Microsoft to Focus on Windows 8 Starting July '10

Given that Microsoft has revealed plans to release Windows 8 in 2012, changing focus to the next operating system two years before launch seems sensible.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
4437d ago Replies(12)
Nihilism4437d ago (Edited 4437d ago )

Sounds good to me, I'm skipping win 7, 64 bit vista is a finely tuned beast after so many years, hearing about win7 compatibility problems just makes me happier knowing I don't have to go through the teething problems I went though with vista. I'll be going straight to win8

reintype4437d ago

I just bought a new PC earlier this year pre-loaded with Vista, I'm not going to go out and buy an OS a few months later, just because it's the "New Thing".

I'll get Win8, when I get a new PC by 2013.

darkequitus4437d ago (Edited 4437d ago )

Because it is so close to vista, it does no have the same early morning tech issues. But yes, if you are happy with what you got, don't bother.

I have yet to see the day to day benefit of Snow Leopard on my iMac

HTPC vista x86 --> W7 Ult x64 no longer crashes when GPU transoding. Crysis no longer freezes

imac Vista x86 --> W7 x86 Apart from the hoodwink to get the graphics drivers working, painfree

Netbook clunky xp ----> W7 x86 flawless.

ONly my 4 year old vaio keep crashing with W7 becuase Sony no longer updates the drivers (power management) for it, so I cannot use sleep at all. Xp --->Vista --->xp----W7 x86

Nihilism4437d ago (Edited 4437d ago )

I have absolutely no problems at all with vista, and I mean none, no crashes, no lock ups, nothing, and it's been that way for a long time. The main gain in win7 over vista is the ram it frees up, win7 supposedly has better multicore support, but all the benchmarks i've seen show that the difference is <1% and it often goes in vistas favor, I have 4 gig of ram which removes the ram bottleneck, and DX11 is also available on vista ( I have it installed now), so there is almost no reason at all to upgrade.


Having 64 bit makes a huge difference for video/music/picture editing etc. In time it will become a big advantage for gaming as well. Crysis alone uses 2gig of ram on my system, with a few tweaks etc such as a high res texture mod, it could easily use 3, which is when 32bit would really show it's age (that ram usage is just for the game, not including system ram usage for the OS and background apps)

I also have a laptop with runs like crap on that, but with 2gig of 667ram, 5400rpm HDD, 2ghz dual core and a 128mb video's bound to ( got the laptop on vista wasn't pretty), my desktop runs great on it though

darkequitus4437d ago (Edited 4437d ago )

@dchalfont above. Don't get me wrong apart from my vaio that does not like vista or W7, vista served me very well indeed. I do a lot of video encoding and that really was the only problem I could not live with [Edit: the technet preview worked flawlessly]. Maybe it was the move to 64bit that solved the problem, who knows. However after beta testing W7, I found it hard to go back.

I am just one of those early adopting guinea pigs, I guess.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4437d ago
CrippleH4437d ago

I don't see the problem if you don't adopt early. Let the early adopters be the testers if it's very good you can get it a year or 2 after launch.

Setekh4437d ago

I grabbed 7 because I skipped vista and because XP is 8 years old.
7 beta had loads of testers and turned out to be pretty solid so I'm looking forward to 8's retail release in a few years.

jromao4437d ago

My iMac runs smooth, and I don't miss Windows at all.
Don't think returning to Windows ever, MS keep missing
the quality and users goals.

Nihilism4437d ago

Too bad you'll be missing out on all those games that don't support mac..

Bodyboarder_VGamer4437d ago

He probably plays on consoles with superior amount of games and more varied genres anyway.

Show all comments (30)
The story is too old to be commented.