The end of Windows

[IainMcNeil]

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Yeah as long as you stay offline with XP it still works just fine

What are you really saying there? My XP is going to stop working on the internet?

XP will continue to run but there are no updates which means that viruses and backdoor exploits that are found now will not longer be closed so every day the chance of something horrible happening to your XP machine increases and the risk of a hacker stealing your personal data or taking over your machine. Our technical director insisted our XP machines were taken off the network. Basically use XP at your own risk

[aaatoysandmore]

I'm not sure I will update past Vista for gaming now. I'll have two separate computers. One for online and one for games.

XP runs the majority of my games just fine I see no reason to update really from that. I only went to Vista because of my job.

Vista will become my online computer till it pukes out and then I might upgrade to the lowest common denominator just to check email and forums and stuff like that. It's just not worth it to pay out that kind of money just for some text chatting and odds and ends.

I haven't found anything I use online yet that really requires Vista but because they no longer support XP I'm pretty much stuck in the treadmill climb of OS's if I want to stay online. It's surely not for gaming though.

How much longer do you think I/We have for Vista to still run Matrixgames Iain?

[AbwehrX]

I use XP for gaming and Linux on a USB drive for the net. All my saves & downloads go onto a 1.9TB external. I dont see any need to change the OS and I will never use Win 8 or 10 or Vista for anything. Win 7 would be ok when I buy a new drive if I felt like experimenting.

[VPaulus]

Well, the newer Windows (7,8 and 10) are better optimized than XP, specially if you are running it on newer hardware (after 2010).
IMO, Vista is an exception. It's the worst Windows ever released by Microsoft. Even worst than ME.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

Well, the newer Windows (7,8 and 10) are better optimized than XP, specially if you are running it on newer hardware (after 2010).
IMO, Vista is an exception. It's the worst Windows ever released by Microsoft. Even worst than ME.

Runs great for me I don't see what the problem is unless you're speaking from a programming side. It's fast and reliable and I've never had any blue screens of death (few crashes but those were actual game issues not Vista) I find more older games run on Vista than Win7 from the time I did have access to Win 7. So I really don't see the problem.

[Iron Duke]

7 versions of windows 10[X(]

Windows 10 Home: Aimed at home users on PCs, tablets and 2-in-1 tablet/laptop hybrid devices
Windows 10 Mobile: The smartphones and small tablet optimised version
Windows 10 Pro: This version has all the features of Windows 10 Home, but extra features for small businesses
Windows 10 Enterprise: Aimed at medium and large size businesses.
Windows 10 Education: For school staff, administrators, teachers and students.
Windows 10 IoT Core: Created for devices with small footprints like gateways.
Windows 10 Mobile Enterprise: For businesses using Windows on smartphones and small tablets.

even with a free upgrade from 7,8 and 8.1 think i'll stick with 7 for as long as possible

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Runs great for me I don't see what the problem is unless you're speaking from a programming side. It's fast and reliable and I've never had any blue screens of death (few crashes but those were actual game issues not Vista) I find more older games run on Vista than Win7 from the time I did have access to Win 7. So I really don't see the problem.

Any issues Vista has on the end-user side are probably papered-over nowadays by hardware vastly in excess of requirements and the relative simplicity of the software used by a layperson, but it looks really ugly to anyone on the development or support end of the userbase.

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Runs great for me I don't see what the problem is unless you're speaking from a programming side. It's fast and reliable and I've never had any blue screens of death (few crashes but those were actual game issues not Vista) I find more older games run on Vista than Win7 from the time I did have access to Win 7. So I really don't see the problem.

Any issues Vista has on the end-user side are probably papered-over nowadays by hardware vastly in excess of requirements and the relative simplicity of the software used by a layperson, but it looks really ugly to anyone on the development or support end of the userbase.

Right. [:)]
But even as an user I found it painful, to say the least. Even disabling all the nuisances like Search Indexing, Superfetch, UAC, etc., it still felt like a clunky OS.

[JosephM]

Hello All,

Well, it is all still speculation so far, but Paulo and I have been discussing it. 10 will be the last proper OS (which is to say it is a hybrid of 7/8 anyway), then from then on they'll be just updating the OS rather than a full release. When I first read the article on BBC News, Microsoft said something like "Previously we got our engineers in a room and they spent 3 years working on a system, but times have moved on and now we spend ages always adding updates anyway, so from now on any new Windows will come as updates".

We also can't see then forcing people to subscribe to Windows (which isn't a guarantee that they won't), but if you think of all the manufacturers and all the retail sales, then it isn't really sensible to get people to subscribe to get an OS, as how would you do that when you buy a PC? Plus if they try that, someone will make an equivalent OS and cripple their market. BUT we do think that they'll charge more for various bits and pieces - Skype, Office, Dropbox, possibly Spartan etc - and make the money that way. Remember, Microsoft mostly make their money from Office, so charging for Windows is pointless.

[JosephM]

On the Vista/XP side, it is the old saying with Windows, the alternate OSs tend to be the "better" OSs, which is to say that from 98, they alternate between good and bad: 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10. I've tested the early builds of 10 and it seems easy to use, and I think 7 works very well. XP was great, but 7 has some great features without changing a lot. Vista was OK, but 7 is the equivalent of Vista+, so more streamlined. The issue with XP and what will be an issue with Vista is that over time the hardware will move on and that'll affect the OS. I've been on 7 since almost the release and never got into 8, but I think I'll buy a retail version of 10 so I always have a disc to get the base version.

[AbwehrX]

Well, the newer Windows (7,8 and 10) are better optimized than XP, specially if you are running it on newer hardware (after 2010).
IMO, Vista is an exception. It's the worst Windows ever released by Microsoft. Even worst than ME.

Hmmmm (another poor sod infected by Consumerismus Erraticus). WinXP runs almost all of my games easily (with some using Dosbox). Vista, 8, 10 or whatever needless Microscam modification they come out with are counterproductive wastes of time & space. (Win8 is grotesquely horrid adware/kidware sewage IMHO). For surfing, Linux works beautifully. No threat of viruses & smooth operation from site to site. For accounting Office still runs just fine on XP. Oneday soon I will also be running WinME on VMware in Linux for shitz & giggles as well so changing the Opsys would be a titanic waste of time. I recommend sticking with what works. [:'(]

[aaatoysandmore]

I remember ME...I liked that one for a time. Forget what forced me to upgrade to XP? Was it you Matrixgames/Slitherine? [:D]

[VPaulus]

Sure, try to run ArmA 3 , on Windows XP...[;)]

[AbwehrX]

No need. I run World in Flames on XP with glee! [:'(]

[Fallschirmjager]

This thread thread reminds me why wargames are still stuck in the stoneage. It is not the developers, it it the people who play them. Yikes [X(]

[AbwehrX]

Fallschirmjager,
Bah! Silly neophyte. World in Flames is the ultimate game & there is no need to change a thing. [:'(]

[Gilmer]

Yeah, of them all I've liked 7 the best, I suppose. I have windows 8 on a laptop, but I'm not too big of a fan, just for the interface. I guess behind the scenes it works fairly well?

So, I guess we'll all be on Win 10 at some point, if what was said about them just updating 10 from now on is the goal.

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

Yeah, of them all I've liked 7 the best, I suppose. I have windows 8 on a laptop, but I'm not too big of a fan, just for the interface. I guess behind the scenes it works fairly well?

Use a proper Start button, like for example Start8, and in IMO it even works better than 7.
The only big issue is the lack of 16bit color depth mode... this can affect some of the older games.

[AbwehrX]

The only big issue is the lack of 16bit color depth mode... this can affect some of the older games.

That most decidedly rates the POS totally worthless!

[rhondabrwn]

The thought has occurred to me that if I take the "free" Windows 10 upgrade... and then a couple of years down the road I have to scrap my PC (new mobo, CPU, graphics card, and hard drives etc) will I be able to reinstall that "free" upgrade onto my rebuilt PC?

If MS provides a disk image during the initial upgrade, I assume I could (1) install Win 7 on the new system and then (2) run the Win 10 upgrade... BUT would it fail a Microsoft registration test and not activate? Would I then have to buy a copy of Win 10 at that point.

I remember Microsoft has (or did have) some kind of point system to distinguish between a legitimate hardware upgrade and an attempt to install a copy of Windows onto a 2nd machine. I haven't really been following tech journals or websites in a few years and my last new "build" was about six years ago.

So what do you guys think will happen in this "new PC" scenario. Does MS intend to make us all pay for Win 10 down the road once we're "hooked" on the O/S with the free upgrade?