Right !Quote:
Originally Posted by Generic user #2
That was a great OS :up:
Printable View
Right !Quote:
Originally Posted by Generic user #2
That was a great OS :up:
also everyone seems to forget NT :p for those who has use for it that is...Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
for me win 3.11 was the tits, it was as simple and buggy as a cold virus.
Win2k and NT weren't home operating systems.
I used NT (3.1, 3.5.1, and 4) and 2k at home. They were more productivity oriented but, 3d capabilities in NT set aside, were perfectly fine for a power user at home. 2k pro was leaps and bounds ahead of ME at the time. Tons of people used it for home PCs.Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb
--Matt
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by mattkosem
I used 2000 on my computer @ boarding school.
-PB
Used 2K Pro long time here
Ditto
I agree on most that has been said here, with a few remarks:
- Vista was AWESOME compared to XP. It was such a leap forward in stability and UI. It had one and only one problem: speed. You needed a very good PC to run it smoothly, forget laptops, so 90+% of people thought it was crap for a good reason. But if you had a powerful computer, Vista was the OS to get without a doubt.
- 7 is just Vista with very minor tweaks, mostly speed tweaks. But these tweaks are the key to bring the whole Vista experience to not so powerful computers and laptops, and so you have the Win7 situation today: almost everyone likes it.
- Win8 is a very good OS too: fast and stable. There is only one big problem with it: Metro and the UI in general. There are no words to describe that crap: it's fugly and absolutely non functional with KB+mouse. I hope it fails hard on the market, like Windows Phone.
One thing is certain though: explorer.exe gets worse and worse with each new OS, Metro being the last :banana::banana::banana::banana:
EDIT: It's old, but this blog at MSDN is just awesome: how to fail hard at designing a user interface. It's almost a year old, but since we now know how Win8 is, it's twice the fun:
http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/...5F00_thumb.png
http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/...5F00_thumb.png
Microsoft knows what the problems are, but their solutions are completely off.
At start, without SP1 and patches, Vista was a total turd. Don't search too long why XP support has been extended several times, IT didn't want Vista, simply.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I'll skip until they do a proper desktop edition
Agreed. XP was alright and became fantastic since SP1.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
I prefer classic start menu
A lot of people used it at home but it shouldn't be included in the same type of release cycle. XP and 2K existed along side each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattkosem
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubZero.it
It is proper desktop edition, actually desktop is same as in win7, the only difference is a different start menu, the one that is metro. But i pin all programs that i use to taskbar. So I almost never see the metro. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to use - Instead of left-clicking orb and typing what you need, you right-click the corner where that start button was, and do the same - type what you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatRaceTin
So start menu can look different bu you click and press same key and get exactly the same.
That's why I don't care how start menu looks.
If you need you can always add it with small progs like ViStart, Start8 and Classic Shell.
But why? task bar is long, you can pin not only all your favorite progs and forders, but particular documents. Classic windows menu so far behind.... Resembles shabby Win XP...
P.S. Performance wise, look here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...e-in-Windows-8
Not sure if it proper comparison though
lol, ok.....
Metro is an UI design rule set not a theme/function. The new Start screen in Win8 is an App layer. Win7 and Win versions before it where only designed for Programs. Win8 comes with support for Apps and Programs. Star Screen is the environment for Apps and Desktop is the environment for Programs. They both are independent of each other and both can function without each other. The old short cut/command based start menu has been replaced by something bigger and more functional. Most people that use a Windows today don't touch the start menu until they call tech support. As more experienced users you will never have been the target market for the new Start screen in Win8. For you MS has redone the old Desktop UI and removed Aero which most of you would have disabled to improve performance. Instead of focusing on the part of the Windows which you wont be using why don't you focus on the part you will be.
Metro as an UI rule set was developed for Apps and Touch screens. Metro design is focused on displaying you information in as clear way as possible. Allowing your eyes to quickly read the screen. For this reason colours, functions and layout are kept as simple as possible. Simple, quick, easy to read, get in and get out, touch friendly. For what it is designed for it works very well. As long as you take 5 seconds and try and learn how to use Metro UI you will never want anything else for Apps.
Desktop UI was developed for Programs and for use with a keyboard and mouse. Desktop design is focused on displaying functions not information. Desktop is just a sand box for programs to run in. Each programs that runs in it can use which ever of the UI designs it wants to. Menus, tabs, lists and etc are all supported and developed for an UI that is to be used with a keyboard and mouse. This means a mouse pointer and shortcuts and for such interaction you do not need anything else.
This is why i love Win8. MS has expanded OS from just being based around Programs to offering the most optimized environments for both Apps and Programs. If you look at Start screen as invasion of your Program environment you will always hate it. However if you try and understand what the Start screen is designed for and what it brings to Windows you will find that there is actually no reason to hate it all. As it has been said many times, Start screen does not replace Desktop it only replaces the Start menu. I am sure that everyone here can appreciate the massive new functionality we have now with the Start screen compared to the Start menu.
Let me say it again. It is not Metro replacing Desktop. It is Start Menu expanding into Start Screen. A very small compromise for the massive extras new Start Screen brings. As my close i would like to say that my finance who is your typical mainstream PC/iPad user loves and gets the Start Screen. Don't be scared, your knowledge of the Desktop environment will be still very much in use with Win8.
^^ interesting perspective thanks for posting. I will probably give win8 a try when I get my Ivy rig up and running.
XP replaced 2k. 2k and ME had some overlap but 2k was clearly better than it and was more widely adopted by power users.Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb
XP marked the end of the separate home/business OS strategy that MS had been using since NT was released (or, arguably, WFW). That isn't, however, to say that the business OSs weren't still commonly used at home. 2k, in the professional trim at least, was a supported upgrade path from 2k as well as 98/ME. 2k, in turn, was also a supported upgrade path from 95/98. There was a lot of overlap in those days because 9x/ME sucked so badly.
--Matt
VERY well said Syn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
I'm actually a bit frustrated by the many negative comments about the OS simply because it seems people aren't understanding what the intent is, and therefore won't use it "properly". Ever since the first preview video I saw I thought that the majority of the average mainstream non-techie users would like it. Simple fast access to information in a new UI-style that is becoming "standard" across devices, from smartphones through tablets and now to computers. And then power users like me the desktop environment is still there for production software (audio/video etc).
I'm liking what I've seen so far....
im runing all except CRYSIS2 dang...i re installed it deleted profile and it shows the game on a laarrrge windows and thin :(
im using 301.42 installed as a charm
If you check the size of the Windows folder you get the hard links as well, the size is probably closer to 7 GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
The winsxs folder in W7 64-bit is about 1.1 GB, but when you check the size in Explorer it says 5.5 GB, thanks to all hard links.
Hard Drive usage is the only way to check the actual size.
Excellent post, and I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
i have been a long time smart phone user, and i like active desktop and use gadgets, but this metro change is going to far. it takes what is wrong with devices now and pushes it even more that direction. they are even moving this to server and i do not get that at all. i could see having the normal windows UI then putting metro in the center of the desktop, but this change is something that i will not go with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
i also do not get why they made everything that terrible white, is there no one at MS who knows how to streamline a UI anymore.
i liked vista from launch, all of my hardware had good drivers and i had alot of ram when it launched. the main people i see who did not like it, did not want to upgrade to anything and were hold outs like 2k users in the xp days, or people who had bad hardware or drivers that never showed how bad they were until they did something other than display text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
I tried out the preview today. Frankly I was both impressed and extremely frustrated at the same time. A lot of the new metro UI makes perfect sense - if and only if you have a touchscreen. Maneuvering around with a mouse was just a pain in the ass. I did like how it automatically converted between metro and desktop modes depending on whether you were running an app or a program, but at the same time I did find myself missing the start menu (in particular my computer)
I got the iso yesterday but haven't burned and installed it yet (let a buddy borrow my usb stick).
I do agree that it installs fast.
But I don't agree on the quick startup, it seems like a bit slower startup to me.
Just that it takes 100% of it's startup time exe'ing the boot manager, at which point the os is already fully loaded up.
Also, this essentially double's/triples startup times for win7 if you have it installed to the side, 'cause 1st you must startup win8, then it restarts the pc into win7.
WinME lol...
Everyone hates that os except me.
I liked it.
Yeah it had a 1 major issue.
If you del'ed all the defaults under the 2 run key's, HKCU/HKLM, then 100% of the probs went away.
It was such a simple tweak too.
I liked it because it was slightly more up to date then 2k, also I did not like win98.
I used use win95 even though I had win98 at the time, once winme came out I switched to it.
It's wasn't quite as quick as win95, being that it took up more ram and such.
But it's hd speeds are leaps and bounds ahead, I think it was a program called neoragex or something, in some sort of emu, the hd speed, loading and decompressing large roms was way quicker.
Plus it was much more up to date then win95, which at the time, was a pain in the butt to setup and update all the way at that time.
I never did get my hands on neptune, the very last win9x os, which was dumped 1/4 or 1/2 of the way through dev'ing it, and focus was made on xp.
I may switch back to win2k3.
If I can get dx11 working 100% in it, I will switch back.
Apparently the xp patch for that has been worked on lots since the original back in the day.
The idea is this, if dx11 can be ported 100%, then all I would need doing is to redo the taskbar to show a small preview screen of the task when hovering over it, via ahk script :).
Btw, win7 uses not dx10/11 for it's dwm, but dx9 lol, not sure about win8 though, never checked it.
Anyways I'm gonna install win8 rp either tonight or tomorrow and see if the speed has improved or not.