Windows 7 or Windows 8

faolteam

Which would you recommend ?

Overheal

I've already forgotten how to interface with 7. Windows 8 is grand.

yoyo

+1 on Windows 8, download Classic Shell to get the start menu back. Boots quicker and has many nice new features. Moved from C&T

Nick

Dinarius

I totally love Windows 8. Takes a day or so to get used to. Have not felt the to restore the Start Menu, I have to say.

D.

GreenWolfe

It depends, are you looking at a new computer or an upgrade? If you're upgrading pre-Windows 8 stuff, there's a chance you won't have all the drivers you need, or it isn't fully stable (even with a full install).

If it comes with Windows 8, I'll assume the manufacturer took the time to make sure that the hardware and Windows 8 work well together.

As for the Windows 8 UI, it isn't a huge adjustment.

200motels

Go with Windows 7, 8 is a nightmare, I had it for 2 months and gave it every chance, but no too many problems, of course you'd have to try it out yourself to see what it's like, you may like it, the same way I still like Vista.

faolteam

to be honest I'm using XP because I heard Vista was so bad so not sure if windows 7 or 8 will be the bigger shock if u like vista I wouldn't lije ur taste

Quote=200motels;83100613]Go with Windows 7, 8 is a nightmare, I had it for 2 months and gave it every chance, but no too many problems, of course you'd have to try it out yourself to see what it's like, you may like it, the same way I still like Vista.[/Quote]

unkel

200motels wrote: »

Go with Windows 7, 8 is a nightmare, I had it for 2 months and gave it every chance, but no too many problems

What problems? I've worked with W8 since '11 and I find it the quickest and most stable user OS that MS have ever made (and yes I've used them all )

MonkstownHoop

love windows 8 myself

200motels

faolteam wrote: »

to be honest I'm using XP because I heard Vista was so bad so not sure if windows 7 or 8 will be the bigger shock if u like vista I wouldn't lije ur taste

Quote=200motels;83100613]Go with Windows 7, 8 is a nightmare, I had it for 2 months and gave it every chance, but no too many problems, of course you'd have to try it out yourself to see what it's like, you may like it, the same way I still like Vista.

[/QUOTE]
Vista is not bad, it was when it came out first, but all the service packs have improved it immensely, windows 7 is built on the same platform as Vista and is basically the same except for a few tweaks here and there, the people who give out about Vista have probably never used it.

Torqay

unkel wrote: »

the quickest and most stable user OS that MS have ever made (and yes I've used them all )

Well, I beg to differ. I'm using 2 desktops here, an old C2D with Windows 2003 and a new Core i3 with Windows 8. The older PC boots a lot faster and feels so much snappier in every respect. In the 10 yrs I'm using 2k3, I have not seen a single BSOD, while I had to to restore the new Windows 8 machine twice in the last month after a botched update.

For the life of me can't I see me using Windows 8 on a regular basis. I'm only using it to make myself familiar with the ins and outs, eventually I will wipe it and install 2003, the quickest and most stable Windows OS that MS have ever made (and yes I've used them all). A VM will suit any further Windows 8 needs I may have just perfectly.

cookie1977

I love windows 8. I feel much more productive (learn the keyboard shortcuts if you don't have a touchscreen). It's been very stable for me too. No BSOD, no restores needed. Ver stable altogether for me. Boots up quick too from a cold start. I was torn about moving from windows 7 as I hated the win 8 beta but now (since December) I love it. I've an 2nd gen i7 alienware m14x laptop.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

Well, I beg to differ. I'm using 2 desktops here, an old C2D with Windows 2003 and a new Core i3 with Windows 8. The older PC boots a lot faster and feels so much snappier in every respect.

By the same set of logic, my Ti-83 boots up faster than any of my 3 ultrabooks...

Fysh

Are we really going to veto Windows 8 because of how it compares to using a server OS as a desktop? Because that's one of the sillier things I've heard as arguments against Windows 8, and I wasn't sold on 8 being worth a damn until the RTM release...

Certainly my benchmarking on a Precision 390 shows that time-to-login-screen and time-to-usable-desktop are better in Win8 than in Win7 on the exact same hardware. Given that 7 & 8 have proper support for SSDs (unlike Xp-era OSs) it's really not hard to configure a new system that runs rings around older systems. That said, if you're happy with the system you've got and it does what you want it to do, why upgrade at all?

Torqay

Fysh wrote: »

Given that 7 & 8 have proper support for SSDs (unlike Xp-era OSs)

LOL... Most manufacturers offer maintenance utilities which make up for the lack of TRIM support (e.g. Intel's SSD Toolkit) in "Xp-era OSs".

A few days ago, I had a lady here, she was in tears over her new computer with Windows 8. After 2 days she hasn't found out how to turn it off! And that was the least of her worries. I already had to revert a dozen or so computers back to Windows 7 (some were actually willing to give Linux a shot) because of sheer frustration. Now these are not the computer-savvy people you meet in computer forums, just regular folk who simply couldn't take it anymore... and believe you me, they give a flying f*** about Precision benchmarks.

When asked what I think of Windows 8 from a practical point of view, I say, "Avoid like the plague." If the choice is Windows 7 (as is the topic here), so be it. My personal preferences, however, are with another OS.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

By the same set of logic, my Ti-83 boots up faster than any of my 3 ultrabooks...

Your Ti-83 can't run the the same software as your three ultrabooks, my computer can, so spare me your logic.

timetogo

Torqay wrote: »

A few days ago, I had a lady here, she was in tears over her new computer with Windows 8. After 2 days she hasn't found out how to turn it off! And that was the least of her worries.

Even if she couldn't figure out how to turn it off with the mouse how hard was it to tell her to use the power button? Turning off with the mouse is a disaster though. What were MS thinking of when they decided to put the option 3 or 4 clicks away. But the hardware power button works as a power button so it's not rocket science even for somebody who has no clue.

I've been using Windows 8 since it came out. It should take most people about 10 minutes to get up to speed with it if they've used XP or Windows 7.
All you have to think is that the Start Menu now takes up the whole screen instead of popping up from the bottom left. Show them where the Windows key is and they're grand. Hit the Windows key and the start menu pops up. Hit it again and it goes away. Again, not really rocket science.
When I say most people I mean people who can use a computer to start with. Even my Da was grand once I put his icons on the desktop, explained the Windows key and told him to turn off using the power button. I'm not sure if moving to linux is really worth it if that's all any average person has to do.
I did try to move my dad to linux before. It wasn't worth it for me and I had to move him back to XP, but this isn't a linux vs Windows thread so there's no point going into it.


I've installed it on several PCs (from several year old netbooks to newer machines). I haven't had to mess with drivers for any of them. The caveat there is that I only support brandname stuff for businesses so no custom stuff with weird hardware.
Netbooks do have an issue in that Metro apps won't work at resolutions less than 1024X768 but in my months of using it I never use a metro app even on my home desktop. It's still worth it though even on netbooks as the performance gain can be quite huge even on a crappy old atom PC.

Everybody I've installed it for has had the initial WTF when they see it. 5 minutes of showing them how to use it is all most people need. Anybody I've installed it for has been happy with it. Nobody has asked to move back. These are not techy users.

I think the whole argument boils down to this.
If you're familiar with Windows XP or 7 then 8 won't be much of an issue.
If you prefer Mac or linux then this isn't going to change your mind.

For me 99.99% of what I do in Windows 8 looks exactly the same as what I do on Windows 7. It's just faster. If I had PC with Windows 7 then there's no major reason to move to Windows 8. If I had neither and had to purchase a new copy, I'd buy Win 8.

unkel

Torqay wrote: »

Well, I beg to differ. I'm using 2 desktops here, an old C2D with Windows 2003 and a new Core i3 with Windows 8. The older PC boots a lot faster

You might read my post again and you'll not disagree

If we're going server OS, my favourite is probably still NT 3.51

Torqay

I'd still take 7 over 8 any day.

I'm not using 2003 as a Server OS (well, I do, but not in this context), with a little help, it actually makes for a formidable desktop OS, ditto 2008. And no, unkel, you would not want to use NT 3.51 for this!

200motels

I think the thing with 8 is you'll either like it or loath it, there's no in between, I don't like it but because I don't like it that doesn't make it a bad O system.

yoyo

XP is also much more likely to get virus riddled, being so old and no kind of User Account Control/Admin rights from the get go (yes this can be tweaked, but "out of the box" XP is considerably more insecure than it's successors). Yes it's been patched up but older systems are out longer and therefore more known and more targetable. The great thing about Vista and beyond is the viruses in general don't do anyway near as much havoc as XP ones, as they cannot write to system folders/files without consent. Makes it easier clearing them from the appdata/programdata folders than the bloody system32 one!
Server OSes for a desktop OS may work fine for some, but for the vast majority the lack of driver support/software support will be a huge issue. I have Windows 8 and all my programs and hardware run fine on it, would not like to try this on Server 2003 or even 2012!
Also major support for XP ends next year, so people should jump ship to either 7 or 8 or get a new machine. Windows 8 is not that bad. I actually prefare the tiled start menu as you can find stuff/organize stuff more easily (don't use the Metro Apps) but you can get classic shell which will bring back the start menu at any rate

Nick

Dinarius

unkel wrote: »

What problems? I've worked with W8 since '11 and I find it the quickest and most stable user OS that MS have ever made (and yes I've used them all )

Totally agree.

My new laptop boots to the Windows Apps page in about 15 seconds.

It's a huge improvement.

D.

Capt'n Midnight

unkel wrote: »

If we're going server OS, my favourite is probably still NT 3.51

It's got as many holes as Swiss cheese at this stage :pac:

But it's missing a lot of holes because of stuff it never had, and if you use older non-IP protocols like IPX you might avoid some of the internet nasties.

But love they way video drivers don't get elevated privileges.



And like all Microsoft OS's you have to do a fair bit of research and work to harden it against stuff that came later on.

Nearly getting nostalgia now, stick 3.51 in a VM and use it for central username/password management on a home lan , course the problem is licensing

Torqay

yoyo wrote: »

no kind of User Account Control/Admin rights from the get go (yes this can be tweaked, but "out of the box" XP is considerably more insecure than it's successors).

True and yet not "incurable". DropMyRights does pretty much the same (still a handy little tool for those who have done away with UAC, for whatever reason). And then there is Sandboxie, which can be configured to drop all privileges from sandboxed applications. XP with Sandboxie is still a helluva lot safer than any sucessor without Sandboxie, where the user only relies on UAC and Windows Defender.

yoyo wrote: »

Server OSes for a desktop OS may work fine for some, but for the vast majority the lack of driver support/software support will be a huge issue.

It's a financial issue as they are quite expensive. Driver support is not that huge an issue. All mainstream hardware is well supported. And in the rare case that you have a piece of hardware that is not officially supported, what works for XP also works for 2003, what works for Vista/7 also works for 2008... usually. Just installed a new HD 6570, no problem.

yoyo wrote: »

I have Windows 8 and all my programs and hardware run fine on it, would not like to try this on Server 2003 or even 2012!

I wonder which programs you're using. 2003 is running everything I throw at it (which is quite a lot!), unless of course you're talking about those fancy new full screen apps.

There are a few issues alright, usually with "free" antivirus ("You cheapskate! You come here with your 1000 dollar OS and now you want our stuff for free? Buzz off"). But like anything else, they can be "fooled" to install on a server OS, if need be, it's easy enough to "fix" the compatibility for exe/msi installers which don't "like" server OSs.

yoyo wrote: »

Also major support for XP ends next year, so people should jump ship to either 7 or 8 or get a new machine.

Or Linux... after Microsoft's frontal assault on users' privacy an ever more appealing alternative.

I hear rumours, a Linux version of Microsoft Office is in the making and might become reality next year.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

Your Ti-83 can't run the the same software as your three ultrabooks, my computer can, so spare me your logic.

How did you get 2003 to recognize directx10 and 11 libraries?

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

LOL... Most manufacturers offer maintenance utilities which make up for the lack of TRIM support (e.g. Intel's SSD Toolkit) in "Xp-era OSs".

A few days ago, I had a lady here, she was in tears over her new computer with Windows 8. After 2 days she hasn't found out how to turn it off! And that was the least of her worries. I already had to revert a dozen or so computers back to Windows 7 (some were actually willing to give Linux a shot) because of sheer frustration. Now these are not the computer-savvy people you meet in computer forums, just regular folk who simply couldn't take it anymore... and believe you me, they give a flying f*** about Precision benchmarks.

When asked what I think of Windows 8 from a practical point of view, I say, "Avoid like the plague." If the choice is Windows 7 (as is the topic here), so be it. My personal preferences, however, are with another OS.

How much do you charge for a rollback? Nevermind that every new PC I've unboxed comes with a UI Pamphlet, it's the fact that it takes all of 5 minutes or less to educate anyone on the basics of Windows 8. But I guess when you make your money off the ignorant, it's more profitable to tell them Windows 8 is a cancer and that you have the cure. I'm guessing you don't spend much time at all offering them a solution that doesn't cost anything, ie. "here's the button".

DUBLIN_person

Having used them both now, I'd say 8, I mean it's certainly different, but I think it's different in a good way

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

How did you get 2003 to recognize directx10 and 11 libraries?

That what your Ti-83 does? Now that's interesting... care to elaborate?

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

That what your Ti-83 does? Now that's interesting... care to elaborate?

my point being, and borrowing what Fysh was saying, server 2003 isn't the same apple. both your machine and a calculator might boot faster by a few seconds but neither has the same functionality, or vulnerabilities.

Fysh

Torqay wrote: »

That what your Ti-83 does? Now that's interesting... care to elaborate?

Torqay wrote: »

True and yet not "incurable". DropMyRights does pretty much the same (still a handy little tool for those who have done away with UAC, for whatever reason). And then there is Sandboxie, which can be configured to drop all privileges from sandboxed applications. XP with Sandboxie is still a helluva lot safer than any sucessor without Sandboxie, where the user only relies on UAC and Windows Defender.

It's a financial issue as they are quite expensive. Driver support is not that huge an issue. All mainstream hardware is well supported. And in the rare case that you have a piece of hardware that is not officially supported, what works for XP also works for 2003, what works for Vista/7 also works for 2008... usually. Just installed a new HD 6570, no problem.

I wonder which programs you're using. 2003 is running everything I throw at it (which is quite a lot!), unless of course you're talking about those fancy new full screen apps.

There are a few issues alright, usually with "free" antivirus ("You cheapskate! You come here with your 1000 dollar OS and now you want our stuff for free? Buzz off"). But like anything else, they can be "fooled" to install on a server OS, if need be, it's easy enough to "fix" the compatibility for exe/msi installers which don't "like" server OSs.

Or Linux... after Microsoft's frontal assault on users' privacy an ever more appealing alternative.

I hear rumours, a Linux version of Microsoft Office is in the making and might become reality next year.

Oh joy, we're back at the point where Torqay does an impression of Foul Ole Ron ("Millenium hand & shrimp! Spyin' on me with rays, so they was!") because somehow the word privacy was invoked, and for good measure we're throwing in depending on some third-party software to handle privilege elevation issues and breaching the licence terms on AV software.

If it's how you want to work, that's your call. But the insistence that this is the One True MS Way because you happen not to like Windows 8 and its UI is, at this point, really rather daft. If anything, all you achieve with this is reducing the probability that anyone will listen to your (at least somewhat legitimate) concerns about the implications for the personal privacy of Windows users in relation to the ongoing push towards cloud-based systems.

Overheal

So wait, 2003 is better because it cost a grand (and you paid it? I doubt) and you have the honor and privilege of using a bunch of third party tools and illegal workarounds and .ini driver hacks to make **** work?

I take it back, that sounds way easier than the Start UIs 20 minute learning curve and $200 standalone asking cost.

Furthermore why the hell would you buy a 6xxx when you can't even use the dx10 and 11 libraries? Makes very little god damn sense. Buy a second hand 4990 or something and call it a day