Report: Global Battle Against XP Ahead for Windows 8

Status
Not open for further replies.


Windows 7 feels 10x smoother
 

may1

Distinguished
May 7, 2009
364
0
18,790
1
The statistics probably include machines used for scanners in supermarkets, airport security terminals, manufacturing control terminals etc - basically computers used to carry out "simple" (in comparison to office/home computing) operations. These enterprise machines do not require any UI interface (even an upgrade to win7) thus will probably not change its OS to win8. With how MSFT is shifting its priorities to retail customers, more of these users will shift to Open Source OS, if not stay with XP.

 
[citation][nom]may1[/nom]The statistics probably include machines used for scanners in supermarkets, airport security terminals, manufacturing control terminals etc - basically computers used to carry out "simple" (in comparison to office/home computing) operations. These enterprise machines do not require any UI interface (even an upgrade to win7) thus will probably not change its OS to win8. With how MSFT is shifting its priorities to retail customers, more of these users will shift to Open Source OS, if not stay with XP.[/citation]

No one comes from a Microsoft OS and goes to an open source OS.
 

digiex

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2009
834
0
18,990
1
I will use Windows XP long as it run the programs/games I am using and my hardware still support it. I am a casual user.

The only reason why XP users dip is that old XP machines had broken or scrap and new hardware were already pre-loaded with Windows 7.
 

digiex

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2009
834
0
18,990
1
I will use XP as long as it run the programs/games I use and it support my hardware.

The reason for dip in XP users are either the hardware broke or it was scraped and new hardware that replaced them was already pre-loaded with Windows 7
 

shoelessinsight

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2009
92
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Vista and 7 are 99% the sameBEFORE you vote me down blindly -- you tell me what the real difference are besides vista's more aggressive caching and colour scheme.[/citation]
There are some fairly significant differences between Vista and 7 underneath the hood, particularly in matters of memory management. It's enough to justify 7 as a separate OS rather than a Vista service pack. But on the surface, with what the user sees, I'd agree that the two OS's are much more similar than not.

Windows 8, on the other hand, is a drastic overhaul both in looks and interface. I don't think anybody would mind that, though, if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft is actively blocking people from customizing the OS back into something they're familiar with. It's that attitude that has me baffled and frustrated with 8 -- since when did Microsoft start caring how we customize our systems?
 

ddpruitt

Honorable
Jun 4, 2012
1,109
0
11,360
45
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Vista and 7 are 99% the same

BEFORE you vote me down blindly -- you tell me what the real difference are besides vista's more aggressive caching and colour scheme.[/citation]

UAC doesn't pop up for every single thing
Windows 7 runs games faster
Networking and sharing are much smoother
Even on a clean install Vista is much slower
Taskbar has a number of useful enhancements
Windows 7 loads quicker
Drivers work better
Better hardware support
Better Audio controls (for people that have lots of outputs like me)
Doesn't crash as much
And did I mention it's quicker (look at benchmarks before you comment)
 

computernerdforlife

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2012
161
0
18,690
1
2 copies tomorrow for me and my wife's notebook. We're already running Windows 8, we just want a paid version. Call me a pond but I can purchase whatever the f*** I want because I like the product. 3.5 second boot time on a Vertex 3, perfect. If you don't like it, go back to your previous Windows cave and move on with life.
 

devBunny

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2012
181
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]I will use XP as long as it run the programs/games I use and it support my hardware.The reason for dip in XP users are either the hardware broke or it was scraped and new hardware that replaced them was already pre-loaded with Windows 7[/citation]

Yep, I'd still be using XP if it weren't for the RAM limitation.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"If MS would give users the option to use win8 as pure desktop, I'm pretty sure it would be more successful than win7."

Yep, Microsoft shareholders must be fuming at this stupidity
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Vista and 7 are 99% the sameBEFORE you vote me down blindly -- you tell me what the real difference are besides vista's more aggressive caching and colour scheme.[/citation]
not just color scheme, but a hardware accelerated GUI, which off-loads a ton of crap from the CPU which is largely what capped entry level Vista machines.

But aside from that, most of the improvements in win7 are behind the scenes in finally implimenting a lot of what was learned fromt he minwin project. Mostly by figuring out how the OS worked, they were able to reduce duplicated code, and clean up the registry, while zipping up a lot of potential vulnerabilities. They also worked a lot on loading order to improve boot time.

To be honest win7 is really a big service pack for Vista, but due to the bad PR Vista had gotten, 7 needed a new name. But it was a bit more than just better caching and a paint job. It is a reduction of bloat, with better utilization of the hardware so that things run better, but no new features to speak of.

Win8 on the other hand takes the win7 core, and does nothing but add features. You look at everything from multi-screen support, to task manager, to IE10, to the superbar, to ram management and cannot help but notice (from a technical perspective), that win8 is a step forward. Not a huge leap of progress mind you, but it really looks like they took a hard look at their feature set, saw what people were installing to make win7 more usable, and then incorporated that in the OS design. Even with the new start screen, power users will quickly realize that all of the shortcut keyboard commands we have grown so accustomed to still work just fine. The GUI has changed, but the keys still produce the same results, which makes me quite happy about it. Again, not a revolutionary change that is worth $140, but an evolutionary change that is easily worth $40.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]I will use Windows XP long as it run the programs/games I am using and my hardware still support it. I am a casual user.The only reason why XP users dip is that old XP machines had broken or scrap and new hardware were already pre-loaded with Windows 7.[/citation]
So long as you have enough ram (1-2GB) win7 and win8 will work faster than XP on just about any workload on any bit of hardware. They sure can eat a lot of ram though lol.
 

billgatez

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2012
225
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]devBunny[/nom]Yep, I'd still be using XP if it weren't for the RAM limitation.[/citation] Get a copy of XP 64 bit.

Like a nothere poster pointed out. A lot of the system running XP are office system or POS computers in stores. There is even a CAD system at my work that is still running XP because there are no driver that work with vista or 7.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]may1[/nom]The statistics probably include machines used for scanners in supermarkets, airport security terminals, manufacturing control terminals etc - basically computers used to carry out "simple" (in comparison to office/home computing) operations. These enterprise machines do not require any UI interface (even an upgrade to win7) thus will probably not change its OS to win8. With how MSFT is shifting its priorities to retail customers, more of these users will shift to Open Source OS, if not stay with XP.[/citation]
Most POS (point of sale... not the other POS) systems actually use winXP, or a variant of XP that is preloaded on some sort of ROM storage to prevent changes. Others are using a modified linux or unix distribution. Either way, none of these types of systems are considered PCs, nor are they typically counted in these types of statistics.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Vista and 7 are 99% the sameBEFORE you vote me down blindly -- you tell me what the real difference are besides vista's more aggressive caching and colour scheme.[/citation]

7 has the same caching skill, if anything its just more efficient. As well 7 is highly optimized and also has various tweaks to the UI and kernal.

They are the same but 7 is a much better OS.

8 is very different. I got to mess with it today, we got our OEM copies yesterday, and it acts different. It feels just as smooth as 7 but its hard working without the Start Menu.

I think M should have had two versions of 8, on for normal Desktops and one for touchscreens/tablets. Leavle the start menu in the DT version but include Metro in the other.

Oh and they need to kill off 32bit. We don't sell any systems with 32bit and rarley get someone wanting 32bit 7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY