Vista vs Win 8

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:36:09 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:00:06 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 6/24/13 1:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

I don't agree at all. Things like "squared-off, not-shaded, etc" are
next to meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. But I mentioned Start8;
if those things are important to you, Start8 can put them back to
almost exactly the way they looked on Windows 7.

Operationally, you're correct, those visual features are next to
meaningless.


Glad we agree.


But, the question will always be, are they meaningless to the average
user? Do those features enhance the users enjoyment, and perception of
Windows?


I agree there too. Such things, as meaningless as they basically are,
are very important to lots of people. Unfortunately many people care
more about looks than functionality.

Sad, but true.


Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for your smug
superiority. The new UI is, for some people, simply less usable. If
it's not for you, that's fine.


I submit they do. The unknown question is, how many users will have a
positive reaction to the Win 8 minimalist (for lack of a better word)
looking visuals versus the previous visuals.

Just like any other consumer product, some people like the base model
(Win 8 visual) and some prefer something more "upscale" looking, like Win 7.


My point was that they can easily get what they want, by spending only
a very few dollars for Start8.



No they can't as far as I've been able to tell.


For tablets and smartphones, I think the minimalist view is correct,
that will keep performance higher. But I think MS should have provided
an optional Win 7 type view, out of the box and not 3rd party, for
desktop users who like to "dress it up" to make the system fit them
better, and to make them happier with the computer.


I'm with you here too. I think that what Microsoft did was a bad
mistake. I don't want to defend Microsoft, but I did want to point out
that it was very easy and very inexpensive to get around their
mistake.

On 6/26/2013 1:13 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:22:23 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:58:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:42:35 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:14:32 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Both Vista and Win7 are far nicer looking GUI's then Win8, which
has been turned back into a Windows 3.1 style GUI look to better allow
it to be viewed on a small tablet and reduce computing power needs.
All the visual refinements that had been made as windows matured from
3.1 to Win7 were dropped.



That is *not* correct. Let me point out something that you perhaps
don't realize: Windows 8 has two interfaces; the Modern/Metro
Interface (that's the default, and it may be all you've looked at) and
the traditional Desktop Interface.

That traditional Desktop Interface is almost identical to Windows 7's
interface; the biggest difference is that there is no Start Orb to
click to bring up the Start menu. But note that you can get the Start
Orb back by using one of several third-party programs, either free or
very inexpensive (Classic Shell at
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/ and Start8 at
http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/; my personal preference is
Start8, but they are both very good). And going from one interface to
the other is very easy; there are several ways, but simply pressing
the Windows key is perhaps the easiest.

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.


You are not talking about the same thing I am. I know all about going
back to the "desktop". When you do, the windows that Windows uses are
squared off, non-shaded, crap font, poorly proportioned abortions
compared to Win7, Vista, XP, 2000.


I don't agree at all. Things like "squared-off, not-shaded, etc" are
next to meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. But I mentioned Start8;
if those things are important to you, Start8 can put them back to
almost exactly the way they looked on Windows 7.

I had start 8 and never found that functionality in it. Nothing on
their webpage suggests it has such functionality.


Except for the first line, how does this not look like Win 7's start menu?

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/1443/20130626-7z2i-47kb


--

Roy Smith
Windows 8 64-Bit
Thunderbird 17.0.6
Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:30:36 PM

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:30:43 -0500, Roy Smith
wrote:

On 6/26/2013 1:13 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:22:23 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:58:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:42:35 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:14:32 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Both Vista and Win7 are far nicer looking GUI's then Win8, which
has been turned back into a Windows 3.1 style GUI look to better allow
it to be viewed on a small tablet and reduce computing power needs.
All the visual refinements that had been made as windows matured from
3.1 to Win7 were dropped.



That is *not* correct. Let me point out something that you perhaps
don't realize: Windows 8 has two interfaces; the Modern/Metro
Interface (that's the default, and it may be all you've looked at) and
the traditional Desktop Interface.

That traditional Desktop Interface is almost identical to Windows 7's
interface; the biggest difference is that there is no Start Orb to
click to bring up the Start menu. But note that you can get the Start
Orb back by using one of several third-party programs, either free or
very inexpensive (Classic Shell at
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/ and Start8 at
http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/; my personal preference is
Start8, but they are both very good). And going from one interface to
the other is very easy; there are several ways, but simply pressing
the Windows key is perhaps the easiest.

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.


You are not talking about the same thing I am. I know all about going
back to the "desktop". When you do, the windows that Windows uses are
squared off, non-shaded, crap font, poorly proportioned abortions
compared to Win7, Vista, XP, 2000.


I don't agree at all. Things like "squared-off, not-shaded, etc" are
next to meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. But I mentioned Start8;
if those things are important to you, Start8 can put them back to
almost exactly the way they looked on Windows 7.

I had start 8 and never found that functionality in it. Nothing on
their webpage suggests it has such functionality.


Except for the first line, how does this not look like Win 7's start menu?

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/1443/20130626-7z2i-47kb


You guys keep missing the point. I'm not talking about the mere fact
that it has "windows" and a start orb, etc. I'm talking about the
difference between a stick drawing verse's the Mona Lisa. Yes, it
will give you the "desktop" but the windows that open on it look like
crap, just some mono-colored boxes with the "words" in the title bar
poorly positioned as well as other poorly positioned and/or poorly
proportioned graphic elements. Contrast that with the highly evolved
graphics for the windows in Win7 and Vista and even XP. Win8's
"windows graphics" are on par with windows 3.1 - bare bones and ugly.

"Graham Harrison" écrivait news:j-
:

I have an old PC running Vista. I ran the Microsoft Win8 upgrade
advisor
expecting it to say "no can do" and it came back with a list of things
that
might not work or that I would have to reinstall. It also "suggested"
which Win8 I should buy.

Forget all that! I'll need to look at all that if I decide to go ahead.
What I'm interested in to help me decide whether to go ahead is:

1) Vista is now seen as an aberration by many and Win8 seems to be
heading
the same way. True? False?
2) I also have a Win7 Laptop and I probably prefer that to Vista as a
user
experience - performance is almost the same as the Vista machine. How
am I
likely to get on with Win8 if I make the jump from Vista on the old PC?


If you take the Win8 road, how much RAM memory does your old PC has? I
would go 4G, you'd get around 3G of usable memory if you go 32 bits, may be
your "old" PC can only do 32 bits.

But personnaly, in your case, I would just try to cleanup Vista on that PC.

BTW I am a Win8 user on a powerful desktop with a touch screen monitor, if
it wasn't for the touch screen, I prefer the Win7 or Vista UI.

I prefer the Win8 stability though.

Dominique wrote:
"Graham Harrison" écrivait news:j-
:

I have an old PC running Vista. I ran the Microsoft Win8 upgrade
advisor
expecting it to say "no can do" and it came back with a list of things
that
might not work or that I would have to reinstall. It also "suggested"
which Win8 I should buy.

Forget all that! I'll need to look at all that if I decide to go ahead.
What I'm interested in to help me decide whether to go ahead is:

1) Vista is now seen as an aberration by many and Win8 seems to be
heading
the same way. True? False?
2) I also have a Win7 Laptop and I probably prefer that to Vista as a
user
experience - performance is almost the same as the Vista machine. How
am I
likely to get on with Win8 if I make the jump from Vista on the old PC?


If you take the Win8 road, how much RAM memory does your old PC has? I
would go 4G, you'd get around 3G of usable memory if you go 32 bits, may be
your "old" PC can only do 32 bits.

But personnaly, in your case, I would just try to cleanup Vista on that PC.

BTW I am a Win8 user on a powerful desktop with a touch screen monitor, if
it wasn't for the touch screen, I prefer the Win7 or Vista UI.

I prefer the Win8 stability though.

Windows 8 has lower memory consumption than Windows 7.
Of course, on a machine full of RAM, it's pretty hard to
tell that, as you get the impression it is using 1GB while
idle.

I tested a Preview version of Windows 8, in VirtualBox, and
reduced the RAM setting to 128MB, and the OS still ran. Which is
nothing short of amazing. But at that level, when I exited from
Internet Explorer, IE threw an error. So I wouldn't say
things were completely trouble free. But that's to give
some idea "how low it can go". Of course, since the
Preview era, more cruft would be added, to make that less
likely to happen.

The real problem with the OS, is the laundry list of processor
features needed, to run every possible thing provided with it.
Hyper-V needs SLAT. And the 8.1 preview, has added a few more
CPU features.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...-8/preview-faq

"For 64-bit installations of Windows 8.1 Preview, your CPU must
also support CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW and LAHF/SAHF."

Those sound like processor instructions. And I have no idea
how you'd discover those were present or absent.

And seeing how the ISO seems to be a complete OS installer,
with short term license key, you can even test it now. I would
install this on an empty hard drive, with the other hard
drives disconnected during the installation. That way, there'd
be no damage to an existing OS.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...eview-download

Product Key: NTTX3-RV7VB-T7X7F-WQYYY-9Y92F

English 64-bit (x64) Download (3.3 GB) SHA1 = 0xD76AD96773615E8C504F63564AF749469CFCCD57
English 32-bit (x86) Download (2.5 GB) SHA1 = 0x8BED436F0959E7120A44BF7C29FF0AA962BDEFC9

Paul

Paul écrivait :

Dominique wrote:
"Graham Harrison" écrivait
news:j-
:

I have an old PC running Vista. I ran the Microsoft Win8 upgrade
advisor
expecting it to say "no can do" and it came back with a list of
things
that
might not work or that I would have to reinstall. It also
"suggested"
which Win8 I should buy.

Forget all that! I'll need to look at all that if I decide to go
ahead.
What I'm interested in to help me decide whether to go ahead is:

1) Vista is now seen as an aberration by many and Win8 seems to be
heading
the same way. True? False?
2) I also have a Win7 Laptop and I probably prefer that to Vista as a
user
experience - performance is almost the same as the Vista machine.
How
am I
likely to get on with Win8 if I make the jump from Vista on the old
PC?


If you take the Win8 road, how much RAM memory does your old PC has? I
would go 4G, you'd get around 3G of usable memory if you go 32 bits,
may be
your "old" PC can only do 32 bits.

But personnaly, in your case, I would just try to cleanup Vista on
that PC.

BTW I am a Win8 user on a powerful desktop with a touch screen
monitor, if
it wasn't for the touch screen, I prefer the Win7 or Vista UI.

I prefer the Win8 stability though.

Windows 8 has lower memory consumption than Windows 7.
Of course, on a machine full of RAM, it's pretty hard to
tell that, as you get the impression it is using 1GB while
idle.

I tested a Preview version of Windows 8, in VirtualBox, and
reduced the RAM setting to 128MB, and the OS still ran. Which is
nothing short of amazing. But at that level, when I exited from
Internet Explorer, IE threw an error. So I wouldn't say
things were completely trouble free. But that's to give
some idea "how low it can go". Of course, since the
Preview era, more cruft would be added, to make that less
likely to happen.

The real problem with the OS, is the laundry list of processor
features needed, to run every possible thing provided with it.
Hyper-V needs SLAT. And the 8.1 preview, has added a few more
CPU features.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...-8/preview-faq

"For 64-bit installations of Windows 8.1 Preview, your CPU must
also support CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW and LAHF/SAHF."

Those sound like processor instructions. And I have no idea
how you'd discover those were present or absent.

And seeing how the ISO seems to be a complete OS installer,
with short term license key, you can even test it now. I would
install this on an empty hard drive, with the other hard
drives disconnected during the installation. That way, there'd
be no damage to an existing OS.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...eview-download

Product Key: NTTX3-RV7VB-T7X7F-WQYYY-9Y92F

English 64-bit (x64) Download (3.3 GB) SHA1 =
0xD76AD96773615E8C504F63564AF749469CFCCD57
English 32-bit (x86) Download (2.5 GB) SHA1 =
0x8BED436F0959E7120A44BF7C29FF0AA962BDEFC9

Paul

Interesting, (as usual), I will try that with my laptop.

As the OP is concerned, I don't know what type of PC it is, did I missed
it in the thread?

I guess if it runs Vista it can run 8.1.

I didn't suggest to upgrade the HD but it would be a good way to test a
new installation of Win 8.1 without "destroying" what the OP has.

On 6/27/13 12:45 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:30:43 -0500, Roy Smith
wrote:

On 6/26/2013 1:13 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:22:23 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:58:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:42:35 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:14:32 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

snip

You guys keep missing the point. I'm not talking about the mere fact
that it has "windows" and a start orb, etc. I'm talking about the
difference between a stick drawing verse's the Mona Lisa. Yes, it
will give you the "desktop" but the windows that open on it look like
crap, just some mono-colored boxes with the "words" in the title bar
poorly positioned as well as other poorly positioned and/or poorly
proportioned graphic elements. Contrast that with the highly evolved
graphics for the windows in Win7 and Vista and even XP. Win8's
"windows graphics" are on par with windows 3.1 - bare bones and ugly.

They are having a hard time grasping your point, aren't they... :-(
You're reaction is exactly the same as mine, which I noted earlier in
this thread.

It seems that some programmers are taking us backwards in computer
software abilities and efficiencies, why the hardware get more powerful
and faster. Something is wrong with this picture.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 20.0
Thunderbird 17.0.5
LibreOffice 4.0.3.3

Paul wrote:


http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...eview-download

Product Key: NTTX3-RV7VB-T7X7F-WQYYY-9Y92F

English 64-bit (x64) Download (3.3 GB) SHA1 = 0xD76AD96773615E8C504F63564AF749469CFCCD57
English 32-bit (x86) Download (2.5 GB) SHA1 = 0x8BED436F0959E7120A44BF7C29FF0AA962BDEFC9

Paul

A small correction for those downloading.

The SHA1 listed on the Microsoft web page, is
actually for "Windows8-ReleasePreview-64bit-English.iso 3,515,703,296 bytes".
So the SHA-1 values are old, and do not correspond to the
actual files offered for download. They're the checksums from
fall of last year or so.

The computed values I got (using Microsoft FCIV.exe) we

*******

windowsblue-clientwithapps-64bit-english-x1899605.iso

3,753,558,016 bytes

SHA-1 = d8076e029292fbc933792d215793045031255ff6

*******

windowsblue-clientwithapps-32bit-english-x1899604.iso

2,788,831,232 bytes

SHA-1 = 447ccd24eb3dc6cfd9a42e62a5f6418b578e3cbf

Maybe that will save someone the time, of assuming
their download was corrupted somehow.

HTH,
Paul

Dominique wrote:
Paul écrivait :

Dominique wrote:
"Graham Harrison" écrivait
news:j-
:

I have an old PC running Vista. I ran the Microsoft Win8 upgrade
advisor
expecting it to say "no can do" and it came back with a list of
things
that
might not work or that I would have to reinstall. It also
"suggested"
which Win8 I should buy.

Forget all that! I'll need to look at all that if I decide to go
ahead.
What I'm interested in to help me decide whether to go ahead is:

1) Vista is now seen as an aberration by many and Win8 seems to be
heading
the same way. True? False?
2) I also have a Win7 Laptop and I probably prefer that to Vista as a
user
experience - performance is almost the same as the Vista machine.
How
am I
likely to get on with Win8 if I make the jump from Vista on the old
PC?
If you take the Win8 road, how much RAM memory does your old PC has? I
would go 4G, you'd get around 3G of usable memory if you go 32 bits,
may be
your "old" PC can only do 32 bits.

But personnaly, in your case, I would just try to cleanup Vista on
that PC.
BTW I am a Win8 user on a powerful desktop with a touch screen
monitor, if
it wasn't for the touch screen, I prefer the Win7 or Vista UI.

I prefer the Win8 stability though.
Windows 8 has lower memory consumption than Windows 7.
Of course, on a machine full of RAM, it's pretty hard to
tell that, as you get the impression it is using 1GB while
idle.

I tested a Preview version of Windows 8, in VirtualBox, and
reduced the RAM setting to 128MB, and the OS still ran. Which is
nothing short of amazing. But at that level, when I exited from
Internet Explorer, IE threw an error. So I wouldn't say
things were completely trouble free. But that's to give
some idea "how low it can go". Of course, since the
Preview era, more cruft would be added, to make that less
likely to happen.

The real problem with the OS, is the laundry list of processor
features needed, to run every possible thing provided with it.
Hyper-V needs SLAT. And the 8.1 preview, has added a few more
CPU features.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...-8/preview-faq

"For 64-bit installations of Windows 8.1 Preview, your CPU must
also support CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW and LAHF/SAHF."

Those sound like processor instructions. And I have no idea
how you'd discover those were present or absent.

And seeing how the ISO seems to be a complete OS installer,
with short term license key, you can even test it now. I would
install this on an empty hard drive, with the other hard
drives disconnected during the installation. That way, there'd
be no damage to an existing OS.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...eview-download

Product Key: NTTX3-RV7VB-T7X7F-WQYYY-9Y92F

English 64-bit (x64) Download (3.3 GB) SHA1 =
0xD76AD96773615E8C504F63564AF749469CFCCD57
English 32-bit (x86) Download (2.5 GB) SHA1 =
0x8BED436F0959E7120A44BF7C29FF0AA962BDEFC9
Paul

Interesting, (as usual), I will try that with my laptop.

As the OP is concerned, I don't know what type of PC it is, did I missed
it in the thread?

I guess if it runs Vista it can run 8.1.

I didn't suggest to upgrade the HD but it would be a good way to test a
new installation of Win 8.1 without "destroying" what the OP has.

This is my status report.

Materials: One hard drive (empty), One USB key, two ISO9660 download
files. Copy of 7ZIP, to extract bootsect.exe 32 bit version.

1) Downloaded both DVDs. The x64 for installation purposes, the x86
32 bit version, so I could get a copy of bootsect.exe for a 32 bit
OS.
2) Don't panic if the SHA1 on the download is wrong. The download
web page has old checksums, from a previous batch of downloads,
and so the SHA-1 sums are a year old. These are the values I got,
for my English ISO9660 files.
SHA-1 = d8076e029292fbc933792d215793045031255ff6
SHA-1 = 447ccd24eb3dc6cfd9a42e62a5f6418b578e3cbf
3) Used the "MicrosoftStore Windows 7 USB key preparation utility".
Placed 32 bit bootsect.exe in the application folder. (Did this,
because the OS preparing the key was WinXP x32.) The utility prepared
my 8GB without a whimper. Surely a first for me (at remembering
the details).
4) 5:39 Boot USB key.
Enter license key, get one character wrong.
5:44 Basic file copying completes. Seems faster than Win 8.0.
Note - you do not need to sign up for a Microsoft Account.
Feed a bogus email address, botch the Capycha. In small
print, it will eventually offer you the option of using a
"local account". So if facing the Microsoft Account showdown,
play dumb, and eventually you can escape.
5:53 Finally, enter local account details, and password.
5:56 Reboot, to see garish desktop. Tada, sort of.
5) Now, normally my policy is not to spend more than 10 minutes in
a Preview. This time, I spent a little more time than that.
6) First bug - the G.D. "audio pop bug" is still there! Great.
HDAUDIO\VEN_11D4&DEV_198B&SUBSYS_1043829C AD1988B Analog Devices Soundmax.
7) Second bug, and I suppose to be expected. Screen resolution
is wrong, perhaps an attempt to show off the new scaling features.
1024x768 means no video driver is loaded. The equivalent of
a fallback VESA driver is being used.
8) OK. The Internet says "NVidia 326.01 driver to come *only* via
Windows Update". Fine. How do I get to Windows Update exactly.
The search is broken, compared to Win8.0. In Win8.0, I could
type a reasonable likeness to what I wanted, and it would show up.
I had a lot of trouble getting anywhere. (Fewer categories are
returned now.) Couldn't figure out how to get the actual
Windows Update program to run.
9) Eventually get to Windows Update. Three small updates
appear to have loaded during installation. These are probably
servicing stack updates of some sort. No NVidia update to be
seen.
10) Somehow (details fuzzy), I managed to end up running a diagnostic
for Windows Update. ("WindowsUpdateDiagnostic.diagcab" 170KB).
It moans that there is one thing it cannot fix. It offers to
"reset things", which seemed to help. So the fact there was
one thing the diagcab could not fix, didn't matter.
11) Now, on next reboot, I finally figure out how to get to Windows
Update (which I *always* run manually). (Enter a search term of
"Control Panel", modify display for small icons, etc.)
Now, there are eight updates waiting for me (a few hardware
drivers), plus the NVidia 326.01 desktop video driver. When
the NVidia update loads, there are three "chime" sounds, and
the resolution changes on its own, to "display native", which
is 1280x1024. I managed to eat an entire turkey dinner, in the
time it took for step 11, in violation of my "ten minute
evaulation rule" for Previews.

It appears there are no further pending Windows Updates.

Oh, and as usual, don't forget to correct the time zone setting,
before you get too involved.

You can go into Windows Features and turn on .NET 3.5 if you
want. As it's not turned on by default.

I next adjusted Power Options, to stop the annoying power
saving features (screen blank etc). That was uneventful.

Back in WinXP, for now.

Another thing. The install created two partitions,
a "SYSTEM RESERVED" and an unnamed C:. Whereas, my
actual paid Win8.0 install is on a single partition.
I suppose I could have spoon fed it a single empty NTFS
partition before installation started, to stop that.
Maybe next time.

When I booted into WinXP, there were no complaints about
"CHKDSK needs to run". But since I've been messing
with a number of Power Option settings, it's too late
to do a "Default" settings check that those issues are
fixed.

By only having a single empty disk connected to the computer
during the installation, there was no opportunity for
accidents :-) Safety first...

Oh, and one other data point (for the staff at NVidia).
Before loading your driver, the screen didn't "flash"
once! Once the 326.01 driver was loaded, I got a flash
to black within the next ten minutes. Um, good stuff.
No other OS flashes to black on my 7900 GT 512MB.

Paul

Ken Blake explained :
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:33:13 -0600, vzlion wrote:

For what it's worth I have Vista on my dektop and my laptop. It is the
most stable Windows OS that I have used, and I have use 95, 98 Me and
XP. It more stable than my wifes Win 7. My 2 cents worth


I have used Windows 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WFWG 3.11, 95,
95A, 95B, 95C, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 (and also WHS). Almost
without exception, I have found every version to be more stable than
its predecessor.

But slowweerrrr.

Running XP & Win7 as VM's with identical virtual hardware and XP is
always faster than Win7.

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:21:33 +0100, Richard Rose wrote:

Ken Blake explained :
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:33:13 -0600, vzlion wrote:

For what it's worth I have Vista on my dektop and my laptop. It is the
most stable Windows OS that I have used, and I have use 95, 98 Me and
XP. It more stable than my wifes Win 7. My 2 cents worth


I have used Windows 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WFWG 3.11, 95,
95A, 95B, 95C, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 (and also WHS). Almost
without exception, I have found every version to be more stable than
its predecessor.

But slowweerrrr.

Running XP & Win7 as VM's with identical virtual hardware and XP is
always faster than Win7.

I'd find that information more useful if you were running them native on
identical hardware.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:21:33 +0100, Richard Rose
wrote:

Ken Blake explained :
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:33:13 -0600, vzlion wrote:

For what it's worth I have Vista on my dektop and my laptop. It is the
most stable Windows OS that I have used, and I have use 95, 98 Me and
XP. It more stable than my wifes Win 7. My 2 cents worth


I have used Windows 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WFWG 3.11, 95,
95A, 95B, 95C, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 (and also WHS). Almost
without exception, I have found every version to be more stable than
its predecessor.

But slowweerrrr.


Not in my experience. Not at all.

--
Ken Blake

Gene E. Bloch used his keyboard to write :
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:21:33 +0100, Richard Rose wrote:

Ken Blake explained :
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:33:13 -0600, vzlion wrote:

For what it's worth I have Vista on my dektop and my laptop. It is the
most stable Windows OS that I have used, and I have use 95, 98 Me and
XP. It more stable than my wifes Win 7. My 2 cents worth


I have used Windows 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WFWG 3.11, 95,
95A, 95B, 95C, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 (and also WHS). Almost
without exception, I have found every version to be more stable than
its predecessor.

But slowweerrrr.

Running XP & Win7 as VM's with identical virtual hardware and XP is
always faster than Win7.

I'd find that information more useful if you were running them native on
identical hardware.

I have but its most obvious with VM's.

Ken Blake expressed precisely :
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:21:33 +0100, Richard Rose
wrote:

Ken Blake explained :
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:33:13 -0600, vzlion wrote:

For what it's worth I have Vista on my dektop and my laptop. It is the
most stable Windows OS that I have used, and I have use 95, 98 Me and
XP. It more stable than my wifes Win 7. My 2 cents worth


I have used Windows 2.03, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WFWG 3.11, 95,
95A, 95B, 95C, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 (and also WHS). Almost
without exception, I have found every version to be more stable than
its predecessor.

But slowweerrrr.


Not in my experience. Not at all.

Fire this up http://www.rohitab.com/apimonitor and see for yourself
with actual time scales.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:13:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:22:23 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:58:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:42:35 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:14:32 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Both Vista and Win7 are far nicer looking GUI's then Win8, which
has been turned back into a Windows 3.1 style GUI look to better allow
it to be viewed on a small tablet and reduce computing power needs.
All the visual refinements that had been made as windows matured from
3.1 to Win7 were dropped.



That is *not* correct. Let me point out something that you perhaps
don't realize: Windows 8 has two interfaces; the Modern/Metro
Interface (that's the default, and it may be all you've looked at) and
the traditional Desktop Interface.

That traditional Desktop Interface is almost identical to Windows 7's
interface; the biggest difference is that there is no Start Orb to
click to bring up the Start menu. But note that you can get the Start
Orb back by using one of several third-party programs, either free or
very inexpensive (Classic Shell at
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/ and Start8 at
http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/; my personal preference is
Start8, but they are both very good). And going from one interface to
the other is very easy; there are several ways, but simply pressing
the Windows key is perhaps the easiest.

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.


You are not talking about the same thing I am. I know all about going
back to the "desktop". When you do, the windows that Windows uses are
squared off, non-shaded, crap font, poorly proportioned abortions
compared to Win7, Vista, XP, 2000.


I don't agree at all. Things like "squared-off, not-shaded, etc" are
next to meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. But I mentioned Start8;
if those things are important to you, Start8 can put them back to
almost exactly the way they looked on Windows 7.

I had start 8 and never found that functionality in it. Nothing on
their webpage suggests it has such functionality.

Likewise, I've looked and also came up short. Start8 includes some
screenshots on their website, but they only serve to show that Start8
*doesn't* fix the horrid visuals. I'm not sure what Ken Blake is looking at,
but he might have some other 3rd party tool installed in addition to Start8.