No thanks.

Yeh shove it MS.

It's Vista all over again -.-

ditto, ditto and ditto

Meh, first they'll have to make Windows 8 be something I care about

My spider senses indicate there is a fair bit of negativity here...

Admittedly, as much as I like Windows 8, I'll be most likely waiting for Windows 9 to be released before my next upgrade, so that MS has time to respond to feedback and fix any potential compatibility issues (not that I've had any on the preview version). However, this doesn't detract from the fact that $15 is a pretty good price for an upgrade, especially when you take into account the usual price for a pro copy of Windows and that the upgrade is potentially going to allow a jump from Windows 7 Home Basic to Windows 8 Pro.

At the end of the day, nobody is holding a gun to your head asking you to upgrade. For some people, this deal will be helpful, for others it won't.

Did you miss the part where you have to buy a new pc with win 7 to get the voucher to upgrade.

So anyone who already has win 7 has to pay full price.

If I was buying a new pc I would expect it to have the latest OS and not have to pay extra to get it, this is just to help stores sell older pc's that come with win 7.

I hope it fails and metro is never seen on the desktop again.

Originally Posted by CrapBag
Did you miss the part where you have to buy a new pc with win 7 to get the voucher to upgrade.

Not at all. But I'd imagine Win7 Home Basic + $15 is still going to work out a lot cheaper than buying Win8 Pro on it's own.

EDIT - Also, I'll add that some people who need to replace a PC over the next few months may not be able to wait for the Win8 release date. The upgrade is a nice option to have, whether it gets taken up or not.

Originally Posted by Brooxy

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrapBag
Did you miss the part where you have to buy a new pc with win 7 to get the voucher to upgrade.

Not at all. But I'd imagine Win7 Home Basic + $15 is still going to work out a lot cheaper than buying Win8 Pro on it's own.

EDIT - Also, I'll add that some people who need to replace a PC over the next few months may not be able to wait for the Win8 release date. The upgrade is a nice option to have, whether it gets taken up or not.

You've missed the point Broxy.

The upgrade off is only for NEW PC's....it's not for anybody on Windows 7 or anybody that goes out and buys windows 7.

The offer replaces the last offer, which was new PC's with VISTA get a FREE upgrade to 7.
Now new pc's bought with 7 get a £10 upgrade to 8.

There aren't really any positives.

Originally Posted by Brooxy

Not at all. But I'd imagine Win7 Home Basic + $15 is still going to work out a lot cheaper than buying Win8 Pro on it's own.

No Brooxy, it's Win7 Home Basic + $15 + New Prebuilt Computer

EDIT: Ninja'ed - not meaning to bombard :)

This is exactly the same as it has always been. Try to prevent people from holding off hardware purchases pre Windows 8 by giving them cheap upgrades if they buy Windows 7 kit.

you'll be paying full retail for your upgrade.

I bet I won't.

Originally Posted by MiNiMaL_FuSS
You've missed the point Brooxy.

Originally Posted by Brooxy
Also, I'll add that some people who need to replace a PC over the next few months may not be able to wait for the Win8 release date

Yup and as I stated, it's a nice option for those that have no choice but to buy a PC during the time that the deal is on. They'll already be getting a PC, so the cost of the computer itself isn't really an issue. ;)

Nice offer for those who will actually need to use this but for me I am sticking to Window's 7 simply because of the Metro interface, if i want a tablet styled OS I will buy a tablet.

Win 7 works fine for me so I will stick with that unless MS decide to make a version of Win 8 without the Metro.

They need to make it useable as a desktop OS and it needs to have serious advantages over 7 Pro to even get me to consider it. Currently seems like an overly gimicky tablet OS they're trying to shove to the desktop market with the 'higher number is better' argument in my opinion.

About the only positive is IF you are planning on buying a new PC with Win 7 Home Basic, by the old system if you wanted Windows 8 Pro you'd have to pay full whack, whereas now you can get it for $15.

But that's it: it's a very specific situation that I can't imagine will apply to a single person here to be honest.

Headline is misleading on the article it is not the upgrade programme pricing at all. It is the if you buy old stock computers you get to pay for an upgrade. It is designed to make Microsoft more money on the sale of older hardware.

When real upgrade pricing is out then i might be more impressed but given that I can see no compelling reason to upgrade my win7 desktop or my vista laptop (and god forbid what it would do to our netboook) I will stay as I am unless the upgrade is cheap (as in free pretty much)

Originally Posted by Niftyrat
Headline is misleading on the article it is not the upgrade programme pricing at all. It is the if you buy old stock computers you get to pay for an upgrade. It is designed to make Microsoft more money on the sale of older hardware.

Not misleading at all: it's the (rumoured) pricing for the upgrade programme, not the upgrade editions.

Point for me is that Vista was aweful and people held onto XP. Because of that, MS failed to maximise it's DX10 runtime and associated games because of it (also DX10 was not 'coder friendly' iirc).

Win7 is truly an excellent OS, stable, 64bit, lightweight compared to Vista and DX11 was a major leap for anyone upgrading from XP..... I still pray for 64bit only apps and games.

Win8 - I have not read much about it, there's not much that people are shouting as the 'must haves' reason to upgrade (unless you own a bulldozer CPU and want that promised 10% performance boost from it's scheduling logic).

I can't help feeling a lot of this is far too biased toward tile based GUI's and getting it to run on ARM.... that's not to say it wont be good, but only to say that so far I see no reason to upgrade, even if they made DX12 Win8 exclusive, games are still 12month away after the OS is released.

I reserve my judgement, as I am sure others will too, only to say that I am content with what I have right now.

Most likely Microosft will offer the same thing than what they did with Windows 7. 50%-60% off Windows 8 upgrade, which is a very good price during the pre-order of Windows 8.

As for, is Windows 8 crap or good. I and we all should reserve judgement until the LAST Release Candidate release. They are still 4-5 month of improvements. Already the Alpha to Beta version jump was HUGE in term of improvement. Alpha version of Win8 was unusable.

One thing I have to say, is that Logitech will break Windows 8 experience. As in Windows 8 side scrolling with the mouse wheel is a must. The problem is that when you install Logitech drivers, your mouse side scrolling doesn't work anymore, because of this issue: http://pretentiousname.com/setpoint_hwheel/index.html
(that is also why it doesn't work in most programs, beside Office, and a few web browsers... then when you remove the drivers, it works perfectly everywhere else).

This is actually good news, and this is why.

It encourages people to upgrade their old crappy computers. And that's better for everyone. The less bad-spec machines there are in the market and the higher the average spec is - the better games, software and prices we all get.

Originally Posted by maverik-sg1
Point for me is that Vista was aweful and people held onto XP. Because of that, MS failed to maximise it's DX10 runtime and associated games because of it (also DX10 was not 'coder friendly' iirc).

Actually, no.
Vista was ahead of it's time. The only people who enjoyed Vista, was people that had:
-> Multi-core CPU (dual core at least)
-> 64-bit CPU (for Vista 64-bit, 32-bit was to be avoided)
-> 2GB of RAM
-> Geforce 6600 series or better (or equivalent from ATI back then)
-> latest peripheral and hardware technology.
In other words... us, computer enthusiasts / gamers.

3 years later, Windows 7 come out... the above specs, 2005 high-end specs, became mainstream, mainly because Intel started to make a graphic solution that isn't an insult to humanity so that it can handle Aero without struggling, for a smooth experience without killing people laptop battery life. And OEM stop selling crap at high prices. No more Pentium 4's, No more Pentium D's. no more 1GB of RAM.
Yes, Windows 7 was greatly optimized, but I don't think it was the main point.

Also reviewers didn't know how to test Vista. Most of them where disabling big performance boosting features, like prefetech (which actually worked in Vista) and superfetch.. even disabled Aero (which you don't want to do, as you want to have the GPU draw the interface), so they were showing Vista poor performance. Mix all that with manuufacture that went "We COOOULD make our product Vista ready... I mean XP 64-bit drivers works.. but let's hide that... yes. Let's re-relase the same product, with a different color and model number, and those one will have the Vista drivers. We will take this opportunity to have everyone upgrade our product to the new one, even those you just got it! hehehe! Brilliant!", Well that didn't work, and also hurt Vista.

My 2005 old computer (still using today by my father), ran Vista 64-bit better than XP. It had an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz Socket 939 (750$ CPU at the time), Nforce 4 32XSLI, Geforce 6600GT 128MB (later GTX 260), 2GB DDR1 at 400MHz. So yes.. most people, including many gamers, didn't have this kind of hardware... until the mid life of Vista when the core 2 duo was out, which was a bit too late to rebuild Vista reputation. My 2008 laptop ran Vista above and beyond too.

My laptop is the Dell Latitude E6400. It has a Core 2 Duo P8400, 4GB of RAM, Nvidia Quadro NVS 160M. Dell had all it's drivers and features work perfectly at release, while those who picked XP... well let's say that it took a nice 2 years for them to have them. Plus those who picked Vista 64-bit, got a nice 9 hours of battery life, with the 9-cell battery, while XP users only got 7. This is mainly due of XP lack of any power management system. (make that 10hours with Windows 7, and now ~11hours with WIndows8)

Win7 is truly an excellent OS, stable, 64bit, lightweight compared to Vista and DX11 was a major leap for anyone upgrading from XP..... I still pray for 64bit only apps and games.

DirectX11 had nothing to do with OS. DirectX10 was not aimed at games... it was, like Vista, to provide a new ground for evolving DirectX. It needed a new kernel architecture, which Vista provided. That is why XP didn't support DirectX 10. And that was why DirectX10 didn't offer much to gaming... in fact very little compared to other versions of DirectX

Win8 - I have not read much about it, there's not much that people are shouting as the 'must haves' reason to upgrade (unless you own a bulldozer CPU and want that promised 10% performance boost from it's scheduling logic).

Something is new... people complain.
-> People complained on Vista start menu.. which now everyone loves (Windows 7 didn't touch it)
-> People complained on the transparency on windows (Aero)
-> People complained on the task bar of Windows 7, and now everyone likes it.
-> People complained on the ribbon bar, and now the majority of people like it.
-> Microsoft unified many control panel element into 1 single look... people complained as it doesn't have tabs like before.
and I can go on.... people want change, but don't want change.

I can't help feeling a lot of this is far too biased toward tile based GUI's and getting it to run on ARM.... that's not to say it wont be good, but only to say that so far I see no reason to upgrade, even if they made DX12 Win8 exclusive, games are still 12month away after the OS is released.

Windows 8 will be DirectX 11.1. Which the latest AMD Radeon card and Geforce card are 98-99% compatible already. So they can't mention "DirectX11.1" ready because of it. The missing supported features aren't related to gaming at all. It's related to those who do advance CAD work.

I'll be getting Windows 8 anyway due to the fact that no matter how much people complain, Microsoft has made its choice to put touch and desktop together, so you may as well get used to it and I actually prefer some of the features of metro, and I like the idea of being able to sync up my desktop, tablet and eventually phone.

Originally Posted by CrapBag
Did you miss the part where you have to buy a new pc with win 7 to get the voucher to upgrade.

So anyone who already has win 7 has to pay full price.

If I was buying a new pc I would expect it to have the latest OS and not have to pay extra to get it, this is just to help stores sell older pc's that come with win 7.

This without the attitude

I'll be holding off for Windows 8 SP1

People complaining about the usability of Windows8 really shouldn't. It takes all of 2min to get used to the metro start screen instead of a start menu, areas of which are a big improvement (live tiles showing weather, mail, facebook, twitter etc. notifications, with more to come.

The desktop environment is currently exactly the same as Windows7, with some improvements under the hood. While I find that disappointing (I'd have liked the metro styling to continue right through), it looks like it will please many here.

I've been running the Release Candidate as my main OS since its release, and the only problem I've come across is Autodesk AutoCAD (2012 or 2013) crashing on a regular basis. I'll put this down to shoddy coding on Autodesk's part, because all my other programs (photoshop, zune, office, etc.etc.) work perfectly well. I might have had one blue screen in that time, think it was a problem with speedfan, but other than that it's been rock solid.

There may not be enough improvements to persuade some to upgrade from Windows7, but I think Windows8 will still be a very good OS in its own right, just a little conservative imo.

Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Snip

Well said. Very well said indeed.

Originally Posted by Somer_Himpson
This without the attitude

What attitude?

No way and No Thanks

My Windows 7 is fine and after the very expensive Vista Upgrade I did that just turned out to be a load of crap there is no way I am ungrading.

Old saying "if it is not broken don't fix it" hello to wise words.

And from what I have seen with Windows 8 all Microsoft are doing is trying to get some more money in to suck up to their shareholders,,,,,, no thanks and take it where the sun does not shine MS.

Rip of company MS at it again.

Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Something is new... people complain.
... people want change, but don't want change.

This thread's a masterclass in demonstrating this fact. See also: Ubuntu when it switched to the Unity interface, or Facebook timeline, or whenever a multiplayer game gets patched.

The voucher upgrade sounds interesting - I am on the verge of building a new PC, but was holding off until Windows 8 is out. Any indication whether the voucher will be available with OEM copies of Win 7?

The ol' carrot for early adopters..

Tried the evaluation copy for a few weeks and was not impressed enough to go head first on release, by some distance.

Ill wait for some proper feedback from friends, like I have with the last 4 MS operating systems.

Originally Posted by N17 dizzi
The ol' carrot for early adopters..

Tried the evaluation copy for a few weeks and was not impressed enough to go head first on release, by some distance.

Ill wait for some proper feedback from friends, like I have with the last 4 MS operating systems.

What evaluation copy? There is no evaluation copy of Windows 8.
The only thing that is officially out is Windows 8 Consumer Preview... which means BETA. In other words: "Here is a stable version of Windows 8, it's half done, and most likely buggy as ****. Please tell us what you think about it, and if you find any issues, so that we can have them or most of them fixed at the next beta release".

You cannot evaluate anything as long as it's not complete or at least at Release Candidate (that means: "We truly think that this version is really good to a point of releasing it. Our testing department is really confident on this version. But an OS, especially today, is big and complicated, that it's extremely hard to test all possibility to ensure that no bugs or issues arises. If you experience any issues, now is the time to speak up. Big Thanks!"

Originally Posted by MickyTek

Old saying "if it is not broken don't fix it" hello to wise words.

So why are you using Windows 7? Windows 95/98/2000 all wasn't broken. What's the problem?

Id only upgrade if Microsoft handed me a $million$.

Originally Posted by GoodBytes
What evaluation copy? There is no evaluation copy of Windows 8.
The only thing that is officially out is Windows 8 Consumer Preview... which means BETA. In other words: "Here is a stable version of Windows 8, it's half done, and most likely buggy as ****. Please tell us what you think about it, and if you find any issues, so that we can have them or most of them fixed at the next beta release".

You cannot evaluate anything as long as it's not complete or at least at Release Candidate (that means: "We truly think that this version is really good to a point of releasing it. Our testing department is really confident on this version. But an OS, especially today, is big and complicated, that it's extremely hard to test all possibility to ensure that no bugs or issues arises. If you experience any issues, now is the time to speak up. Big Thanks!"

I apologise. I meant the consumer preview.

I can see you feel strongly that Win 8 gets a fair crack and I am not unwilling to upgrade once I'm fully informed. I've simply learnt from my own experience that waiting some time until after its released could/probably will save issues, problems or a pita.

Windows 8 is poo!

Metro is useless on a desktop PC

I haz no interest

That is all.

This is my opinion. I appreciate it may differ from others' opinion. That's the nature of opinion.

I tried it, I hated it, and I think Metro makes zero sense on a desktop PC.

I feel I have only just got use to windows 7, where it really has probably been a few years now since I upgraded (November 2010 to be precise). I have no issues at all with Windows 7 so rather than buying 8, even if it was only $15 for me, I would rather save that $15 unless 8 can proove to me that it can offer me more than 7, which at this point in time, I cant see how it possibly can. I am now on 7 at work and home and its nice to be Sync'd for a change.

Windows 7 had a big buzz about it, pretty much every article I read had people salivating over it.

On top of that it replaced Vista which whether you like it or loath it (I liked it) was generally unpopular.

I do not see any of the big love or anticipation for Windows 8 that I saw for Windows 7. I will get it when I build a new PC but will not make an effort to get it before that.

I will certainly give it a look when it is closer to release, but for all the people bitching about Metro this and Metro that, at least Microsoft have the balls to try something new in their mainstream product.

OSX has tried nothing new that I can remember ok change the launch pad, made window corners rounded and shock horror just got the ability to change a window size from something other than the bottom right.

The new Unity interface was pretty much universally hated on Ubuntu granted its easy to change your window manager on Linux rather than windows.

Also I never had a problem with Vista on my machine, never crashed once, same for 7 and no doubt 8. For the guy who said he will wait till SP1 wouldn't bother.

The SP1 for 7 pretty much was just a patch role up and nothing of any note was added to the service pack

Kimbie

Originally Posted by Beasteh

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Something is new... people complain.
... people want change, but don't want change.

This thread's a masterclass in demonstrating this fact. See also: Ubuntu when it switched to the Unity interface, or Facebook timeline, or whenever a multiplayer game gets patched.

I still don't like timeline. Enough that I now don't look at anyone's profile.

Windows 8 still needs some big changes to be a worthwhile upgrade. If the interface was more like the rainmeter ommino design I think it'd looks much nicer. More customisability Microsoft, please more customisability.

Originally Posted by Nikumba
I will certainly give it a look when it is closer to release, but for all the people bitching about Metro this and Metro that, at least Microsoft have the balls to try something new in their mainstream product.

Ok.. they tried it. Well done.. it still sucks. It should be optional. I hate being forced to use something I don't like just because THEY are enamored with it.

I've no doubt it's great for tablets and small laptops with touch screens, but on a full fat desktop used for productivity as much as entertainment... no thanks. I'd really like an option to install without it, or disable it, and until that happens I'll be with Win7 for some time I think. (Unless you can disable it... I never found a way when I played with it).

Oh.. and this is nothing to do with fearing and disliking change... this is being forced to use something that is inappropriate for my needs. Would it seriously harm Windows 8 in ANY way whatsoever if you had the option to install it without Metro? Really? I think not. Phone, tablet and laptop users would probably opt for it. People like me would not. That's called consumer choice, and since when has that been a bad thing?

Basically, MS think it's cool and innovative, so they are FORCING me to use it. That's some ego that got going on there.

As much as it pains me... I'd consider a Mac if this dictatorial approach continues, and yes, I'm aware of the irony implicit in that statement.

So, what is the difference between this and previous "free upgrades" before ?

XP->Vista - Free upgrade, with 20-30€ shipping and handling fee.
Vista->7 - Free upgrade, with 20-30€ shipping and handling fee.
7->8 - $15, with 20-30€ shipping and handling fee ?

"Windows 8 upgrade programme leaked
$15 for Windows 8 Pro - nice." - Why is upgrading to a badly designed OS nice at $15? It's like someone trying to sell me warcraft or diablo 3 at $15. I wouldn't buy **** even at greatly reduced prices.

Well after reading all this, I think I'll stick with windows7 and do what I did before. I skipped right past vista and missed nothing.

Vista was a very stable OS. Much more so than shitty XP. I think I will skip this 8 **** though.

I made a huge post last night and the server went pop before it posted :(

I can see that Mr GoodByte has mae some comments, using my post quote by quote to dissect and defend Vista, to ba fair the problems with Vista are well documented, summarise by your comment that Vista was ahead of it's time - very true, so far in front it still was not ready when released har har, DX10 could run on XP, people have done it and I have used it, so I am sorry you fell for the marketing shpeel about Vista kernels being part of the development for DX10.

The GUI was changed - you can now shutdown the PC without navigating more than you have to, I never had an issue with Aero, I did have an issue with things running slower, driver issues on new equipment, SLI not working properly on release and a long time after - I still believe that the control panel we see today is not easier to use than XP, people just stopped making positive suggestions because no-one was ever going to listen, unless of course the masses failed to upgrade in the same droves as did XP, their wallets were the protest.

My comment about looking for a unique reason to stop using win7 and upgrade to win8, suggesting not even DX12 would make me an early adoptor... it was more of a personal comment, sorry if you thought I was suggesting that win8 ships with DX12 - it was just a comment that even a mighty DX upgrade might not be sufficient to make me want to change.

FYI 98-99% compatable is still incompatable thats why AMD and NVIDIA don't put DX11.1 ready on their boxes.

Finally my caveat, the comment most important to the post stated that I am not discounting win8, just that like others have said, we're all mindful of the Windows Millenium, the Windows Vista and we all feel the cycle is about to repeat itself.....the task at hand and the focus on ARM compatability etc...it just seems like such a humungous undertaking, something somewhere is bount to not be as good as it should be on release, I doubt the fail will be on Tablets, they simply can't afford to get the wrong on release.

We would all love to be proven wrong, I am sure the benefits of using win8 will sell itself (or not if they are just features with no benefits).


I admire the passion GoodBytes, boarderline fanboism though, I don't need someone to push me to buy something, I buy it if I think it's worth it.

All this love and worship of XP is funny. I remember the countless times a program would crash on XP and XP would freeze because of it. Sure XP did improve over the various SP's but still it was unstable and prone to locking up. I finally quit XP when it totally failed on me twice within 2 weeks requiring reinstall. Vista proved to be far more stable and I never had to worry about it failing on me. I also remember a shop retailer telling me that once vista came along there were far fewer machines returned to the shop for "repair". In other words people weren't having the OS crashing or failing anything like the awful windows XP. Vista was not ready for release? Probably rushed like many other things but even so it still proved to be more reliable than XP.

Had this installed twice and just keep going back to 7, they can keep it

It's not really so much love for XP just that Win7 was Vista "The Way It Should Of Been" - a guy in a shop selling a system with a current OS will tell you anything to get a sale.... Also, the development of disc images and rescue disks were also more mainstream so instead ofenduring the pain of bringing a PC in for repair, customers chose to run the rescue disk :)

Over time (SP2 I think) Vista did become more stable, more friendly and compatable - but businesses never engaged in Vista at all yet rushed en mass to win7 64bit.... I say bring on win8 and lets see what it's all about.... but unless it's 'that good' Microsoft can take comfort in the fact that people are comfortable with win7 so I suggest taking your time, get it right and prove all us doubters wrong.

As for the original post about the rebate, I think this has always been a good idea, the issue of course being that you may only get an OEM upgrade which ties that OS to that machine and it's hardware so should the motherboard ever have to be replaced the OS is US.

Originally Posted by feathers
All this love and worship of XP is funny. I remember the countless times a program would crash on XP and XP would freeze because of it. Sure XP did improve over the various SP's but still it was unstable and prone to locking up. I finally quit XP when it totally failed on me twice within 2 weeks requiring reinstall. Vista proved to be far more stable and I never had to worry about it failing on me. I also remember a shop retailer telling me that once vista came along there were far fewer machines returned to the shop for "repair". In other words people weren't having the OS crashing or failing anything like the awful windows XP. Vista was not ready for release? Probably rushed like many other things but even so it still proved to be more reliable than XP.

Everyone has different experiences of operating systems. For instance, I avoided XP for years because it simply wasn't as stable as my current OS which I really liked. That was, believe it or not, WindowsME.

It was only years later did I discover ME was supposed to be awful: I was genuinely surprised, I had only good experience with it. As opposed to XP, where there were no drivers, nothing worked and it crashed all the time.

I think people like to jump on the hate vista thing like sheep. Once a few do it then it becomes cool to do it. I couldn't wait to get away from XP when that pile of crap failed twice in 2 weeks forcing me to wipe and reinstall, I ditched it in favour of the windows vista beta since vista hadn't hit retail. Even the beta of vista proved far more stable than windows XP sp3. I liked XP for a few years but towards the end I grew to hate it. People bitch about vista like sheep but it proved to be a far more robust OS with crash detection and I liked the new features that came with it. The only thing I like about XP is how compact it is compared to subsequent OS.

Anyway, never mind XP versus Vista... Let's all try to remain on topic: hating windows 8.

Originally Posted by Pookeyhead
Ok.. they tried it. Well done.. it still sucks. It should be optional. I hate being forced to use something I don't like just because THEY are enamored with it.

I've no doubt it's great for tablets and small laptops with touch screens, but on a full fat desktop used for productivity as much as entertainment... no thanks. I'd really like an option to install without it, or disable it, and until that happens I'll be with Win7 for some time I think. (Unless you can disable it... I never found a way when I played with it).

Windows 7 forces you with the new Start menu, taskbar, new control panel, no XP theme, and you don't seam to mind? :p

The problem in having the ability to disable the Start Screen in Windows8, is that you can't use Metro applications. Sure you COULD have them under a menu item or folder in the Start menu, but you lose the MAIN thing about metro app, and that is live tiles. The experience needs to be the same across everywhere. The LAST thing that Microsoft wants is some OEM's defaulting the OS to the Windows 7 start menu, and some using Windows 8 Start Screen. Also, for developers, such as myself, will see that most people won't use the Start Screen, so putting my apps on the Windows 8 App store, is not something I'll do. And that means, that this entire system is also defeated. It will becomes exactly like Windows 7 marketplace (app store).. oh yea! Didn't you know that Vista had an app store? You had nothing, no one published anything, beside Microsoft offering Windows upgrade and Office.

Seeing Microsoft determination on the Start Screen.. don't expect it to disappear anytime soon (I mean expect Windows 9 to have the same thing)
However, I do think that Microsoft could have helped the learning curve, by introducing a compact start menu, such as this idea of mine:
http://tinyurl.com/7ymtamf

Originally Posted by maverik-sg1

DX10 could run on XP, people have done it and I have used it, so I am sorry you fell for the marketing shpeel about Vista kernels being part of the development for DX10.

I have already talked long about this thing back at Vista release. That was for people, including yourself, who had 0 idea on how DiretctX/OpenGL work, think that they got DirectX10 under XP. You can search my threads back when Vista was out. Copying LIBRARY files from Vista to XP, doesn't make the OS "DirectX10 ready". In fact, you can pull out Windows 95, and install DirectX10 runtime using the official setup from Microsoft. That will not make your DirectX 10 games (let alone 9) be able to run.. no sorry, it WILL run. But but the visual effects won't be applied, and DirectX9/10 will be ignored.
DirectX/OpenGL thing, is about remove a lot of operating system layers, and offer direct passage for direct communication with the graphic card, to get the most performance out of games, and software who uses either. It was even talked about on how Microsoft could be be killing off OpenGL from working, or reducing it's performance significantly by modifying the OS core. However, it was not in Microsoft interest to do so, for obvious reasons. Despite all that OpenGL under Vista did perform a bit slower than on XP, and Microsoft was criticize for it (even though we are talking about 5-10% difference, but wtv it's fun to bash on stuff) It was corrected in Windows 7 (Maybe also in Vista SP1/SP2, not too sure). With such a small gap in reduced performance, we can see that wasn't intentional.. cause if it was.. then they could have simply allowed DirectX only to get direct GPU access, and OpenGL software/games would be 50-70% if not more, slower.

The GUI was changed - you can now shutdown the PC without navigating more than you have to, I never had an issue with Aero.

Windows 8 isn't finalized, so things could be improved. My guess, is to avoid accidental system shutdown/sleep/restart from a tablet environment. And I don't think Windows or any OS can differentiate either platform, so it's a compromise. If you had the shutdown button on the Start screen. you can easily tap it by mistake. Sure you can have a dialog box that shows "Are you sure....?", but that still means having it pop-up every freaking time.

I did have an issue with things running slower, driver issues on new equipment, SLI not working properly on release and a long time after

Nvidia drivers (I can't talk about AMD's as I don't this card in my system) for Windows 8 are incomplete. Some OpenGL effects don't even work. My work software thinks that my graphic card can't do shadows. I get the whole OpenGL message, saying how my graphic card can't do shadows when debugging the software. Works fine in Windows 7. There was another thing that didn't work, which now does with the newer beta drivers from Nvidia. So still works needs to be done. It will take time. But Windows 8 isn't out yet.

- I still believe that the control panel we see today is not easier to use than XP, people just stopped making positive suggestions because no-one was ever going to listen, unless of course the masses failed to upgrade in the same droves as did XP, their wallets were the protest.

Ok I am confused, are we talking about Windows 7 or 8?

FYI 98-99% compatable is still incompatable thats why AMD and NVIDIA don't put DX11.1 ready on their boxes.

The reason for this, is that DirectX11.1 like Windows 8 is under development. And Microsoft added stuff. I think AMD still claims "DirectX11.1" ready, even thought it's not fully supported, as Microosft recently added 1-2 thing non related to gaming what's so ever. While Nvidia is being "Not 100%, let's not lie about it, and just say DX11 ready only".
This is the same with my graphic card, GTX 260, it can play DirectX10.1 perfectly (I mean can do the effects and everything), but it's only DirectX10 ready.. not DirectX10.1. Again same thing, some features (I actually think for this particular case 2 or 3 things was related to gaming, but I don't think any games that I tried, was using them, hence no crash (or maybe the effect was ignored)).

I admire the passion GoodBytes, boarderline fanboism though, I don't need someone to push me to buy something, I buy it if I think it's worth it.

Ok that annoys me. Is this what we have become? "OMG he is not bashing something to death.... FAN BOIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
So far I haven't took any position on Windows 8. And I am no fanboi of Microsoft, nor work at: Dell, Microsoft, Logitech, Corsair, LG, Antec, Fractal design, Nvidia nor AMD. While I would love to work at these fine companies, I am not at the moment. When something is good, it's good. It's not fanboism. Beside my hate on XP are known by many here.

The reason for the charge is not because Microsoft wants to make more money (well ok it is.. but that is most likely to have a round number of 15$ or 14.99$, and not 13.41$ or something silly like that.

The reason for the fee, is that Windows 8 and the Pro version will NOT include any paying codecs anymore. So that means all the codecs you need to record TV's show for Media Center are out, and any codec to play DVD's are also out. You want them? You need to pay for an add-on pack for Windows 8 Pro (most likely be 15$ as well) which will give you them back. The reason for this, as explained by Microsoft in their blog site of Windows 8, is that very few people use Windows Media Center.. so why everyone has to pay for these expensive codecs when most people don't use them. It is to be noted that the addon pack will not add DVD playback on Windows Media Player, only Media Center. I think that the licensing system is on a per software basis, which may explain why other DVD player software don't install their codec on Windows Media Player and force to use their player.

Also, DVD-drive in systems are disappearing. It's a question of time before it's gone from laptops entirely, and even on desktops it's not being used much by many.

Personally, I don't mind paying 20$ and get the ability to play DVD codecs on Windows Media Player. I mean it's still cheaper than buying most DVD player software, and I get to sue a player that I actually like, over competing free solutions.

As a user of Win8 CP, I find it hilarious watching people getting their knickers in a twist over Metro.

Seriously, Windows 8 desktop, is Windows 7 desktop + some nice tweaks. Generally Windows 8 is a bit faster/snappier than 7 for me on my laptop (2nd gen Core i7, NVIDIA GT 540M, 4GB RAM, HDD :( ). I use it exactly like I use Win7 at work and I never click on the start menu anyway (that's what that funny looking key on your keyboard's for!).

I launch programs just like I did on 7, Winkey, type-type-type, Enter.

Why people get into the whole "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH I DON'T LIKE THAT NEW THING WAAAAAH - I WON'T BUY IT!!!11!!1SHIFT+1" I don't know. I just don't use metro on my laptop, it just doesn't factor in day-to-day life. Get over it, there are some nice optimisations in 8. Enough for a full price upgrade to 7... maybe not. But it's hardly worth getting passionate over :D

Personally, I think any self respecting nerd should upgrade if only for the new Task Manager, it's much purdier :D

Also, some more heresy, IE10 is pretty damned good. It's a "modern browser": http://farukat.es/journal/2011/02/528-modern-browser

IE10 is good? Does that mean when you install browser plugins IE10 won't ask to remove them each time you start the browser? I guess that would be an improvement over IE9.

Haven't used IE for many years because it's so crap compared to firefox and chrome.

Heh, I'm not saying I'll drop my Firefox/Chrome combo for it. But if you get "stuck" on it, it's a decently capable browser, and you won't be crying, like on IE6-9.

@ Goodbytes, I respect some of your opinions, but please don't attempt to blow holes in mine without having all the facts and thinking just because you posted it then you must be right. Some of the things you say about Vista, DX10 etc are not really in line with the reams of proof available that sunstantiates errors in what you would say are facts......SLI did not work on Vista for a long time for example...... but I admire your persistence, last time I heard stuff like this was from a person who worked for the marketing team of said products.

I'd like to move away from the discussion of obsolete OS's though and read more about Win8.

As for win8, I am not hanging flags from my house with a countdown to release, I am interested in it though and I watch out for updates with great interest - I am not against new stuff (never have been), as long as the features are a benefit..... even if that means spending some time re-learning the GUI to maximise the 'ease of use'.

It's been said before but it can't be said often enough: As long as Microsoft tries to force-shove (is that even a word?) Metro on desktop pc down our throats (or mine at least) Windows 8 is a non-starter. No matter how many other nifty bits are in there (and there are some).

I'll probably be upgrading to Win8, provided they do the cut price launch offer like the one that prompted me to buy Win7.
Also, I'm a sysadmin, so somewhere down the line I'll have to support Win8, so I might as well get started on it. In fact, a lot of the changes in Win8, but especially Server 8 (or 2012, or whatever it's going to be called) will be pretty good in the business world.
However, just as my desktop OS, with nothing else considered I don't have many reasons to upgrade apart from the NEW SHINY!!! factor.

I've been running W8CP for a couple of weeks.

I had half an hour of "OMGWTFISTHIS" and nearly put my keyboard through my monitor trying to wrangle Metro to do my will.

However...

After I got over trying to force W8 to be like W7 and just went with it...I actually quite like Metro now and combined with the other improvements (such as the improved task manager) it's a definite purchase for me on release.

I honestly think that if you're open to change and then give it a DECENT chance to show you what it can do without trying to force it to behave the way your current OS behaves then I think it's got a really good chance of succeeding the W7 successor.

For most people....those people who aren't on Bit Tech.....who aren't geeking out at every new hardware and software release, W8 (and Metro) will be very welcome. People still see W7 as being over-complicated and are terrified of clicking anything they're don't use every single day. Metro will take that fear away, since it's all very clear, very obvious and very simplistic.

WTF happened to my post?

Anyway...

I reckon Windows 7 has the longevity to outlast XP's epic life cycle, so I'll leave Windows 8 alone and see if MS rush out a replacement when it bombs. Just like Vista.

Windows releases look to be emulating the Star Trek films - every other one sucks.

Originally Posted by Spreadie
WTF happened to my post?

I think a Microsoft secret agent hacked in and deleted it

Greetings!

Micorosfoft would have to fix the dual-personality disorder Windows 8 has before I even begin thinking on buying it.

Windows 8 is coming a long nicely.
http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/1106.Desktop_2D00_theme_5F00_3D0F8845.png
Microsoft is on an excellent path.