that's what i'm trying to say. anybody claiming otherwise should simply clean microsoft's marketing shit away from their brains and look at what they run on their machines.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-07 09:55:42)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-06-07 09:57:51

#82

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6777|...

one glaring drawback is XP has a lousy 64bit version, probably mostly due to driver support

2011-06-07 10:03:31

#83

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7030|Moscow, Russia

jsnipy wrote:
one glaring drawback is XP has a lousy 64bit version, probably mostly due to driver support

yeah, and no directx10+ for xp - lack of support, already mentioned that, and that's intentional. noboby in their right mind would by their newer shit if that stuff was released for xp.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-06-07 10:11:20

#84

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6752

Shahter wrote:
XP is still better that anything released after it, that's what i'm trying to say.

versioning works both ways. i have outdated software, that will never run on XP.

i have newer software (Bentley Software ,AutoDesk Autocad ,ESRI ArcGIS) that those companies wrote for win 7, and will not support on XP.

when i said we have Micro$oft OEM licenses, what that means is the OS that shipped with the computer is the OS that stays with the computer. when an engineer needs newer software, he gets a hardware upgrade.

it's not my money, i work with what i'm given.

2011-06-07 10:49:42

#85

Benzin: Member; +576|6253

burnzz wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
Seriously, ebug?

I can't understand why anyone would want to use XP. It's such a dinosaur.
i'll bet he isn't doing it voluntarily. i'll bet it is part of his job.

you*re real big on the theory side of things, without practical experience, aren't you?

I should have structured my post somewhat better. My apologies. Here's what I meant to say:

I find it hard to believe that ebug is finding laptops that NEED to be reverted back to XP because the hardware on the machine can't run it. Win7 has been optimized in such a wonderful way that it runs great even on netbooks (used to have a Win7 netbook for a brief time). Certainly it's not amazing on netbooks, but the point still stands.

Burnzz, I am fully aware of the idea of legacy systems and enterprise software. I've had to work with it a number of times and both of my parents are military contractors (well, my father was and my mother still is). My mother does a lot of IT support for her smaller company and the two of us talk constantly about it and I often help her troubleshoot issues that she's having with their systems. Unfortunately, despite the fact that Windows 7 Professional has virtualization software that should allow legacy software to run within Windows 7, it doesn't always work.

As for private users, though, I fail to see why anyone actually would WANT to run XP. NEED is a different story but WANT?

Hopefully that makes more sense than that very abbreviated post I made initially.

2011-06-07 10:51:43

#86

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6752

yep. working in my industry, it's not always about optimized everything - budgets don't allow for it, etc.

2011-06-07 11:17:42

#87

bugz: Fission Mailed; +3,311|6567

CapnNismo wrote:
burnzz wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
Seriously, ebug?

I can't understand why anyone would want to use XP. It's such a dinosaur.
i'll bet he isn't doing it voluntarily. i'll bet it is part of his job.

you*re real big on the theory side of things, without practical experience, aren't you?
I should have structured my post somewhat better. My apologies. Here's what I meant to say:

I find it hard to believe that ebug is finding laptops that NEED to be reverted back to XP because the hardware on the machine can't run it. Win7 has been optimized in such a wonderful way that it runs great even on netbooks (used to have a Win7 netbook for a brief time). Certainly it's not amazing on netbooks, but the point still stands.

I should've mentioned in my post that it's in a work environment, so the user has no choice in the matter. They have to revert to XP (even if 7 came pre-loaded on the machine) because that's what the rest of the employees use.

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/ebug122

2011-06-07 13:09:18

#88

Benzin: Member; +576|6253

burnzz wrote:
yep. working in my industry, it's not always about optimized everything - budgets don't allow for it, etc.

As far as using an optimized operating system that is cutting edge - of course.

ebug9 wrote:
I should've mentioned in my post that it's in a work environment, so the user has no choice in the matter. They have to revert to XP (even if 7 came pre-loaded on the machine) because that's what the rest of the employees use.

Gotcha. Nature of the beast, though.

2011-06-07 13:58:38

#89

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7027|PNW

Kmar wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A few icons, a sidebar and an open browser are far more efficient.
Why cant you do that with windows 8? It's way to early to make a judgement call on efficiency. We need more information with regards to customization, performance, and options.

Why can't I do that with Windows 7? I'm not sold. No idea why they're hyping it without much evidence of improvement.

Shahter wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What I'd like to know is why I should bother with Windows 8 over Windows 7.
lol, man, nobody has been able to answer why would i bother with windows 7 over xp if not for the lack of support by hardware/software developers, and you already ask about windows 8.

I'd say that the security benefits have sold Windows 7 over XP.

2011-06-07 16:24:55

#90

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6856|132 and Bush

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Kmar wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A few icons, a sidebar and an open browser are far more efficient.
Why cant you do that with windows 8? It's way to early to make a judgement call on efficiency. We need more information with regards to customization, performance, and options.
Why can't I do that with Windows 7? I'm not sold. No idea why they're hyping it without much evidence of improvement.

Really? No idea? ..lol

I don't think anyone should be sold or not sold right now.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-06-07 22:15:40

#91

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7030|Moscow, Russia

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Shahter wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What I'd like to know is why I should bother with Windows 8 over Windows 7.
lol, man, nobody has been able to answer why would i bother with windows 7 over xp if not for the lack of support by hardware/software developers, and you already ask about windows 8.
I'd say that the security benefits have sold Windows 7 over XP.

what security benefits?

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-06-07 22:28:30

#92

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6856|132 and Bush

microsoft will eventually stop patching xp .. though I think we've got some time before that happens.

MS actually offeres a descent set of tools for all of their OS's.
Microsoft Security Essentials
Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool
Microsoft Safety Scanner
Microsoft System Sweeper

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-06-07 22:34:27

#93

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7030|Moscow, Russia

iirc they extended their support for xp up to 2014.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-06-07 22:52:35

#94

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6856|132 and Bush

Thats what I thought.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-06-07 23:57:46

#95

Benzin: Member; +576|6253

Kmar wrote:
Thats what I thought.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/how-long … ows-7/2304

That extended support is really only intended for business customers, but obviously consumers can benefit from it, as well.

2011-06-08 00:03:47

#96

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6856|132 and Bush

soooooo... yes?

lol

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-06-08 01:16:01

#97

Benzin: Member; +576|6253

Yea, I was just posting some more detail on the subject.

That's one thing that I love about Microsoft and Apple: they're predictable.

2011-09-08 21:30:31

#98

HaiBai: Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me; +304|5739|Bolingbrook, Illinois

Interesting article about newer and faster boot methods in Windows 8:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011 … ows-8.aspx

2011-09-08 22:46:39

#99

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7027|PNW

The longest time it takes for me to start my new computer is for it to post. Windows 7 just kind of pops in there after it's done detecting the last CD. SSD helps a lot.

2011-09-10 11:20:16

#100

mikkel: Member; +383|6856

Shahter wrote:
@CapnNismo: microsoft added absolutely nothing new since XP. the "dinosaur" beats vista and seven in... well... everything actually. UAC can not stand for security, sorry. and, sorry again, but no mega-fetch, uber-fetch or super-duper-fetch can stand for an abstraction layer between file system and user interface and applications they've been advertising when this shit had been called "longhorn". interface alone - and kinda ugly one at that - does not make a new operating system.
i said it before and i still stand by my opinion: if not for the lack of support i'd never leave XP for vista or seven. no reason to, none whatsoever.

Shahter wrote:
XP is still better that anything released after it, that's what i'm trying to say. anybody claiming otherwise should simply clean microsoft's marketing shit away from their brains and look at what they run on their machines.

If you're a systems administrator in a Windows environment, surely the restructured filesystem user space and the associated folder redirection is a significant motivator to upgrade to an NT6-based OS. For a home user, the concept of libraries, the simplified networking, the superior media applications and the fact that you won't be operating on an eleven-year-old UI that shows its age all speak in favour of upgrading.

Vehemently lambasting NT6 operating systems without really offering any substantial positive argument in favour of XP makes it seem like you're both bitter and afraid of change. It certainly doesn't detract from NT6.

BF2S Forums Windows 8 unveiled

burnzz wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Shahter wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

ebug9 wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

ebug9 wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Shahter wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Shahter wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Shahter wrote:

burnzz wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

burnzz wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

burnzz wrote:

ebug9 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Board footer