Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Next Web)   I use Windows 8. You've probably never heard of it   (thenextweb.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Windows 8.1, Windows, Net Applications, market share, Windows XP  
•       •       •

4247 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jun 2014 at 12:48 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-03 11:34:06 AM  
With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.
 
2014-06-03 11:57:41 AM  

ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.


The every other version policy has worked for me.  I absolutely farking LOVE 7, 8 can eabod.  I predict 9 will be awesome.
 
2014-06-03 12:08:03 PM  

nekom: ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.

The every other version policy has worked for me.  I absolutely farking LOVE 7, 8 can eabod.  I predict 9 will be awesome.


9 may have the ability to cure cancer.
 
2014-06-03 12:51:28 PM  

ManateeGag: nekom: ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.

The every other version policy has worked for me.  I absolutely farking LOVE 7, 8 can eabod.  I predict 9 will be awesome.

9 may have the ability to cure cancer.


That's great because  Windows 8 gave my wife rectal cancer.
 
2014-06-03 01:03:11 PM  
I wouldn't be surprised if 8 was responsible for increases in blood pressure.
 
2014-06-03 01:06:23 PM  

Danger Mouse: That's great because Windows 8 gave my wife rectal cancer.


That was me, sorry.
 
2014-06-03 01:11:23 PM  
It's the year of the Linux desktop!
cdn1.tnwcdn.com
It is interesting to note that both versions of Windows 8 & 8.1 each have nearly as many users as there are OSX users out there - yet you don't hear people claiming that Apple OSX is an abject failure and should be scrapped.

And that Windows 95, 98 and 200 users are finally now less than 1/10th of 1% of users.
 
2014-06-03 01:18:27 PM  

MrSteve007: yet you don't hear people claiming that Apple OSX is an abject failure and should be scrapped.


If your OS is the standard for offices and personal computers around the world, you may be held to a higher standard. TMYK
 
2014-06-03 01:20:52 PM  

LoneVVolf: Danger Mouse: That's great because Windows 8 gave my wife rectal cancer.

That was me, sorry



Well...you better be!

 Originaly she told me she got it from wearing a bathing suit while riding a tractor.  But I'm not that stupid. I blame Windows 8.
 
2014-06-03 01:31:53 PM  
Once more companies start getting everything working on newer OS's or newer versions of IE, XP will finally die out. Then it'll mostly switch to 7. The company I work for uses XP and IE 6 on our computers, with one or two test computers in each store with IE8. 10-12 computers per store times 8,000+ stores means it will all move VERY slowly. Even more slowly given that we have satellite internet.
 
2014-06-03 01:32:26 PM  

ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.


People are idiots, what's new.

Especially people who stayed on XP for this long.
 
2014-06-03 01:33:42 PM  
I think I read somewhere that with Windows 9 they were sticking to their guns with the Windows 8 philosophy that I found to be the most annoying:  not tailoring the OS to the device that it is installed on.  Instead of having a Windows 9 and a Windows 9 Tablet Edition (or whatever) they are simply going with a Windows 9 and making the desktop user adapt to a clunky interface designed for mobile devices.

With that in mind I think I'll be on Windows 7 until it hits the date where they no longer support it.

/yes, I know that you can tweak Win8 for use with a desktop
//and if one version is so important how about at least putting a radio button in the install (Install Windows 8 for a: *desktop *tablet) so the user doesn't have to spend an hour setting default programs, desktops, etc., etc.
 
2014-06-03 01:34:33 PM  

nekom: ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.

The every other version policy has worked for me.  I absolutely farking LOVE 7, 8 can eabod.  I predict 9 will be awesome.


Windows 9 will be like Windows 8.

Windows 8 is superiour to Windows 7 in every imaginable way.

---

I can't blame people for not seeing the need to upgrade from Windows 7 to 8, since 7 works fine. But having to justify it is just moronic.
 
2014-06-03 01:35:34 PM  
For the love of god, why would NOT upgrade to 8.1 if you already had 8. There are so many updates that make it much easier to deal with (and 8.1 Update 1 is a godsend to anyone who uses a non-touchscreen computer).
 
2014-06-03 01:36:00 PM  
jbtilley:

/yes, I know that you can tweak Win8 for use with a desktop

So, there went your whole point.
 
2014-06-03 01:38:17 PM  
Why yes, I'm using IE6 right now. This is because I bought retail Windows 2000 back in 1999 for £129 and I just shift it to newer hardware every other year. I can't update anything -- half the stuff out there won't even run on 2000.

I have Opera in reserve for sites that simply won't load with IE6, but that version (9) isn't available through the Opera download any more. I have a huge collection of obsolete software that I've kept for the bi-annual migration.

And why stay with 2000? If you manage to run a program, it's fast as fark. Also, I always thought XP was a candy-assed piece of bloatware made mainly for easily impressed goons who liked horse-power robbing rounded corners on all their damn windows and dialogues.

I used NT4 for five years before that, and only switched to 2000 because NT4 doesn't do USB native and they quit selling parallel port scanners.
 
2014-06-03 01:40:47 PM  

spawn73: nekom: ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.

The every other version policy has worked for me.  I absolutely farking LOVE 7, 8 can eabod.  I predict 9 will be awesome.

Windows 9 will be like Windows 8.


Except for this, which a biggie for anyone without a touchscreen:

i1-news.softpedia-static.com

The Start screen is a decent idea, but I just can never find anything, especially if I go into all apps view. The big flat list of apps is really not that easy to use compared to being able to set up Start Menu folders for various apps. On Win 7, I could generally get to an app in no time through the Start Menu, while half the time in 8, I have to search for the app, which is not ideal. If I wanted to be typing commands to launch an app, I'd be using Linux.
 
2014-06-03 01:41:46 PM  

spawn73: nekom: ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.

The every other version policy has worked for me.  I absolutely farking LOVE 7, 8 can eabod.  I predict 9 will be awesome.

Windows 9 will be like Windows 8.

Windows 8 is superiour to Windows 7 in every imaginable way.


Well except for that whole Metro UI thing.

Install Classic Shell. Then Windows 8 is superior to Win 7.
 
2014-06-03 01:42:46 PM  
Am I hipster?   2.9% for Vista Business on my laptop.

oi62.tinypic.com

Prefer Vista over Windows 7.
 
2014-06-03 01:45:19 PM  

spawn73: jbtilley:

/yes, I know that you can tweak Win8 for use with a desktop

So, there went your whole point.


Pretty much.  Still I remember setting things straight with Win 8 to be a royal PITA.  Set the default program for opening pdfs to a non metro program.  Set the default program for opening pdfs AGAIN because for some reason it didn't take.

So again have a simple radio button:
1) Desktop selected metro isn't even installed.  No need to spend the time cleaning up the mess.
2) Tablet/mobile selected.  Install all that garbage.
 
2014-06-03 01:46:01 PM  

natgab: Am I hipster?   2.9% for Vista Business on my laptop.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 640x400]

Prefer Vista over Windows 7.


Properly updated Vista is pretty much Windows 7.
 
2014-06-03 01:46:50 PM  
I love it on my tablet, but I can't imagine the Metro interface being at all useful on my desktop.
 
2014-06-03 01:46:58 PM  

natgab: Prefer Vista over Windows 7.


They're not all that fundamentally different anymore. Vista's problem was mostly its utterly botched launch. It was full of bugs and driver support from vendors was very poor. UAC was also infuriating out of the box in Vista. A fully patched up version of Vista, however, is perfectly usable, it's just that by the time that happened most people figured that they may as well just save their money, stick with XP and then jump right to the next major release that was right around the corner.
 
2014-06-03 01:47:39 PM  

LoneVVolf: Danger Mouse: That's great because Windows 8 gave my wife rectal cancer.

That was me, sorry.


LVV, quit giving rectals cancer, geez.
 
2014-06-03 01:51:02 PM  
I have been using Windows 8 for the past year and have had exactly zero problems.

Still wondering what all the fuss is about.
 
2014-06-03 01:52:27 PM  

letrole: And why stay with 2000? If you manage to run a program, it's fast as fark. Also, I always thought XP was a candy-assed piece of bloatware made mainly for easily impressed goons who liked horse-power robbing rounded corners on all their damn windows and dialogues.


Fun fact: from Vista onwards all the eye candy of the UI was handed off to the GPU thanks to the Windows Presentation Foundation, so for most computer tasks you are actually using less of your CPU to draw the screen with all the eye candy turned on in Windows 7 compared to Windows 2000 with no eye candy. The same goes for things like video playback, which are all hardware accelerated in newer OSes.

Using old software generally makes your new hardware run slower, because you aren't able to take full advantage of newer CPUs and GPUs. For example, an i7 would run like ass on Windows 2000 because it doesn't handle multitasking as well, so the 8 virtual cores would go to waste due to bad thread management.

Of course, I may be wasting my time replying, since your handle could be read as Le Troll.
 
2014-06-03 01:53:49 PM  

jbtilley: Pretty much. Still I remember setting things straight with Win 8 to be a royal PITA. Set the default program for opening pdfs to a non metro program. Set the default program for opening pdfs AGAIN because for some reason it didn't take.

So again have a simple radio button:
1) Desktop selected metro isn't even installed. No need to spend the time cleaning up the mess.
2) Tablet/mobile selected. Install all that garbage.

I find the arguments over Windows 8 and PDF's to be pretty amusing. If you don't like the built in PDF viewer, which uses the metro interface, you install a different PDF reader and let it assume the default.

In Windows 7, Vista, XP, or any other version of Windows, the OS can't read *any* PDF out of the box, so you're forced to install a PDF reader. Realistically, nothing has changed in the process - with the exception that in Win 8, you have the option *not* to install a 3rd party PDF reader.

Yet people complain that it was better before.
 
2014-06-03 01:55:00 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: natgab: Am I hipster?   2.9% for Vista Business on my laptop.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 640x400]

Prefer Vista over Windows 7.

Properly updated Vista is pretty much Windows 7.


--The trick is to have a laptop that is designed for Vista and to have 4GB of RAM!
 
2014-06-03 01:56:46 PM  

jbtilley: Pretty much. Still I remember setting things straight with Win 8 to be a royal PITA. Set the default program for opening pdfs to a non metro program. Set the default program for opening pdfs AGAIN because for some reason it didn't take.


Ha! that's the one annoying thing I have to say about win8/8.1 on the desktop. For some reason this JUST KEEPS farkING HAPPENING.
 
2014-06-03 01:59:26 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Fun fact: from Vista onwards all the eye candy of the UI was handed off to the GPU thanks to the Windows Presentation Foundation, so for most computer tasks you are actually using less of your CPU to draw the screen with all the eye candy turned on in Windows 7 compared to Windows 2000 with no eye candy. The same goes for things like video playback, which are all hardware accelerated in newer OSes.

Yeah, I always scratch my head when I see users in my office dumb down their desktop to "classic" mode, claiming that it speeds up their system.

Nevermind that they're using 4th gen Core i7s, w/ 16 gigs of system ram, SSDs and 4gig Quadro K5100m video cards - I have a feeling the OS rendering isn't a big deal to the system.
 
2014-06-03 01:59:33 PM  

SpdrJay: I have been using Windows 8 for the past year and have had exactly zero problems.

Still wondering what all the fuss is about.


Personal or work?
 
2014-06-03 02:01:21 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Of course, I may be wasting my time replying, since your handle could be read as Le Troll.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-03 02:01:49 PM  

Mad_Radhu: For the love of god, why would NOT upgrade to 8.1 if you already had 8. There are so many updates that make it much easier to deal with (and 8.1 Update 1 is a godsend to anyone who uses a non-touchscreen computer).


Because 8.1 isn't an automatic upgrade and most users never touch their updates.
 
2014-06-03 02:02:20 PM  
That Vista number is way way too low.
 
2014-06-03 02:04:51 PM  

MrSteve007: vermind that they're using 4th gen Core i7s, w/ 16 gigs of system ram, SSDs and 4gig Quadro K5100m video cards - I have a feeling the OS rendering isn't a big deal to the system.


Yeah, people don't seem to realize how much stuff is being handed off to dedicated chips in modern computers. Plus Windows 8 has a lot of code to allow RT to work on ARM tablets that do pretty much all the heavy lifting with custom silicon in the chipset that handles things like video and audio encoding/decoding and working with images.
 
2014-06-03 02:08:59 PM  

SpdrJay: I have been using Windows 8 for the past year and have had exactly zero problems.

Still wondering what all the fuss is about.


This. People like to biatch, but Windows 8 works just fine. Didn't notice a big difference between 8 and 8.1 (though I was using a Start button app alread).
 
2014-06-03 02:11:26 PM  

MrSteve007: It's the year of the Linux desktop!

It is interesting to note that both versions of Windows 8 & 8.1 each have nearly as many users as there are OSX users out there - yet you don't hear people claiming that Apple OSX is an abject failure and should be scrapped.

And that Windows 95, 98 and 200 users are finally now less than 1/10th of 1% of users.


The OSX figure represents 2-3 years of sales by one company, while the Win8 figure represents sales by a dozen companies over the past year or so. Market fracture.
 
2014-06-03 02:14:57 PM  
Good deal! Proof that, in 'murica, all you have to do is pour a billion bucks into marketing and the dumb f*cks will come runnin' hungry and eager to gobble that sh*t up.  and they'll pay for the privilege too.


they can polish the windows Turd all they want, but it is still not secure, spy/adware ridden, NSA backdoored, and spaghetti code.
 
2014-06-03 02:15:58 PM  

Hebalo: SpdrJay: I have been using Windows 8 for the past year and have had exactly zero problems.

Still wondering what all the fuss is about.

This. People like to biatch, but Windows 8 works just fine. Didn't notice a big difference between 8 and 8.1 (though I was using a Start button app alread).



better scan that thing well.  i'm sure it's clean......
 
2014-06-03 02:16:37 PM  
Still using 7 with no perceived need or desire to upgrade to 8 (or 8.1). But when I get a new computer, it'll have 8.1 (or 9) on it. I'll get over it.
 
2014-06-03 02:17:56 PM  

Linux_Yes: Hebalo: SpdrJay: I have been using Windows 8 for the past year and have had exactly zero problems.

Still wondering what all the fuss is about.

This. People like to biatch, but Windows 8 works just fine. Didn't notice a big difference between 8 and 8.1 (though I was using a Start button app alread).


better scan that thing well.  i'm sure it's clean......


cause the best rootkits, trojens, spyware/adware/viruses/worms are the ones that keep themselves hidden and do their job without the user's knowledge.

out of site, out of mind. but still in the 'puter.  i'm sure you're system is clean.
 
2014-06-03 02:18:08 PM  

wildcardjack: The OSX figure represents 2-3 years of sales by one company, while the Win8 figure represents sales by a dozen companies over the past year or so. Market fracture.

Ehh, nope. OSX represents sales all versions of Mac that have been sold and still operational for the past 13 *years,* when OSX launched.

Windows 8 represents sales of the OS or related hardware in the past 18 months.
 
2014-06-03 02:19:12 PM  

flaminio: Still using 7 with no perceived need or desire to upgrade to 8 (or 8.1). But when I get a new computer, it'll have 8.1 (or 9) on it. I'll get over it.



now, if you can just get over the fact that, even if your system is infected, you would likely never know.  the best malware stays hidden so it can do its job.
 
2014-06-03 02:20:56 PM  

MrSteve007: Mad_Radhu: Fun fact: from Vista onwards all the eye candy of the UI was handed off to the GPU thanks to the Windows Presentation Foundation, so for most computer tasks you are actually using less of your CPU to draw the screen with all the eye candy turned on in Windows 7 compared to Windows 2000 with no eye candy. The same goes for things like video playback, which are all hardware accelerated in newer OSes.
Yeah, I always scratch my head when I see users in my office dumb down their desktop to "classic" mode, claiming that it speeds up their system.

Nevermind that they're using 4th gen Core i7s, w/ 16 gigs of system ram, SSDs and 4gig Quadro K5100m video cards - I have a feeling the OS rendering isn't a big deal to the system.



windows???   bloatware??   why i'm shocked!
 
2014-06-03 02:23:08 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: natgab: Am I hipster?   2.9% for Vista Business on my laptop.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 640x400]

Prefer Vista over Windows 7.

Properly updated Vista is pretty much Windows 7.



correct.  it's all windows and it's all susceptible to the same weaknesses.  consistency is very important in an OS.
 
2014-06-03 02:24:18 PM  

Linux_Yes: flaminio: Still using 7 with no perceived need or desire to upgrade to 8 (or 8.1). But when I get a new computer, it'll have 8.1 (or 9) on it. I'll get over it.


now, if you can just get over the fact that, even if your system is infected, you would likely never know.  the best malware stays hidden so it can do its job.


You seem to want to say something here.
 
2014-06-03 02:25:15 PM  
she shouldn't have gone ass-to-mouth
 
2014-06-03 02:29:06 PM  

spawn73: ManateeGag: With XP no longer supported, I'm sure most people will be going to 7.  8 if they absolutely have to.

People are idiots, what's new.

Especially people who stayed on XP for this long.


I bought a new PC from Acer in 2009.  It had XP factory installed.    5 years whole years.  Sunset me.

/And as long as it keeps the World of Warcrap addicts in my house supplied with their fix OK, its not going to be upgraded.
 
2014-06-03 02:29:50 PM  

letrole: Why yes, I'm using IE6 right now. This is because I bought retail Windows 2000 back in 1999 for £129 and I just shift it to newer hardware every other year. I can't update anything -- half the stuff out there won't even run on 2000.

I have Opera in reserve for sites that simply won't load with IE6, but that version (9) isn't available through the Opera download any more. I have a huge collection of obsolete software that I've kept for the bi-annual migration.

And why stay with 2000? If you manage to run a program, it's fast as fark. Also, I always thought XP was a candy-assed piece of bloatware made mainly for easily impressed goons who liked horse-power robbing rounded corners on all their damn windows and dialogues.

I used NT4 for five years before that, and only switched to 2000 because NT4 doesn't do USB native and they quit selling parallel port scanners.



wow, what a mess your system is.   here's the best advice you'll ever get.  go to Linuxmint.com and your view of windows will change forever.  you have no idea how much you are crippling yourself with old software.  download it, burn the image to a dvd or usb. boot off it and change your 'puter's life.

if you want to just try it out before installing, then just boot off the DVD/USB and use it on your desktop for awhile.
 
2014-06-03 02:30:32 PM  

MrSteve007: wildcardjack: The OSX figure represents 2-3 years of sales by one company, while the Win8 figure represents sales by a dozen companies over the past year or so. Market fracture.
Ehh, nope. OSX represents sales all versions of Mac that have been sold and still operational for the past 13 *years,* when OSX launched.

Windows 8 represents sales of the OS or related hardware in the past 18 months.


How many 10 year old macs do you think are reaching whatever part of the internet they are getting their data from? The majority of macs are going to be less than three years old.

The XP machines on this chart are mostly government machines used for word processing and database access. And libraries.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report