Touchscreens should stay on Smartphones and Tablets, nothing else. I would rather use a computer from the 70s than even use a Touchscreen Desktop/Laptop.
Touchscreens should stay on Smartphones and Tablets, nothing else. I would rather use a computer from the 70s than even use a Touchscreen Desktop/Laptop.
THIS.
While I think Win 8 will be great for tablets, even something with a real keyboard/trackpad (Such as a laptop) should not be forced to look like a tablet. You loose functionality in Windows 8 if you don't have a touchscreen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't spell, don't shoot me for it! Computer: Intel i5 2500k (Not overclocked for now) 8GB DDR3, 60GB agility3 SSD, 1TB 7200rpm storage, HIS-AMD HD6870. 3 1080p Screens, and one 17 inch, running on the HD3000 and the 6870.
While I think Win 8 will be great for tablets, even something with a real keyboard/trackpad (Such as a laptop) should not be forced to look like a tablet. You loose functionality in Windows 8 if you don't have a touchscreen.
Sigh... What functionality are you losing? I am agreeing with BC, all I'm hearing is "it's different so I hate it". They have explained to you multiple times it will work just as well on a desktop than a tablet.
Touchscreens should stay on Smartphones and Tablets, nothing else. I would rather use a computer from the 70s than even use a Touchscreen Desktop/Laptop.
Please use the OS before saying something like that.
There is nothing about 8 that requires a touchscreen, and there is nothing "touchscreen" about it. The ARM port for tablets is quite a bit different.
While I think Win 8 will be great for tablets, even something with a real keyboard/trackpad (Such as a laptop) should not be forced to look like a tablet. You loose functionality in Windows 8 if you don't have a touchscreen.
Can you cite examples please? The only issues I am having with 8 and the menus/gestures is with more than 1 monitor, which will likely be fixed at some point considering it's not even released yet.
There is a pattern
Windows 95 Bad
Windows 98 good
Windows 2000 bad
Windows Xp Good
Windows Vista Bad
Windows 7 Good
Windows 8 BAD!!!!!!!!!
This is flawed.
Everyone hated 95 until they got used to it.
98 SUCKED flat out until 98SE. "Plug and pray"
2000 was only good because we were recovering from ME (which was legitimately awful, even fresh clean installs crashed for no reason. This is where most of the people claiming windows crashes a lot get their facts from).
XP was AWFUL before SP1, some would go as far to say SP2. Random BSODs.
Vista was fine after SP1. Even before then the only problems were driver related.
7 has always been good, though it is just a rehashed vista. Just like 8 is a rehashed 7. They have the same version # (XP is 5, vista is 6.0, 7 is 6.1, 8 is 6.2).
NOTE: most of the "bad/good" was because of driver issues, program compatibility, and general stability. None of these are issues with 8.
I still won't use it, but if you are going to hate it, hate it for proper reasons, not fallacies.
Here is an example of Win98, it was still like this when released:
2000 was only good because we were recovering from ME (which was legitimately awful, even fresh clean installs crashed for no reason. This is where most of the people claiming windows crashes a lot get their facts from).
I don't see how people were recovering from ME as it was released months AFTER 2000 was.
I am one of the very few people that liked ME, never had an issue with it, and crashed less than XP (pre-sp1) did. I know this is a rare thing, I must have been a lucky one. (But not so lucky with Vista.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't spell, don't shoot me for it! Computer: Intel i5 2500k (Not overclocked for now) 8GB DDR3, 60GB agility3 SSD, 1TB 7200rpm storage, HIS-AMD HD6870. 3 1080p Screens, and one 17 inch, running on the HD3000 and the 6870.
I don't see how people were recovering from ME as it was released months AFTER 2000 was.
Win 2k was released for enterprise in Feb. of 2000 so most people had no knowledge of it, however, most home users were still using 98. Once ME came out, many people switched over to 2000 (even though it was an enterprise OS) or downgraded to 98 because it was simply better in every way. People only found out about 2000 once they were fed up with ME and they asked what their neighbor was using, or the neighborhood IT guy.
I am one of the very few people that liked ME, never had an issue with it, and crashed less than XP (pre-sp1) did. I know this is a rare thing, I must have been a lucky one. (But not so lucky with Vista.)
This isn't rare, but this just plain isn't true. At all. There is just no way you "never had an issue with it". There simply isn't. It was so poorly coded and so unstable, it just isn't possible.
ME had all sorts of issues, just from being unstable and a gigantic pile of crap. This was from poor coding and the fact that it just tried to do too many things at once. "Built from the ground up to be a home OS" was nonsense.
I used it as a kid, and even now with an old PC and with VMs it STILL is unstable and crashes like no tomorrow on fresh installs, or every time hardware is plugged in. Program stability is all over the place, even things that come packaged with ME will crash or lock up the entire OS immediately.
Why do you think MS never released any windows updates for ME? Because it was beyond hope. It is still on it's RTM build!:
Release date September 14, 2000 [info]
Current version 4.9 (Build 3000) (September 14, 2000; 11 years ago) [info]
Although that may have had something to do with windows update always causing a BSOD.
XP pre-SP1 was far and away more stable than ME ever was, as was Vista pre-SP1. I'd even go as far to say Vista x64 pre-SP1 was far far more stable than ME ever was.
How dare you tell me what experiences I had with an OS, I did not have issues with it. I also had a cousin that had a computer with ME on it and they still have it - I tried it a few years ago, they got a virus, I restored it and it worked good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't spell, don't shoot me for it! Computer: Intel i5 2500k (Not overclocked for now) 8GB DDR3, 60GB agility3 SSD, 1TB 7200rpm storage, HIS-AMD HD6870. 3 1080p Screens, and one 17 inch, running on the HD3000 and the 6870.
Even on fresh installs, now, in VMs or on hardware of the time, it simply does not work correctly and is incredibly unstable.
I know this for a fact. I have spent DAYS trying to get it to work, just so I could fiddle around with it, and it simply will not due to being poorly made.
Even on fresh installs, now, in VMs or on hardware of the time, it simply does not work correctly and is incredibly unstable.
I know this for a fact. I have spent DAYS trying to get it to work, just so I could fiddle around with it, and it simply will not due to being poorly made.
I used it for years... One on an upgrade from 98, and the other a pre-installed gateway. Things were fine. A couple years ago I booted up the gateway, and got a BSOD, then tried to use the recovery discs, turns out the machine had bad RAM, replaced that, and did the re-install anyway, and things were fine.
This may be due to the drivers being pre-installed and specialized on the gateway? I have no idea. Eventually, I finally got to a point where I could install flash player and play youtube videos. I was surprised as newer systems (with XP) stuttered on youtube.
All I see ME as is pretty 98, I liked it, but I must have gotten lucky. I think I may try to find a copy and run it in a VM, I want to see it fail... I understand why people call its "Mistake Edition" I have heard people tell of their problems, just never seen them.
I can't spell, don't shoot me for it! Computer: Intel i5 2500k (Not overclocked for now) 8GB DDR3, 60GB agility3 SSD, 1TB 7200rpm storage, HIS-AMD HD6870. 3 1080p Screens, and one 17 inch, running on the HD3000 and the 6870.
Again, I've also used it for years when I was younger and have never heard of anyone not having problems with it. Games locked up and crashed often, web browsing did the same, pretty much all programs did. There was no stability anywhere.
Hell, even just installing it is a giant pain!
AFAIK there is also no flash player version that actually worked on ME without issues, and you could certainly NOT play youtube videos as youtube does not allow video playback with browsers of that age. You get this message, even if the browser was supported still, flash player versions that are that old are not supported, and the videos simply would not load.
I just tried both in a VM and on an old machine with firefox 2 and flash player 9. Videos did not load and did not play. This was with proper drivers installed as well.
It was YEARS ago when I did it. I remember using it to play music videos. And I never did a normal install of it, somebody put ME on when we got a virus on 98. And for the gateway the recovery discs that came with it were easy to use.
Thinking about it, It was right after Vista was released.
I can't spell, don't shoot me for it! Computer: Intel i5 2500k (Not overclocked for now) 8GB DDR3, 60GB agility3 SSD, 1TB 7200rpm storage, HIS-AMD HD6870. 3 1080p Screens, and one 17 inch, running on the HD3000 and the 6870.
Recovery discs back then weren't anything other than reinstall CDs. They weren't like today's "press enter to restore your computer".
There was nothing about installing ME that was easy. Even on a fresh hard drive. The instructions didn't even tell you what you had to do, you just sort of guessed. It took me a few hours of fiddling with it to actually figure out how to reinstall, and this is with OEM CDs from HP.
Exactly what method did you use when you reinstalled/upgraded?
I used the discs, and it was completely automatic, I booted from the disc, and presses enter then r to confirm (or some other key) then it did it all, restarted a few times, and had a clean install.
I didn't do the other computer, but her just did a clean install.
Edit: Not 100% automatic, I did forget to mention, it had me change to disc two, a while later restarted, then wanted disc 3. after that restarted and booted into the factory state.
I can't spell, don't shoot me for it! Computer: Intel i5 2500k (Not overclocked for now) 8GB DDR3, 60GB agility3 SSD, 1TB 7200rpm storage, HIS-AMD HD6870. 3 1080p Screens, and one 17 inch, running on the HD3000 and the 6870.
I used the discs, and it was completely automatic, I booted from the disc, and presses enter then r to confirm (or some other key) then it did it all, restarted a few times, and had a clean install.
I didn't do the other computer, but her just did a clean install.
Edit: Not 100% automatic, I did forget to mention, it had me change to disc two, a while later restarted, then wanted disc 3. after that restarted and booted into the factory state.
..... What?
Windows ME was only 1 CD, it's only ~510MB.
The install is not automatic, and there is no "r" to confirm when installing......
This is the procedure every version of ME used:
Insert the disc
Boot from it
Choose "start computer with CD ROM support"
Once it loads type your drive letter (D: or E:)
Type "format C:" so it can create boot partitions, if you do not format it will not install
Wait for it to format
Once formtted and you are back at the console type "setup" and it will run a disk check
Once the disk check is done, hit "x" or tab+space to exit
At this point it will either continue on a Win98 like installation, or you are returned to the console
If you're returned to the console, type setup again and it will start the installation.
OR there is the other option, depending on your setup:
Once at step 4 type "fdisk"
Hit 1 to create a logical DOS partition
Hit 1
Hit 1
Choose "yes" to use all space
Exit fdisk
Restart by holding down the power button
Start with CD ROM support again
Type "setup"
Wait for the disk check to finish
Type "setup" again
Follow installation as normal
The HP OEM discs, Gateway OEM discs, and Dell OEM discs that I have all use this method, and all were from home computers.
Again, recovery discs were not so automatic/simple back then. Even the XP OEM CDs were just the retail discs, save they didnt ask you for a serial and also installed other software alongside the OS itself.
And having just tried again, program compatibility is still a complete mess. Even programs designed for windows ME simply do not function properly.
Hell, it can't even return from a screen saver properly! I couldn't take a screenshot of the machine (obviously) so I just waited for my VM to go idle. Same result (and yes it has proper drivers installed):
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
THIS.
While I think Win 8 will be great for tablets, even something with a real keyboard/trackpad (Such as a laptop) should not be forced to look like a tablet. You loose functionality in Windows 8 if you don't have a touchscreen.
Sigh... What functionality are you losing? I am agreeing with BC, all I'm hearing is "it's different so I hate it". They have explained to you multiple times it will work just as well on a desktop than a tablet.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Please use the OS before saying something like that.
There is nothing about 8 that requires a touchscreen, and there is nothing "touchscreen" about it. The ARM port for tablets is quite a bit different.
Can you cite examples please? The only issues I am having with 8 and the menus/gestures is with more than 1 monitor, which will likely be fixed at some point considering it's not even released yet.
Why wouldn't they?
There is a pattern
Windows 95 Bad
Windows 98 good
Windows 2000 bad
Windows Xp Good
Windows Vista Bad
Windows 7 Good
Windows 8 BAD!!!!!!!!!
ALL MAC'S BAD!!!!!!!!!!
Windows 2000 was VERY good. It's ME that sucked.
Er, that doesn't prove anything. Vista wasn't that bad either.
Please do not try to start a flame war.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Everyone hated 95 until they got used to it.
98 SUCKED flat out until 98SE. "Plug and pray"
2000 was only good because we were recovering from ME (which was legitimately awful, even fresh clean installs crashed for no reason. This is where most of the people claiming windows crashes a lot get their facts from).
XP was AWFUL before SP1, some would go as far to say SP2. Random BSODs.
Vista was fine after SP1. Even before then the only problems were driver related.
7 has always been good, though it is just a rehashed vista. Just like 8 is a rehashed 7. They have the same version # (XP is 5, vista is 6.0, 7 is 6.1, 8 is 6.2).
NOTE: most of the "bad/good" was because of driver issues, program compatibility, and general stability. None of these are issues with 8.
I still won't use it, but if you are going to hate it, hate it for proper reasons, not fallacies.
Here is an example of Win98, it was still like this when released:
I don't see how people were recovering from ME as it was released months AFTER 2000 was.
I am one of the very few people that liked ME, never had an issue with it, and crashed less than XP (pre-sp1) did. I know this is a rare thing, I must have been a lucky one. (But not so lucky with Vista.)
This isn't rare, but this just plain isn't true. At all. There is just no way you "never had an issue with it". There simply isn't. It was so poorly coded and so unstable, it just isn't possible.
ME had all sorts of issues, just from being unstable and a gigantic pile of crap. This was from poor coding and the fact that it just tried to do too many things at once. "Built from the ground up to be a home OS" was nonsense.
I used it as a kid, and even now with an old PC and with VMs it STILL is unstable and crashes like no tomorrow on fresh installs, or every time hardware is plugged in. Program stability is all over the place, even things that come packaged with ME will crash or lock up the entire OS immediately.
Why do you think MS never released any windows updates for ME? Because it was beyond hope. It is still on it's RTM build!:
Although that may have had something to do with windows update always causing a BSOD.
XP pre-SP1 was far and away more stable than ME ever was, as was Vista pre-SP1. I'd even go as far to say Vista x64 pre-SP1 was far far more stable than ME ever was.
Even on fresh installs, now, in VMs or on hardware of the time, it simply does not work correctly and is incredibly unstable.
I know this for a fact. I have spent DAYS trying to get it to work, just so I could fiddle around with it, and it simply will not due to being poorly made.
I used it for years... One on an upgrade from 98, and the other a pre-installed gateway. Things were fine. A couple years ago I booted up the gateway, and got a BSOD, then tried to use the recovery discs, turns out the machine had bad RAM, replaced that, and did the re-install anyway, and things were fine.
This may be due to the drivers being pre-installed and specialized on the gateway? I have no idea. Eventually, I finally got to a point where I could install flash player and play youtube videos. I was surprised as newer systems (with XP) stuttered on youtube.
All I see ME as is pretty 98, I liked it, but I must have gotten lucky. I think I may try to find a copy and run it in a VM, I want to see it fail... I understand why people call its "Mistake Edition" I have heard people tell of their problems, just never seen them.
Hell, even just installing it is a giant pain!
AFAIK there is also no flash player version that actually worked on ME without issues, and you could certainly NOT play youtube videos as youtube does not allow video playback with browsers of that age. You get this message, even if the browser was supported still, flash player versions that are that old are not supported, and the videos simply would not load.
http://www.youtube.com/supported_browsers?next_url=/
I just tried both in a VM and on an old machine with firefox 2 and flash player 9. Videos did not load and did not play. This was with proper drivers installed as well.
Thinking about it, It was right after Vista was released.
There was nothing about installing ME that was easy. Even on a fresh hard drive. The instructions didn't even tell you what you had to do, you just sort of guessed. It took me a few hours of fiddling with it to actually figure out how to reinstall, and this is with OEM CDs from HP.
Exactly what method did you use when you reinstalled/upgraded?
I didn't do the other computer, but her just did a clean install.
Edit: Not 100% automatic, I did forget to mention, it had me change to disc two, a while later restarted, then wanted disc 3. after that restarted and booted into the factory state.
Windows ME was only 1 CD, it's only ~510MB.
The install is not automatic, and there is no "r" to confirm when installing......
This is the procedure every version of ME used:
Again, recovery discs were not so automatic/simple back then. Even the XP OEM CDs were just the retail discs, save they didnt ask you for a serial and also installed other software alongside the OS itself.
And having just tried again, program compatibility is still a complete mess. Even programs designed for windows ME simply do not function properly.
Hell, it can't even return from a screen saver properly! I couldn't take a screenshot of the machine (obviously) so I just waited for my VM to go idle. Same result (and yes it has proper drivers installed):
fm, maybe this guy is like one of insanely lucky people that somehow bypassed crashes n' junk?
Proud member of spigotmc.org.