Windows 8 and 8.1 Forums


Who’s Going to Stop Windows 7? Not Windows 8.1, ...

  1. #11


    USA, Idaho
    Posts : 1,062
    Win 8, (VM win7, XP, Vista)


    . . .and Billy Gates made how much more last year. . .no say it isn't true. . .15.8 billion dollars (U.S.) more than the year before. . .no way. . .MS is falling Windows 8 is a total failure. . .how can he have done that. . .omg. . .

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  2. #12


    Covington, La
    Posts : 1,184
    Windows 7 HP 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center 64BIT


    Quote Originally Posted by SIW2 View Post
    They drop off Mainstream Support on 1/13/2015 and are not eligible for Extended Support that runs to 1/14/2020.



    Non-security related hotfix support
    During the product support Extended Support phase, Non-security related hotfix support requires the purchase of a separate Extended Hotfix Support Agreement
    That applies only to non security support.They are eligible for extended support ( just not the non security bits ).
    They get ONLY security updates and that is all. No other updates and no telephone support.

    Jim
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  3. #13


    Posts : 53
    Windows 7/8


    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    . . .and Billy Gates made how much more last year. . .no say it isn't true. . .15.8 billion dollars (U.S.) more than the year before. . .no way. . .MS is falling Windows 8 is a total failure. . .how can he have done that. . .omg. . .
    Bill Gates owns much more than Microsoft. Not to mention investment returns in business he partially owns, including Apple. Finally, a huge amount of his wealth is in, and or going to, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So hopefully he will keep rolling in the money because that foundation does a lot of good around the globe.

    That said, I think it also shows at least part of the reason the company as slid downhill since he left the helm.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  4. #14


    Posts : 5,707
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    I think we already know by now that the de facto standard of Windows in the enterprise space is 7 and will be 7 until the year at least 2020. And, I think we already know why that is: vista was a code flop and wasn't able to be used on Xp era PCs. The other wasthat Xp and 7's release date difference were eight years apart. That's a REAL long time to stay on one OS for sure.

    Chances are however, maybe in five years 7 will be replaced by whatever version is out. The Win32 coding environment is just inherently flawed security wise while WinRT is rather solid as of now, although WinRT needs further expanding on. Just one of several reasons why any company should move from Xp to 7 is obviously UTTERLY better security. In the future, Windows 7 won't cut it for security and with the way Windows is being released/updated every year or so now, third party developers might be less inclined to support elder systems.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  5. #15


    Posts : 53
    Windows 7/8


    Coke Robot, you make some good points. One thing to consider though is the new development environment for true Modern Apps. Many large Corporations have hundreds, or in the case of the global company I am with, thousands, of vertical application. Many of those are internal and cost millions to re-code, test, train, deploy.

    This is not a Microsoft bash, but honestly, if it will require a wholesale recoding away from Win32, many companies may consider alternatives such simply running VM servers with Windows 7, or possibly another desktop platform if the dollars are right. I think we'll continue to see support for Win32 for many years to come. As an example, Oracle has pushed for years to get the developers to move to java; however, they still fully support and develop PL/SQL because most of us have millions of lines of code in it, and frankly why kill the golden goose.

    The real world always takes time to catch up with what is being developed or deployed. When I left Microsoft in 1995 I saw code we beta tested and used internally still coming out post 2000. Then add on the lag adoption and it was probably another 5 years beyond that before it saturated the market.

    I totally agree we'll see Windows move towards the modern API, but it's likely going to be at a slower rate than us geeks think.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  6. #16


    Posts : 87
    Windows 7 Pro 64


    I think it is pretty obvious that businesses (and most private users) implement every other OS. Who still remembers Vista (which came before W7)? Exactly....

    It also seems for every other OS MS implements something new that takes an entire OS generation to get right. Vista had all new kernel and other revolutionary things, but before W7 they didn't really get the resource hunger under control and people didn't want it.
    With W8 they introduced a really new GUI and it probably will take them to the release of W9 to get that right.

    It is like with all new technolgies, you have to wait for at least the 2nd generation to get a mature product. Like the first hybrid drivetrain was pathertic comapred to todays, the first EV were pathertic compared to a Leaf. the first smartphone (Blackberry) now look like bricks.

    Unfortuantely IT departments don't want that "1st generation" technology. And how would an IT department implement W8? Would they use W 8.0, 8.1, or 8.2? all of which seem to be different beyond just service packs.

    Edit: Whoever switched to W7 when it came out made the best investment. One time implementation cost, and 10 years service life. Businesses that switch today to W7 still have the same implementation cost, but only have 6 years of useful life left.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  7. #17


    Posts : 835
    Win 8.1 Pro


    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    I think it is pretty obvious that businesses (and most private users) implement every other OS. Who still remembers Vista (which came before W7)? Exactly....

    It also seems for every other OS MS implements something new that takes an entire OS generation to get right. Vista had all new kernel and other revolutionary things, but before W7 they didn't really get the resource hunger under control and people didn't want it.
    With W8 they introduced a really new GUI and it probably will take them to the release of W9 to get that right.
    That is not entirely true. and every time a see a post like this, it needs to be addressed.

    "The following list describes the recommended minimum hardware requirements for basic functionality of the different editions of Windows Vista. Actual hardware requirements will vary"

    The third parties and OEM's sold PC's with the "recommended minimum hardware requirements for basic functionality".

    At the time, I was working for a small PC shop. We did not sell them with the bare minimum, and when people asked why, we told them why. They bought our PC's and were quite happy with Vista.

    Go back to XP days and you will find the same thing happened, yes, actually, completely identical.

    Most everyone was running 32G of Ram for Win98 and when they dropped XP in, it acted the exact same way
    and when they added more ram (typically 64M to 128M) they were much happier.
    In the end, by SP2 everyone knew that XP ran phenomenal on 512M of Ram and that is what most people upgraded too. Since then, RAM has only been an issue for gamers, Video/Audio rendering, and Virtual Machines. However, at least 1.5G to 2G of ram is recommended to Run XP extremely well for everything else today.

    In fact, Win7 and Vista run pretty well on 2G, but 4G's is what I recommend.

    These are all indisputable facts.

    Vista was a perfectly fine OS with some small flaws, but it was NOT entirely MS's blame
    99% of that blame lay at the OEM's, 3rd party developers of software and drivers that drug their feet to get things working in Vista due to many changes that occurred in Vista from XP. They were all perfectly aware of these changes well in advance, and they ignored them, completely.

    WinME was a completely different story and that OS was a complete joke, and abandoned as quickly.
    But Vista was NOT ME.

    As for Win8, the OS works perfectly fine, the GUI is different, but not hard.
    There are some small annoyances, but the system is in no way unusable.

    As for how long 7 will be around, no body knows that, it could be 2 years or 50.

    Now, IF MS can pull off the Modern App with full cross platform capabilities, of Laptop/Desktop to Tablet to Phone?
    AND, Developers actually create stable working apps that are good enough?
    Trust me when I say, all bets are off.

    I already know many who are getting Surface Pro's over iPads due to the ability to install whatever they want and have access to Remote Desktop stuff for work.

    The message is getting out what a Surface Pro is capable of over the competition.
    And if they don't take head, they will suffer.

    Edit: Yes, many iPad owners looking at the iPad Air and then seeing the Surface Pro and getting the Pro, and being happy with the choice they made.

    So, while a lot of you are sitting here in LALA Land thinking you know so much, there are things going on without your assistance and people are happy.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  8. #18


    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post

    Chances are however, maybe in five years 7 will be replaced by whatever version is out. The Win32 coding environment is just inherently flawed security wise while WinRT is rather solid as of now, although WinRT needs further expanding on. Just one of several reasons why any company should move from Xp to 7 is obviously UTTERLY better security. In the future, Windows 7 won't cut it for security and with the way Windows is being released/updated every year or so now, third party developers might be less inclined to support elder systems.
    Nah, there is nothing "wrong" with win32 "security." Indeed, because of Microsoft's efforts, Win7/8 are the most "secure" mass-market OSes it's possible to buy. Your assessment of WinRT is way off, sorry to say: the only "security advantage" RT has at the moment is that almost no one is running it and therefore almost no one is actively trying to hack it...;) I mean, why should they? What's in it it for the RT hacker?

    OS X is much the same. Apple continuously rolls out security patches in every OS update the company releases, exactly after Microsoft's example, but so many fewer people and companies use OS X than use Windows that it scarcely generates the same degree of publicity and interest that Microsoft's monthly updates generate.

    The huge, practically insurmountable advantage Microsoft has presently with Windows is that it dwarfs the third-party hardware and software support of every other OS shipping on the planet; every Linux distro, every Apple OS that ever shipped, OS/2 (r.i.p.), Solaris, etc, ad infinitum. That's what makes Windows so much more compelling a choice by such a wide majority of customers, in case you were wondering. But it's those very same advantages that also incite the interest of the great majority of hackers, who don't waste their time hacking OS X when hacking Windows automatically provides them with 20x the potential target base--and WinRT is such small potatoes that it doesn't even register on the hacker's "wanna'be" scale...;)

    So far, at least in my opinion, Microsoft is equal to the task. If you keep your Windows 7/8 box patched up to date (once a month), and you run Microsoft Security Essentials in 7 (a more robust version of MSE is built into Win8), you should never be troubled by "security" woes. I know that's been true for me for years--can't remember the last "nasty" that got me, it's been so long ago.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  9. #19


    Posts : 87
    Windows 7 Pro 64


    Tepid: i agree much of Vista problems were OEM drivers and people that upgraded old hardware. but I muyself built an all new PC when Vista SP1 already was out. I had core2duo (OC to 3.5 GHz), 7200 rpm WD Black Caviar HDD and 4 GB of 1066 RAM, so way above the min. requirements. I also had a fairly modern gigabye baord, so all drivers should have been OK. But whenever i did something requiring memory (i. e virsuscan) the PC was really slow. It was slow even compared to my then 3 year old 2 GB laptop with XP.
    I then desperately upgraded to 8 GB, which helped a bit. And no, I'm not just to stupid to set it up right. I did a great deal of research on Vista forums to figure out how to make Vista run faster.

    But when W7 came out I installed the (not even completed) beta version on my 2 GB laptop and it ran circles around my high-powered 64-bit Vista desktop. That latpop with 2 GB and slow HDD started up in less than 1/3 the time my desktop with 8GB and Black Caviars! That latpop was not supported by Dell for Vista or W7, but i had no problems to get the beta W7 version to run properly. So yes vista sucked big time...

    I'm not even sure if I made it to SP2, but as soon as W7 was officially released I bought W7 and banned Vista from my desktop. My desktop felt 10 times faster and when I did the same memory heavy things (i.e. virsusscan) I could fully use the PC.

    I dont even want to know how Vista behaved on a 2 GB desktop as you suggest should suffice.

    I assume a desktop with 16 GB RAM, SSD and quadcore CPU can make Vista useful, but that was not a reasonable hardware requirement at the time Vista was released.

    Whether you are right about vista, or if I'm right is moot since the vast majority of IT departments and users agrees with me based on Vista market share then and now. I'm not even sure if Vista ever got more than 10% marketshare while competing with an almost 10 year old XP. The only reasons i had chosen Vista is because I wanted 64 bit and thought with all new hardware it should not be a problem. In hindsight I should have just kept XP untill W7 came out.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  10. #20


    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    I think it is pretty obvious that businesses (and most private users) implement every other OS. Who still remembers Vista (which came before W7)? Exactly....
    Actually I recall Vista as a great OS--on my desktop, that is. I had no trouble with drivers or with Vista, even when I made the jump from Vista 32 to Vista 64-bits many years ago. Where Vista had its severe teething problems was in OEM laptops (Dell, HP, etc.) which hadn't done their driver-model homework for Vista and were trying to run it on their systems with much older drivers. The hardware driver model changed with Vista (to a more secure model) but the OEMs were dog-slow in getting their custom drivers done--most of them tried unsuccessfully to run XP and XP-64 drivers in Vista and Vista 64, respectively. Didn't work. Was entirely the fault of the notebook OEMs as Microsoft had supplied them with the foundational driver model tools and base a *full year* before Vista shipped.

    At home I have the luxury of hand-picking my own hardware components for my desktop and the folks who manufactured my desktop components had their Vista drivers ready to go at the proper time. Made all the difference.

    It also seems for every other OS MS implements something new that takes an entire OS generation to get right. Vista had all new kernel and other revolutionary things, but before W7 they didn't really get the resource hunger under control and people didn't want it.
    With W8 they introduced a really new GUI and it probably will take them to the release of W9 to get that right.

    It is like with all new technolgies, you have to wait for at least the 2nd generation to get a mature product. Like the first hybrid drivetrain was pathertic comapred to todays, the first EV were pathertic compared to a Leaf. the first smartphone (Blackberry) now look like bricks.
    Actually, the GUI in Win 8 was nothing like a paradigm shift in GUI's--it was, regrettably, simply a misapplication of a touch-screen UI. Metro or Modern or whatever you want to call it, was always just a *touch screen* GUI. It should have been reserved for touch-screen devices exclusively, because all Microsoft wound up with was a situation in which the company was trying to force a touch-screen specific UI on people who don't own or want touchscreens and prefer to use a keyboard and mouse and sitting in a comfy chair in front of a large, easy-to-read monitor.

    So what has been happening with 8's GUI since 8.1 is that Microsoft is having to reinvent the wheel and bring Win8 full circle to what it should have been in the first place--a desktop-friendly GUI which also offers a touchscreen GUI to those people with touchscreens who might want it. So in the case of the Win8 "Metro" GUI we aren't really dealing with a "new" concept in GUIs--just, as I say, a touchscreen UI that Microsoft erroneously tried to force on its user base whether those customers had touchscreens or not. It's not surprising, therefore, that the people responsible for this mistake have already left Microsoft and are in the process of leaving Microsoft even as we speak...;)

    If with 8.2, let's say, Microsoft can fix the Win8 GUI so that it's attractive and useful for desktop users again, as was Win7, then business might be picking up Win8 far more rapidly than has been the case so far. Microsoft surely doesn't need to remove "Modern" or whatever it is--the company simply needs to make the touchscreen UI an *option* at installation that is left up to the installing customer.

    Edit: Whoever switched to W7 when it came out made the best investment. One time implementation cost, and 10 years service life. Businesses that switch today to W7 still have the same implementation cost, but only have 6 years of useful life left.
    Microsoft OSes have always been terrific investments for business and consumers alike because of the support Microsoft has consistently provided it's OSes after shipment--support that is *free* after the fact of the sale. Microsoft puts every other software company to shame in that regard...;) That's also very much a reason for Windows' success.

    I've been using Win8x64 (now 8.1x64) since January '13, and underneath the superficial touchscreen UI it's a leaner, meaner Windows 7--in fact, using Win7x64 these days seems downright klutzy to me--sluggish on the same hardware, actually. Win 8 has several nice features Win7 lacks, as well, after you get past the "Modern" GUI. I don't use the touchscreen UI in 8.1 because I don't have a touchscreen device and don't need it. There's a world of improvement Microsoft can bring to the desktop GUI environment yet--the book has certainly not already been written on that score, don't you believe it...;)
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Who’s Going to Stop Windows 7? Not Windows 8.1, ...
Related Threads
Hey there ive never really had to use forums but this problem is very puzzling so Any help is appreciated So what happens is you have the charger plugged in and was indicating it is charging and you start up the machine, it would come up automatic repair for about 10 seconds then shutdown and...
Just noticed that the maps and reader apps launch themselves when I start my computer and run as background processes in task manager. There are no apps or any programs for that matter enabled in startup and I have not opened these apps so can anyone give me an idea how to prevent them from...
Windows 8 stop responding in General Support
My laptop windows suddenly stop responding .. the mouse is moving but cant open anything even the task manager or Start menu! have to shut down from the power button! Can anybody help ?
Hello, so I got another Windows 8 device, but I want the devices to have different themes. They are under the same email which is why Windows keeps changing the themes for both devices to the same theme when I change it manually on one of them. How do I stop this from occurring? Thanks for the...
I have a program I need to run over night, however it pauses when windows 8 logs out. I have my screen saver disabled, all of my power settings are set to off. I have no idea how to stop this from happening and it is really frustrating!
I have 8 GB machine, 64 bit Windows 8 pro. Windows 8 instantly uses up 45% after cold boot. There are some startup I know, but when added together there's no way they're taking up that so much space in RAM.
Stop Windows 8 pausing apps in Performance & Maintenance
Hi, Windows 8 seems to have a feature where it pauses apps when you are not using them. How do I disable this feature? I have a new computer with Windows 8. I want to play music from Youtube using IE10 or Google search in the background whist using the desktop. However when I switch from the...
Eight Forums Android App Eight Forums IOS App Follow us on Facebook