Microsoft introduced a new OS:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29431412
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29431412
OT: Windows 10
Back to post
Comments
Terje
wrote on 10/14/2014, 7:13 AM
You are absolutely right that Win8 has failed in the business environment. There is basically a single, obvious reason for that. For the past few years business has (and still is) desperately trying to get off WinXP onto Win7. There is no compelling reason to go to Win8 except for touch-enabled devices.
Windows 8 has about half the market share of what Windows XP had at about the same time in its life span. Again, this seems like a serious failure on part of Win8, but it actually is a little less so than the numbers would indicate. For two reasons:
1/ If you align the numbers with the growth in PC sales, Win 8 is not doing too bad. People rarely upgrade their OS, they get a new OS with a new PC. PC sales are declining while back then they were growing significantly. A growth in PC sales will increase the transition rate, a decline will do the opposite.
2/ Most people skipped Win2K and went from W98 or even 95 to XP. That transition is very, very significant. XP is a protected-mode real 32 bit system while 95/98/ME was a 16/32 bit shell on top of an 8 bit real-mode DOS (there is no DOS in XP). In case of stability, ability to utilize the RAM that came with your PC etc, Win XP was a HUGE leap forward. Since Win7 is an excellent 64 bit OS (Vista was too), that is where the upgrade benefit was. If you want to use 8G (or even all of your 4G) you dont *need* to go to Win8, that was not the case for WinXP.
Also, as a reminder: People HATED the Windows XP user interface. At least as much as they hate Windows 8. The XP nostalgia is, as nostalgia always is, devastated by its Alzheimer's memory problems. Windows XP was widely assumed to end up as a flop for many reasons. Activation was one. The "Fisher Price", or even "Teletubby" user interface was another. It's support for raw sockets was also (by a vocal minority) going to bring about the end of the Internet.
Windows 8 has about half the market share of what Windows XP had at about the same time in its life span. Again, this seems like a serious failure on part of Win8, but it actually is a little less so than the numbers would indicate. For two reasons:
1/ If you align the numbers with the growth in PC sales, Win 8 is not doing too bad. People rarely upgrade their OS, they get a new OS with a new PC. PC sales are declining while back then they were growing significantly. A growth in PC sales will increase the transition rate, a decline will do the opposite.
2/ Most people skipped Win2K and went from W98 or even 95 to XP. That transition is very, very significant. XP is a protected-mode real 32 bit system while 95/98/ME was a 16/32 bit shell on top of an 8 bit real-mode DOS (there is no DOS in XP). In case of stability, ability to utilize the RAM that came with your PC etc, Win XP was a HUGE leap forward. Since Win7 is an excellent 64 bit OS (Vista was too), that is where the upgrade benefit was. If you want to use 8G (or even all of your 4G) you dont *need* to go to Win8, that was not the case for WinXP.
Also, as a reminder: People HATED the Windows XP user interface. At least as much as they hate Windows 8. The XP nostalgia is, as nostalgia always is, devastated by its Alzheimer's memory problems. Windows XP was widely assumed to end up as a flop for many reasons. Activation was one. The "Fisher Price", or even "Teletubby" user interface was another. It's support for raw sockets was also (by a vocal minority) going to bring about the end of the Internet.
PeterWright
wrote on 10/14/2014, 8:35 AM
On the subject of upgrades, I've had some pretty bizarre Windows experiences lately, which may strike a chord ....
My 5 year old 17" Sony Vaio laptop had been discarded and almost forgotten, because it had developed a thick black line in the middle of the screen.
Then a month or so ago I came across a new shop in my local shopping centre which had a sign "New screens for laptops ..."
Cost $265, but my Vaio is again working.
The main reason I wanted to resurrect it was to use it for projecting Youtube onto my Sony Bravia TV via HDMI in my lounge room.
I booted up - it had XP installed, but I could not get Control Panel/Display to find the Bravia Screen via HDMI. It said something about my Operating System not supporting the latest version of Java or something, so I went to the shop and bought an upgrade to Windows 7.
Took it home and tried to install it but got lots of error messages about 32 bit hardware. Went back to the shop, who said I couldn't return the disc, because it had been unsealed. I asked the obvious question - you sold me this - how could I have found out it was no good without putting it in my computer???
Faced with so penetrating a question, the man said "Don't tell anybody I did this" and burned a disc which would allow me to install W7 on my 32bit laptop, using the same serial numbers as the official Windows disc.
I went home and installed, and without intending to or remembering how I did, I finished up with a dual-boot system - initially annoying, but as it turned out, lifesaving.
My new Windows 7 also could not find the Sony Bravia via HDMI, and any attempts to install later Nvidia drivers failed.
BUT .......... BUT ..........
After this, in desperation and trying anything, I have found that, for some reason, if I now dual boot into "Previous Versions of Windows", my no longer supported XP immediately finds the HDMI Bravia as a second monitor as soon as it boots, and I can enjoy watching Youtube and many other video players on my big Sony Bravia.
This all makes no sense at all, but it is what is actually happening.
My 5 year old 17" Sony Vaio laptop had been discarded and almost forgotten, because it had developed a thick black line in the middle of the screen.
Then a month or so ago I came across a new shop in my local shopping centre which had a sign "New screens for laptops ..."
Cost $265, but my Vaio is again working.
The main reason I wanted to resurrect it was to use it for projecting Youtube onto my Sony Bravia TV via HDMI in my lounge room.
I booted up - it had XP installed, but I could not get Control Panel/Display to find the Bravia Screen via HDMI. It said something about my Operating System not supporting the latest version of Java or something, so I went to the shop and bought an upgrade to Windows 7.
Took it home and tried to install it but got lots of error messages about 32 bit hardware. Went back to the shop, who said I couldn't return the disc, because it had been unsealed. I asked the obvious question - you sold me this - how could I have found out it was no good without putting it in my computer???
Faced with so penetrating a question, the man said "Don't tell anybody I did this" and burned a disc which would allow me to install W7 on my 32bit laptop, using the same serial numbers as the official Windows disc.
I went home and installed, and without intending to or remembering how I did, I finished up with a dual-boot system - initially annoying, but as it turned out, lifesaving.
My new Windows 7 also could not find the Sony Bravia via HDMI, and any attempts to install later Nvidia drivers failed.
BUT .......... BUT ..........
After this, in desperation and trying anything, I have found that, for some reason, if I now dual boot into "Previous Versions of Windows", my no longer supported XP immediately finds the HDMI Bravia as a second monitor as soon as it boots, and I can enjoy watching Youtube and many other video players on my big Sony Bravia.
This all makes no sense at all, but it is what is actually happening.
Chienworks
wrote on 10/14/2014, 9:15 AM
"The "Fisher Price", or even "Teletubby" user interface was another."
To this day i still use the Classic 98SE skin on my XP and Win7 installations. It's just cleaner, simpler, more appealing, and most importantly, smaller! It takes up less screen space. This may not be as important now in the days of multi-megapixel displays, but back when 1024x768 was the norm those extra few pixels of screen real estate made a big difference in work flow.
I've been using this skin so long that i kinda forget that XP introduced the 'chicklet' UI. When i see it on other people's screens all i can think of is how huge and unprofessional it looks. The Win8 tiles interface is pretty much exactly the same problem, squared. It gets in the way rather than helping.
One thing that Microsoft is ignoring is that most businesses, and increasingly more so non-business users, don't want change. They want their computer to work just like it always has so that they don't waste time having to learn how this new thing works.
To this day i still use the Classic 98SE skin on my XP and Win7 installations. It's just cleaner, simpler, more appealing, and most importantly, smaller! It takes up less screen space. This may not be as important now in the days of multi-megapixel displays, but back when 1024x768 was the norm those extra few pixels of screen real estate made a big difference in work flow.
I've been using this skin so long that i kinda forget that XP introduced the 'chicklet' UI. When i see it on other people's screens all i can think of is how huge and unprofessional it looks. The Win8 tiles interface is pretty much exactly the same problem, squared. It gets in the way rather than helping.
One thing that Microsoft is ignoring is that most businesses, and increasingly more so non-business users, don't want change. They want their computer to work just like it always has so that they don't waste time having to learn how this new thing works.
PeterWright
wrote on 10/14/2014, 9:28 AM
Yes Kelly, you've hit on some big points there, but unfortunately we all dwell in a world where, having sold however many copies of a program, every software producer needs to earn money next year as well, so they have to produce something new. We users all suffer from this.
How to change without changing .........
How to change without changing .........
PeterDuke
wrote on 10/14/2014, 6:45 PM
"unfortunately we all dwell in a world where, having sold however many copies of a program, every software producer needs to earn money next year as well, so they have to produce something new."
They could fix the bugs and charge for the fixes. (Yes, I know, who is going to pay for a bug fix for a feature they never use.)
They could fix the bugs and charge for the fixes. (Yes, I know, who is going to pay for a bug fix for a feature they never use.)
skosh
wrote on 10/14/2014, 7:50 PM
The jump to Win 10 instead of 9 reminds me when Word 6 was released based on version 2 code as Word Perfect still had a large presence in the corporate world and a higher version number by far. It's all about marketing and nothing more or it could be from the joke "why is 6 afraid of 7". "Because 7 ate 9". Oracle has done the same thing over the years with some BI products to give the perception of new and fresh when the reality was old code base was used and terminology changed even though the features were for the most part exactly the same(same bugs and a very few new features promoted along with removing/deprecating some useful things) and the version number jacked up a bit and management was convinced to upgrade as support for older versions would drop and even if things worked fine support always won even if things ran smoothly.
john_dennis
wrote on 10/15/2014, 7:06 PM
I like the way Windows 10 resolves conflicts when copying files.
It allows one to go through the list in one dialog box instead of popping one dialog box after another.
I don't know if that came in a previous version or not.
It allows one to go through the list in one dialog box instead of popping one dialog box after another.
I don't know if that came in a previous version or not.
Kit
wrote on 10/16/2014, 4:48 AM
It looks like it would get really annoying with lots of files. I think what is needed is a way to set some criteria for what gets overwritten. I hate the look of the dialogue in Windows 7 and forced it back to Windows XP style using Classic Explorer. Don't like Windows 8 copy either.
PeterDuke
wrote on 10/16/2014, 7:59 PM
I use SuperCopier
riredale
wrote on 10/16/2014, 8:33 PM
"TeraCopy" here. Much more sophisticated than the basic Windows copier. Free.
PeterWright
wrote on 10/17/2014, 8:29 AM
I hate to show my ignorance, but what's WRDE?
At first encounter, it certainly looks like someone's getting nearer to perfecting the art of making the simple complicated.
At first encounter, it certainly looks like someone's getting nearer to perfecting the art of making the simple complicated.
john_dennis
wrote on 10/17/2014, 8:50 AM
WRDE is the name of a folder where I saved some test files that I was working on at the time. I was copying the updated folder to removable media where a copy already existed, thus the dialog box asking which copy of the files to keep.
diverG
wrote on 11/10/2014, 3:35 PM
Current machine supports 2x W7 system drives. 1 x mbr & 1xUEFI (SSd) switchable via bios at boot. Have used this set for about 4 years without problems and is useful for trying programmes etc.
The mbr system drive is rack mounted & removable so fitted a new HDD and loaded W10 after first isolating the SSD. Tried loading a few programmes and generally played around with W10.
Big mistake came when I reconnected the SSD and booted into W10. W10 opened and the SSD was accessible in the explorer. Looking good!! Rebooted and selected SSD(W7) which failed to boot and could not be repaired via the widows install disc. Removed W10 and restored W7 via a macrium image. Refitted W10 drive and the problem was repeated. Tried the other variant using W10 and a W7 installed (MBR). This works.
Not sure if this is a common problem that I should have been aware of.
Geoff
The mbr system drive is rack mounted & removable so fitted a new HDD and loaded W10 after first isolating the SSD. Tried loading a few programmes and generally played around with W10.
Big mistake came when I reconnected the SSD and booted into W10. W10 opened and the SSD was accessible in the explorer. Looking good!! Rebooted and selected SSD(W7) which failed to boot and could not be repaired via the widows install disc. Removed W10 and restored W7 via a macrium image. Refitted W10 drive and the problem was repeated. Tried the other variant using W10 and a W7 installed (MBR). This works.
Not sure if this is a common problem that I should have been aware of.
Geoff
pilsburypie
wrote on 11/11/2014, 6:53 AM
PeterWright "Why don't they do a Spinal Tap and go straight to 11 ?"
It's like 10 but 1 louder......
It's like 10 but 1 louder......
JJKizak
wrote on 11/11/2014, 7:33 AM
Bell Labs got it right in the 1950's inventing UNIX and it is still going more or less.
JJK
JJK
ushere
wrote on 11/11/2014, 2:08 PM
just to pick up on the divergent conversation herein....
http://www.pitivi.org/
am tempted to throw ubuntu and it on an old laptop out of curiosity ;-)
http://www.pitivi.org/
am tempted to throw ubuntu and it on an old laptop out of curiosity ;-)