Microsoft Ends Mainstream Support For Windows 7 640
jones_supa writes The mainstream support of Microsoft Windows 7 [ended Monday]. The operating system leaving mainstream support means no more platform updates, no new features, and end of free support. Windows 7 will now enter extended support, which means that security updates will keep coming, and support will be offered for charge. The final end of support for Windows 7 will be reached January 14, 2020.
Is anyone nostalgic for Windows 7?
Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not nostalgic for Windows 7.... I still run it! On all of our networked computers.
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much - most corporations have just barely (as in 2-3 years ago at most) updated from XP to Windows 7.
Good luck with pushing 8 to the corporate world... it's about as adoptable as an angry badger with syphilis.
More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).
Don't get me wrong - Microsoft will still be in the business world for a goodly long time - we still use Outlook/Exchange, Active Directory, and even Sharepoint (for HR/Corp crap - all the important stuff is on Confluence.) Thing is though, Microsoft's hold in business is beginning to show cracks, and I suspect in about 5 years, there will be a bit of a crisis in Redmond...
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Insightful)
More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).
Just an aside: I'm no fan of MS, even though I have to work in a Windows environment; however, when dealing with MS Servers, I have found that the recent versions of the Microsoft RDC Client for OS X is actually even more capable, just as fast (or maybe even faster), and a WHOLE lot better-mannered than even the Windows native RDC Client.
If you run OS X, but need to "Remote-In" to Windows Servers/Workstations, check it out. It's free, and quite pleasant.
And now I have to go wash my hands for typing something complimentary about Windows...
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows 10 is where the enterprise is going. I literally just got out of a meeting where we were discussing our goals for the year and Office 2013 and probably Windows 10 (depending on launch date and apparent buginess) are on the list. As far as your MBP, that's fine for you if you work in IT, but if you think most businesses are going to give every worker drone an expensive Mac with about 5-10x the support cost (as in I have numbers that show our Mac users cost that much more depending on their level of competence/IT independance) you're delusional.
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is definitely much easier to use Windows in the business than Macs, from an IT perspective. There isn't even a comparison. The tools for managing Windows boxes are solid, and provides very simple integration and administration.
If you don't want amateur sysadmins in your Windows boxes, then you don't give them administrator access on their machines.
Windows is also considerably more stable than it used to be. There is no substantial difference in reliability between a Mac and a Win 7 box. Hell, I've been using the an install of Vista, of all things, on a box for at least five years without any difficulty.
As far as security goes, as far as I can tell, the only major difference is that with Windows, you have more malware that has been written for it, but in terms of real security, it is no worse, and it is actually considerably better than a Mac if you consider the fact that an IT department can enforce restrictions on installing software and ensuring patching much more easily with a Windows box.
I've supported both in IT before, and it isn't even close. Which is not to say Windows is perfect or even the best box for the job. There are many developers who love Macs for good reason.. That does not translate, however, into ease of management. For all that Apple is decent at maintaining upgrades on their consumer devices, their business support is crap and getting worse.
Macs are not business machines, they're consumer machines that have to be shoehorned in and managed like special snowflakes.
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement is actually reinforcing his point.
You are *not* a business user. If you were, you:
a) would not have been able to get Windows into a state that requires a reinstall. For instance, you would not personally install or update anything. ...also would not have been able to reinstall Windows in the first place.
b)
Your experience with a personal computer is irrelevant. This isn't mean as an insult -- you're just discussing a completely different thing.
Exactly! (Score:3)
We just started preliminary testing of 8.1, which I foresee having many problems. Rollout and compatibility aside (which will be huge issues no doubt), there is the fact that a great deal of "normal" users can barely function in a Windows 7 environment. Windows 8.1 will be like giving an iPhone to a caveman in many cases. Help desk is going to love that transition I am thinking...
Windows 8.1 is just ridiculous. (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft is trying hard to jam Windows 8.1 and soon Windows 10 down our throats, but XP was clearly the most powerful OS that MS has made, and Windows 7 is a barely usable but certainly much less convenient OS than XP.
Which completely explains why there are so many computers in the world still running and being used productively with XP.
Hundreds of millions of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:64bit (Score:4, Interesting)
XP will go down in history as the best OS made. Ever.
Win2k was better.
Re: (Score:3)
But... If evil is the product, it's quite good! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you just hate it when people are excessively positive about Microsoft?
Re: (Score:3)
If I were to roll out windows 8 people would freak out. Windows 10 seems like a much better leap as far as the UI is concerned. I can see us rolling that out a year after it's initial release and we have our policies setup and tested. That means probably 2 more years of Windows 7 on our upgrade cycle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just get classic shell.
The only difference you'll notice is faster boot times and not being prompted three times if you want to launch a program.
Re: (Score:3)
Classic Shell is a brilliant piece of kit for certain, but I can't imagine any business or institution relying on it for all their forward-facing GUI. Typically problems like a broken GUI are something you require the vendor such as Microsoft to repair. So while I agree that Classic Shell deserves to be mentioned in response to most naysayers, it is not reasonable to expect a corporation or institution to install such a lovely and clever hack to tweak every Win 8 box, especially when it doesn't play with Gr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah this, lol. My employer just finished with the Win7 rollout last year!
And on my personal device, I have not had any desire to leave Win7 as of yet. I skipped over Vista so I will likely do the same with 8.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Brackets mean that something was replaced, usually in a quotation.
TFS is probably using that introductory sentence directly from a press release that says "mainstream support of Microsoft Windows 7 ends today". To turn that into an appropriate sentence outside of the context of the quotation and in the context of news-several-days-late on Slashdot, you have to replace "ends today" with "ended Monday". Brackets are appropriate for this purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A 5-year support cycle is far too short for an OS.
It should be at least 10 years, especially when the hardware can last 20.
Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a huge fan of Windows; but, If I need it for something, Windows 7 is the version I install - in a virtual machine. It does seem pretty solid, and 8's UI gets in the way far too much (says this Mac user).
Re: (Score:3)
I think Microsoft needs to start the countdown after that version is no longer for sale.
Windows 8 is loved about as much as Windows Me and Windows Vista.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, but now you can run Windows Server headless from a CLI! It's the best new thing ever! Sure, a decade ago, anyone using *nix was mocked by Windows admins as being some sort of dinosaur, but now that Windows has a reasonably capable (if obnoxiously complex) shell, all of sudden, CLIs are the bestest ever!
Very nostalgic (Score:5, Insightful)
I plan to switch to it real soon now.
But (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people are even now upgrading to Win 7
I wouldn't touch 8.x with a 3 metre resident of Warsaw
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
This. I have no desire to stop running win7 anytime soon unless win 10 is magically awesome which I sincerely doubt it will be given the win8 debacle.
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Metro apps open on the desktop and are resizable unlike in 8/ 8,1 where you have to be in metro like it were an app itself. To top it off, it is fast, much faster than 7 or 8 (SSD 8 gig of ram phenom 2 setup)
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's going to be a bit cooler than that, if you have a touch device then metro apps will by default work like they do in 8, if not they'll be windowed, and if you have a convertible like the Surface Pro line then it will change behavior depending on the current configuration (again, by default, MS has heard the masses and will allow you to tweak the behavior).
Re: (Score:3)
Nice, so, the only thing left now is to get rid of the "flat" UI design.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 7 Enterprise - Running several applications, large mail box, VCenter Client connected to 5 large clusters, and various other large programs used up 3gb out of 8gb availble.
Windows 10 Tech preview - Fresh install, NOTHING else running on it - used 5gb out of 8gb of RAM. Those "Metro Apps" are still using up memory and updating useless tiles that just make things look pretty. It also constantly calls out over the network looking for other system
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
You only get the tiled interface on Tablets and maybe touch devices....
In other words the way it really should have worked from the start.
Re:But (Score:5, Funny)
As in all the recent ones suck...
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. 8 is a horror -- and I _like_ Gnome 3!
I leave 7 dual boots on our off-lease laptops but maybe after 2020 I'll feel good about just deleting them.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
I resisted 8.1 for a long time because of all the bashing. But I recently rebuilt my system, needed to resintall, and decided to go with 8.1. And it's actually pretty good. It boots fast and has an even smaller footprint than 7. Install was smooth (the only issue was outputting sound over HDMI, which was fixed with my first update). I've not had any crashes or problems so far and I've been using it for several months now. The only problem I have with it interface-wise is with the layout of the start menu, but that took me all of a few minutes to fix.
As usual, don't believe all the anti-Microsoft hype. Some people will bash anything MS does, for any reason (especially on slashdot). If Bill Gates cured cancer tomorrow and gave the cure away for free, posters would be on here in droves complaining that he didn't do it fast enough.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 8.1 is ok.....
It's just the UI and stupid metro (modern wtv) stupid start menu crap that annoys me.
Also it seems to be a little shizo...some settings are in classic menus...some in modern....
But in terms of stability, performance, it's actually as good as windows 7.
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Install classic shell. I actually like Windows 8 except for the UI. Classic Shell (and Aero 8 if you want the eye candy effects), solves that problem entirely.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
99% of the people bashing the windows 8 interface haven't used it for more than an hour. They go crazy when anything changes. I try not to do that because it reminds me of how old people react to everything, and I never want to get that way.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
"99% of the people bashing the windows 8 interface haven't used it for more than an hour."
As someone that has used and liked AmigaOS, MacOS, OS/X, LinuxKDE, LinuxGnome, Windows, Windows95, 98, 2000, XP, and 7.... If I use a UI for an hour and still hate it I am done.
Windows 8 UI works well on tablets, it is okay on touch devices, it is useless on a traditional desktop or laptop.
The core OS is actually really good but the UI is bad for the majority of users. It gives little to no added value for the pain provided.
Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)
The funny part is the role reversal. To make efficient use of the Win 8.x start menu, you either need a touch device or you have to use the keyboard short cuts. Otherwise you are picking up the mouse, locating the startmenu, putting the mouse down to start typing a search string, then picking the mouse back up to click the result.
I use it on my VM, its actually a blazing fast way to find stuff if you go all keyboard, but get the mouse involved and its tedious. I don't have so many desktop applications that anyhting is more than a few clicks away in my organized XFCE doc though on Linux or the old start menu wasn't pretty efficient with the mouse.
Thing is keyboard shortcuts really are probably better and the search function saves the steps of actually defining all those shortcuts.
It makes me laugh though because if I suggested on any Linux UI that a former Windows user learn the keys, I was an apologist for an apparent UI failure. Now all the Windows folks are running around insisting the UI is just fine because its fast with the keyboard!
Re: (Score:3)
I think Windows 8 is a strange Microsoft logic thing.
Windows Mobile failed in large part because the UI was a desktop UI on a phone or tablet.
Windows 8's UI is pretty much a phone/tablet UI forced on to a desktop...
I used WP8 for about 6 months and it is actually a nice mobile OS except for the lack of apps. It just is not a good UI for a laptop/desktop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
That's complete bullshit, and you know it. The terrible changes in Win 8 were done to try to drive traffic to an app store, and to run on tablets. They actually harm the user-experience on the desktop. This is not people freaking out over change, this is people rejecting a broken UI.
I have to assume that there's something seriously wrong with you, causing you to call people crazy for rejecting an inferior OS. Is the rest of your worldview this screwy?
Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)
We bought a laptop for my then-12-year-old son so he could play Minecraft without using ours. It shipped with Windows 8 and he is young and unexperienced enough to not have any prior opinions. And above all else, it was his beloved Christmas laptop, not some random beige box that an employer shoved onto his desk. In other words, this was the best possible scenario for someone to like Windows 8.
Two years later, he despises the desktop with a passion. Sure, his programs run well once he launches them, but everything else is a hassle. It looks weird. Nothing works like the lab computers at school. His friends don't have anything like it. It's obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious, and I've heard plenty of complaints about Windows itself since we got it. They're good natured and he isn't ungrateful: when I asked him if he liked his laptop, he told me he loves it and it runs great, "but is the next Windows going to be less stupid?"
If you make a UI change and Retirement Joe in the office pool doesn't like it, well, that's probably just Joe being crotchety and close-minded. But what's it say when a malleable early teen who didn't have preconceived notions also thinks it's illogical and weird? I think it says you've done something very, very wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I had to get Windows 8 with my new laptop. (There was no "Windows 7" option and I wasn't ready to make the Linux switch.) The first thing I did was to install Classic Start Menu on it to do away with the Metro User Interface. Now I have my laptop looking as similar as possible to Windows 7. There's no reason why this couldn't have been a built-in option except for the fact that someone at Microsoft thought "we need to have one UI across phones, tablets, desktops, and laptops!" There is NO reason to uni
Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple, they want one codebase and UI for windows desktop and windows phone/tablet. So you got tablet UI on your desktop/laptop, which is horrible.
Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Mac user primarily, and a Windows 7 user at work (rollout was completed late last year). Even I don't hate Windows 8.1 (Windows 8.0 did suck, though). It boots to my desktop, I set up my preferences, and I'm mostly all set.
My only gripes are minor: Hiding the Startup Items folder is bad. Not being able to manage files in a folder for a Start Menu is bad. I still can't find crap I've deleted from the Start Screen if it's not a real application (like, say, the Microsoft Store).
Although I don't plan to give up my Macs as primary workhorses (and HTPCs) any time soon, I'm a bit frustrated at all of the B*S* networking issues with Yosemite. Still not enough to make me switch, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Want to see what's running at startup?
Right click the taskbar and open Task Manager. Click the Startup tab.
Boom. You can see and manager everything that runs at startup (either from the folder or via registry entry).
Re:But (Score:5, Funny)
If Bill Gates cured cancer tomorrow and gave the cure away for free, posters would be on here in droves complaining that he didn't do it fast enough.
If Bill Gates cured cancer and gave the cure away for free:
1) The first cure would be free.
2) The cure would be designed to reactivate the cancer, this time being more virulent than the original, but this time it would be immune to the free cure.
3) The second cure would require activation and frequent repurchases, or the cure would be rendered inert (killing you). You would be required to repurchase the cure for the rest of your life.
4) You would be required to purchase cures for diseases you don't have, but taxing your indocrine system to the point that random body parts start failing.
5) Bill Gates would issue patches for the flawed cure, but the patches would inexplicable cause new diseases for which you would be required to purchase 3rd party medicines. These medicines would themselves drain 60% of your body's useable energy, and unpredictable times, while unsuccessfully attempting to address the fundamental design flaws of the cure.
6) Bill Gates would promise that the next version of the cure will solve your problems, but that it is not covered by any licensing agreement you may currently have. The promise is false, but you don't seem to remember any of the other false promises he made, so you purchase the next version of the cure. This somehow makes things worse, but Bill Gates blames you for using 3rd party medicines.
I could go on, but I have work to do.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll get tired of the Start Screen. In the update, either 8.1, or 8.1 Update 1, the Start Screen no-longer adds newly installed programs to the screen by default. This is to avoid clutter, because people would install programs, and every executable that came with each program would end up on the start screen. I thought that was great, and initially I manually moved my most used programs onto the screen and made it all nice and neat and organized as though I cared. But what I ended up doing was searching f
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Install the 8.1 update and select startup to desktop
Install classic start menu
Disable the idiotic touchpad gestures MS "designed" for Win 8
Optionally install something like ModernMix to be able to run metro apps windowed (I have it installed but never use it)
Voila: A usable Windows installation where one doesn't need to use anything metro/"modern" if one doesn't want to. Somewhat like Windows 7 on steroids.
Upgrading? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know your new OS is awful when people "upgrade" to the previous version.
Win7 is the new XP (Score:2, Interesting)
Some companies are still moving out of XP, and into Win7. Changing the entire digital infrastructure of a company is a costly affair (lots of non-productive hours by people, as well as purchasing new software, but lost time is far more important), and companies are not willing to do this quickly.
Microsoft will not be making themselves popular if they keep forcing enterprises to update their systems by dropping support and security updates (yes, 2020 sounds like it is far away, but it is only 5 years away, w
Re:Win7 is the new XP (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure they are hoping this will push people into Microsoft-branded cloud services.
Re:Win7 is the new XP (Score:5, Interesting)
"Allowing"? Good one!
If Microsoft had tried to force companies to migrate to Vista, we would have seen 2007 as finally the year of "Linux on the Desktop".
Software vendors need to get a grip on their role in the ecosystem. They serve us, not the other way around. When people still run XP (hell, people still run 95!), that should tell Microsoft everything it needs to know about the viability of continuing its current trend toward forcing rapid unwanted change on people.
Re:Win7 is the new XP (Score:4, Interesting)
There should be constant updates to Windows? This might work if you're a 5 person shop, but what if you're managing the IT resources of a 10,000 person company? Upgrading Windows means you need to make sure you're not breaking a business-critical application. If your Windows update will break this, you need to either 1) upgrade that application first, 2) migrate to a compatible application, or 3) somehow run this application in a VM. This might be a challenge if there is one application to consider, but when your organization gets large, there might be dozens of these applications to consider. Then there are employee training issues to consider. (Especially if you were moving to Windows 8's new UI.) The IT manager who just says "we're updating to the new version of Windows and too bad if it causes issues" will quickly find his users storming his office demanding answers as to why critical business systems don't work anymore. I suspect said IT manager would also quickly find himself searching for a new job.
Re: (Score:3)
I've run large company IT organizations. If you are managing hundreds of applications (at 10,000 it ain't gonna be dozens) and migrating every 2 years that means you need a large number of full time employees testing new images regularly and migrating applications because you are probably doing more than one application per workday every workday. That's what existed in the 1990s. Yes it is more expensive, yes customers won't be happy with this additional expense.
But if you think about it the expense is
Where's the replacement? (Score:2, Insightful)
The suitable replacement (supposedly) is Windows 10, which hasn't been released yet.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the replacement? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The beast and the hero (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're kind of like Star Trek movies that way. ;)
Re:The beast and the hero (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Because despite what one would reasonably expect, most developers are actually shockingly incompetent.
Or rather hacking culture celebrates stupid kludges as creative solutions. Even back in the 1980s, programmers were using "undocumented opcodes" in processors to optimise their programs. These were basically accidental side-effects of design and manufacture that activated combinations of logic used for other opcodes, but as they weren't part of the spec, you couldn't guarantee they weren't going to work on the next version.
"Always still to the API" is boring, but the only way to get yourself some degree of
No nostalgia for something you use every day. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No nostalgia for something you use every day. (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a university as a client last year and they had at least one Windows 3.1 system still in operation in a research capacity. XP is still all over the place.
Re:No nostalgia for something you use every day. (Score:4, Insightful)
In practice you needed a Pentium 2 with 64MB RAM to run Windows 98 properly.
This made me think how in the old days, software minimum requirements often described the bare minimum hardware with what the software kinda-sorta could start. :) These days we don't see that as much, but defining requirements is still tricky: for example you can't really meaningfully slap there "2GHz CPU or faster", because the work done per clock cycle has improved tremendously. Describing the GPU requirement is problematic too, because if you say "GTX460 or faster", some people can have hard time weighing how fast a GTX460 exactly was, and what was the performance of various chips that came after that.
Re: (Score:3)
Stick a fork in it, Win3.1 is dead - it should be upgraded to Win98 ASAP. Requirements - 486/66 8MB ram (16MB recommended, some 386s have this much!), 500MB disk.
Except when it runs some specialized piece of equipment which still works and is needed and the drivers only exist for Win3.1, or the specialized card can't be moved to a newer machine, or everything still works with some special networking app built into the software. Finding people who can still work on Win98 or even finding hardware that will run it can be more difficult than letting sleeping dogs lay. I didn't have a Win3.1 machine at my work, but I was supporting Win95 on Novell networking because of o
We knew we had to get off of it, (Score:4, Funny)
which is why we just finished out our Vista roll-out last week!
The new XP (Score:3, Insightful)
... Win7 = WinXP in corporate world now
It will get security patches for the next 5 years (Score:5, Informative)
Which is about 5 years longer than any version of Android older than 5.0 will get them.
It was the best Windows (Score:4, Informative)
IMHO, the best versions of Windows are (in order): 7, XP, and 95 OSR2. Note that each of these was a significant performance enhancement over both their respective predecessor and successor. Microsoft just can't let good enough be good enough; they always gotta screw up a winning formula. I do give them props for the longevity of XP; I coasted through Vista without ever touching it once.
Re:It was the best Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself. XP was just as bad as Vista at first, but everyone forgets that. It didn't become the "Windows to stand the ultimate test of time" until XP SP2.
Windows 2000 was also one of the best versions, IMHO. It just often gets left out, because it wasn't marketed to "the average home user." (But I wish it had been, instead of that trash called ME.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It was the best Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with you on Windows 2000. That was really the high point of Microsoft comparatively. XP mainly brought Windows 2000 features to a wider range of machines. And around the same time Apple overtook them with OSX 10.1-10.2 which was so clearly better.
I had very high hopes that they were going to force through hardware changes in Windows 8 but Microsoft seems to have repeated the same mistakes as with Vista allowing OEMs and customers not wanting to spend to force them into using an OS on inappropriate hardware and thus destroying its reputation.
Re:It was the best Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
2000 had a similar problem to Vista. They changed the driver model and *nothing* would work anymore. A lot of devices did not have working drivers for a long time and some older devices never new got drivers made. The software APIs were changed in ways that broke backwards compatibility so yes a lot of old apps would not run properly either. A lot of this was due to applications that wanted to write all over the filesystem and which were not designed for a multi-user OS.
I liked Windows 2000 for the stability because it was NT based. Plus unlike NT the user interface was no longer horrible and it had passable support for games. Windows XP added more backwards compatibility with old apps so it was a lot more acceptable as a working platform plus by then the driver situation had improved. Vista had similar issues in particular with NVIDIA graphics drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It was the best Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Vista sucked because it broke a lot of programs, because those programs were coded with poor coding practices (most developers suck). Microsoft wanted to do a clean start and fix a lot of windows security issues (e.g., you have to elevate yourself to admin versus being admin). This resulted in a lot of programs assuming they could do something when they couldn't, leading to a big pile of confusion. (Just like it was possible to actually have a Windows system that was usable non-Admin, one could get Vista working well. It just took a LOT of work to get to that state).
A year later and everyone fixed their issues, making Vista much better. But since it was tainted, it was easier to repackage it as Windows 7 and leave the legacy of taint behind.
Re:It was the best Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
However going back Windows 95 is a different OS.
10, 8, 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Windows NT 4, Windows NT 3 Were all based off the same kernel.
MS DOS -> Windows ME were based on an other kernel.
Windows 2000 was a really *good OS for the day. However Microsoft Dumped ME on the desktop users at the same time. So only business/pro users used Windows 2000.
* By Good in terms of Windows OS, I had been using Linux sense early 1994. While I hadn't seen windows meet the Linux/Unix systems in terms of ability and features.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows 8 is fantastic, and the best Windows by far, if you install Classic Shell, tiny window borders, and maybe 7 Taskbar Tweaker. Without those things, it drops below XP in terms of usability.
Now, should I have to install third party things just to have a usable system? Probably not.
Six years. (Score:3)
Well Six years is not a long time for an operating system to exist considering how long XP was officially supported. We've already seen Microsoft quickly drop support for Windows 8 in liu of Windows 8.1 and I guess it will be end of life when Windows 10 is released. I'm already getting e-mails about the "new windows" which means invariably, incompatibilities, lack of hardware support including the fact that my printer won't work until I've gone through some convoluted setup and bodging on my own. Of course they'll have another great new version of Visual Studio that I'll have to fork out $$$ for as well as upgrade my Office suite for shits and giggles as well. I've liked 8/8.1, not initially sure, but I don't spend time in the Metro world that much and it's faster than 7 in a lot of areas.
Windows 7, we hardly knew you but I'm sure you'll be around for a long time at least with Newegg deals pushing new licenses for it.
Shortest ever? (Score:3)
So while I'm still hearing people complaining about Windows 8, and how Windows 8.1 has barely added a start button, and at work we're preparing for the EOL of Windows 2003 ... is this the shortest MS has supported an OS yet?
It's, what, not even five years old?
When is Windows 10 due out now? Because I need to buy a new machine, and the OS better last as long as I expect the hardware to.
Windows 7 like XP did - does what we need... (Score:4, Interesting)
As an office we are going to skip 8/8.X - its not a bad OS, my parents adapted once I installed Start8 (yes I know there are free apps out there).
We still run it too! (Score:3)
Our workplace made a decision a while back to stay on Windows 7 Professional as the "standard" for our Windows users. (We also support a number of Macs.)
In general, I think many corporate I.T. departments have a policy of upgrading every OTHER release of Windows. (For example, they stayed on XP and skipped Vista. Upgraded to 7 and will now wait for Windows 10.)
Even if you go back as far as Windows '98, it turned out to be wise to stay put on '98 (upgrading it to second edition where possible) and skipping Windows ME.
IMO, there's just no benefit to a Windows 8 migration. The arguments like "no new Direct X support for 7" is meaningless when the users just use 2D apps like MS Office and a bunch of web based apps. The new "tile" interface means more training is required, which is a real problem for us, with so many mobile workers scattered all over the country.
Meanwhile, Windows 10 is the one really bringing the "added value" we're after, with such things as an upgraded Windows "PowerShell" that will finally support software upgrades from packages (similar to Linux distros) from the command line.
7? Are you kidding? (Score:4, Interesting)
complete BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score:3)
Is anyone nostalgic for Windows 7?
You mean the current version of Windows?
We've Enter "Stable Release" status (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally
Only Security patches from here on out.. not Mucky Muck.. "Feature Enhancements" or "Rubble" updates or "Video Card drivers"
Golden Edition
We should all be good for the next Thirteen years or so
Last fully supported version of Windows (Score:3)
I have noticed a trend. There are several engineering software packages that I use that simply will not run under Windows 8. The vendors have basically said use Windows 7 (or even XP) or move to Linux. This obviously does not affect most users, but it is interesting.
I have used the UI for Windows 8 for a couple of years now. It works, but I do not like it. I think it is rather poorly designed.
So other than the fact that it will not run the programs I need and I do not like the UI, I guess it is a pretty good operating system.
Looks Like I Won't Be Using Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
I just realized that my OEM license won't transfer to my new computer and I couldn't easily find a copy of Windows 7, so for the first time I just decided to go without. I have Windows 8 on a laptop and there's no way I'd ever buy a copy of that, if it didn't come preloaded. It's just awful.
This marks the end of the dual-boot era for me. It's Linux all the way now. Great job Microsoft!
Re:First Post (I think) (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's time to look forward (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, if we could disable all of the crud they piled on top, the core of Windows 8 is relatively good, as it's efficient and stable. But the crud on top is really, really irritating, and bloated, which is why Windows 7 looks so good in comparison. My PC that ran find in Win7 became almost unusable with Win8. I'm hoping someone writes an un-installer that rips our the crud, like there was for Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Windows 8 is a capable OS too. It's just got a somewhat awkward and unfamiliar graphical shell.
I don't even hate the Windows 8 shell; I pretty much take it for granted that modern desktop shells suck. That's because designers keep trying to get them to do more for users, when users don't really need *more*; they need the shell to do what they want, when they want it, and then stay the hell out of the way. On top of that there's the unfamiliarity. Windows has always UI problems with putting a cheery
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to IT.
Leave you dignity and expertise at the door. Do everything as cheap as possible in the short term.
You are a cost to the company, with nothing of value to contribute to the core business, be glad we took pity on your and gave you a job.
Sounds familiar?
Re: (Score:3)
Er... yes they can.
And if they do not want to make money is not the same as if they want to lose the money they have.
Releasing things anything near recent versions of Windows or Office will destroy all their future sales overnight.
Besides, they already offer the source, and developers will be around to make patches for it. Just not for free, not under open licences, and not from Microsoft. When you tell people that, they tend to think that a migration to a supported OS is probably better for them.
That sai