Upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for only $39.99!

[Lurch]

I have two copies of WinXP Media Center 2005 Edition. That's not that old, but in order to get it to update properly (after installation) I had to manually install SP3. Then it installed 117 service patches, restarted and installed two more.

Freakin' ridiculous.

2005, that's ancient. That's nearly 8 years ago. 117+ patches for 8 years, that's not really a large number at all.

Let's say 120 patches, divide that by 8 that's 15 patches a year.

If you really have an aversion with Microsoft releasing and supporting patches for an 8+ year old OS then you can slipstream the updates into a custom XP.

Google nlite some good resources there.

As for Windows 8 being the next ME that's just insanity. ME was junk, blue screens and crashing etc. Windows 8 is stable, quicker than my Windows 7 install and the new start screen is step in the right direction.

Times are changing. The start menu has been around for along time. There will be the usual complaints and arguments just like when Windows 95 hit the scene but after a year or so it will calm down.

[Lurch]

Guess I will be sticking with Vista for as long as I can, since it's the last Windows version where it's still possible to get the classic start menu, and I will not upgrade to Win8 even if I got payed to do so.

Had to reply to this Windows 7 does have the classic start menu. Plenty of guides on how...

http://win7vista.com/index.php?topic=1414.0

http://www.sevenforums.com/customization/3154-classic-start-menu-available.html#post41112

Vista was a bad OS until service pack 1 was released. However 7 was a huge improvement well worth the upgrade.

[psxphill]

It's hard to believe how badly Sony bungled the console market after the domination of the PS2.

They bungled the PS2 as well, it's just momentum from the PS1 kept it going.
 
When the PS1 came out it was powerful and simple. You wrote software in C, the libraries did everything for you. Compare this to the Saturn where you had two cpu's sharing the same memory bus, so you had to write your code so that it ran from cache as much as possible.
 
The PS2 was much harder to code for. Especially when compared to the xbox. The xbox came late to the market though, so developers were committed to it. Microsoft did a good job at getting people writing for it though, so by the end of that generation they were ready for the next.
 
Sega could have made more of an impact with the Dreamcast, but piracy killed the console stone dead. The gamecube was ok, but Nintendo wanted it to be a console for kids and while some games made it through anyway there weren't enough to build momentum.
 
With the PS3, Ken had gotten drunk on his own success. The PS2 hadn't deserved to be the success it was & the PS3 was even worse in term of complicated design. Plus they thought they could go it alone on a graphics chip. They were just going to implement a framebuffer, with the Cell actually rendering the graphics. At some point they gave up on the idea, it was obviously not good enough. Whether they gave up because of the time it would take to make it good enough, or whether they thought it could never be good enough I don't know. But they ended up going cap in hand to NVidia for a graphics chip.
 
It didn't help that Microsoft persuaded IBM to sell them the same CPU core that was going to be used in the PS3 and rather than using the Cell cores as well, Microsoft just specified that they wanted three of the CPU cores.
 
Sony also thought that when they clicked their fingers the developers would come running to write exclusive software. They had with the PS1 & PS2. However on the PS2 it was just because there were no other viable platforms at the time, on the PS1 it was because it was easier to write software. The 360 launched first, was easier to write software for than the PS2 & Microsoft courted the developers.
 
All that happened was Sony's luck ran out.

[PanterHZ]

As for Windows 8 being the next ME that's just  insanity. ME was junk, blue screens and crashing etc. Windows 8 is  stable, quicker than my Windows 7 install and the new start screen is  step in the right direction.

I didn't mean to imply that Windows 8 is the same kind of crap like ME  was, but I'm convinced that lots of people in the future will look at 8  with the same type of "disgust" as many do with ME today.

Times are changing. The start menu has been around  for along time. There will be the usual complaints and arguments just  like when Windows 95 hit the scene but after a year or so it will calm  down.

Yes precisely, the start menu has been around for a long time, and  it is what most people are used to. It has actually been the standard  way of launching stuff in Windows for more than ten years, and to think  that everybody all of the sudden will embrace such a drastic change of  things is a bit too optimistic in my opinion. For the next couple of  years, people will have the choice of either Windows 7 or 8 when bying a  new pc, and I belive that most folks will choose 7, even if 8 is  cheaper.

But people will of course eventually adopt to the new  standards when they no longer have any choice. That is unless Microsoft  come to their senses and realize exactly what it was that made XP so  popular.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the desktop market here, the tablet market may be different.

Had to reply to this Windows 7 does have the classic start menu. Plenty of guides on how...

http://win7vista.com/index.php?topic=1414.0

http://www.sevenforums.com/customization/3154-classic-start-menu-available.html#post41112

Vista was a bad OS until service pack 1 was released. However 7 was a huge improvement well worth the upgrade.

I didn't know that, maybe there's hope for Windows 7 after all

Yes  there certainly was a lot of problems with Vista in the beginning,  where it was released too early, had a lot of driver compability issues  and was sold with pc's that had too weak hardware to run it effectively.  But now I think it's quite a decent OS (for being Windows), and I can't  picture myself going back to XP. The much more robust explorer in Vista  is just one of the reasons why this isn't an option.

One of the  things I REALLY like about Windows 7 is that upon shutting it down, the  user gets the option of forcing applications to quit when they refuse to  do so themselves. This instead of waiting forever for the pc to shut down.

[Iggy]

I didn't mean to imply that Windows 8 is the same kind of crap like ME  was, but I'm convinced that lots of people in the future will look at 8  with the same type of "disgust" as many do with ME today.

Funny, but I don' find that much difference between 98 and ME, except that ME has more drivers built in and requires the CD less often when adding hardware.

Then again, people gave Vista a bad rap, and it might deserve it more in that it is more crash prone then its predecessor (ME is not, in fact its pretty much a polished version of '98).

I've been using Windows since version 3.0 and each time a new version comes out there's always some part of the market that dislikes the new version. Then, eventually, enough people adopt it (or wait) that it becomes a hit (or a miss).

[Pyromania]

I went to the Microsoft store yesterday to check out the Surface, Windows 8 etc . The store was slow and very boring.

[Iggy]

I went to the Microsoft store yesterday to check out the Surface, Windows 8 etc . The store was slow and very boring.

Personally, I have more interest in ChromeOS.
Microsoft is struggling to remain relevant.

My hope?
ARM gains market share.
As do alternative OS' like Android, ChromeOS, Ubuntu, etc.

And maybe we see a few new systems (PPC and ARM).

I'll keep my copies of WinXP and Win7.

Win8?

No thanks.

[psxphill]

Personally, I have more interest in ChromeOS.
Microsoft is struggling to remain relevant.

While ChromeOS is struggling to become relevant, although it's likely that it missed it's chance. It's got the same level of awareness as WebOS.
 
Everyone said that Microsoft were wasting their time with the xbox, but they are quite good at doing what's required to get the job done. Even if that means changing what they are doing.
 
I remember a lot of resentment at 95 and XP when they came out. But they were key turning points for Microsoft. ME got a bad reputation because not only did it not really improve much beyond 98, it was also competing with 2000. It didn't help that they added restore points to ME, but it ended up taking up most of your disk space.
 
Apart from the lack of start menu, which I rarely ever used anyway. Windows 8 is just a new improved version of Windows 7. You can get some of the start menu functionality by adding a tool bar (right click task bar, select toolbars then New toolbar, then select the start menu folder). Or you can use a third party tool.
 
Not wanting to change is fine, stick with what you've got. What I find hilarious is the "I hate windows 8 because of the lack of start menu as I don't want to change how I work. Because of this I'm going to switch to Linux" attitude.

[persia]

The market has consistently rejected open operating systems.  Linux, BSD, etc have failed to gather more than a small fraction of desktops.  People like closed systems, end of story.  Even Android, which is a Unix distro and open source has locked down the OS.

[Iggy]

Even Android, which is a Unix distro and open source has locked down the OS.

Android is Linux based, not Unix based.

And while Linux only makes up about 1% of the market, that still places it at number three behind Windows and OSX (unless you want to throw in Phone OS' like ios).

As far as ChromeOS goes, the first really big product to use it has just been introduced.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/

Since Android has done quite well, its not unreasonable to expect other alternative OS' to gain a foothold.

Hey, you guys are encouraging development for AmigaOS. What the market share for that (and, yeah, it probably is larger then the one for MorphOS).

I'm not as interested in commercial success as I am in overall ease of use and utility.

The only thing commercial success helps bring is developers and software.

[runequester]

The market has consistently rejected open operating systems.  Linux, BSD, etc have failed to gather more than a small fraction of desktops.  People like closed systems, end of story.  Even Android, which is a Unix distro and open source has locked down the OS.

There's no such thing as free markets. People use what came on the computer, and that's whatever is sold at Best Buy

How do you explain the failure of AmigaOS, BEOS and OS2 then? They were all closed and I don't see any embedded devices, super computers or cellphones running either of those.

As far as android being closed, how do you figure? Android.source.com and download sources to your hearts content. The android bits have even been in the linux kernel at times.

[persia]

And Linux is Unix based, Linus' original intention was to create a free open source Unix and used his name combined with Unix to name it.  We can all be glad he didn't call it Torvaldix...

Android is Linux based, not Unix based.

Well yes, counting is difficult and becoming more difficult, is an ARM tablet a computer?  An intel tablet a computer.  What kind of OS are Windows RT, iOS and Android?  The language has yet to catch up with the reality.

And while Linux only makes up about 1% of the market, that still places it at number three behind Windows and OSX (unless you want to throw in Phone OS' like ios).

I don't expect ChromeOS to compete, but who knows?

As far as ChromeOS goes, the first really big product to use it has just been introduced.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/

Since Android has done quite well, its not unreasonable to expect other alternative OS' to gain a foothold.

Hey, you guys are encouraging development for AmigaOS. What the market share for that (and, yeah, it probably is larger then the one for MorphOS).

I'm not as interested in commercial success as I am in overall ease of use and utility.

The only thing commercial success helps bring is developers and software.

[psxphill]

As far as android being closed, how do you figure? Android.source.com and download sources to your hearts content. The android bits have even been in the linux kernel at times.

It's not all open, google play for instance isn't.
 
http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html
 
They also keep the source secret until their device is ready & only include drivers for the hardware their new device uses. They are talking about improving the situation moving forward, but it's all a little underhanded.

[TheBilgeRat]

The market has consistently rejected open operating systems.  Linux, BSD, etc have failed to gather more than a small fraction of desktops.  People like closed systems, end of story.  Even Android, which is a Unix distro and open source has locked down the OS.

It is hardly summed up so succinctly.  People "like" closed source systems because that is what they know.  That is what is provided to them by hardware vendors.  Running windows means I can run office or my video games.  It means that even if it doesn't run seamlessly I may have purchased idiot protection and I can call up some geekline and they will fix my stupid.  They like them because they have no real choice in the matter.  A linux or a BSD or even OS/2 or the others don't penetrate market these days because there is a behemoth spending lots of money on lawyers and leverage to make sure they do not.  Even if you look at Android (which apparently is the devil himself listening to some of these posts), there is a company doing everything they can to destroy it.  The market cannot decide what it wants if large monpolies are supressing innovation or even simple alternatives.  Why do you think Android has Apple so scared?  The same reason why the PC won in the eighties.

Seriously, folks.  This isn't rocket science.

[TheBilgeRat]

It's not all open, google play for instance isn't.
 
http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html
 
They also keep the source secret until their device is ready & only include drivers for the hardware their new device uses. They are talking about improving the situation moving forward, but it's all a little underhanded.

You know what?  You're right.  Better to spend 40 bucks on a product that you will never get a look at the source code for without an NDA.  Better to support a company who threatens hardware vendors who install anything but OEM windows on it.  Better to support a company who has proven itself for more than twenty years to be a vicious monopoly who will buy, litigate or outright steal its way to market saturation.

[psxphill]

You know what? You're right. Better to spend 40 bucks on a product that you will never get a look at the source code for without an NDA. Better to support a company who threatens hardware vendors who install anything but OEM windows on it. Better to support a company who has proven itself for more than twenty years to be a vicious monopoly who will buy, litigate or outright steal its way to market saturation.

The irony is that you are saying those things on a message board dedicated to a machine made by commodore, who were way worse than Microsoft when it came to dodgy business practises.
 
I'm not that bothered about seeing the source code.