• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Windows 10 - why

Yalius said:
Hopefully the performance of 8 with the familiarity of 7. I'd call that win-win.
Click to expand...
:boggled:

I wouldn't. I'd call it a lose/lose because I have 8.1 and had 7 on the my prior laptop (same model and specs) and 8.1 easily performs worse. As for familiarity of 7, I already have that thanks to Classic Shell (and whoever suggested that here before, I remain ever thankful). The UI on 8 was laughably bad. Well that's good ol MS for you :rolleyes: But anyway, thanks for an actual answer of some kind, which is more than I can say for most of the posts here.

So that's it? It supposedly performs better than 7 (which for my money performed just fine)?

Oh I hear they're doing away with MS Media Player too. More "it aint broke let's fix it" MS brilliance
 
Last edited:
bigred said:
:boggled:

I wouldn't. I'd call it a lose/lose because I have 8.1 and had 7 on the my prior laptop (same model and specs) and 8.1 easily performs worse. As for familiarity of 7, I already have that thanks to Classic Shell (and whoever suggested that here before, I remain ever thankful). The UI on 8 was laughably bad. Well that's good ol MS for you :rolleyes: But anyway, thanks for an actual answer of some kind, which is more than I can say for most of the posts here.

So that's it? It supposedly performs better than 7 (which for my money performed just fine)?

Oh I hear they're doing away with MS Media Player too. More "it aint broke let's fix it" MS brilliance
Click to expand...

Then you've got your 8.1 configured terribly. Everything from boot times to filesystem performance to network performance to CPU loading was improved on Windows 8.1. I have both dual-booting on a desktop and the performance gains (especially filesystem and network performance) are on the order of 20-25% or more. File copies to and from an external USB3 hard drive show transfer rates increased from about 65 MB/s to around 90MB/s. CPU load during media playback is lower too. Boot and shutdown times reduced. There isn't a performance metric I've tested yet that doesn't show improvements on 8.1. Heck, even blank-slate installation is crazy fast, like 20 minutes from DVD to desktop.

I'm not running on cutting-edge hardware, either. Q6600 / 8GB / GT 740 / Dual 750 GB hard drives. The 8.1 kernel and associated driver architecture are stellar.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
You're only correct if you assume every developer queries the OS version properly. It would seem that a non-trivial number of developers have not. Note that they've been checking the OS name, not the version.

I find this reason for skipping "Windows 9" to be fairly likely.
Click to expand...

There are a myriad of reasons why, and that one is probably one of them but not the single most important reason. Applications like that have been doing things the wrong way for a quite some time, well before even Windows XP release.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/microsoft-announces-windows-10-skipping-windows-9/1100-6422657/

It's a combination of technical issues and marketing strategies. In the tech community it is well-known how the build numbers work, and since they tried to make Windows 8.1 appear like it wasn't a new OS when it really is, and Windows 8's build numbers were already getting close to 10000, that left them with more good reasons to just skip Windows 9 entirely. If you understand how the OS is developed and where the build numbers come from then you would have seen this coming well before Microsoft announced it.

With Windows Server it is far less exciting, dare I say boring that ever since 2003 they just throw the year of release on the end and sometimes add an "R2", but the majority of the users on this forum and most of the user base could care less about Server. Typically only those in the IT industry even know it exists.
 
Lerxst said:
With Windows Server it is far less exciting, dare I say boring that ever since 2003 they just throw the year of release on the end and sometimes add an "R2", but the majority of the users on this forum and most of the user base could care less about Server. Typically only those in the IT industry even know it exists.
Click to expand...
Still got a 2003 domain controller on our network, and the impending lack of support is not the main reason we're getting rid of it.
 
Rat said:
Still got a 2003 domain controller on our network, and the impending lack of support is not the main reason we're getting rid of it.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define support. It hasn't been supported for many years now, as you were only going to get occasional security updates for anything critical that affected the Windows code base that far back. You were not getting bug fixes, but you can still open a case (for another month at least) and Microsoft would at least try to determine if you had configured something wrong, but that was about it.

In August, you will need to have a special support agreement in place between your organization and Microsoft before you will be able to even ask for support of any kind.
 
Lerxst said:
Depends on how you define support. It hasn't been supported for many years now, as you were only going to get occasional security updates for anything critical that affected the Windows code base that far back. You were not getting bug fixes, but you can still open a case (for another month at least) and Microsoft would at least try to determine if you had configured something wrong, but that was about it.

In August, you will need to have a special support agreement in place between your organization and Microsoft before you will be able to even ask for support of any kind.
Click to expand...
Well, as I say, it's on its way out sooner rather than later, but we've never needed support from MS previously. It's more because you have to essentially degrade the performance of all your other servers if one DC is 2003. A domain that's mostly on 2012 is not at all happy about having a 2003 DC alongside.
 
Rat said:
Well, as I say, it's on its way out sooner rather than later, but we've never needed support from MS previously. It's more because you have to essentially degrade the performance of all your other servers if one DC is 2003. A domain that's mostly on 2012 is not at all happy about having a 2003 DC alongside.
Click to expand...

Well that's only 9 years or so. What is nearly a decade among friends? It's an eternity for software.
 
So the major home versions have been:

Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8

. . . and Windows 10 is where people spot an inconsistency in the naming?
 
alfaniner said:
Why did they skip Windows 9? Were they afraid people would be saying "Vindows?! Nein!!!"

Or it may be just because Apple's Mac iOS is on X already and they didn't want to seem behind.
Click to expand...

I heard the reason was they wanted to distance it from Windows 8 (not a joke).
 
My guesses for proper names added:

dasmiller said:
So the major home versions have been:

Windows 3.1
Windows 95 = Windows 4
Windows 98 = Windows 4.1
Windows ME = Windows 4.2
Windows XP = Windows 5
Windows Vista = @Windows 6
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows 8.1 = Windows 9

. . . and Windows 10 is where people spot an inconsistency in the naming?
Click to expand...
 
dasmiller said:
So the major home versions have been:

Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8

. . . and Windows 10 is where people spot an inconsistency in the naming?
Click to expand...
Also windows NT and 2000 (which i think i remember as being out at the same time but different from ME)
 
Hungry81 said:
Also windows NT and 2000 (which i think i remember as being out at the same time but different from ME)
Click to expand...
Yes, NT and 2000 were a business oriented OS family (NT family), as opposed to the home user oriented Win 95/98/me group (usually called the Win 9x or 9* family). MS dumped the 9* family with the introduction of XP, which was a continuation of the NT family.
 
Darat said:
Innovation doesn't always work out. Without failures we would have very little progress.
Click to expand...
The problem wasn't innovation. The problem was twofold:
1. Neglecting legacy options, for users to fall back on, while experimenting with their innovations.
2. Neglecting the lessons learned from past UI design failures. (Such as moving away from basic icon-label pairing, etc.)

The Modern UI was rushed out the door before being properly sanity checked. It will live on in an improved form.

But, the Windows 8 failure didn't have to happen. A little more attention to hard-won details from the past would have made it great, right out of the gate! It wasn't innovation, it was genuine stupidity.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom