Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Nov 2012 15:17 UTC
Windows "As we pass the one month anniversary of the general availability of Windows 8, we are pleased to announce that to-date Microsoft has sold 40 million Windows 8 licenses. Tami Reller shared this news with industry and financial analysts, investors and media today at the Credit Suisse 2012 Annual Technology Conference. Windows 8 is outpacing Windows 7 in terms of upgrades." Not bad, but there are the usual asterisks, as Ars notes.
Thread beginning with comment 543442
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, but given a choice between XP, Vista and 7, would there by any reason to pick Vista? If the hardware can handle Vista then it should also run 7. XP will run fine on hardware where Vista and 7 don't run well on.

If 8 is added to the list, does it really improve on 7? I don't like the split between Metro and classic. It should be either, not both.

Even if 8 is fine, I'm not sure it currently is a must-have upgrade to 7.

Windows 7 is great and I would have liked Microsoft to have improved upon it and not started the Metro experiment.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yes, but given a choice between XP, Vista and 7, would there by any reason to pick Vista? If the hardware can handle Vista then it should also run 7. XP will run fine on hardware where Vista and 7 don't run well on.


It depends, Windows XP runs like a dog on Dual Core machines. Vista, 7 and 8 run much better. 8 is miles faster than 7.

Speed wise Windows 8 > 7 > Vista.

The main problem is RAM, because of the aggressive pre-fetching, however it does scale itself back properly.

If 8 is added to the list, does it really improve on 7? I don't like the split between Metro and classic. It should be either, not both.


I personally don't find it a problem.

Even if 8 is fine, I'm not sure it currently is a must-have upgrade to 7.


I agree. I am using 8 and I just use the classic part for most things. I like the Metro Apps but I just don't really use them except for mail and skype.

Windows 7 is great and I would have liked Microsoft to have improved upon it and not started the Metro experiment.


I would have liked an Arm powered laptop with 8 that was running VS ... could have been an awesome machine.

Edited 2012-11-28 20:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Why doesn't XP run well on multi core PCs and isn't there a fix?

We recently bought new PCs at work, Windows 7. Our old PCs, duo cores, ran XP and they were pretty awfull. But Linux flies on them and Windows 7 is also very decent.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

8 is miles faster than 7.


People keep claiming this, but I just am not seeing such. I have Windows 8 on my laptop and while it is faster to boot the difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 boot times is about 2 seconds, and while running there is absolutely no difference in speeds whatsoever.

Reply Parent Score: 5