Windows 7 Support Ends January 2015

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,617
Okay maybe not FUBAR.

How about "cornholed". Or "involuntarily man-loved". Or "prison cum-dumpstered". Or "given the wang suppository".

Do these accurate descriptions meet more with your liking?

Nope, none of those fit either. More like, useful, easy to use, the same as always but improved, even more stable, faster, better. :) Hybrid OS seems to be beyond the understanding of most here but, I guess once Apple "invents" it, it will be magical and everyone will be asking why Microsoft did nothing about it. :rolleyes:
 

Ryokurin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
10,560
Windows 8. Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 Update 1. Windows 8.1 Update 2. Windows 9.

Microsoft has already said they are moving to faster releases. Sure, some are incremental updates, but that's the only "1 year release schedule" I could think of. It is the new way of doing things.

You are forced to go to 8.1, you can stay on 8 and get mainstream support till 2018. It's just 8.1 users that are forced to go to Update 1. Even if 9 is free as rumored, it's very unlikely that they'll kill mainstream support for 8/8.1 early. Microsoft has done similar before, Windows 95 and OSR2. Windows 98 and 98SE are good examples. No one is forcing anyone to always stay current.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,433
I hate Windows 8. Hopefully 9 will be better.
That reminds me of that one pic I've seen posted many times here that shows how every other OS MS made has been good, but the other every other ones have been bad. :D
 

SGA76

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
1,955
That reminds me of that one pic I've seen posted many times here that shows how every other OS MS made has been good, but the other every other ones have been bad. :D

Pretty sure they give us shit every other time to lower our expectations and be all the more willing to embrace the new post flop stuff.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,037
I'm all for the Modern UI in tablets and phones, but on the desktop (and Xbox One) it's just broken. Luckily we have folks who wanted easy money and created Start8, etc for cheap.

They are probably millionaires now.
 

ep0x73

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
2,574
What could they possible do to 7 now core wise? critical patches are good to 2020, that is all I worry about.

If 9 includes some type of better backward compatibility with XP, maybe a new type of VM so you can install all you old favorite games or programs it will be a serious home run.

I still have XP pro on an older machine working great........besides Java no longer supported [V8] nothing else has changed whatsoever.
 

Ryokurin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
10,560
http://www.zdnet.com/windows-thresh...-plan-to-win-over-windows-7-users-7000031070/

The Microsoft OS team is hoping to get as many Windows 7 users moved to Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and Windows 8 users to Windows 8.1 Update in preparation for (hopefully) getting them to move to Threshold once it is out. It's still early in the Windows development cycle for Microsoft to have decided on packaging, pricing and distribution, but my sources say, at this point, that Windows Threshold is looking like it could be free to all Windows 8.1 Update, and maybe even Windows 7 Service Pack 1, users.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Why not? Android is free. Chrome is free. If MS has faith in their digital services model, why do they need to charge for the OS?

I think, like now, there will be free and at cost versions of Windows. It would be difficult for Microsoft to monetize Windows with services in the enterprise and many desktop users don't like integrating services into the desktop as well. However on lower cost devices such as tablets where that kind of integration is expected and wanted, a free OS is more fiscally realistic.
 

nowwhatnapster

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
405
Lol that date is a joke. To this day I am still buying windows 7 boxes for clients. Granted they come with 8 licenses at no additional charge.

I don't see that changing soon. Still quite a few XP machines left to turn over.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,459
Why not? Android is free. Chrome is free. If MS has faith in their digital services model, why do they need to charge for the OS?

Those are both Linux-based operating systems.
This is Microsoft we're talking about, don't make us laugh.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,433
This is the pic I was looking for.

Windows-OS.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
917
/shrug,

Now that I've gotten used to Win8/8.1 I really would never go back.

The Win7 UI was kludged on top of Vista, which was kludged on top of XP, which was kludged on top of ME, which was kludged on top of 98, which was kludged on top of 95.

95 was the last "actual" attempt at a comprehensive redesign of Microsoft OS UI before Win8.

And you know what, good riddance. Seriously, once I got used to Win8/8.1 (and that took a bit, I'll admit, and was essentially done at gunpoint), it's actually pretty damn easy to use. Sure you have to relearn everything, but once you stop thinking "well, it worked like <this> in Win7" most of the features and functions work in a rather intuitive way.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
This is the pic I was looking for.

Windows-OS.jpg

Funny, but BS. 98 was definitely better than 95, but why wouldn't it be? It was basically the same OS with a few new features and a lot less bugs.

XP? XP wasn't great at launch. I distinctly remember it taking years before Game sites recommended it over Win 9x (because XP was slow on then current hardware). It definitely crashed and had tons of security issues.

Vista? Vista had shitty hardware support at launch and had some serious bugs that weren't fixed until that summer (via hotfixes) and if you didn't d/l those, then you had to wait for SP1.

By the time 7 came out, it was rock solid. I liked 7's UI a lot more, but I liked Vista's UI much more than XP. It was painful to use XP at work, but I was stuck with it.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,433
Funny, but BS. 98 was definitely better than 95, but why wouldn't it be? It was basically the same OS with a few new features and a lot less bugs.

XP? XP wasn't great at launch. I distinctly remember it taking years before Game sites recommended it over Win 9x (because XP was slow on then current hardware). It definitely crashed and had tons of security issues.

Vista? Vista had shitty hardware support at launch and had some serious bugs that weren't fixed until that summer (via hotfixes) and if you didn't d/l those, then you had to wait for SP1.

By the time 7 came out, it was rock solid. I liked 7's UI a lot more, but I liked Vista's UI much more than XP. It was painful to use XP at work, but I was stuck with it.
For me, I had good experience with 98, XP, and 7. 95 was growing pains, I never used Me, I hated Vista. And I've only barely used 8 (I got my parents a Surface last X-mas and I've used it a couple times since then).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
For me, I had good experience with 98, XP, and 7. 95 was growing pains, I never used Me, I hated Vista. And I've only barely used 8 (I got my parents a Surface last X-mas and I've used it a couple times since then).

Let's be clear, I used DOS more than 95, mostly because games didn't really support windows, but I liked 95 more than 3.1, which I only used if I absolutely had to.

I used ME, and had no more (or less) issues than 98. XP was an improvement, but people bitched about it all of the time. It really wasn't until SP1 (or was it SP2?) that XP took off.

Vista, for me, was fine after those hot fixes. Where it really sucked, initially, was 3rd party drivers. Creative dragged their feet on drivers throughout the beta. ATI and Nvidia were almost as bad and the gaming performance was piss poor at launch (despite the fact that little had changed since RC1 and RTM was at least 3 months prior to launch.

I had a license or 2 for Vista, but I didn't use it until, at least, 6-8 months after launch.

7 I started using not long after RTM, but I noticed no change in performance, but I definitely liked it more than Vista.

8 I haven't installed. mostly because I haven't built a new machine. I've got 2 licenses, so if they give 9 away for free, it's still a great investment (and at 20 bucks each, i'm not out much either way).
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,433
Let's be clear, I used DOS more than 95, mostly because games didn't really support windows, but I liked 95 more than 3.1, which I only used if I absolutely had to.

I used ME, and had no more (or less) issues than 98. XP was an improvement, but people bitched about it all of the time. It really wasn't until SP1 (or was it SP2?) that XP took off.

Vista, for me, was fine after those hot fixes. Where it really sucked, initially, was 3rd party drivers. Creative dragged their feet on drivers throughout the beta. ATI and Nvidia were almost as bad and the gaming performance was piss poor at launch (despite the fact that little had changed since RC1 and RTM was at least 3 months prior to launch.

I had a license or 2 for Vista, but I didn't use it until, at least, 6-8 months after launch.

7 I started using not long after RTM, but I noticed no change in performance, but I definitely liked it more than Vista.

8 I haven't installed. mostly because I haven't built a new machine. I've got 2 licenses, so if they give 9 away for free, it's still a great investment (and at 20 bucks each, i'm not out much either way).
Not to go too off topic since the thread is about 7 and we're also talking about other Windows OSs. But while the driver points are valid for when Vista came out, my HTPC was relatively unstable with Vista. I'd get random BSODs and my app would die too frequently. I update it to 7 when it came out (pretty much within the first couple weeks) and while I don't have any BSODs, they come much less frequently, like a few times per year instead of once a month. Ditto for my work laptop when I had XP (good), Vista (bad), and now 7 (good) in terms of reliability/BSODs.

Windows_OS_Bellcurve.png


Found the original (and more accurate).
I never saw that version. I noticed the version I posted (which is the version I most frequently see other post) glaringly misses Win 2k, which your version includes.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
Not to go too off topic since the thread is about 7 and we're also talking about other Windows OSs. But while the driver points are valid for when Vista came out, my HTPC was relatively unstable with Vista. I'd get random BSODs and my app would die too frequently. I update it to 7 when it came out (pretty much within the first couple weeks) and while I don't have any BSODs, they come much less frequently, like a few times per year instead of once a month. Ditto for my work laptop when I had XP (good), Vista (bad), and now 7 (good) in terms of reliability/BSODs.


I never saw that version. I noticed the version I posted (which is the version I most frequently see other post) glaringly misses Win 2k, which your version includes.

BSODs are typically driver issues and occasionally hardware related. I had BSOD (where B = black, as I recall) for some time with 7 (always in clusters) and then they just stopped (it was always related to the video card, but I never tracked it down).

IME, Vista was working quite well by 7 RTM. I didn't run an HTPC, so I can't speak to that. I definitely had more issues with XP than Vista (after hot fixes or SP1 if you waited).
 

zero2dash

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
6,081
What is up with all of the "Windows 7 ending support" crap all over the Internet lately. No one did this for XP in 2006 when it's main stream support ended.

Drumming up hype and FUD to get people to quit using 7, and what's funny is that all the hoopla and FUD about XP EOL has produced basically nothing since. No massive casualties, no nuke launches, no 4chan catastrophies, etc.

As far as I'm concerned they are pushing people to stop using Win 7 by breaking it. Recently went back to win 7 from 8.1 and the taskbar sits on top of everything like even fullscreen youtube movies and there's no way to fix it. Microsoft needs a good punch in the throat. Both win 7 AND 8 suck now.

Set the taskbar to automatically hide. Unless the application takes exclusive fullscreen the taskbar is always going to be available to poke.

Yes auto hide behavior has changed. I'm aware how the taskbar works. In 8.1 it hides properly on full screen on win 7 it doesn't. Try watching a YouTube video full screen on win 7. You have a line at the bottom of the screen. No big deal but it looks like shit when watching a movie. Try googling taskbar hide windows 7 you'll see I'm not the only person that's noticed this.

I don't have this problem, and my taskbar is not set to auto-hide either.
Just watched a clip full screen - nothing at the bottom but a sea of black nothingness.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,617
I have never seen that problem either. Also, Microsoft is not drumming up any FUD at all, only those who hate Microsoft but know better.
 

PimpUigi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
309
If 8 sucks, then 7 sucks just as much. They're the same damn OS but Windows 8 runs better on older hardware (ie: PC with less ram).

Once you install a start menu (like www.classicshell.net provides for free) then they're virtually the same, except Windows 8 has a better task manager.

I never saw that version. I noticed the version I posted (which is the version I most frequently see other post) glaringly misses Win 2k, which your version includes.

Yeah, that's the path most computer users took back then. Most didn't upgrade from 98 SE, and the ones who did went to 2K. Everyone knew ME was a pointless stop gap to hold you over until XP shipped. It came out at the same time as Windows 2000, so it was kind of obvious which to go for. Especially if you were in the work world, no one saw ME at work...
The only reason to put ME on there, is to claim a false pattern. That's also the only reason to say Windows 95 was bad. Windows 95 is what lit up the world of PCs for the home consumer. It invented the taskbar, the start menu, and My Computer interface.
 
Top