Windows 8

[Chimpy]

Chimpy, darn you for mentioning that. Straight to heck. Looking at a combo of Deep Freeze and WinSelect, but that's $70 to poorly replicate something we get free. If I had a windows server, I guess I could set up some GPOs, but with a lot on my plate, welp, there it is.

We are testing out Clean Slate right now. Deep Freeze costs 40 bucks a year per machine and while we have a considerably larger budget than you guys, we don't have 5k extra a year floating around. Another product called PC vaccine looked promising when I was doing research.

We use GPOs extensively but even using those and roaming profiles, you still don't get the protection from malicious things like having the disk restored to the previous state on reboot/logout. Microsofts answer to that is a laughable "you can restore from an image nightly!"

[Numtini]

Windows 7 is fine and I've used it since beta, but the only compelling reason I ever saw to upgrade was x64 support. I've never seen any advantage to it over XP. So far, everything I've heard about Windows 8 is a trainwreck. The compelling reason to have a desktop PC or laptop is that it's not a tablet or phone.

[Sky]

We are testing out Clean Slate right now. Deep Freeze costs 40 bucks a year per machine and while we have a considerably larger budget than you guys, we don't have 5k extra a year floating around. Another product called PC vaccine looked promising when I was doing research.

We use GPOs extensively but even using those and roaming profiles, you still don't get the protection from malicious things like having the disk restored to the previous state on reboot/logout. Microsofts answer to that is a laughable "you can restore from an image nightly!"

Our system level folks were using Clean Slate for a while, not sure why they switched. We were using the Gates stuff (all our PCs were Gates granted at the time) and I just followed that path through SteadyState. With the Macs, we went with MacShield, same folks who did the Gates PCs. Recently, they lagged way behind and didn't even have a 10.6-compat version, so that's why we're with Faronics now, when I went looking for a 10.6-compat, they already had a 10.7-compat. Just makes sense to stick with one company imo.

[ghost]

Well, if you follow the rule that every other Windows OS is a trainwreck, they're certainly due for one with Windows 8.

[MuffinMan]

It sounds like they are doing some strange Metro overlay with a legacy desktop underneath. Reminds me too much of early Windows running on top of MS-DOS.

[luckton]

It sounds like they are doing some strange Metro overlay with a legacy desktop underneath. Reminds me too much of early Windows running on top of MS-DOS.

And yet that's basically what it is.  It's MS's way of trying to bridge people over to the new UI, which will probably be in full effect come Windows 9.

Going back to my earlier post, the kind folks Reddit appeared to have made a picture out of my earlier timeline



 

[HaemishM]

God, ME was just such crack of the devil's ass bad. I still marvel that that OS made it to retail.

[MuffinMan]

I don't really remember 95 being shit, unpolished but not shit. Part of it might be that it was my first computer, rose tinted glasses and all that.

[ezrast]

I actually already install my stuff into a folder called "apps", partially because it's easy to write and spaces in folder names make me uneasy, and partially so I know that anything that shows up in "Program Files" is something I didn't ask for. I'm ahead of my time!

I liked the microsoft approach to having standard file/edit menus across their applications in the old days.  Now when people ask me to fix their pc's I spend longer looking for the menu or tool than I do fixing the problem, it's really annoying.  If there's no file or edit menu then I hate whoever is responsible, sorry but there it is.

This isn't purely down to me being an old git, there most be hundreds of thousands of people who's first impression of a new OS is, I want to fucking kill someone.  I liked the old file search, now there's a stupid simple search that you need to build a query into, add/remove programs is now programs and features, I detest that someone decided I should know that.

[Lantyssa]

Except 95 wasn't shit, and that list completely skips 2000, which was solid, and superior to XP until after SP1.  XP at release was not good.  Not shit, but not worth upgrading from 2000 for.

[luckton]

Except 95 wasn't shit, and that list completely skips 2000, which was solid, and superior to XP until after SP1.  XP at release was not good.  Not shit, but not worth upgrading from 2000 for.

2000, while awesome, was never considered an 'end-user/joe consumer' OS.  That gaming companies decided to throw in support for 2k was a blessing from the game devs, not a MS mandate.  I agree with what you're saying, but 2k isn't on the list because we weren't really supposed to have it 

[Arthur_Parker]

95 was alright, Vista is ok, slow to startup but with all the annoying shit turned off it's not much different to xp (but can support a lot more RAM).  I like 2000, 2003 & 2008 server editions too.

[Ironwood]

Vista is cancer.

[Arthur_Parker]

Well I paid for it, so I'm getting my money's worth, besides I'd have to shift about 10 vm's to a new OS and I can't be arsed just because it's slow to start.

[Ingmar]

I never had the problems with Vista that everyone else seems to have had, even at the office.

[Teleku]

Except 95 wasn't shit, and that list completely skips 2000, which was solid, and superior to XP until after SP1.  XP at release was not good.  Not shit, but not worth upgrading from 2000 for.

Going to have to violently disagree here.  95 ran like dog shit, was horribly unstable, and overall poorly designed.  98 leaps and bounds more stable and workable.  Windows 2000 pro was indeed good (but as mentioned, wasn't actually meant for the normal end user, though I ran it for years), but it was still blown away in every single way by XP, which was rock solid. 

Also had problems with, and hated vista.  Windows 7 is magnificent though, and crushes XP.  Seriously, the stability of 7 is amazing.  A fraction of the crashes and software/hardware issues I had running XP.

I've been noting the apparent "every other windows release is dogshit" trend for years now, and it doesn't seem to be abating.  I'm sure Windows 9 will be very nice.

[Kitsune]

Vista really wasn't that bad.  When it came out the hardware manufacturers had been a pile of lazy assholes and didn't have drivers ready, despite having at least a year's heads-up about the new driver architecture.  Then peoples' shiny new Vista machines couldn't work with anything and they blamed the OS instead of the people whose job it was to make drivers for it.  For most intents and purposes 7 is Vista, just with a better UI.  Nothing major under the hood changed.  I've set up some new Vista installations recently and everything went perfectly smoothly now that drivers are easily available.

[K9]

Windows 2000 was build off Win NT wasn't it?

[Jayce]

Going to have to violently disagree here.  95 ran like dog shit, was horribly unstable, and overall poorly designed. 

I think Windows 95 was the "can we even do this" version. It was the first use of Windows as an operating system as opposed to a cooperative multitasking  command interpreter replacement. So no wonder it was crap.

I also have to say I have never had any problems with Vista, but I did wait until after SP1 to get it and my hardware is so far from the bleeding edge that the blood has completely dried up and scabbed over by the time it gets to me.

[KallDrexx]

I really think they should have delayed a year or two and figured out a way to get existing windows apps working in Metro. Regardless if you like metro or not, you are forced to use it for your start menu and having to go back and forth is fucking jarring and makes everything seem disjointed.   There's just no cohesion in the whole user experience.

[Ingmar]

PRESS S FOR THIRD PARTY STORAGE DRIVERS

Fucking NT.

[Salamok]

Except 95 wasn't shit, and that list completely skips 2000, which was solid, and superior to XP until after SP1.  XP at release was not good.  Not shit, but not worth upgrading from 2000 for.

Going to have to violently disagree here.  95 ran like dog shit, was horribly unstable, and overall poorly designed. 

Compared to win 3.1, win 95 was an improvement.  You can't say that about ME and Vista.

[luckton]

Windows 2000 was build off Win NT wasn't it?

Yes, and XP was built off that.

I really think they should have delayed a year or two and figured out a way to get existing windows apps working in Metro. Regardless if you like metro or not, you are forced to use it for your start menu and having to go back and forth is fucking jarring and makes everything seem disjointed.   There's just no cohesion in the whole user experience.

If they don't put out something, all those corporates that bought the volume license with the adage that they'll get the next version at a discount if they paid a little extra now would be null and void, meaning there would be little to no incentive for those corporates to do the same thing again.  Besides, they gotta keep up the Jones now that it's not just Apple on the radar.

[Sky]

I skipped 3.1 and stayed on DOS through that period. I think I may have booted into 3.1 to play Civ 1 Win.

98 was decent, but 98SE was the thing until XP SP1. Prior to Windows 7, you were nuts to adopt a version of Windows before the 1st service pack, no matter how good it ended up being.

[Bunk]

I actually ran Win 2000 RC2 at home for about six months without any major blow-ups back in the day. I was a rebel.

[Thrawn]

I never had the problems with Vista that everyone else seems to have had, even at the office.

Ran Vista at home for a couple years and never had an issue related to the OS, so you're not alone.

[Lantyssa]

98 was decent, but 98SE was the thing until XP SP1. Prior to Windows 7, you were nuts to adopt a version of Windows before the 1st service pack, no matter how good it ended up being.

3.1 - 95 - 98 - 98SE keeps the chain then.

2k was a great OS, but then I came from NT which was a solid OS, but not so great for gaming.  XP I never adopted until SP2 or 3.  Win7 I didn't pick up until after SP1 either, but that was because XP was just awesome that late and I had no reason to switch.

Considering ME was some bastard child of 98 and 2k, and should be striken from the history books, I'll stick to liking 2k.  It may not have been meant for home use, but it was superior to anything prior to service packed XP.

Vista.  Gods.  Maybe people who knew how to use computers were fine with it, but give it to end users trying to run it on hardware that was iffy running XP and it was a nightmare.  I never met a Vista system I didn't want to throw out the window within ten two minutes.

[ghost]

ME and Vista are the really shitstains.  I have a suspicion that 8 is going to be the worst of the lot. 

[Kitsune]

Vista.  Gods.  Maybe people who knew how to use computers were fine with it, but give it to end users trying to run it on hardware that was iffy running XP and it was a nightmare.  I never met a Vista system I didn't want to throw out the window within ten two minutes.

Bolded for emphasis.  That was the other problem for Vista's release.  It and 7 both more or less require a multi-core processor and two gigs of ram, minimum.  Microsoft was retarded and put out claims that it only needed one gig.  That was a lie.  It can function on one gig, sure, but not worth a damn.  And then you had people trying to run it on even worse.  At the time Vista hit the shelves, you needed a relatively badass computer to handle it; anything mediocre and it would punish you.  Now even the low-end computers are powerful enough to run it easily.

[Ingmar]

I think their guidelines were with 1 GB you had to turn off Aero, and with that off those machines did tend to run it fine in my experience.

[MahrinSkel]

The difference between my laptop with 2 gig and my daughter's with 1 gig on Vista were literally night and day, in terms of performance (they otherwise had identical CPU's and graphics).  The problem with Vista was that 2+ gig was not standard when it came out, and they pushed hard with their licensing to make the vendors put Vista onto systems that really couldn't handle it.

--Dave

[Arthur_Parker]

Well the slow thing does annoy me and I haven't wiped this in over 2 years.  So I'm thinking of upgrading to Windows 7, one of my work laptops has it but I can't play about with that one.

Looking at prices it seems around £130 for 64 bit ultimate, which I'm finding difficult to justify to myself.

Found this site which apparently makes me eligible(being a parent) for Ultimate 64-bit Edition Upgrade (which I presume I'd be able to do a clean wipe install on) for £60, only the deal ends at the end of March and it seems way too good to be true.  But they've been linked to by MS, so now I'm confused.  Anyone know anything about this?

edit, spelling.

[luckton]

Cool thing about being employed by the Buy More a couple years ago was the learning curriculum they offered employees, both through Buy More and the vendors.  MS's training site ran a deal where if you did and passed through their brainwashing training modules and passed, they'd send you a copy of 7 Ultimate for free + shipping/handling 

[Engels]

Mildly back on topic, Ars has an article on how to use Win 8 with a mouse.

A few fab highlights:

The top right 'hot corner' brings up the 'charms'. The top left 'hot corner' brings up the application switcher.

To close an application, put the cursor at the top of the screen, at which point it may turn into a hand. It may not, depending on your definition of 'top'. Then drag the whole thing to the bottom of the screen to close it. If you drag it to the side, it 'snaps' it. Not sure what snapping is yet.

Windows + V = Toast Cycling. Ya, not sure either.

Finally, my favorite quote:

"Remembering that the charms exist is central to the Windows 8 experience."

[TripleDES]

Mouse handling of the UI is very likely going to change for the RC. WDP was a little easier to use, due to consolidation of the important things into the hot-zoned start button. None of that four corner shit. In this regard, it's a regression. But since everyone's going up the rails about the new ways, I'm sure they'll be changed.

Anyway, a lot of people are bitching because mostly their habits have been broken.