HorrorScope wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:49:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Just more proof Windows 8 is intended for touch screen, they couldn't even be bothered to QA the mouse support!
Windows is dying.

7 is good for another 10 years.

XP SP3 for another five months. Longer if you ignore the lack of updates from MS after April 2014.

Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 12, 2013, 01:35:
Didn't you know that Blues News is one of the biggest MS/Windows hate sites? Meanwhile, 99.9% of BN readers run Windows for their gaming. I really hope they all switch to SteamOS when it comes out, them maybe they'll start bashing something else they use everyday lol!

One guy spouting a bunch of crap about MS and the rest jumping on him for it... somehow that equates to a generalization about Blue's posters being anti-MS from you. Sounds more like the opposite to me.

Didn't you know that Blues News is one of the biggest MS/Windows hate sites? Meanwhile, 99.9% of BN readers run Windows for their gaming. I really hope they all switch to SteamOS when it comes out, them maybe they'll start bashing something else they use everyday lol!

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 21:29:

Ludomancer wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 20:27:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Windows is dying.

Windows is dead and has been for a very long time. Win2k, outside of security problems, was the last version of windows that added anything necessary. Since then it's only been driver support, spyware and unnecessary services, and for some reason those add up to requiring exponentially more RAM and 4GB+ of HDD space to accommodate something that could, and should, exist in a few MB of RAM and used to have <1GB of a footprint. Microsoft has survived on a strategic monopoly since the late 90s. I wish they'd died a lot sooner.

If linux or apple had 100% backward compatibility with the legacy of Windows software, they would easily have claimed the majority of market share by now. I hate Microsoft so much. Despite the wonder of the modern age of computing, I fault them for thousands of hours of lost productivity.

Congrats, that's one of the most retarded statements I've ever read.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you RollinThundr; I thought the same thing when I read it.

Pigeon wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 09:14:
Common sense would say have a touch screen mode and a mouse mode.

No shit. MS has some deep hatred over the mouse, even though it made them 10's of billions. Must.... use.... any... thing... but.. mouse.

eRe4s3r wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 00:13:

Dev wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 23:40:

DukeFNukem wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 22:57:

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:49:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Just more proof Windows 8 is intended for touch screen, they couldn't even be bothered to QA the mouse support!
Windows is dying.

7 is good for another 10 years.

Agreed, long enough to skip the turd that has been floating around most recently and hope that Windows 9 isn't more of the same.

MS's track record is good win, bad win, alternating, so its not a bad call to wait for win 9.

The cycle resets with new CEO's... so it will be bad again with Windows 9

7 will still be good. They built the O/S to weather a storm of successive O/S flops. They're smarter than you think!

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 08:53:
...

They come from using Apple products. Only Apple fanbois are this deluded and drunk on kool-aid.

Yes, the RDF Koolaid is still flowing, apparently...;) I once postulated a theory that Mac-branded CRTs/LCDs fire a gamma-ray burst every time a Mac crashes, which effectively wipes the event from the mind of the suffering Apple customer sitting in front of it. Hence, they have no recollection of their Macs ever crashing, etc. Makes a certain kind of sense...;) Something's going on, for sure! Those of us fortunate enough to be standing off to the side when they crash, know better, however.

NKD wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 09:34:

Pigeon wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 09:14:
Even Vista was whipped into shape by this point in its development cycle. At this point I'm starting to wonder if there's something fundamentally wrong with their base UI that they have a hard time getting things to work that have been working just fine for the lat 20+ years. More likely they're still busy trying to cram a UI better suited for smart phones and tablets onto a PC. I really don't understand their insistence on having this interface on a non-touch screen device. Common sense would say have a touch screen mode and a mouse mode.

There's no incentive for them to do anything because, like Vista, even after it's fixed, people don't know it's been fixed or don't believe people who tell them and ignore the OS anyway. Better to just wait until the next version when they can make a fresh impression.

I don't see much reason for altering the interface anyway. Shit, I've been on Windows 8 for months and months now and I basically never see the Metro bullshit. I use it in the exact same way I used Windows 7. Windows 8 has had a negligible impact on my workflow. And aside from the Metro UI, just about everything in Windows 8 is improved from Windows 7 in the same way Windows 7 improved on Vista. Incremental, but pervasive updates.

One of Microsoft's biggest failings with Windows 8 was communicating what's new besides Modern UI, aka Metro. Partly because there's really not that much - as you say, it's incremental - but their push to get people to use Metro killed Windows 8 in the eyes of many consumers because the implementation was heavy-handed and Metro has a very Microsoft failing: it's shit.

Like you, I don't see any Metro crap and while it's wrong that I had to install 3rd party software to properly get it into shape, it's hardly a big chore. I like Windows 8, there's really nothing to make me recommend upgrading from Windows 7 - even free, it's not worth the hassle unless you need to reinstall anyway - but if you do need to buy Windows now, I see no reason not to choose Windows 8.

Pigeon wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 09:14:
Even Vista was whipped into shape by this point in its development cycle. At this point I'm starting to wonder if there's something fundamentally wrong with their base UI that they have a hard time getting things to work that have been working just fine for the lat 20+ years. More likely they're still busy trying to cram a UI better suited for smart phones and tablets onto a PC. I really don't understand their insistence on having this interface on a non-touch screen device. Common sense would say have a touch screen mode and a mouse mode.

There's no incentive for them to do anything because, like Vista, even after it's fixed, people don't know it's been fixed or don't believe people who tell them and ignore the OS anyway. Better to just wait until the next version when they can make a fresh impression.

I don't see much reason for altering the interface anyway. Shit, I've been on Windows 8 for months and months now and I basically never see the Metro bullshit. I use it in the exact same way I used Windows 7. Windows 8 has had a negligible impact on my workflow. And aside from the Metro UI, just about everything in Windows 8 is improved from Windows 7 in the same way Windows 7 improved on Vista. Incremental, but pervasive updates.

Even Vista was whipped into shape by this point in its development cycle. At this point I'm starting to wonder if there's something fundamentally wrong with their base UI that they have a hard time getting things to work that have been working just fine for the lat 20+ years. More likely they're still busy trying to cram a UI better suited for smart phones and tablets onto a PC. I really don't understand their insistence on having this interface on a non-touch screen device. Common sense would say have a touch screen mode and a mouse mode.

WaltC wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 23:21:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 21:29:

Ludomancer wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 20:27:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Windows is dying.

Windows is dead and has been for a very long time. Win2k, outside of security problems, was the last version of windows that added anything necessary. Since then it's only been driver support, spyware and unnecessary services, and for some reason those add up to requiring exponentially more RAM and 4GB+ of HDD space to accommodate something that could, and should, exist in a few MB of RAM and used to have <1GB of a footprint. Microsoft has survived on a strategic monopoly since the late 90s. I wish they'd died a lot sooner.

If linux or apple had 100% backward compatibility with the legacy of Windows software, they would easily have claimed the majority of market share by now. I hate Microsoft so much. Despite the wonder of the modern age of computing, I fault them for thousands of hours of lost productivity.

Congrats, that's one of the most retarded statements I've ever read.

I agree--it's right up there near the summit of the "ridiculosity" scale...:) Where do these folks come from? Heh...;)

They come from using Apple products. Only Apple fanbois are this deluded and drunk on kool-aid.

No problems here running Windows 8.1 and a Logitech mouse. Although I don't play CoD / CS games to see those problems, but BF4 runs fine.

Ludomancer wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 20:27:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Windows is dying.

Windows is dead and has been for a very long time. Win2k, outside of security problems, was the last version of windows that added anything necessary. Since then it's only been driver support, spyware and unnecessary services, and for some reason those add up to requiring exponentially more RAM and 4GB+ of HDD space to accommodate something that could, and should, exist in a few MB of RAM and used to have <1GB of a footprint. Microsoft has survived on a strategic monopoly since the late 90s. I wish they'd died a lot sooner.

If linux or apple had 100% backward compatibility with the legacy of Windows software, they would easily have claimed the majority of market share by now. I hate Microsoft so much. Despite the wonder of the modern age of computing, I fault them for thousands of hours of lost productivity.

Hahahahahaha.... right.

eRe4s3r wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 00:13:

The cycle resets with new CEO's... so it will be bad again with Windows 9

I genuinely expect issues, but not from the new CEO stuff, but from the fact that the x32 codebase is being fully dumped. I'll guess it'll be close to the transition phase from 16bit.

Windows 8 is alright if you have a touchscreen monitor or tablet interface, and that's about it.

You can revert Windows 8 to a none 'touch' like interface, obviously, but if anything PC users are better off using something like Win 7 Ultimate throughout the entirety of its product life (which is going to be a LONG time yet), as it is basically the 'XP' of the newer Windows. Fairly reliable.

Can't remember last time windows shat out on my mouse though. Wait, yes I can. It was never.

Dev wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 23:40:

DukeFNukem wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 22:57:

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:49:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Just more proof Windows 8 is intended for touch screen, they couldn't even be bothered to QA the mouse support!
Windows is dying.

7 is good for another 10 years.

Agreed, long enough to skip the turd that has been floating around most recently and hope that Windows 9 isn't more of the same.

MS's track record is good win, bad win, alternating, so its not a bad call to wait for win 9.

The cycle resets with new CEO's... so it will be bad again with Windows 9

DukeFNukem wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 22:57:

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:49:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Just more proof Windows 8 is intended for touch screen, they couldn't even be bothered to QA the mouse support!
Windows is dying.

7 is good for another 10 years.

Agreed, long enough to skip the turd that has been floating around most recently and hope that Windows 9 isn't more of the same.

MS's track record is good win, bad win, alternating, so its not a bad call to wait for win 9.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 21:29:

Ludomancer wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 20:27:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Windows is dying.

Windows is dead and has been for a very long time. Win2k, outside of security problems, was the last version of windows that added anything necessary. Since then it's only been driver support, spyware and unnecessary services, and for some reason those add up to requiring exponentially more RAM and 4GB+ of HDD space to accommodate something that could, and should, exist in a few MB of RAM and used to have <1GB of a footprint. Microsoft has survived on a strategic monopoly since the late 90s. I wish they'd died a lot sooner.

If linux or apple had 100% backward compatibility with the legacy of Windows software, they would easily have claimed the majority of market share by now. I hate Microsoft so much. Despite the wonder of the modern age of computing, I fault them for thousands of hours of lost productivity.

Congrats, that's one of the most retarded statements I've ever read.

I agree--it's right up there near the summit of the "ridiculosity" scale...:) Where do these folks come from? Heh...;)

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:49:

DanteUK wrote on Nov 10, 2013, 16:39:
Just more proof Windows 8 is intended for touch screen, they couldn't even be bothered to QA the mouse support!
Windows is dying.

7 is good for another 10 years.

Agreed, long enough to skip the turd that has been floating around most recently and hope that Windows 9 isn't more of the same.