Win 7 still tops

[gregrocker]

Double-checking I guess it's Firefox which is opening it, but it doesnt' open that small in Win7.

Original:


Click on it to enlarge in Win8:

 

[LittleJay]

Double-checking I guess it's Firefox which is opening it, but it doesnt' open that small in Windows 7

I see. I use IE10 so that must make the difference. Thanks for the reply. You had me curious as to why I wasn't experiencing the same problem.

 

[Dave76]

It might be Firefox doing that Greg, one of your posts I saw today had a small Disk Management pic, when I clicked on it, it opened in a new window and was the same size or a little smaller. Have not seen that before on this site.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Here is a PCWorld article

With just a week left in the month, Windows 8’s usage uptake has slipped behind Vista’s at the same point in its release, data from a Web measurement company showed.
...
Windows 8’s uptake was even more sluggish when compared to Windows 7, the 2009 operating system that has flourished as much as Vista flopped.

PCWorld
Windows 8's uptake falls behind Vista's pace | PCWorld

 

[indianacarnie]

Interesting to say the least. It doesn't surprise me though and I'm not sure I agree totally with the authors seemingly "alibi -ish" reasons for the difference. 7 is just more...... "more" to paraphrase Rimmer. (Sorry....inside joke for any Red Dwarf fans)

 

[gregrocker]

With just a week left in the month, Windows 8’s usage uptake has slipped behind Vista’s at the same point in its release, data from a Web measurement company showed.
...
Windows 8’s uptake was even more sluggish when compared to Windows 7, the 2009 operating system that has flourished as much as Vista flopped.

PCWorld
Windows 8's uptake falls behind Vista's pace | PCWorld

A user named Steven Sinofsky using his picture posted a comment saying it is all a lot Apple fanboy bunk. Would that be MS WIndows President Steven Sinofsky who left last month? Doubtful, but funny.

The solution for Win8 is to put its explorer improvements into SP2 for Win7 and keep it providing the perfect Desktop experience for users who nearly unanimously love it. Give all new Win8 PC's Upgrade rights to Win7, or a choice. Only sell Win8 retail or pre-installed to touchscreens. This could be done pretty easily and nearly unnoticed except to insiders. Win7 sales would keep climbing, Win8 popularity wouldn't be such a disaster and might shake out with more touchscreens coming online (soon?).

Is MS listening? We'll have to see.

 

[marsmimar]

The solution for Win8 is to put its explorer improvements into SP2 for Win7 and keep it providing the perfect Desktop experience for users who nearly unanimously love it. Give all new Win8 PC's Upgrade rights to Win7, or a choice. Only sell Win8 retail or pre-installed to touchscreens. This could be done pretty easily and nearly unnoticed except to insiders. Win7 sales would keep climbing, Win8 popularity wouldn't be such a disaster and might shake out with more touchscreens coming online (soon?).

Is MS listening? We'll have to see.

+1 You're using a lot of logic and common sense, Greg. MS doesn't seem inclined to use either when it comes to Windows 8.

 

[Berkey]

With just a week left in the month, Windows 8’s usage uptake has slipped behind Vista’s at the same point in its release, data from a Web measurement company showed.
...
Windows 8’s uptake was even more sluggish when compared to Windows 7, the 2009 operating system that has flourished as much as Vista flopped.

PCWorld
Windows 8's uptake falls behind Vista's pace | PCWorld

A user named Steven Sinofsky using his picture posted a comment saying it is all a lot Apple fanboy bunk. Would that be MS WIndows President Steven Sinofsky who left last month? Doubtful, but funny.

The solution for Win8 is to put its explorer improvements into SP2 for Win7 and keep it providing the perfect Desktop experience for users who nearly unanimously love it. Give all new Win8 PC's Upgrade rights to Win7, or a choice. Only sell Win8 retail or pre-installed to touchscreens. This could be done pretty easily and nearly unnoticed except to insiders. Win7 sales would keep climbing, Win8 popularity wouldn't be such a disaster and might shake out with more touchscreens coming online (soon?).

Is MS listening? We'll have to see.

I always wondered why they don't just have a "Windows" rather than windows 7,8,9....

It would seem logical to continue to improve on a "perfected" platform and add updates or service packs to include new features and such. I loved XP, but not as much as 7 and I was willing to pay for the new features. If they could take your idea and of course from a profit stand point, have a payment option to activate a major update such as touch screen capabilities (if at all possible to do through downloads), MS could still make a profit, as I'm sure people would be willing to pay $20 or so as opposed to setting up shop on a new OS, but not have to go through a process such as this or vista.

Build an empire and continue to expand it, not split it into factions. Of course you can still conquer other areas, but better to do so as a whole rather than have PC users divided.

 

[King Arthur]

@bberkey1
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are all upgrades building on Windows NT 4.0, which in turn is a flavor of Windows alongside others like Windows 9x which has Windows 98 and ME stemming from Windows 95. Windows 7 is to Ubuntu 12 as Windows Vista is to Ubuntu 11 and so forth; we already have what you describe, just under a different version numbering system.

 

[Berkey]

@bberkey1
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are all upgrades building on Windows NT 4.0, which in turn is a flavor of Windows alongside others like Windows 9x which has Windows 98 and ME stemming from Windows 95. Windows 7 is to Ubuntu 12 as Windows Vista is to Ubuntu 11 and so forth; we already have what you describe, just under a different version numbering system.

I see. Thanks for the info King.

If this is the current system, then why continue to add flavors to the mix and instead just have one omni-flavor if you will? I know as you said these are all add ins to the NT 4.0, but would it be possible to no longer have to install a new OS, but rather just update from your computer to get the new features that they would have included to a new flavor?

So if windows 7 was the final OS add on, and MS said "we will just continue to add to this flavor like a giant ball of twine, updating and tweaking through downloads and do away with any more future flavors" That way there would no longer be a need for a separate windows flavor.

 

[x BlueRobot]

So have lots of Service Packs and Windows Updates? What if someone needed to do a clean install of their OS, and they didn't have a image available to use, then wouldn't they need to spend hours installing all the Windows Updates and Service Packs again?

 

[King Arthur]

We've always been able to upgrade between Windows operating systems that are chronologically next to each other; for example it's very simple to upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98 (or Windows Me!), Windows 2000 to Windows XP, Windows Vista to Windows 7, and so forth.

However, when you're talking operating systems with a few (if not several) versions between them, like Windows 2000 vs. Windows 7 or Ubuntu 6 vs. Ubuntu 12, it's probably a better idea to just install anew from technical and ease-of-use standpoints.

A fun thing to consider when talking about this is Windows's internal version number. The numbers increment on a logical version numbering system like so: Windows NT 4.0 is 4.0, Windows 2000 is 5.0 while Windows XP is 5.1, Windows Vista is 6.0 while Windows 7 is 6.1 and Windows 8 is 6.2. As a result, Windows 7 is effectively Windows NT 6.1.

 

[alphanumeric]

@bberkey1
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are all upgrades building on Windows NT 4.0, which in turn is a flavor of Windows alongside others like Windows 9x which has Windows 98 and ME stemming from Windows 95. Windows 7 is to Ubuntu 12 as Windows Vista is to Ubuntu 11 and so forth; we already have what you describe, just under a different version numbering system.

I see. Thanks for the info King.

If this is the current system, then why continue to add flavors to the mix and instead just have one omni-flavor if you will? I know as you said these are all add ins to the NT 4.0, but would it be possible to no longer have to install a new OS, but rather just update from your computer to get the new features that they would have included to a new flavor?

So if windows 7 was the final OS add on, and MS said "we will just continue to add to this flavor like a giant ball of twine, updating and tweaking through downloads and do away with any more future flavors" That way there would no longer be a need for a separate windows flavor.

Sounds good in theory but I can see a few pitfalls in that approach. Drivers for hardware would be one big one. Depending on what that last update did or didn't do you may need this driver or that driver. Or a new driver may need to be written. There has to be something that defines what "Windows" you had before the update and what "Windows" you have now so you can get the correct driver. It's going to effect program compatibility too. You can't just call it Windows and keep changing its core files etc. There has to be some kind of mile marker or version number so you know where you're at.

 

[mjf]

So have lots of Service Packs and Windows Updates? What if someone needed to do a clean install of their OS, and they didn't have a image available to use, then wouldn't they need to spend hours installing all the Windows Updates and Service Packs again?

I would have thought that a clean install from a Windows SP1 install Disc or ISO would have been manageable. But I would make sure I had an image available except for an install on new hardware.