Windows 8

VR3

Am I the only one test driving Windows 8?

It will take some getting use to but so far I like most of the changes...

I really like the new Internet Explorer

falconcry72

screen caps???

rromeo923

Didnt even know it was out.

I havent heard the words "Like" and "Internet Explorer" used together in awhile

VR3

The new IE is blistering fast and integrates real well to the UI...

I am digging it - still getting used to it as it is a combination of something along the lines of the Xbox dashboard and Windows 7 lol

Erik Tracy

Window's 9 is already in limited beta-test....code named "Sauron".

Geez - the rate of obsolesence is depressing.....

leroyjr1

Damn, my brand new computer is already out dated.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I don't care for Windows 8 and really hate some of the design changes and the switching between Metro and Classic is not very well done. I'm going to reserve judgement until the final product is out, but right now I'll still say Windows 7 is the best piece of software that MS has ever written.

txcoastal1

Metro is fine for tablets and phones but classic will have to be used for most IT and heavy desk top users. There are features that will join all your media access weather or not your on your phone, tab, laptop or PC. That is the feature I am most looking forward to because I travel quite abit.

exalted512

It's been a while since I watched the developer's preview, so I can't give specific examples, but I remember looking forward to it becoming main stream so I can get it.

My computer is about due for a re-installation of Windows anyway.
-Cody

Roy Munson

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I don't care for Windows 8 and really hate some of the design changes and the switching between Metro and Classic is not very well done. I'm going to reserve judgement until the final product is out, but right now I'll still say Windows 7 is the best piece of software that MS has ever written.

Ditto

Tankman

How many bloody windows are they?..lolo. Its a trap and where the mice.lolo..

Syndil

Windows 8 is Windows 7 plus an alternate UI choice called Metro. The Metro UI will also be available on an ARM version of Windows 8 for running on smartphones and tablets. Naturally the kernel will be different for ARM Windows 8, but the UI will mimic that of the x86 or x64 versions. MS' goal is to create a seamless experience across all technology. But if you're not interested in Metro, then there's really no reason to go to Windows 8.

Furthermore, despite all the hate for Windows Vista, Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a tweaked UI and tweaked policy changes, obviously along with a new name and new marketing. All the hate for Vista was a result of it being a brand-new kernel architecture, which meant brand-new drivers were required for all existing hardware, which pissed a lot of people off because a lot of the hardware they already had would not work with Vista. But this will happen any time there is a new kernel architecture.

MS tried to repair Vista's reputation after it had been out for a while and most everyone had either updated their hardware or their drivers (remember the Mojave commercials?) but the masses had been told so often how much Vista sucked that they just refused to hear it. So MS decided to give it a fresh coat of paint and slap a new name on it, and voil?, Windows 7. Windows 7 actually has fewer features than Vista did in order to keep people with inadequate hardware from using them and then subsequently complaining about how the OS was bogging down their machine. I miss DreamScene myself, but then I had a machine that could actually handle it.

But this same process will happen every time a new kernel is released. Old hardware will instantly become obsolete, requiring hardware manufacturers to write new drivers for the new kernel, which they won't be in any hurry to do since they would just prefer you buy their new hardware. This was Vista's plight, but it was not really MS' fault.

So no, Windows 8 does not make anything obsolete, and neither did 7. Vista/7/8 made XP/2000/NT obsolete, but moving from Vista/7/8 to Vista/7/8 is a lateral move, not an upgrade, despite what MS wants you to believe.

ryanjoachim

I've tried it out for a little bit, and I can't stand it. I can guarantee you I won't be moving to Windows 8 for the foreseeable future.

Why would you even want to unless you had an AiO with a touchscreen? There are only 1 or 2 reasons to move from Win 7 to 8 besides the obvious touch-friendliness.

BeefJerky

Syndil wrote: »

Windows 8 is Windows 7 plus an alternate UI choice called Metro. The Metro UI will also be available on an ARM version of Windows 8 for running on smartphones and tablets. Naturally the kernel will be different for ARM Windows 8, but the UI will mimic that of the x86 or x64 versions. MS' goal is to create a seamless experience across all technology. But if you're not interested in Metro, then there's really no reason to go to Windows 8.

Furthermore, despite all the hate for Windows Vista, Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a tweaked UI and tweaked policy changes, obviously along with a new name and new marketing. All the hate for Vista was a result of it being a brand-new kernel architecture, which meant brand-new drivers were required for all existing hardware, which pissed a lot of people off because a lot of the hardware they already had would not work with Vista. But this will happen any time there is a new kernel architecture.

MS tried to repair Vista's reputation after it had been out for a while and most everyone had either updated their hardware or their drivers (remember the Mojave commercials?) but the masses had been told so often how much Vista sucked that they just refused to hear it. So MS decided to give it a fresh coat of paint and slap a new name on it, and voil?, Windows 7. Windows 7 actually has fewer features than Vista did in order to keep people with inadequate hardware from using them and then subsequently complaining about how the OS was bogging down their machine. I miss DreamScene myself, but then I had a machine that could actually handle it.

But this same process will happen every time a new kernel is released. Old hardware will instantly become obsolete, requiring hardware manufacturers to write new drivers for the new kernel, which they won't be in any hurry to do since they would just prefer you buy their new hardware. This was Vista's plight, but it was not really MS' fault.

So no, Windows 8 does not make anything obsolete, and neither did 7. Vista/7/8 made XP/2000/NT obsolete, but moving from Vista/7/8 to Vista/7/8 is a lateral move, not an upgrade, despite what MS wants you to believe.

I somewhat disagree with this assessment. The reason that my friends and I hated Vista had nothing to do with hardware/driver support; my hardware was well above required specs and had good driver support. No, the reason we hated it was because of all the BS bugs that never should have made it past any sort of beta testing, yet were still there in the final release. For example, the infamous file copy bug, whereas a simple file copy that should take 15-20 secs would instead take an eternity and a half (well, around 5 minutes anyway).

Yes, these bugs were fixed in service pack 1, but they shouldn't have made it to the final release anyway. That is the real source of my hatred for Vista. In addition, I would also like to mention that the release version of 7 was actually very good. In other words, M$ seemed to have learned a lesson with Vista.

That said, the differences between Vista and 7 aren't limited to what you mention. Even on the exact same hardware, 7 still boots faster and is more responsive than Vista SP1.

Oh, and to stay on topic, no, I have not tried Windows 8 beta.

AsSiMiLaTeD

BeefJerky wrote: »

I somewhat disagree with this assessment. The reason that my friends and I hated Vista had nothing to do with hardware/driver support; my hardware was well above required specs and had good driver support. No, the reason we hated it was because of all the BS bugs that never should have made it past any sort of beta testing, yet were still there in the final release. For example, the infamous file copy bug, whereas a simple file copy that should take 15-20 secs would instead take an eternity and a half (well, around 5 minutes anyway).

Yes, these bugs were fixed in service pack 1, but they shouldn't have made it to the final release anyway. That is the real source of my hatred for Vista. In addition, I would also like to mention that the release version of 7 was actually very good. In other words, M$ seemed to have learned a lesson with Vista.

That said, the differences between Vista and 7 aren't limited to what you mention. Even on the exact same hardware, 7 still boots faster and is more responsive than Vista SP1.

Oh, and to stay on topic, no, I have not tried Windows 8 beta.

Agreed

Syndil

BeefJerky wrote: »

I somewhat disagree with this assessment. The reason that my friends and I hated Vista had nothing to do with hardware/driver support; my hardware was well above required specs and had good driver support. No, the reason we hated it was because of all the BS bugs that never should have made it past any sort of beta testing, yet were still there in the final release. For example, the infamous file copy bug, whereas a simple file copy that should take 15-20 secs would instead take an eternity and a half (well, around 5 minutes anyway).

Yes, these bugs were fixed in service pack 1, but they shouldn't have made it to the final release anyway. That is the real source of my hatred for Vista. In addition, I would also like to mention that the release version of 7 was actually very good. In other words, M$ seemed to have learned a lesson with Vista.

That said, the differences between Vista and 7 aren't limited to what you mention. Even on the exact same hardware, 7 still boots faster and is more responsive than Vista SP1.

Oh, and to stay on topic, no, I have not tried Windows 8 beta.

This is standard operating procedure for Microsoft. I always recommend that people wait at least until SP2 before jumping in to a brand new OS, so that MS can work the bugs out. But that is also exactly why Windows 7 was not full of bugs when it was released; because it was essentially Vista SP3. Same with the performance increases, etc. Windows 7 had the benefit of maturity as opposed to being a brand spanking new OS, like Vista was.

Of course the same advice applies to cars and just about everything else. Always let someone else do the early adopting.

BeefJerky

Syndil wrote: »

This is standard operating procedure for Microsoft. I always recommend that people wait at least until SP2 before jumping in to a brand new OS, so that MS can work the bugs out. But that is also exactly why Windows 7 was not full of bugs when it was released; because it was essentially Vista SP3. Same with the performance increases, etc. Windows 7 had the benefit of maturity as opposed to being a brand spanking new OS, like Vista was.

Of course the same advice applies to cars and just about everything else. Always let someone else do the early adopting.

While I agree that Win7 isn't the drastic upgrade or change that Vista was compared to XP, I still believe it is more than just Vista SP3 for the following reasons:
1) New taskbar, including the new ability to pin apps and shortcuts to it.
2) Native ribbon UI
3) Libraries - I didn't really find them useful at first, but I embrace them now.
4) Major changes to the kernel, such as scalability improvements, better program isolation and improved memory management.
5) Multi-touch support for use with touchscreens or tablet PC's
6) Drastic improvements in SSD support
7) Big improvements in UAC, to the point where it is actually usable...if you use it, though I personally do not
8) Uses significantly less resources than Vista

So, I will say the Win7 is more of an evolution than a revolution compared to Vista. However, I know I've never seen a service pack offer these kind of improvements, but apparently you have. Would you care to give an example?

Finally, what are your thoughts on my (and my friend's) reasons for hating Vista versus your original claim of hardware and driver compatibility issues?

Syndil

Firstly, the UI is completely separate from the OS. The taskbar, ribbon UI, multi-touch... Those are all parts of explorer.exe shell, not the OS. Kill the explorer.exe process and you will have a blank desktop, but you can still operate your computer via the task manager by pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL, minus all of those features, of course, but still completely usable. The Task Manager essentially becomes your new shell.

The explorer.exe UI update was part of the "fresh coat of paint" that MS used to distinguish 7 from Vista, not any sort of overhaul. They had to make the shell function differently from Vista if they were going to convince people that 7 was not Vista, and so they did. But aside from MS' refusal to allow you the ability to do so, there is no reason why one should not be able to run a Windows 7 shell in Vista. In fact I'd be surprised if someone somewhere has not done it already.

Libraries are merely an adaption of virtual folders, which are in turn an adaption of saved search folders, which have been around since XP. MS had actually included Libraries in earlier pre-release builds of Vista, but had abandoned them with the reasoning that the concept would have been too confusing to users. But prior to build 5308, Vista indeed had what we now call Libraries.

The changes in UAC were simply default policy changes. With a bit of fiddling with the policy editor in Vista, you can quite easily make it behave just like it does in 7. And with the UAC adjustment slider included in Windows 7, you can make UAC in Windows 7 behave exactly as it did in Vista by turning it to its highest setting.

The rest were minor kernel updates, not drastic changes. If it was a significant kernel overhaul, then drivers written for Vista would not be interchangeable with drivers for Win 7 and vice versa, but they are. Obviously MS did not throw out Vista and start from scratch with Windows 7--that would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They updated it and improved it, as they constantly do with Windows Updates and service packs. If you read articles about Windows 7 from when it was first released (before any updates or service packs), you'll find that it performed nearly exactly the same as Windows Vista.

If MS' considerable efforts with the "Mojave" campaign had paid off, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the kernel improvements seen in Windows 7 could and would have been applied to Vista. If "Mojave" had worked, we might not have ever heard of Windows 7, as MS would have deemed the refresh unnecessary.

Here's what I'm talking about in case you are confused by the "Mojave" reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsStHxtVr_w

BeefJerky

Syndil wrote: »

Firstly, the UI is completely separate from the OS. The taskbar, ribbon UI, multi-touch... Those are all parts of explorer.exe shell, not the OS. Kill the explorer.exe process and you will have a blank desktop, but you can still operate your computer via the task manager by pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL, minus all of those features, of course, but still completely usable. The Task Manager essentially becomes your new shell.

The explorer.exe UI update was part of the "fresh coat of paint" that MS used to distinguish 7 from Vista, not any sort of overhaul. They had to make the shell function differently from Vista if they were going to convince people that 7 was not Vista, and so they did. But aside from MS' refusal to allow you the ability to do so, there is no reason why one should not be able to run a Windows 7 shell in Vista. In fact I'd be surprised if someone somewhere has not done it already.

Not entirely sure what to say to this, except that I completely disagree. With GUI-based OS's, the UI is a key part of the OS, especially when said UI comes bundled with the OS. This is especially true for Microsoft's typical end-user, which are not typically "computer nerds," rather they are just average users. They don't care about a "shell" or even task manager, nevermind operating a computer from task manager. To them (and me, a computer geek), the UI is part of the OS. Therefore the UI differences between Vista and 7 absolutely count as OS changes. However, you are free to disagree.

Libraries are merely an adaption of virtual folders, which are in turn an adaption of saved search folders, which have been around since XP. MS had actually included Libraries in earlier pre-release builds of Vista, but had abandoned them with the reasoning that the concept would have been too confusing to users. But prior to build 5308, Vista indeed had what we now call Libraries.

The difference is that they are easily accessible and usable in 7 versus XP, and that is a key difference for your average end-user. Remember, hard-core computer nerds who are willing to (or want to) fiddle with registry and policy edits only constitute a small percentage of Microsoft's user base.

The changes in UAC were simply default policy changes. With a bit of fiddling with the policy editor in Vista, you can quite easily make it behave just like it does in 7. And with the UAC adjustment slider included in Windows 7, you can make UAC in Windows 7 behave exactly as it did in Vista by turning it to its highest setting.

Fair enough. However, how many end users are going to want to go tweaking around in policy editor? Not many. So, again, this makes a difference to your typical end-user.

The rest were minor kernel updates, not drastic changes. If it was a significant kernel overhaul, then drivers written for Vista would not be interchangeable with drivers for Win 7 and vice versa, but they are. Obviously MS did not throw out Vista and start from scratch with Windows 7--that would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They updated it and improved it, as they constantly do with Windows Updates and service packs. If you read articles about Windows 7 from when it was first released (before any updates or service packs), you'll find that it performed nearly exactly the same as Windows Vista.

Then we disagree on the definition of "minor." Sorry, but based on my knowledge, the kernel tweaks are anything but minor.

If MS' considerable efforts with the "Mojave" campaign had paid off, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the kernel improvements seen in Windows 7 could and would have been applied to Vista. If "Mojave" had worked, we might not have ever heard of Windows 7, as MS would have deemed the refresh unnecessary.

Here's what I'm talking about in case you are confused by the "Mojave" reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsStHxtVr_w

I'm aware of what Mojave is, and it follows along with the whole "placebo effect" that has been discussed here numerous times with regards to audio. And, as mentioned above, 7 came with more than just kernel differences, but also key UI improvements.

Also, you still haven't addressed the following the following question:

Finally, what are your thoughts on my (and my friend's) reasons for hating Vista versus your original claim of hardware and driver compatibility issues?

Syndil

BeefJerky wrote: »

Finally, what are your thoughts on my (and my friend's) reasons for hating Vista versus your original claim of hardware and driver compatibility issues?

Not sure how else to address that question other than how I did in my last post. The way I see it is that people just don't want to believe 7 is a remake of Vista simply because they have an irrational hate of Vista (as did the subjects in the Mojave campaign), and are unable to reconcile that hate for Vista with their love of Windows 7. But the key word here is "irrational." The factual evidence simply does not support the vast chasm between opinions of Vista and Windows 7.



To me there's just no disputing that the UI is completely separate from the OS. So disagree if you want, but I'm going to say you're just plain wrong. Explorer.exe is merely a shell program that runs within the OS, and as I stated you absolutely do not have to use it. Just Google "shell replacement" and you'll find many alternatives for many OSes. You can find alternatives for XP or Vista that make them look like Windows 7 or Gnome or KDE or even Mac OS for that matter. A UI is just that... an Interface to the OS. It is not the OS. It's not much different than the web browser that's included with the OS, Internet Explorer. You can use it if you want, but you don't have to, and it's definitely not part of the OS itself.

I guess maybe I'm too old school. I remember when the Internet was the Internet, and the WWW was merely a function of the Internet, and not even its most widely-used function. Now people use the terms "Internet" and "WWW" interchangeably, which is in my opinion improper (and is also technically/factually incorrect). I also ran shell replacements on DOS and Windows XP: Norton Commander for DOS and LiteStep for XP. However there was no doubt that the underlying OS was unchanged--I was still running MS-DOS and XP, just with a shell UI different from the default one provided by MS. I could have permanently deleted explorer.exe from my XP machine without any ill effect whatsoever, which I think speaks volumes about how integral it was to the OS.

So yes, I will strongly disagree with your assertion that the UI is a key part of the OS. I will agree that it is the most widely recognizable part of the OS for your average end user, which is why MS put so much effort in differentiating Windows 7's included shell from Vista's shell. But technically and factually, the outward appearance of the shell and how it operates is irrelevant to the OS itself. A UI such as explorer.exe or the Task Manager or any other shell replacement is merely a tool used for launching other programs within the OS. Explorer.exe is the default tool for doing so provided by MS, but you can discard it for another just as easily as you do Internet Explorer.

Same with default values for registry entries and policies. If I change a bunch of registry values and policies on my Windows 7 machine, am I inventing a new OS when I do so? Of course not. And neither was MS when they did. They just made their changes the new defaults when they burned them to disc, gave it a new name and sold it to the masses.

Hell I could easily create an installation disc of Windows 7 slipstreamed with whatever registry edits and policy changes I wanted and completely exclude explorer.exe for another shell. It would still be the Windows 7 OS, which could easily confirmed by getting it to pass MS' Windows Genuine Advantage Validation, which it would do without incident.

What it really comes down to are the kernel changes. You say they are major, I say pshaw. Major was when we went from 95/95/ME to NT/2000/XP or on to Vista/7/8. Just as ME was based on 98 which was based on 95, and just as XP was based on 2000 which was based on NT, 8 is based on 7 which is based on Vista.

Major kernel change = completely new architecture = new drivers.
No new drivers = underlying architecture unchanged = kernel is obviously based on the previous version.

In the court of public opinion, Vista was a bomb. A lemon. Deservedly so? No. MS knew it, so they tried to fix public opinion with Mojave. That didn't work. Vista is still a bomb in the court of public opinion (and still undeservedly so). Thus, they did what they had to do. And by that I mean their hands were absolutely tied; they had to do it if they wanted to continue to sell operating systems. They took all the work they did on Vista, they did not throw out that work, and they reconciled as many complaints as they could about Vista and repackaged it and remarketed it as Windows 7.

This is not some left-field conspiracy theory; this is MS doing business, and it happens to be in the business of selling operating systems. And they're no dummies at it either. It's fairly obvious to me that this is exactly what happened simply by observing the actions that MS took--the actions that logic dictated they would need to take to stay in business--and by comparing the end result of those actions, Windows 7, to Vista. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Just as staunch Vista haters loved Mojave (which was of course really Vista--the whole point of the campaign), they love Windows 7. Which is also Vista.

BeefJerky

Syndil wrote: »

Not sure how else to address that question other than how I did in my last post. The way I see it is that people just don't want to believe 7 is a remake of Vista simply because they have an irrational hate of Vista (as did the subjects in the Mojave campaign), and are unable to reconcile that hate for Vista with their love of Windows 7. But the key word here is "irrational." The factual evidence simply does not support the vast chasm between opinions of Vista and Windows 7.

So, it is irrational to hate an OS that had major bugs out the gate, and some that weren't properly fixed until over a year later with SP1? You may want to check your definition of irrational.

To me there's just no disputing that the UI is completely separate from the OS. So disagree if you want, but I'm going to say you're just plain wrong. Explorer.exe is merely a shell program that runs within the OS, and as I stated you absolutely do not have to use it. Just Google "shell replacement" and you'll find many alternatives for many OSes. You can find alternatives for XP or Vista that make them look like Windows 7 or Gnome or KDE or even Mac OS for that matter. A UI is just that... an Interface to the OS. It is not the OS. It's not much different than the web browser that's included with the OS, Internet Explorer. You can use it if you want, but you don't have to, and it's definitely not part of the OS itself.

I guess maybe I'm too old school. I remember when the Internet was the Internet, and the WWW was merely a function of the Internet, and not even its most widely-used function. Now people use the terms "Internet" and "WWW" interchangeably, which is in my opinion improper (and is also technically/factually incorrect). I also ran shell replacements on DOS and Windows XP: Norton Commander for DOS and LiteStep for XP. However there was no doubt that the underlying OS was unchanged--I was still running MS-DOS and XP, just with a shell UI different from the default one provided by MS. I could have permanently deleted explorer.exe from my XP machine without any ill effect whatsoever, which I think speaks volumes about how integral it was to the OS.

So yes, I will strongly disagree with your assertion that the UI is a key part of the OS. I will agree that it is the most widely recognizable part of the OS for your average end user, which is why MS put so much effort in differentiating Windows 7's included shell from Vista's shell. But technically and factually, the outward appearance of the shell and how it operates is irrelevant to the OS itself. A UI such as explorer.exe or the Task Manager or any other shell replacement is merely a tool used for launching other programs within the OS. Explorer.exe is the default tool for doing so provided by MS, but you can discard it for another just as easily as you do Internet Explorer.

First, when buying Windows 7 (or any other Windows version), I am not just purchasing a license to use the OS, but also the UI. Therefore, it is clearly a valid factor in differentiating different versions of Windows.

Second, the fact that the UI is packaged with the OS and also the most visible attribute of it, makes it a key part of the system as a whole. If they sold the shell separately from the core OS, you would have a case, but they do not. And comparing any of these with DOS is ridiculous. DOS did not come packaged with any graphical UI, so of course it wouldn't be considered part of the OS. So, as long as the UI is packaged as part of the OS, I consider it to be a part of it.

And as far as internet vs WWW, that's late in the game. I remember surfing on BBSs via a Compaq "portable computer." Well, I guess it was about as portable as you could get back in the day. :razz:

Same with default values for registry entries and policies. If I change a bunch of registry values and policies on my Windows 7 machine, am I inventing a new OS when I do so? Of course not. And neither was MS when they did. They just made their changes the new defaults when they burned them to disc, gave it a new name and sold it to the masses.

But, it isn't just a tweak of registry entries, it is also a tweaked UI that allows the consumer to access them in a simpler and much less intimidating manner.

Hell I could easily create an installation disc of Windows 7 slipstreamed with whatever registry edits and policy changes I wanted and completely exclude explorer.exe for another shell. It would still be the Windows 7 OS, which could easily confirmed by getting it to pass MS' Windows Genuine Advantage Validation, which it would do without incident.

Sure, but the typical end-user isn't going to want to do that. Again, you are a minority amongst computer users, so your "ways" aren't typical. That is why the changes that Microsoft made between Vista and Win7 count; they clearly benefit the average user. They also benefit me. Yes, I'm a computer geek, and I'm not afraid of tweaking the registry or policies. However, I don't want to have to do that to make a system run decently. With Win7, I just install it and it works how it should.

What it really comes down to are the kernel changes. You say they are major, I say pshaw. Major was when we went from 95/95/ME to NT/2000/XP or on to Vista/7/8. Just as ME was based on 98 which was based on 95, and just as XP was based on 2000 which was based on NT, 8 is based on 7 which is based on Vista.

Major kernel change = completely new architecture = new drivers.
No new drivers = underlying architecture unchanged = kernel is obviously based on the previous version.

Fine, how about I use the term moderate. It isn't a completely new architecture, but it has significant changes.

In the court of public opinion, Vista was a bomb. A lemon. Deservedly so? No. MS knew it, so they tried to fix public opinion with Mojave. That didn't work. Vista is still a bomb in the court of public opinion (and still undeservedly so). Thus, they did what they had to do. And by that I mean their hands were absolutely tied; they had to do it if they wanted to continue to sell operating systems. They took all the work they did on Vista, they did not throw out that work, and they reconciled as many complaints as they could about Vista and repackaged it and remarketed it as Windows 7.

I disagree that it was undeserving. It sounds like you didn't really use Vista when it was first released and filled with major bugs that never should have made it past best testing. I did, and that is the reason that I grew to hate it. Quite frankly it sounds like you are trying to excuse Microsoft for releasing such a bug-riddled OS. I won't.

This is not some left-field conspiracy theory; this is MS doing business, and it happens to be in the business of selling operating systems. And they're no dummies at it either. It's fairly obvious to me that this is exactly what happened simply by observing the actions that MS took--the actions that logic dictated they would need to take to stay in business--and by comparing the end result of those actions, Windows 7, to Vista. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Just as staunch Vista haters loved Mojave (which was of course really Vista--the whole point of the campaign), they love Windows 7. Which is also Vista.

Of course they want to sell operating systems; they're a business. Note that the Mojave experiment focused on average users and just a 10-minute demonstration. It isn't the same as someone actually using the operating system, and therefore not really relevant to the discussion at hand. The nasty bugs that I mentioned would still have reared their ugly heads once it was actually used by the users. This means that the users would have come to form the same opinion of Mojave had they actually had a chance to use it.

sucks2beme

Perhaps they'll price it so us mere mortals could afford a copy?

newrival

I'm testing 8 on my HTPC. Metro is pretty great in that regard. Power users will be in Classic all day long, but Metro isn't for them. It's just like Windows phone7, or zune GUI, which I feel is the best mobile OS out there right now. Metro is super intuitive, stunningly simple, and fast. While I wasn't entirely happy with Vista out of the box, it could be tweaked. After being a mixed Mac, PC, Linux (Ubuntu and red hat) user for 5 years now, I feel very strongly that Windows 7 is the best big name OS out there. The geeks are going to argue for Linux, and the fanboys and uninitiated are going to argue for Mac, but this is how it's always been, and will always be.

Syndil

BeefJerky wrote: »

And comparing any of these with DOS is ridiculous. DOS did not come packaged with any graphical UI, so of course it wouldn't be considered part of the OS.

Au contraire, mon fr?re.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_Shell

Not a lot of people used it, but it was there. Today it would be analogous to a lot of people not using explorer.exe in favor of the Task Manager. But it was actually quite useful--as was Norton Commander.

I disagree that it was undeserving. It sounds like you didn't really use Vista when it was first released and filled with major bugs that never should have made it past best testing. I did, and that is the reason that I grew to hate it. Quite frankly it sounds like you are trying to excuse Microsoft for releasing such a bug-riddled OS. I won't.

It was undeserving in that it never outgrew its reputation. As I said before, I never recommend being an early adopter--let someone else work out the bugs. And anyone familiar with computers will tell you that this is especially true with MS and their OSes. 95 was buggy as hell when it came out. People hated it. But 98 wasn't bad--because it was 95 with all the bugs worked out. Same with Windows 1.0. What a steaming pile of crap that was. But 3.0? Yeah, that one was pretty good. Because it was 1.0 with all the bugs worked out. NT 3.1? Epic failure, yada, yada. Hell NT 4.0 went up to service pack 6 and still had problems, so they had to release SP6a! Guess they just refused to call it SP7. If NT had been Vista, they would have renamed it to Windows Rainbowfarts at SP3, tweaked the UI and sold it as a new OS.

Point is, if you jump into a new (and I mean new-kernel architecture new) OS before SP2, then you obviously didn't ask for my opinion before doing so or you would have known better. The bugs were inevitable; they had to be worked through in Microsoft's public beta (read: initial release) some time.

And all that really illustrates how silly this argument is. MS could have named Vista Windows 7 from the start, or they could have decided to stick with calling the current OS Vista instead of rebadging/renaming it Windows 7, perhaps tagging the words "Second Edition" on to the end of it. Hmm, has MS ever done that before? Then we'd be at Vista SP4 instead of Windows 7 SP1, or perhaps Vista SE SP1. Obviously MS learned its lessons about product distinction from the earlier attempts.

But it really is all just a name game and marketing. If it's not a major kernel change, it's the same thing it was before the name change, just with some minor repackaging and tweaks. They want people to think it's more than that so that people will actually go out and buy the new OS, and they'll sprinkle in a few extra features to entice them. But the bugs that were there before the name change are the same bugs that would have been there in the beginning even if they hadn't changed the name and tweaked the UI. It's clear to me that MS obviously planned to do the refresh/update sooner or later as part of their planned product cycle, but I think the unexpected lingering stink over Vista forced them to do it earlier than they had hoped, hence the Mojave campaign.

But there had to be a beginning, regardless of what name was used at the beginning. Vista was the beta for Windows 7. That is entirely the reason why Windows 7 was a much less buggy release than Vista--not because MS learned its lesson the hard way and decided to work all the bugs out of it before bringing it to market, but because Windows 7 skipped right over SP1 and SP2 to SP3, because it existed as Vista when those service packs were released.

That's why I refer to the release version of Windows 7 as Vista SP3. And when Windows 8 is released, it will also have benefited from all the bugs squashed in those early days of Vista, and from all the smaller bugs that have been squashed under Windows 7, because it's going to be the same OS. Well, the non-ARM version is, but that's another story. But the next time MS releases an OS with an entirely new kernel architecture... It will be branded as the worse OS they've ever released until it reaches SP2. Deja vu all over again.

BeefJerky

Syndil wrote: »

Au contraire, mon fr?re.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_Shell

Not a lot of people used it, but it was there. Today it would be analogous to a lot of people not using explorer.exe in favor of the Task Manager. But it was actually quite useful--as was Norton Commander.

Ahh yes, I vaguely remember that. I also remember not using it because the command prompt was much easier to use. However, comparing that to a modern GUI-based operating system is still a fallacy. To qualify as a true GUI OS, and therefore have the GUI count as part of the OS, the two following cases need to apply (IMO):
1) Be packaged along with the core OS
2) Designed to be the primary user interface.

The DOS Shell GUI was simply a half-baked afterthought, and M$ removed it from later DOS versions due to that.

Then you get into the Windows 1.0-3.2 varieties. They were never actually operating systems, but rather a UI designed to ride on top of an existing DOS system. They were never even packaged together, so they certainly wouldn't be considered part of the OS.

Finally, you get into modern M$ GUI-based operating systems, namely Win95-Win7. These were designed so that the GUI was the primary user interface, and the GUI was also packaged as part of the OS rather than being sold separately. Therefore, I absolutely consider that GUI to be part of the OS. That also means that it is a valid differentiator when comparing Windows versions. So, as far as I (and many others) are concerned, the UI differences between Vista and 7 count as OS changes.

It was undeserving in that it never outgrew its reputation. As I said before, I never recommend being an early adopter--let someone else work out the bugs. And anyone familiar with computers will tell you that this is especially true with MS and their OSes. 95 was buggy as hell when it came out. People hated it. But 98 wasn't bad--because it was 95 with all the bugs worked out. Same with Windows 1.0. What a steaming pile of crap that was. But 3.0? Yeah, that one was pretty good. Because it was 1.0 with all the bugs worked out. NT 3.1? Epic failure, yada, yada. Hell NT 4.0 went up to service pack 6 and still had problems, so they had to release SP6a! Guess they just refused to call it SP7. If NT had been Vista, they would have renamed it to Windows Rainbowfarts at SP3, tweaked the UI and sold it as a new OS.

It wasn't even solely about the fact that it had major bugs when it was released. It was that it took M$ over a year to get some of them fixed. This certainly wouldn't be acceptable for any other commodity, so why is it acceptable for M$? For example, if you bought a new car and it had a major problem such as stalling out when driving, you would be upset. If they fixed it quickly and got you going, you would get over it. However, if it took the manufacturer a year to get the problem resolved, you would hold a grudge as well.

Point is, if you jump into a new (and I mean new-kernel architecture new) OS before SP2, then you obviously didn't ask for my opinion before doing so or you would have known better. The bugs were inevitable; they had to be worked through in Microsoft's public beta (read: initial release) some time.

And, that is something that has always bothered me about M$, or any other company that does that same thing. The initial release should have already gone through public beta testing, and shouldn't have excessive major bugs in it. It seems that you pretty much shrug that practice off as acceptable, and even defend it.

And all that really illustrates how silly this argument is. MS could have named Vista Windows 7 from the start, or they could have decided to stick with calling the current OS Vista instead of rebadging/renaming it Windows 7, perhaps tagging the words "Second Edition" on to the end of it. Hmm, has MS ever done that before? Then we'd be at Vista SP4 instead of Windows 7 SP1, or perhaps Vista SE SP1. Obviously MS learned its lessons about product distinction from the earlier attempts.

Actually, it's still not as black and white as you make it out to be. Not everyone agrees with your view that the UI of a GUI-based OS is not part of the OS; I sure don't. Therefore, it's not cut and dry that Win7 shouldn't have become its own OS versus being a service pack for Vista.

But it really is all just a name game and marketing. If it's not a major kernel change, it's the same thing it was before the name change, just with some minor repackaging and tweaks. They want people to think it's more than that so that people will actually go out and buy the new OS, and they'll sprinkle in a few extra features to entice them. But the bugs that were there before the name change are the same bugs that would have been there in the beginning even if they hadn't changed the name and tweaked the UI. It's clear to me that MS obviously planned to do the refresh/update sooner or later as part of their planned product cycle, but I think the unexpected lingering stink over Vista forced them to do it earlier than they had hoped, hence the Mojave campaign.

And, again, this is another gray area. You claim the kernel changes were minor, I still believe that they are more moderate changes. I also believe the significant UI changes do count as OS changes.

But there had to be a beginning, regardless of what name was used at the beginning. Vista was the beta for Windows 7. That is entirely the reason why Windows 7 was a much less buggy release than Vista--not because MS learned its lesson the hard way and decided to work all the bugs out of it before bringing it to market, but because Windows 7 skipped right over SP1 and SP2 to SP3, because it existed as Vista when those service packs were released.

Here you go again, basically defending M$'s practice of releasing software as "final" that is still beta quality.

That's why I refer to the release version of Windows 7 as Vista SP3.

You can call it what you want, but that doesn't make it correct or even valid.

And when Windows 8 is released, it will also have benefited from all the bugs squashed in those early days of Vista, and from all the smaller bugs that have been squashed under Windows 7, because it's going to be the same OS. Well, the non-ARM version is, but that's another story. But the next time MS releases an OS with an entirely new kernel architecture... It will be branded as the worse OS they've ever released until it reaches SP2. Deja vu all over again.

I know you still don't believe that a UI change in a GUI-based OS is considered an OS change and I just don't get it...

Syndil

Hey I'm not defending them, I'm saying that's just the way it is, as it always has been. Getting mad at MS for being MS is tilting at windmills, IMO. But I do believe the hate that people still carry for Vista today is the result of undeserved stigma. Vista today is not the same as Vista when it first came out. The fact that Windows 7 is widely praised while while Vista is still hated proves to me that it is undeserved stigma, since underneath the minor UI refresh they are pretty much the same OS.

There were a few minor kernel tweaks regarding power consumption on Nehalem processors that MS decided to make exclusive to 7 (undoubtedly for marketing reasons) that prevent me from reverting back to Vista, but if they had decided to include them in Vista--which they easily could have since it's based on the same kernel--then I'd have no problem going back. That's just one of the carrots they dangled in front of people to get them to upgrade from Vista to 7, and it's one I happen to like, especially since I am running dual quad-core CPUs. I'll take all the power savings I can.

As for the whole UI/OS thing... Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. BTW I also disagree that the DOS Shell was a half-baked afterthought. It was indeed very useful, and the only reason I think more people did not use it was because they were unaware it existed. I was aware, and not only did I make use of it, I subsequently found a better replacement for it with Norton Commander. Whether or not MS intended it to be the primary interface with the OS... Well that's hard to say unless you were working for MS back then. But they obviously put a lot of work into it, so I'd argue that they obviously intended people to use it. The main reason they stopped shipping it with DOS is because at that time most people were then moving on to Windows, and MS probably saw it as a way to push even more people to Windows.

Syndil

Back on topic...

Windows 8 for PC may not be that exciting, but on the tablet I think it has the potential to be a big hit, assuming it's priced competitively.

http://blog.lenovo.com/products/world-gets-1st-peek-at-thinkpad-branded-windows-8-tablet