Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: S-99 on January 19, 2014, 11:03:47 pm
-
Right here (http://www.geek.com/microsoft/windows-9-could-arrive-in-october-leaker-suggests-1582492/).
This is getting annoying. Potentially, "buy another version if you didn't like the last we screwed up on" in short time.
-
Haa, I'm still on XP.
-
Haa, I'm still on XP.
You're ****ed
e: my laptop too though
-
I'll be happy here with XP and 7. Cheers.
How much do we know about this version though?
-
Hey Microsoft. I Still have XP, the only Upgrade I am considering is 7. Good luck with 9. I don't give a damn.
-
XP is good and ironicly I find it easiest to work with.
7 is good
I hate 8 with a passion. The fukken horrible interface!!! I have to hunt for damn programs/icons/things like Windows is playing hide and seek with me. And so many things don't work properly on it.
-
You guys on XP are going to get decimated after end of lifecycle.
-
Is Win 9 the next 7?
-
if i see the word "app" connected with windows 9 in any way, nope.
like everyone else, i'm happy with XP and 7, but i need a new laptop and missed my chance to get one with 7 (easily anyway). i'll be sending back the one i tried out with 8 in the next day or two. sad, because it was a really great deal and the only other thing it is missing is a trackpoint. and the screen kinda sucks but i think that's going to be the case with any laptop these days.
-
Windows 8 is everything Windows 7 is, sans proper Start-menu. Which can be added back with free 3rd party software like Classic Shell. There is no real reason to explicitly avoid Windows 8 because you don't have to ever see the Modern interface again once you set the OS to automatically boot into classic desktop. In my experience everything that works in Win7 also works in Win8.
I expect there will be a period of time during which Win9 upgrade will cost trivial amount of money, just like there was such a time for Win8 (cost was 15€).
But I digress, we've been down this topic many times in the past and I suspect this changes nothing. Perhaps you will be in luck and SteamOS catches some serious wind in its sails, then you don't have to worry about Windows anymore.
-
That is my hope, actually. I've been looking to jump off the windows ship and swim to new lands... Valve's new island might just be what I have been looking for.
Regarding XP: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/windows-xp-anti-malware-support-extended-to-2015-1.2500582
-
interfaces really need to be locked down so that they are consistent. it doesnt make any sense to use a new one every 2 years just for the sake of changing it up.
-
You guys on XP are going to get decimated after end of lifecycle.
Emergency extension aside, yeah I know, and I assume I'll be picking up 7 one way or another over the next couple of months.
Windows 8 is everything Windows 7 is, sans proper Start-menu. Which can be added back with free 3rd party software like Classic Shell. There is no real reason to explicitly avoid Windows 8 because you don't have to ever see the Modern interface again once you set the OS to automatically boot into classic desktop. In my experience everything that works in Win7 also works in Win8.
But that's the thing though: I should not have to use third-party software to prevent the decimation of a basic UI element that's been in use for more than 15 years and works just fine. This is all on MS, and I have no plans whatsoever to support the bull**** they pulled with 8.
-
I suppose it'll be like with Windows 7 and Vista. 9 will be just a bugfixed 8 rebranded to avoid the bad name of it's predecessor (and rack in more money from selling another OS, because updates to old one are free...). I'm still on Vista on my main PC, and it works fine (it's pretty much the same as early 7, despite what most people think). Been only using 8 on my laptop, where it's annoying, but runs fast enough that I'm willing to forgive the bad interface.
Anyway, I'd rather see them update Windows 8 to 8.2, with proper interface restored. Another OS release would mean that I'd have to download and install a new copy, get a new license, etc... (I don't have to pay thanks to my uni, at least).
-
You guys on XP are going to get decimated after end of lifecycle.
True, I bet 90% of us will still use XP.
-
I see what it is you have done there.
-
Getting the os to handle the way you want is something that goes along with them all. However, minimizing all of that post installation configuration is always nice. I don't mind installing third party apps to make something like windows enhanced and more usable, but if you have to install a bunch of them, then how good was the os? Especially when you have to install the basic stuff, like a start menu (i believe microsoft rectified this with 8.1). At least windows users can make their own customized install cd's in the modern day to have everything pre-installed.
-
Regarding XP: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/windows-xp-anti-malware-support-extended-to-2015-1.2500582
So XP is still "safe" then until July 14th 2015?
-
Man, this is a side of computing that seems new but isn't really. New to the desktop computer, not to server oriented stuff. Running for years on end including decades, would be some super stable server os on well, a server. With the ethos "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Now, we have people in the desktop world running stable software for 12 years so far. XP is known for it's stability, and die hard fans are feeling "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (and also unwillingness to upgrade to the latest version because they are used to xp, and latest versions of windows may be deemed ****).
I remember there was a weird soul a long while back who was still running 98 wanting to get fso to work. He tore my head off when i said to go with linux, or buy a current version of windows. I believe fso dropped support for 95/98/me long before this.
-
I remember there was a weird soul a long while back who was still running 98 wanting to get fso to work. He tore my head off when i said to go with linux, or buy a current version of windows. I believe fso dropped support for 95/98/me long before this.
There is a build of FSO 3.7.0 for Windows 98.
-
Microsoft has a trend for striking out every other release that dates back to Windows 95 or maybe even older, I can't remember. 95 was good but 98 sucked, Xp was good but Vista sucked, 7 is good but 8 sucked something awful. So in keeping with that trend 9 should be good... I hope. A lot of companies are struggling right now to convert over to 7 from Xp before support gets dropped here in a couple of months. From a business stand point it is generally bad to be on unsupported software though it does happen all time with legacy software that can't run on anything else.
-
95 was good but 98 sucked
I don't think you remember that era as well as you think you do.
(98SE was totally the best Windows version until XP.)
-
There is a build of FSO 3.7.0 for Windows 98.
Why supported still? I can at least understand why the dos era was forgotten about. What's someone going to do? Play the game with their geforce 4 with the latest antiquated driver last release for 98?
-
because goober?
-
Goober x Win98 OTP
-
I've ventured into the weird part of hlp.
-
From a business stand point it is generally bad to be on unsupported software though it does happen all time with legacy software that can't run on anything else.
Tell me about it.
For my experience in my company, we had the least problems with Win XP.
Win 8... oh boy. A lot of problems getting things to work smoothly there.
Win7 is okay tough
-
Win 8... oh boy. A lot of problems getting things to work smoothly there.
Really? I found Win8 to be faster, more responsive, and overall just plain better on the mechanical side of things that maked the OS a LOT smoother, esp. when booting and when playing BF4 (unless you disable core parking on win7).
-
95 was good but 98 sucked
I don't think you remember that era as well as you think you do.
(98SE was totally the best Windows version until XP.)
It would BSOD constantly, so much so that I bought Xp the day it was released and I never do that with an OS. The BSOD's were so bad that I found myself rebuilding my machine every couple months just to try to keep it some what stable.
Win 8... oh boy. A lot of problems getting things to work smoothly there.
Really? I found Win8 to be faster, more responsive, and overall just plain better on the mechanical side of things that maked the OS a LOT smoother, esp. when booting and when playing BF4 (unless you disable core parking on win7).
Windows 8 works some what well for home based use but it's business application has been appalling. You just can't force companies to replace all their software just to make it compatible with a shiny new OS for one upgraded software isn't always available and if it is the expense is generally just too much. Getting old software to play nice with the new OS has been an IT nightmare and one of the main reasons other than the horrible user interface that companies continue to use Xp and 7.
-
95 was good but 98 sucked
I don't think you remember that era as well as you think you do.
(98SE was totally the best Windows version until XP.)
It would BSOD constantly, so much so that I bought Xp the day it was released and I never do that with an OS. The BSOD's were so bad that I found myself rebuilding my machine every couple months just to try to keep it some what stable.
Sounds like our experience with Windows ME... never had any problems like that with 98.
-
I use 8.1 but keep my XP install around for a few things. XP's end of life is a non-issue to me, but the 32-bit memory limits are a major problem. 8.1 is generally pretty good after configuring it properly and getting the appropriate addons (Classic Shell, theme patcher, driver signing tools, compatibility toolkit, etc), which was needed with XP to some extent as well. You don't have to ever deal with the new UI, and it's otherwise similar to 7 under the hood. A few old DirectDraw-based D3D games have problems and the MIDI mapper is partly broken, but 7 has issues there too. It should be possible to set up XP in a VM (VMWare seems to have the best 3D support) to deal with some of these situations.
-
ME was simply an upgraded and repackaged even buggier version of 98, nothing more.
-
You guys on XP are going to get decimated after end of lifecycle.
True, I bet 90% of us will still use XP.
i still use it
on the porn laptop (cant run 7 on 256mb ram).
-
Not to grind salt to Microsoft's wounds, but: anyone wanna guess the adoption rate of Windows 8? :drevil:
Exactly, Windows 8 is simply horrible for enterprise use. Especially when Microsoft ****ed up the user interfaces of Office package, and broke the backwards compatibility. And when they built the whole thing on gesture based stuff, which sort of hints that this **** may actually keep on going if unchecked. Just imagine using a CAD software with an "intuitive touchscreen" :lol:!
Also, their recent behavior tends to lead the enterprises to think that if we absolutely need to educate the staff (=courses on using the software) on using Microsoft's software every n:th year, why not simply adopt to a completely different (=cheaper) package if you have to do that? I think Microsoft has just about woken up how horrible strategical mistake they have made with releasing Windows 8 and Office 2010 in a row with where UI backwards compatibility was broken. Add on top of that the all pervasiveness of Microsoft Store, as nobody wants Microsoft Store to a business computer, and I'm willing to bet there is quite a large fraction of people who do not want it to their home computers either.
Additionally, SkyDrive + NSA combo does not sound very good either, despite what NSA says. And yes, I'm fully aware digital surveillance is done by other large powers as well. It is just the fact that US law requires US based companies to disclose information related to companies/persons anywhere on the world on request of the administration.
But then again, I think I posted about this one year ago
-
Not to grind salt to Microsoft's wounds, but: anyone wanna guess the adoption rate of Windows 8? :drevil:
Exactly, Windows 8 is simply horrible for enterprise use. Especially when Microsoft ****ed up the user interfaces of Office package, and broke the backwards compatibility. And when they built the whole thing on gesture based stuff, which sort of hints that this **** may actually keep on going if unchecked. Just imagine using a CAD software with an "intuitive touchscreen" :lol:!
Also, their recent behavior tends to lead the enterprises to think that if we absolutely need to educate the staff (=courses on using the software) on using Microsoft's software every n:th year, why not simply adopt to a completely different (=cheaper) package if you have to do that? I think Microsoft has just about woken up how horrible strategical mistake they have made with releasing Windows 8 and Office 2010 in a row with where UI backwards compatibility was broken. Add on top of that the all pervasiveness of Microsoft Store, as nobody wants Microsoft Store to a business computer, and I'm willing to bet there is quite a large fraction of people who do not want it to their home computers either.
Additionally, SkyDrive + NSA combo does not sound very good either, despite what NSA says. And yes, I'm fully aware digital surveillance is done by other large powers as well. It is just the fact that US law requires US based companies to disclose information related to companies/persons anywhere on the world on request of the administration.
But then again, I think I posted about this one year ago
(http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/2011/01/2011-01-05-ap-microsoft-balmerjpg-0f18156178103c18.jpg)
-
I just don't know why microsoft and even ubuntu thought this interface was a good idea. For phones, sure it is. But, to flatly go out and make everyone deal with it is not a good deal.
This reminds me of that cheap ass netbook i had a while ago. I replaced windows ce with android. The test of that was no keyboard shortcuts, no external memory being able to treat as regular storage between computers, and very limited ability to make your own shortcuts (android is only good for productivity with a touch screen on a phone). At least windows 8 offered the normal interface sans the start menu. So, windows 8 eats up more memory rendering two screens when you could get all of your work done on one (this is not an attack on multiple virtual desktops, just attacking the start menu screen), but that's what killed windows 8. Is there any way to kill the start menu screen and metro? I don't know or care. Windows 8 is just a mess regardless of how superior it is under the hood (superiority offering you bull**** is not very superior).
I think the big industries don't quite know what to do with the iconic advanced desktop that was made in the 80's and 90's. The only thing i can think of that is trying to be different is the mezzo desktop on linux. At least that is a brainstorm in progress that has changed multiple times over it's course of existence. I really don't see people dropping the windows xp kind of desktop anytime soon. The one thing i can say in my own experience is that desktop icons and widgets are stupid. I say this because you have a start menu to access programs and directories with (even quicklaunch is stupid). I routinely turn off desktop icons and features because of this whenever possible.
I'm not expecting a flourishing of windows users to come gushing toward linux. I thought xp, vista, and 7 were great os's. Then 8 (including unity on the linux end) has to treat a normal computer like a smartphone. Stuff for phones is handy on phones, not on normal computers.
-
i'm personally running KDE in a way highly reminiscent of how i used Win7... habits are hard to lose sometimes...
-
I'm glad that you can run your computer the way that you want to :yes:
Now if windows would offer similar configuration as kde for the desktop, then people probably wouldn't be complaining about windows 8.
-
Can you give an example of how Windows 8 is not like Windows 7 in a way that interferes with their workflow? Because all I see is people complaining about nothing.
Sure, there are flaws in Windows 8, but complaining about Metro when you are able to ignore it completely after the initial setup is facetious.
-
having to actively fight my computer to use it the way i want isn't an invalid argument, even if i get there eventually. windows 8 does its very best to force you into using the metro interface and its apps in many instances. that's to say nothing of all the stupid services microsoft is trying to force in alongside the OS. no, i am not going to create an online account with microsoft to use my own damn computer. i'm not going to put all my data on your servers, and i'm not going to buy all my software from your web store.
-
having to actively fight my computer to use it the way i want isn't an invalid argument, even if i get there eventually. windows 8 does its very best to force you into using the metro interface and its apps in many instances. that's to say nothing of all the stupid services microsoft is trying to force in alongside the OS. no, i am not going to create an online account with microsoft to use my own damn computer. i'm not going to put all my data on your servers, and i'm not going to buy all my software from your web store.
Again, you are not forced to use the Metro interface after the initial setup. Also you do not have to create an online account, you can create a local account like you have in the past. You can use Windows 8 exactly like you could Windows 7. The entire workflow hasn't changed.
Most arguments against Windows 8 I see are basically:
"They allow me to do more stuff in addition to what I could in Windows 7, and even though I profess to like Windows 7, I hate this new OS."
-
Completely eliminating the Start Menu from the entire OS seems like a pretty big "forcing" to me.
-
Still, there should be an option of turning the darn thing off via control panel. Everything that was either a handy desktop gadget or a normal program got booted into Metro. I want my little calculator back, I have absolutely no need for it to take the whole screen. Similarly, the weather and currency exchange rate displays are perfectly fine sitting on the side of the desktop.
Oh, and they shouldn't implement it as another, "new" OS, but in a free patch. I'm afraid that they'll pull what they did with Windows 7 again. It should've been a 3rd service pack for Vista, not another OS with a separate license. Make no mistake, Windows 7 is simply a fixed, rebranded Vista.
-
having to actively fight my computer to use it the way i want isn't an invalid argument, even if i get there eventually. windows 8 does its very best to force you into using the metro interface and its apps in many instances. that's to say nothing of all the stupid services microsoft is trying to force in alongside the OS. no, i am not going to create an online account with microsoft to use my own damn computer. i'm not going to put all my data on your servers, and i'm not going to buy all my software from your web store.
Making Win8.1 to boot into classic desktop by default takes all 30 seconds. Afterwards you can use all the same applications in classic desktop you used to use in Win7. I have used Win8 and 8.1 for very long time now and I have not seen the Modern UI unless I have explicitly chosen to do so. With one exception. Some system settings new to Win8(.1) can only be found in Modern UI settings menu. But those you can browse through and set however you like in 10 minutes after initial setup and never see them again.
You can still use local accounts in Win8 and Win8.1 just like in Win7. In addition, Win8.1 improves online integration by giving you the option to use a PIN code instead of your Microsoft account's password. This makes it a lot easier to log-in to the computer when your account password is strong.
Completely eliminating the Start Menu from the entire OS seems like a pretty big "forcing" to me.
This is true and unfortunate. But luckily it's nothing that downloading a small free application like Classic Shell can't fix. Of course you shouldn't have to resort to 3rd party applications to get basic, expected functionality. But all it takes is a few minutes at best to download and install and then you have an OS what is basically better Win7.
Still, there should be an option of turning the darn thing off via control panel.
Turn what off? Modern UI? You can turn it off. In 8.1 you don't even need 3rd party app to do so, it's in taskbar settings. Win8.1 introduced this and several other desktop and start-button related settings in taskbar settings.
Basically the only reason to avoid Win8.1 at this point is you don't agree with having to use 3rd party application to get proper Start-menu. That's a valid reason I suppose and even I used to think that. Other than that, all arguments seem to be mostly irrelevant because of FUD or "I hate just because".
-
the only thing windows does that i give a rats ass about is its ability run executables and manage my data. driver frameworks and network stacks are nice too. all that stuff needs a fairly simple ui. problem is that the os has become more of a software suite. it needs to come with its own browser, its own media player, its own email program, its own isntant messanger, its own ****ing video editing software. and you have to pay for all that stuff. sure you could go with a lesser version (there is always that one feature that you actually use that doesn't come with the cheap version), but thats not the point. linux has the same kind of issues with its distros (though there are a few distros that get around this problem). id be happy with windows 2000 if it supported modern drivers, and worked with newer cpu architecture improvements and other hardware capabilities. windows at its core is pretty useful but all the tumorous growths that have embedded themselves to the outside of it have really got to go.
of course im not going to give a rats ass, im just going to wait for reactos or just use linux.
-
I'm glad that you can run your computer the way that you want to :yes:
Now if windows would offer similar configuration as kde for the desktop, then people probably wouldn't be complaining about windows 8.
my current rage when i switch to windows occasionally is the lack of "use scroll wheel to switch tabs anywhere" which i've personally seen only in kde
-
really do not understand the determination some people are displaying to defend microsoft's ****ty ui revamps
-
Windows 8 if it doesn't force you to deal with something, then it brain ****s you with thinking that you had to with other stuff. Such as metro and an account with microsoft. Metro i'm glad to hear can be turned off. And not needing a microsoft account was something i found out last summer. Although, to turn off metro is at least more innocent than a microsoft account. I don't like the microsoft account account creation because they really make it look like that's the only option for you to do to be able to use your windows 8 pc after install or first bootup.
This reminds me of dealing with google. How they're so insistent that i must give my phone number and reset my password when i login from a different location.
The way i've found is just do a password reset, login with new password, phone number gets begged for again, go to youtube (if you wanted youtube) in a different tab, close google asking for phone number tab. Pretty darn sure they removed the "not now", or "not yet" link on the phone number insistence (personally i would prefer a "NEVARRRRR!!!!!" link). Microsoft wasn't as cruel as google, but how exactly do you opt out of the microsoft account insistence? Because i don't have a windows 8 machine to at least mess around with.
-
No one can name a piece of software that will run on Windows 7 but not run on Windows 8.
-
what's that even supposed to mean?
-
It means people should stop complaining about 8 not running their favorite software ITT because it's not a legitimate argument.
-
I don't see anyone complaining about that in the last page except people talking about corporate IT, whom I would expect to know what they're talking about.
-
corporate IT, whom I would expect to know what they're talking about.
*snickers* You wish.
-
Windows 8 if it doesn't force you to deal with something, then it brain ****s you with thinking that you had to with other stuff. Such as metro and an account with microsoft. Metro i'm glad to hear can be turned off. And not needing a microsoft account was something i found out last summer. Although, to turn off metro is at least more innocent than a microsoft account. I don't like the microsoft account account creation because they really make it look like that's the only option for you to do to be able to use your windows 8 pc after install or first bootup.
This reminds me of dealing with google. How they're so insistent that i must give my phone number and reset my password when i login from a different location.
The way i've found is just do a password reset, login with new password, phone number gets begged for again, go to youtube (if you wanted youtube) in a different tab, close google asking for phone number tab. Pretty darn sure they removed the "not now", or "not yet" link on the phone number insistence (personally i would prefer a "NEVARRRRR!!!!!" link). Microsoft wasn't as cruel as google, but how exactly do you opt out of the microsoft account insistence? Because i don't have a windows 8 machine to at least mess around with.
it was a tiny, non-descriptive link in 8 on the create account screen, but then they made it WAAAAAAAAY harder than that in 8.1. i'm the kind of person that ALWAYS looks for the "**** off, i'm not giving you my info" button, and it had me thinking that it was impossible to not sign up for a microsoft account when installing 8.1. i don't even remember how i finally stumbled into it, but i do remember that at no point along the way was it a "yes, i want to continue with a local account" option. it was like a third level cancel on the signup for the microsoft account. obviously designed to trick people into making an account.
-
That's what i thought. Can't recommend the os that tricks people into signing up for stuff.
-
:wtf: Exaggerating much? Again?
(http://www.hanselman.com/blog/content/binary/Windows-Live-Writer/7d5532a08593_1326C/3_2.jpg)
(http://www.hanselman.com/blog/content/binary/Windows-Live-Writer/7d5532a08593_1326C/4_2.jpg)
-
8.1 does try to hide the local user account option. You need to either give it a bogus email address or disconnect your internet connection for it to explicitly give an option of a local account. It's annoying, but easy to do if you know what to expect.
No one can name a piece of software that will run on Windows 7 but not run on Windows 8.
This is almost true, but there are some old games using Directdraw that have new issues in 8. A few have patches or modified dlls to fix this, but others don't. I just keep XP around for those games.
-
You need to either give it a bogus email address or disconnect your internet connection for it to explicitly give an option of a local account.
No.
-
Klaustrophobia's latest post and Fury's reply to it actually sum up Windows 8 (and Windows 7 occasionally) user experience pretty nicely.
The UI is not really clear, despite valid attempts to design it so. Based on that screen shot I'd say it is indeed so that they have tried to trick people into thinking that an on-line Microsoft account must be opened in order to use Windows 8. Formerly the "proceed without registration" button tended to be next tot the option of creating the account in the first place. With an equal size emphasis. Now that text looks non-active to me.
It's not the first time Windows 8 does struggle in this sort of stuff. I recall one year ago there was a post of the Metro screen with people asking "how do you find it so complicated, just look how easy it's to go to the Desktop with a single click of a button". Took me about a minute to discover it along those ****ing boxes, and that's just the beginning of not showing things sufficiently to the user.
All this means nothing to me, as Windows 7 will be the last Windows I'll be using and I like quitting at the top. Microsoft can go all Apple if they want for all I care, but don't expect me to follow. Vendor locks are just a big no-no for me. Apparently, I'm not the only one thinking like this as the general approach seems to avoid Windows 8 despite all the core improvements in the OS. Can't say that I'm surprised, though.
-
No one can name a piece of software that will run on Windows 7 but not run on Windows 8.
Older Need for Speed games.
Test Drive: Ferrari Racing Legends due to GFWL having problems with Windows 8
Heck, anything that uses GFWL will have problems, which are ocasionally fixable, but ocasionally are not.
-
No one can name a piece of software that will run on Windows 7 but not run on Windows 8.
Older Need for Speed games.
Test Drive: Ferrari Racing Legends due to GFWL having problems with Windows 8
Heck, anything that uses GFWL will have problems, which are ocasionally fixable, but ocasionally are not.
Anything that uses GFWL already has problems. :D
-
Heh, yeah, it's now kaput. :p
-
:wtf: Exaggerating much? Again?
(http://www.hanselman.com/blog/content/binary/Windows-Live-Writer/7d5532a08593_1326C/3_2.jpg)
(http://www.hanselman.com/blog/content/binary/Windows-Live-Writer/7d5532a08593_1326C/4_2.jpg)
You must be kidding. You didn't listen. The pictures you showed are a perfect example of microsoft obscuring the fact that you can make a local account on your computer. Everything in those pictures is very dominantly suggestive of the fact that if you don't have a microsoft account that you have to create one, while the only place to make a local account is at the bottom of the same screen for creating a microsoft account. I was not disputing that you couldn't make a local account, just that it's deliberately laid out to make people think that you can't.
I stick by what i said earlier; that i can't recommend software that deliberately tricks the user into doing stuff they otherwise didn't need to do.
-
Anything that uses GFWL already has problems
Indeed.
[Political correctness mode on]
Suppose a person is annoyed by these measures, luckily those issues could be, eh, let's say circumvented by certain modifications to certain core files. Now suppose I bought Deadrising 2 without realizing it's a GFWL game, it could have been very likely that I may not have signed in to play it. Given this imaginary situation, you could think of my surprise if I happened to discover this while installing the game. It could also be said that in this imaginary scenery, I shoulda read the box better when I bought the game.
Though, it is also true that Games For Windows Live looks quite close to Games To Windows, but given this supposed sample, I'm nowadays aware of the difference and not gonna fall to it again.
[/Political correctness mode off]
-
You must be kidding. You didn't listen. The pictures you showed are a perfect example of microsoft obscuring the fact that you can make a local account on your computer. Everything in those pictures is very dominantly suggestive of the fact that if you don't have a microsoft account that you have to create one, while the only place to make a local account is at the bottom of the same screen for creating a microsoft account. I was not disputing that you couldn't make a local account, just that it's deliberately laid out to make people think that you can't.
I stick by what i said earlier; that i can't recommend software that deliberately tricks the user into doing stuff they otherwise didn't need to do.
To fall in with S-99, when you already have a Microsoft account, you are presented with the option to use your microsoft account. Peroid. The idea of clicking "Create a new account" would never occur in someone who already has a MS account, thus he never gets to see the option to not use an MS account. I fell for it, for one, and I actually went looking for the option, knowing it was in Windows 8.
---
Is there any way to detach my MS account now?
-
Go to the account options and select disconnect.
-
Ok then, I stand corrected. I really just wanted some concrete examples of what broke aside from the start menu.
-
if i see the word "app" connected with windows 9 in any way, nope.
like everyone else, i'm happy with XP and 7, but i need a new laptop and missed my chance to get one with 7 (easily anyway). i'll be sending back the one i tried out with 8 in the next day or two. sad, because it was a really great deal and the only other thing it is missing is a trackpoint. and the screen kinda sucks but i think that's going to be the case with any laptop these days.
I can't believe no one told you this yet:
Windows 8 Pro OEM licenses come with the right to "downgrade" to Windows 7 Professional, that is if you have an Windows 7 OEM install media on hand (MS won't help you with that), you can install it and use your Windows 8 serial to activate it.
-
and if i had Pro i would do that, but consumer laptops come with basic
-
Time for windows bashing to happen. I got a hold of a copy of window 8 (i didn't opt for 8.1 since 8.1 is a plecibo) just to see how nasty it is (installed on a foreign hard drive). I didn't connect it to a network which prompted for a local account to be created.
My word, microsoft wants to track your every move with this os. The preconfiguration screen was disgusting. How do i get to the standard desktop (it wasn't obvious)? I like how alt-f4 didn't close internet explorer. It was very unintuitive (keep in mind, this is the second time of me using it, but now i can use it long term). I know i need to spend more than five minutes with the bastard. I'll do that tomorrow.
-
Ummm
If you have all those preconceptions, why did you go for 8 in the first place?
And how did you get the impression that 8.1 is a placebo, when it actually addresses a few of the issues people had with vanilla 8?
-
the only thing it really did for me was allow boot to desktop. even so i had to use the internet to figure out how to do that. but you're right, there's still really no reason NOT to use it. well in my case it initially broke SLI but that was fixed with an update from the laptop manufacturer.
-
Ummm
If you have all those preconceptions, why did you go for 8 in the first place?
And how did you get the impression that 8.1 is a placebo, when it actually addresses a few of the issues people had with vanilla 8?
My objective is to see just how horrible it really is. I thought this was disgusting. Big brother much?
(http://pictures.skrinsot.com/windows8-setup-screenshot-17.jpg)
(http://pictures.skrinsot.com/windows8-setup-screenshot-18.jpg)
(http://pictures.skrinsot.com/windows8-setup-screenshot-19.jpg)
I don't really think it matters too much leaving any of these on or off if you ask me, since i essentially don't really trust that any of that stuff can ever actually be turned off.
Windows 8.1 on the other hand i call a placebo for one reason. While it may have addressed a few issues for users, the start menu is not one of them. It's just a button you click that takes you to the start screen.
-
and that was already in 8 anyway. you just had to hover in the corner for a half second instead of it being a permanent taskbar button.
-
Windows 9 being called thresh hold is quite accurate. They probably hit a thresh hold that microsoft will never get past.
-
95 was good but 98 sucked
I don't think you remember that era as well as you think you do.
(98SE was totally the best Windows version until XP.)
QFT. You probably experienced the original '98, not the 98 Second Edition that most people used (cause the first one had some MAJOR flaws, IIRC).. sort of how XP did before SP2.
-
i think people would have used 98se for longer if it wasnt limited to 512mb ram. i saw the switch happen in my system builder days, we stopped using 98se and started using xp the day after i got the job. we were still putting 256mb in the buisness builds, but the computers we sold to students were shipping with 512 mb. a couple people requested a downgrade, one guy had some exotic professional audio hardware (i think he was a sound engineer) that just wouldnt work under xp, and another was just an old fogey that didnt like change. before i left we were doing 1gb, so we discontinued using 98.
i rather liked windows 98. it was a fun os. ive never ran into an install that wasnt plagued with viruses and glitches. viruses were an actual threat back then, not fear mongering to sell virus scanners. there was no security. for me that was a plus because i dont like security slowing me down, and i could run a tight ship. it was fun to fix and it was really fun when it went wrong. if it was in good shape, it was fast as ****. and it was built on dos so you could run all your dos games without any emulation.
im actually more impressed with the current ubuntu than i am with windows 8.1, if they are going to rape all my interfaces again its a good time to switch.
-
Not positive about 98se but you could go above 512mb win ME with a simple .ini file edit. Found that out when I bought a 512mb chip to upgrade from 256mb not knowing about the 512mb limit.
-
im pretty sure it was a hard coded limit in 98.
-
The only change you have to make should be this:
THIS GOES IN SYSTEM.INI:
- Start/Run/Sysedit
- Select System.ini window
- Search for existing VCACHE line
- Replace that with lines below
[vcache]
minfilecache=0
maxfilecache=524288
I'm not kidding - that is it. Worked for me with both 1 gig and 2 gig of memory in my system before I finally moved that rig to XP.
Enjoy
You really don't need a cache that size. A 32MB cache is quite suffice.
minfilecache=0
maxfilecache=32768
Or a 64MB cache (65535)
This takes care of the caching issue - However you now have another problem. Windows 98/Me *CANNOT* address more than 1 GB of RAM - your trick fixes the problem with the 512MB cache limit, but there is no fix for the 1GB address limit in 98. However, the good news is that yes you can dual boot XP and Win98 and yes you can have more than 1GB of physical RAM, however you can only use 1 GB of it in Win98 - so it is very important that you add this line in your system.ini, in the [386Enh] section
MaxPhysPage=40000
This will LIMIT windows to SEE and USE only 1GB of RAM. Attempting to use Win98 with more than 1GB will cause problems and possibly corrupt your OS should the OS get past that point - so don't be fooled if your OS appears to work - try to fill your RAM up and you will see...I've tried it. With this trick you LIMIT the range, and windows will see only 1GB and use only 1GB. You can also set this feature using msconfig and using the advanced tab and setting maximum RAM to 999MB. P.S. You must perform this change BEFORE you physically install 2GB of RAM, not after you do so. Always BACK UP your registry before doing so (run scanreg) in case you screw up and get a blue screen on bootup and see your registry corrupted!