Windows 8 Will Run Windows 7 Software Just Fine

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite a few people have been saying that this is useless news etc. However, those people have all clearly missed who this message is intended for.

This isn't about games working etc... The Microsoft source clearly talks about "business" customers; you'll find that for business customers retaining compatibility with legacy applications is a very important purchasing decision. This, for example, is why IE6 survived as long as it did for business suers as many legacy business applications were built on this platform.

Even if the rest of us take for granted that a new version of Windows will retain backwards compatibility, it's still a message that Microsoft need to reinforce to their business customer base to increase confidence for adoption across the SME and Corporate/Enterprise sectors.

Otherwise, no-one would be interested in making the plunge no matter how good the UI or efficiency enhancements are, or how cheap it is.

Oh, and I'm sure it will still run Crysis.
 
[citation][nom]Prescott_666[/nom]My mother's computer is still on XP, and she isn't particularly interested in changing anything. My sister and I have decided to leave her on XP as long as Microsoft continues to issue security updates for it, and then we will decide what to do.[/citation]
Get Windows SteadyState, lock down her XP comp and let her keep that OS, no updates doesn't mean it will get hacked instantly. If you lock it down to the point that only certain things can be done it should be fine, I have a comp setup like that for my niece and nephew, they can use the net but nothing can be downloaded without my permission and only certain programs will run, it works nicely.
 
This is where MS lost me!
They make Win8 smaller in size than win 7, which is good.
But they expect many businesses to switch over, while they did not give Windows XP compatibility!
Most XP programs run on Windows 7, but can that be said about Win 8 too?

Many businesses spent millions in licenses on programs that run on windows 9x and xp; and that have been made to work on Windows 7. But I think it's much more important that XP/9x compatibility is guaranteed!
Meaning games and programs that run on win 9x and XP are perfect for mobile devices, and so is Win 8!
Businesses will only take a step if they are assured that their business programs will work on these newer operating systems.
 
@everyone:

Probably your best choice to run older games is get an atom platform. The hardware is fully xp compatible, and they're cheap!
Plus, most games running on Win9x and before have more than enough cpu power with an atom cpu!

Newer games that run on DX9 or later you'll most likely be able to run on any modern pc in win 7 or 8.
 
[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]windows 8 will flop, be a total failure....it's M$'s destiny. They should just skip it and work on win 9. Here's the proof:win 3.11 - Awesomewin 95 - FLOPwin 98 - Awesomewin ME - FLOPwin XP - Awesomewin Vista - FLOPwin 7 - Awesomewin 8 - going to be a FLOP[/citation]
The thing is:
Win 3.0: flop,
win 3.1: good,
win 3.11: famous
Win NT: Famous
Win 95: Flop
Win 98: good
Win 98se: Famous
Win me: Flop
Win 2000: Good
Win xp: Famous
Win Vista: Flop
Win 7: Good
Win 8: ???Famous???

The flops are usually the first ones of a new technology.
The good ones are the improvements on a new technology.
The famous ones are usually the last modifications (the perfections) of the OS for that time frame.

Since Win 8 is based on Win 7 which is based on Win vista, I can suppose Win 8 will be better than win 7.

In some cases Win 8 is a totally different approach, in the sense of the user interface. MS will probably have to swallow some user complaints about it!
But perhaps they listen to their users and make a second version of win8, that one should be famous!
Since MS spent tweaking the software codes based on an already well established code of 7, I think the underlying structures of Win 8 will be very good!

Just the drastic change in User Interface will have to change!
 
[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]Actually Snow Leopard was more like a Service Pack. Something that people get for free on Windows.[/citation]

The changes in Snow Leopard were primarily under the hood, agreed. But the changes were significant enough to justify a major version change. Grand Central Dispatch was introduced with Snow Leopard, and Finder and Quicktime were completely rewritten in Cocoa for 64bit. These are not service pack level changes, but because there are no major interface changes, it is true that Apple could not justify charging $100. My point is that Apple charged what it was worth, $29, and I challenge Microsoft to do the same with Windows 8.

Realize that Apple also releases service pack updates for free. Snow Leopard was released at 10.6, and after service pack updates is now at version 10.6.8.


[citation][nom]JamesSneed[/nom]That sounds good but you know Apple charges a good deal more up front since they control the hardware so they can charge less on OS upgrades. This is just as silly as saying Windows should be free because Linux is free.I hear you I wish Windows was cheaper but I don't think MS will have an issue selling Windows 8 so saying it should be $29 is a pipe dream.[/citation]


This isn't silly when you think about it. A lot of people are misunderstanding the point I am trying to make, which is that Microsoft should charge based on the value added over the prior version. The thing is, I am going to bet that Microsoft is probably going to charge at least $100 to upgrade to Windows 8 from 7, and I don't think that would be appropriate pricing.

In no way do I believe that Windows should be free. I do believe you should pay what it is worth. I paid $200 for Windows XP Professional Retail, and you know what, I got a lot of value for my money. I would gladly pay $200 again for it. When Apple released Snow Leopard, they recognized that the updates primarily changed things under the hood with no tangible UI changes that people could observe, so they priced it accordingly, $29. Is it silly to ask that companies price according to the value added?
 
In no way do I believe that Windows should be free. I do believe you should pay what it is worth. I paid $200 for Windows XP Professional Retail, and you know what, I got a lot of value for my money. I would gladly pay $200 again for it. When Apple released Snow Leopard, they recognized that the updates primarily changed things under the hood with no tangible UI changes that people could observe, so they priced it accordingly, $29. Is it silly to ask that companies price according to the value added?
Click to expand...

Not at all silly. And Win8 is gonna do a lot of new things, according to MS. Once it'll be released, we'll see whether it will be worth its money. If their claims (dumping legacy code, ARM support, etc.) are true, then it might be.
 
[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]Unlike some of the Window's ass kissers around here, I completely agree.This isn't even a new operating system, it's just an update to Windows 7 that Microsoft is charging for.I can't wait until Google goes for the kill and released their own operating system![/citation]

You have no idea how much this (Windows 8) diverges from Windows 7 and no one does at this point. SO you make a terrible point. Do you say the same thing when Apple launches a new version of iOS or OSX? Besides...GOogle already has released their own OS and it doesn't look as if it's getting much interest. You must like being targeted in ads for everything you do Google related. Why shouldn't they charge for a new OS...even if it's kernel is similar or not to previous releases. There can be significant changes to an OS outside of the kernel. What about Linux or the multiple variations of Android? Granted those don't require any fees to be paid to Google...but if they could they would.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]you know how you get change for the betterYOU SPEAK OUT AND SAY WHAT YOU DONT LIKEshutting up and saying quiet changes NOTHING.[/citation]

the moment games stop coming out for dx9 im switching completely to linux, ill probably have to make a full switch to it in 2013, already have a small under powered computer im using to get use to lunux and test potential builds to switch to.
 
it quited the wrong person

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]But in this instance, moaning about an OS changes nothing, if you want to see actual change you have to back up your moaning with action and actually use Linux, or Apple, or Chrome.If enough people follow your lead then you will see change but having a rant about it but continuing to use Windows just makes you look impotent.[/citation]

was suppose to be that.
 
the moment games stop coming out for dx9 im switching completely to linux, ill probably have to make a full switch to it in 2013, already have a small under powered computer im using to get use to lunux and test potential builds to switch to.
Click to expand...

Lol, good luck. Make sure to get one of these rubber PC banhammers that they use for stress relief. With Linux, you'll need it.
 
[citation][nom]lumpaywk[/nom]I really dont get some comments here. Why the hell do people moan when MS bring out new products like you want to be stuck in the past. With that sort of mentality we may as well still live in caves. MS isnt forcing you to upgrade if you like being in the past stay there I for one though love this new lease of life MS is trying to put into its portfolio. Tiles are the best thing to happen to computing winse the gui.[/citation]

Windows 7 was released less than two years ago. So because I want to stick with my still fairly-new OS, I'm "stuck in the past"? You know, there's a difference between being stuck in the past, and not wanting to pay for a whole new OS every three years.
 


No, you're right. It's the XP people that're stuck in the past. I'm a Windows 7 user, myself, and I feel upset that MS has to release a new OS already. Personally, I won't buy it (doesn't mean I won't try it...) unless it has more advantages than running on ARM and getting rid of legacy code. Win8 is meant more for people who're on an OS older than 7, if you ask me.
 
You are forced to buy an OS when they stop supporting the old one, so it's kind of forced.
Click to expand...

Depends. If it's the drivers, then yes (though, why not stay on old hardware, then?). If it's the [airquotes]security updates[/airquotes], I couldn't care less, they're made for the same people that use Windows Defender/Firewall and UAC.
 
[citation][nom]ProDigit10[/nom]This is where MS lost me!They make Win8 smaller in size than win 7, which is good.But they expect many businesses to switch over, while they did not give Windows XP compatibility!Most XP programs run on Windows 7, but can that be said about Win 8 too?Many businesses spent millions in licenses on programs that run on windows 9x and xp; and that have been made to work on Windows 7. But I think it's much more important that XP/9x compatibility is guaranteed!Meaning games and programs that run on win 9x and XP are perfect for mobile devices, and so is Win 8! Businesses will only take a step if they are assured that their business programs will work on these newer operating systems.[/citation]

Now THAT is being stuck in the past. I'm sorry, but I just do not like the argument that, because businesses at one point paid a lot of money for their software, that every subsequently-released OS should be designed and engineered around supporting said software. At some point, businesses are going to have to make the switch. It's a harsh reality for those people who have to pay for, become familiar with, and maintain new software, but at some point it's necessary to start fresh. And if I'm not mistaken, a lot of security vulnerabilities are due to legacy code and endless backwards compatibility in "new" software.
 
[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]I can't wait until Google goes for the kill and released their own operating system![/citation]
The did, its called Chrome OS and it totally sucks!!
 
You are a fool lumpaywk. The item people moan about is referred to as money, cash, dollars. People don't love forking over 50-200 dollars every few years for something that should probably just be service packs. Do you know why corporations like microsoft have and make so much money? Do you even know what profit margin means?
Where have I heard that software developed for the previous version of windows will work on the new...
 
[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]windows 8 will flop, be a total failure....it's M$'s destiny. They should just skip it and work on win 9. Here's the proof:win 3.11 - Awesomewin 95 - FLOPwin 98 - Awesomewin ME - FLOPwin XP - Awesomewin Vista - FLOPwin 7 - Awesomewin 8 - going to be a FLOP[/citation]
You missed out Windows 200 and NT, I guess they would have messed up your flawed logical sequence, let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom