Windows 8 will have major changes. That is true.

But it has drawbacks too...

The Retarded new start menu interface: sure, it makes access on a tablet much easier, but Microsoft fails to realize that NOT EVERYONE WILL HAVE A FRIGGING TABLET! On a traditional screen, it just makes it harder.

This will be the last x86 version of Windows. Make of that what you will; I see it as major compatibility problems for the version of Windows after 8 (As in, somewhat new computers that are 32-bit that would otherwise be able to run Windows IX being turned down because it requires 64-bit power).

They re-arranged everything AGAIN! Just after everyone got used to Windows 7's screwed up new arrangement too... Keeping computer users on their toes is how they roll, I guess...

... Looks like now would be the prime time to download Linux or to purchase a Mac (or to create a Hackintosh).

The outlook for Windows-based PC's looks bleak.

I still run Windows 98, and honestly, it's faster than any Mac or PC or Ubuntu or Firefox on the market. I've never had any problems with it, and I think Bill Gates should just take the company back to the basics.

Best not to get it then. Maybe they'll realize their mistakes.

I use a Windows 7 64 bit.

I used Windows Vista 32-bit, though I think I'm going to get a newer windows 7 ultimate 1TB 64-bit

At 12/22/11 04:51 PM, MR-DOS wrote: Windows 8 will have major changes. That is true.

But it has drawbacks too...

The Retarded new start menu interface: sure, it makes access on a tablet much easier, but Microsoft fails to realize that NOT EVERYONE WILL HAVE A FRIGGING TABLET! On a traditional screen, it just makes it harder.

There will still be a desktop mode and if anything the new start menu is an extention of widgets and rice stuff like rainmeter combined.

This will be the last x86 version of Windows. Make of that what you will; I see it as major compatibility problems for the version of Windows after 8 (As in, somewhat new computers that are 32-bit that would otherwise be able to run Windows IX being turned down because it requires 64-bit power).

You can still run x86 programs in 64 bit and you won't be able to run x86 bit software on Arm tablets only, which are probably too weak to handle a full desktop anyway.

They re-arranged everything AGAIN! Just after everyone got used to Windows 7's screwed up new arrangement too... Keeping computer users on their toes is how they roll, I guess...

Yeah that will piss of some grandpa users, the rest of us will adapt I guess. Or keep windows 7 around.

Also

>Criticized for not being too slow and not innovative enough

>Criticized for innovating too fast

... Looks like now would be the prime time to download Linux or to purchase a Mac (or to create a Hackintosh).

>Linux

if your time is worthless that is

>Mac

legit choice

>Hackintosh

enjoy your breaking system with every update

The outlook for Windows-based PC's looks bleak.

but I love my aero snap :/

At 12/22/11 04:56 PM, benmitchell0036 wrote: I still run Windows 98, and honestly, it's faster than any Mac or PC or Ubuntu or Firefox on the market. I've never had any problems with it, and I think Bill Gates should just take the company back to the basics.

Bill Gates stepped down from the CEO position a long time ago.

... Back to the basics? Good idea, but good luck convincing Microsoft that that's the best course of action!

I swear, if this design actually catches on for the entire computer industry, I'm never gonna touch another computer again.

No, not even to get on Newgrounds.

At 12/22/11 05:02 PM, amplefied wrote: >Linux

if your time is worthless that is

>Mac

legit choice

Anyone who attemps to greentext on newgrounds is automatically a massive faggot, but those words are just HERESY.

At 12/22/11 05:13 PM, MR-DOS wrote: ... Back to the basics? Good idea, but good luck convincing Microsoft that that's the best course of action!

they are kinda going to windows 1.0 basics

I'd still use it, I dislike Mac and Linux keeps failing me.

At 12/22/11 05:19 PM, amplefied wrote:

At 12/22/11 05:13 PM, MR-DOS wrote: ... Back to the basics? Good idea, but good luck convincing Microsoft that that's the best course of action!

they are kinda going to windows 1.0 basics

^ I loled.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

At 12/22/11 05:15 PM, BumFodder wrote: Anyone who attemps to greentext on newgrounds is automatically a massive faggot, but those words are just HERESY.

>implying I give to shits what you or anyone here thinks of me or my opinions

cry more babby

To be honest I've run Windows vista for years I've never had problems with it.
And windows 8 will probably have settings to the change the style, If not I'll still use it.

At 12/22/11 05:13 PM, MR-DOS wrote: I swear, if this design actually catches on for the entire computer industry, I'm never gonna touch another computer again.

Then you can't touch a phone, a cable box, a television (yes, that counts), a gaming console, a calculator, or even yourself. They're pretty much computers.

At 12/22/11 04:51 PM, MR-DOS wrote: new computers that are 32-bit that would otherwise be able to run Windows IX being turned down because it requires 64-bit power).

For your information 32-bit computing is nearly obsolete because having 4 gigabytes or more of RAM requires a 64-bit operating system.

Then you can't touch a phone, a cable box, a television (yes, that counts), a gaming console, a calculator, or even yourself. They're pretty much computers.

So be it.

Wait, I still have about 2 or 3 years to observe computer trends before this actually takes effect! Sigh of relief!

For your information 32-bit computing is nearly obsolete because having 4 gigabytes or more of RAM requires a 64-bit operating system.

Silly person, don't you know that the Pentium 4 and later processors can handle more than the 4GB physical limit?

So that's the fault of the operating system. Windows 2000 Pro, for example can't handle more than 2GB of physical RAM. Windows XP, on the other hand, can't handle anymore than 3.

To be honest, each version just seems like a shinier version of the last one. (Although I haven't actually seen Windows 8. Can someone link me to somewhere I can take a look at it?) Like Windows 7, to me, it just feels like they took Windows XP and made it fit the latest design trends.

It's all just looks anyway. No point having a great operating system if you've got a piece of trash that can't run it for shit.

Try this.

At 12/22/11 05:54 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/22/11 04:56 PM, benmitchell0036 wrote: I still run Windows 98, and honestly, it's faster than Ubuntu

No it isn't.

or Firefox

Firefox is a web browser, not an operating system.

Was I joking? Does everyone know that Windows 98 is shit?

Some of the people on this thread are actually stupid enough to still be running obsolete crap such as Windows 98.

No offense.

At 12/22/11 06:03 PM, MR-DOS wrote: Try this.

Ok, I withdraw my previous comment about them just being shinier versions.

That screenshot alone just screams "bad idea! Really bad idea!"

At 12/22/11 05:59 PM, MR-DOS wrote: So that's the fault of the operating system. Windows 2000 Pro, for example can't handle more than 2GB of physical RAM. Windows XP, on the other hand, can't handle anymore than 3.

Actually 32 bit version of XP can handle more than 3 gigs. It requires hacks and worarounds though.

At 12/22/11 05:59 PM, MR-DOS wrote: Silly person, don't you know that the Pentium 4 and later processors can handle more than the 4GB physical limit?

Silly troll, I already know that.

The fact is that a 32 bit OS limits the computer to 32 bit mode, and therefore limits the maximum RAM you can utilize.

So that's the fault of the operating system. Windows 2000 Pro, for example can't handle more than 2GB of physical RAM. Windows XP, on the other hand, can't handle anymore than 3.

Yup.

Silly troll, I already know that.

First of all, I am no troll, I am simply reading my own thread.

The fact is that a 32 bit OS limits the computer to 32 bit mode, and therefore limits the maximum RAM you can utilize.

Hmm... sounds reasonable.

Yup.

Glad you agree.

I would rather deal with 8 than with a fucking mac.

True dat.

At 12/22/11 05:06 PM, No36 wrote: I'm still digging the good ol' Windows XP, can't go wrong with that.

Until of course MS drops support for it, then I get to pick up Windows 7. I don't really want to go near 8, looks awful.

I thought Microsoft DID drop support for XP? Or was very shortly going to (2012 at latest?)

They dropped support for 2000 and XP SP2.

They fully drop support for XP in July 2014.

windows XP forever.