... right now there isn't enough difference. I'm running dual boot Win 7 and Win 8, I have no real energy to use Win 8 until drivers/software/hardware move more towards this operating system. This will happen eventually (give it 12 to 18 months)

Yup I totally agree the best time to upgrade to a new OS is when you upgrade the hardware, in this case though X2 runs has to run on Win 7 or 8 hence the hand is forced for some users running earlier OS's

John


I hear you Dmbaer and its silly. That is true only if one is using apps and not normal windows programs and not entirely because you can have two apps up at the same time on one monitor. Did you know that Win 8 comes with IE for the desktop and IE as an app? 
 
 

Here's one of the articles that prompted my earlier response.  I read this guy regularly (he's the editor of SD Times, one of the best software dev. trade papers out there) and I trust his judgement.  But as I said, all my opinion is based on what others have opined.
 
http://www.sdtimes.com/ZEICHICK_S_TAKE_WITH_WINDOWS_8_ONE_SIZE_MUST_FIT_ALL/By_Alan_Zeichick/About_MICROSOFT_and_WINDOWS8/37118

Dmbaer I read the article and I did so because I respect you.

I don't get the same conclusion that you did. What I read was a fellow that was hung up on the start screen apps. He was never talking about Windows 8 classical desktop where you and I will be working 90 % of the time. 

I'm not crazy about the use of an entire monitor for one app but this is a trivial matter. Nor did he seem able to understand the power Windows 8 has in running normal programs. But that is exactly what he was doing on his laptop in various windows. 

In fact I'm not totally sure that he actually had a point except he didn't like full screen apps. 

Further as I stated you don't need to even see the start screen if you install Classic Shell. Heck I have to purposely go to the start screen by hitting the windows button on my keyboard. I never had much use for it before Windows 8. 

What I saw in his article was a quick response that is a reaction and not a thoughtful review about a new OS. I think when he has time to put Windows 8 through its paces he will change his view.

Think about this I am and so are many others running Sonar X2 on Windows 8 without a Windows 8 issue. All the programs I want to run, run. Not only that they run better.

 

Windows 8 probably has some technical advances over Windows 7, but clearly the design was not intended to make a better tool. It represents the next step in the next phase of personal computers.

 The first stage of personal computer development was an attempt to make a functioning device, primarily for hobbyists and dreamers, who were happy to tinker with it endlessly to get it to do anything at all. The next phase was built on the hope that it could be a flexible tool to replace typewriters, calculators etc. The next step was to make a smart enough machine to replace the drudgery of filing, collating, writing orders, etc. and replace the mindless clerical chores that humans had been doing since writing was invented. It could and did replace many clerks and secretaries who were now freed to look for work in the janitorial sector.  

The future according to Microsoft, and Intel ("sponsors of tomorrow") is not to replace the office machines of the past. The goal is to replace the television, which has for the past half century been the predominant method of distracting the human mind and connecting it via a constant stream of more or less entertaining drivel, to the mind-control/marketing hype machine that is at the heart of modern "civilization."  Your digital television is already a "computing device," it is only a matter of time before your computer becomes primarily an entertainment appliance. The classic windows desktop is a transitional holdover, but there is no indication that it will not be replaced by an app player.

You will, at some point have to find your place in this sweep of human development, if for no other reason than that your computer-tool will stop working as the sponsors of the future will eventually make it incompatible with the present. You may have a few more years before that happens, but happen it will. So "upgrade" you must, unless you want to write a zillion lines of code, and fab your own chips. May as well do it for cheap.

Nope the goal right now is to copy Apple

John

Further as I stated you don't need to even see the start screen if you install Classic Shell. Heck I have to purposely go to the start screen by hitting the windows button on my keyboard. I never had much use for it before Windows 8. 

You clearly have some hands-on experience with W8 that I do not, so I'll defer to that.
 
However, my other reason for stating business would not readily embrace W8 is practical experience.  I work for a Fortune 250 company.  Big companies need a really compelling reason to upgrade, as always.  Believe it or not, my office computer was an XP machine until about 3 months ago.  I'll be long retired before that company upgrades again (and it will probably be to the a successor of W8).  Plus we have history suggesting to us that every other release of Windows should be skipped.
 
So, in response to the OP's question, I still would assert W7 will be supported for a very long time.

I wonder what the millions of computers used by business and industry will do with a box that one can only watch TV and play games on.

The consumer market is a large one but its not so big that it controls in totality all of computing. Its extremely unlikely that computing as we know it will be displaced by some content only receiver. Its far more likely that content and production with be integrated and seamless. That consumers and industry will be able to use their computers in more creative ways. In ways we have yet to investigate.  

The idea behind Windows 8 is cross platform integration. We the uses don't need to concern ourselves with the underlying code just simply get the job done on any device we choose.

The notion that we will be limited is bogus in that its really just the opposite. We will have more choice in the future and be able to do our work anywhere and anytime.

We have always had glum and doom prognosticators. Those that will be the first to declare the world is coming to an in. We have lived past countless of these people and I wonder why they still capture our attention.

MS is not going to shoot itself in the foot and stop that which has made it a successful company.      

dmbaer

John

Further as I stated you don't need to even see the start screen if you install Classic Shell. Heck I have to purposely go to the start screen by hitting the windows button on my keyboard. I never had much use for it before Windows 8. 

You clearly have some hands-on experience with W8 that I do not, so I'll defer to that.
 
However, my other reason for stating business would not readily embrace W8 is practical experience.  I work for a Fortune 250 company.  Big companies need a really compelling reason to upgrade, as always.  Believe it or not, my office computer was an XP machine until about 3 months ago.  I'll be long retired before that company upgrades again (and it will probably be to the a successor of W8).  Plus we have history suggesting to us that every other release of Windows should be skipped.
 
So, in response to the OP's question, I still would assert W7 will be supported for a very long time.

I am of the mindset that business will do what business will do for their own reasons. I don't disagree with you on that point. But because we are in control of our own machines we can choose to update or even change the OS entirely. I don't have to ask anyones permission to upgrade. This offers us tremendous freedom. What is best for us is our own decision.

As to the notion that we can skip an OS here and there is one I did with Windows 7. I also say that a lot of us that had and still have Vista are very pleased with it. Its easy to make a remark that sounds clever but has no basis in fact or truth. Keep in mind that Vista and all the the OSs from MS since are of a type based on the foundation of Vista. It was a good idea then and its still a good now. Those that have not had a good experience with it really have no clue how really good it is. I did not skip Win 7 because I thought it was a bad OS but because I was very happy with Vista.  

People tout the greatness of Windows 7 and bash Vista without realizing that they are much the same thing. I've even heard some mistakenly say that Vista is just a bloated version of XP. Its statements like that that show a basic lack of knowledge about OSs. Yet these are people that others listen to and agree with, nodding agreement in a sea of total ignorance. How many people truly know anything about Windows at all outside of what others have told them? Being able to use it is not the same as understanding it. After all its meant to be very easy to use. 

Do we really expect the majority to have any clue about the things for example we have dealt with for many years just in being able to record audio or MIDI. How many even know what MIDI is? 

We as a small group in a tiny special niche of the vast computing public have had to educate ourselves on all sorts of things relating to computers that the average person never contemplates. 

What people forget is that Windows 7 and now Windows 8 could not have come to us without Vista coming first, anymore than XP coming to us without Windows NT. NT was a foundation that we are still are getting benefits from.

Before comments are made about an OS it would behoove those commenting to research the subject and getting a good opportunity to use said OS. Regurgitation of what some say without critical investigation may lead to erroneous conclusions. 

The case is clear that Windows 8 is a fine OS. It also seems odd that people feel its OK to offer comment on an OS and never used it. Strange indeed.







 

 

 

dmbaer

 
So, in response to the OP's question, I still would assert W7 will be supported for a very long time.
 

I would agree with this as it was a consumer led decision that made XP stay much longer than it's anticipated and advertised lifecycle end of life date.  People simply didn't like Vista so XP got a long stay of execution.
 
We can say what we like about the pros and cons of a particular OS and what benefits or otherwise it may or may not have but at the end of the day if people don't universally shift to the new paradigm there ain't nothin' MS can do about it, except by forcing people to become Apple users by prematurely removing support for 7.
 
Windows 7 users will likely resist a migration on the grounds that for desktop computing there's little to be gained from it.  Migrations cost businesses huge bucks.
 
So the MS actual dates can be viewed as minima rather than concrete end of support dates, I certainly don't forsee any of those dates being moved forward.
 
Since and likely because of Vista MS have provided downgrade licenses for professional versions and above of their OS software so it may be a good idea to check out your options when moving from XP as buying a W8 license may indeed qualify you to use 7 OR 8 anyway.  Check the options when you make the purchase.

While PC shopping for the wife, I stopped in our local PC store.  The tech informed me they are getting a "ton of people" bringing in their W8 machines and asking to instal W7 instead.  Apparently, people don't like the learning curve of W8.  Hopefully this means W7 will be around for some time, because I don't have time for anymore learning curves on software.

Our entire police department is run on Win XP.  Every year I ask our techs if they are going to upgrade, they say "if it aint broke..."

As far as installing W8 overtop of W7, I did this from Vista to W7 without any problems.  Microsoft has a little compatibility scan you can do.  In my case, it worked out perfect.