They listened and you can read the review here and see the desktop in action staring in 3:45 here.
Still miss the start menu, but at least I can search for a file/program just like in Windows 7, can use aero preview and not have to leave the desktop for Metro each time I do a search. Also you do not have to drag the mouse all over and just need to move it to the upper left hand corner to preview metro apps and stay in the desktop.
I am not saying its better than Windows 7. But at least they are making it suck less and are working on it.
I hated the developer preview but the consumer preview enchanced its desktop mode for keyboard and mouse users. There is a picture and small preview here. Basically you do not have to drag the mouse all over the place and just need to go to the upper left hand corner to preview other apps and the title bar still works like Windows 7 with Aero preview. The search button and other features are to the right of the screen so you can hit the Windows key and type your program or file which is nice.
Here is the new gui in action, where the desktop is mentioned after 4:00. Metro is still there but at least MS listened to use and made it more mouse and keyboard friendly with the corners and dragging so we do not have to keep using our fingers and only seeing one app at a time. Thank GoD!
I do not know if I like it as a desktop as it will take awhile to get used too. But it is much improved over the developer preview to it being tolerable hopefully. I do like the sync/send function if you watch that video. It integrates nice in desktop mode and the app/icon grouping from XP that is lacking in Windows 7. Other than that it is eh ok.
Even if Windows 8 had the same gui as Windows 7, and none the Metro-ness that we all flame here there are bugs. A good enterprise rule is to wait until Service Pack 1 is out. XP, Vista, and even Windows 7 had issues before SP 1.
Windows 7 still is flaky with shared drives if you have a crappy wan link and hanging if ARP tables are not cleared for them etc. This is after SP 1 is released so even Windows 7 is still being ironed out. I am sure at your organization you have seen work orders for "Why do I have red Xs" etc.
"Anybody got any screenshots for the new interface? I'm curious to know how trying to make something optimized for phones and tablets is going to work as an actual desktop interface. It sounds like they might be trying a bit of a "one size fits all" approach, which doesn't always work so well."
Here is your answer from the Windows 8 product manager. The second half of the video talks about the desktop and last minute mouse and keyboard integration. I tried the developer preview and it sucked goatballs hard. However MS, listened to us complain so I can not comment on using it myself with keyboard and mouse. It will take some time for an adjustment. Your users will be much happier with Windows 7 as it is more familiar to them and XP like. The only thing I can see is a plus for Metro is you can organize icons/programs by group. Something XP did and that is lacking in Windows 7.
Speaking of which until last year I always emailed my documents in 2003 to cut down on variations that can cause issues with macros. Today, if they have Office XP they are incompetent and I would not want to work for them. I use the OpenXML format. No issues at all as even 2003 has the free add-on for opening the new format.
I have seen the error message that this file is corrupt and LibreOffice can fix that, but no one uses anything like Office 2000 and Office XP anymore to justify it unless you are editing very old files.
Like the A/C I keep Word around just for my resume and the fact that I support Office for a living and need to learn it inside and out.
Monster.com only accepts Word documents the last time I looked so it can be searched. Also HR loves to highlight in yellow key parts of the resume and email managers back and forth with amendments to the resume.
In business vendors and customers will edit and email back documents. The cost of Office is well worth the price for this reason alone. Not to mention Access and Excel are great products.
... and keep thinking you are not delusional. I am sure your users would think you are #1 winner if you dared installed Ubuntu on their PCs.
I can tell you are not an IT professional who does support. If you were, you would know that the number one cause of infections are drive by downloads and exploits from holes in flash, java, and browsers. I disable Java on the internet but I use flash as part of my web development tools and a rogue ad got through from a site that needed flash to function.
I am guessing you are an elitest who used WindowsME and IE 5.5 back in the days and remember the 64,000 bugs of Windows 17 years ago and are frozen in time from your hatred. Or you are a college student with no real world experience where your professor is from the the typical stereotype who has never worked in business or did back in the 20th century and spews all this anti MS BS etc.
Linux lacks stable abis so a simple apt-get update can hose your system if you update your video card drivers. Is that acceptable for a Joe Six Pack? I have seen horrible bugs and just getting Ubuntu to work on my old laptop is a challange. With Windows it just works. MY desktop works better with Linux but the software packages are flaky. Java and X still do not render fonts properly as they claim they disabled font hinting due to patents from Apple or some BS.
If you worked in a PC shop and installed Ubuntu your angry users will file complaints through the roof! Linux is not a desktop OS and you had your chance. Windows 7 is perfectly stable relatively bug free and well tested. There is no reason to change and it is bizaare? You do not buy a TV just to replace the backlit light or a coffee Maker just to replace the heating element? Same with a PC. Just turn it on and go work. It is part of the whole platform and it makes no sense to change it unless you are special user like I mentioned in my other post. Linux distro include buggy bleeding edge packages, it does not look nor function like MacOSX or Windows, its gui is ugly (normal users do not know about WMs), and Windows already comes with their computers.
I am disappointed in slashdot and hoped there would be some intelligent people with lives and understand real world use. I have been proven wrong and it looks like arstechnica is the last place left.
100% true according to grandma and Joe Six Pack. If you read my whole comment you would see where I mention WMs and hunting the internet for special repositories for mp3 codecs doesnt make sense in 2012.
Yes the average housewife will put in her logitech cd to install skype and then bash linux for not working. The average user does not know what a kernel is and thinks the gui is the os. When they see gdm crash due to an update they will curse linux. Windows updates wont break shit.
I stand by my point that linux is not a desktop os. Windows won
If you booted into a modern Ubuntu or Fedora distro you would be shocked to see where it is today.
It pains me as I was rooting for it for years. In the end I have work to do and I keep on messing up Linux config files wrestling with Apache, php, etc. I have a VM where I run it now. Development tools have finally ported and I do not see a reason to use it.
Windows was so horrible it would break if you sneezed on it back in 1999 when people on slashdot went crazy over Linux. It had cool things and you could make serious money if you knew C++ and Unix back then in 1999 in the.com days. Those days are gone and Linux desktop use has regressed years back. Windows 8 just might regress just as bad this summer;-)
Maybe a mac wont be that bad if I can save up some dough. For now Windows 7 is fine.
"Business has somehow gotten the whacked idea that it can't survive without paying hundreds of dollars per seat for an app that creates and edits office documents."
Have you run a business before? Go attach some documents that look like crap to your customers, vendors, potential employees and see how long you stay in business? Image is everything, which is why they wear suits or nice clothing.
If you use weird software in their eyes you are incompetent. I use Office for this reason and it is better than LibraOffice. I can't risk something not looking professional because of a bug in the file conversion process or some macro that was not fully compatible between the two suites.
MS is evil for purposely, introducing incompatibility but it worked and why it is essential to survive. Until the rest of the world standardizes on OpenDoc this situation wont change.... and Office integrates with Active Directory quite well for the larger corporations who want group policies and ease of installations and groups and so on.
True MS made some crappy software that deservingly needs to be flamed.
However, they have made great software as well. Office however is one of the product lines that is fairly well. Outlook and Word may not be the best, but Access, PowerPoint, and Excel are awesome and are stars in the business world.
Novell Group wise and Lotus is far worse than Outlook so nevermind about the Outlook comment:-)
For those who hate Windows there is MacOSX or some ishiny tablet which is more cost effective if all you do is tweet away and make buddies with your facebook friends than a real computer.
What is the strange obsession over Gnu/Linux? It is really weird and at least for me its time to let it go.
Before I get modded down into an oblivion I have to ask the parent and moderators a question?
The real question? Why should Joe Six Pack or Sandra housewife use this Linux with its strange Gnome-Shell gui rather than just stick with Windows? It comes with the machine, the user is familiar with it, knows how to use, can run his or her programs, and if he or she hates viruses or thinks Windows sucks they can get an iShiny Mac?
Linux is sure a lot of trouble when Windows just works and comes with the box. Windows you turn it on and that is it. Linux you have to install and setup. Therefore, why should a user change? I switched back to Linux last year but have been gradually migrating to Windows since Windows 7 came out anyway. I mean I read comments here like setting up Citrix or Onlive Desktop and I have to ask why just not use a regular Windows image with AD integration and call it the day?
In 1999 I thought it was cool shit compared to Windows 98 and NT 4 with a TON of cool software and free apis and a free C/C++/Ojbective-C, perl, and cool hacker utilities. It also never crashed and could save on battery power due to its superior software APM.... fast-forward to 2012 and all that software is on Windows now. Linux is not cutting edge anymore and MacOSX is a true consumer OS as it was in beta in 1999. Linux regressed while Windows moved boldly forward.
Linux is a kernel, not an os...
Fine you want to talk about as an OS?
Today Linux uses more battery use, is less stable, more buggy, does not do proper font rendering, does support mp3s, has a crappy Cell Phone GUI that does not even support minimizing Windows!? WTF and so on.
True you can enable mp3 if you search for some media repository or whatever it was on ubuntu or install fedora plus and search the internet to enable these super patented secret codecs. Yes, the kernel is 100% rock solid... the apps on top are not. Grandma does not care about her uptime really. She wants to know why this weird update keeps failing and why her webcam is not recognized and why she can't install skype from the Windows CD Rom? Or you can flame me on how I can just go install a million different WMs to find a proper GUI but guess what? This is not 1999 anymore and is silly in 2012 to do these things. Hell half the guis outside of blackbox and XFCE have not changed since 1999 anyway.
Linux is not a desktop OS and there is no compelling reason to run it. If you are an engineer or develop server software or need a specialized embedded machine for your MIT project at school then yes that is a reason. Other than that it is a niche. NT is also a stable kernel and can take advantage of hardware to run server oriented and multi threaded software like Apache and Java. In the 1990s Unix rocked because you could run these pieces of software with a real operating system kernel. Today, Windows and MacOSX kernels can do that just fine.
Windows is not going anywhere. Linux is gone on the desktop. I am just one former user who still uses Linux on a VM for web development and it belongs only in the server room or some embedded device like a phone. You had 15 years to come up with a gui that didn't suck. Ubuntu 6.04 was pretty close and was sweet and finally included proper font rendering (now removed) and very very buggy and inferior applications. No Gimp is not Photoshop. LibreOffice is not MS office.
I am used to Windows again and I do not want to leave and like it fine here. I do not have these BSODS and only had 1 piece of malware in a year. It is not a horrible OS it was 12 years ago and people think it is WindowsME with IE 5.5 all over again because that is when they last used it. Trust me, if you go back you will realize how much it is not that bad.
In browser time yes. Remember how IE 9 was competitive and was the fastest browser under any benchmark except Google's V8 javascript one?
Now it is slow and only half as fast as Chrome and FF. FF realized this and would be killed as users would look at the html 5 spec support and benchmarks and within weeks would be behind the competition again.
FF 3.6 really is slow. I fired it up last week and the scrolling up and down was glacial compared to the more modern browsers. Google Maps were painfull too
Well he is right.... however he fails to mention all browsers will use a gig of ram when running Firebug or some intense developing app with loads of jquery or some bloated ajax library.
Responsive wise for kicks I installed and played with FF 3.6 from last year. WOW, is it a dog compared to IE 8, IE 9, Chrome, and future versions of itself. Smooth and faster scrolling and less bloat have helped in later releases. I am still not running the later versions of FF as I do not trust htem nor agree with Asa's release schedule.
I could change. I did start using IE 9 after 9 years of quiting IE 6 cold turkey.
NoScript is not that big of a deal as it once was. It was mainly used for XSS filtering and cross domain scripting protection. All the major browsers do this by default now in their javacript engines and security features without it.
I used to install NoScript and simply disabled it, which left it open to run AJAX but blocked global cross domain scripting. Now I do not need to do this.
Dude leave XP! XP was made in the 1990s right after the 1995 era and it can lock itself while waiting on one app even though technically it has a premptive multitasking kernel. It is almost in the same era as a 15 year old computer as people did still run Windows 95 when it came out.
I have not had these issues with Windows 7. You can get a AMD Llano desktop/notebook for $399 with a built in GPU and 8 gigs of ram. Nothing will freeze on that for regular work.
Or you have malware. Probably a real nasty one if it acts this way and you do have a recent computer and a reasonably up to date OS. Download malware bytes and run it in safe mode?
People still used 386s mostly. Sure NEW ones on sale maybe but my 486 DX2 in late 1994 was FAST and top of the line. Most desktops sold then were 486 SX 25 mhz because they were cheaper and more in line with people's budgets. I got a 166 mhz pentium for a graduation present in june 1996 and it was the fast thing out there at the time. It was workstation grade to run NT 4
It was not a virtualization and Virtual PC did not exist for another 10 years. You maybe thinking about Softwindows which was coming of age. A PowerPC which would be 3x as powerfull emulating DOS at 80 mhz ran at the speed of a 386sx 25 mhz. Windows 3.11 was SLLOOWW and most people used it for DOS apps. I would not use that for daily work as it was 20x slower compared to native apps as they were emulated interpretted line by line and not virtualized like today
Both your post as wella s AdamHaun's is how I became a MS hater, hence my name (this is an old account from 1999).
DOS SUCKED. Why on Earth would I need to run a config.sys and an Autoexec.bat for 25k a of ram when my PC had 8 megs??
Worse I did this to run Doom then Dune 2 or Masters of Orion would whine about needing expanding memory, not extended. It is all the same ram so why the stupid naming and virtual partitioning? My friends at school informed me it was because of the 1978 limits of the 8086.... hello this is 1994 some 15 years later.
Memaker in Dos 6.2 was just a hack.
I wanted a Mac BAD back then and saved for one. Then I discovered NT 4.0 and switched. I was happy to leave Windows 95 after only 1 year and switch to a real operating system without the baggage. NT 4 reaked I know, but running DOS or hiding it in a gui via Windows 95 was unacceptable in 1995 and I discovered Linux later. I do not care about office workers or those who thought DOS WAS DA BOMB because it was so hard to use. Therefore, it had to be awesome and I am better than you because I do not use a mouse.
"Eh. There's not much of a difference. We're still using the same hardware and architecture as 1995"
There is a BIG difference. Did Wifi exist back in 1995?
Try booting Windows 95 on a PC today?
Heck unless XP is a SP 3 disk, the installation wont even see your hard drive.
We have SMP, GPU with 3D graphics, true multitasking, virtualizing in hardware, wifi, broadband, and the x86 is only x86 in name as it internally translates the CISC code into risc inside the processor itself. It is a virtual risc processor.
They are more than just faster iterations of our 486 packward bells of yesteryears. For those who say these were around for mainframes, I see it is unfair to compare them and supercomputers and very high end SGI virtualization servers as they were not in the same class as a PC.
Even without that we have wifi and streaming media which did not exist back then no matter what hardware you have. What really is different is how I use my computer today vs being a teen back then. I am on the net now with wifi watching movies. The net was not a platform back then in html 1.0. It was more like reading text documents with gopher and AOL/Prodigy is where the real social activity was... sort of.
The only thing that is the same with the 1995 PC era is that I can type documents and print them and play a game or two. The use and the hardware/software have totally changed.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank God!
They listened and you can read the review here and see the desktop in action staring in 3:45 here.
Still miss the start menu, but at least I can search for a file/program just like in Windows 7, can use aero preview and not have to leave the desktop for Metro each time I do a search. Also you do not have to drag the mouse all over and just need to move it to the upper left hand corner to preview metro apps and stay in the desktop.
I am not saying its better than Windows 7. But at least they are making it suck less and are working on it.
It does make copying multiple files easier for regular (l)users.
Yes and No.
I hated the developer preview but the consumer preview enchanced its desktop mode for keyboard and mouse users. There is a picture and small preview here. Basically you do not have to drag the mouse all over the place and just need to go to the upper left hand corner to preview other apps and the title bar still works like Windows 7 with Aero preview. The search button and other features are to the right of the screen so you can hit the Windows key and type your program or file which is nice.
Here is the new gui in action, where the desktop is mentioned after 4:00. Metro is still there but at least MS listened to use and made it more mouse and keyboard friendly with the corners and dragging so we do not have to keep using our fingers and only seeing one app at a time. Thank GoD!
I do not know if I like it as a desktop as it will take awhile to get used too. But it is much improved over the developer preview to it being tolerable hopefully. I do like the sync/send function if you watch that video. It integrates nice in desktop mode and the app/icon grouping from XP that is lacking in Windows 7. Other than that it is eh ok.
Nothing wrong with betting on Windows 7.
Even if Windows 8 had the same gui as Windows 7, and none the Metro-ness that we all flame here there are bugs. A good enterprise rule is to wait until Service Pack 1 is out. XP, Vista, and even Windows 7 had issues before SP 1.
Windows 7 still is flaky with shared drives if you have a crappy wan link and hanging if ARP tables are not cleared for them etc. This is after SP 1 is released so even Windows 7 is still being ironed out. I am sure at your organization you have seen work orders for "Why do I have red Xs" etc.
"Anybody got any screenshots for the new interface? I'm curious to know how trying to make something optimized for phones and tablets is going to work as an actual desktop interface. It sounds like they might be trying a bit of a "one size fits all" approach, which doesn't always work so well."
Here is your answer from the Windows 8 product manager. The second half of the video talks about the desktop and last minute mouse and keyboard integration. I tried the developer preview and it sucked goatballs hard. However MS, listened to us complain so I can not comment on using it myself with keyboard and mouse. It will take some time for an adjustment. Your users will be much happier with Windows 7 as it is more familiar to them and XP like. The only thing I can see is a plus for Metro is you can organize icons/programs by group. Something XP did and that is lacking in Windows 7.
Speaking of which until last year I always emailed my documents in 2003 to cut down on variations that can cause issues with macros. Today, if they have Office XP they are incompetent and I would not want to work for them. I use the OpenXML format. No issues at all as even 2003 has the free add-on for opening the new format.
I have seen the error message that this file is corrupt and LibreOffice can fix that, but no one uses anything like Office 2000 and Office XP anymore to justify it unless you are editing very old files.
Yep and job sites too.
Like the A/C I keep Word around just for my resume and the fact that I support Office for a living and need to learn it inside and out.
Monster.com only accepts Word documents the last time I looked so it can be searched. Also HR loves to highlight in yellow key parts of the resume and email managers back and forth with amendments to the resume.
In business vendors and customers will edit and email back documents. The cost of Office is well worth the price for this reason alone. Not to mention Access and Excel are great products.
... and keep thinking you are not delusional. I am sure your users would think you are #1 winner if you dared installed Ubuntu on their PCs.
I can tell you are not an IT professional who does support. If you were, you would know that the number one cause of infections are drive by downloads and exploits from holes in flash, java, and browsers. I disable Java on the internet but I use flash as part of my web development tools and a rogue ad got through from a site that needed flash to function.
I am guessing you are an elitest who used WindowsME and IE 5.5 back in the days and remember the 64,000 bugs of Windows 17 years ago and are frozen in time from your hatred. Or you are a college student with no real world experience where your professor is from the the typical stereotype who has never worked in business or did back in the 20th century and spews all this anti MS BS etc.
Linux lacks stable abis so a simple apt-get update can hose your system if you update your video card drivers. Is that acceptable for a Joe Six Pack? I have seen horrible bugs and just getting Ubuntu to work on my old laptop is a challange. With Windows it just works. MY desktop works better with Linux but the software packages are flaky. Java and X still do not render fonts properly as they claim they disabled font hinting due to patents from Apple or some BS.
If you worked in a PC shop and installed Ubuntu your angry users will file complaints through the roof! Linux is not a desktop OS and you had your chance. Windows 7 is perfectly stable relatively bug free and well tested. There is no reason to change and it is bizaare? You do not buy a TV just to replace the backlit light or a coffee Maker just to replace the heating element? Same with a PC. Just turn it on and go work. It is part of the whole platform and it makes no sense to change it unless you are special user like I mentioned in my other post. Linux distro include buggy bleeding edge packages, it does not look nor function like MacOSX or Windows, its gui is ugly (normal users do not know about WMs), and Windows already comes with their computers.
I am disappointed in slashdot and hoped there would be some intelligent people with lives and understand real world use. I have been proven wrong and it looks like arstechnica is the last place left.
100% true according to grandma and Joe Six Pack. If you read my whole comment you would see where I mention WMs and hunting the internet for special repositories for mp3 codecs doesnt make sense in 2012.
Yes the average housewife will put in her logitech cd to install skype and then bash linux for not working. The average user does not know what a kernel is and thinks the gui is the os. When they see gdm crash due to an update they will curse linux. Windows updates wont break shit.
I stand by my point that linux is not a desktop os. Windows won
If you booted into a modern Ubuntu or Fedora distro you would be shocked to see where it is today.
It pains me as I was rooting for it for years. In the end I have work to do and I keep on messing up Linux config files wrestling with Apache, php, etc. I have a VM where I run it now. Development tools have finally ported and I do not see a reason to use it.
Windows was so horrible it would break if you sneezed on it back in 1999 when people on slashdot went crazy over Linux. It had cool things and you could make serious money if you knew C++ and Unix back then in 1999 in the .com days. Those days are gone and Linux desktop use has regressed years back. Windows 8 just might regress just as bad this summer ;-)
Maybe a mac wont be that bad if I can save up some dough. For now Windows 7 is fine.
"Business has somehow gotten the whacked idea that it can't survive without paying hundreds of dollars per seat for an app that creates and edits office documents."
Have you run a business before? Go attach some documents that look like crap to your customers, vendors, potential employees and see how long you stay in business? Image is everything, which is why they wear suits or nice clothing.
If you use weird software in their eyes you are incompetent. I use Office for this reason and it is better than LibraOffice. I can't risk something not looking professional because of a bug in the file conversion process or some macro that was not fully compatible between the two suites.
MS is evil for purposely, introducing incompatibility but it worked and why it is essential to survive. Until the rest of the world standardizes on OpenDoc this situation wont change. ... and Office integrates with Active Directory quite well for the larger corporations who want group policies and ease of installations and groups and so on.
True MS made some crappy software that deservingly needs to be flamed.
However, they have made great software as well. Office however is one of the product lines that is fairly well. Outlook and Word may not be the best, but Access, PowerPoint, and Excel are awesome and are stars in the business world.
Novell Group wise and Lotus is far worse than Outlook so nevermind about the Outlook comment :-)
For those who hate Windows there is MacOSX or some ishiny tablet which is more cost effective if all you do is tweet away and make buddies with your facebook friends than a real computer.
What is the strange obsession over Gnu/Linux? It is really weird and at least for me its time to let it go.
Before I get modded down into an oblivion I have to ask the parent and moderators a question?
The real question? Why should Joe Six Pack or Sandra housewife use this Linux with its strange Gnome-Shell gui rather than just stick with Windows? It comes with the machine, the user is familiar with it, knows how to use, can run his or her programs, and if he or she hates viruses or thinks Windows sucks they can get an iShiny Mac?
Linux is sure a lot of trouble when Windows just works and comes with the box. Windows you turn it on and that is it. Linux you have to install and setup. Therefore, why should a user change? I switched back to Linux last year but have been gradually migrating to Windows since Windows 7 came out anyway. I mean I read comments here like setting up Citrix or Onlive Desktop and I have to ask why just not use a regular Windows image with AD integration and call it the day?
In 1999 I thought it was cool shit compared to Windows 98 and NT 4 with a TON of cool software and free apis and a free C/C++/Ojbective-C, perl, and cool hacker utilities. It also never crashed and could save on battery power due to its superior software APM. ... fast-forward to 2012 and all that software is on Windows now. Linux is not cutting edge anymore and MacOSX is a true consumer OS as it was in beta in 1999. Linux regressed while Windows moved boldly forward.
Linux is a kernel, not an os ...
Fine you want to talk about as an OS?
Today Linux uses more battery use, is less stable, more buggy, does not do proper font rendering, does support mp3s, has a crappy Cell Phone GUI that does not even support minimizing Windows!? WTF and so on.
True you can enable mp3 if you search for some media repository or whatever it was on ubuntu or install fedora plus and search the internet to enable these super patented secret codecs. Yes, the kernel is 100% rock solid ... the apps on top are not. Grandma does not care about her uptime really. She wants to know why this weird update keeps failing and why her webcam is not recognized and why she can't install skype from the Windows CD Rom? Or you can flame me on how I can just go install a million different WMs to find a proper GUI but guess what? This is not 1999 anymore and is silly in 2012 to do these things. Hell half the guis outside of blackbox and XFCE have not changed since 1999 anyway.
Linux is not a desktop OS and there is no compelling reason to run it. If you are an engineer or develop server software or need a specialized embedded machine for your MIT project at school then yes that is a reason. Other than that it is a niche. NT is also a stable kernel and can take advantage of hardware to run server oriented and multi threaded software like Apache and Java. In the 1990s Unix rocked because you could run these pieces of software with a real operating system kernel. Today, Windows and MacOSX kernels can do that just fine.
Windows is not going anywhere. Linux is gone on the desktop. I am just one former user who still uses Linux on a VM for web development and it belongs only in the server room or some embedded device like a phone. You had 15 years to come up with a gui that didn't suck. Ubuntu 6.04 was pretty close and was sweet and finally included proper font rendering (now removed) and very very buggy and inferior applications. No Gimp is not Photoshop. LibreOffice is not MS office.
I am used to Windows again and I do not want to leave and like it fine here. I do not have these BSODS and only had 1 piece of malware in a year. It is not a horrible OS it was 12 years ago and people think it is WindowsME with IE 5.5 all over again because that is when they last used it. Trust me, if you go back you will realize how much it is not that bad.
So now we have that annoying Bing Bar in desktop mode and the annoying family safety program that slows your computer down even if you do not use it
In browser time yes. Remember how IE 9 was competitive and was the fastest browser under any benchmark except Google's V8 javascript one?
Now it is slow and only half as fast as Chrome and FF. FF realized this and would be killed as users would look at the html 5 spec support and benchmarks and within weeks would be behind the competition again.
FF 3.6 really is slow. I fired it up last week and the scrolling up and down was glacial compared to the more modern browsers. Google Maps were painfull too
Well he is right. ... however he fails to mention all browsers will use a gig of ram when running Firebug or some intense developing app with loads of jquery or some bloated ajax library.
Responsive wise for kicks I installed and played with FF 3.6 from last year. WOW, is it a dog compared to IE 8, IE 9, Chrome, and future versions of itself. Smooth and faster scrolling and less bloat have helped in later releases. I am still not running the later versions of FF as I do not trust htem nor agree with Asa's release schedule.
I could change. I did start using IE 9 after 9 years of quiting IE 6 cold turkey.
NoScript is not that big of a deal as it once was. It was mainly used for XSS filtering and cross domain scripting protection. All the major browsers do this by default now in their javacript engines and security features without it.
I used to install NoScript and simply disabled it, which left it open to run AJAX but blocked global cross domain scripting. Now I do not need to do this.
Does it still freezes up every few seconds? I know it uses less resources.
Even IE 8 is feels faster and more responsive than FF 3.6. FF had some bad releases
Excel has teh functionality built inside it. You can with a Windows 8 tablet with a scanner hooked into the usb port
Your tablet will be out of date
Dude leave XP! XP was made in the 1990s right after the 1995 era and it can lock itself while waiting on one app even though technically it has a premptive multitasking kernel. It is almost in the same era as a 15 year old computer as people did still run Windows 95 when it came out.
I have not had these issues with Windows 7. You can get a AMD Llano desktop/notebook for $399 with a built in GPU and 8 gigs of ram. Nothing will freeze on that for regular work.
Or you have malware. Probably a real nasty one if it acts this way and you do have a recent computer and a reasonably up to date OS. Download malware bytes and run it in safe mode?
People still used 386s mostly. Sure NEW ones on sale maybe but my 486 DX2 in late 1994 was FAST and top of the line. Most desktops sold then were 486 SX 25 mhz because they were cheaper and more in line with people's budgets. I got a 166 mhz pentium for a graduation present in june 1996 and it was the fast thing out there at the time. It was workstation grade to run NT 4
It was not a virtualization and Virtual PC did not exist for another 10 years. You maybe thinking about Softwindows which was coming of age. A PowerPC which would be 3x as powerfull emulating DOS at 80 mhz ran at the speed of a 386sx 25 mhz. Windows 3.11 was SLLOOWW and most people used it for DOS apps. I would not use that for daily work as it was 20x slower compared to native apps as they were emulated interpretted line by line and not virtualized like today
Both your post as wella s AdamHaun's is how I became a MS hater, hence my name (this is an old account from 1999).
DOS SUCKED. Why on Earth would I need to run a config.sys and an Autoexec.bat for 25k a of ram when my PC had 8 megs??
Worse I did this to run Doom then Dune 2 or Masters of Orion would whine about needing expanding memory, not extended. It is all the same ram so why the stupid naming and virtual partitioning? My friends at school informed me it was because of the 1978 limits of the 8086. ... hello this is 1994 some 15 years later.
Memaker in Dos 6.2 was just a hack.
I wanted a Mac BAD back then and saved for one. Then I discovered NT 4.0 and switched. I was happy to leave Windows 95 after only 1 year and switch to a real operating system without the baggage. NT 4 reaked I know, but running DOS or hiding it in a gui via Windows 95 was unacceptable in 1995 and I discovered Linux later. I do not care about office workers or those who thought DOS WAS DA BOMB because it was so hard to use. Therefore, it had to be awesome and I am better than you because I do not use a mouse.
I do not miss those old days at all.
And if I wanted to watch youtube, communicate over the internet messaging with 3G, or play Angry Birds, I will take my Andriod over my 486dx2 anyday
"Eh. There's not much of a difference. We're still using the same hardware and architecture as 1995"
There is a BIG difference. Did Wifi exist back in 1995?
Try booting Windows 95 on a PC today?
Heck unless XP is a SP 3 disk, the installation wont even see your hard drive.
We have SMP, GPU with 3D graphics, true multitasking, virtualizing in hardware, wifi, broadband, and the x86 is only x86 in name as it internally translates the CISC code into risc inside the processor itself. It is a virtual risc processor.
They are more than just faster iterations of our 486 packward bells of yesteryears. For those who say these were around for mainframes, I see it is unfair to compare them and supercomputers and very high end SGI virtualization servers as they were not in the same class as a PC.
Even without that we have wifi and streaming media which did not exist back then no matter what hardware you have. What really is different is how I use my computer today vs being a teen back then. I am on the net now with wifi watching movies. The net was not a platform back then in html 1.0. It was more like reading text documents with gopher and AOL/Prodigy is where the real social activity was ... sort of.
The only thing that is the same with the 1995 PC era is that I can type documents and print them and play a game or two. The use and the hardware/software have totally changed.