Windows 7 Home vs Pro vs Windows 8

[Berryracer]

I would say stick with Windows 7 Home and wait for Microsoft to release Windows 9 (or whatever's next). I say this because Microsoft will probably make the next OS for all of the people that complained about Windows 8. At least I hope.

A trusted source from Microsoft told meh that the next Windows version will not release before the fall of 2014

 

[Mem]

Windows 9? Naaaah. Gonna wait for Windows 10 or maybe Windows 11. Gonna wait for windows version that is completely stable. oh wait, I culd turn off the computer and never use it again. Totally stable Windows OS. The only way to break it is if I were to turn it on and go online.

Windows is stable in general, problem is does not matter what OS you go for since you will always get some people moaning about something,Win9,10,11,12,100 won't change that since its been this way for decades way before XP etc,so don't expect people to change.

 

[Berryracer]

Windows is stable in general, problem is does not matter what OS you go for since you will always get some people moaning about something,Win9,10,11,12,100 won't change that since its been this way for decades way before XP etc,so don't expect people to change.

IMHO, and I hope you agree with teh meh, is first and foremost for OS stability is having the right drivers from the manufacturer and having all Windows updates. Problems start to arise when people tend to want to get newer drivers thinking they might give them more performance, but often, since they are not approved and tested by the manufacturer, they cause trouble

Example: My previous ASUS G75VW laptop only had the Intel USB 3.0 Drivers 1.0.3.XX

So me thinking that if I install the latest 1.0.7.XX will give me faster USB 3.0 Transfer speeds, I installed them, rebooted, everything seems fine! but who am I to determine this? I am just a casual user.

A few days down the line, I connected my lappy to my TV to watch a movie, and the movie was stuttering like hell, I couldn't understand why.... then I remembered that I updated the Intel USB Drivers, the moment I uninstalled them and went back to the ones provided by ASUS which were something like 1.0.3.XX, everything went back to normal

Now that is just one example which I was lucky enough to figure out, but other problems might arise and people won't even have a clue if it's the OS really that's causing the issue or it's some tweak or driver they installed/did

just my 2 cents worth

 

[Mem]

IMHO, and I hope you agree with teh meh, is first and foremost for OS stability is having the right drivers from the manufacturer and having all Windows updates. Problems start to arise when people tend to want to get newer drivers thinking they might give them more performance, but often, since they are not approved and tested by the manufacturer, they cause trouble

Example: My previous ASUS G75VW laptop only had the Intel USB 3.0 Drivers 1.0.3.XX

So me thinking that if I install the latest 1.0.7.XX will give me faster USB 3.0 Transfer speeds, I installed them, rebooted, everything seems fine! but who am I to determine this? I am just a casual user.

A few days down the line, I connected my lappy to my TV to watch a movie, and the movie was stuttering like hell, I couldn't understand why.... then I remembered that I updated the Intel USB Drivers, the moment I uninstalled them and went back to the ones provided by ASUS which were something like 1.0.3.XX, everything went back to normal

Now that is just one example which I was lucky enough to figure out, but other problems might arise and people won't even have a clue if it's the OS really that's causing the issue or it's some tweak or driver they installed/did

just my 2 cents worth

Driver issues go way back,you remember early days of WinXP where there was so many driver issues it was not funny,ie VIA 4 in 1 drivers,sound drivers etc,to be fair it's not an OS problem but the manufacturer of the drivers,Vista/Win7,8 are better since in that regards went over to software mode for sound drivers to improve stability where it can reboot drivers without the famous BSOD you saw with WinXP sound card drivers,one step Microsoft went to reduce driver issues.

End of the day you have a point ie OS relies on drivers but has real no control on what drivers are installed by the user,throw in driver bugs,overclocking etc you get a whole new can of worms,look at Geforce 4xx,5xx issues still ongoing here https://forums.geforce.com/default/board/35/geforce-500-400-series/ ,(yes I'm still on rock stable 314.22 for my 560ti card due to newer Nvidia drivers being unstable even on clean install of OS)even Nvidia have not fixed those issues and they were once regarded as one of the best for drivers.

 

[Berryracer]

(yes I'm still on rock stable 314.22 for my 560ti card due to newer Nvidia drivers being unstable even on clean install of OS)even Nvidia have not fixed those issues and they were once regarded as one of the best for drivers.

very true!

I always insisted on buying a laptop with an nVIDIA Graphics chipset vs. an ATI chipset due to better driver support. Ever since they went to the 3.XX series, the next driver is a matter of luck if it works properl or not. Heck, some 3.XX Drivers give me awful 2D Draw performance (like if I play Solitaire in Windows it is very choppy) in Windows let alone 3D as I don't play games

 

[Towermax]

Windows 2000 was a server OS and not a consumer product. As such it didn't support all the graphics and sound and such. 2000 was supposed to be the last update on the Windows NT Kernel. Windows 98 was the first attempt merge of 3.1 and NT. There has been a 2003 and a 2008. It will never end.

Not quite the way I remember it--Windows 2000 was introduced both as a desktop and a server OS. It was an upgrade for NT4, which also had desktop and server versions.

I was running NT4 Workstation at the time, and upgraded to Windows 2000 Professional. As you say, it didn't have the best consumer graphics/sound support. It was aimed at business use--in fact my Windows 2000 Pro upgrade box says "The Reliable Operating System for Business." Graphics/sound did improve considerably over time, however. I was eventually able to run many games of the era (but kept a 98SE box around for the others).

Windows 98 was a straight upgrade of Windows 95. NT remained completely separate. Windows XP was the merger of Microsoft's separate consumer and business trees. XP replaced both 98 and 2000. From then on, Microsoft only had one desktop line.

 

[glugglug]

Huh? Never had problems after SP2. Win2k with DX9 rocked.

Yes, but DX9 became available for it around SP2 time or later. On initial release before service packs, 2000 was limited to lower Direct3D versions than Win9X.

A trusted source from Microsoft told meh that the next Windows version will not release before the fall of 2014

That's only a year away, so kind of expected.

 

[postmortemIA]

Windows 2000 was a server OS and not a consumer product. As such it didn't support all the graphics and sound and such. 2000 was supposed to be the last update on the Windows NT Kernel. Windows 98 was the first attempt merge of 3.1 and NT. There has been a 2003 and a 2008. It will never end.

XP is nothing but 2000 with a skin. Support from hw makers was lacking for both 2000 and XP, as they both had new driver stack. Hence the infamy of first few years of XP: most of older hw did not work because makers abandoned older devices.

 

[XiandreX]

I never ever see Metro, installed StartIsBack, and it looks exactly like 7

So if you do use a Start Menu Alternative and never have to see or deal with Metro, what stops you from using 8 and making use of better performance features and better support for the new Haswell CPUs?

I wish people would get this point. Windows 8 + start menu program = Windows 7 + genuine OS improvements. Windows 8.1 will solidify this. My Windows 8 Pro 64bit + Classic shell is VERY stable and runs everything I throw at it.

 

[Berryracer]

I wish people would get this point. Windows 8 + start menu program = Windows 7 + genuine OS improvements. Windows 8.1 will solidify this. My Windows 8 Pro 64bit + Classic shell is VERY stable and runs everything I throw at it.

exactly, while I ws one of the early haters of Windows 8, once I installed StartIsBack it looks and feels like Windows 7 only faster, I don't even know whats Metro? LOL

 

[Kenmitch]

exactly, while I ws one of the early haters of Windows 8, once I installed StartIsBack it looks and feels like Windows 7 only faster, I don't even know whats Metro? LOL

My biggest issue with Win 8.1 is that the dumbed down look of the OS makes my rig feel cheap!

Has anybody tried Aero Glass?

http://glass8.berlios.de/win81.html

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163570-aero-glass-for-win81-rtm-beta-1/

 

[Zargon]

Don't think so.
Metro was made for a tablet, and it belongs on a tablet, not a desktop machine.

I am all for trying out something new, but, even after using this for a few days, it became clear that is was a huge cluster*** of a design choice.

It imposes too many limitations, when before, we didn't have such limitations, and it has other artificial limits for no good reason, except that they want to force the 'tablet experience' on desktop people.
In 8.1, yeah, you can go directly to desktop mode, but it still is sloppy seconds.

They will stop support for win 7 in a few years, so, best bet for OP would be to keep using win 7 and see what happens with win 8.2 or win 9.

like what?

 

[Imaginer]

Don't think so.
Metro was made for a tablet, and it belongs on a tablet, not a desktop machine.

It imposes too many limitations, when before, we didn't have such limitations, and it has other artificial limits for no good reason, except that they want to force the 'tablet experience' on desktop people.

I don't feel forced. If any, it is just presenting the start menu in my face, something I would have pulled up anyways to start running programs upon booting.

And booting to desktop, that is now present.

Multi window desktop and multi monitor is present and usable as always.

I really do not see the issue of any limitations. Desktop acted as it always has, and some consolidation of where configuration menus have been done. It is no more jarring than the classic control panel switch from XP to 7.

And the start screen gives reason to clear out one's desktop full of icons and putting them in a separate, sliding screen of varying sizes for tiles - that on modern apps, show some information.

If anything, 8 gives MORE options.

 

[Imaginer]

If anything feels forced, it would be the "News", and now "Food and Drink" along with "Health and Fitness" app portals.

Hell forbid that Microsoft wants to encourage civic involvement and healthy habits.

 

[biostud]

I wish people would get this point. Windows 8 + start menu program = Windows 7 + genuine OS improvements. Windows 8.1 will solidify this. My Windows 8 Pro 64bit + Classic shell is VERY stable and runs everything I throw at it.

Yup, exactly what I came to post. Running win 8 + start8 since launch, just got 8.1. It feels like win 7, just better.

 

[poohbear]

Win8 might run faster, but i imagine its because the UI isnt as pretty as win7 with Aero, n9?

 

[sm625]

then fixed with 98(rock solid).

Windows 98 rock solid. Haha april fools day is 6 months away.

 

[QuietDad]

It was a hell of alot better than 95 and had people moaning big time when ME came out. As many people went back to 98 from ME as will from 8 back to 7.

 

[Mem]

It was a hell of alot better than 95 and had people moaning big time when ME came out. As many people went back to 98 from ME as will from 8 back to 7.

Actually quite a few people are jumping on the Win8.1 bandwagon,its far superior to ME and in many ways even superior to Win7,I think it's more a case of wishful thinking by you,Win7 is already 4 years old ,soon be on Win9 at this rate.

 

[QuietDad]

You missed the whole point of the post I made. Reread it. I was saying it usually takes Microsoft 2 releases to get it right. Especially when thy're trying sometHing new! 8 is the first attempt after a good 7. I'm waiting till 9.

 

[Mem]

You missed the whole point of the post I made. Reread it. I was saying it usually takes Microsoft 2 releases to get it right. Especially when thy're trying sometHing new! 8 is the first attempt after a good 7. I'm waiting till 9.

Only OS I could not get along with was ME,all the rest were ok sure you had the odd bug or two but they all got service packs even Win7,you get those skipping Win9 too just because they don't like the look or don't need it,does not mean it will be a bad OS or lack stability,I could say samething about 8 ie sure its a new OS but the main point people are arguing is change ie they hate the start button gone or don't like Metro,does not make it a bad OS or lack stability,same problem will probably happen with 9,ie somebody won't like this or that but does not make it a bad OS.

Watchout for anti-9 threads down the road ,you can bet they will pop up ,same goes for Win10 etc..

We can accept hardware changes no problem,but OS wise its a lot harder for some.

 

[Ketchup]

The way in which the upgrade works is making 8.1 look more like a "new OS" except that we don't have to pay for it.

Having said that, I choose not to look at it that way since there is still hope 9 will get us back to where we want to be.

 

[Mem]

The way in which the upgrade works is making 8.1 look more like a "new OS" except that we don't have to pay for it.

Having said that, I choose not to look at it that way since there is still hope 9 will get us back to where we want to be.

What are you expecting from 9?..I think Microsoft will stay on a hybrid OS,they may change the UI to something new but that will probably bring more moaning from some people ,I don't think you will see a Win95 to Win7 UI again.


Regardless I always upgrade to the latest OS and do my best to learn all the new features etc...

 

[Ketchup]

What are you expecting from 9?..I think Microsoft will stay on a hybrid OS,they may change the UI to something new but that will probably bring more moaning from some people ,I don't think you will see a Win95 to Win7 UI again.

Probably right. MS did it with Vista to 7; little difference in my book, but people love one and hate the other.

9 will be a little different than 8, and people will celebrate it. But some of us can hope that isn't the case.

Just give us the option Microsoft. Act like you give a care.

 

[QuietDad]

Im hoping in 9 they'll go back to making it look like a PC instaed of a phone. But it's time to realize the PC's days are numbered and tablets and ultrabooks and smart phones and RMT devices are taking over.