Opening the Next Windows

Windows 98SE was the best of the Windows family. It has been downhill from there. Unfortunately, it looks like Ubuntu is taking Linux down the same path...

I'll stick with Windows 98 SE until I can no longer buy used equipment that can run it...Then I will find a decent Linux or BSD distro and run Windows 98 SE in VirtualBox, until Oracle kills VirtualBox. Then I will see if Wine has gotten any better, or maybe Qemu...

The elephant in the windows room

is that XP is by far the most widely used OS in the world

Win8 is supposed to run on multiple hardware platforms

I'm about to give this

http://www.xubuntu.org/about

a run

looks like it will meet my needs

Ubuntu is going towards a touch screen desktop environment as default

we won't need to make a decision until the next LTS comes out

I wonder what RKramer thinks?

Two things are happening in the Ubuntu environment- one is Ubuntu changing to Unity (the touch screen desktop, which I have no use for), and Gnome is going to Gnome-3, which is full of bugs right now. My Ubuntu 10.04 works the way I want it to, I have spent a good deal of time and effort getting comfortable with it, it does what I want it to do. I do NOT want to change my interface, because that means a new learning curve, which means more wasted time just getting back to where I am right now. I have more important things to do with my time.

One of the reasons I abandoned Windows as a primary operating system is that each time they came out with a new version, one had to spend a good deal of time just learning how to migrate through the system (and a lot of the third party apps no longer worked). Now, Ubuntu seems to be following that same strategy- change for the sake of change.

"Latest" is not always "greatest".

Is there a pattern here? Is it a planned two steps forward one step back convoluted marketing scheme to keep things in flux in order to obfuscate that fact that they are just keeping things stirred up in order to maximize profits? Come on now, with as much money as they have, don't you think they could put out a reliable product every time if they wanted to? Of course they could. But they have to throw out a piece of crap once in a while just to keep us in limbo. It's a game. Not entirely unlike the game that is being perpetrated upon us by the supposed "free market" financial tyrants of wall street who use the periodic manufactured "crisis" in order to get a welfare hand out from the public. It's just a means of maximizing the transfer of wealth. Don't kid yourself.

Sure its all about money. If they do not put out new products, no additional profits are made, hence market share drops as does stock profit. Why release a perfect product? You would then not need the next version to fix what was wrong with the previous version and profits would drop drastically.Then third stage parties would be out of business as there would be no need to buy their programs to add the functionality you need.You would then never need another operating system unless technology changed to the point it could no longer run the one you considered optimal. Yes, Microsoft or Apple could make a system than ran perfectly, but then you would not need the next version and they couldn't make the next needless 20 billion.

Actually I like windows 7, at least the 64 bit version. I do 3d modeling for an engineering company. Granted, I still have the occasional problem, but no more than in any version of Windows. I started with the Mac, and always preferred it over Windows, but at the time the programs available for windows out-marketed Mac's. Mac's always just felt well, smoother, less hiccups.

I usually wait until at least 6 months after release of any new version to switch, that way most of the initial problems are solved and companies have had time to update drivers.

I have never used all windows versions after leaving DOS.

I was very "into" DOS and remained a DOS fan even after Win3.1 was around, many things I could accomplish faster under DOS. I still have an old 486 Laptop with DOS, Win3.1, XTGold and Eagle PCB CAD for producing PCBs. The version of Eagle is from the days of 286's and runs blistering fast on a 486!!!

Win95 was really good and as a company we stayed with it and never used WinME for example till Win200 was available.

We then used Win98SE, which I agree was a great OS. In fact I still use it on an old Pentium Laptop for CNC work occasionally.

For networking we had been using WinNT still in before/parallel to Win98SE.....I was an "installer" for our software team as they seemingly could not get an install to run......unbelievably!!

Win2000 is my main favourite for all time and still have a copy running on a Portable AMD PC for testing modern tape drives......

I started late with WinXP, at SP1 time and now use it on 3 family laptops and two PCs, it works really well for us all.

My limited experience of Vista is only trying to help friends who went against my advice and bought it!!! Absolute rubbish.

I have no personal Win7 experience, but a few friends use it with considerable success.....

I hope this helps a little.

This Laptop has Vista - no problems but I don't push it. All my other PCs have XP - no problems there either, unless I make them!

Vista was terrible. Basically I believe it was nothing more than a beta for windows 7, a way to test certain functions and we were the testers.The 64 bit version of windows 7 is pretty stable. I still have problems with programs seeming to not free up all the memory when opening and closing multiple models in Inventor, but I am used to that as every version seems to do it so I suspect its an inventor not windows thing. Windows 7 does seem to be less of a memory hog, and I hope they continue that into windows 8. I probably will upgrade, but only after they have drivers for all the printers, scanners etc that I use. I waited about 8 months after 7's release, and have not had any major issues. Some things were in different places, but all in all its a more stable platform than a lot of other versions of windows. But as I said I use the 64 bit version, which runs natively on today's computers as they are built for 64 bit operating systems. My suggestion is to make sure you have a computer that will run a 64 bit operating system and then upgrade to a 64 bit system. It is faster and less bug free than a 32 bit system.

But before anyone does so make sure that updated drivers exist for your video card, and any other devices you use, printers, scanners, sound cards, etc. Make sure they are 64 bit drivers as well, not 32 bit. 32 bit will work, but defeats the speed gain as windows must run conversion code.

I have sometimes waited a year to upgrade, simply as drivers were not yet available. For windows 7 I waited about 8 months, even tho the drivers were ready as I did not want to buy Vista repackaged until the problems it had were fixed. So when the majority of complaints were solved I then purchased and am not sorry I did.

I still prefer the older Mac system, but not sure about the new ones as they are basically Windows now with an Apple twist and I haven't had the chance to play with them yet. When I first started Apple was the choice for graphic professionals. And it is true, if you use a Mac you end up loving your Mac

For one with Mac you plugged into the Internet or Network and wham, you were connected, it set it all up for you. No IT needed. If your system crashed, a program could be ran to isolate the drivers causing the failure so you knew what to fix which ones were causing conflict.

So better systems are possible, I just wish they would spend more time refining one version into simpler code, then trying to wow us with all these new features that usually only cause more little quirks. I do not need a new feature to get my work done unless its a revolutionary one that saves me hours, and more than likely that will be done in the program I use, not my operating system. I need a stable system, that responds to what I ask it to do quickly and without hiccups. If I need a fancy new look to my desktop I will buy a desktop program, just please give me a stable system as a core that I can then build on to do what I need it to do.

Did you really mean that:-

It is faster and less bug free than a 32 bit system.

or was it just a (n un)subtle warning?

No, the 64 bit version "IS" worth the extra money "IF": your computer is totally 64 bit compatible and the drivers for all your extra goodies have a 64 bit version. AND the programs you use the most are written or have a 64 bit version available. If you use programs that have no 64 bit version, then a 64 bit operating system only gives you a slightly faster startup, that program will still only run at 32 bit speeds, not taking advantage of the extra 32 bit pipelines.

I won't swear they are more stable, but since every program I have has a 64 bit version I do notice a speed increase and it has seemed to me that I have less problems than I did when running 32 bit. I believe this is because soon they will stop making an operating system that runs 32 bit code. All computers sold today are 64 bit ready (if bought from a reputable dealer not a wharehouser).

Apple did the same thing once, requiring all programs for it change to the new code. That is no programs not written for that version would not run on it. I believe Microsoft is preparing to do the same thing with 32 bit code.

I meant with 64 bit code, that is soon they will put out an operating system that will not run 32 bit code.

Win has already started down that path with IE9 not being compatible with XP

You didn't read AND understand exactly what you wrote. I guess you meant the opposite, so I tried to make a joke about it, but that seems to have gone over your head!!!

I think the answer is more benign (at least as far as motives go) than we might first assume.

It's related to the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Once "software engineering" became a whole career, what is one going to do after the first product? Do you just retire? No. If you go to work everyday and your job is to write code, you write code. Since most application needs have been met, your only recourse is to refine or rewrite what you've already written. The real problem is that once there was dedicated labor for writing software as a full-time job "nails" had to be found.

The other driving force is that software, obviously, operates hardware. As hardware improves, software has to be rewritten to operate the new hardware.

When you're young the adventure of technology is enticing. The older I get the more I feel I could become a Luddite.

Yes, I have done my share of designing databases, and after you have done it so many times you actually stop reworking your old code and start trying new fancy things to pretty it up, even if that may cause problems you then need to work around. The perfect system could be made, but then you would never need another unless hardware or software advanced to the point that new programs would not run on the old hardware or system. This would then mean no money for research and you would have the perfect system that would never advance to do more things as no research was being done. Its a two-edged sword.