Skip to comments.Should You Care About Windows 8?
Posted on 01/29/2013 1:49:45 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A lot has changed since 1995. Our best candidate for President was only the First Lady. O.J. Simpson was not in jail. No one was using DVDs. Saddam Hussein was in power. Friends and ER ruled the airwaves. Seinfeld was funny. The NHL was in the middle of a full season. Hootie and the Blowfish had the best-selling album. People were still buying albums.
And Windows 95 was released.
Back then Windows mattered, both to consumers and small business people. We relied on it heavily to run our computers. So each release of Windows was a big event. And the release of Windows 95 was the biggest of them all. The news received unprecedented media attention around the world, and this was at a time when the Internet was still finding its stride. The Rolling Stones Start Me Up was licensed to highlight the operating systems revolutionary new start button and the Stones themselves performed at a Microsoft event on the release date. It was the pinnacle of Microsofts dominance over the computer industry.
That was a time when people really cared about Windows. It was all we had.
And, for the most part, it sucked. Sure, it did a decent job of running our PCs.
But users suffered with bugs, blue screens of death and other anomalies that made their lives (and the lives of Microsofts support staff) difficult. And so, when a new release of Windows came on the market customers (and particularly business owners) were generally excited not just as much by the new features that would make their computing lives more fun, but more importantly with the fixes to the problems that plagued their daily lives too.
Fast forward 18 years. Windows 8 was released a few months ago and just last week reports are mixed.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
But then--I run Linux.
Here’s a little bit of trivia: Intel’s fabrication plants still use a number of stand-alone Windows 95 computers as station controllers in the production of modern, 64-bit processors.
Seems that Windows 95 runs just great unless you let people near it.
I care. Deeply. Really. I won’t buy it.
Nope, don’t care about Windows 8. None of my computers will run it, and besides, Windows XP serves my computing needs just fine.
When all my geriatric computers crap out (my laptop dates to 2006, and my oldest computer is a PIII), then I’ll think about a Win8 machine. But not until then.
It runs an old game that, for some reason, only worked if the DVD drive was mapped to D. Any other letter, and the game wouldn't see it.
XP was fine.
7 is fine.
We don’t need an update for a few years.
Another MS bash article.
No, we should care. MS is dumb and whatever OS you use is cool.
Stop using Windows so civilization can proper and unicorns and rainbows can live in peace. If MS went bankrupt and disappeared it would be like so awesome and junk.
Is this about the sum total of what all the responses to this story are, or do I need to include some stuff about how much X MS products sucks, how someone’s grandma was confused or how their 3-year-old cried at using it or how no one really likes it because they are forced to use it or because they are dumb?
Care? About an operating system? They’re just tools, while I care FOR my tools to keep them operational I have never cared ABOUT my tools.
Cool! I got Windows 3.1 to run as a virtual machine on my Windows 7 computer. I play DooM on it once in a while! That was my very first video game. Played it when I was maybe five or six and it is still a fun game.
They finally got it right with Windows 2000, and that’s where I got off the upgrade train.
The Rolling Stones Start Me Up was licensed to highlight the operating systems revolutionary new start button and the Stones themselves performed at a Microsoft event on the release date. It was the pinnacle of Microsofts dominance over the computer industry.
That was a time when people really cared about Windows.
It was also a time when people cared about the Rolling Stones.
When a browser, that is a program running on top of the operating system, and NOT the operating system itself, for those outside the planet, connects to a website which is slow in responding, such as NPR a few minutes ago for me, when connecting to something called World Cafe, the whole computer freezes under Win 7, and earlier, until the website responds, Ctrl+Alt+Del has no effect. This is fugging unacceptable in 2013, problems of this type had been solved in computer operating systems 30 years ago if not earlier!
“Is this about the sum total of what all the responses to this story are, or do I need to include some stuff about how much X MS products sucks, how someones grandma was confused or how their 3-year-old cried at using it or how no one really likes it because they are forced to use it or because they are dumb?”
Dammit. Post of the day.
No need to change it. It does what I need it to do.
I've started to run Task Manager in the background to allow me to shut down the programs, in XP.
Mine was compiled 6 days ago and it, too, does what I want :)
Gotcha beat ! My oldest running computer is a twin processor PII server, running Windows NT Server.
My oldest dead one is a PC XT clone - but I have a new motherboard. It has an 8087 math coprocessaor, a 4 MB EMS board, and a 1X CD drive !
It had the switchable 4.77 / 8 Mhz clock speed. Woo hoo !
Win95 (and 98) allow direct hardware calls to be made.
I worked for a place where some of their automation was still running under DOS 5.0. Worked fine. :-)
I just retired a Compaq Prolinea 386sx running DOS 3.3 that was controlling some old lab equipment.
Yep - give that man a kewpie doll!
My first impression of Windows 8 was that “this is an operating system devoted 90% to playtime”. Just like the people it was designed for.
If I ran a business and had to buy multiple licenses of this I’d be going ape-shiite.
That’s the honest truth.
Windows 7 has more OS features than I need, but in truth, once XP was patched to a certain level, it was fine. I run both XP and 7 in VM’s on a Mac - and they’re fine.
On native hardware? I’ve honestly never found a need to upgrade past XP.
On my Macs, I have no need to upgrade beyond 10.6.
So many of the OS upgrades any more are chasing stupid UI changes that mean nothing to me (and most users). What most users use and care about are applications, not the OS. As long as the OS is stable and works... what does the user care? Little.
Where most desktop OS’ could improve is their backup/recovery schemes, and OS upgrade checkpoints. Apple has the cleanest backup, Windows 7 has OS upgrade checkpoints. If we could get one OS that has both those features in one place, with 64 bit support for new hardware going forward, we might as well lay off most OS developers or have them start upgrading applications.
Technically, I was referring to a virtual pc in my post, not a real one.
On the topic, I do have a P3 @550MHz sitting idle, plus a P4 @3.4GHz with hyperthreading still getting some use. Got it just before the Core2 Duo's came out.
Now I use a Core 2 laptop running 3.4GHz, and the quads are out!
LOL! It’s not that difficult when I’m running the same thing!
Did you fedup from FC17 to FC18? Did that go well?
I did on two machines.
First machine no issues that amounted to anything.
Second machine due to how grub2, grubby and the kernel command line interact I had command line args in my working copy of grub.cfg that got blown away when I followed the suggestion of running grub2-mkconfig. Took me a bit of time to sort all that out.
However lesson learned, now all the grub components are in sync and I’d definitely do a cat /proc/cmdline prior to upgrading and make sure that post-upgrade I got the same cmd line.
Went pretty smoothly, but I had to accept the default partitioning (was using the Beta) since it kept crashing during the partitioning phase of the install.
1. Take it back for a refund.
2. Install or have someone install Windows 7 on it for you.
3. Download, install, and configure Classic Shell, which will bypass Metro UI, restore the Start Menu, and disable all the charm and corner crap.
Should You Care About Windows 8?
No. It's a horrible muddled mess of a user interface. A turd.
I predict the Windows 7 "downgrade" is going to be very popular, and that Windows 7 will be around for a long time.
I have trouble believing that. W95 uptime can be measured in attoseconds.
Sounds good - there are still complaints about the installer but I read their rationale for having to redo it and the explanations made sense to me.
I got the Windows 8 os on a notebook. They were trying to follow the smart phone phenom and have “apps” all done with the ‘finger swinger’ and also try to keep some Windows 7 similarities. They failed miserably on both counts. I am using it and still trying to configure my brain to its quirks. Not fun! I’m glad I still have my Windows 7 laptop as the backup/primary, for work.
Had to get a new Windows laptop quick for a project 2 weeks ago - normally, I’m a Mac/Linux user, but had to run something on Windows.
Got stuck with Windows 8 - it sucks. Period. There are no redeeming features about it. It is NOT a desktop OS and it does a poor job imitating a tablet OS.
Worse then getting stuck with Vista when I needed another Windows laptop in a hurry 6 years ago!!
I should dig out my old radio shack computer that hooked up to my TV and saved everything on a cassette tape!
Terrible because they didn’t even bother to make their own software compatible, i.e., their PICTURE IT program won’t run on it. My next purchase will be Apple !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.