Windows 8

Torqay

Torqay wrote: »

Close but not quite...

Win2k3 is still my absolute favourite. Of course, spending $999 on an operating system might be a bit of an overkill (official retail price, OEM or "subscriber" is a lot cheaper though).

It is significantly more stable, faster and more responsive than XP... even with all the goodies and eye candy enabled (by default it comes across as a vamped up version of Windows 2000, it is a server OS after all). There are a few drawbacks, hardware support is not as universal as with XP (if a piece of hardware ware is not officially supported, the XP driver can wreak havoc). But in general, I'd say it is the best OS MS have officially released, ever.

Would XP x64 not just be the same thing? They're based on the same kernel.

BostonB

Win2k3 is very reliable but most of the media stuff is stripped out which can be a pain getting working. TBH I've never had much of a problem with XP to make it worth going back to Win2K. Windows XP 64 in my experience is nothing like as stable, has driver issue, and compatibility issues.

Windows 7 and 8 seem much faster and even more reliable, have less issues with driver. Why would you bother with the old versions I don't know. Unless have really old hardware, or very little RAM.

BostonB

BostonB wrote: »

Win2k3 is very reliable but most of the media stuff is stripped out which can be a pain getting working. TBH I've never had much of a problem with XP to make it worth going back to Win2K. Windows XP 64 in my experience is nothing like as stable, has driver issue, and compatibility issues.

Windows 7 and 8 seem much faster and even more reliable, have less issues with driver. Why would you bother with the old versions I don't know. Unless have really old hardware, or very little RAM.

Yep, IIRC DirectX is even missing from Server 2003 and has to be installed manually. I would assume that Server 2003 x64 and XP x64 would both have the same compatibility and driver issues, since they're essentially the same OS underneath. I never bothered with using Server 2003 and just stuck with XP until Windows 7 was released.

I wouldn't say Windows 7 is faster, in fact I really think you need an SSD for Windows 7 to shine.

Outkast_IRE

Karsini wrote: »

I wouldn't say Windows 7 is faster, in fact I really think you need an SSD for Windows 7 to shine.

Perfect statement really, i have windows 7 on an ssd ,and its a sweet OS never a problem with it.

Thats the main criteria for most people an OS with no hassle.

Torqay

Karsini wrote: »

Yep, IIRC DirectX is even missing from Server 2003 and has to be installed manually.

True, but not because it isn't "compatible" but rather because people are not likely to play games on a server.

BostonB wrote: »

Win2k3 is very reliable but most of the media stuff is stripped out which can be a pain getting working.

Care to elaborate on this? I create videos (Premiere), convert media files (dbPowerAmp, SUPER) and rip audio CDs (EAC) on Win2k3, it plays every format I throw at it (VLC, foobar and, for good measure, WMP10), I can't see what's so painful about "getting it working".

BostonB wrote: »

Windows XP 64 in my experience is nothing like as stable, has driver issue, and compatibility issues.

XP x64 (and indeed Win2k3) only works if your hardware is 100% compatible. Many hardware manufacturer just never bothered to release proper drivers (because XP x64 was coming quite late or because their hardware was not likely to be used with a server OS like Win2k3, often the case with "exotic" sound cards or media capture devices) and stability issues arise when people hope to get it going with drivers not written for the OS kernel or poorly written drivers which have not been certified. Thus it has never been for everyone, but saying XP x64 is "nothing like as stable" is not true. Most BSODs in the Windows world stem from poor, faulty or broken drivers. Many hardware manufacturers explicitly ask their customers to ignore warnings during the driver installation (because it costs money to get drivers certified) but users do this at their peril.

BostonB wrote: »

Windows 7 and 8 seem much faster and even more reliable

And this you can tell from the experience of a few "beta testers" two month before the official Windows 8 launch? Quite a daring statement, I'd rather wait until this sh*t hits the mainstream fan.

In the last eight years I'm using Win2k3, I have seen 1 (one) BSOD and that was when I installed a non-certified driver.

And as it stands, I'm pretty sure I can sit out Windows 8 as well with 2k3, since this I'm not big into gaming (Dx9 is still cutting it for me) and IE10 or WMP11 is not a must have for me.

BostonB

Torqay wrote: »

Care to elaborate on this? I create videos (Premiere), convert media files (dbPowerAmp, SUPER) and rip audio CDs (EAC) on Win2k3, it plays every format I throw at it (VLC, foobar and, for good measure, WMP10), I can't see what's so painful about "getting it working".

Well you had to install all that for starters. Most consumers are not going to to that.

Torqay wrote: »

....but saying XP x64 is "nothing like as stable" is not true. Most BSODs in the Windows world stem from poor, faulty or broken drivers. Many manufacturers explicitly ask users to ignore warnings during the installation (because it costs money to get drivers certified) but users do this at their peril.

How about I rephrase it to, its unreliable if you use any drivers other than the limited range (compared to other versions of Windows) of certified hardware.

Torqay wrote: »

And this you can tell from the experience of a few "beta testers" two month before the official Windows 8 launch? Quite a daring statement, I'd rather wait until this sh*t hits the mainstream fan.

In the last eight years I'm using Win2k3, I have seen 1 (one) BSOD and that was when I installed a non-certified driver.

And as it stands, I'm pretty sure I can sit out Windows 8 as well with 2k3, since this I'm not big into gaming (Dx9 is still cutting it for me) and IE10 or WMP11 is not a must have for me.

No I basing it on my experience in a large IT dept, we've lots of people running these OS's, right the way up to Windows 8 Server for a good many months now. I myself must use about 8 different OS'es not all windows on a daily basis. But we've all had similar experiences of excellent reliability stability with the new OS'es.

Torqay

BostonB wrote: »

Well you had to install all that for starters. Most consumers are not going to to that.

We're not talking about a consumer OS, are we?

This is purely my personal preference and not much else.

I can't recall any headaches caused by the lack of DirectX, download and installation certainly wasn't as painful as someone claimed it to be.

The only "pain" you may encounter is the very limited choice of free antivirus software (I can see their point, "You have a thousand dollar operating system and now you want our stuff for free, bugger off, you lousy cheapskate!"), the free stuff isn't cut to provide efficient security in a complex server environment.

BostonB wrote: »

No I basing it on my experience in a large IT dept, we've lots of people running these OS's, right the way up to Windows 8 Server for a good many months now. I myself must use about 8 different OS'es not all windows on a daily basis. But we've all had similar experiences of excellent reliability stability with the new OS'es.

But in order to add credibility to you claim that "Windows 7 & 8 are faster and more reliable than Windows 2003" you'd need a similar number of users running 2k3 on their workstations, no?

I never said they are unreliable (most stability issues with any Windows operating system can be traced to PEBCAK) but I did run quite a few benchmarks on identical hardware with XP, 7 and 2003 and surely 2003 came out on top in most realms.

BostonB

You said this Sht (W8) would hit the fan. That and the beta tester comments infer its unstable/un reliable. I'm simply saying thats not been our experience at work. I also said W2K3 was "very reliable". XP64 though I found very poorly supported by apps, games, and devices. It didn't last long on my PC's.

Torqay

BostonB wrote: »

You said this Sht (W8) would hit the fan.

Metaphorical speaking... I would not base my verdict on reviews from enthusiasts (i.e the beta testers, again, not meant in a negative sense as they're usually quite versed) who'd love trying all the new stuff when it becomes available (i.e. as consumer previews). I prefer to see it being used mainstream in rather worldly scenarios when Windows 8 hits porn and facebooks on a large scale. We'll soon have plenty opportunities to see how that goes.

BostonB

MSDN subscribers got it year a ago. many would consider it prudent to test against it and be prepared. Though its usually good practise to wait for the first SP before considering in the workplace. But many would have public facing systems/applications, so you'd have no choice but to support it, out of the gate.

Torqay

BostonB wrote: »

MSDN subscribers got it year a ago.

Indeed, and they usually know how to use a computer properly and with due care. Windows 8 will soon have to prove in the real world how reliable it is.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

Metaphorical speaking... I would not base my verdict on reviews from enthusiasts (i.e the beta testers, again, not meant in a negative sense as they're usually quite versed) who'd love trying all the new stuff when it becomes available (i.e. as consumer previews). I prefer to see it being used mainstream in rather worldly scenarios when Windows 8 hits porn and facebooks on a large scale. We'll soon have plenty opportunities to see how that goes.

From a porn perspective it doesnt seem to like my favorite webcam site..