Slashdot Mirror


Windows 7 Still Being Sold On Up To 93% of British PCs

nk497 writes "The vast majority of PCs sold by British PC makers are running Windows 7 — not Windows 8. PC Pro spoke to several PC builders, with some reporting as many as 93% of recently sold machines were on the older OS. One company initially sold its PCs with Windows 8, but feedback from users soon changed that. Customers quickly began to specify systems with Windows 7, those with Windows 8 'took delivery and wanted to change back to Windows 7' – a process the firm described as a 'nightmare.' Another firm found success by installing a 'start menu' tool on Windows 8 machines, and others said the switch would have gone smoother if Microsoft has offered a Windows 8 tutorial or better explained the new OS."

295 comments

  1. That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows 8 UI is ghastly. With Classic Shell though, you'll never need to load metro again, and then its just a fast Win 7...

    1. Re:That's because by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Start8Menu was the best "free" alternative for me. Stardock's Start8 is the best trialware one that I saw.

      I tried Classic Shell but it aims to emulate the classic Windows 2000 and earlier Start Menu. I much prefer the more modern Vista/7 Start Menu, which my top two choices provide.

    2. Re:That's because by KiloByte · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's not enough, there's Metro poking its ugly head out in many places beyond the start menu.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm probably alone here, but I prefer the start screen over a start menu. If I'm using the mouse I find it easier to hit a large tile than a small row of text. And if I'm using the keyboard I press Win-key and type just like in previous versions.
      The Win+x menu is also nice, although I'm sure there's a way to get that functionality on Win 7 as well.

      I haven't found any useful Metro programs though so I can't comment on their (dis)usability on the desktop.

    4. Re:That's because by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Classic Shell can emulate later versions, just check the options. I have noticed that when you search for something and don't find it or select the wrong thing it'll lock up Explorer though. Oh well, just another WER submission on Explorer. Not half as bad as not being able to delete Windows 8 store purchases from your history.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:That's because by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      Have a look again, because it's there - as an option.

      I'd pick Win7 over Win8 any time. Hopefully Win9 will bring back much of Win7, including an upgrade/migration path from Win7 (are you listening, MS?).

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    6. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering you can Upgrade to Win8 from WinXP, I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to upgrade to the next version of Windows from Win7.

      I upgraded to Win8. I use ClassicShell and I love how I get to customize every little detail with it. I've had no real problems with Win8 to speak of simply because I did my homework on what I would need to get the desktop experience I wanted 'before' doing the upgrade.

    7. Re:That's because by linebackn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if I'm using the keyboard I press Win-key and type just like in previous versions.
      The Win+x menu is also nice, although I'm sure there's a way to get that functionality on Win 7 as well.

      Memorizing keyboard shortcuts? how 1970s. Do you also like to use WordPerfect for DOS? I bet you are so good you don't even need the PC keyboard overlays.

    8. Re:That's because by linebackn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this raises the question why should millions of customers have go to the trouble of installing a separate program just to get a sane UI. And how many actually will, or can.

      What this story tells me is that Microsoft didn't threaten to break enough legs in the British PC sales market.

      Nobody here in the US wants Windows 8, and the manufacturers know it. They just sell it to make their Microsoft monkey overlords happy. Customers be damned.

    9. Re:That's because by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I love how I get to customize every little detail with it" - a slashdot poster
      "I love how I get to customize every little detail with it" - no normal computer user, ever

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:That's because by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Keyboard shortcuts are "how 2013". Or do you laboriously go to Edit - Copy/Edit - Paste instead of just using Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V and not having to take your hands off the keyboard?

      One of Shneiderman's 8 Golden Rules of user interface design is to provide frequent users with shortcuts. In programs that are keyboard input based, it's best that they be keyboard shortcuts so your hands can remain on the keyboard as much as possible.

    11. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not quite sure what kind of joke you're making, but the winkey+x list (no idea if it has a name) is also available by right-clicking in lower left corner.

    12. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      righto
      somewhere in joelonsoftware, joel remarks that real computer users never customize the GUI, as real users constantly switch from machine to machine, and it is to much work and to confusing to use anything but the default

    13. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's face it. No normal computer user is EVER going to memorize keyboard shortcuts.

      Or do you laboriously go to Edit - Copy/Edit - Paste instead of just using Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V and not having to take your hands off the keyboard?

      Yes, yes, a billion times, yes! This is how normal computer users do it!

      That being said, they can take my vim out of my cold, dead hands.

    14. Re:That's because by scottbomb · · Score: 1

      Not true. There is a common fallacy on /. that everyday computer users are computer illiterate and unable to do much more than post on Facebook and this is just not the case. Regular, non-technical users customize stuff all the time.

    15. Re:That's because by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No its not, all those shell replacements do is HIDE metro but do NOT kill it, so all that tweeting twitting FB crap is still sucking memory and bandwidth, you just can't see it. Not to mention that unlike Win 7 a good chunk of the programs in win 8 are ADWARE so you also have to figure in the time to remove that crap.

      This article just confirms what any of us little shop guys could have told you, nobody wants Windows 8. There really is no point in windows 8 unless its on a cellphone or tablet and the "extra speed" is frankly just a VERY bad hack (look up "hybrid boot" to see what is actually happening, you no longer can get a clean start of Win 8 without going CLI, instead you get hybrid boot which is more like hibernate than shutdown) and Win 7 on an SSD more than makes up for it.

      If for no other reason refuse to take windows 8 on principle...I mean do you REALLY want MSFT to continue in this direction? Stuffing the OS full of ads, making UIs that look like a 14 year old with ADHD went nuts with a box of crayons, not to mention trying to drive us towards an appstore?

      Windows 7 is fast, its rock solid stable, and most importantly IT JUST WORKS and will keep on working until 2020 at the least, so why get stuck with something you don't want and tell MSFT its okay to ignore the users like that because you're willing to "put up with it" and try to hack your way back to a functional OS? Just say No to Metro, if enough people just say no then MSFT will have no choice but go back to the drawing board and fix their mess, just as they did with Vista.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:That's because by takeya · · Score: 2

      Indeed, I've seen a number of people who went with the olive or silver themes, and managed to make the rotating text say something other than "Microsoft Windows".

    17. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Professional (as in every day use) users that I support are less than litterate by this definition.

    18. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2013: The year of emacs on the desktop (via ms)

    19. Re:That's because by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Someone has obviously not been to "websites that suck.com": Rule No. 1 is: DONT HIDE THE NAVIGATION TOOLS

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    20. Re:That's because by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      That's "Windouws," you silly Yankee.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    21. Re:That's because by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Joel is a bonehead. Amongst the things I do to every Windows machine I use ....

      * Install a notepad that isn't crap
      * Copy the notepad shortcut to the "SendTo" folder
      * Edit the default terminal size to be larger and have nicer fonts
      * Turn off hiding file extensions (hiding them is a security risk)
      * Turn off the WinXP Tellytubbies interface and go back to Win2k Classic (less space consumed with window chrome, more productivity)
      * Install Powershell

      and many more ...

    22. Re:That's because by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      My personal favorite that's worth paying for is StartIsBack ($3); it perfectly replicates a customisable windows 7 start menu without any metro apps or weird stuff, merges in the start menu right click shortcuts to various system tools, and lets you keep the metro menu with only metro apps on it on ctrl-win or the right hand charms bar, so you can still play the new shiny metro minesweeper without having to deal with metro the rest of the time - or you can just kill off metro altogether if you prefer.

      With it, windows 8 is basically a faster windows 7 with a nicer task manager and an actually functional file copy - what microsoft should have released in the first place. I actually like windows 8 now; I don't have to deal with bloody metro every time I just want to launch a program, or clean up all the crap when I install something because metro can't cope with folders, for just two examples.

      Still, I doubt I'd actually bother if I didn't get windows 8 free through work.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    23. Re:That's because by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Let's face it. No normal computer user is EVER going to memorize keyboard shortcuts.

      I regularly see lots of ordinary non-technical people working the keyboard on POS machines faster than any human can possibly react to all the dialougs appearing on screen for fleeting milliseconds.

      Yes, yes, a billion times, yes! This is how normal computer users do it!

      This is how n00bs do it. Eventually people learn and improve out of necessity. If your job is using word all day you memorize shortcuts eventually.

    24. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just sell it to make their Microsoft monkey overlords happy. Customers be damned.

      Why is it, that as soon as I read monkey overlords, I pictured Ballmer with his tongue sticking out throwing a chair?

    25. Re:That's because by jakimfett · · Score: 2

      If I had mod points, this would get a "+1 Funny" and/or "+1 Informative".

      Your average computer user can't figure out how to add a printer without help, much less customize the interface. The ones who "know computer stuff" tend to do things like download free fonts and emoticons, animated desktops or screensavers, install browser toolbars, and disable "that annoying virus thingy that keeps me from downloading my bling". They then wonder why their computer runs slow.

      Source: many years of tech support, working as a computer lab administrator, and observing my relatives and friends screw up their computers because they just simply don't have a clue

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    26. Re:That's because by jakimfett · · Score: 2

      Yup. That's how they do it. As desktop support, it was almost painful having to surpress my impulse to reach down and hit Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V when I watch them do it for the 15th time.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    27. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic Shell has search and combines the better menu (Windows 2000-style) instead of the cramped Vista/7 style giving you best of both worlds. I consider it actually a feature that Classic Shell gives XP cascading menu+search. Vista/7 style shows all programs in a very limited area and requires lots of scrolling and clicking.

    28. Re:That's because by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately all those Win7 installs probably count as Win8 sales to MS. So MS can brazenly announce great Win 8 sales even though consumers are requesting not to have it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    29. Re:That's because by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That is because you don't a multi-touch sensitive device.

      My Laptop has a multi-touch display, and I really do like Windows 8... However I can see if I was stuck to the mouse, it would be a step back.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    30. Re:That's because by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Or shift-delete, shift-insert for when your right hand is in the cursor key region anyway

    31. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you eliminate desktop background and screen saver customization, you're down to ~0.

    32. Re:That's because by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I really don't see Metro poking up all the time, Only when first booting up (until I get around to getting an add-on to stop that), and when my mouse drifts to the top/bottom right and "charms" pops up. No file types open up in metro for me, not even pictures, but maybe that's because I upgraded from Win7. The only way I even see Metro after boot is to bring it up explicitly. Which I don't do since there's nothing even remotely of use there, and I can't even download free win8 apps without creating an MS account which will never happen in my lifetime (same for apple accounts on my mac, never gonna happen).

    33. Re:That's because by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      Nah, I actually saw uses for copypasta more often than cuttypasta. A lot of these people were data entry, so having data "disappear" from their master spreadsheet would cause a small scale panic. Explaining does no good, they saw it disappear with their own eyes!

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    34. Re:That's because by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      When I use the start menu it is almost always for seldomly used applications, or when searching for applications/documents, so speed of hitting things doesn't matter. Frequently used stuff I will have icons for or be pinned to start bar. The start screen really doesn't help for trying to find rarely used stuff; once you're at the "all apps" the icons are back to being tiny again.

      In Win7 I really used the start menu mostly for quick access to utilities: shutdown/restart, control panel, run menu, etc. Sure there may be keyboard shortcuts for some of those but I don't know what they are, and some of them have no shortcuts. (really, win8 makes it hard to do shutdown/restart for some bizarre reason)

    35. Re:That's because by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except that the Windows key is never ergonomically placed well for touch typists. Same with Command on macs...

    36. Re:That's because by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I love how I get to customize every little detail with it

      If you like to customize every detail of your user experience, Windows is really the wrong operating system for you. (Admittedly, Mac OS X would be even worse.) Any X11-based system can be customized to an extent that makes Windows 8, or any version of Windows, look like the proverbial single button that comes pre-pushed from the factory.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    37. Re:That's because by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      They can tout that all they want, they did the same with Vista, remember? It still didn't keep MSFT from having to let the OEMs sell XP while they went back to the drawing board, which should be our goal with Win 8. Make MSFT hear the people that have spoken that Win 8 is a giant DO NOT WANT, let the OEMs have Win 7 back, and start over with something that doesn't treat the desktop as a supergigantic smartphone.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    38. Re:That's because by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You're the slashdot poster in my comment.

      Not the normal computer user.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    39. Re:That's because by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Your average computer user can't figure out how to add a printer without help

      Considering how crappy the windows print system is and how every different printer vendor thus has their own different install GUI that kicks in along the line that's more a failure of the environment than the user. You and I may know that to install a printer on the next floor that is attached to a network cable that we should choose "install local printer" but people with limited exposure to the crappy GUI install script don't know that.

    40. Re:That's because by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If you ever have to help out people that are having trouble with their computers you soon learn the shortcuts. For some reason people ask you for help and then sit there gripping the mouse and staring at the screen. After about the twentieth time you'll get sick of their reactions to you asking them to let you use the mouse (up to and including getting up and wandering outside for a smoke before they've told you in enough detail what they want help with) and just open the "windows explorer" window or whatever by keyboard shortcut to get instant instead of twenty second results.

    41. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could, y'know, do your job and 'support' them by telling them a useful tip.

    42. Re:That's because by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      Oh, I have. That's why it's killing me to see them keep using the old way. I limit myself to reminding them about any specific thing twice in one visit. I figure if they still do it the old way...I can't help them.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    43. Re:That's because by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      You and I may know that to install a printer on the next floor that is attached to a network cable that we should choose "install local printer" but

      Normally, if it's on the network, I select "Install Network Printer" :-P

      Specific example: the computer lab at my university has an issue where randomly, on boot, some of the systems don't have the default printer installed. I put instructions to fix this on the post board at the front of the room, which is essentially "click add network printer, type in $specific_IP_address, and click "add this printer now".

      Even with written instructions and no drivers to install I've only actually seen one student successfully do so. Most students spend 5 or so minutes saving their stuff, moving to another computer, logging in, and trying again. As sometimes it happens in batches (eg, a whole row fails to have the default printer), this can be painful to watch.

      Note that I'm not a computer lab admin...I'm just there working on homework all the time. I wrote the instructions because I got tired of saying the exact same thing. I don't know how to make it any simpler than "use the win7 search bar to search for 'add printer', type in IP address, and click done".

      Thoughts?

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    44. Re:That's because by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That only works if it's a shared printer going via a print server, which has been a total waste of time and since about 2000 when printers had enough memory to spool the jobs themselves. The first MS Windows computer on the network to use the network printer has to do the "install local printer" anyway, and then has to share it before you can use the "Install Network Printer".
      It's improved a bit with Win7 but suggesting people are dumb just because they take poor instructions literally is a bit rough on the computer users, especially since the process is probably going to differ each time they do it (different GUI in later steps for HP, Brother, Canon, Xerox etc).

    45. Re:That's because by vandamme · · Score: 1

      They are still using the original wallpaper on XP.

    46. Re:That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source: many years of tech support, working as a computer lab administrator, and observing my relatives and friends screw up their computers because they just simply don't have a clue

      The death-knell to my free time is the phrase "I was trying to..." when I hear that in relation to computers I am almost assured of an afternoon cleaning up Malware from someone's PC. It's why I give these people Macs. They are wonderful machines that don't get this kind of bullshat in real life.

    47. Re:That's because by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      But copy-paste is really just the same as cut-paste-paste if you're optimising.

    48. Re:That's because by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      Try explaining this to a panicing accountant. Trust me, it's faster to simply copy+paste, once you facter in the time taken calming the panic.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
  2. And this is a bad thing? by Dave+Whiteside · · Score: 0

    Win8 is just horrible win 7 is at least what vista should of been ....
    XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year

    --
    who where what when now?
    1. Re:And this is a bad thing? by jawtheshark · · Score: 2

      Next year. April 2014.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Funny

      XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year

      What, AGAIN?

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re:And this is a bad thing? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Win8 is just horrible win 7 is at least what vista should of been ..

      That's because W7 is the service pack for Vista. Also, the phrase is, "should have been".

      XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year

      XP is far superior in numerous ways to W7. What used to take seconds is now a long, drawn out process of burrowing deep into menus or worse, having to go someplace else to make a change to where you are currently at. Add in that setting a folder view is not consistent across drives, you can't see every program installed through the butchered Start menu or if you mistype a network path through the Search box you can't immediately retype but have to wait for the timeout to occur, and W7 is a classic example of why you never let programmers design your applications.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:And this is a bad thing? by chilvence · · Score: 2

      Tolerable? There is barely any practical difference between winxp and win8 to me, apart from the amount of money that was theoretically supposed to have left my wallet in between them in order to support the development of further versions of windows that I didn't need or ask for. Necessity being the mother of invention after all. The only way I even notice they are still making them is the artificial barriers they include in every new version in order to make people who don't slavishly fawn over them suffer. I have no idea how they manage to make so much noise and yet achieve so little.

    5. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still on XP right now. Have no reason to ever switch to 7 or 8.
      Any games that might come out in the near future will almost certainly target multiple OSes as more guides have become common for the games I care for.
      The very few larger games that do will still run on XP in most cases.
      The ones that don't? Oh well. Their loss since XP is still quite big now despite 7 and 8. (bigger than Apple and Linux installs for crying out loud!)
      It isn't hard to support an older OS, there are a brazillion libraries out there that do it for you. They never change, the OS never changes, so it should never be a problem to keep it there. The ones that do keep the OS will likely be the smarter types or poorer types. One is a market you care for, the other you likely don't
      So the minimum amount of effort in adding the backwards compatibility libraries is acceptable. In the cases where there might be problems, >70% of the times they will be capable of fixing it, either by their own knowledge or by Googling.

      Windows 9, however, is likely something I would upgrade to if MS stick to the usual every other windows is crap method.
      But still not till SP1, maybe even SP2.
      And that is if Linux doesn't become more popular with game devs. If it does, I'm not even going near Windows again. Even for a perfect dream game.

      I'm still happily making tools on XP right now, and I'm still making websites without care for anything IE since it is generally not crappy any more and I don't use much in terms of bleeding edge stuff, or even last version stuff. (CSS2, HTML4, JS...whatever the hell version we are just on)
      And I have fallbacks for most features that I care about, some custom, some that have been tested very well by the community, so that (just like the gamedevs above) is all I care for supporting. In the case of a website, however, it will fail gracefully (given a good developer). In the case of nearly any game, it has 50 types of heart attack in 5 seconds. It is worse when error logs don't even get generated. That is just poor. (coughLoLdeveloperscough.)

      That is all I care about, pretty much.

      This thing is also locked behind security out the ass, and I have never had a virus in my entire time being on the internet since 1994~.
      And I also like China, so don't hack me, kay bros? Sweet.

    6. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP/SP2 is great but SP3 added so many extra's that it's worse then Vista plus there's the fact that the XP-64 was shit. It was and is buggier then hell, lacks drivers for common hardware as no one was offering them - high end was decently supported but forget about most workstations and printers! Drivers simply weren't there even for most corporate printers.

      Yes I do know what I'm talking about as I purchased a copy through the school. Tried it but it simply wasn't stable enough to be worth the agravation of BSOD's and other crashes. Hell the specs were a C2D with 4GB of ram so it should have ran quite well - the 32bit version sure as hell did.

      Many think Vista was a failure and from an end-user stand point it may have been but from the standpoint of MS it did exactly what they wanted. Forced the many companies to follow the recomended best practices and not have their apps require admin privs when they don't need em. Remember how much trouble Nvidia had with stable drivers? And they even had help from MS to get them but it still took them over a year to get things right. How about the fact that HP didn't even support Vista due to the requirement of both 32 and 64 bit drivers until SP1. Annoyed the hell out of me that my printer (purchased after Vista was released) wasn't supported yet. That was a year after Vista. Saw that with a lot of hardware.

    7. Re:And this is a bad thing? by bobjr94 · · Score: 2

      So what is XP looses support ? We have 3 XP machines, they havent received updates in months, maybe years and still work 24/7. I would not be surprised to have them until 2015 or later, given no major hardware failure.

    8. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a rest Grammer Nazis you understood what the poster said, do we really need three or four posts correcting his speech.

    9. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/grammer/grammar/

    10. Re:And this is a bad thing? by DogDude · · Score: 2

      XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year

      In my opinion, I think that XP is much better than Windows 7 in lots of ways. It runs much, much faster on the same hardware than Windows 7. When I recently had to switch to Windows 7 on my home server because I bought 3 TB drives (there's no way to get XP to work with 3 TB drives natively), I had to swap out computers entirely, because Windows 7 was such a dog on the same hardware. Even with a fancy new-ish PC running Windows 7, the performance is still rotten compared to my ancient PC running Windows XP, with the exact same functionality.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    11. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Karzz1 · · Score: 2

      ....plus there's the fact that the XP-64 was shit. It was and is buggier then hell, lacks drivers for common hardware as no one was offering them - high end was decently supported but forget about most workstations and printers! Drivers simply weren't there even for most corporate printers.

      Amen brother. I also had several games that I had purchased for my (then new quad-core intel w/8GB RAM) that *refused to install* because they thought it was a *server* OS. *sigh*

      XP-64 was simply MS saying "Wait guys, don't defect... we have 64bit for the workstation too!!!"

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    12. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I had the same problem with XP on my 286. Thankfully, I still had my DOS diskettes and my floppy drive was still working.

    13. Re:And this is a bad thing? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The only thing I think XP is missing for a Microsoft OS is PAE support (support for the Pentium 2 and later!) to allow a higher memory ceiling. Last week I put a 512GB SSD in a WinXP laptop and it just flies for the applications on the thing so long as the user doesn't do what the rest of us with a lot of memory can do and have dozens of windows open at once.

    14. Re:And this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as long as they aren't connected to the intertubes...

  3. Vista 2 by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Funny

    The new name for Windows 8: Vista Part 2.

    1. Re:Vista 2 by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Windows Millennium Edition Part 3.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Vista 2 by Kurast · · Score: 2

      The transition to Windows 95 from Windows 3.1 was huge, but they did a better job explaining the differences. I remember people wanted to change, the felt the newer version was better.

    3. Re:Vista 2 by argStyopa · · Score: 0

      It really is like 'every other generation of MS OS sucks'.

      Win 8 - disaster, major suckfest.
      Win 7 - pretty damn good.
      Win Vista - disaster, major suckfest
      Win XP - great, eventually
      Win 2k - ? I don't know, was this ok?
      WinME - ahahahahaa
      Win98 - really quite good
      Win95 - first generation, kind of a struggle, not nearly as good as OS/2
      Win 3.0/3.1 - great for its time
      Win exec - offered pretty nearly nothing that other utilities/shells couldn't do better

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:Vista 2 by dc29A · · Score: 1

      Win95 - first generation, kind of a struggle, not nearly as good as OS/2

      Not nearly as good? That's like saying that your BBQ in your backyard is nearly as hot as the Sun. Win95 was a program launcher on MS-Dos versus OS/2 was a full fledged 32 bit protected mode operating system that ran many enterprise critical applications, like ATM machines.

    5. Re:Vista 2 by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Even GEM was better than Windows Exec. However it was rubbish if you had a EGA (or even Hercules) graphics card. I knocked up a basic replacement in Turbo Pascal simply because I was fed up with it. Could probably have made tons if Microsoft hadn't come along with Win 3 at about the same time...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    6. Re:Vista 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 8: The Return of the Bob.

    7. Re:Vista 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing Windows 95 with Windows 3.1.

      Windows 3.1 was the one where you booted into DOS and typed the "win" command to start it. It wasn't a lot different from starting DOS Shell with the dosshell command. (Yes, DOS Hell. Great piece of marketing there.)

      Windows 95 booted directly into the now-familiar "classic" interface and allowed access to DOS through Command Prompt (cmd.exe, which is not the same as the old command.com that the real DOS command line ran from).

      Windows NT 3.51 was around back then, too. It had the even-older Windows 3.1 interface, but the underpinnings of NT. (Or a beta of NT, at least.)

    8. Re:Vista 2 by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Windows Strikes Back: The Touchening.

    9. Re:Vista 2 by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Eww creepy

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    10. Re:Vista 2 by steeviant · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing Windows 95 with Windows 3.1.

      Windows 3.1 was the one where you booted into DOS and typed the "win" command to start it. It wasn't a lot different from starting DOS Shell with the dosshell command. (Yes, DOS Hell. Great piece of marketing there.)

      No, they're not confused, you are.

      * Windows 1.0 through 3.11 = Manually start win.exe from DOS command line
      * Windows 95/98/ME = starts Windows automatically using hardwired autoexec-like system, but still running on top of DOS

      Windows NT was the first version of Windows to drop DOS as a bootloader and switch to a pure 32-bit proprietary kernel. It was developed in parallel to the DOS versions of Windows and eventually merged into the consumer version of Windows in XP in 2001.

      If you're going to try to correct someone, it helps if you're actually correct.

    11. Re:Vista 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean ME part 3?

    12. Re:Vista 2 by hlavac · · Score: 1

      Windows 8 Banana. Comes with free gorilla arm.

    13. Re:Vista 2 by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There was only one problem, one single problem with OS/2 the idiots at IBM over priced it. If they had not been stupidly greedy, they would have pushed M$ to be only an office suite.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. Why not just say up to 100%? by jaymz666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    is 100% too sensational a number? Up to doesn't mean squat

    1. Re:Why not just say up to 100%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up to doesn't mean squat

      In real, mathematical and scientific use, up to means you have established an upper bound for something. In journalist or advertising use, it indicates a number that is sensationalist and significantly above any rational truth value.

      If you want completely meaningless, go back to the days when the telephone wars were in full swing. So many commercials about how routing your calls through some 900 number "could save you up to 15% or more."

    2. Re:Why not just say up to 100%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. In this case it means "definitely not 94% to 100%".

      Learn English.

    3. Re:Why not just say up to 100%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many things don't mean "squat". I've long been wondering what squat actually means.

  5. I'm not switching. by concealment · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.

    First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.

    Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).

    Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door. I trust reliability and paradigms that are time-tested.

    As a lack of positive reason, I'm not sure what Windows 8 offers that Windows 7 does not. There are improvements; they look really neat. I'd like to play with them, on some computer I'm not using for work when I have lots of spare time to play around with it.

    The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.

    1. Re:I'm not switching. by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Informative

      And then off course there is the nightmare of "secure" boot. I have seen professionals burn a few days over installing an OS that, according to the manufacturer, should be no problem. And this despite the manufacturer's support department tried its best. So if you order a new machine, order it with win7 pre-installed.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:I'm not switching. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the same theory with security updates, I only update 18 months after the patch is released. From my experience, things are really insecure out there, I can't imagine how bad it is for your people who have up to date security patches.

    3. Re:I'm not switching. by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.

      First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.

      Yep. Win7 is the OS that made me switch my Deskop back from Linux. (That and the fact that ordering my new PC without Win7 wouldn't have been any cheaper thanks to the ridiciously low OEM prices)

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:I'm not switching. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.

      Uh, I'd submit that Windows 7 doesn't resemble anything like Window 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups other than having a window and an X button to close it.
      I'd also say that Windows XP is deficient in a lot of ways, but I also agree that most of the features and functionality are well baked. This of course happened after Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 all were evolutionary so XP didn't miraculously have all of this built in. I purposefully forgot to mention Windows ME because, man that sucked as an O/S.

      Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).

      Agreed, but if you're in the field of IT you owe it to yourself to try new things. If you don't like it, or there are problems report them. It's like that first time my mother gave me Okra at dinner. Blech.. I tried it once, never again! Never!

      Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door.

      No, that's Apple or the $10 hooker down on the corner.

      The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.

      All well and valid points however with virtualization techniques, you should be able to spin up a desk top environment in no time. Change isn't always accepted and as my doctor says "Engineers are all OCD." So, we're all nervous when somebody wants to change things. I have a mixed bag of emotions to Windows 8. I've upgraded all of my systems. In general, it's faster but in other ways, it takes getting used to. I have one system, upgraded from Windows 7 that has 8 apps that won't run. They run everywhere else on my Windows 8 system, but not on this system. MSFT would like me to "refresh" my machine to fix them, that in and of itself is the root of why MSFT will fail, they forget as you're pointing out that people have comfort in stability and fixing the problems, not just resetting your world.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:I'm not switching. by dkf · · Score: 1

      Uh, I'd submit that Windows 7 doesn't resemble anything like Window 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups other than having a window and an X button to close it.

      Do you really need that much more? Do you think most users see much more than that, leaving aside the fact that the colors have changed (which normal users spot very easily indeed by comparison with techies).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    6. Re:I'm not switching. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you sell 90+% of your licenses at the low OEM price, and still make a hefty profit, it is not the OEM price which is ridiculously.

    7. Re:I'm not switching. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      So by that token DOS 6.22 was the shiznit? We should have packed up on things like Linux, Windows NT and the iterations of other operating systems? I mean I can't fathom an IPAD or any Android device running DOS 6.22 and running halfway reliably at all. I still have a 6.22 running in VirtualBox, I'm wondering if I can run Excel on that or maybe Oracle 12?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    8. Re:I'm not switching. by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      I was recently put in a position where a UPS failure hosed my Win7 Raid 0 array. I had a Win8 disk lying around, so I figured I would give it a go. Once you get used to the fact that Metro is just a full screen start menu, it's nearly identical to Win7. The file copy dialog is more informative, the "start menu" is really just a list of links from the "all apps" drawer which is really just the start menu folders organized differently. The search is just partitioned off into three areas instead of the whole system, and the metro apps are purely optional (I keep weather and finance.. why not).

      It wasn't a terrible transition, even with multiple monitors (just move your mouse all the way up and to the right to lock into a corner without moving to the next screen). It literally took me 2hrs to get accustomed to the changes, and my system functions similarly to my Win7 now. I link all of the OS doc folders to a storage drive so that I can rebuild the OS without much headache, so no big data shift needed.

      I was actually contemplating giving Ubuntu a shot before installing Win8, but a lack of a real EventGhost competitor for all of my remote control options didn't bode well.

      So long story short.. Win8 wasn't what I was expecting. It's not bad actually...

    9. Re:I'm not switching. by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      Apart from one thing... Windows 7 doesn't run perfectly good 32 bit drivers for perfectly good, sometimes hellishly expensive and still best in breed, hardware that works 100% perfectly under Windows XP.

      Why ? it's not like it can't be done ?

      I'd love to go 64 bit (for the extra memory if nothing else) but there are no drivers for lots of my (perfectly working) audio hardware.

      Ho hum

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    10. Re:I'm not switching. by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly DOS 6.22, but this article actually spoke on exactly the question of "Can I run a decade old OS on modern hardware and get anything at all done?".

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    11. Re:I'm not switching. by bored · · Score: 1

      I'd submit that Windows 7 doesn't resemble anything like Window 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups other than having a window and an X button to close it.

      While I agree with you, I think your memory is failing. The "x" didn't show up until windows 95 and NT 4. Before that you double clicked the app menu (AKA, application system menu, or little "-") to close windows. Or you pressed alt-f4, or single clicked and selected close. I always wondered what exactly the thought process was behind that change, as myself and a lot of other people tended to miss the maximize button and hit the close instead. Plus there were already 3 other ways to close the window..

    12. Re:I'm not switching. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Secure Boot on PCs can always be disabled.

    13. Re:I'm not switching. by houghi · · Score: 1

      That and the fact that ordering my new PC without Win7 wouldn't have been any cheaper thanks to the ridiciously low OEM prices

      And that should be a reason for not running Linux?
      Oddest reason I have ever heard.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:I'm not switching. by snadrus · · Score: 1

      If you have an Android phone: remoteDroid.org otherwise LIRC is the standard IR remote. I just use a wireless keyboard & mouse. That problem is much easier than purchasing & installing an OS.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    15. Re:I'm not switching. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Wow, I had forgotten about that, only the little dash control on the upper left.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    16. Re:I'm not switching. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      I use it to play "Day of the Tentacle." so it doesn't have to be too useful.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    17. Re:I'm not switching. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is similar to my personal experience. However, remember, you're bright enough to know what a RAID 0 is. Most people aren't. They don't like computers - they are a means to an end to them. And they don't like things being changed on them.

      I am currently working a side-job doing retail computer sales. And I have one sales person who will not sell Windows 8. He hates it to the point he'll skip selling computers - offering to pass it to another person. He's over 60 and he's so angered by the change from the Start Menu that he doesn't have any desire to learn how it works. He is similar to many of the customers I see daily. I've had about a 10% "I just can't use Windows 8" return rate. It really hurts our bottom line.

  6. Up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Up to?

    So, 0% of British PCs may be sold with Windows 7 on them?

    That terminology bugs me.

    1. Re:Up to? by MarioMax · · Score: 2

      Up to?

      So, 0% of British PCs may be sold with Windows 7 on them?

      That terminology bugs me.

      From TFA:

      Redford's Computer Planet isn't the only British firm struggling with the launch of Windows 8. One company told us that of the 1,459 machines it's sold so far in 2013, only 7% have left the factory with Windows 8 installed. A spokesman said that "Windows 7 fulfils the requirements" of its customers, and that driver issues and the unfamiliarity of the new OS was putting people off.

    2. Re:Up to? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      One company told us that of the 1,459 machines it's sold so far in 2013, only 7% have left the factory with Windows 8 installed.

      A quick googling came up with this:

      The U.K. PC market totaled 3 million units in the first quarter of 2012

      So far in 2013 should be about half that or 1.5 million units, so this is a company with about a 0,1% market share. I think we already know Win8 is not doing great from browser stats, but this is just a way to create a big headline.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than "Up to 93% or more".

  7. Win 8 and Vista = FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck we all know it was Beta from the gate.

    No problem, it was worth a shot to see how far to take a touchscreen UI and it's not far.

    Mac fans are disgusted with OS X10.7 and 10.8 too, losing Mac users left and right over it. (Mac sales down 16% verses PC's 9% year over year)

    As a life long Mac user, I love Windows 7 now, especially since it's supported until 2020, whereas OS X versions only get support for a few years at best.

    Good job there Microsoft, about time. Now onto Win 9...

    1. Re:Win 8 and Vista = FAIL by doggo · · Score: 1

      "Mac fans are disgusted with OS X10.7 and 10.8 too, losing Mac users left and right over it."

      So, you've never used a Mac...

  8. I predict that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Windows 8 is the new Windows Vista, and Windows 7 is the new Windows XP. Windows 7 will be run on the majority of machines untill Microsoft comes out with something better which may be sooner now that they are planning on switching to a 1 year development cycle.

  9. Would be the same in the US by jjsimp · · Score: 2

    if US manufacturers offered Windows 7. Unfortunately, no Windows 7 downgrade is offered with most PC manufacturers in the US. So, most people (average consumer) are relegated to using 8 as it is, using Start 8 or other similiar apps, or finding someone that knows how to install an OS on a computer.

    1. Re:Would be the same in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My brother (in the US) just ordered a PC from a manufacturer's website (discontinued model, inventory clearance, actually a decent deal).

      Windows 8 was the default. Windows 7 was a $50 option (over 10% of the total price). He paid the $50.

      Microsoft, are you listening? (Yeah, I didn't think so...)

    2. Re:Would be the same in the US by denis-The-menace · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course Microsoft is listening.

      They know that they can make regular people buy 2 OS' for each laptop. What else are lemmings to do? Install Linux? (Maybe in 2015 after Linux gaming takes off.)

      It's like corporations buying PCs with OEM windows installed and then get wiped to install their Corporate image using another license. So each PC uses 2 licenses: OEM (non-transferable) and Corporate.

      It's win-win times 2 for Microsoft. They can abuse their customers and still roll in it. They have a monopoly.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    3. Re:Would be the same in the US by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Walk over to the company's business line website. Plenty of new machines there with Windows 7 preloaded. Windows 8 Pro also has downgrade rights, just don't expect driver support from the vendor. Not a big deal as almost all the hardware in today's machines still had Windows 7 support, although I wonder if those fancy touch screens will work.

    4. Re:Would be the same in the US by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      The volume licensing agreement requires that OEM license to be on a machine.

    5. Re:Would be the same in the US by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, no Windows 7 upgrade is offered with most PC manufacturers in the US.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Would be the same in the US by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Oh, puh-lease. I'd mod you -1 Conspiracy Theory if that were an option. I honestly doubt that Microsoft is counting on companies to do what you describe, and I honestly doubt that many companies do what you describe.

      And, MS does not have a monopoly on the desktop. Lots of people buy Apple, and apparently some people use Linux, too, so I'm told.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    7. Re:Would be the same in the US by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, no Windows 7 upgrade is offered with most PC manufacturers in the US.

      Fixed that for you.

      That is how I see it as well, but I did not want fellow /. readers to view my post as trolling. I know there are quite a bit of people that believe Windows 8 is the greatest OS since whatever, so trolling was not my intention.

    8. Re:Would be the same in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it happens quite often in the business world. I know my company downgraded all the laptops originally installed with Vista to XP. Those in my company that still have those laptops are still running XP, eventhough they will run 7 perfectly fine (I know it does, because I installed it on one recently). I was actually surprised HP had drivers for not only XP and Vista 32 & 64, but also for 7 32 & 64, and 8 32 & 64. Some might actually install the corporate edition if they have a need to install other software, as it's easier just making an image of one computer and loading it onto multiple laptops than running the installation routine for every program needed on multiple computers.

    9. Re:Would be the same in the US by Carrot007 · · Score: 1

      Indeed and Microsoft gets to legitimatly inflate the number of win 8 copies out there.

      Copies being used on the other hand, it does nto want to mention!

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    10. Re:Would be the same in the US by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Dell still has the Windows 7 section of their online store (in the menu even for desktop, with laptops you have to click the windows 7 filter).

  10. Add some perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened when Microsoft released Windows XP? How long it took for British PCs to have it by default?

    1. Re:Add some perspective by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      XP was a steaming pile of bloat when it came out, replacing both the resource-friendly but somewhat unstable 98SE (let's ignore ME, shall we?) and the rock-stable 2000. Processor power and service packs made it into the OS we love today.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. People will tell each other by trifish · · Score: 1, Informative

    And the outcome will be pow (Vista_type_disaster, 2).

    Even an idiot would know that. This was hopefully the last desperate attempt by Microsoft to "leverage" their desktop monopoly to gain some mobile market share.

    Don't get me started on why it's called Windows when I see all window-less full-screen apps from MS now on desktop (like the native MS PDF viewer). Just WTF, man. WTF.

    1. Re:People will tell each other by medcalf · · Score: 2

      No doubt. I think MS would have been better off had they called their mobile OS "Metro" and left Windows for their desktop OS. Trying to blend the two is a disaster waiting to happen. Really, that's not even true, it is a repeat of the same disaster that has been happening to MS for a decade as they've tried to establish Windows on tablets and mobile phones, only now going in the other direction. Sane people create an OS that is suitable for the conditions in which it is to be used. MS creates an OS and decrees it is suitable for use in any conditions. At one point, they had the power to make that (mostly) stick. They no longer do.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  12. Change the name by mrprogrammerman · · Score: 1

    Microsoft needs to change Windows 8's name to Windows Mojave. People tended to like Windows Mojave even though they didn't like Vista which was the same thing.

    1. Re:Change the name by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Mojave was a red herring. One of the problems of Vista was that MS allowed it to run on computers that they should not have. A second problem was that MS delayed the launch so many times that OEMs did not have drivers in time. Bu the time of Mojave, drivers were ready and MS cherry picked hardware that they knew would work.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  13. sorry windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'but i feel like i'm just too close to love you...'

    besides i'm happier with you better looking sister wondows 7

  14. This is not True by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Some places are still offloading old inventory but the vast majority of high-street retailers for example are selling all Win8. This is another Slashdot attempt at convincing everyone Win8 is terrible and Microsoft are doomed - it's been the same tired narrative for as long as I can remember, the only variables are the version-numbers of [product]. Flame away, my crimes of going against the group-think will not go unpunished I'm sure.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:This is not True by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      The report was from PCPro.

    2. Re:This is not True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong! I just worked with a London customer who did a complete office machine replacement, and they *insisted* on Windows 7 for compatibility and ease of use, and to avoid a massive retraining task for their staff. And their kids' schools are doing the same thing.

    3. Re:This is not True by chilvence · · Score: 1

      And we didn't need any convincing anyway. Enjoy your doom!

    4. Re:This is not True by kenh · · Score: 1

      Was this deployment large enough to qualify for Software Assurance with it's Win7 downgrade option?

      I assume the school has Education Assurance, which also allows for Win7 downgrade.

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:This is not True by mario64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The article is about PC builders who are installing Win7 at the customers request, not high-street retailers where customers are not given a choice. This is not Slashdot trying to convince everyone Win8 is terrible, it's PC buyers who are rejecting it when given the option.

    6. Re:This is not True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Because everyone I know is just queueing up to buy Windows Metro and not going 'WTF? I mean, WTF were Microsoft thinking?' the moment they see it.

    7. Re:This is not True by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Some places are still offloading old inventory but the vast majority of high-street retailers for example are selling all Win8. This is another Slashdot attempt at convincing everyone Win8 is terrible and Microsoft are doomed - it's been the same tired narrative for as long as I can remember, the only variables are the version-numbers of [product]. Flame away, my crimes of going against the group-think will not go unpunished I'm sure.

      You can get windows 7 when you buy a new PC loaded with win8 in the US but you have to ask the vendor for a "downgrade".

      The rest of your statement is not falsifiable. Your assertion can be equally applied to any change without concern for merit.

        Everything must be judged on actual merit otherwise no useful information has been communicated.

  15. 7 still better then 8 by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Honestly, Windows 8 is a train wreck. Microsoft for some reason thinks that by completely redesigning the UI to a bulky, hard to use, non fluid system, that they would gain customers. They should of done a massive back end upgrade to 7 and called it 8 rather then put make up on a pig and call it a prom date.

    1. Re:7 still better then 8 by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      All they had to do was include an app viewer in the next operating system. They could have still included this Metro monstrosisty, but give people an option to use Windows 7 UI, or even the old classic from 95/98. If the app viewer needed to be fullscreen, no big deal. They would still get the same amount of developers to their app store, but would not have all the negative press for this merging of two very different operating system. Instead they get all the hate from everyone that would rather use the old UI, the people using the Classic Shell or Start8, and the people sticking with pre-Windows 8 OS. Yes, you Classic Shell/Start8 people I lump you with the rest of us h8rs.

  16. Windows 8 nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bought my mother an Asus "Ultrabook" for christmas as her old laptop had finally given out. It had a hard drive failure last week, and rather than send it in I decided to swap out the drive myself.

    Never have I had more trouble attempting to reinstall something like I did with Windows 8. Previously, you could just get a windows ISO, punch in the OEM serial from the sticker on the case, and you'd be set. Now, everything is certificate based, and will only work with a specific OEM copy of Windows made for that machine, and NOTHING else. On top of this, ASUS wants $50 for the disc to reinstall windows.

    This OS was a giant step towards appliance computing for Microsoft. If the next version is like this or worse, I'll deal with support issues for my family on Linux instead.

    1. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      so why not spend the $120 and get a win 7 download?

    2. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I should have to pay twice for Windows? No thanks.

      Captcha: Annoyed.

    3. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previously, you could just get a windows ISO, punch in the OEM serial from the sticker on the case, and you'd be set.
       
      I can't speak for anyone else but my experience is that HP OEM license on XP would only work with the HP OEM disks.

    4. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Actually, this only ever worked on Windows 7, and I'm sad to see it go. With Windows XP, you had keys that only worked on disks you had to acquire from the OEM, but those usually weren't even included with the PC. With Windows 7, if you could get your hands on a retail Windows 7 disc, it didn't matter if you had bought a computer from HP, Dell, Acer, or whoever, the same key would always work. I wasn't aware they had gotten rid of this feature in Windows 8, but that gives me another reason not to like it.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      You should be able to manually install the certificate for Windows 8 OEM copies. Windows 8 brought out a very complicated OEM pre-activation system since the system used for Vista/7 was easily reverse engineered and used to avoid product activation.

    6. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      I have told all family and friends that I don't do Windows. I have given up trying to single handedly save the whole bloody computer world.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    7. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buy a mac

    8. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it's a gift for aunti, spend the $120 and get her something nice, instead of $50 for win 8 crap.

    9. Re:Windows 8 nightmare by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      oh, this was for mum not aunt, sorry I was thinking about another thread.

  17. Windows 8 by lesincompetent · · Score: 2

    For the whole month i actually bothered to try it, it felt like my computer skills where impeded by a HUGE brain tumor which hindered and rendered painful each and every action. And someone still wonders why sane people hate it?

  18. Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Win XP was a win

    Win Vista was a flop

    Win 7 was a win

    Win 8 is a flop

    Wonder how Win 9 will fare ...

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      You mean Windows Blue (yeah I'm kinda thinkin they shoulda stayed away from anything associated with BSOD) the new subscription based OS?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Windows 2000 was also a win.

      The ideas behind Windows Vista were sound, they were just badly implemented until about SP2. Windows 7 was Vista done properly.

      The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong. It's not that there are some annoying bugs that need to be fixed, the whole specification of it is flawed. For Windows 9, Microsoft will need to either go back to the drawing board, or alternatively release a Windows 7.1 that brings any new under-the-hood stuff to the Windows 7 UI.

    3. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If MSFT keeps screwing with their licensing terms, ala Office 2013 for us folks who aren't connected all the time, I won't be buying it so no worries.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sware to God if one more person brings up the "Windows versions through the ages" argument again I'm going to go berserk! But some people like point out that this trend actually goes all the way back to Win 3.11. A controversial stance considering that between 3.11 and XP Windows was developed in two branches - 9x and NT. But if you look at the release dates for consumer versions alone and treat 98 SE as a separate release it adds up quite nicely.

    5. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Sun · · Score: 1

      Windows 2000 was also a win.

      As were Windows 98, Windows 95 and Windows 3.1. Then again, Windows ME was such a big flop, that you really can't count it as just one flop.

      The pre-Windows 3 versions were also total flops. Windows 3 was not a flop, but I'm not sure it was a hit, either.

      Shachar

    6. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      "I hate when people bring this up! But, it's an interesting topic, because blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
      ...blah blah blah blah blah... "
      Perhaps I'm missing the irony of your post...

    7. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Adriax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The pattern:

      95- Crap
      NT- Good
      98- Crap
      98 SE- Good enough
      ME- Crap
      2000- Good
      XP at launch- Crap
      XP after a near complete rewrite through service packs- Good
      Vista- Crap
      7- Good
      8- Crap

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    8. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Custard+Horse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no harm in trying to look the same but the desktop overlooks the fact that hardly anybody has a touch screen monitor and not many people are likely to get one whilst they sit vertically on the desk.

      It makes sense in a tablet or phone format but if you have a separate keyboard you may as well have a separate mouse and this makes the whole touch interface redundant.

      Win 7 was, and is, great. It does what it's supposed to with some flaws but flaws that are easy to live with.

    9. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Windows 2000 was also a win.

      In terms of quality at release, Windows 2000 is unmatched by any other version of windows save perhaps 3.51. All the problems with Windows 8 seem to lie in the interface, which differentiates it from other hated versions of Windows. It's a shame Microsoft can't admit failure in a timely fashion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hates when they get it wrong and forget to count win98SE

    11. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can still use Office 365 offline (the licence lets you download the desktop apps). Of course, you have to pay for it every year.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows Blue is just a codename, like Windows Longhorn.

    13. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in that article did it say that it would be subscription based. It stated that it would be a free (or nearly free) upgrade from Win8 to Blue and that Win8 apps would be incompatible, but the OS would still be branded as Windows 8 and have a yearly update cycle to compete with MacOS. No further details. Please cite a better source for your claim.

    14. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by DogDude · · Score: 2

      The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong.

      You're mostly right. But the idea is to have a single interface for tablets, computers and *phones*. I'm on my second Windows Phone, and the interface is the best in the industry (ie: better than i* and Android) for smart phones, as far as I'm concerned. That being said, I haven't spent any time with Windows 8 on a computer. I still use XP at work and home, for the most part.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    15. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can usually get the prev version of office on ebay , if you look hard, pretty cheap
      I've done this 3 or 4 times over the last few years, buying office 2000, 2003 and 2007, and have never had a problem (ymmv)

    16. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      It isn't the fact that the screen is vertical that would prevent people from getting a touch screen. As much as people looking for an excuse to hate Win8 want to deny it, a touch screen does not have to, nor should it replace a mouse and keyboard. The problem is that a touch screen is way to expensive for most people to rationalize for the functions it would improve. Without lots of people buying the touch screens the price will stay to high.

      So, MS overdid the touch features on their OS in an attempt to push users to buy touchscreens. If enough people buy them, the price will come down. Unfortunately, since MS overdid the touch on Win8, they gave people who want to hate Win8 an valid excuse and pushed a lot of people who wanted to like Win8 in to the hating Win8 camp along with them.

    17. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why am I reminded of Star Trek?

    18. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because slashbots are trying to shoehorn something complicated (that most of them seem to have poor understanding of) into a simple pattern. Why not use crappy sci-fi movies as a metaphor?

    19. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Windows 2000 was also a win.

      The ideas behind Windows Vista were sound, they were just badly implemented until about SP2. Windows 7 was Vista done properly.

      The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong. It's not that there are some annoying bugs that need to be fixed, the whole specification of it is flawed. For Windows 9, Microsoft will need to either go back to the drawing board, or alternatively release a Windows 7.1 that brings any new under-the-hood stuff to the Windows 7 UI.

      Yeah, that's pretty much my sentiment. Why can't they just release an update, let you use the old interface if you want it, and the new one if you don't? It can certainly be done - third parties already have. I'm not even saying Metro is bad - it's just painful without a touch interface. I imagine it would be at least adequate for a touch interface. So let the people choose, and get even more people on the Win8 bandwagon.

      Of course, for that to happen, two other things will have to happen first. They will have to admit they really screwed up, and they will have to allow Win8 users to not have to see what they've built into their apps store. I think they will resist both of those quite strongly.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    20. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the idea is to have a single interface for tablets, computers and *phones*.

      So that brings the idea from "wrong" into "brain-fucked stupid."

    21. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.51 was steaming pile. What the fuck are you smoking?

    22. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      What the fuck are you smoking?

      Floopy disks! The smoke of choice for all true nerds.

      Win 3.51 was a lot better than DOS4! On a good day, you could probably read a file and network (using add-ons), although not necessarily in the same hour.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    23. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      ME was released after 2000.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    24. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And NT 3.5 was released before 95, and there's no 3.1, and there are 2000 and NT, but not 2003 and 2008.

      And there are at least 5 people with mod points on /. who consider poor knowledge of computing history and badly shoehorned "patterns" to be +1 Interesting.

    25. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      No, Ubuntu is wrong too. There's a reason I use Xubuntu. Or Fuduntu. Or Kubuntu. Or anything other than the Unity interface.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    26. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      ...and they will have to allow Win8 users to not have to see what they've built into their apps store. I think they will resist both of those quite strongly.

      How would giving people a UI choice keep them from using the Metro apps? All they would have to do is make a program run the Metro app/app store either in a window or worst case in fullscreen.*

      *disclaimer I am not a programmer, nor do I play one on TV. It just might be hard to write a program that will run one of those fancy new Metro apps.

    27. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      It isn't the fact that the screen is vertical that would prevent people from getting a touch screen.

      Yes, yes it is. The industry learned that lesson in the 80s. Of course, we like to repeat our mistakes every 20-30 years in this industry, so who knows.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Carrot007 · · Score: 1

      Is that reallywhat you think? Were you even there? Maybe you have gone senile?

      Are you going for a chronological order there since you are mixing the 9x and nt products?

      You also missed some fairly important releases.

      The windows 95 OSR reelases for a start.

      The orig win 95 basically lacked apps. It was a new direction,the old ones did not use it well (I ackowledge win32 was sort of available on win 3 so it was not like there were none). However it was a good step and not crap.

      Win 92 OSR2 (where fat32 support came in) was great. (released 1 year after the original, at which point people buying the retail version were getting royally shafted, but thats windows for you!)

      And OSR2 +IE4 (with dekstop update (or OSR2.5 which installed it for you unless you refused) was practically win 98 (ok win 98 simplified the installation process somewhat).

      NT (I shall assume you mean 4 from your order). Yes this was great. I used it for a while myself. IIRC you needed IE 4 and the desktop upgrade again for the niceties. However gam,ing moved on and lack of hardware directx support pushed me back towards.

      Win 98. It was good I don;t see a problem.

      Win 98 SE. Not much of an update but also good,.

      Windows 2000. Yes this came next not ME. Excellect DX supprot on NT finally! used itfrom Beta2!

      Me. Pointless release made for people scared of nt. Not needed as 2000 was well up to the job. Probably made to appease some idiots with obsolete hardware with no NT drivers, probably from some company too cheap to make them (NT has been around a while now, I think most people just assumed there were no drivers, I had no problems).

      XP at launch. I agree with you. However mostly because win 2000 was still well supported and it really needed a lot more on the hardware front to work. (it was good but you needed money for hardware!)

      XP Later on (SP1 on). Your hardware had caught up and a dfresh install was way easier than 2000 + updates. 2000 Stoppped getting some updates so it was time for XP.

      Vista. Good direction, bad implementation. XP Still good enough. So mostly agreeing there!

      Vista SP1. Vastly improved here and because it was getting to be an issue, was the only op[tion is you had anything but under specced hardware. By than I mean 64 bit. XP 64 was good, and I admit I missed that even though I used it for a while myself, however it was nothing more than a test and was abandoned without updates. I went back to xp 32 bit. But the next time I upgraded I wanted to use my full 4gb (it was cheap enough to have that then even if lots of available machines gave you less (ram is cheap don't let it be a bottleneck, 16gb is my recomended minimum these days, just because you can for not a lot). So to sum uop Vista SP1 (especially 64 bit). Good.

      Windows 7. Just a slight polishing of Vista Sp1. Nothing special. Only reason I moved is because I was given a free key! I admit there are a few nice improvements. But not a lot over vista sp1 and most are just default configuration settings!

      Win 8. I agree. Big steaming pile of something. I am dual booting with 7 (a free key again) but cannot remember the last time I booted 8. Yes 8 is faster. (muchly though the configuration defaults again). But metro (or tifkam) I don't need or indeed want. A win 7 start menu I do, and yes the typing is there in win 8 but I resent having to go to the metro screen to do it. No thanks.

      I may have to use it one day though. If something I have to use ends up needing it then I will just have to put up with the pain of configuting it my way but untill then no thanks.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    29. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's worse than you think: they missed a very smart play for this nonsense. A single system-level API for tablets, computers, phones, and the X-Box would have been an amazing thing. The same UI is exactly wrong: the same API call for, e.g., a context menu, producing something appropriate for each platform would have been great - and while you can't go very far in that direction on the UI, you sure can on the system-facing parts. If the same system call gets me a new file in the right place for, e.g., program settings, on a phone, game console, or server, it would be far easier to hire devs for any of those platforms.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    30. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Angeret · · Score: 1

      People seem to enjoy slating Win95 but for those of us who remember Windows 3/3.1/3.11 it was a breath of fresh air. It certainly pissed all over any version of DOS except 5 (and 4 got us a public apology from MS for the trouble)

    31. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      NT wasn't between 95 and 98, NT was a separate parallel business track whereas 95/98 were for home users. And 98 wasn't really crap, it was the good release betwen 95 and ME.

    32. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in the case of Star Wars:

      IV: Good
      V: Good
      VI: Crap
      I: Crap
      II: Crap
      III:Crap

      Any future episodes: Crap (and wrinkly)

    33. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by approachingZero+ · · Score: 1

      Just my two cents. Windows 95 had dial-up adapter and pretty much brought the internet to the unwashed masses. If you ever fought CSLIP on Windows 3.11 you'll understand just how big W95 dial-up adapter was. Windows was like a cool little cabin designed without bars on the windows or and security so the dial-up adapter also enabled a new world of virus and malware - with the good so comes the bad. But remember not everyone had the money for a mac. PnP & native drivers, such as the 3Com E3 10 Mb NIC, also made MS-W95 a very big winner. Anyhow, I just beleive it's a little simplistic to call W95 or W98 crap OSs.

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    34. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      That's your opinion. And we all know what they say about opinions...

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    35. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by countach · · Score: 1

      I don't know that it is wrong. For one thing, we are starting to see a trend that all laptops will one day have touch screens too. The division between tablet and computer is becoming blurred. At the very least, having the option of metro on all computers is not a bad idea. Trying to force it is perhaps questionable.

    36. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by leenks · · Score: 1

      Windows 98 was awful. It wasn't until Second Edition it became more sane, but it still paled behind what NT had become (I ran NT4 exclusively for my Windows usage by 1997 as I didn't see the point in anything else - it had OpenGL support and ran the games I played, and had good enough DirectX support to get low latency audio). After jumping to that level of stability, 9x/ME seemed ridiculous concepts.

    37. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by leenks · · Score: 1

      Bad pattern.

      NT existed before 1995.
      ME existed after 2000.
      XP at launch was fine, especially for home users.
      Vista was shit. Aside from the nightmare software and driver issues, this was mainly because most of the machines sold as Vista capable in the early days were barely capable of running any GUI based OS, let alone one that Microsoft said could take over your life and leave you to trip out while the computer walked your dog whilst doing your ironing and helping you visit every website that doesn't use Javascript.
      7 is quite nice.
      8 is fine once you deal with the metro crap. In fact, 8 is incredible value for money - you can hop off the XP train for almost no money and get process isolation! woot!

      Note: I've excluded the 9x train - as far as I'm concerned Windows was fine once NT 3.51 was released (at about the same time as Windows 95). NT4 just added the Windows 95 style GUI to an already stable platform for me (but then again, I was buying hardware that was stable with Redshit and Slackware at that point).

      Caveat: I run a FreeBSD / OSX / ESXi house, with Windows and various Linux distros in VMs. I work on whatever my clients use (at the moment Centos6 and Windows7 but spent significant time using SPARC and HPUX platforms)

    38. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by leenks · · Score: 1

      There was NT 3.1. It was pretty good - it let you work out which Win16 applications did bad things and which did not.

    39. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by leenks · · Score: 1

      IMO the failure isnt the cost; it is that the integration has not been thought through.

      When I open a PDF on Windows 8, from the desktop (for the first time), I do NOT expect to be transported into MetroLand, from which I cannot fathom how to get back to the desktop.

      Touch interfaces are great. Supporting touch interfaces is a great idea. Windows 8 deployment of the idea is awful, however - the interface should augment an existing one not try and replace it.

    40. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by leenks · · Score: 1

      3.51 was great; sure, you had to deal with a load of applications not working properly (or at all) but it exposed a lot of the ones that were not written properly in the first place!

    41. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      3.51 was steaming pile. What the fuck are you smoking?

      Something that causes me to see things written by anonymous cowards, apparently. 3.51 was great, very reliable. Of course, it also had hilarious limitations which were the justification for NT4, which eliminated an entire memory space separation from NT, and was dramatically less reliable as a result. Windows NT was a gigantic piece of shit until Win2k. XP is 2k with some minor stuff added, so it's irrelevant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully agree, I ran the developer and preview version of windows 8, nice small footprint but why te h*ll did they take out the start menu and do I have to configure hotmail to be able to use gmail ?, will wait voor windows 9 :)

    43. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I never used NT 3.1, but NT 3.5 was excellent, as was 4.0 if you avoided the even Service Packs (they had an alternating good/bad thing going on there too).

      I loved using Windows 2000, although Explorer, which has always sucked, was particularly buggy in that release from my experience. I never thought XP was all that bad, and by the time they Service Packed it into submission, I loved it. I miss it, because I don't care what anyone says, Windows 7 performance isn't all that.
      Explorer _still_ sucks on toast after almost 20 years, and my laptop running an OEM-supplied Windows 7 still locks up occasionally (including the fact that it will too often simply never come back from sleep mode).

      Of course, if it weren't for games and a very few other apps, I would be perfectly happy using Linux on all my machines, and I'm not looking forward to whatever Microsoft is going to force on me the next time I buy a computer.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    44. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Win95 after all the hype disappointed me enough (due to things like a crash on exit every time - turned out to be a sound driver bug) that I started using linux, which was better even back then. Win98 was a pile of shit until Win98SE which is the stable MSDOS GUI you remember now. Win3.1 had such crappy device support that I couldn't even run my 14.4k modem at more than 9600bps due to the limit on the serial port speed in that OS (win95 and linux on the same hardware could run it at full speed).
      There's still some Win98SE machines floating around my workplace to run legacy hardware and software, so I get reminded every now and again that such a high point of MSDOS is still a clunky and unstable beast compared with Win2k and even NT3.51 - not to mention everything that came later. I'm sure even Vista works by now.

    45. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think it's the same "time to get a release out the door" mentality in both cases.
      With the first movie my reaction was "they forced a girl to shave her head for this sack of shit?". Cut to half an hour it might have actually worked, but they tried to do a 2001 "majestic spaceships to music" thing without Kubrick and it just dragged. Don't ask me about Trek five. I seem to have seen it twice but can't remember any of it.

    46. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Win98 was crap that was replaced by Win98SE that didn't have the same hardware support issues. The 98 kernel and associated drivers in kernel space (especially PCI, AGP and USB) made it very unstable if you had PCI cards or USB devices. Win98 and Win98SE are probably where the "I'm not using it until after the first service pack" mentality came from. We got burned by Win98 and then after enough people had forgotten they got burned by Vista.

    47. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      XP at launch was fine, especially for home users.

      It was a bit of a step backwards for a while if you already had Win2k and initially poorly suited to an office environment. Suddenly all those shared folders people had in NT4 and Win2k hit user share limits and things had to be moved to dedicated file servers running something better than XP.

    48. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. They got it backwards. The API should have been identical and the UI whatever it needs to be. Instead, we get the same UI but different API's!!

      It's also insane that a touch interface essentially 'requires' a keyboard to work properly. What is the point of having a touch interface when you need the Windows 'start' key to do anything?

    49. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You today do not understand why touch failed any more than those that tried in the 80s. Your link repeats the same invalid complaint that those who don't understand user input make today.

    50. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      The cost prevents people from buying it for a good interface. Because of that, MS has tried to force touch on users so that they gain economies of scale. Their way of trying to force the touch screen is to make an awful interface that uses touch anywhere that can, even when inappropriate.

      So, I agree entirely with

      Touch interfaces are great. Supporting touch interfaces is a great idea. Windows 8 deployment of the idea is awful, however - the interface should augment an existing one not try and replace it.

      I am saying that if they made a good touch interface, a lot of people wouldn't feel the benefit was worth the cost, so you wouldn't get everybody to buy one. Thus you wouldn't get the cost reductions that made the cost worth the benefits in a good touch interface.

    51. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if it weren't for games and a very few other apps, I would be perfectly happy using Linux on all my machines, and I'm not looking forward to whatever Microsoft is going to force on me the next time I buy a computer.

      Then your needs must be very simple.

    52. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Interesting, when I was looking at the beta it wouldn't let me do that, but then that was a few months ago. I don't like leasing software anyway but I'll give it another look, I've already coughed up for Office 2013 Pro, so I'm in no big rush.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    53. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sigh. No, no it isn't. I would definitely have a touch screen if it were cheaper, and my monitor would be closer to me so that I could touch it. I built my desk around the fact that I can't, so I might as well have some space in front of my monitor for something else. I'll build another one if I get a big touch screen. Kind of spendy to get a touch overlay for a 26" though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure even Vista works by now.

      yes, if you have 4GB RAM and/or SSD, Vista is fine. they never really fixed the fact that Vista overuses memory. I have an amd64 netbook with 2GB which only runs Vista and it's crap.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One might think Microsoft was new to this game with every release. Why do so many Americans stick with them?

    56. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by lgw · · Score: 1

      So share with me your theory about how holding your arm out at shoulder level for extended periods and reaching far from your keyboard across your desk to leave fingerprints on a monitor is better somehow than using a mouse with my arm resting comfortably?

      If your talking about a kiosk or HTPC where you'd interact with it for a few seconds each day, that's one thing (but tablets are probably better for those niches anyhow).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    57. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The entire desktop MS Windows on a netbook idea was stupid in the first place. If they had ported MS Office and IE to WinCE their netbooks may have been as viable as the first linux based ASUS netbooks that first took that market from small but expensive Mac laptops.

    58. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      how holding your arm out at shoulder level for extended periods and reaching far from your keyboard across your desk to leave fingerprints on a monitor is better somehow than using a mouse with my arm resting comfortably?

      By not doing that.

    59. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      For God's sake don't pay them twice!

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    60. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Should we change the mantra "Death and Taxes" to "Death, Taxes and Microsoft" then?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    61. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The entire desktop MS Windows on a netbook idea was stupid in the first place.

      Why? When Windows XP came out, did we even have portables as powerful as that? I remember like P3 1GHz and such, but I could be way off. Since I almost never have the latest and greatest...

      If they had ported MS Office and IE to WinCE their netbooks may have been as viable

      Just stop right there. Have you ever actually used wince? Especially on x86? You don't want to.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so where is your screen then? at a 45 degree angle covering your work space in front of you, where the keyboard and mouse would/should be?

    63. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you change the comma to "to".

    64. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes for several years on a few different devices - even an X terminal of all things, and more recently an e-ink device.
      The interface may look like 3.11 and there may be debate over whether multi-tasking actually works or not on it but it can do stuff on low end hardware (and small screens). I've used XP on netbooks and it is shit (especially on small screens) until you get something that really has the specs of a full laptop.

    65. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The interface may look like 3.11 and there may be debate over whether multi-tasking actually works or not on it

      It doesn't look like 3.11, more like a cross between Motif and Win95. And multitasking works fine, but in current versions of Windows Phone you're not allowed to use it, much like early versions of iOS. As usual, Microsoft trails Apple considerably, because they made poor decisions.

      I've used XP on netbooks and it is shit (especially on small screens) until you get something that really has the specs of a full laptop.

      You, sir, are full of crap. I use XP regularly on an Acer Aspire One and it is fine. As in, really fine. Boot happens in a reasonable timeframe, Firefox launches and runs fine, I've played fucking Mechwarrior IV on it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      On the other hand you appeared to reply before reading all of what I wrote. Your Acer Aspire One has the specs of a full laptop at the time when netbooks came out.

  19. Wish Windows 7 price would go down by Kinwolf · · Score: 1

    I must say I got 2 Windows 8 licence because of the 38$ update price, but if Microsoft had offered Windows 7 licence for 50$ at the same time, I'd have bought 5 licences of it instead for future mahines. I'm having a real hard time liking the Metro interface.

  20. Apple influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the whole month i actually bothered to try it, it felt like my computer skills where impeded by a HUGE brain tumor which hindered and rendered painful each and every action.

    So it was like using a Mac then?

    1. Re:Apple influence by lesincompetent · · Score: 2

      Although i'm a fervent mac hater i must admit Win8 felt much much worse than any MacOS i've ever tried.

    2. Re:Apple influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you have a brain tumor anyway.

  21. New user experience by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having recently taken the plunge, the new user experience can be summarised as "swipe a bit, here's some corners, now don't drown". I really like the OS now I've had some practice, in both its content-browsing Metro guise and as an updated version of Windows 7 but they've made no effort to bridge the gap between the two in such a way that a confident use of one can get to grips with the other. It takes some real lateral thinking to see what the mouse or touchpad equivalent of a touchscreen gesture is.

    It doesn't help that touchpad gesture support is uniformly terrible. A look at regedit suggests that scrolling support is mostly hacked in on a per-app basis.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:New user experience by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      As an MSDN subscriber I ran Windows 8 for a few months but after awhile I went back to Windows 7.
      I rarely ever used Metro except for the really polished Windows games and the UI for Windows 8 is so incredibly ugly. I'm not typically so vain as to rate an operating system based on it's appearance but Windows 8 is just hard to look at with all the flat colors on each other with no way to adjust the appearance apart from what flat colors you want.
      It would not have been so bad had Microsoft let us keep Aero transparency for the desktop UI.

      Perhaps I will return to Windows 8 when it has more time to mature, or when Stardock finally gets around to releasing WindowBlinds for Windows 8.

    2. Re:New user experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really like the OS now I've had some practice

      You fool! Do you want to get modded to oblivion?

    3. Re:New user experience by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ya, touchpad is bad. It can't really tell the difference between "swiping from edge of screen" versus "moving the mouse cursor". Ie, it thinks the edge of the touchpad is equivalent to swiping from the side of the screen.

      Mouse is simpler overall. But when playing full screen games I will sometimes find that charms bar showing up because my mouse cursor just happens to be at the edge of the screen. I have sort of gotten used to no start menu, but I may still get a start menu replacement soon just so that I can turn off charms bar and hot corners, plus boot to desktop.

  22. I'll use Windows 7 until I can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having used Windows since Windows has existed, I only moved from XP because drivers were not available for new hardware.

    I'll switch from Windows 7 for the same reason.

    Change for the sake of change is a waste of energy.

    Oh, and yes, I have paid DELL $100 more for the last three computers I've ordered, just to get Windows 7 instead of buying the cheaper, faster, and better Windows 8 computers.

    1. Re:I'll use Windows 7 until I can't by scottbomb · · Score: 1

      Exactly the same here. I happily used Windows 95 until 2004 and then XP until 2010 when I got 7. I've also gotten quite accustomed to Xubuntu so I'll be using it exclusively after Win 7 if MS keeps this up.

      I have a feeling that MS has run into a similar problem as the CPU manufacturers. Moore's Law has pretty much run its course so all they can do is add more cores. However at some point, more cores make no difference for most users. Over the years, MS has perfected the Windows desktop to the point where there really doesn't seem to be much room for improvement over what we have in XP and 7 (with the major eye candy improvement in 7 being Aero Glass and Aero-Flip). They can't make the wheel better, so they throw out the wheel and try to get us to use an oval. The problem is, we were quite happy with the wheel and we want it back because it works better.

  23. Ah, statistics by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Windows 7 Still Being Sold On Up To 93% of British PCs

    Good old "up to" - how many times have those two little words helped someone weasel out of a corner, or pull in punters from off the street.

    PC Pro spoke to several PC builders, with some reporting as many as 93% of recently sold machines were on the older OS

    "Some" is most likely journo-speak for "one." And it's probably one that caters to the hardened geek/gamer crowd, both of whom are going to be avoiding 8 for a while yet.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Ah, statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know it's weird but I think I've read this exact comment up to a hundred times before. Deja vu!

    2. Re:Ah, statistics by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I've seen some comments that look like this one, too.


      ;-)

    3. Re:Ah, statistics by Inda · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit too.

      I'm in the market for a small footprint PC and I really can't be bothered to build yet another one, so I've been hunting around.

      Some "business" PCs still come with W7, but they're too big and powerful for what I need. All the major brick and mortar electric retailers in the UK (Tesco, Asda, PC World, Curries, John Lewis, etc, etc) are selling nothing but W8 and it's pissing me off. Big W8 posters on the doors. Salesmen who give me weird looks when I ask about W7. It's all bollocks.

      I just want to look at the tower size and inspect the ports on the back, but it's going to be a blind internet purchase, I just know it. Bah.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:Ah, statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading the article makes it a bit more clear.
      Yes, the 'some' does mean one. In fact, the builders mentioned in the article mention figures between 65% and 93% of Windows7.

    5. Re:Ah, statistics by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I am also dating up to 72% more often than last year as well!

    6. Re:Ah, statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not weird looks. They're looks of frustration. About 30% of my buyers, the first thing they ask is "Do you have computers with Win 7 on them?" And it means one of two things: Either having to give the hard sell on Win 8 - time consuming and usually only 50% successful - or a bargain hunter, who isn't going to get anything with the computer and will waste your time.

  24. It's nothing but the hipster vote by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

    This happens pretty much every update cycle. The new OS is still terrible and unfamiliar and incompatible, and the old OS still has good availability. The only difference this time is that somebody wrote an article about.

    For the record: I'm an OSX, Android and 360 user. I don't particularly LIKE MS, but this is not the world-shaking revelation that the article and the rest of the comments are going to make it out to be.

    --
    Do you see what I did there?
    1. Re:It's nothing but the hipster vote by MarioMax · · Score: 1

      This happens pretty much every update cycle. The new OS is still terrible and unfamiliar and incompatible, and the old OS still has good availability. The only difference this time is that somebody wrote an article about.

      Strange, I don't recall this being the case with Windows XP and Windows 7.

      Windows XP built on the NT4 kernel that Windows 2000 solidified, and added crucial Win9x software compatibility. It effectively replaced both Win9x and Win2k in one fell swoop.

      While Windows Vista was widely panned compared to Windows XP (and for good reason), it was a technically better OS than XP; it just couldn't overcome the flaws. Windows 7 fixed everything that was wrong with Windows Vista, and rapidly displaced Windows Vista sales. 7 is also a better product than XP, though the system requirements are substantially higher. Most consumers that stubbornly held onto XP were because they didn't want to do a hardware upgrade, even though 7 is a much better OS.

    2. Re:It's nothing but the hipster vote by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      Most consumers that stubbornly held onto XP were because they didn't want to do a hardware upgrade, even though 7 is a much better OS.

      Don't mix up 'didn't want' with 'couldn't afford'.

      I used to rely on my brother's upgrade cycle to upgrade my system with his cast-off hardware. If I had had to purchase the hardware AND the OS I'd not have got very far.

      As for stubbornly holding onto XP, it still works! I only recently (18 months) upgraded to 7 at home as my AMD Barton XP2500 was getting long in the tooth plus the advantage of an Intel i3 with reasonable built in graphics lowered my energy footprint. I still use XP at work albeit we are on the cusp of rolling out 7.

      The majority of domestic users want facebook, online shopping and the ability to play browser-based games - the type of behaviour which XP promoted and made viable.

      A smaller percentage want some kind of word processor (Word starter ticks most boxes) and a much smaller percentage want properly productive software although Open Office will do for a large number of those.

      The cost of software is not of concern to your regular user as the limited functionality required is usually well-served by free software or inside a browser with a heavy dose of java. Moreover, the purchase of an OS is anathema to most people as they upgrade "the box" every few of years and pass the bloated, malware-infested "slow" machine to a younger or member of the family or a parent/friend. The new box has a new OS which is much faster although this is a combination of new hardware, a faster OS and fewer broken processes or malware. Obviously the new system is stymied by the shovelware but the average user has no idea of this.

    3. Re:It's nothing but the hipster vote by Urkki · · Score: 1

      This happens pretty much every update cycle. The new OS is still terrible and unfamiliar and incompatible, and the old OS still has good availability. The only difference this time is that somebody wrote an article about.

      For the record: I'm an OSX, Android and 360 user. I don't particularly LIKE MS, but this is not the world-shaking revelation that the article and the rest of the comments are going to make it out to be.

      This is not just getting used to it. Win8 mixes two totally different GUIs, the UI-previously-known-as-Metro, and the stripped down Vista/Win7 UI. And boy, do they integrate badly. To be able to use it, printed out cheat sheet of keyboard shortcuts is a must, the GUI is not going to help you get things done. And better learn to give keyboard commands "blind", because transition animations will make the display lag behind.

      Win8 would be brilliant with two small improvements: ability to run Metro in a window with other desktop apps, and a sensible start menu implementation for desktop mode. Even alone either of these would make a world of difference, together they'd make Win8 a must have OS even as upgrade.

  25. Re:White People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    and black people hate change, and yellow people hate change, and red people hate change, and brown people hate change...

  26. Back at College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they are still using Windows XP with Firefox 7.0.1!

    My face when.
    Windows 7 yes I understand, but XP? And I did a HNC computing course with them! Now I know why computer nerds are hated. I have gone back to become a Brick layer and Plumber, and they can stuff their ethernet cables up my pipes! I hope the conservative party are proud of themselves!

  27. XP was rubbish until SP2 or 3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the touted benefit (smaller and faster than NT!) was nerfed by each SP. Indeed it seems the only reason why it was smaller and faster at RTM was because they left so much necessary cruft out.

    1. Re:XP was rubbish until SP2 or 3. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      SP1 added the firewall, gave Windows Update a bit of a shake down, and generally acted as though the internet existed and was not necessarily friendly. And that was about it. I don't know where this impression that Windows service packs are huge orbital drops of features came from because in my experience, aside XP SP1, they've been nothing but a banal necessity.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:XP was rubbish until SP2 or 3. by default+luser · · Score: 2

      SP1 added the firewall, gave Windows Update a bit of a shake down, and generally acted as though the internet existed and was not necessarily friendly. And that was about it. I don't know where this impression that Windows service packs are huge orbital drops of features came from because in my experience, aside XP SP1, they've been nothing but a banal necessity.

      Absolutely wrong.

      Service pack 1 added native support for USB 2.0. The OS did not ship with this support (much like Windows 7 added official USB 3 in SP1).

      Service pack 2 completely redid the security system in XP: the firewall that was ALWAYS included was switched on by-default, they added native support for the NX bit (hardware-level protection from buffer overflows), and they created the new Windows Security Center to BUG PEOPLE to make sure their computer was secured (could see the state of Firewall, Antivirus and Automatic Updates, all in one place).

      That's a huge orbital drop of features in my book!

      Windows XP today is impressive, but when it first launched it seemed no more than a carbon-copy of Win2k with a pretty skin. This change in OS featureset is entirely due to the service packs.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    3. Re:XP was rubbish until SP2 or 3. by vasster · · Score: 1

      I remember that when Windows XP first launched were heavy, slow and required a lot more from the hardware compared to win2k, mostly because of the heavier gui. The only thing that you could do was to add ram and a better gpu. Today xp feels like lean and mean but it was not like that some years ago.

    4. Re:XP was rubbish until SP2 or 3. by prshaw · · Score: 1

      I think you might have slightly better hardware now than some years ago.
      Load XP today on the same hardware you had years ago and it will run the same as it did back then. The XP bits didn't change to be smaller and faster, your hardware got much faster.

    5. Re:XP was rubbish until SP2 or 3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Today xp feels like lean and mean but it was not like that some years ago.

      Different hardware. You were trying to run XP on less memory, smaller hard drives, and slower processors. Your hardware is probably several generations newer than the stuff you were trying to run XP on back in the pre-sp1 days.

  28. People buy more of a product they like ? by bobjr94 · · Score: 1

    Ive seen here in the US how new pc sales have fallen faster than in a long time but look at the Best Buy and Office Max ads and you have no choice, everything is Win 8. People don't want Win 8, so they don't buy a new computer. At my work, for desktop's we have 5 Win 7's and 3 XP's. All of them working great, the XP's lack the hardware to goto Win 7 and since they serve their purpose just fine they are likely to be in use for several more years. Even with out security updates, with AVG free & Firefox with Ad Block Plus on them and we are good. The Win 7's computers we have will likely remain Win 7 for their entirety, no reason spend money to get something you dont like. Unless Win 9 is better, but I doubt it. Microsoft has thrown away their desktop OS sales, in hopes of getting people to buy a Windows phone & tablet since they look like a Win 8 PC. It wont be much longer before Google or someone else steps in swipes the desktop OS away from MS.

  29. Re:White People by Chas · · Score: 2

    and black people hate change, and yellow people hate change, and red people hate change, and brown people hate change...

    But those lousy, change-lovin' purple people! They gotta go man!

    Call out the purple people eaters!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  30. Julie Larson-Green by Chas · · Score: 1

    Hey Microsoft.

    She's not doing you any favors here.

    First, that hot mess that is the Office Ribbon.

    Now the flaming, shit-covered mess of Metro.

    How many more fucked-up interface choices are going to come on her watch? Costing you customers each and every time.

    You guys currently have the underpinnings of a decent OS.

    But your UI choices lately have people wondering if you got a bad batch of crack.

    Fuck XBox, Fuck Touchscreens Everyplace. Give the user back their productive UI, keyboard shortcuts and all.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Julie Larson-Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're using a mouse, you're just pretending to use a "productive UI" to begin with, and the tasks you are performing can hardly be mission-critical.

    2. Re:Julie Larson-Green by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      Only an age-hardened IT nerd would say such a thing.

      An old school friend of mine got into IT early on and thought that Windows 3.1 brought nothing to the game. He has become more embittered with every passing iteration. He believes that people should learn how to use a computer from the command line and if they want a GUI they should write it themselves. He is a fossil and I told him as much. Technology is for everybody regardless of whether they understand it or not.

      The mouse has its place as do keyboard shortcuts. The touchscreen also has its uses but less so on a vertical screen (phones and tablets are fine though).

      As for mission critical - it depends what the mission is. Preparing a report with embedded graphs and pictures for a world leader or the CEO of a large company? Do that from the command line...

    3. Re:Julie Larson-Green by Chas · · Score: 1

      What mouse?

      I'm talking about stupidly simple things. Like them REMOVING ALL THE KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS for things like copying and pasting.

      In Win8, you're FORCED to use the UI for this crap now. Taking 2-3x as long, because you have to navigate through the UI (not just see the button and click) to get to the functions.

      Total, absolute, unadulterated bullshit. First to last.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:Julie Larson-Green by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Years before Windows 3.1, the mouse was being used many places. Consider Lisp machines with a command line integrated into the GUI and vice versa, and these weren't machines for dumb users.

    5. Re:Julie Larson-Green by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A GUI does restrict to a limited set of choices by it's very nature, which is fine for some things but not others. Imagine how horrible a GUI for a google search would be instead of a text box - you'd have to navigate through a pile of category choices and hope that whoever wrote the GUI thought of the thing you are looking for. At best it would be like the ebay GUI without a search box.

  31. Mojave was already used by tepples · · Score: 1

    Mojave was already used for Windows Vista SP1. People tried Windows Vista after the initial hardware compatibility problems and other technical glitches in Windows Vista RTM were fixed, and by that time, it had become a perfectly acceptable Windows OS. There wasn't nearly as much UI change between Windows XP and Windows Vista as there was between Windows XP and Windows 8.

  32. Agree 100% With The End of the Summary by semilemon · · Score: 1

    I agree 100% with the end of the summary.

    I've been using Windows 8 for about a month now, and as time goes on I'm finding myself using the new "Modern UI" for more and more of my day-to-day browsing, music, etc. However, even as somebody who is very computer literate, it took about an hour to get accustomed to the dual-UI setup and figure out the most common mouse/touchpad gestures.

    While for me that hour wasn't a big deal, as I was expecting to spend some time learning the new interface, for the average user I can see the process being very frustrating. While a quick Google search yields hundreds of sites with keyboard shortcuts, hints, and video tutorials of how the new interface works, many "average" computer users probably won't even think to search for these tutorials like I did.

    Honestly, I think most users will like the new UI, once they invest the time to learn it. And even if you do hate it, just uninstall/unpin all of the modern apps from the start screen, pin your most-used desktop apps to the start screen, and you'll almost never see "Modern UI" except when using the start screen. The real problem is that Microsoft's "introduction" to its complete rethink of how you interact with your computer is an animation showing you to move your mouse to the top right-hand corner of the screen to bring up the Charms bar. If they gave the option to "Click here for a tour of the new Windows interface", I think the average computer user would find things a lot less frustrating and would be more welcoming of the new Windows user interface.

    --
    Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?
    1. Re:Agree 100% With The End of the Summary by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      quote However, even as somebody who is very computer literate, it took about an hour to get accustomed to the dual-UI setup and figure out the most common mouse/touchpad gestures. unquote why do you think having pre existing habits helps you ? in the old days, when each new os release would be accompanied by a large increase in new users, it didn't matter if old users had to unlearn stuff - it was the new users that matterd maybe that will change now that pc sales are leveling off

  33. Windows 8 is not bad plus improvements. by Vince6791 · · Score: 1

    It takes me 2 seconds more to find my program in metro than in rocketdock or start menu pinned. But for others i'm sure 10+ seconds if they don't know where they placed their programs. Windows 8 is definitely better then windows 7 is some areas including file transfers. It took me a total of 3 1/2 hours to install windows 7(OS 30 minutes flash drive) os and do all the necessary updates including sp1. Windows 8(OS 8 minutes by flash drive) took me 1 hour including installing all updates(15+) of my drivers and applications(12).

    Metro for now belongs on tablets, touchscreens, and lcd tv monitors. Metro will remain as a toy until they get professional applications like office, photoshop, coreldraw, autocad, visual studio, etc... to run. Plus, they need to make metro run 2 apps at the same time for people with dual monitors.

    What pisses me off about all windows is the expensive single license. Now, office 2013 will no longer be on a media or just an iso you will get a key code to install office 2013 from either microsoft or their online partners which will be bound to one machine unless you contact microsoft to transfer the license over to another one or something.

    I'm disappointed with Ubuntu's because of the spy ware, you can remove the amazon search but I read somewhere that Canonical still get's all your key strokes. I have become in favor of mint kde and looking at opensuse again as well. I think in the end for linux distro's to keep up float it will become spy ware.

  34. Windows 8 is as bad as they make it to be... by dejanc · · Score: 1

    I needed to use Windows only e-banking and borrowed an unused laptop from with Windows 8 on it - great chance to see what the fuss was all about, especially since it was stock installation and nobody has used it before.

    First impressions were good: I figured out I can click on Desktop box in the Metro UI and I started Internet Explorer from the taskbar (if I needed some other app, though, I have no idea how I would go about it).

    Then I wanted to turn off the machine. But I really couldn't figure out how. I realized that if I move the pointer of the mouse to the right, I get some sort of a menu. And screen edge detection is completely unintuitive when using a trackpad! Anywho, once I was back on the Metro thingy, I started Mail, just to see how it looks like. It wasn't setup, so it took me another 10 minutes to figure out how to leave the wizard without taking the battery out of the laptop!

    When I finally got back to the Metro thingy, I couldn't find desktop, because things were rearranged!

    Then it took me 10 more minutes to figure out how to shutdown the darn thing. The trick was to logout and then find an icon to do it.

    I fear the day when some aunt is going to call me and ask me to fix her Windows 8 machine. I honestly won't have any idea what to do with it!

    1. Re:Windows 8 is as bad as they make it to be... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your "first 15 minutes with Windows 8" review. That was very helpful. Would you care to hear my "first 15 minutes with Linux" review? Or how about my "first 15 minutes with Apple* review"? Would that be useful?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Windows 8 is as bad as they make it to be... by CQDX · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. I've been using Linux since the mid 90's. With each upgrade or change of distribution there is a period where I have to learn how to use it. But the changes weren't so radical that I couldn't be productive from the start. Same with Windows since 95. With each each version, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista (gag!), 7, I could at least navigate the UI well enough to start up apps, do some work, know where my files were, etc.without a manual. But the Win8 UI is crap. Like the OP I tried a fresh install (in vmware) and found the most basic operations non-intuitive. I had resort to Google to find out how to do the most basic things like shutting down. If I had to get something done for work right away and didn't have Internet access I would have been hosed.

    3. Re:Windows 8 is as bad as they make it to be... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      How about a "first 15 minutes with Windows 8 review done but someone who's used windows since 3.0" versus "first 15 minutes with Ubuntu 12 review done by someone who's used Linux since 0.93"?

      The problem is that Windows 8 turns even the veteran Windows professionals into noobs.

  35. Wish ReactOS and Wine would just take over by argoff · · Score: 2

    Does anybody else just wish ReactOS and/or WINE would just take over, and reach a point where everything can run on them. That way we could kick out Microsoft and not have to play their upgrade and licensing games all the time.

    1. Re:Wish ReactOS and Wine would just take over by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      Now that will be a good day !

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    2. Re:Wish ReactOS and Wine would just take over by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Let's see. List of Windows apps I need but can't run on Linux:

      .

      .

      .

  36. welcome to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    new slogan "news for nerds... and windows 8 sucks"

  37. WIndows 8... piece of shit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *DO NOT WANT*

    We the people have spoken.

  38. if i like it, who r u to say otherwise by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    if 2000 or xp or 7 is working for me, who are you to say otherwise ? and, in teh real world, don't most people upgrade when their hardware dies, or when their job requires it ? i only upgrade when my hardware dies, altho this hasn't worked well for me - in my family, 3 computers died when Vista came out...sigh

    1. Re:if i like it, who r u to say otherwise by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      Most people upgrade once their hardware dies, but most /. posters will upgrade when the need or bank flow rises. As far as using 8, a lot of us have to use 8 to support users that are stuck with the OS. If you won't learn the new OS, you start to look like that mechanic that will not work on Fuel-injected IC engines. You look foolish to your customer not knowing how to use the current OS, no matter how vile it is.

  39. Avoid the mess, use Ubuntu! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu, the other white meat!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:Avoid the mess, use Ubuntu! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Does it come with trychonosis?

    2. Re:Avoid the mess, use Ubuntu! by vandamme · · Score: 1

      For the recent Windows escapee, Zorin or Mint might be better, to avoid traumatic shocks to their delicate psyches.
      Puppy, if you're converting an old XP machine.
      Bodhi or x/lubuntu, for the middle-aged Vista machine.

  40. Shoehorn time! by zorro-z · · Score: 2

    You may remember Windows Compact Edition- only Microsoft could make a product whose all-but-official nickname meant "grimace in pain." Well, for WinCE, MS decided to shoehorn the desktop- complete w/the Start Menu- onto phones of the day, phones that had much smaller displays than they do now. Well, with Win8, MS did exactly the opposite thing: instead of shoehorning the desktop onto a phone, they blew up a phone to desktop size. The result is... interesting. But not convincing, and certainly not interesting enough to motivate significant numbers of people- especially not corporate buyers- to upgrade their current desktops.

    On the corporate side, you've got plenty of potential buyers who are perhaps only now finishing upgrades from Windows XP- which was patched to "good enough" status after a few service packs- to Windows 7. These potential customers are *not* interested in spending time and money to upgrade systems to Windows 8, given both their recent investments in upgrades to 7, and in the cost of retraining employees to use a completely new desktop metaphor. Look up Neil Stephenson's term "metaphor shear" for more about that.

    --
    -Z
    1. Re:Shoehorn time! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Actually, it dawned on me awhile back that on my desktop, Metro has these giant icons. Bigger than are necessary for touch, and vastly bigger than necessary for a mouse. Yet, the exact same UI on the phone has much smaller icons even though people's finger tips are the same size. So it really says to me that the desktop really is just a phone blown up in size, or maybe a tablet that's expanded, for no good reason.

      Further, these full screen Metro apps just don't seem well suited to a desktop. Most of them really look like they could be projected into a screen during a presentation: large fonts, pretty pictures in the background, trimmed down detail. What they don't have is a full screen's worth of detail that you would expect on a computer. They're an executive briefing really. Even if the info is there you have to scroll a lot to get to it. Bing the web site gives you more information in a browser window than the full screen Bing application shows you. (I don't use tablets so I have no idea if other tablets are equally dumbed down)

  41. Twice nothing is still nothing. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Paul Redford, chairman of Manchester-based Computer Planet, has sold more than 500 systems in January, with only 20% of them running Windows 8

    The custom build is a tiny slice of the retail market in the states. It is a desktop market in a world that is going mobile.

    I am wary of stories that begin like this:

    "according to several system builders contacted by PC Pro."

    That doesn't tell me how big the system building market is in the UK. That doesn't tell me whether PC Pro is basing its numbers on a representative sampling.

    -----

    The geek obsesses over the loss of the start menu. My aging eyes are telling me a very different story.

  42. Re: W98 by antdude · · Score: 1

    How was 98 SE crap? 98 and its SE were similar IMO.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  43. Have you seen Windows 8 computers? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Before, you were able to walk into a Best Buy and start poking around with the touchpad of display laptops to get a feel of Windows 7. But now display screens are covered with mockups of Windows8 UI??

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  44. Re: W98 by laffer1 · · Score: 1

    Their appearance was similar. There are many changes in 98SE that proved to be both good and bad. It had better support for USB and AGP video cards, but it also enabled full PNP. PCI cards would go wherever they wanted and it was not uncommon for half the devices in your system to be on the same IRQ. It was tolerable unless you had buggy hardware like the Acer laptop I had or an AMD CPU + via chipset motherboard.

    I had to reinstall 98SE every three months and I only used it for gaming. It would blue screen randomly. It was a flaming pile.

    Conversely, NT4 SP3+ was a nice OS with only one flaw. Drivers could kill the kernel way to easily. Iomega's zip drive drivers were quite bad as were some scsi controllers.

  45. Re: W98 by antdude · · Score: 1

    Ah interesting. I did not know about the hardware support. Thanks.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  46. Still? Whaddaya mean "still"? by jonadab · · Score: 1

    I was not aware that Seven had yet reached that level of penetration. Last I checked, a double-digit percentage of new PCs came with Windows XP installed. When did this change?

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  47. Liking Windows 8 against better judgment or choice by eyenot · · Score: 1

    My new laptop came with only windows 8 as an OS option. I was bummed, my last laptop purchased only a few months before allowed me to choose.

    There are some good and bad things, but I think the worst thing is the app launch pad. Windows users come from a tradition of expandable menus that reflect an underlying branching directory structure. Taking that away and expecting them to utilize a nebulous blob of apps defines "counter intuitive".

    But, I wouldn't go back. For one thing, I broke myself of the anxiety of needing a physical map to my applications' own private holding pens. For another, I enjoy having everything available to me displayed at a glance.

    Something else that bothered me at first was how many things appear to be "missing". But they aren't missing, they just haven't been pinned to anything. These days I much prefer hitting the windows key and typing what I'm looking for rather than "navigating" anxiously through a bunch of annoying, expanding "menus" to get to something I'm just going to click one time anyway. And if it's not an app, it's not something I'm using every day.

    Why should a shortcut to my firewall be sitting on my desktop or even in a menu tree? When I need it, I'm already cognitively thinking "firewall" anyway, so I've come to enjoy just typing that out and getting my result. The app/component search feature strikes me as a "closer" interface than a menu system. It's how I'd do things if I was using a CL, so of course it strikes me as more efficient.

    I was also anxious about installing my first (and so far only) actual Windows 8 Application. There's some kind of dedicated process to the installation involving signing into a Microsoft account. The installation appeared to be, for lack of a better term, "seamless". Of course, Microsoft owns Skype and it's a hugely popular app, so it probably represents the very best of any possible Windows 8 experience.

    But I was able to install and quickly start using Skype in minutes. I was never able to accomplish this in any previous version of Skype and I've been using it since it was released for XP.

    One more hiccup I confronted was the "gestures" interface. I panicked when I couldn't find any way to get to an app's settings. Where was the menu? I learned that you have mouse-over and hover in the bottom right corner of the screen. A generic menu will slide out and offer options that are universal and options that are specific to your app, including "settings".

    I was upset about this until I realized that it had eliminated some actual work while also de-cluttering my work space. I normally don't like the thought of a "gesture" interface and when I heard it was the future of Windows, I groaned. Now I'm actually glad to be using it.

    Another great feature is that Windows 8 happily offers itself up to be re-installed or factory restored. I was worried this was due to some instability, and that was correctly apprehended. It is a fairly unstable system. I hope all the kinks get worked out in time.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  48. Re:Liking Windows 8 against better judgment or cho by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Clarifying points (because I'm a "submit first think later" junkie):

    1.) Restoring the Windows 8 installation from the protected partition sectors takes moments on a 3GHz machine. Restoring to factory state takes less than an hour, but fans of Windows XP and Windows 7 may be dismayed to find that the Windows 8 Windows Update process more closely resembles the sensation of the Windows VISTA WINDOWS UPDATE PROCESS , which deserves to be in all caps, because when else was the last time you thought you were going for a coffee break and ended up having the entire department down your neck over "When is this fucking thing going to be done? YOU SAID IT WAS ALMOST DONE!"

    2.) I have to admit I've also learned "try installing and running fewer things, it's more disciplined, you'll learn to utilize those apps in new and better ways." But that's because I was running BBS's in the early 90's and using computers since the mid-80's. Not every computer user today understands or can comprehend what it means to utilize some function of an application in a new way that gives it some sort of meta-productivity. Users of "elite" apps like {C0MM0} can relate (so can users of "sane" operating systems), while people who were born after ICQ was already dead simply can not. What it means is that I've accepted that *sniff* I love my life living under the *sob* people's republic of the *boohoo* Microsoft corporate marketing scheme.

    3.) Everything these days is getting eerily close to Bill Gates' vision of everybody running dumb terminals while all of their apps and data are stored securely in servers in godawful locations like the bottom of the middle of the ocean or the moon. So Windows 8 just resembles a nasty venereally diseased widow that I just knew somebody was going to try to hook me up with, who I've since been somehow betrothed to and now have to perform my marital duties upon the sake of my own life.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  49. mentality around here get repetitive... by sponga · · Score: 1

    Win98se-"this new version of windows is bloated, with security holes and just a update of the last one, stick with the old version"
    next update
    WinXP-"this new version of windows is bloated, with security holes and just a SP update of the last one, stick with the old version now that it has sp2"
    next update
    Win7-"this new version of windows sucks and is well... its not bloated or insecure anymore but its not like the one before it, stick with the old version now that it has sp2"
    Rinse.... Wash... Repeat

    Apparently Metro UI is the worse thing to happen around here, really?

    I am having a feeling that an SP update will change minds around here. I never understood the whining around here about Win7 and I always spoke against it, but prevailing mod points won. Of the irony of the ass kissing of Win7 now to try to prevent people from using/buying Win8, I saw the same kind of stories shared here when Win7 came out and how terrible it was. You could obviously tell the credibility factor represents nothing of the real world on here, but still.

    What happened to the whole "you only need a browser and text pad to accomplish all your work on the computer". Personally I don't like the Win8 right away, but than again I didn't like the Win7 taskbar and converted back to classic. Now I use Win7 taskbar all the time, personally they need to add the lower left windows icon to the same corner again and have the taskbar popup as if I had checked 'auto-hide taskbar'.

  50. Now if only Win 8 would install by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    Use Linux day to day, and Windows where I have to. I have a legit Win 8 Pro upgrade and a home built machine: i7-2600, 16GB RAM, Nvidia 8800GTS, no built-in video. I cannot get Win 8 to install on this machine, never get to the "Personalize" screen after the reboot during install: just a black screen. No diagnostics, no safe mode available unless the machine can boot far enough to get a display, no failed to boot menu because Win8 thinks it has booted successfully. Great experience all round...

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  51. up to... by alchemy101 · · Score: 1

    up to 93%...

    well that's a useful metric... and title to get clicks to your article and what about the sample size of the other companies and were those customers businesses or home users? I don't see businesses jumping on a new OS if there's a tried and tested OS available. But hey M$ right?

  52. Nemesis? by caspy7 · · Score: 1

    If you're trying to argue that Star Trek: Nemesis was any good, imma hafta stop you right there.

    1. Re:Nemesis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never understood the amount of flack that that movie receives. It wasn't a great movie, but I enjoyed it. Sure, in retrospect I understand that it has some serious plot holes, but there wasn't anything that jumped out of the screen and completely destroyed the experience. I personally enjoyed it far more than Insurrection's weak plot, but I think nearly everyone here would agree that First Contact was better than either of them.

    2. Re:Nemesis? by highphilosopher · · Score: 1

      So good I've been waiting for Windows Nemesis "The OS X Re-write" to come out for years!

  53. FFS by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Obviously most firms won't be rolling out systems with a new OS most firms will await service pack 1 before they even think about it. Just like every OS since Dos 3.1

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:FFS by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu 13.04 will be out before then.

  54. H8 by persevero · · Score: 0

    I can believe it - bought son a new laptop two weeks ago and John Lewis was swarming with people all asking for (and not getting) Windows 7. So we acquired Windows 8 and it took the whole household, and Google, to find such essential features as *shutting the damn thing down*.