• mainstream Windows 7 support ends Jan 2015
    106 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;45363803]oh christ Honestly you people need to realize that there comes a point when using an old OS holds everything back.[/QUOTE] Honestly you need to realize that people may not want to shell out cash when the next version is barely an upgrade and adds inconveniences.
every time windows 8 gets brought up, there's a cohort of people on facepunch who argue that it didn't suck, people just "didn't get it" the fact that the vast majority of people didn't understand it, and so nobody bought the fucking thing, means it sucked it doesn't matter if [I]you[/I]​ understood it, most people didn't - that means the UI sucked.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;45363803]oh christ Honestly you people need to realize that there comes a point when using an old OS holds everything back.[/QUOTE] Like a semi-broke PC gamer who sticks with what he knows works and doesn't have the cash to upgrade even if he wanted to sticking with Win7 until a better alternative than Win8 pops up is [i]totally[/i] going to hold the industry back. I get 2-3 years out of each install of Windows, and I'll get 2-3 installs out of a disc before I consider upgrading. W8 was already on the horizon before I moved off of Vista and onto 7. Why? Vista worked just fine, my install was running just fine when W7 came out, reinstalling is a pain in the ass and I didn't have $500 for a fucking CD sitting around. I installed this copy of W7 in Oct of 2010 and it's still running fine, so I'm in no hurry to reinstall now, either. I'll [i]consider[/i] W8 when this install of W7 finally wears out if I can get Start8 for free, but it's not likely. I'll probably just reinstall W7 and keep right on going quite happily for another 2-3 years. [editline]12th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;45365897]Honestly you need to realize that people may not want to shell out cash when the next version is barely an upgrade and adds inconveniences.[/QUOTE] INdeed. I've used W8 and I fucking hate it. Nothing's where it belongs, it's too convoluted to launch anything(Why should I have to type out "Firefox" instead of just clicking it on the quick launch, again?), and it's fucking hideous. No thank you.
[QUOTE=darrn;45363722]Please don't be total morons and start a flaming os war, thanks.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=J!NX;45363744]kinda weird they're doing this so early though? then again, its been 9 years, and windows 9 is coming [/QUOTE] 9 years? Windows 7 came out in 2009.
I am surprised MS offers mainstream updates to older version after new one comes out at all. Security updates are reasonable but beyond that they don't even have to.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;45366572]I am surprised MS offers mainstream updates to older version after new one comes out at all. Security updates are reasonable but beyond that they don't even have to.[/QUOTE] It's always fun to compare the support span to what version of Windows is new at the time. For example Windows 98 was still supported when Vista was in beta. Windows 1.0 was still supported a short time after XP released.
Ends support next year already? [quote]but the company has promised to provide security patches through to 2020[/quote] I would say 'if you're still on 7 after that time you deserve it' but considering how stubborn people were with XP...
What about Vista support? Honest question
[QUOTE=NitronikALT;45367109]What about Vista support? Honest question[/QUOTE] [img]http://ss.infd.us/linux/2014-07-12@15-56-46.png[/img] [url]http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle[/url]
-snip i can't be bothered to post in a circlejerk either way-
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;45363803]oh christ Honestly you people need to realize that there comes a point when using an old OS holds everything back.[/QUOTE] xp is still good and using it doesn't hold anything back
[QUOTE=Noss;45367431]How about we take a minute to stop the circlejerk about Windows 8 on both sides? There are some people saying it's the best thing ever and if you don't like it you must be retarded, and on the other hand there are people saying it's the worst OS ever and is unusable. It is neither. Windows 8 is a product that is good in theory, but was poorly implemented through both a technical standpoint and a PR standpoint. All Microsoft had to do was include a software toggle that allowed you to switch between Metro modes and desktop modes. The fact that Metro is designed for touch interfaces is a fact and cannot be disputed - some people are able to appropriate it to their needs whilst other users are not, and do genuinely require a start menu to be able to access settings with speed. Metro applications such as Skype are also poorly implemented and can cause huge conflicts with the desktop application, making the experience an often incoherent mess. The positive sides to Windows 8 are the speed improvements and the overall cleanliness of the OS. It is also very good for touch screen devices. People on both sides need to stop being so quick to blindly defend themselves and actually look at it without bias. That is all.[/QUOTE] Metro and the desktop are different.
[QUOTE=Noss;45367431]How about we take a minute to stop the circlejerk about Windows 8 on both sides? There are some people saying it's the best thing ever and if you don't like it you must be retarded, and on the other hand there are people saying it's the worst OS ever and is unusable. It is neither. Windows 8 is a product that is good in theory, but was poorly implemented through both a technical standpoint and a PR standpoint. All Microsoft had to do was include a software toggle that allowed you to switch between Metro modes and desktop modes. The fact that Metro is designed for touch interfaces is a fact and cannot be disputed - some people are able to appropriate it to their needs whilst other users are not, and do genuinely require a start menu to be able to access settings with speed. Metro applications such as Skype are also poorly implemented and can cause huge conflicts with the desktop application, making the experience an often incoherent mess. The positive sides to Windows 8 are the speed improvements and the overall cleanliness of the OS. It is also very good for touch screen devices. People on both sides need to stop being so quick to blindly defend themselves and actually look at it without bias. That is all.[/QUOTE] They did include a button to switch between metro and desktop. The start button on your keyboard, the hotspot that acts as the start button, etc. There is no "metro only" thing in Win8, it has both metro and aero, the integration between the two is pretty cock right now. But its going to get better if 8.1 is the start of a trend. Metro was designed with touch in mind, not exclusively for it. Any on screen interface can be used with a keyboard and mouse, metro is no exception. There's little wrong with using it with a mouse, I don't need to be quite as precise when operating menus, which is pretty great. If the metro version of something isn't working, just don't install it. You probably should avoid having the metro and desktop versions of an app at the same time to avoid conflicts anyway. There's no real drama here at all, Win7 is getting its fair share of feature updates and support. It'll be getting the same security support as other versions of windows have been getting recently too. Its not reasonable to expect ms to support old products forever. That mindset is why windows still has so much legacy shit that could do with udating.
-snip i can't be bothered to post in a circlejerk either way, by desktop i was referring to the traditional desktop start-
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;45363803]oh christ Honestly you people need to realize that there comes a point when using an old OS holds everything back.[/QUOTE] Better than using a shitty (my opinion fuck off I'm not going to start a Win8 argument just agree to disagree) OS.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;45367488] There's no real drama here at all, Win7 is getting its fair share of feature updates and support. It'll be getting the same security support as other versions of windows have been getting recently too. Its not reasonable to expect ms to support old products forever. That mindset is why windows still has so much legacy shit that could do with udating.[/QUOTE] Honestly, 95% of the updates I've installed since April have been security ones (with only a few for feature updates, all of them irrelevant for me). They seem to have slowed down; maybe they don't have anything to implement anymore other than bugfixes? (which would mean this support end would be meaningless)
I don't like Win8, but the only experience I've had with it is my mom's awful shitty laptop that's a touch screen. Seriously, that Toshiba is awful. Oh well, I hope Win 9 has the Win 7 taskbar as an option for legacy like taskbars, but if it doesn't, eh I guess.
Been using windows 8 since release day with start8 and it's literally windows 7 with preformance improvements.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;45367707]Been using windows 8 since release day with start8 and it's literally windows 7 with preformance improvements.[/QUOTE] People keep saying it, but I never really got any performance improvements. It may be that for many newer PCs, but for my desktop PC the performance tanked completely. It sucks a bit.
I've been using 8 for around a year, it's worse than 7 but I'm pretty lazy and can deal with it. Metro apps that can be open in the background without me knowing unless I check the top right corner of my monitor sure are great though.
Window's are a multi-billion dollar company. I really do hope they make the good choice and make the direction Windows 8 is/was going in separate to that in which they are developing Windows 9. If Windows 9 is just Windows 7 with faster boot times and a few other minor changes; I'll probably buy it twice!
[QUOTE=Braden1996;45368607]Window's are a multi-billion dollar company. I really do hope they make the good choice and make the direction Windows 8 is/was going in separate to that in which they are developing Windows 9. If Windows 9 is just Windows 7 with faster boot times and a few other minor changes; I'll probably buy it twice![/QUOTE] Windows 8 boots slower than Windows 7, so I wouldn't count on that. However if you're talking about hybrid boot then I think you may be in luck. That seems to be improving slightly slower than Linux' version of this, so in Windows 9 you probably are going to have a near-instant on function when it is released down the road. Probably.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;45368660]Windows 8 boots slower than Windows 7, so I wouldn't count on that. However if you're talking about hybrid boot then I think you may be in luck. That seems to be improving slightly slower than [B]Linux' version of this[/B], so in Windows 9 you probably are going to have a near-instant on function when it is released down the road. Probably.[/QUOTE] What would that be? I haven't really ran into anything similar yet.
[QUOTE=avincent;45364934]What advantage does learning windows 8 give[/QUOTE] A faster, better, more efficient operating system but if you want to stick to something slower, just admit it. It just really annoys me that you're probably someone who spends thousands on their PC just to play console ports that look slightly better yet you're willing to skimp out on the software that handles all that hardware. Also it isn't learning, there is not a single thing you have to learn that doesn't already apply in Windows 7. Look at my previous posts. What's different? A bunch of colors and a full screen start menu instead of that tiny box in the corner of your display. [b]The start button menu was horrible. It was made in a time where people were running 640x480 displays and the start menu took up a majority of your screen. Why would you want to fixate your eyes on 1/10th of your entire display?[/b]
[QUOTE=RautaPalli;45368677]What would that be? I haven't really ran into anything similar yet.[/QUOTE] I must excuse myself on the matter, as I do not recall the exact name of it, however both mainline and TuxOnIce have VERY excellent and performant hibernate and suspend functions. From what I recall, the hibernate function can be configured to work in the same way as what Windows 8 is doing. If it isn't preconfigured to do this already (I am not using the latest kernel so I can't really test HOW further it has gotten yet). [editline]12th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Korova;45368783]A faster, better, more efficient operating system but if you want to stick to something slower, just admit it. It just really annoys me that you're probably someone who spends thousands on their PC just to play console ports that look slightly better yet you're willing to skimp out on the software that handles all that hardware.[/QUOTE] Again with the whole performance and efficiency thing. To my experience this isn't the case, but I would love to be enlightened.
[QUOTE=TestECull;45366068]INdeed. I've used W8 and I fucking hate it. Nothing's where it belongs, it's too convoluted to launch anything(Why should I have to type out "Firefox" instead of just clicking it on the quick launch, again?), and it's fucking hideous. No thank you.[/QUOTE] You can pin things to the start menu just like in Windows 7. You can also pin things to the taskbar like Windows 7. If you don't want to use any of the new features, you can still use it just like Windows 7.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;45368788] Again with the whole performance and efficiency thing. To my experience this isn't the case, but I would love to be enlightened.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/24/battlefield_4_windows_7_vs_81_performance_review/1#.U8F6Mm2zk98[/url] [url]http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-vs-windows-7-benchmarked_p2-7000002671/[/url] The performance increase is small but it is there within gaming. Anyone who bought Windows 7 had the opportunity to get it for $40, I've seen people pay $40 for a couple frames. Boot up times are faster. Search times are faster. There's more features (improved multi-monitor support, native ISO mounting, file version backups, better task manager, synced accounts, vastly improved native driver support). It's more secure and overall it's more efficient.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;45368660]Windows 8 boots slower than Windows 7, so I wouldn't count on that. However if you're talking about hybrid boot then I think you may be in luck. That seems to be improving slightly slower than Linux' version of this, so in Windows 9 you probably are going to have a near-instant on function when it is released down the road. Probably.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp]Windows 8 cut boot times in half.[/url]
[QUOTE=TestECull;45366068]Like a semi-broke PC gamer who sticks with what he knows works and doesn't have the cash to upgrade even if he wanted to sticking with Win7 until a better alternative than Win8 pops up is [i]totally[/i] going to hold the industry back. I get 2-3 years out of each install of Windows, and I'll get 2-3 installs out of a disc before I consider upgrading. W8 was already on the horizon before I moved off of Vista and onto 7. Why? Vista worked just fine, my install was running just fine when W7 came out, reinstalling is a pain in the ass and I didn't have $500 for a fucking CD sitting around. I installed this copy of W7 in Oct of 2010 and it's still running fine, so I'm in no hurry to reinstall now, either. I'll [i]consider[/i] W8 when this install of W7 finally wears out if I can get Start8 for free, but it's not likely. I'll probably just reinstall W7 and keep right on going quite happily for another 2-3 years. [editline]12th July 2014[/editline] INdeed. I've used W8 and I fucking hate it. Nothing's where it belongs, it's too convoluted to launch anything(Why should I have to type out "Firefox" instead of just clicking it on the quick launch, again?), and it's fucking hideous. No thank you.[/QUOTE] If you're paying $500 for Windows, you're doing something wrong. It is and always has been $99-120 for an OEM 64-bit copy and if you're a student, you're able to get it for $15/40 or maybe even free depending on your school's MSDN/Dreamspark subscription. Literally nothing has changed except the start screen and a bunch of improvements to the back end in addition to the improvements as I've listed above. If you want to continue on the Windows 8 hate bandwagon, go ahead but at least accept that your hatred is irrational and unfounded. Just because you can't figure out how to pin a program to the taskbar and search for a program (which is the exact fucking same process) doesn't justify hating it. You're just an idiot who is foaming at the mouth because the start screen is full screen. [editline]12th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=supersnail11;45368872][url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp]Windows 8 cut boot times in half.[/url][/QUOTE] They're taking 17 seconds to boot into Windows 8? Jesus, I boot in about five seconds on my SSD. Takes about 8-10 on the PC at my parent's house. Keep in mind Windows 8.1 improved on this substantially. [editline]12th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Braden1996;45368607]Window's are a multi-billion dollar company. I really do hope they make the good choice and make the direction Windows 8 is/was going in separate to that in which they are developing Windows 9. If Windows 9 is just Windows 7 with faster boot times and a few other minor changes; I'll probably buy it twice![/QUOTE] You literally just described Windows 8.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.