Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleGaga27

Windows 8

Recommended Posts

It appears according to these websites:

http://windows8news.com/ and http://windows8center.com/

 

the new OS is already in the works before Windows 7 is completed. Windows 7 is just a major enhancement to Windows Vista but it looks like Windows 7 is just another epic fail since some people still aren't satisfied by the new OS. Also Windows 7 isn't actually version 7 but a version 6.1 and the future Windows 8 might be a version 6.5 or 7. Somewhere by October to November of 2011, Windows 8 is most likely to be released to the public. The problem is that it's being too rushed at, just like EA releasing a new C&C game once every year or less. The only new features in Windows 8 may be the 128-bit color user interface of the OS and some of the other features coming from Mac OS.

 

As for me, I wouldn't want or buy Windows 8. It just feels a little too redundant to buy and try out the new features and as new OSs go, the system requirements go higher. This is why Windows XP is still the best OS so far because it's still fast to boot, conserves memory, does not use shared system memory as turbocache, has higher performance and has low system requirements. Even the fastest PCs today are 100% perfect under Windows XP.

 

Update: PC World has a first reaction to this and thinks Windows 8 could be another rushed Vista: http://www.pcworld.com/article/208682/wind...ng_in_2012.html

Edited by purplescrin

Share this post


Link to post
the new OS is already in the works before Windows 7 is completed

 

What? Windows 7 was released ages ago, it is a solid OS.

 

Windows 7 is just another epic fail since some people still aren't satisfied by the new OS.

 

Says who? Windows 7 is much more popular than Vista. All the people I've meet, from friends to teachers think Windows 7 is a good OS, much better than Vista or XP.

 

Also Windows 7 isn't actually version 7 but a version 6.1

 

Windows 7 is the 7th release of Windows NT.

 

Windows 3.0, Windows 3.11, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000 (5.0), Windows XP (5.1), Windows Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (6.1)

 

Windows 7 is just a major enhancement to Windows Vista

 

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.......Windows 7 might look like a "Vista service pack" but as far as I can remember there are a lot of things in Windows 7 that has been rewritten and changed, while the GUI parts are still similar to Vista. If memory serves me right Windows 7 was built from Windows Server 2008, not Vista.

 

Even the fastest PCs today are 100% perfect under Windows XP

 

Windows XP is 9 years old, it might be compatible with newer hardware but it's not capable of using it 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
What? Windows 7 was released ages ago, it is a solid OS.

 

What if Microsoft develop two Windows OS at the same time? Windows 7 was released late last year, and then two years later the release of Windows 8. I found it strange too soon.

 

 

Says who? Windows 7 is much more popular than Vista. All the people I've meet, from friends to teachers think Windows 7 is a good OS, much better than Vista or XP.

 

That is true but Windows 7 is missing some features. The only feature I liked in Windows 7 is the use of Virtual Windows XP.

Share this post


Link to post
What if Microsoft develop two Windows OS at the same time? Windows 7 was released late last year, and then two years later the release of Windows 8. I found it strange too soon.

 

That was the norm before, Microsoft developed DOS based and NT bases Windows versions simultaneously. NT for business and DOS based for Home. Heck Windows 7 was under development even when Microsoft was making Vista, the project started before Vista was even on the drawing board

 

That is true but Windows 7 is missing some features. The only feature I liked in Windows 7 is the use of Virtual Windows XP.

 

Missing what features?

Share this post


Link to post

Windows 8 will only be an epic fail if they release it next year and expect everyone to upgrade. Guess what, I stuck with XP up till a few months ago and it was fine, guess how long I expect windows 7 to last? :)

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps but even if it gets half the time out of it, it will be well worth the asking price.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K

I tend to laugh at how you just keep throwing around statements and opinions like you know everything Purple.

Share this post


Link to post
I tend to laugh at how you just keep throwing around statements and opinions like you know everything Purple.

You expect intelligence from him? Really? That's a bold thought.

Share this post


Link to post
It appears according to these websites:

http://windows8news.com/ and http://windows8center.com/

 

the new OS is already in the works before Windows 7 is completed. Windows 7 is just a major enhancement to Windows Vista but it looks like Windows 7 is just another epic fail since some people still aren't satisfied by the new OS. Also Windows 7 isn't actually version 7 but a version 6.1 and the future Windows 8 might be a version 6.5 or 7. Somewhere by October to November of 2011, Windows 8 is most likely to be released to the public.

 

As for me, I wouldn't want or buy Windows 8. It just feels a little too redundant to buy and try out the new features and as new OSs go, the system requirements go higher. This is why Windows XP is still the best OS so far because it's still fast to boot, conserves memory, does not use shared system memory as turbocache, has higher performance and has low system requirements. Even the fastest PCs today are 100% perfect under Windows XP.

Tore already covered most of the misunderstandings you have here (such as version numbering), but at risk of being accused of being argumentative for correcting some of the other glaring misconceptions, here goes! I hate to see people wallow in their own misunderstandings.

 

You seem to be confused about "memoy conservation" and "turbocache," and if you are honestly so sure of XP, there are some knowledgebase articles you could take a look at (here's one on physical memory limits). While most people won't run into those particular limits, they are still there.

 

"Turbocache" and "shared system memory" are concepts traditionally reserved for mobile computing. You might want to refer to nVidia on this one. It is not a bad thing and I have no idea why on earth you would complain about it! It effectively allows your video card to borrow unused system RAM to supplement video card RAM. This is a huge advantage in a mobile environment, and can give you good cost savings on your video hardware. How often does your favorite game truly stay solid at 100% RAM use? Contrast that with how often you might have wished for a better framerate while that RAM sat idle.

 

Maybe caches confuse you. You may be thinking of the Windows 7 "Readyboost." Readyboost lets you use (fast, zero spin-up) flash memory that (depending on what it is, USB external thumb drives vs a hard drive) gives you a speedup over a moving-parts drive anywhere from like, 50x to 100x speedups for data access. Plus, the data is encrypted. Also, compressed, giving you between 1.5x to 2x the available storage while using Readyboost. This is not a bad thing. It lets you effectively ghetto-rig your older system with solid state memory for cache purposes. Vista had an earlier version of this with some pretty extensive limitations, 7 lets you pack on up to 8 extra sources for 256GB storage (then take into account compression) with a new flash-specific FAT filesystem. Testing has shown great performance gains, especially if you have low system specs to begin with.

 

Maybe you meant Superfetch. Superfetch is actually why, in testing, Windows 7 tends to beat Windows XP in startup and shutdown routines. I'm not sure why you think Windows XP is so superior at boot-time. Superfetch is basically a heuristical cache logic that allows the system to identify common read patterns and orders, then prepare the data for sequential access. Superfetch also applies to your daily applications. It knows you will boot first, then open your messaging programs, then look at your email, then maybe launch Steam and play some Teamfortress 2. It'll optimize your system for that routine. This is not a bad thing. At worst, you will have data access times equivalent to having it off, with random reads. At best, superfetch figures that Windows boots identically 99% of the time, loads your startup processes the same way 99% of the time, and so on... for massive speed increases!

 

Now, "conserving RAM" is a silly concept. If you never, ever breach 50% RAM use, you have too much RAM and/or your system is not using it efficiently. Loading data off solid state memory or right from RAM is faster than spinning up a disk or disc drive, always. I/O takes time, especially if an application is stuck waiting for it. Loading data into RAM and keeping it there-- just in case you need it-- is super effective if your RAM is doing nothing else and you have no need to wait for disk reads. Using your RAM is not a bad thing. Would you purposely throttle your downloads 50% lower to "conserve bandwidth" if you weren't reaching peak use? No, because that would be retarded! Well, why would you throttle down your potential storage bandwidth by refusing to use some of the most abundant and fastest memory?

 

The fastest PCs today, especially if the Win XP in use is 32 Bit, are anything but 100% perfect. Windows XP, especially without its service packs, is not compatible with a plethora of stuff (conversely, Windows 7 offers fantastic Windows XP compatibility and outright emulation if your hardware is set up for it). Adoption rates are higher than that of Windows XP, besides. 7's at around 22% market share, with Vista at around 15% and XP at 54% (there are some data here about early adoption) and starting at the end of this October, on the 22nd, you will no longer get XP with a new computer (so XP adoption via pre-load cuts to zero).

 

I'm not sure you understand what "epic fail" is, because it is already outpacing XP and Vista uptake rates, and its pre-order at Amazon was record breaking (even kicking the crap out of Harry Potter).

 

I hope you find yourself in a better position to discuss these topics now, and don't take offense at being so terribly misinformed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K

What is it with you and writing a whole book to proove a point!? :P

 

You expect intelligence from him? Really?

As much as I expect you not to be arrogant ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
I'm making up for a low post count.

 

 

Then you should multi-post ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Man I don't mind. I love reading about that kind of stuff and it definitely informed anyone who was not too well read on the topic to have an idea about some Win7 features. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I have no intention of dropping another $100-$300 on a new OS next year (late 2011 or early 2012) when I've only had Windows 7 for a little more than 9 months. It has only been available at retail for exactly 1 year and 1 day anyway.. I'm not expecting that it should have a 9-year life cycle or anything, but come on. 2 years is ridiculous. It's gotta be 3 at least.

Share this post


Link to post
According to a Microsoft press release in the Netherlands, it will be available October 12; so, two years from now, thus three years from release. Edited by Chronojam

Share this post


Link to post

I just want to inject some insights on both OSs, namely Windows 7 and XP.

 

In terms of boot time and stability, 7 certainly trumps XP. I have very rarely heared of PCs running Win7 and crashing, and absolutely no reports of blue screen of death incidents. In XP, both issues become prevalent after a while, despite all precautions (except maybe the blue screen). Also, boot time difference is negligible; amost totally the same, I should say. In copying files, Win7 beats XP superbly, with correct estimates and better copying speeds.

 

However, Win7 suffers from two main drawbacks (all occuring in the 64-bit version). First of all, any applications have limited flexibility and support in Win7 64-bit, most noticably Adobe applications (very scarce plugins, etc.). And lastly, there's this weird glitch wherein the system suddenly bogs down when you connect external peripherals, and this often occurs sometime after you have used the PC to a certain extenet. And by bog down I mean REALLY BOG DOWN. for some this has necessitated restarts, while in others the PC manages to recover. In any case, this only occurs in 64-bit versions.

 

Overall, 7 flays XP live. The only problem is that the 64-bit version might end up becoming a second Vista due to it's flaws. Microsoft better haul ass there. But I'm converted to 7; XP's retirement is, at least for me, all but assured.

Share this post


Link to post

I currently run PhotoShop on W7 x64 and haven't noticed any trouble with it at all. In fact, it seems to run faster than it did on XP. Nor have I noticed a slowdown when I connect a flash drive and I hardly ever reboot my computer. I'm not sure where you're seeing those issues, but I'm not experiencing them and I run a 64-bit OS.

Share this post


Link to post

Hm. Maybe it's with the specs. What's your processor and ram? I think it's with those two factors whether or not the external peripheral glitch occurs or not.

 

And by the Adobe stuff, I mean more on AE and PR. Plugins are scarce of late, and there is no backwards compatibility for 32-bit plugins for 64-bit AE and PR. I'm using CS5, btw. Photoshop, no problem with that. It's more of the video editing apps that suffer a hit. Frustrating that you can't do all that you can due to the lack of additional resources like plugins.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really have that impressive of a setup... just a Core 2 Duo E6400 with 4GB of DDR2 RAM. I don't see the setup as the key here...

Share this post


Link to post

Hm. My dad has higher specs than my PC in terms of, well, ram and processor, and he doesn't suffer from the glitch, but I sometimes do... And we both have the same OS. So, deducing from that, I am assuming that it is probably with that difference that this problem in 64-bit occurs. Correct me if my deduction is off.

Share this post


Link to post

My system is similar to Doctor Destiny's. Its a Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0 Ghz with 4GB of DDR2 RAM. Using Windows 7 x64 here and running heaps of my old apps with out problems. I set the appropriate compatibility settings and they run perfectly fine. The oldest would be my HomeSite 5.5, its from around 2003/2004 and doesn't give a **** about Windows 7 or 64 bit.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, year 2k software seems to run well on 7. The problems are on legacy stuff, like the original RA, Starcraft and all of your old-school games. Meh, I'm glad with Win7 64-bit. I just have to be extra cautious with peripherals. I do hate restarting the PC all of a sudden.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×