It wasn't a total wreck but it still wasn't as good as 98.Selvec said:There is a problem with that list. Windows 95 wasn't bad at all.Zeren said:
This is how it goes. The cycle will not be broken so easily.
It wasn't a total wreck but it still wasn't as good as 98.Selvec said:There is a problem with that list. Windows 95 wasn't bad at all.Zeren said:
This is how it goes. The cycle will not be broken so easily.
Fair enough. I pretty much just have Metro tiles for WMC, Chrome, Steam and a couple of games from GOG. It is a ***** to setup but I don't actually do anything on my HTPC but watch media and play console ports. Once you get it setup it works well and the big ugly tiles read well on a TV.Headdrivehardscrew said:Beware - My Metro/HTPC experience has, so far, been a bumpy and not too pleasant ride. As long as Windows Media Player does everything you need for your media playing fun, you might be... happy, I guess. But something just brushes me the wrong way if if my Win8 machine nags me to log in to my Microsoft account every time I just want it to play a DVD or play me some music LOCALLY.octafish said:I'll be sticking to Windows 7 for my desktop, however I'm running the preview of 8 on my new HTPC and Metro is great for just about everything you could want a HTPC to do. Of course no Start gave me problems when I was setting it up, but now...well I was going to buy Win 7 for my HTPC but I'll be waiting and buying a copy of 8 for it now.
I also have to say what is absolutely off-putting is the fact that for UI elements to magically appear, you have to hover your little mouse arrow over specific corners/regions of the screen - when it takes three or more attempts to bring up the navigation/settings UI elements, I really don't know how I could generate much love for Metro and the murder of the Start button.
What they are trying to do is obviously total control over your machine and your software (programs/"apps", media), adding the OS-dependent marketplace to it. Oh, and then there's that other stuff... when you want to play an online video, there's a button that let's you watch it on XBOX... I still can't follow this one entirely. If I want to watch a video on an XBOX or a phone or any other device, I usually don't fire it up on the PC.
Windows 7 is easily worth the upgrade.EHKOS said:I still need to upgrade to 7. Vista is terrible and getting worse as it ages. I'm just waiting to get a new everything to upgrade because it's not worth buying a new OS if the hardware is old and slow already.
40 bucks, won't find a cheaper OS outside of linux.culpeo said:My desktop runs the venerable WinXP Pro x64 and has remained very stable over countless upgrades and hardware configurations. My concern, however, is its slow, but inevitable abandonment by software developers. Also, history has demonstrated Microsoft's proclivity for vastly improving upon drastic changes to their OS in the release following the one in which those changes were made (as Win7 did with Vista). By that logic, Windows 9 should be the one to wait for. But for XPers like myself, that may be a bridge too far. And I'm not really interested in using Windows 7 as a stopgap.
Then again, if Windows 8 is to be priced as aggressively as they say, that alone may be enough for me to hasten my decision.
But, the 40 buck option is only available 'til the end of January. Of course, you could just burn the iso you receive and wait.JediMB said:I won't be in any hurry to get Windows 8, since I don't feel I've had 7 for long enough to justify an upgrade, but the price is definitely right. Maybe in a year or so?
I'm not waiting any more, no. [http://www.microsoft.com/surface]nikki191 said:hmm anyone else waiting for a microsoft tablet announcement?
Ah, well... until the end of January is still plenty of time.evilneko said:But, the 40 buck option is only available 'til the end of January. Of course, you could just burn the iso you receive and wait.JediMB said:I won't be in any hurry to get Windows 8, since I don't feel I've had 7 for long enough to justify an upgrade, but the price is definitely right. Maybe in a year or so?
You mean '95, 2000 ME, Vista in comparison to '98, XP and 7?evilneko said:Anyone else sensing a pattern here?
Oi. How dare you besmirch the good name of Windows 2000.ElPatron said:Ohai guise I'm still using XP, am I up to date?
You mean '95, 2000 ME, Vista in comparison to '98, XP and 7?evilneko said:Anyone else sensing a pattern here?
QFT.Heronblade said:I've found I'm better off skipping generations of OS's. Microsoft seems to get their act together on every OTHER release.
Considering you chose to disable pretty much the only feature that distinguished it from Windows 7, I can see absolutely no reason why I would want to use it and not just stick with 7 for the next three or four OS cycles. 7 is great, pretty much bang on and a comfortable upgrade from XP. 8 just seems like a whole load of money for something completely superfluous and not designed for actual desktop users.evilneko said:All in all it's probably the least annoying Windows yet. Coming from a diehard 2k fan and grudging XP user like myself, that's some high praise. Also, I've had 8 on my laptop for over a week now--far longer than I had 7 on either of my computers.
Windows 2k =/= Windows ME. 2k was the successor to the NT line of operating systems and was stable and dandy. ME succeeded 98SE and was genuinely horrible.evilneko said:Oi. How dare you besmirch the good name of Windows 2000.ElPatron said:Ohai guise I'm still using XP, am I up to date?
You mean '95, 2000 ME, Vista in comparison to '98, XP and 7?evilneko said:Anyone else sensing a pattern here?
And 98 wasn't good til SE.
Except 7 managed to annoy me in a number of ways 8 didn't. It's almost like they read my mind and removed all the things I didn't like about 7, or at least made them easier to avoid.Wicky_42 said:Considering you chose to disable pretty much the only feature that distinguished it from Windows 7, I can see absolutely no reason why I would want to use it and not just stick with 7 for the next three or four OS cycles. 7 is great, pretty much bang on and a comfortable upgrade from XP. 8 just seems like a whole load of money for something completely superfluous and not designed for actual desktop users.evilneko said:All in all it's probably the least annoying Windows yet. Coming from a diehard 2k fan and grudging XP user like myself, that's some high praise. Also, I've had 8 on my laptop for over a week now--far longer than I had 7 on either of my computers.
Tell that to ElPatron, who dared speak ill of the great 2k-san [http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=2&pos=460] in the thread of a confessed 2k fan.culpeo said:Windows 2k =/= Windows ME. 2k was the successor to the NT line of operating systems and was stable and dandy. ME succeeded 98SE and was genuinely horrible.