Why not simply 8.2 or something, or even 7.3 .

Gemini000 wrote:

2fort5r wrote:

Someone at Microsoft doesn't like the number 9?

I've heard two theories. One is that it sounds too negative in German. The more likely theory though is to prevent confusion with Windows 95/98, specifically in regards to search results.

My guess is they just want to go as far away from 8 as possible 😀

VileRancour wrote:

MS isn't *this* gung-ho about backward compatibility

Have you even read "The Old New Thing"? Raymond Chen will take you by the hand and explain why you're so, so wrong 😁
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/
(though you may have to dig back years to find relevant posts to "backward compatibility")

nemail wrote:

that's correct, xp mode doesn't exist since windows 8 anymore. […]
Show full quote

GL1zdA wrote:

No XP Mode even after upgrading from Windows 7 (It seems it didn't work in 8 either).

that's correct, xp mode doesn't exist since windows 8 anymore.

you'll have to use vmware workstation or client hyper-v (addable through add windows features in control panel).
and: get rid of your crappy old xp software 😀

Damn me, I didn't even think RemoteApp was possible on non-Server OS's.
https://4sysops.com/archives/windows-8-xp-mod … part-1-hyper-v/
https://4sysops.com/archives/windows-8-xp-mod … -up-windows-xp/
https://4sysops.com/archives/windows-8-xp-mod … part-3-gotchas/

When I run windows update, on my windows 7 64bit system I'm not given the option to upgrade to the tech preview.

So... is the dwm.exe problem fixed?

Yasashii wrote:

So... is the dwm.exe problem fixed?

what dwm.exe problem?

They probably skipped 9 just to generate discussions on the new version of Windows. 🤣

^^^^^^^ = BEST THEORY YET 8D

They probably saw how popular MacOS became when they went to 10, so figured it would a good idea for Windows to go there, too.

I would be curious to see the actual version number, though. The Windows 7 version numbers don't even start with 7, they are still version 6 just like Vista proving that 7 is just a patch of Vista.

sliderider wrote:

proving that 7 is just a patch of Vista.

rofl

What's wrong with that? I never had any problems with Vista either. Pretty damn stable as well, but it was kinda of resource heavy if you didn't have lots of ram and a dual core or at least a fast single core. In fact, I liked the color scheme much better than 7 or 8.

GeorgeMan wrote:

What's wrong with that? I never had any problems with Vista either. Pretty damn stable as well, but it was kinda of resource heavy if you didn't have lots of ram and a dual core or at least a fast single core. In fact, I liked the color scheme much better than 7 or 8.

vista is quite a beauty BUT it was very resource heavy indeed, too much for most of the pcs back then, especially without manual os optimization.

i was running vista for a long time on a HP nc8000 Notebook (pentium m 1,4ghz (pentium 3 generation), 2gb memory and 60gb 7200rpm ide hard drive) and since sp1 or even sp2 it started to be really a rock solid OS.
however it is a fact that windows 7 is a consequent evolution in every way to vista and therefore i never had a reason to install vista again later on. vista is just simply dead, like windows 98 (first edition) or windows ME is and as windows 8 will be (why should one install 8 if he has 8.1 or even 10).
this isn't comparable to approaches made like from 3.1 to 95 or 95 to 98SE, or 98SE to 2000 or 2000 to xp. when these steps were made, there always were several architectural changes made which prevented programs, device drivers, etc. to run. so there will always potetially exist SOME reason to install one of those old (major step) OSes.

Windows ME isn't dead though 😀

Tetrium wrote:

Windows ME isn't dead though 😀

yeah might be but it should be dead 😀

SquallStrife wrote:

sliderider wrote:

proving that 7 is just a patch of Vista.

rofl

It actually is. The only reason they didn't release it as a patch to Vista is to get back the money they lost from all the users not buying Vista, so millions of people paid the full price for a "new" operating system and got a patched version of Vista with a new skin.

OMG, it's even worse than I thought. According to Microsoft's own website, 8 and 8.1 are also extensions of Vista.

msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/window ... s.85).aspx

Dammit, what the heck is wrong with this forum? It didn't make the whole link clickable but it also truncated it so it can't be correctly copied and pasted. Is this a bug? Anyway, if you can figure out a way to follow the link you'll see that all versions of Windows from Vista to 8.1 all start with 6. Vista is 6.0, 7 is 6.1, 8 is 6.2 and 8.1 is 6.3. Win 2K based OS's include Win2K, XP and Server 2003 which all start with 5.

nemail wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Windows ME isn't dead though 😀

yeah might be but it should be dead 😀

Why say that? Personally Windows ME worked better for me then 98SE and 98FE was a BSoD-disaster when I had it.

Tetrium wrote:

nemail wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Windows ME isn't dead though 😀

yeah might be but it should be dead 😀

Why say that? Personally Windows ME worked better for me then 98SE and 98FE was a BSoD-disaster when I had it.

you don't have the stability of win2000 and you're also missing the flexibility of win98se in terms of dos gaming.
there are driver incompatibilites regarding devices for win95/98/98se and it was quite buggy (beta phase was very short).
it was a beauty admittedly, like vista was 😀

edit: might be something for my P3-1000 build with voodoo 5 5500. that machine isn't intended for dos gaming anyway, but I don't know how voodoo/games compatibility looks like...

nemail wrote:

you don't have the stability of win2000 and you're also missing the flexibility of win98se in terms of dos gaming. there are dri […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

nemail wrote:

yeah might be but it should be dead 😀

Why say that? Personally Windows ME worked better for me then 98SE and 98FE was a BSoD-disaster when I had it.

you don't have the stability of win2000 and you're also missing the flexibility of win98se in terms of dos gaming.
there are driver incompatibilites regarding devices for win95/98/98se and it was quite buggy (beta phase was very short).
it was a beauty admittedly, like vista was 😀

edit: might be something for my P3-1000 build with voodoo 5 5500. that machine isn't intended for dos gaming anyway, but I don't know how voodoo/games compatibility looks like...

98SE also doesn't have the same stability as 2k and when DOS games aren't an issue, then neither is ME.

Yes, a P3-1000 is perfectly fine with ME. I actually prefer it on any system that has like 128MB of RAM and a reasonable CPU. It needs to be tweaked (you need to spend some time on it after installation), but the same thing can be said about 98SE.

On this forum the majority prefer 98SE because of it's better compatibility with DOS (no argument there 😀 ) but that doesn't mean ME should be outright dead. I'm glad it came to existence despite it's flaws as it does has advantages over 98SE (that's why there is a community patch to include some ME features into 98SE, it's on msfn.org I think)

Try to stay on topic people