• Windows 8 Megathread
    4,354 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cittidel;33665490]I'll try it out then, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but the differences between mouse + keyboard/touchscreen UIs have me forming opinions. (Which is why I never upgraded to OS X Lion, it feels too much like a touch screen OS)[/QUOTE] Getting used to it might take some time as things aren't obvious like right clicking in a metro app brings up options, but after a while you get used to it.
[QUOTE=Panda X;33666201]Getting used to it might take some time as things aren't obvious like right clicking in a metro app brings up options, but after a while you get used to it.[/QUOTE] Wait for Windows 8.5 when they update more stuff and add little messages/buttons to make stuff more obvious. [editline]10th December 2011[/editline] Actually I'm hoping we don't end up with a Windows Vista > Windows 7 type thing ever again.
[QUOTE=Zedicus Mann;33666336]Wait for Windows 8.5 when they update more stuff and add little messages/buttons to make stuff more obvious. [editline]10th December 2011[/editline] Actually I'm hoping we don't end up with a Windows Vista > Windows 7 type thing ever again.[/QUOTE] I think we should wait for Windows 8 Beta/RC before anyone makes a decision on whether or not to wait for "Windows 9". It'll always be like Vista > 7. Major version of Windows comes out, then minor. That's how it's always been. 95 major, 98 minor, ME major. 2000 major, XP minor, Vista major, 7 minor, 8 major, 9 minor. The minors are generally always better as it's the major + 1. Small fixes, tweaks, few essential new features, etc.
[QUOTE=Panda X;33666426]I think we should wait for Windows 8 Beta/RC before anyone makes a decision on whether or not to wait for "Windows 9". It'll always be like Vista > 7. Major version of Windows comes out, then minor. That's how it's always been. 95 major, 98 minor, ME major. 2000 major, XP minor, Vista major, 7 minor, 8 major, 9 minor. The minors are generally always better as it's the major + 1. Small fixes, tweaks, few essential new features, etc.[/QUOTE] I would consider 98SE, 2000, XP and 7 as major releases, since they're proving the most successful. Windows 8 is shaping up to be a turd, just like ME and Vista... the releases you consider to be major.
[QUOTE=P320;33666767]I would consider 98SE, 2000, XP and 7 as major releases, since they're proving the most successful. Windows 8 is shaping up to be a turd, just like ME and Vista... the releases you consider to be major.[/QUOTE] Your judging that Windows 8 will be a turd when the full product isn't even released yet? How about we wait to pass judgements like that.
[QUOTE=P320;33666767]I would consider 98SE, 2000, XP and 7 as major releases, since they're proving the most successful. Windows 8 is shaping up to be a turd, just like ME and Vista... the releases you consider to be major.[/QUOTE] Successfulness isn't what makes a build of Windows major or minor. It has to do with what's changed and added. And with the exception of 8 because of "compatibility" purposes you can tell what's a major version and what's a minor version of NT as the build number goes like so: major.minor.build.recompile.architecture/type.lab.date-time. Usually during the development recompile is 0 (some vista betas have been recompiled and aren't 0 however). However for finals it's some high number. (eg 6.1.7800.16384 was initially the final build of 7 but some bug had to be fixed so the RTM was 6.1.7600.16385) The recompile number is also used for updates as seen on some system files. With 9x it major.minor.build/revision (eg 4.00.950, 4.00.950a, etc) Even pre 9x went the same way (Win 3, Win 3.1, etc)
[QUOTE=Panda X;33666883]Successfulness isn't what makes a build of Windows major or minor. It has to do with what's changed and added. And with the exception of 8 because of "compatibility" purposes you can tell what's a major version and what's a minor version of NT as the build number goes like so: major.minor.recompile.build.date-time With 9x it major.minor.build/revision (eg 4.00.950, 4.00.950a, etc) Even pre 9x went the same way (Win 3, Win 3.1, etc)[/QUOTE] Interesting... I've never really understood their numbering system until you explained it here.
[QUOTE=Panda X;33666426]I think we should wait for Windows 8 Beta/RC before anyone makes a decision on whether or not to wait for "Windows 9". It'll always be like Vista > 7. Major version of Windows comes out, then minor. That's how it's always been. 95 major, 98 minor, ME major. 2000 major, XP minor, Vista major, 7 minor, 8 major, 9 minor. The minors are generally always better as it's the major + 1. Small fixes, tweaks, few essential new features, etc.[/QUOTE] Well if you're so sure there will be a "minor" release after Windows 8, then we should obviously wait for it to get the "major +1" [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] Better is always better, right?
[QUOTE=Zedicus Mann;33667295]Well if you're so sure there will be a "minor" release after Windows 8, then we should obviously wait for it to get the "major +1" [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] Better is always better, right?[/QUOTE] It's up to the person really. You could wait for Windows 9 if you wish but that won't RTM until 2015 and RTC in 2016.
[QUOTE=Panda X;33667874]It's up to the person really. You could wait for Windows 9 if you wish but that won't RTM until 2015 and RTC in 2016.[/QUOTE] >Implying the world survives December 21st, 2012. :v:
[QUOTE=Panda X;33667874]It's up to the person really. You could wait for Windows 9 if you wish but that won't RTM until 2015 and RTC in 2016.[/QUOTE] A viable alternative : [url]http://www.archlinux.org/[/url]
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;33671592]A viable alternative : [url]http://www.archlinux.org/[/url][/QUOTE] ...But...Windows thread!
[QUOTE=P320;33671168]>Implying the world survives December 21st, 2012. :v:[/QUOTE] Could you please stop being such a horrible poster? If you aren't capable of that, could you just stop posting?
[QUOTE=Zedicus Mann;33672408]...But...Windows thread![/QUOTE] I'm just saying, if 8 turns out to be another ME/Vista there is always an alternative.
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;33672750]I'm just saying, if 8 turns out to be another ME/Vista there is always an alternative.[/QUOTE] For most Windows users Windows 7 would be the alternative as they wouldn't upgrade. It's not like they'll go "Oh Windows 8 sucks, better reformat and install Arch" :v:
[QUOTE=Panda X;33672799]For most Windows users Windows 7 would be the alternative as they wouldn't upgrade. It's not like they'll go "Oh Windows 8 sucks, better reformat and install Arch" :v:[/QUOTE] Yeah, now that I play games far far less than I used to it may be viable to switch.
I'm not sure if I'll upgrade. I was able to get Windows 7 for $99 from my university bookstore. Can't do that with Windows 8. I'll probably stick with 7 until 9.
[img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvi1fyGhQJ1qae85lo1_500.jpg[/img] Sorry, I just couldn't resist posting this image..
I'll just wait to disable the metro bullshit from Windows 8 and keep the good stuff. I always end up customizing my Windows distros anyways.
[QUOTE=P320;33681171]Windows distros[/QUOTE] Neat.
I'll try the Beta/RC, might end up waiting for the "minor" release after 8 though to save some money. [editline]12th December 2011[/editline] I have done some thinking on previous versions of Windows though and each version is better than the previous (in my opinion) in some way or another. Especially, though, in the case of XP > Vista > 7
Thinking of installing, does it have any compatibility issues? I'm guessing its just using most of windows 7 so it should be fine with most things? Kinda sucks I have to find a dvd or usb to install too, I loved being able to install from within windows. [editline]12th December 2011[/editline] Oh and the deleting files thing, does it delete files only on the partition it's installed on?
[IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/fYyjg8.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;33672750]I'm just saying, if 8 turns out to be another ME/Vista there is always an alternative.[/QUOTE] Linux is only good for servers and casual PC's, or any extra PC's you don't wanna pay to upgrade the OS.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33687210]Linux is only good for servers and casual PC's, or any extra PC's you don't wanna pay to upgrade the OS.[/QUOTE] Seems good enough for me.
Happy Linux user here. But I prefer playing Minecraft In Windows.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33687210]Linux is only good for servers and casual PC's, or any extra PC's you don't wanna pay to upgrade the OS.[/QUOTE] Where your definition of casual = "Doesn't play that game that I really like", because in reality Linux is better for much more than that.
My Windows 8 install thoroughly fucked its self yesterday. Wouldn't boot, complaining "innaccessible_boot_device". I tried the usual flipping the SATA mode from IDE/AHCI/RAID and it still didn't work. Even after about 3 hours of messing with BCD/Boot Sector/BIOS settings it refused to work (I knew all my of data was still on the disk since I could access it from command prompt in WinRE.. I ended up giving in and just installing Windows 7 again
Dual booting with pre-release stuff is always a good idea.
[QUOTE=Zedicus Mann;33691323]Dual booting with pre-release stuff is always a good idea.[/QUOTE] Your joking right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.