Report: Public Windows 8 Beta Coming in February

[captaincharisma]

Vista failed because people are morons

 

[ujaansona]

[citation][nom]malmental[/nom]you need a real unit..[/citation]

I have a "real unit"; as you say it & I really don't need advice about any of my three "units" from anyone who lacks the common sense to understand a reference build provided to inform that vista runs good (for general purpose computing) on low budget hardware.

 

[alyoshka]

[citation][nom]ruel24[/nom]Windows 8 looks like a bust. I'm sticking with Windows 7 until Microsoft can prove to me that Windows 8 is worth upgrading to. More than likely, I'll wait until Windows 9.[/citation]
MS doesn't need to prove crap to you.
If you have ever seen an OS install in less 5 minutes then you really must be something. Try the developer editions and then open your mouths.....
Win 7 never proved anything other than what most people believed, it's an OS for people who hate to read, are more impressed by looks than by quality and guy's who didn't have the balls to try anything else so they waited for MS to finally come out with a problem less release. Win 7 was a little tweaking of Vista with a new look and feel that's all.
Win 8 is the next OS after Vista..... simple.
And as you say you'll wait for Win 9.... I can understand that 'taker and not giver' mentality, it is in you.

 

[pjmelect]

People hated Vista just as much as the hates XP when it first launched, the difference was XP wasn't replaced so as hardware got better and it ran faster people stopped whining about performance. 7 was no faster than Vista it was just by the time it was released hardware had moved on. I still use Vista as I prefer the GUI and that's the only noticeable difference between the two.

That is not true Windows 7 performance is a lot better than Vista's. In particular how Windows 7 handles the graphics memory, requiring far less memory and being much faster.

 

[eddieroolz]

If this is true, then I guess I can hold off on the Windows 7 reformat for a little longer then...

 

[ruel24]

Alyoshka:

MS doesn't need to prove crap to you.
If you have ever seen an OS install in less 5 minutes then you really must be something. Try the developer editions and then open your mouths.....
Win 7 never proved anything other than what most people believed, it's an OS for people who hate to read, are more impressed by looks than by quality and guy's who didn't have the balls to try anything else so they waited for MS to finally come out with a problem less release. Win 7 was a little tweaking of Vista with a new look and feel that's all.
Win 8 is the next OS after Vista..... simple.
And as you say you'll wait for Win 9.... I can understand that 'taker and not giver' mentality, it is in you.

You don't have a shred of intelligence, do you? I run, not one...but two, Linux distros on my machine off my hard drive, and yet another in Virtualbox. I run Windows 7 for certain things. And, yes, Microsoft has to prove everything to me before I swap out Windows 7 for Windows7+Metro UI (Windows 8). And, no, Windows 7 is not Vista that looks prettier. Windows 7 actually has some snappiness to it, is less annoying, and is more stable than Vista or XP. But your too busy with your head up your arse to comprehend any of this.

 

[dc_webster]

I hate Vista bashing for the sake of Vista bashing - especially if you are not reasonably knowledgable about hardware and software but I thought I'd add my 2 cents here about Vista. We have 5 PCs in our household and two run a variety of things on Vista w/SP2 just fine and as an OS I don't have a problem with the design. But to be fair I and a lot of other knowledgable guys felt Vista at launch was far too problematic for some software that it shouldn't have had problems with (not just old business accounting sotfware), and also had some pretty patchy support for some common hardware out there that it shouldn't have (nforce 4 RAID anyone). Pretty much in the lead up to SP1 we got over it and Vista starting performing well most of the time. I just wanted state that I didn't exactly agree with a lot posters here about there being "nothing wrong with it". That said, the two users running Vista with SP2 here are happy users and have been since SP1 and see no reason to change as it works quite well now for them. (I personally run Win7 on all my rigs tho, but not out of hatred for Vista, just because 7 is better inho). My 2 cents.

 

[Guest]

شكرا جزيلا