Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 8 Will Run Windows 7 Software Just Fine

Last response: in News comments
Share
August 1, 2011 2:35:22 AM

I'm already tired of eternal upgrading. I'm going try to jump over Windows 8.
Score
-4
August 1, 2011 2:35:55 AM

Malware authors will be relieved.
Score
21
August 1, 2011 2:43:02 AM

If the only change in Windows 8 is the tile interface and the API additions to support it, this should be a $29 or less update, much like Snow Leopard was.
Score
23
August 1, 2011 2:44:00 AM

marracoI'm already tired of eternal upgrading. I'm going try to jump over Windows 8.


No one is forcing you to get it.

I wonder if they will make any solution to run x86 programs on ARM systems. But I think it'd probably be too difficult.
Score
6
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
August 1, 2011 3:05:01 AM

Windows 8 = Microsoft Tile 1.0? lolx..
Score
-10
August 1, 2011 3:20:26 AM

TA152HYes, but you'd miss the whole point of every Microsoft OS since Windows 2000. It's to make them money, and not to help you or anyone else. $29 for an upgrade wouldn't feed their coffers, so they'll release an annoying new interface, add yet another operating system that needs to be supported by people in IT that does nothing different, and create a yet slower release (it's laughable that people think Windows 7 isn't the slowest OS yet, even though every test proves it's even slower than Vista). Microsoft creates so many headaches with their constant, useless, changes. Move this here, make this thing round instead of square, etc... just so it looks like an upgrade, instead of making the damn thing faster, less buggy, and less bloated without changing where everything is. No wonder Apple keeps gaining market share. Even against a monopoly. This despite obscenely overpriced hardware, and an autocratic, heavy-handed, and borderline abusive corporate policy.What a choice. In hardware we get excellence from Intel, and AMD. In software, we got a choice between Apple and Microsoft. Both suck. Is it too late to bring OS/2 back? It's 16 years since they did an update, and the interface is still more powerful than Windows.


Troll much?
Score
15
August 1, 2011 3:20:45 AM

This is an "important element" for the "business customers"....it seems like a good chunk of businesses still run Windows XP.
Score
13
August 1, 2011 3:22:25 AM

I doubt I'll have this on any of my desktops or laptops in the near future (and perhaps never if they end up releasing Windows 9 only a couple years later). However, I am keenly interested in this operating system for HTPC purposes.

Assuming the tile interface is remote/Kinect friendly, I can see this as being ideal in a couch and television setting. I'll be able to run any software I want, but might not necessarily have to grab a mouse and keyboard each time.
Score
2
August 1, 2011 3:36:43 AM

Lets hope Windows 8 isn't the new Windows Vista in terms of poor functionality.
Score
13
August 1, 2011 3:38:20 AM

Im not really interested in it, Win7 exceeds my needs at the moment and its really easy to work with. And its pretty obvious that Win8 is just a testing out something new and since because Win7 is so solid they dont need to fear losing customers.
Score
10
August 1, 2011 3:46:38 AM

TA152HYes, but you'd miss the whole point of every Microsoft OS since Windows 2000. It's to make them money, and not to help you or anyone else. $29 for an upgrade wouldn't feed their coffers, so they'll release an annoying new interface, add yet another operating system that needs to be supported by people in IT that does nothing different, and create a yet slower release (it's laughable that people think Windows 7 isn't the slowest OS yet, even though every test proves it's even slower than Vista). Microsoft creates so many headaches with their constant, useless, changes. Move this here, make this thing round instead of square, etc... just so it looks like an upgrade, instead of making the damn thing faster, less buggy, and less bloated without changing where everything is. No wonder Apple keeps gaining market share. Even against a monopoly. This despite obscenely overpriced hardware, and an autocratic, heavy-handed, and borderline abusive corporate policy.What a choice. In hardware we get excellence from Intel, and AMD. In software, we got a choice between Apple and Microsoft. Both suck. Is it too late to bring OS/2 back? It's 16 years since they did an update, and the interface is still more powerful than Windows.


f***ing THANK YOU.
you vista nay sayers, if you set up vista right, its faster than xp, though with vista set for fast speeds, xp does more.

they compare vista with bloat to windows 7 which is mostly vista without all the bloat. and vista takes a few seconds longer with bloat to boot than 7 without... something is wrong there.

but personally, all that i want is xp with new features.
i don't want a ui change, you nailed it
i don't want you to move around setting that were the same way, that we all got to know sense windows 95, and move them not because you came up with a better way, but because you want to move them.
Score
-13
August 1, 2011 3:50:39 AM

I don't want backwards compatibility. I want a system built on a rock solid foundation with no black-boxed codes/wrappers around outdated legacy code. Let Windows 8 start fresh.
Score
8
August 1, 2011 3:56:43 AM

I really hope that tile thing is an option/really easy to get rid of. It looks pretty stupid and useless for a desktop or even laptop.
Score
8
August 1, 2011 4:03:45 AM

alidanf***ing THANK YOU.you vista nay sayers, if you set up vista right, its faster than xp, though with vista set for fast speeds, xp does more. they compare vista with bloat to windows 7 which is mostly vista without all the bloat. and vista takes a few seconds longer with bloat to boot than 7 without... something is wrong there.but personally, all that i want is xp with new features.i don't want a ui change, you nailed iti don't want you to move around setting that were the same way, that we all got to know sense windows 95, and move them not because you came up with a better way, but because you want to move them.


Well, that's what it is. Human brains haven't evolved in the last 15 years, and it shouldn't take the retards at Microsoft attempt after attempt to figure out where things go.

You should be able to set up tests, see how people react and where people expect it, and create a good model the first time. Not keeping screwing it up time after time and decide there's yet another place for it to go. What's that mean when you move it to another spot? It means you screwed up where it was every other release, for all the years since Windows was made. So, it's flagrant incompetence.

By the year 2000, they should have long ago known where things are intuitive, and not had to change it each release. They do this to fool the idiots of the world who see things moved and figure it must be an improvement. If it looked the same, even if it worked better, Microsoft probably figures people wouldn't think it was different, so they couldn't sell it as easily. So they screw things up so it looks different, even though it admits blind incompetence that they couldn't get it right for 30 years, just so people buy into it being new, different and improved.

That type of change no one needs. A less bloated, less slow, less buggy OS is what people want and need. But, Microsoft doesn't care about that, it just needs to look different so it looks new.

Little wonder they fail at virtually everything they don't have a monopoly in. Even in their former monopolies, they are losing market share. OpenOffice is gaining, Apple is gaining, and IE isn't even a monopoly anymore its lost so much market share. It's only a matter of time before it ceases to even be the market leader. Let's hope the same can be said of Windows one day, but that day isn't any time soon.
Score
-19
August 1, 2011 4:10:46 AM

As long as I can still play Simcity 4 :D 
Score
0
a b $ Windows 7
August 1, 2011 4:13:38 AM

Most business's I've been to thus far are just now starting to make the switch from XP to 7. Hell, the server farm I was at was still running some 2k machines.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is!"
Score
5
August 1, 2011 4:15:49 AM

TA152HWell, that's what it is. Human brains haven't evolved in the last 15 years, and it shouldn't take the retards at Microsoft attempt after attempt to figure out where things go. You should be able to set up tests, see how people react and where people expect it, and create a good model the first time. Not keeping screwing it up time after time and decide there's yet another place for it to go. What's that mean when you move it to another spot? It means you screwed up where it was every other release, for all the years since Windows was made. So, it's flagrant incompetence. By the year 2000, they should have long ago known where things are intuitive, and not had to change it each release. They do this to fool the idiots of the world who see things moved and figure it must be an improvement. If it looked the same, even if it worked better, Microsoft probably figures people wouldn't think it was different, so they couldn't sell it as easily. So they screw things up so it looks different, even though it admits blind incompetence that they couldn't get it right for 30 years, just so people buy into it being new, different and improved. That type of change no one needs. A less bloated, less slow, less buggy OS is what people want and need. But, Microsoft doesn't care about that, it just needs to look different so it looks new. Little wonder they fail at virtually everything they don't have a monopoly in. Even in their former monopolies, they are losing market share. OpenOffice is gaining, Apple is gaining, and IE isn't even a monopoly anymore its lost so much market share. It's only a matter of time before it ceases to even be the market leader. Let's hope the same can be said of Windows one day, but that day isn't any time soon.

This is exactly the problem with people. People are reluctant to change (it's a linear correlation to age) and accept something new. Sure, Windows XP can probably do many things that Windows 7 can. If we're all so reluctant to change, might as well stay at Windows 3.1 and be done with.

However, do you realize that we're moving towards the era of augmented reality (perhaps not in your lifetime, not even mine I guess)? As hardware advances, so should software and as technology progresses, so should human's mindset and the ability to accept.

Talk about 6 - 7 years back, when smartphones first came out, stylus was the bridge between phone and human interaction. Now, it's no longer necessary. The same goes for PC. Gradually, they will do away with your keyboard and mouse. There will always be a group who stay and whine about it, but accept it, this is technology and we have to deal with it.
Score
-4
August 1, 2011 4:32:45 AM

The only thing I dont like about Windows 8 is the fact that it will be out only 3 years after Windows 7, if they stick to their planned schedule. I know you dont HAVE to get it, but its kind of tacky in my opinion. I think a 5 year schedule for OS releases is a little more reasonable. But meh, its just my opinion. Other then that, I am looking forward to some of the things they have planned.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 4:39:40 AM

kilo_17This is an "important element" for the "business customers"....it seems like a good chunk of businesses still run Windows XP.

A think a good chunk of businesses still run Windows 3.1, but I could be wrong.
Score
-11
August 1, 2011 4:44:21 AM

Honestly I will never change from window xp till the day they make it easy for me to run old games on windows 7 then i just might get a 7... but if its still retarded with old games then forget it ill just stick with my XP
Score
-10
August 1, 2011 4:55:24 AM

drokingHonestly I will never change from window xp till the day they make it easy for me to run old games on windows 7 then i just might get a 7... but if its still retarded with old games then forget it ill just stick with my XP


Depending on how old your games are, DOSBox is great for the older classics. Fake86 is something I also came across and it looks promising as well, although its not as polished as DOSBox.
Score
5
August 1, 2011 5:01:52 AM

They should have this anyway; it should not be news...
Score
6
August 1, 2011 5:07:47 AM

What about the ARM version?
Score
2
August 1, 2011 6:08:38 AM

KamabI don't want backwards compatibility. I want a system built on a rock solid foundation with no black-boxed codes/wrappers around outdated legacy code. Let Windows 8 start fresh.


What do you think Vista was? Nevermind.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 6:17:32 AM

I agree about the stability aspect of things.

If there is anything that I wish MS could improve even more it would be the windows updating system. It still causes problems, even on stock OEM PCs with no added software or hardware .

They have to get WU right, also it would be best if they would give a few more catagorical classes of updates that can be selected with the click of a box . for example security updates, drivers, windows usability critical, windows usability optional. Instead of the cryptic explanations they give for many updates now. I see WU as the weakest link in any Windows version to date.

I like Windows XP and 7. Thankfully I have enough education on them to know which updates to apply most of the time, many other users do not.
Score
1
August 1, 2011 6:19:48 AM

I guess you could argue that Win OS forces the user to become more educated which can be a good thing, but not if a bit of ignorance can disable your OS.

Score
2
August 1, 2011 6:30:07 AM

This is good news to me because some developers are too lazy to upload windows 7 driver so I can't even use my saitek controller right now. Can't afford a new one atm because of college too sigh :( 
Score
4
August 1, 2011 6:44:54 AM

marracoI'm already tired of eternal upgrading. I'm going try to jump over Windows 8.

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!
Score
1
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
August 1, 2011 6:45:11 AM

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.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 7:11:03 AM

Well why shouldn't it?! Stupid headline.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 7:12:50 AM

Quote:
I can't wait until Google goes for the kill and released their own operating system!


Lol, I'll just ignore it like the rest of Google's crapware (Picasa, Chrome, etc.) Besides, Google already released their own "OS" and it's cloud computing BS.

See? It's all about preferences. What's good for you might not be good for others. Windows is easily tweakable, fast, flexible and supports all hardware. If Win8 will give me any advantages over Win7, I'll get it. If not, might as well stay on Win7, just like I kept XP on my old laptop 'cause Win7 wasn't going to change anything there besides the interface.

All of you stuck on XP... I'd upgrade for the sake of the looks, if your screen is bigger than 15''. XP looks like old junk on bigger screens ;) 

Quote:
Well why shouldn't it?! Stupid headline.


+1, and I can answer that: because people were brainwashed that Vista and 7 can't run old programs. It's BS, I ran some Win95 games on Vista, works flawlessly. The only 2 compatibility problems I ever had were Diablo 2 refusing to run on Vista and Skype 3.8 refusing to run on Win7 x64. I believe that both could be fixed easily, don't know if the former is fixed now, but the latter will most likely never be, 'cause Skype wants people to use the newer client versions (which are horrible compared to 3.8, but what to do...).

Quote:
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.


+1

@MacFanboys who say that Win8 is just an "update" and should cost as much as the new OS Lion ($29): it is not an update, MS doesn't charge for service packs, unlike Apple. It's a new OS that will - allegedly - get rid of a lot of legacy code, add new GUI (though I'll just reset it to default Win7 look... HATE stupid app ribbon copied from Mac OS - as if that thing is better than Start Menu!) and will be able to run on ARM as well as on x86. While I'd also like it to be free or cheap, I also understand that MS would like to make some profit with it. And before you say another word, you MacFanboys might think that you're better off with paying less for new OS, but your purses are being raped when you get a new Mac, so don't even start convincing us that MS is ripping us off, 'cause we don't care.

With that said, I would like to avoid further Apple discussion in this thread. That's exactly how they became so popular: 90% of the news somehow lead to people debating over Apple, and it's pretty useless.
Score
1
August 1, 2011 7:14:02 AM

Google doesn't seem intent on releasing a desktop-Android, just a inter-netbook Chrome version. Mozilla is said to be developing an OS.


Microsoft needs to slow itself down with the crappy OS factory pushout. 95, 98, 2000, ME, 2003, XP, Vista, 7.... that's a lot of operating systems to push out... Take out 95 and 98 you've got 6 Operating systems in a 9 year span. People don't feel like dishing out money for an operating system every 18 months.
Score
1
August 1, 2011 7:21:51 AM

Quote:

Microsoft needs to slow itself down with the crappy OS factory pushout. 95, 98, 2000, ME, 2003, XP, Vista, 7.... that's a lot of operating systems to push out... Take out 95 and 98 you've got 6 Operating systems in a 9 year span. People don't feel like dishing out money for an operating system every 18 months.


If you're silly enough to go and buy every new software that comes out, then MS certainly earned the right to take your money. Besides, 98, XP, Vista and 7 were great, no matter what people say. 98 ran all the games great, XP was like fresh air after horrible 2000 and still kicks ass unless you're a DX11 gamer with more than 4GB RAM, Vista was some skilled trolling from MS and a beta version of Win7, and 7 is the best OS I've had in years.

Before accusing Windows of being "crappy", got any alternative? Please, DO share with us! Requirements: supports all hardware, easy to install, easy to tweak, easy to pirate, widespread enough to have a lot of software for it, supports gaming, intuitive GUI. None found? Thought so.
Score
5
August 1, 2011 7:36:54 AM

All I want is an Operating System that just has enough resources for gaming... Probably will never get that.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 7:49:58 AM

TA152HYes, but you'd miss the whole point of every Microsoft OS since Windows 2000. It's to make them money, and not to help you or anyone else. $29 for an upgrade wouldn't feed their coffers, so they'll release an annoying new interface, add yet another operating system that needs to be supported by people in IT that does nothing different, and create a yet slower release (it's laughable that people think Windows 7 isn't the slowest OS yet, even though every test proves it's even slower than Vista).

Really?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/benchmarks-windows-7-rtm-versus-vista-xp/22006
Score
5
August 1, 2011 7:51:58 AM

KamabI don't want backwards compatibility. I want a system built on a rock solid foundation with no black-boxed codes/wrappers around outdated legacy code. Let Windows 8 start fresh.

Unfortunately there's you, and then there's millions and millions of businesses, each of which has hundreds, or thousands, of machines.

There are also millions and millions of ordinary consumers who have spent hundreds, or thousands, of dollars on software or games and don't fancy getting hosed having to buy it all over again.

So is Microsoft going to look after one geeky nerd or the core market?

Stupid question really.
Score
3
a b $ Windows 7
August 1, 2011 8:02:13 AM

I'm still loyal to Win7 64 pro, stable to overclock
Score
3
August 1, 2011 9:00:19 AM

TA152HWell, that's what it is. Human brains haven't evolved in the last 15 years, and it shouldn't take the retards at Microsoft attempt after attempt to figure out where things go. You should be able to set up tests, see how people react and where people expect it, and create a good model the first time. Not keeping screwing it up time after time and decide there's yet another place for it to go. What's that mean when you move it to another spot? It means you screwed up where it was every other release, for all the years since Windows was made. So, it's flagrant incompetence. By the year 2000, they should have long ago known where things are intuitive, and not had to change it each release. They do this to fool the idiots of the world who see things moved and figure it must be an improvement. If it looked the same, even if it worked better, Microsoft probably figures people wouldn't think it was different, so they couldn't sell it as easily. So they screw things up so it looks different, even though it admits blind incompetence that they couldn't get it right for 30 years, just so people buy into it being new, different and improved. That type of change no one needs. A less bloated, less slow, less buggy OS is what people want and need. But, Microsoft doesn't care about that, it just needs to look different so it looks new. Little wonder they fail at virtually everything they don't have a monopoly in. Even in their former monopolies, they are losing market share. OpenOffice is gaining, Apple is gaining, and IE isn't even a monopoly anymore its lost so much market share. It's only a matter of time before it ceases to even be the market leader. Let's hope the same can be said of Windows one day, but that day isn't any time soon.


THANK YOU TOO

i hate how everything had to change, for no real reason.

i believe that the base os should be a foundation that everything is built on, and than launch programs from there.

i dont want everything to start up on start up to congest my system so much that i cant load fast, launch thing one at a time unless i spessify other wise.

allow me to have the "theme" on any os you made, it cant be that hard to do.

and seriously. im running xp, i have 2 windows 7 machines, and i face palm HARD every time i use one, usually saying F***ING 7 at the same time. because i used a 95 machine, i had a 98, i used a me i played with a 2000 and bought a xp. everyone of those had changes, but didn't massively change anything because nothing needed to be changed, we got use to how things ran, where things were and so forth. than vista comes out, never used it once, and bloats like a motherf***er, i had friends who had 4gb or ram, and vista used 4 gb or ram from the start, i don't know about you, but i love having headroom.

my little brother has 4gb or ram, and is on 7, and i cant fightre out whats useing all the ram, because visat ate it, i dont know if 7 is doing the same thing.

and seriously. i boot up 7, and i hate the ui, i hate the theme, and i hate every "feature" of the os more than i hate having to deal with a friends computer that has a root kit.

and because they are both faimaly computers, i cant go into the os and tweak it, you know, see if i can get the damn thing to function the way i want it to. and i refuse to buy it unless i know i can get that functionality back. hell i only upgraded from firefox 3.5 to nightly because something was broken in 3.5 that made it un usable.

and seriously, if i have to learn a new os, from scratch, id rather go Linux, i may never be able to game, but i can at the very least know that any ui will never change in a way to make me have to re learn the os.
Score
-7
August 1, 2011 9:08:22 AM

alidanblah blah blah

If you don't like it, don't use it.
There is a free copy of Linux just waiting for you to download, actually there's hundreds of the blighters and they are all different to, or you could go Apple, or Chrome.
No one will miss you when you go, just don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 9:31:41 AM

otacon72Last time I checked a company was in business to make money. Apple is more of a monopoly than MS. You're a freakin idiot.


You should look up what "monopoly" means.
You have plenty of choice if you want to buy a laptop, desktop, workstation, smartphone, mp3 player or tablet. (perhaps with the exception of the tablet market, but this is going to change soon)

If you want to buy a desktop OS, you don't have a choice. The only alternative to Windows is Linux.
An average consumer, who doesn't know how to install an operating system or what a driver is, can't even get his hands on Linux because all the computers he can buy have MS Windows preinstalled.

Microsoft is a textbook example of a monopolist.
Score
-1
August 1, 2011 10:02:10 AM

back_by_demandIf you don't like it, don't use it.There is a free copy of Linux just waiting for you to download, actually there's hundreds of the blighters and they are all different to, or you could go Apple, or Chrome.No one will miss you when you go, just don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


you know how you get change for the better

YOU SPEAK OUT AND SAY WHAT YOU DONT LIKE

shutting up and saying quiet changes NOTHING.
Score
-3
August 1, 2011 10:07:41 AM

alidanyou know how you get change for the betterYOU SPEAK OUT AND SAY WHAT YOU DONT LIKEshutting up and saying quiet changes NOTHING.

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.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 11:01:17 AM

Quote:
and seriously, if i have to learn a new os, from scratch, id rather go Linux, i may never be able to game, but i can at the very least know that any ui will never change in a way to make me have to re learn the os.


Win7/Vista didn't require anyone to learn it "from scratch". It's way too close to XP; the only thing that change is the control panel layout and that's nothing... msconfig remained, taskmgr remained and got better, drivers install faster (and usually they're already present in the OS) and the OS took me only 20 minutes tweaking to get it to work how I like it. Half of the time was spent on choosing the background and the theme, and the rest to disable firewall, Defender and UAC.

Linux, on the other hand, just gave us a nasty surprise with glitchy Unity GUI, so don't get your hopes up.

It's so nice to see you all people whining about how bad Windows is... you ever stop and think what would the world without Windows be like? Want to spend hours in a command line trying to fix a messed up routing table or a stubborn driver (Linux) or browsing Apple App Store for more nonsense software (Mac OS) and worshipping Steve Jobs instead of just doing whatever the hell you need to do on the PC (Windows)? Go right ahead!

Most of the people who threaten everyone to shift to Linux don't know half the trouble it gives. I use it at work, since it's great for networking, some business software and the other crap our clients demand, but it will NEVER make its way onto my home rig's HDD. Seriously, Linux should have never considered getting a GUI... at least without it, it feels like I'm actually doing work and not struggling with a powerful desire to type in "sudo rm -rf" and be done with the garbage.
Score
1
August 1, 2011 11:19:00 AM

amk-aka-phantomWin7/Vista didn't require anyone to learn it "from scratch".

While I do agree that "from scratch" might be an exaggeration, superficial changes can throw people off, especially when they are good at using the software because of ingrained habits and not an understanding of it. Look at Office 2003 and Office 2007; they do pretty much the same stuff yet the UI design changes killed productivity for many people. "That menu" was no longer in the same place.

amk-aka-phantomLinux, on the other hand, just gave us a nasty surprise with glitchy Unity GUI, so don't get your hopes up.

Canonical gave us that, Linux didn't. Ubuntu might be the poster boy for desktop Linux but it isn't the be all and end all of Linux.

amk-aka-phantomIt's so nice to see you all people whining about how bad Windows is... you ever stop and think what would the world without Windows be like? Want to spend hours in a command line trying to fix a messed up routing table or a stubborn driver (Linux)...?

None of this would necessarily be the case without Windows. These issues are largely the case because of Windows and its dominant market position. Linux wouldn't have driver troubles without Windows unless its market share was the same.

I don't know how a lack of Windows would change OSX and Apple, but they wouldn't necessarily need to cater to the hip crowd as much.
Score
1
August 1, 2011 11:26:28 AM

Quote:
Really?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/benc [...] a-xp/22006


I love Win7, but don't think its faster than XP... that's just ludicrous. The benchmarks in the ZDNet link used 64-bit XP, which has SERIOUS problems. It was never meant for prime-time, and should not be used for benchmarking against any other Windows OS.

The 32-bit XP kicks butt in the speed department... although it's hopelessly outdated.

Don't get it twisted.
Score
-1
August 1, 2011 11:34:54 AM

Good because I'm not pay M$ for it, Winblows 7 is staying on my gaming rig until it dies.
Score
0
August 1, 2011 11:36:41 AM

KamabI don't want backwards compatibility. I want a system built on a rock solid foundation with no black-boxed codes/wrappers around outdated legacy code. Let Windows 8 start fresh.

It's already out and free and it's called Linux.
Score
1
August 1, 2011 11:58:15 AM

Of course there's always those that miss out an OS or two before upgrading, there are some that went from XP to 7 and missed out on Vista.

So it is unfair on the non-incremental upgraders to deny them a chance to miss 7 and go straight from XP or Vista to Windows 8.

Also the fact that not a single person knows exactly what additional features 8 will have over 7 means all the haters haven't got a clue what they are ranting about.

I personally will be eager to see if they include native Bluray playback so we don't have to fuss with PowerDVD, native DVD was a breath of fresh air when using as a HTPC.
Score
1
August 1, 2011 12:39:53 PM

I am no Microsoft fan… but if they promise so much backwards compatibility and someone thinks there isnt enough new features, why would they consider upgrading? Its obvious Ms isnt gonna force anyones hand. Some products just arent targeted to everyone. At least it looks with 8 you'll have a choice.

And to the guy whining about Unity- dude thats one single distro. Go download Mint if you dont like it.
Score
1
!