FitzChivalry Farseer
Active member
I mean if the person has no experience in installing anything and I couldve installed win8 but they ddnt want it. Is that im getting a twinge of conscious and I dont want to be taking advantage of people.
Is 40 bucks too much for Win7 installation
- Thread starter FitzChivalry Farseer
- Start date
Supreme x Uchiha
Active member
dominicansharingan
Active member
Hell YEAH PHUCK THAT!!!
That better bring a free Avast Anti-virus + a free NETGEAR router if you gona pay 40 for that shisshhh
That better bring a free Avast Anti-virus + a free NETGEAR router if you gona pay 40 for that shisshhh
dominicansharingan
Active member
Cursed Prince
Active member
FitzChivalry Farseer
Active member
FitzChivalry Farseer
Active member
the big boss
Active member
Awards
I'd actually go so far as to say Windows 7 is better than XP. I know I'm spouting Heresy, there - but Windows 7 is really a damned stable and good operating system.
And Windows 95 is infinitely better than Window_ 8. At least you could be productive with Windows 95. The worst thing about 95 was the lack of hardware and driver standards that really demanded you know a bit about the under-the-hood portions of the OS.
the big boss
Active member
Awards
xp is video game legend
7 was better than vista by a lot
8 is still newlike 3ds, 95 is like a nes
That's... not an accurate comparison at all.
The problem isn't that 8 is "new" - the problem is that it doesn't ****ing work.
[video=youtube;WTYet-qf1jo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTYet-qf1jo[/video]
It's cute for phones and tablets (though, really, the metro interface is garbage... it takes far too much conscious thought to recognize what it is you're looking for, because it's an ocean of scrolling text and banners). It's unworkable for PCs. The file 'structure' is this new ambiguous nonsense popular on mobile devices... but programs save files in convoluted locations that are difficult and even impossible to manage (a lot of 'apps' don't really have the option of configuring where they save shit to).
No one I know in tech fields likes it. They have all developed their own ways to revert to the Windows 7 UI... which there are still a lot of elements of in Windows 8... why? Because the people who developed Windows 8 couldn't use it as 'high command' wanted it to be marketed - so they made it so that it did work (and so that they could get stuff done with it) then deleted a few references to it here-and-there for the version that shipped (because the people forcing the issue wanted it to ship that way).
The new Server licensing model for Windows says it all. Windows Server 8 doesn't work. People don't want it. However - it's all you can buy, and you license it based on the number of CPUs you are using (a new direction for them). You can -downgrade- (for free) to functional Server environments after you have contracted into the new license model.
That's the 'change of winds' in Microsoft's business philosophy. And I honestly don't see them being around much longer. Spare for Xbox - which will probably be sheared off into its own company before too much longer.
Anyway - the reason 7 is better than XP is because it does offer a lot more control over your computer than even XP did. You still have to know where to look - but you are given far more control and overall system security is far better. Further - the way the Windows 7 kernel operates makes the whole system very resistant to 'crashes.' In my time running it, it's been exceptionally rare to run into an instance where a program causes the operating system to freeze/crash. About the worst that happens is you have to Ctrl+Alt+Delete and end a crashed process - but you don't have to power off your system.
Which was not at all uncommon with XP.
XP, during its day, actually ran very heavy on memory usage - remember, it debuted on PCs with 64 meg of RAM. The thing was criticized of being a resource hog for some time. 7 years later, when Vista came out on PCs with a minimum of 1 gig of Ram, people accused it of being a resource hog (it was, actually, rather resource intensive). Seven came out, later, and it turned out to have improved memory usage a bunch (though, honestly, support for 32 bit processors should have been discontinued in Seven).
There again - I looked at the issue as relatively moot. 1G of Ram is about as big as you are going to be able to make 32bit games go. Some of the newest games using Large Address Aware modes can hit 4 gigs (as limited by their executable)... but you don't have that kind of RAM available for Large Address Aware programs unless you're running a 64bit OS...
Which is really just me being confused as to why any developer is still making 32bit executables. There's simply no excuse for it, these days.
Which is really just me wondering when the 32gig of RAM I have is going to start being used to any degree.
Anyway - there's more to operating systems than games and gaming parallels. Seven is really the best thing they've put out. XP is just one of the first stellar operating systems they hit on for home PCs - it was the 32 bit operating system. Windows 98 came with 32 bit capability... but was not really built to take advantage of the hardware conventions that were beginning to be established (USB, AGP, Direct X, etc).
XP was built around the NT kernel that brought a lot of network and server administrative controls to the personal computer and allowed far better security on the computer. It also introduced a much better system for installing and managing drivers. Not to mention that it was one of the best supported microsoft products to date with service packs expanding the OS well beyond what it was originally designed to do.
