Windows 9 Preview Expected For End of the Year

[TheProfosist]

Hell, 3 years is almost too much right now in my opinion.

 

I think it's fine, but the problem is expecting people to dish out money that consistently just for what is essentially a large update. They change enough to warrant a new title but never give anything that's worth paying for. Windows' thriving existence has not been that long overall and I've not used anything on a professional/business level but I agree. To me, there's nothing wrong with releasing Windows 9 any time soon but you're making a mistake by charging that much for such underwhelming products.

win 8 was a $40 upgrade for a quite long period after release. I think I upgraded 4 or 5 PC's and wish id done more then.

Does anyone even know whats new in windows 9.

I mean yeah great new windows everyone all over the web whenever i search for windows 8 or 9 stuff all i get metro and start menu talks are people and article writers nuts or WTF? what are the new features? NO ONE upgrades windows for a freaking start menu.

I seriously cant find any rumor or talk about whats gonna be so grea about windows 9, we all know what we would like to have but what exactly will be so great to worth paying over 100$? if all they are going to do is start menu,desktop apps and *cough* cough* better security bullsht talk im probably gonna bash wind9 even if its not bad,unless they will sell linceses for 40$ again.

What was so much better about windows seven than windows vista? Only thing right away would be DX11 so name something else. And the start menu may actually make it to windows 8 now it seems. I agree they should so $40 upgrades again, maybe for a longer period this time. If they do it right they could get a ton a people who were holding back on 8 due to public perception.

Oh I certainly hope that Microsoft will put some better mice and keyboard support in Windows 9

please go much more into detail on what your talking about...

[Akolyte]

No it wont be but I really hope they do that $40 upgrade thing again

I dont really think you went into any of that enough for me to give you a proper reply.

They had good reason to take the old bluescreen away. There are at least semi normal person readable errors on the current one and if you need more just check the dump.

you can get into safe mode of boot there is just a new method because of the fast boot due to UEFI.

okay. 

[Lord Gaben]

Hell, 3 years is almost too much right now in my opinion.

 

I think it's fine, but the problem is expecting people to dish out money that consistently just for what is essentially a large update. They change enough to warrant a new title but never give anything that's worth paying for. Windows' thriving existence has not been that long overall and I've not used anything on a professional/business level but I agree. To me, there's nothing wrong with releasing Windows 9 any time soon but you're making a mistake by charging that much for such underwhelming products.

They should lower the price or make it free for people upgrading from Windows 8 them

[mr moose]

I don't agree with the cycle myth either.  It seems to be an urban legend that its not actually reflected in reality.  I have used dos, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, vista, XP, 7 and 8.  The very first release of all of these OS's had small issues, for some like the vista, 95 and 98 versions the issues were large enough for enthusiasts to revert back to the previous versions (which usually meant they did not use the updated versions of said os's and skipped completely to the next one), however corporate and professional users did not.  After the initial bug fix each version has been just as good as the last.  

 

This has been my personal experience with large IT infrastructures over the last 2 decades.

[mrthuvi]

OMG YOU VISTA HATERS. JUST STOP. JUST STOP HATING THE OS. IT'S A FINE OS THAT IS STILL FINE FOR GAMING. JUST STOP HATING

 

/rant

You are not alone. Vista was fine, especially SP2. Benchmarks even showed that Windows Vista more or less performs the same as Windows 7 in term of gaming.

[TheProfosist]

You are not alone. Vista was fine, especially SP2. Benchmarks even showed that Windows Vista more or less performs the same as Windows 7 in term of gaming.

Dont get me wrong i was a proponent of vista over xp but thats because a os doesn't really impact gaming all that much.

[Builder]

googled them

Vista - January 07

7 - October 22, 2009

And too soon for Vista, it was. They should have skipped it all together.

 

Well, hopefully 'Windows 9' will be good, because that's how the cycle goes: Every other Windows OS is good. Although, Windows 8 really wasn't that bad... All they needed to do was give people the option to choose between the Metro UI and the desktop and there would have been far fewer complaints. Either way, they're doing it now, so whatever.

 

Excited to see what Microsoft is making this time around.

No, the shit-good cycle started with Vista when Microsoft got too ambitious and realized they had to realize 7 way too early to keep up with their cycle. We were been left with shitty indexing, terrible search to match, bitchy UAC, and over 25,000 actual bugs in the original. 

 

I never hated Vista, or had any problems with it. I've stuck with it from the beginning.

You must be the only one...wait, I'm not going to say it, wait, maybe **cough** FANBOY **cough**

 

Hell, 3 years is almost too much right now in my opinion.

 

I think it's fine, but the problem is expecting people to dish out money that consistently just for what is essentially a large update. They change enough to warrant a new title but never give anything that's worth paying for. Windows' thriving existence has not been that long overall and I've not used anything on a professional/business level but I agree. To me, there's nothing wrong with releasing Windows 9 any time soon but you're making a mistake by charging that much for such underwhelming products.

It is too much. Software needs to stay lean, to do one thing and do it well to quote part of the UNIX philosophy. Windows is on it's way out. If you buy a Mac, you get a fresh OS every year with brand new features, and from now on, it's FREEEEE!

 

I don't agree with the cycle myth either.  It seems to be an urban legend that its not actually reflected in reality.  I have used dos, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, vista, XP, 7 and 8.  The very first release of all of these OS's had small issues, for some like the vista, 95 and 98 versions the issues were large enough for enthusiasts to revert back to the previous versions (which usually meant they did not use the updated versions of said os's and skipped completely to the next one), however corporate and professional users did not.  After the initial bug fix each version has been just as good as the last.  

 

This has been my personal experience with large IT infrastructures over the last 2 decades.

It is a myth.

 

Microsoft's descent into the decrepit bloat-producing waste processing factory it now is began with the infamous Project Longhorn. After the blinding success of Windows XP, Microsoft decided to actually bring to fruition the several dozen other features they'd been promising since 98. These included User Account Control, Start Search along with vastly improved indexing of search items, among tons of other ones. They began implementing these, unfortunately, sometime between 2003 and 2006, they realized it was infeasible. Their dev team was too spread out, everyone had lost focus. They had to do something though, with Apple just announcing that their OS would be revved annually to keep it fresh, and with Steve Jobs making an open mockery of the Redmond giant's pricing scheme, something had to be done. Vista was shat out with half finished, but still visible, start search, indexing and user account control. (that's right, lowercase user account control because it was nowhere near as good as had been promised) If a start search that was slower than searching for the file manually and the most uncertainly restrictive software parents (Are you sure you want to change the time? Type your password if you're sure you want to change the time.) anyone had ever had in the form of user account control weren't bad enough, you could revel in the 25,000 bugs it had been shipped with, as well as hundreds of unactivated, not even half finished features included invisibly that bloated the system and slowed it down.

 

Microsoft raped their customer base with Vista, we were promised what became Windows 7 way back in 2005, and we didn't get it in Vista. We got a plastic security box up the ass and those cheeky little notices in the upper right hand corner of PC ads that say, "_______ recommends Windows Vista for the best computing experience. What a pack of lies. Windows Vista was almost the last Windows I bought, but 7 was good enough to warrant giving a try, but nowhere near good enough for anyone who knows anything about software to redeem Microsoft as a developer entity in their minds.

 

Let me say it here and now. Microsoft is incompetent. It can't actually rev its software anymore, and it's getting worse and worse at convincing everyone that it can. They have lost me and nearly all of my developer friends as customers, we have moved on to dualboot Mac/Linux or Mac/"True"BSD laptops and Linux desktops. They will lose their enterprise userbase if Windows 9 does not function identically to Windows 7, in a way that 8 never could have. If you, as power users, (not gamers) have not already jumped ship, I suggest you do so now and save yourself the pain of purchasing the next load of crap produced by the largest proprietary only software shop in the world who cannot for some reason produce good software anymore. It's really sad. I miss the XP days, I really do. I even had a pretty good run with 7. Maybe Windows 9 will actually be worth paying for, perhaps all of the bloat will have disappeared into the space between releases. Maybe it will have a revolutionary user interface that will actually be more usable instead of less.

 

What Microsoft needs to realize is that we are in a post license world, Apple has realized that no one wants to pay for software any more, and it's time for Mr. Nadella to do the same. If Microsoft could turn around next release and give me a UNIX compatible OS with an open source core that was reasonably fast and had a good interface, I'd settle for the proprietary .NET and even UI components, and I might even pay for it. It wouldn't even have to be UNIX, but that's the most feasible way I see of them getting back to a stable system. But they won't, so I won't.

 

End of post, thanks for reading if you got this far and I hope you learned something along the way.

[mr moose]

 

 

End of post, thanks for reading if you got this far and I hope you learned something along the way.

 

Yep,  While some of what you say is true, I think you missed the point and severely underestimate the corporate user base of MS products.  As I said in my post, many small time enthusiasts could ditch the first iteration of any OS that didn't come up to scratch for them. I never had a problem with vista, but then I have been an enthusiast since the early 1980's and by the time vista came out I had a rather powerful pc and it could handle the load vista put on it.  Many corporations rely on outsourced IT supply, that means another company ensures the systems they are supplying work with the OS they are supplying. In short somewhere between 70-85% of the market had stable os upgrades all through their individual upgrade cycles.

 

MS is not the right OS for everyone, that is why other companies survive, and why we still have Linux,  but when you consider that in this day and age that MS still runs 90% of all desktop pc's and 65% of corporate servers compared to Linux with 1.6% and OSX with 6% you'll find they aren't quite the clusterfuck that many enthusiasts will have us believe.

[Builder]

Yep,  While some of what you say is true, I think you missed the point and severely underestimate the corporate user base of MS products.  As I said in my post, many small time enthusiasts could ditch the first iteration of any OS that didn't come up to scratch for them. I never had a problem with vista, but then I have been an enthusiast since the early 1980's and by the time vista came out I had a rather powerful pc and it could handle the load vista put on it.  Many corporations rely on outsourced IT supply, that means another company ensures the systems they are supplying work with the OS they are supplying. In short somewhere between 70-85% of the market had stable os upgrades all through their individual upgrade cycles.

 

MS is not the right OS for everyone, that is why other companies survive, and why we still have Linux,  but when you consider that in this day and age that MS still runs 90% of all desktop pc's and 65% of corporate servers compared to Linux with 1.6% and OSX with 6% you'll find they aren't quite the clusterfuck that many enthusiasts will have us believe.

Please point out what I got wrong, first of all.

 

It's not so much the load that Vista put out, so much as it wasn't at all what we were promised and you and I both know that. Did Ballmer get up on a stage and say, "This next iteration's really gonna suck balls. We're sorry, we'll make it up to you next time."? No, he didn't. Suffice it to say that I was pretty angry when I installed Vista and half of the features that were supposed to be revolutionary in it were half baked at best and eyesores at worst.

 

I'm not quite sure of your difference between "small time enthusiast" and "big time enthusiast," though I have a feeling post count and platform of choice are deciders (half joking) Taking it from you, it almost seems to require a religious devotion to a company even after they have failed a sizable portion of their users twice in one decade. 

 

If you read the entirety of my post, I didn't ditch it. I used 7 for awhile, and I even have used both 8 and 8.1 on this MacBook so I could develop in LabView. 

 

The rest of your post is all an argumentum ad populum against other platforms, and wholly unconvincing. Apache is the dominant software for web servers, IIS isn't. Therefore IIS must suck, but it doesn't, it's just not open source and the backbone of the web and hacker communities love open source.

 

In its heyday, Microsoft was undoubtedly the best of software. Windows beat the early Mac OSes, and it beat them hard. They are still arguably the best compiler shop in the biz, but that's not enough reason for me to use Windows. Like I said, I don't hate Microsoft as a company. If they could come to terms with their recent descent, acknowledge it, and come out with a product actually worth paying money for, (Apple knows that OS X and iWork aren't) then I would maybe, just maybe, switch back. 

[mr moose]

Please point out what I got wrong, first of all.

 

It's not so much the load that Vista put out, so much as it wasn't at all what we were promised and you and I both know that. Did Ballmer get up on a stage and say, "This next iteration's really gonna suck balls. We're sorry, we'll make it up to you next time."? No, he didn't. Suffice it to say that I was pretty angry when I installed Vista and half of the features that were supposed to be revolutionary in it were half baked at best and eyesores at worst.

 

I'm not quite sure of your difference between "small time enthusiast" and "big time enthusiast," though I have a feeling post count and platform of choice are deciders (half joking) Taking it from you, it almost seems to require a religious devotion to a company even after they have failed a sizable portion of their users twice in one decade. 

 

If you read the entirety of my post, I didn't ditch it. I used 7 for awhile, and I even have used both 8 and 8.1 on this MacBook so I could develop in LabView. 

 

The rest of your post is all an argumentum ad populum against other platforms, and wholly unconvincing. Apache is the dominant software for web servers, IIS isn't. Therefore IIS must suck, but it doesn't, it's just not open source and the backbone of the web and hacker communities love open source.

 

In its heyday, Microsoft was undoubtedly the best of software. Windows beat the early Mac OSes, and it beat them hard. They are still arguably the best compiler shop in the biz, but that's not enough reason for me to use Windows. Like I said, I don't hate Microsoft as a company. If they could come to terms with their recent descent, acknowledge it, and come out with a product actually worth paying money for, (Apple knows that OS X and iWork aren't) then I would maybe, just maybe, switch back. 

I didn't say you got anything wrong,  just missed my point.

 

Market share is quite an accurate representation of product suitability,  Of course Apache is better than IIS, if it wasn't people wouldn't prefer it.  Apple and and MS have both been in the game for the same length of time, In fact I think Apple have been around slightly longer, however the difference in market share is too great to simply write off as insignificant.

 

What I mean by small time enthusiast is that for companies with large IT infrastructures couldn't just stop using vista, where as much smaller enthusiasts/individuals could.  That is the difference.  Add to that that when large corporations upgraded, the ones that went to vista  didn't have an issue.

 

I have no Idea what post count has to do with anything.  I use Linux and most of my posts are in other areas of tech.  But having worked the field for so long I am starting to see so many people thinking that their minor experiences with a software/product is the same as everyone else's the world around,  Just because a handful of enthusiasts have an issue with an OS (be it application or promises made by marketers) doesn't mean the other 60 million users do.

[Builder]

I didn't say you got anything wrong,  just missed my point.

 

Market share is quite an accurate representation of product suitability,  Of course Apache is better than IIS, if it wasn't people wouldn't prefer it.  Apple and and MS have both been in the game for the same length of time, In fact I think Apple have been around slightly longer, however the difference in market share is too great to simply write off as insignificant.

 

What I mean by small time enthusiast is that for companies with large IT infrastructures couldn't just stop using vista, where as much smaller enthusiasts/individuals could.  That is the difference.  Add to that that when large corporations upgraded, the ones that went to vista  didn't have an issue.

 

I have no Idea what post count has to do with anything.  I use Linux and most of my posts are in other areas of tech.  But having worked the field for so long I am starting to see so many people thinking that their minor experiences with a software/product is the same as everyone else's the world around,  Just because a handful of enthusiasts have an issue with an OS (be it application or promises made by marketers) doesn't mean the other 60 million users do.

You said "while some of what you said is true." I'd like to know what isn't.

 

Except it's not accurate. It's ad populum, just because a bunch of people like something doesn't mean it's good. It cannot and should not be the sole factor in what determines the OS you use.

 

http://www.geek.com/news/survey-finds-vista-suffering-due-to-xp-popularity-570551/

 

Enterprises bought XP after Vista was released, and I doubt it was for shits and giggles.

 

Whether or not Enterprises had wholescale issues with Vista, (which I'm sure they did and will confirm after a few more minutes' research), there were enormous issues with Vista as a platform.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista

[Imaginaerum]

You must be the only one...wait, I'm not going to say it, wait, maybe **cough** FANBOY **cough**

That's kind of a ridiculous statement. My friend who has a degree in IT was trying to fix his other friend's computer and he couldn't figure out why a driver wasn't installing. It turned out that my friend thought the computer was running Windows 7 when it was actually running Vista. He couldn't tell the difference without opening up the control panel and looking at the OS. I still hold it over him to this day because he is extremely, extremely anti-Vista and constantly gripes on how much worse it is to use than 7.

 

I used Vista for maybe two years and didn't have any of the problems everyone else had, specifically with incompatible software. All my XP software worked, and all my games installed, but this was after SP1 so maybe I missed the storm.

[totjup5]

Maybe it will actually be good.

[Builder]

That's kind of a ridiculous statement. My friend who has a degree in IT was trying to fix his other friend's computer and he couldn't figure out why a driver wasn't installing. It turned out that my friend thought the computer was running Windows 7 when it was actually running Vista. He couldn't tell the difference without opening up the control panel and looking at the OS. I still hold it over him to this day because he is extremely, extremely anti-Vista and constantly gripes on how much worse it is to use than 7.

 

I used Vista for maybe two years and didn't have any of the problems everyone else had, specifically with incompatible software. All my XP software worked, and all my games installed, but this was after SP1 so maybe I missed the storm.

You no doubt missed the storm, but on top of that, how close they look is another issue with MS's software. They barely changed anything in the UI until 8, and when they did, it sucked. 

 

I find it really weird that he couldn't realize it was running Vista. I wouldn't let him fix my PC. You can recognize Vista from 7 on site in most cases, if Aero is off opening the Start menu will tell you. Even then, it's still only a right click of My Computer and selecting Properties away.

 

Vista did suck. It was very slow and bloated as hell, but that has become the standard for Microsoft. It's a shame. I really loved them pre-Vista.

[mr moose]

You said "while some of what you said is true." I'd like to know what isn't.

 

Except it's not accurate. It's ad populum, just because a bunch of people like something doesn't mean it's good. It cannot and should not be the sole factor in what determines the OS you use.

 

http://www.geek.com/news/survey-finds-vista-suffering-due-to-xp-popularity-570551/

 

Enterprises bought XP after Vista was released, and I doubt it was for shits and giggles.

 

Whether or not Enterprises had wholescale issues with Vista, (which I'm sure they did and will confirm after a few more minutes' research), there were enormous issues with Vista as a platform.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista

 

the Ad populum as falacy only applies to belief systems and appealing to the people. it does not apply to calculated business decisions.  If it did then corporate capitalism would not work.  When a corporate identity spends $$ upgrading it's it infrastructure it does not rely on belief systems but employs consultants to analyze the companies needs and recommend the best fit solution.  This happens right down to even the smallest of business entities.

[Builder]

the Ad populum as falacy only applies to belief systems and appealing to the people. it does not apply to calculated business decisions.  If it did then corporate capitalism would not work.  When a corporate identity spends $$ upgrading it's it infrastructure it does not rely on belief systems but employs consultants to analyze the companies needs and recommend the best fit solution.  This happens right down to even the smallest of business entities.

Except if and when the analysis reveals that Windows is the best solution, it is never for the reason that it is most widely used. It may be because the company is already locked into a Windows platform, or that they don't want to spend money re training people in Linux, or for legacy compatibility, but it will never be just because Windows is the most popular. Any analyst that uses popularity as their reason for recommending a platform should be fired.

 

So I guess you get to choose what ad populum applies to now? It is an argumentative logical fallacy. It applies to all logical debates. If you're ready to reject logic in this argument, then fine, but until then, stop trying to recommend Windows on the principal that it is the most popular.

 

You're losing your threads here. You've already claimed I was wrong about at least one thing in my original post, yet refuse to say what it is/they are. You have resorted to telling me what fallacy is, excluding yourself from the rules of logical debate for the sake of your nonfunctioning argument. I have displayed evidence contrary to what you've said, and now it's your turn to do the same. Either surrender or construct a cohesive argument.

[GoodBytes]

You said "while some of what you said is true." I'd like to know what isn't.

 

Except it's not accurate. It's ad populum, just because a bunch of people like something doesn't mean it's good. It cannot and should not be the sole factor in what determines the OS you use.

 

http://www.geek.com/news/survey-finds-vista-suffering-due-to-xp-popularity-570551/

 

Enterprises bought XP after Vista was released, and I doubt it was for shits and giggles.

 

Whether or not Enterprises had wholescale issues with Vista, (which I'm sure they did and will confirm after a few more minutes' research), there were enormous issues with Vista as a platform.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista

That is not the reason.

The reason is that Vista required a dedicated GPU due that the Intel integrated graphics could not even play a DVD movie perfectly smoothly at the time, and a 512MB of RAM equipped computer would not do.

Not to mention that Vista was multi-core CPU optimized. And I mean TRUE dual core, not Pentium D crap, or Hyperthreding.

 

All to say,companies HAD to upgrade all their computers, mixed with that, the fact that you have software incompatibility due to IE6 only web based software, custom software locked to XP on purpose by shoddy software companies to get renewal of contract  for continuous work, and driver issue with old printers, it made companies not see Vista an option. Then you had the 2008 crash which greatly didn't help anything what-so-ever.

AND, to add things over, companies follow a 6 year upgrade cycle. So, it put companies in line to all, about, upgrade at the same time.

 

By the time Windows 7 came out, computer hardware got cheaper, Intel decided to screw over less the consumer with their ultra crappy graphic solution, by having manufacture opt for Nvidia and AMD dedicated low-end solution, which was an area where Nvidia and AMD actually put some effort into them, in giving put low power, great value oriented options, something that is no longer true, as everyone is back with Intel graphics solution as it's "free", and "good enough" even thought it is none of that, in reality. And it allowed companies to be more financially prepared to upgrade all their systems to Windows 7 with new systems.

 

Microsoft knows this, and Steve Ballmer did say that Windows 8 is the riskiest Windows that will be released, multiple time in fact, before anyone knew anything about it, let alone any rumors. Microsoft knew that companies won't upgrade to Windows 8. There was even rumors that you had 2 teams working on feature set of Windows 8, during the development, one will focus on end user features, and the other team on power user, and IT professional. The end user feature list was selected to implement. Probably, as Windows 9 will fall with companies and school 6 year upgrade cycle, will implement the feature of the other team.

 

So here is what will happen, as Windows 9 will be more enterprise and power user focused, computer enthusiasts will be more open to it, and start recommended it, which will make the average user go out and get it, and in addition, businesses will start looking into upgrading to Windows 9, which they'll eventually get toward the end of the life, showing a nice growing curve like Windows 7.

[Builder]

That is not the reason.

The reason is that Vista required a dedicated GPU due that the Intel integrated graphics could not even play a DVD movie perfectly smoothly at the time, and a 512MB of RAM equipped computer would not do.

Not to mention that Vista was multi-core CPU optimized. And I mean TRUE dual core, not Pentium D crap, or Hyperthreding.

 

All to say,companies HAD to upgrade all their computers, mixed with that, the fact that you have software incompatibility due to IE6 only web based software, custom software locked to XP on purpose by shoddy software companies to get renewal of contract  for continuous work, and driver issue with old printers, it made companies not see Vista an option. Then you had the 2008 crash which greatly didn't help anything what-so-ever.

AND, to add things over, companies follow a 6 year upgrade cycle. So, it put companies in line to all, about, upgrade at the same time.

 

By the time Windows 7 came out, computer hardware got cheaper, Intel decided to screw over less the consumer with their ultra crappy graphic solution, by having manufacture opt for Nvidia and AMD dedicated low-end solution, which was an area where Nvidia and AMD actually put some effort into them, in giving put low power, great value oriented options, something that is no longer true, as everyone is back with Intel graphics solution as it's "free", and "good enough" even thought it is none of that, in reality. And it allowed companies to be more financially prepared to upgrade all their systems to Windows 7 with new systems.

 

Microsoft knows this, and Steve Ballmer did say that Windows 8 is the riskiest Windows that will be released, multiple time in fact, before anyone knew anything about it, let alone any rumors. Microsoft knew that companies won't upgrade to Windows 8. There was even rumors that you had 2 teams working on feature set of Windows 8, during the development, one will focus on end user features, and the other team on power user, and IT professional. The end user feature list was selected to implement. Probably, as Windows 9 will fall with companies and school 6 year upgrade cycle, will implement the feature of the other team.

 

So here is what will happen, as Windows 9 will be more enterprise and power user focused, computer enthusiasts will be more open to it, and start recommended it, which will make the average user go out and get it, and in addition, businesses will start looking into upgrading to Windows 9, which they'll eventually get toward the end of the life, showing a nice growing curve like Windows 7.

Multi-core optimized shouldn't mean multi-core only, and wait a minute, now you're blaming the hardware manufacturers? Who do you think gives them their minimum specs? Microsoft does. Vista was known to be slow, on comparable hardware to XP machines it barely functioned. I know, I had an HP Pavilion with 1GB of RAM by default that just absolutely crawled with Vista. Operating systems should get faster or better with each update, and Vista was neither faster nor better, as nearly everyone will tell you.

 

If you had read the link, you would have known that most companies did not in fact upgrade to Vista, because several were still upgrading to XP after Vista came out. XP's enterprise market share grew after Vista was released, and that's a problem.

 

Intel integrated graphics are fine, the Iris Pro matches a GT 610M. And if they knew companies wouldn't upgrade to Windows 8, why did they market it to businesses at all? The entire Surface line was designed to showcase the best that Windows 8 could be, and the Pro line was aimed squarely at business users.

 

Here's the thing. No one liked Windows 8. I never saw anyone in any Best Buy or other retailer using it the way they use MacBooks. Not even end users, as you call them, liked it.

 

That rumor you heard is BS. They expected Windows 8 to be good, and it sucked. They just plain don't know what they're doing. You're saying they planned to leave the power user on Windows 7 for six years? No, they didn't. They wanted everyone to use Windows 8, I believe they even called it at one point or another "the OS for everyone." They never even told us to wait until 2015 for a good Windows release, they just dumped us with the shitty one and told us it was what we wanted. They even realize it was an enormous mistake, what do you think 8.1 was?

 

What you miss is that the average user does not upgrade Windows. They use it until it breaks, then they ask someone to fix it or buy a new one. This is Microsoft's problem. The average user will not pay money to upgrade their Windows distro anymore. Power users are a tiny fraction of the market, and more and more of them are moving on to Linux and OS X.

Edited July 8, 2014 by MG2R

[mr moose]

 Any analyst that uses popularity as their reason for recommending a platform should be fired.

 

 

That is exactly my point,  hardly anyone chooses an OS based on popularity,  they choose it based on price and suitability to meet all their requirements.

 

 

stop trying to recommend Windows on the principal that it is the most popular.

 

You're losing your threads here. You've already claimed I was wrong about at least one thing in my original post, yet refuse to say what it is/they are. You have resorted to telling me what fallacy is, excluding yourself from the rules of logical debate for the sake of your nonfunctioning argument. I have displayed evidence contrary to what you've said, and now it's your turn to do the same. Either surrender or construct a cohesive argument.

 

I am not recommending windows for anything, I am merely pointing out what is happening and what has happened. 

 

he only thing you have done is claim my reasoning is a fallacy based on popular opinion.  That is not the same as providing evidence.  Windows current market share cannot be as high as it is if it was a faulty product that everyone hated,  this is just not possible.  when a company makes a bad product they loose sales and if they keep making bad products they eventually go bust.  Given MS current position in the market to claim they are making a dodgy product is a fallacy.

[Builder]

That is exactly my point,  hardly anyone chooses an OS based on popularity,  they choose it based on price and suitability to meet all their requirements.

 

You tried around four posts ago to say that market share was an accurate measure of suitability.

 

I am not recommending windows for anything, I am merely pointing out what is happening and what has happened. 

 

he only thing you have done is claim my reasoning is a fallacy based on popular opinion.  That is not the same as providing evidence.  Windows current market share cannot be as high as it is if it was a faulty product that everyone hated,  this is just not possible.  when a company makes a bad product they loose sales and if they keep making bad products they eventually go bust.  Given MS current position in the market to claim they are making a dodgy product is a fallacy.

 

Microsoft is losing (not "loosing") sales like a leaky bucket. Look at sales trends of Windows 7 to Windows 8 upgrades. You also just again, very blatantly, used ad populum. "windows current market share cannot be as high as it is if it was a faulty product that everyone hated" read: it cannot be bad if it is so popular. It's simply not the case. The majority is not automagically right. It's also not the case that most people like it.

http://www.crn.com.au/News/381316,crn-poll-results-windows-7-vs-windows-8.aspx

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2031122/poll-is-windows-8-worth-the-hassle-.html

On top of those, I have provided other links showing my evidence and you have yet to show yours. I do have evidence, you just either haven't read it or don't wish to face its facts.

[GoodBytes]

Multi-core optimized shouldn't mean multi-core only, and wait a minute, now you're blaming the hardware manufacturers? Who do you think gives them their minimum specs? Microsoft does. Vista was known to be slow, on comparable hardware to XP machines it barely functioned. I know, I had an HP Pavilion with 1GB of RAM by default that just absolutely crawled with Vista. Operating systems should get faster or better with each update, and Vista was neither faster nor better, as nearly everyone will tell you.

I have ALWAYS blamed hardware manufactures. In fact I started the day Vista came out, where I saw Vista 32-bit running on HP laptops and desktop, proudly with BELLOW Vista specs, 512MB of RAM, Pentium M's or Pentium 4's, with Aero Basic. I don't think I need to recall anyone about this, I am sure you all remember these insult specs from manufactures.

Multi-core optimized, means multi-core only for best experience. You can't have really both, unless you code the OS about twice. One for single core, and the other multi-core.

 

 

If you had read the link, you would have known that most companies did not in fact upgrade to Vista, because several were still upgrading to XP after Vista came out. XP's enterprise market share grew after Vista was released, and that's a problem.

 

yyeaa.. no. I don't consider P.O.S systems, and ATM system and alike as valid market share.

 

Intel integrated graphics are fine, the Iris Pro matches a GT 610M. And if they knew companies wouldn't upgrade to Windows 8, why did they market it to businesses at all? The entire Surface line was designed to showcase the best that Windows 8 could be, and the Pro line was aimed squarely at business users.

Oh you mean in 2014.. yea.. in 2006 you didn't have Iris. And no, Iris is complete junk. You have never used Intel graphic solution before. I have, I am.

Iris like previous Intel solution has horrible multi-monitor support thanks to the ultra buggy drivers, does NOT, despite Intel claims, fully support DirectX and OpenGL. I have numerous games that crash with OpenGL or DirectX API not supported errors, uses a software list optimize drivers, where if teh game or software (that uses the GPU) isn't part of that list, it wont' run, or run at extremely low performance. Making a newer game, or not greatly popular game, despite well optimized, run horribly compared to a more intensive game.

Sure it is not a gaming graphics card. In a world where more and more software are fully GPU rendered or even assisted (web browser, WinRT based apps (Windows 8 Modern UI apps), Office, Zune, Microsoft Mathematics, Maple, Mathlab, PhotoShop, Gimp, and much more, where the list is growing every year. GPU is important. It never made sense to render GUIs with the CPU. But it was done back in the old days as we had no choice. Today we have. That is why Intel kinda busted their butt and put some level of effort for a half-ass job that Iris is today. Did you know that The U and Y series Intel GPU's can't do 4K 60Hz, despite supporting Display Port 2? yes sir, it can't do it. In fact the max resolution of the Y series mobile CPU Haswell, can only do 2560x1600 on DisplayPort 1.2. This is despite Intel claims that their Haswell GPU can do "4K". 4K 30Hz, i guess, and with a big star on the Y series.

At work, we buy GeForce 610 graphics card, and put that on computers used in multiscreen setups, or board room (projector and monitor setup), because all we had were huge problem with Intel not remembering settings, or have moods. We were hopping that with Haswell based Intel CPU, we would not have to do this, as previously we did: before, we put GeFroce 210's, and before that some ATI Radeon card (basically, the cheapest GPUs we could get our hands on that support multiple display with the needed connectors).

 

Here's the thing. No one liked Windows 8. I never saw anyone in any Best Buy or other retailer using it the way they use MacBooks. Not even end users, as you call them, liked it.

A great number of people on this forum love or like a lot Windows 8, and doesn't want to go back. At work, we (IT department (which also include developers) all run Windows 8 as well, and WE upgraded on our own will. We had Windows 7 before). I know a lot of average user who actually like Windows 8. There is a learning curve, but once you pass it, people find it great to use.

So "no one likes Windows 8" is a lie.

 

This conversation is now over.

Edited July 8, 2014 by MG2R

[Builder]

I have ALWAYS blamed hardware manufactures. In fact I started the day Vista came out, where I saw Vista 32-bit running on HP laptops and desktop, proudly with BELLOW Vista specs, 512MB of RAM, Pentium M's or Pentium 4's, with Aero Basic. I don't think I need to recall anyone about this, I am sure you all remember these insult specs from manufactures.

Multi-core optimized, means multi-core only for best experience. You can't have really both, unless you code the OS about twice. One for single core, and the other multi-core.

 

 

 

yyeaa.. no. I don't consider P.O.S systems, and ATM system and alike as valid market share.

 

Oh you mean in 2014.. yea.. in 2006 you didn't have Iris. And no, Iris is complete junk. You have never used Intel graphic solution before. I have, I am.

Iris like previous Intel solution has horrible multi-monitor support thanks to the ultra buggy drivers, does NOT, despite Intel claims, fully support DirectX and OpenGL. I have numerous games that crash with OpenGL or DirectX API not supported errors, uses a software list optimize drivers, where if teh game or software (that uses the GPU) isn't part of that list, it wont' run, or run at extremely low performance. Making a newer game, or not greatly popular game, despite well optimized, run horribly compared to a more intensive game.

Sure it is not a gaming graphics card. In a world where more and more software are fully GPU rendered or even assisted (web browser, WinRT based apps (Windows 8 Modern UI apps), Office, Zune, Microsoft Mathematics, Maple, Mathlab, PhotoShop, Gimp, and much more, where the list is growing every year. GPU is important. It never made sense to render GUIs with the CPU. But it was done back in the old days as we had no choice. Today we have. That is why Intel kinda busted their butt and put some level of effort for a half-ass job that Iris is today. Did you know that The U and Y series Intel GPU's can't do 4K 60Hz, despite supporting Display Port 2? yes sir, it can't do it. In fact the max resolution of the Y series mobile CPU Haswell, can only do 2560x1600 on DisplayPort 1.2. This is despite Intel claims that their Haswell GPU can do "4K". 4K 30Hz, i guess, and with a big star on the Y series.

At work, we buy GeForce 610 graphics card, and put that on computers used in multiscreen setups, or board room (projector and monitor setup), because all we had were huge problem with Intel not remembering settings, or have moods. We were hopping that with Haswell based Intel CPU, we would not have to do this, as previously we did: before, we put GeFroce 210's, and before that some ATI Radeon card (basically, the cheapest GPUs we could get our hands on that support multiple display with the needed connectors).

 

A great number of people on this forum love or like a lot Windows 8, and doesn't want to go back. At work, we (IT department (which also include developers) all run Windows 8 as well, and WE upgraded on our own will. We had Windows 7 before). I know a lot of average user who actually like Windows 8. There is a learning curve, but once you pass it, people find it great to use.

So "no one likes Windows 8" is a lie.

 

Insult? Reported!

This conversation is now over.

I am using an integrated graphics solution right now and have only ever used one dedicated card. It's fine, I've never had problems with any of them.

 

I do know how multi-core support is added, however they should have been clear that it needed a multi-core. The whole issue here is that the manufacturers run wild and Microsoft just expects them to do the right thing. That's not entirely the manufacturers fault, it's partly Microsoft's for not restricting what hardware their OSes run on.

 

I wasn't talking about POS and ATM systems, if you looked at the data, you would realize this. I am talking about office cubicle dude usage.

 

I didn't say no one liked Windows 8. I merely pointed out USING EVIDENCE that it was not, on the whole, liked by the general population of Windows users. The learning curve involves installing Classic Shell and ignoring the start screen. Then, it's just Windows 7 with a flattened design. 

 

I'm glad you know developers who still like Windows. As I have said before, I want to like it as a platform, however once I learned how flexible a UNIX environment is I saw no point in going back. If you're doing .NET development, Windows is evidently still the only choice. Most of the devs I know, (and these are hackers, (not CRACKERS, HACKERS. There is indeed a difference.) not just cubicle coders) vastly prefer UNIX and sincerely hate Microsoft's refusal to release the source of any of their software. They haven't even released the DOS source code and nobody uses it anymore! Seriously! 

 

You seem to be either putting words in my mouth and misquoting me every chance you get. You ended your post by hastily saying the conversation is over, likely because you are worried that you may run out of material. Don't worry, you already have. 

Edited July 8, 2014 by MG2R

[NeatSquidYT]

I'm good with Windows 8.1 Update 2. I will not use the Windows 7-esque Start menu, I'll just use the Start screen. And Windowed Metro apps... Sign me up.

B.but why not the start menu ;(

[mr moose]

 

That is exactly my point,  hardly anyone chooses an OS based on popularity,  they choose it based on price and suitability to meet all their requirements.

 

You tried around four posts ago to say that market share was an accurate measure of suitability.

 

I am not recommending windows for anything, I am merely pointing out what is happening and what has happened. 

 

he only thing you have done is claim my reasoning is a fallacy based on popular opinion.  That is not the same as providing evidence.  Windows current market share cannot be as high as it is if it was a faulty product that everyone hated,  this is just not possible.  when a company makes a bad product they loose sales and if they keep making bad products they eventually go bust.  Given MS current position in the market to claim they are making a dodgy product is a fallacy.

 

Microsoft is losing (not "loosing") sales like a leaky bucket. Look at sales trends of Windows 7 to Windows 8 upgrades. You also just again, very blatantly, used ad populum. "windows current market share cannot be as high as it is if it was a faulty product that everyone hated" read: it cannot be bad if it is so popular. It's simply not the case. The majority is not automagically right. It's also not the case that most people like it.

http://www.crn.com.au/News/381316,crn-poll-results-windows-7-vs-windows-8.aspx

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2031122/poll-is-windows-8-worth-the-hassle-.html

On top of those, I have provided other links showing my evidence and you have yet to show yours. I do have evidence, you just either haven't read it or don't wish to face its facts.

 

I'm sorry you don't understand.

[Builder]

I'm sorry you don't understand.

You're right, I don't understand why for three posts now you have contended that something I said was wrong, refused to say what it was, and then subsequently ignored the data I had produced and acted like I'm the one not getting it here. There are three people in this discussion, and I am the only one so far to produce evidence.