Read more.Quote:
Or maybe not, depending on whose stats you believe.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Or maybe not, depending on whose stats you believe.
I have a fairly strong feeling that W8 will do a bit of a vista. There is just too much geek rage out there already, it barely stands a chance!
Personally, I'm just staggered that 30% of the planet is *still* using a 10 year old operating system.
I'll be using the cheap W8 upgrade option to update the old XP systems that I have running. Otherwise, I see no reason to move on from Win 7; it's stable and does everything I want. Why upgrade?
Here's why I'm upgrading:Quote:
Originally Posted by dcwt2010
- Lower memory usage
- Faster boot times
- New task manager
- Pausing file transfers
- Pictures hub
There are others too but these are the main ones. For <£50 I see it as a good upgrade.
http://www.neowin.net/news/interview-stardock-ceo-brad-wardell-talks-about-start8
If Start8 has a feature to prevent the Metro interface from showing on startup and removes that stupid login screen then I'll be getting Windows 8 because the underlying changes to the OS are very good, it is just that awful interface that they have come up with.
True. I must admit to being heartily unimpressed with '8 so far - not seeing anything that would convince me that the hassle and expense of moving from '7 was worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Although even I would demure from comparing 8 and Vista directly. I loathed and hated Vista with a passion - and it caused me nothing but endless grief on my wife's laptop. Moving to '7 was, and still is, the best upgrade I've made to that system - although a recent replacement of the hard disk with an SSD comes close.
That laptop Vista installation - even when all the Dell-supplied dross was removed - still had all the grace and speed of a ballet-dancing hippopotamus on roller skates.
You and me both (although I've STILL got a Windows XP VM on my Linux machine - but that's more to do with not being able to find an affordable alternative - VM installable Windows7 is expensive). I was even more surprised when I heard Steve Gibson on the SecurityNow! podcast saying that he's sticking with XP - I would have thought someone in his line of work would have pushed folks into the newest OS once it was stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKitch
However - getting back to XP - if they (Microsoft) can do me an upgrade license to '8 that works fine on VirtualBox for a reasonable price, then I'll consider it for that VM. My Windows 7 boxes - to repeat myself - aren't having '8 slapped on them.
Ain't that the truth! I sometimes connect to customer's computers remotely, and every now and then I see someone who is using Windows 7, but with Aero turned off and the UI set to the "Classic" look. Even though Aero is the best looking UI I've seen yet (the version of Aero in Windows 8 is a step back, and Metro is even worse). People are just plain weird.Quote:
and also because people are simply used to it and like it
The Aero-disable might not necessarily be down to UI choice - I've come across a couple of bits of software that when launched cause Windows7 to drop back to "Classic" mode - e.g. the NX desktop client. So if you're using those apps then the constant switching in and out can be annoying. To be honest if I could be bothered to disable Aero then I probably would, just to stop that switch-in/out cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by valhar2000
"Even though Aero is the best looking UI I've seen yet (the version of Aero in Windows 8 is a step back, and Metro is even worse). People are just plain weird."
I guess I'm a weirdy then. ;-) I don't want good looking if it doesn't work as well for me. I not only have the Classic theme but I also have Classic Shell and Classic Start Menu. If I could get a couple more of Microsoft's "improvements" removed and get back the essentials that they decided I no longer needed then I would. (Actually it's an ongoing process, with many thanks to AutoHotKey). The *only* reason I moved from XP to Win 7 is because XP can't handle the GBs of RAM that memory hogging programs need (I'm not just looking at you Firefox).
Win 7, with two instances of a CPU hogging application (one that I use almost every day to do analysis), will have all app windows (browsers, editors, everything) going white with "(not responding)" in their title bars. To get them to work properly I have to jump through core affinity hoops to stop my system from hanging. Even so, the analysis apps themselves still go white and I have to wait for them to finish before I can see any output, let alone click a button to, for instance, pause and tweak the analysis. As these can take anything from minutes to hours, I need to be damn sure that I get the settings right if I want to avoid having to *kill the process* to reconfigure the analysis. How useless is that as a working procedure? The same program never had a whiteout issue with Win XP. Microsoft's "improved" desktop window manager wasn't in that version.
Only this week I broke out my circa 2009 pre-order full retail shrink wrapped Win 7 Pro pack after years of XP Pro/XP Pro x64, the only reason was a major hardware upgrade. From what I've seen of Win 8 it's a major step backwards but will still probably pre-order the upgrade in case I might need it in a few years time.
XP just works for plenty of people.
I was expecting the title to be, Windows 7 runs over 50% of PCs, and crashes constantly on 25% because of pre-installed antivirus/safeonline software, which ironically is normally only used by people so stupid, that no protection is enough to prevent them installing everything evil.
This can't be true surely, at work we only have 1 machine that is windows 7 on the network and thats the chief ex.
The rest of the trust uses win xp
With the greatest respect I think you're being a little harsh there - although I did see an ad for AV that said "our software is clever ... so you don't have to be".Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I use AV (McAfee actually) more for quality assurance than prevention - also have AV on my phone for the same reason (it's pretty much invisible apart from a weekly scan report, and the couple of quid it cost was worth it for peace of mind).
Oh, and since leaving Norton AV - I've never had a Windows system get hosed by AV. Although I did have an XP install totally butt-humped by the "System Mechanic" tool by iolo.
Getting back to the malware idea - I'd be interested in hearing your view on malware scanners generally - Anti-Malware etc, and are browser add-ons like NoScript and AdBlock+ - also the recourse of the feckless/stupid or genuinely useful "digital condoms"? (And although I use both NS and ABP, I won't be personally affronted if they're adjudged to be "useless") ;)
I think what TheAnimus was saying is that having such protection doesn't prevent you from installing something dangerous, it just limits the damage when it is installed. NoScript and AdBlock are similar, they prevent hidden malware from being installed without your knowledge but they don't stop you from clicking a dodgy link and not being diligent with what you allow to be installed at the same time as the software you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Being cautious with what you install, what sites you visit and what is included with the software you use is better protection against viruses and malware than software designed to find it.
@ AlexKitch
I work in a lab which uses plate readers and robots. A lot of this kit is expensive, but now no longer supported, so no more software updates. Consequently, we either stick with XP as long as possible and continue to be able to use our equipment, or we upgrade and....can't.
Home users are one thing, they can upgrade all they like as the software they use at home (games, browsers etc.) will always be made compatible. However, businesses are another story, especially businesses that have third party equipment attached to the systems. Not all companies purely use computers to run Outlook and Internet explorer! Win 7 is a great OS, and I use it at home. However, it does lack support for older software, which XP is able to run.