Windows 8 Will Run Windows 7 Software Just Fine

Status
Not open for further replies.

tofu2go

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2011
29
0
18,530
If the only change in Windows 8 is the tile interface and the API additions to support it, this should be a $29 or less update, much like Snow Leopard was.
 

XD_dued

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2008
415
0
18,810
[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]I'm already tired of eternal upgrading. I'm going try to jump over Windows 8.[/citation]

No one is forcing you to get it.

I wonder if they will make any solution to run x86 programs on ARM systems. But I think it'd probably be too difficult.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Yes, but you'd miss the whole point of every Microsoft OS since Windows 2000. It's to make them money, and not to help you or anyone else. $29 for an upgrade wouldn't feed their coffers, so they'll release an annoying new interface, add yet another operating system that needs to be supported by people in IT that does nothing different, and create a yet slower release (it's laughable that people think Windows 7 isn't the slowest OS yet, even though every test proves it's even slower than Vista). Microsoft creates so many headaches with their constant, useless, changes. Move this here, make this thing round instead of square, etc... just so it looks like an upgrade, instead of making the damn thing faster, less buggy, and less bloated without changing where everything is. No wonder Apple keeps gaining market share. Even against a monopoly. This despite obscenely overpriced hardware, and an autocratic, heavy-handed, and borderline abusive corporate policy.What a choice. In hardware we get excellence from Intel, and AMD. In software, we got a choice between Apple and Microsoft. Both suck. Is it too late to bring OS/2 back? It's 16 years since they did an update, and the interface is still more powerful than Windows.[/citation]

Troll much?
 

shoelessinsight

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2009
92
0
18,630
I doubt I'll have this on any of my desktops or laptops in the near future (and perhaps never if they end up releasing Windows 9 only a couple years later). However, I am keenly interested in this operating system for HTPC purposes.

Assuming the tile interface is remote/Kinect friendly, I can see this as being ideal in a couch and television setting. I'll be able to run any software I want, but might not necessarily have to grab a mouse and keyboard each time.
 

bustapr

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
1,613
0
19,780
Im not really interested in it, Win7 exceeds my needs at the moment and its really easy to work with. And its pretty obvious that Win8 is just a testing out something new and since because Win7 is so solid they dont need to fear losing customers.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Yes, but you'd miss the whole point of every Microsoft OS since Windows 2000. It's to make them money, and not to help you or anyone else. $29 for an upgrade wouldn't feed their coffers, so they'll release an annoying new interface, add yet another operating system that needs to be supported by people in IT that does nothing different, and create a yet slower release (it's laughable that people think Windows 7 isn't the slowest OS yet, even though every test proves it's even slower than Vista). Microsoft creates so many headaches with their constant, useless, changes. Move this here, make this thing round instead of square, etc... just so it looks like an upgrade, instead of making the damn thing faster, less buggy, and less bloated without changing where everything is. No wonder Apple keeps gaining market share. Even against a monopoly. This despite obscenely overpriced hardware, and an autocratic, heavy-handed, and borderline abusive corporate policy.What a choice. In hardware we get excellence from Intel, and AMD. In software, we got a choice between Apple and Microsoft. Both suck. Is it too late to bring OS/2 back? It's 16 years since they did an update, and the interface is still more powerful than Windows.[/citation]

f***ing THANK YOU.
you vista nay sayers, if you set up vista right, its faster than xp, though with vista set for fast speeds, xp does more.

they compare vista with bloat to windows 7 which is mostly vista without all the bloat. and vista takes a few seconds longer with bloat to boot than 7 without... something is wrong there.

but personally, all that i want is xp with new features.
i don't want a ui change, you nailed it
i don't want you to move around setting that were the same way, that we all got to know sense windows 95, and move them not because you came up with a better way, but because you want to move them.
 

Kamab

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2010
381
0
18,810
I don't want backwards compatibility. I want a system built on a rock solid foundation with no black-boxed codes/wrappers around outdated legacy code. Let Windows 8 start fresh.
 

drumsrule786

Distinguished
Jul 30, 2011
49
0
18,530
I really hope that tile thing is an option/really easy to get rid of. It looks pretty stupid and useless for a desktop or even laptop.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]f***ing THANK YOU.you vista nay sayers, if you set up vista right, its faster than xp, though with vista set for fast speeds, xp does more. they compare vista with bloat to windows 7 which is mostly vista without all the bloat. and vista takes a few seconds longer with bloat to boot than 7 without... something is wrong there.but personally, all that i want is xp with new features.i don't want a ui change, you nailed iti don't want you to move around setting that were the same way, that we all got to know sense windows 95, and move them not because you came up with a better way, but because you want to move them.[/citation]

Well, that's what it is. Human brains haven't evolved in the last 15 years, and it shouldn't take the retards at Microsoft attempt after attempt to figure out where things go.

You should be able to set up tests, see how people react and where people expect it, and create a good model the first time. Not keeping screwing it up time after time and decide there's yet another place for it to go. What's that mean when you move it to another spot? It means you screwed up where it was every other release, for all the years since Windows was made. So, it's flagrant incompetence.

By the year 2000, they should have long ago known where things are intuitive, and not had to change it each release. They do this to fool the idiots of the world who see things moved and figure it must be an improvement. If it looked the same, even if it worked better, Microsoft probably figures people wouldn't think it was different, so they couldn't sell it as easily. So they screw things up so it looks different, even though it admits blind incompetence that they couldn't get it right for 30 years, just so people buy into it being new, different and improved.

That type of change no one needs. A less bloated, less slow, less buggy OS is what people want and need. But, Microsoft doesn't care about that, it just needs to look different so it looks new.

Little wonder they fail at virtually everything they don't have a monopoly in. Even in their former monopolies, they are losing market share. OpenOffice is gaining, Apple is gaining, and IE isn't even a monopoly anymore its lost so much market share. It's only a matter of time before it ceases to even be the market leader. Let's hope the same can be said of Windows one day, but that day isn't any time soon.
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
2,492
0
19,960
Most business's I've been to thus far are just now starting to make the switch from XP to 7. Hell, the server farm I was at was still running some 2k machines.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is!"
 

alikum

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2008
674
0
19,010
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Well, that's what it is. Human brains haven't evolved in the last 15 years, and it shouldn't take the retards at Microsoft attempt after attempt to figure out where things go. You should be able to set up tests, see how people react and where people expect it, and create a good model the first time. Not keeping screwing it up time after time and decide there's yet another place for it to go. What's that mean when you move it to another spot? It means you screwed up where it was every other release, for all the years since Windows was made. So, it's flagrant incompetence. By the year 2000, they should have long ago known where things are intuitive, and not had to change it each release. They do this to fool the idiots of the world who see things moved and figure it must be an improvement. If it looked the same, even if it worked better, Microsoft probably figures people wouldn't think it was different, so they couldn't sell it as easily. So they screw things up so it looks different, even though it admits blind incompetence that they couldn't get it right for 30 years, just so people buy into it being new, different and improved. That type of change no one needs. A less bloated, less slow, less buggy OS is what people want and need. But, Microsoft doesn't care about that, it just needs to look different so it looks new. Little wonder they fail at virtually everything they don't have a monopoly in. Even in their former monopolies, they are losing market share. OpenOffice is gaining, Apple is gaining, and IE isn't even a monopoly anymore its lost so much market share. It's only a matter of time before it ceases to even be the market leader. Let's hope the same can be said of Windows one day, but that day isn't any time soon.[/citation]
This is exactly the problem with people. People are reluctant to change (it's a linear correlation to age) and accept something new. Sure, Windows XP can probably do many things that Windows 7 can. If we're all so reluctant to change, might as well stay at Windows 3.1 and be done with.

However, do you realize that we're moving towards the era of augmented reality (perhaps not in your lifetime, not even mine I guess)? As hardware advances, so should software and as technology progresses, so should human's mindset and the ability to accept.

Talk about 6 - 7 years back, when smartphones first came out, stylus was the bridge between phone and human interaction. Now, it's no longer necessary. The same goes for PC. Gradually, they will do away with your keyboard and mouse. There will always be a group who stay and whine about it, but accept it, this is technology and we have to deal with it.
 

Darkerson

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2009
706
0
18,990
The only thing I dont like about Windows 8 is the fact that it will be out only 3 years after Windows 7, if they stick to their planned schedule. I know you dont HAVE to get it, but its kind of tacky in my opinion. I think a 5 year schedule for OS releases is a little more reasonable. But meh, its just my opinion. Other then that, I am looking forward to some of the things they have planned.
 

Fokissed

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2010
392
0
18,810
[citation][nom]kilo_17[/nom]This is an "important element" for the "business customers"....it seems like a good chunk of businesses still run Windows XP.[/citation]
A think a good chunk of businesses still run Windows 3.1, but I could be wrong.
 

DroKing

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2010
412
0
18,790
Honestly I will never change from window xp till the day they make it easy for me to run old games on windows 7 then i just might get a 7... but if its still retarded with old games then forget it ill just stick with my XP
 

Darkerson

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2009
706
0
18,990
[citation][nom]droking[/nom]Honestly I will never change from window xp till the day they make it easy for me to run old games on windows 7 then i just might get a 7... but if its still retarded with old games then forget it ill just stick with my XP[/citation]

Depending on how old your games are, DOSBox is great for the older classics. Fake86 is something I also came across and it looks promising as well, although its not as polished as DOSBox.
 

The Greater Good

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2010
342
0
18,810
[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]I don't want backwards compatibility. I want a system built on a rock solid foundation with no black-boxed codes/wrappers around outdated legacy code. Let Windows 8 start fresh.[/citation]

What do you think Vista was? Nevermind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.