Rumor: Windows 9 already on its way
- Thread starter Dungeoneer
- Start date
sabrinathecat
Explorer
Well yeah, Windows8 came out so soon after 7, just because they wanted to make real computers look the same as phones and tablets. I like my "classic" view, which is why I'm still using XP. When this poor machine finally does get replaced, I'll be getting the emulator to keep the same look and function, and cursing all the tools that were moved or renamed for no good reason.
delericho
Legend
I can understand the desire to bring forward the next Windows, but rushing out software never ends well.
That said, I've had the misfortune of buying my most recent PC during the Windows 8 era, and the one before that during the Vista dark times... and, actually, neither of them has proven to be as bad as feared. Not the best, certainly, but not the End Times either.
That said, I've had the misfortune of buying my most recent PC during the Windows 8 era, and the one before that during the Vista dark times... and, actually, neither of them has proven to be as bad as feared. Not the best, certainly, but not the End Times either.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I've read what one person said about Windows 8, and my experienc with it matches. The biggest problem for me with Windows 8 are not the tiles. I can use them just fine.
The biggest problem is the full screen apps that suddenly pop up and that the startscreen tiles always take my full screen. I didnd't inted to use my Dual 22 Inch Display setup to only run stuff in fullscreen. I understand that this is great for tablets with limited screen size estate and touch, but it's bad for me.
So the change that is speculated about, that the start button could come back and the RT apps run in windows - that might really be all that's needed to make Windows 8 great. Because other stuff in Windows 8 is actually well done. For example, the boot-up times are notably better. (And yes, some people will complain: "but it does this by offloading a lot of stuff into background task, it's not really faster" - but that's why we have a multicore PC, so that stuff gets done in parallel in background tasks, and since I can log in and start using stuff immediately, it is faster.)
delericho
Legend
Yep, that sounds like a pain. It's not an issue I personally have seen, because again I've used it with a fairly small screen, but I can see why it would be an issue.
That's actually exactly the issue that's killing my Vista laptop - it gets to the login screen quite fast, and gets from there to the Windows desktop quite fast, but it takes an age before the system is actually useable, because the background processing slugs it, hard.
But that's on a significantly old machine (of course). With newer architectures, and especially that aforementioned multicore PC, it's an issue that should hopefully be consigned to the past.
(That last is just an aside, of course - the Vista machine is set for retirement in the near future. It's just hanging on because we could only afford one new machine this month and my wife has the greater need.)
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
It of course only happens if you actually use apps, which most of the time, I don't. but for example,if you double click on a picture, you no longer get the old windows picture/fax viewer, but the new picture app, which is fullscreen. I usually don't need those full screen for the type of stuff I do.
nerfherder
Adventurer
When I built my new desktop a couple of months ago, I went with Windows 7 because I didn't want the tile/app paradigm. Like Mustrum, I don't want an application to grab all 27 inches of screen space. And with the OS on a SSD, boot times are pretty rapid anyway.
I really don't have this issue. I've configured my Win8 to jump directly to my desktop, and finding apps in the Metro screen isn't too difficult...I attach my most used apps directly to the first screen of the Metro screen and I'm all good.
Microsoft, I've noticed, is kind of like the Star Trek movies with their OS's...except that it's the odd ones that are worthwhile.
Think about it. Windows 7 was very popular. Vista, not so much. XP is still considered by many to be the best version of Windows. Windows ME...let's not even talk about that one *shudders.* Windows 98 was far better than Windows 95. Windows 3.x was very easy to use for a DOS overlay, and it paved the way for many of Microsoft's future products.
I don't really have a problem with Win8, though. To me, it's just like Win7, except with a fancy start screen *shrugs*
Microsoft, I've noticed, is kind of like the Star Trek movies with their OS's...except that it's the odd ones that are worthwhile.
Think about it. Windows 7 was very popular. Vista, not so much. XP is still considered by many to be the best version of Windows. Windows ME...let's not even talk about that one *shudders.* Windows 98 was far better than Windows 95. Windows 3.x was very easy to use for a DOS overlay, and it paved the way for many of Microsoft's future products.
I don't really have a problem with Win8, though. To me, it's just like Win7, except with a fancy start screen *shrugs*
Last edited:
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Pretty much everyone I know who's been thinking about getting a new machine has been waiting for nine, because none want to get anywhere near Win 8.
Zombie_Babies
First Post
I don't understand that as you can make 8 look exactly like 7. I didn't get 8 cuz I may have run into some compatibility issues with the stuff I needed to run. My friend has a couple of 8 machines and he has no hate for the OS. From the little I've used them I don't either.
Similar Threads
