Windows 8

Bucket said:

don't you think it would be counter to that advantage to drop support for outdated hardware in your kernel? I'm looking at you, GNU/Linux.

Depends on how much effort is needed and how large the percentage of this old hardware is. It makes no sense to continue supporting systems that nobody uses anymore.

Just as it would make no sense to continue developing an operating system that "nobody" uses.

Undead OS:
http://aros.sourceforge.net/

B-b-b-bump!

I'm posting this from Win 8 developer preview. Kinda hard to tell whether the new UI is good or not since I'm running this on a not-so-well performing virtual machine and without a touch screen, but at least in this version the old desktop is one of the first icons on the new UI and it opens up really fast.

There's still some things to iron out on the new UI, for example you can't move it around by dragging the mouse (like you would do on a touch screen). Instead you have to use scrollbars, which is pretty annoying. Also the new UI's control panel (don't worry, there's the classic control panel too) doesn't seem to have a back-button, which is weird (the only way to quit it seems to be to open the old control panel and then click the start button in explorer which brings back the new metro UI).

Yes, that's right, the metro UI replaces the start menu.


Edit: This OS really needs a good manual or a tutorial to go with it: It uses mouse movements to do some weird stuff. For example, doing a fast movement from up-right to down-left over the start button in desktop mode brings up this menu and clock:

Now who the hell would know to do that without anyone telling them???

In all honesty I really don't see the significance of Windows 8, and if I was going to complain about Windows 7 I would say that it still has many issues that I really don't like. The wireless networking is terribly problematic, and of course the underlying samba networking protocol is as flaky as ever. Windows 7 is still important though because it provides a mostly stable 64bit operating system to windows users; Windows 8 just looks like an oversized tablet OS.

For years I've actually used Linux for nearly everything, as it really is an amazing OS once you take the time to figure it out (it's especially awesome for software development!). If I ever had the funds to build an awesome gaming box though I would most definitely put a fresh copy of Windows 7 on it just for the 64bit architecture and software compatibility.

For now though I still use Windows XP and I don't plan to upgrade any time soon. My current collection of gaming hardware and software just doesn't mandate an upgrade to Windows 7, and as I said, I use Linux for everything else.

hex11 said:

It's proprietary closed software

hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr richard stallman take me now

Redeemer812 said:

In all honesty I really don't see the significance of Windows 8, and if I was going to complain about Windows 7 I would say that it still has many issues that I really don't like.

Wait... you're a Linux user and you say Windows 7 has bad wireless support? Are you kidding me? Linux's wireless drivers ran on wishful thinking up until about a year ago. It still has a hell of a time with Broadcom cards.

Windows 8 just looks like an oversized tablet OS.

That may be because MS are exploring ways to seamlessly interface among full-powered desktops and other devices. As someone who uses Outlook for work, and likes to keep his mail server clean, this pleases me.

For now though I still use Windows XP and I don't plan to upgrade any time soon.

That explains a lot. You're using an OS that was spec'd ten years ago, at a time when we didn't even use computers the same way we do now. You're probably one of those guys who complained that MS moved the "show desktop" button, just because they changed something... not considering that having it in the Quick Launch bar is sloppy and inconsistent. In any case, this is all I have to say about Windows 7/8:

it really is an amazing OS once you take the time to figure it out (it's especially awesome for software development!).

If you know how to hack the windows registry you can turn it from a piece of crap into someone remotely usable.

There's a lot of good websites for it.

@Bucket: Gee, I feel so sorry now for calmly and politely stating my opinion. Honestly, what inspired you to talk to me like that?

Bucket said:

Linux's wireless drivers ran on wishful thinking up until about a year ago.

Hmm... you're right about that. Linux was slow getting on board the wireless train. Personally I never had any problems at all with them though. Any older wireless device will work fine, and if you're buying a newer device, just check to see that it'll work before you buy it. In my experience, every wireless device I plugged into my Linux boxes worked like a charm... and I've tested multiple different flavors of Linux and multiple combinations of drivers.

But at any rate, I wasn't referring to driver problems. I was referring mostly to the wireless network manager built directly into Windows 7. Sometimes (at least for me) it just seems to "forget" there's a network available, and it won't connect until I shutdown all of the computers (or at least most of them) and basically reinitiate the windows network.

Bucket said:

In any case, this is all I have to say about Windows 7/8:

it really is an amazing OS once you take the time to figure it out (it's especially awesome for software development!).

Thanks for the snarky quote. I used to use Windows to development stuff all the time, and while it works well enough, I really do find Linux to be superior. Almost any flavor of Linux comes with the tools you need to start developing anything and installing new development libraries is a cinch. IMO in terms of development, Linux can do everything Windows can do and more.

EDIT: I forgot to comment on your last assertion.

Bucket said:

You're probably one of those guys who complained that MS moved the "show desktop" button, just because they changed something... not considering that having it in the Quick Launch bar is sloppy and inconsistent.

Wow. You really know how to stereotype someone, don't you?

As a matter of fact, I don't mind when Microsoft makes adjustments to Windows like that. I haven't appreciated all of the cosmetic changes Microsoft has made to Windows; for example, I don't really care for the new layout of the start menu in Windows 7; but I'm not against the idea of evolving GUIs for the better. In fact I've tried multiple different window managers on multiple different OSs, some of which I'm sure you've never even heard of; Windows 9x, NT, 7, KDE, Gnome, OpenBox, and FluxBox, to name a few; and although my personal favorite is OpenBox, I can find things to appreciate in every one of them. So please... enough of this nonsense.

One an other feature worth mentioning available in the Win 8 dev preview is that if you start typing anything in the Metro UI (aka start menu) it's interpreted as a search string for program shortcuts. For example just typing "D" would bring up a list of all shortcuts starting with "D". You can also get an alphabetical listing of all shortcuts.

So on one hand you'll lose the hierarchical listing of ye olde start menu, but on the other hand you'll get a more snappy search feature than in 7.


@Redeemer: The only other person aside you who I know to have had problems with wireless networking in 7 in Maes, and even he admitted that all of his problems were caused by an ancient router that wasn't compatible. Personally I've never had problems with wireless in 7, and I use it daily.

As for superiority in software development, that depends entirely on what you're developing. End of story.

Jodwin said:

The only other person aside you who I know to have had problems with wireless networking in 7 in Maes, and even he admitted that all of his problems were caused by an ancient router that wasn't compatible.

Hmm... now that you mention it, my wireless hub is quite new but it is connected to the rest of the network through some ten year old ethernet hubs. The latter equipment has never given me any problems at all, in fact they have always seemed like quite a robust and very compatible set of hardware, but could that be a factor in my problem?

Redeemer, I'm in the same bot as you: XP for gaming, Linux for everything else. Everytime someone says "hur ur stooped XP is ten years old " blablabla I feel my head is about to explode. I did use Vista for about a year, and never had problems with it, but went back to XP exactly because it's used for gaming almost exclusively. Which means, I want all the free memory I can get. And I don't want to start another shitfest about "Windows is better than Linux" so I won't even start talking about my favorite OS.

Bucket said:

Good point. MS has never said otherwise.

On the other hand - if your claim to fame is that your operating system runs better on older hardware, don't you think it would be counter to that advantage to drop support for outdated hardware in your kernel? I'm looking at you, GNU/Linux.

Do you call french fries "freedom fries" too?

Redeemer812 said:

@Bucket: Gee, I feel so sorry now for calmly and politely stating my opinion. Honestly, what inspired you to talk to me like that?

Simply put, you ought to know better.

Thanks for the snarky quote. I used to use Windows to development stuff all the time, and while it works well enough, I really do find Linux to be superior. Almost any flavor of Linux comes with the tools you need to start developing anything and installing new development libraries is a cinch. IMO in terms of development, Linux can do everything Windows can do and more.

I'm willing to bet your experience is limited to independent programming, where you don't have a team of coders responsible for the project. Try making enterprise software in VS2010 and then try to tell me Linux is a superior dev environment.

some of which I'm sure you've never even heard of;

Now who's being snarky?

cbronson said:

Everytime someone says "hur ur stooped XP is ten years old " blablabla I feel my head is about to explode... Which means, I want all the free memory I can get.

Here's the irony: WinXP's memory management is disgustingly inferior to that of Win7. I can't even find a good reason to use XP any more; if I'm using a machine that can't run 7, I put Win2k or some flavor of Linux on it.

cbronson said:

Redeemer, I'm in the same bot as you: XP for gaming, Linux for everything else. Everytime someone says "hur ur stooped XP is ten years old " blablabla I feel my head is about to explode. I did use Vista for about a year, and never had problems with it, but went back to XP exactly because it's used for gaming almost exclusively. Which means, I want all the free memory I can get.

And with Windows 7 you can get even more memory than XP, with an OS that actually supports modern DirectX libraries without some cheap hack and actually makes use of modern technology. You'd be better off keeping a secondary Win98SE machine or something for the programs new enough to not be on DOS but old enough to have trouble with modern hardware anyways. Maybe ask hex11 to find a computer in a dumpster for you somewhere. :P

Bucket said:

Simply put, you ought to know better.

What? I've yet to graduate Highschool, and although I have a decade of experience and even a short history of engaging in minor contract work, my professional career hasn't even begun. In what way ought I know better? Are you so volatile that you find a minor case of ignorance such as mine entirely inexcusable? I'm not willfully ignoring the truth but describing my own perspective, and I've accepted much of what you said to be true. That said, this statement is neither a good excuse for your behavior nor a true statement in and of itself.

Bucket said:

I'm willing to bet your experience is limited to independent programming, where you don't have a team of coders responsible for the project.

This is true. I have little experience working in a team with other programmers, so I must give you credit for being perceptive.

Linux does offer good tools for software development such as Mono and Lazarus; however, I have to admit that the comprehensive Visual Studio environment, coupled with its large support base at Microsoft, is superior to the development suites Linux provides to its users especially in regard to enterprise applications. I had overlooked this fact, and with those things thus considered, Windows is probably a much better development environment for enterprise software as you stated.

Personally, though, I still prefer Linux to Windows in terms of development as it offers me a lot more flexibility, power, and ease of use... and, well, it just works better for me.

Bucket said:

Now who's being snarky?

You'll have to excuse my frustration there. I stand by the point I made on that last paragraph but not it's tone, so I apologize.

Xeros612 said:

And with Windows 7 you can get even more memory than XP, with an OS that actually supports modern DirectX libraries without some cheap hack and actually makes use of modern technology.

I agree. cbronson, while I'm happy to see someone who is tolerable of my perspective, I can't say I agree with you on the point of Windows XP being superior to Windows 7. Windows XP has been left in the dust of technology, and I don't want to stay with it if I can help it. That's why this ^ is another reason why I would move to Windows 7, if I had the hardware/software for it.

Bucket said:

You're probably one of those guys who complained that MS moved the "show desktop" button, just because they changed something...

HAHA, I used xp from 2002 up until 6 months ago and this was literally the first thing I noticed about windows 7. It's on the complete opposite side of the screen man!

windows xp/7 dual boot for LOYFE

Jodwin said:

I'm posting this from Win 8 developer preview.

You had to say something, didn't you? I've just installed it on my girlfriend's machine (my old box). It's a Core 2 Quad with 4GB of RAM and a GeForce 9600GT.

I'm intrigued by IE10. It's now full-screen by design and you need to right-click to bring up the toolbars. Of course, it works as you'd expect on the classic desktop. This Metro UI seems to be superfluous (other than the fact that it cannibalizes the old Start Menu) and I can't imagine using it on my desktop. On the bright side, I'm impressed by how verbose the Task Manager is!

Bucket said:

I'm willing to bet your experience is limited to independent programming, where you don't have a team of coders responsible for the project. Try making enterprise software in VS2010 and then try to tell me Linux is a superior dev environment.

I think what he means that Linux comes already built-in with enough dev tools to write any kind of software, from enterprisey XML/Java/FavaBeans/(insert acronyms here) all the way down to little stupid flash games. You don't even have to pay a dime for it.

hex11 said:

You don't even have to pay a dime for it.

Three words: Visual Studio Express

Plus the hoard of freeware and open source IDEs available for Windows.

No matter what you think or say, Windows is the best OS for gaming, and gaming makes up a significant portion of the PC market. Wine still blows and can only play old games. Until game developers begin giving *nix more attention, lots of people are going to keep on using Windows.

Sigvatr said:

No matter what you think or say, Windows is the best OS for gaming, and gaming makes up a significant portion of the PC market. Wine still blows and can only play old games. Until game developers begin giving *nix more attention, lots of people are going to keep on using Windows.

Well no one's arguing that.