CookyMonzta, on 10 December 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:
I must disagree. The skepticism toward Win95 was hardly as brutal as the skepticism toward Win8 is deserving. No one paid attention to Windows until the introduction of Win3.0 in 1990. It was quite straightforward, and you could boot into it or go back to DOS at any time. Same for its upgrades, 3.1 and 3.11. From my experience, people were actually looking forward to the introduction of Win95 (as was I). We had well over a year and a half of previews of the program that was either known to many as Win4.0 or by its code name, 'Chicago', on computer shows on cable or at various expos. Once more, it had been only 5½ years since programmers started taking Windows seriously.
Really? Windows 95 introduced problems like no other OS in Microsoft's history. For a first time, Windows had total control of the PC. For the first time, the Windows registry was implemented system-wide, which is a bane to users even today. For the first time, software compatible from the previous environment. Memory requirements went from a few kilobytes to several megabytes. 32bit drivers were a necessity, even though Microsoft claimed you could still use Dos drivers, they caused more system instability than most viruses. Then there was the performance impact. The common mans machine at the time was either a 386 or 486. Both ran too pitifully to be of real use. It wasn't even until OSR2 that I even saw Windows 95 overtake the desktop market in anyplace but the home. Even then most businesses didn't want to touch it, and for good reason.
No, Windows 95 was a failure - for all intents and purposes, until USB made it's big debut, and for USB, you had to get Windows 95B (OSR2).
From what I remember, reviews were quite positive, especially due to the fact that many programs that were made for Win3.1 worked quite well in Win95. The only problem that I can remember was that it still had a problem addressing more memory than the typical 640K DOS limit for some DOS programs (games in particular). I never used Win98, but I believe that Win98 solved that problem. By that time, all the major manufacturers were making programs exclusively for Windows, which made it less of a problem for users when WinXP was introduced.
Microsoft has a problem not with the Metro interface alone, but with who and what it was INTENDED for. It is now more than 22 years since the introduction of Win3.0, and you'd figure they would know better than to make an OS that was intended specifically for the TABLET user (clearly exemplified by the fact that Metro is based on a design made famous by Windows Phone 7), to the point where many aspects of the Metro interface are incompatible with the desktop interface. Again, I thought I read somewhere that there are two SEPARATE Internet Explorer programs; one for Metro and one for the desktop, each of which must be installed separately to its corresponding interface because they are not cross-compatible. The Metro version does not support plug-ins.
Given the feedback I've been reading all over the Web, that is not the only problem Win8 has. Even Vista didn't have as many issues as this. And therein lies the failure of Win8, for which this thing called Windows Blue or Windows 9 will have to clean up. They tried to make 2 operating systems in one, tried to have them coexist with one another; yet too many aspects of the Metro interface and the desktop are not compatible with one another.
In which case, they should have made 2 separate operating systems; one for the touch-screen laptop or tablet, and one for the desktop machine. Clearly they need to reconsider that option. That is why the people have routinely skipped a Windows release to wait for the next one, and once again, this is such a time. Again, big mistake to release Win8 only 3 years after Win7, when it was 6 years between XP and Vista. If they wanted to introduce Metro, they should have made it a Service Pack option for Win7. They've been entirely sloppy this time, in their attempt to anticipate what the public wants.
There were many more software problems than you seem to be letting on to. I remember many problems quite clearly, partially due to my desire to enjoy games. Quake never ran correctly in Windows 95 on any of my machines, nor did any of my DOS software. In fact, it was Windows 95 that finally convinced me to install Linux, not to play those games mind you, but to use the boot loader. With Linux, I could install Windows on one hard drive, Dos and Linux on a second, and use Linux to manage all three.
But there were CDROM drive issues (drives randomly disappearing), sound card problems, the constant video driver problems, and so on. I was constantly helping neighbors repair their machines when they finally got it. Windows 95 was a mess of epic proportions.
Metro has multiple uses, and it depends on the user to determine what works best for him/her/it. It has become clear, not just to me, but Microsoft as well, that users don't WANT separate OSes for everything. They tire of having to learn, and re-learn how to use EVERY device they own. This is why Metro exists. It bridges a gap. People that adapt to a tablet interface, can adapt quickly to a Windows 8 PC. It is consistent then to both their phone and tablet.
Those of us that have other needs, simply end up with a very nice start menu replacement. No longer to I have to waste my time digging through endless menus looking for software, or use BrainOuts approach of having every icon of importance lining the entire border of my display. I have a clean task bar, a clean desktop, and a well organized FLAT start menu called Metro. Finally Microsoft got smart and disabled plugins in the Metro-IE, removing yet another nightmare from those who have to fix 'grandmas' machine: tool bars. No more crap hijacking the browser. You have a consistent, clean browser should you need it. I don't use Metro for any other purpose than what I need it to do. Telling me all the things it won't do that don't actually affect me means nothing. For most users, you will find it is the same for them. They just need to decide what is best for them.
The performance changes speak for themselves. I have Windows 8 installed on a server, and it boots an AMD 3Ghz machine on a 7200RPM hard drive FASTER than my Intel i7 laptop with a SSD running Windows 7. Not only does it boot faster, it responds better. It handles the server load better than Windows 7 did, and in the end, makes it more productive. Not to mention the fact that 99% of the drivers were already in place. Something Windows 7 never managed. Windows 7 had about a 50% driver compatibility rate on its own. With most of my machines having network cards that Windows 7 didn't like. Windows 8 has made full use of every network card in my house, including wireless cards.
You have to look at things from more than just the negative view points in life, else you just end up a negative person (not saying you are negative at all - you have been one of the few sane people worth discussing this with). Go look at Windows 8 again, from a positive angle. Look for ways that it makes life better. You might actually be surprised at what you find.
This post has been edited by waldojim: 10 December 2012 - 02:09 AM
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
-- Isaac Asimov
Lenovo W520 CTO Intel i7-2620m, 8GB Patriot ram @ 1333Mhz, Nvidia Quadro 1000m with 2GB GDRR3, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P wide color display, Windows 8 Pro
Media Center: Intel Core i5 760 @ 3.1Ghz, 4GB DDR3, Corsair GS600PSU, EVGA Geforce 550ti, EVGA P55 SLI, 3x 1TB raid 5, 1x 1TB boot drive, Windows 8 Pro, Win TV 950(USB), Pioneer BR.
Server: AMD Phenom X4 945 @ 3.0Ghz, MSI 790FX-GD70, 16gb ddr3 RAM @ 1333mhz, 2TB Seagate HDD, 64GB Patriot SSD, Asus Silent Gefore 210
The Green machine: AMD Sempron 145EE Unlocked and OC'd to 4.1Ghz, Gigabyte GD970A-DS3, 8GB ram @ 1600mhz, Nvidia 550Ti, Thermaltake BlueOrb, Antec EW385
Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Paranoid Android 4.2 Rom http://www.speedtest...d/315465831.png