Better

Thats right when you use windows as main system. If you use only few windows programs (like me), then its better to normally use linux and wine and a seperate win7 installation on disk.

Yeah i hope that win 9 would be runnable , fast and stable on my 3ghz dual core 3gb ram ( enough for 32 and early 64 bit programs).And i do hope that it could be compatible to win9k . Even if there are many people asking why.

And you can win 3.11 make look like w9k b.t.w ...  So you see  it was always possible to mod systems, and it is often wanted to rechange the OS look to the look of its newer  version or the previous system. The older look is often more popular, but after a while that  newer look is as nice as the  old one. But i have to admit that win8 is sometimes a huge design failure and it seems that some critical faults will be fixed in win9.

regards bluedxca93

I hope windows 9 fix the limitations of windows 7.like transparency and etc..

Wow idfk. Ima learn more about this.

thks for the link jafo I can now fight the uniformity and ignorance they are trying to sell. But windows 8-9 is still way better than anything apple will ever make. Though now I can say bye bye to alot of crap on windows.

DARCA

Hi,

Apple has done some faults that adnroid likes also to do.  Apple costs more than windows. I don' t like apple, cause their intel based machines are not fully compatible with their OS' es and have sometimes huge modifications on a hardware level.

And you can`t install MACOSX on a computer/laptop that isn`t produced by apple. Its illegal and technically impossible with full speed.But  you can mod your linux to look exactly  like macintosh and all my firends couldn`t tell any difference, and i couldn`t find a way to tell them  hpew to find out that it was linux.

On windows you need every time  to have a real valid and buyed license and then find a way to activate your windows or windows program . Both things are not related often )=.

Perhaps windows 9 will redesign their application to have some more logical dialogs.

regards bluedxca93

You can make Windows 'look like' Mac too .....been that way since Adam was a pup...

And while we're at it...you can even make a 16bit windows ie.... 3.11 look like its 32bit successors.....complete with 'matching' file managers, etc...

There's a lot more than just hermit crabs and sand in.....shells...

Yeah i did use Calmira  on an old outdated pc.Thats for w3.11 to look like w9k.

I doubt that windows could look like mac. mac has inside the top panel a menu. On linux that is possible with 95% of all common linux application.

On winows every program has another gui. Windows can skin them, but to isolate the menubar and merging them into the panel is a competly different task then skinning the menubar. Its more complicated. On linux there are only two or three common GUI, so they don`t have the problems, windows has.

Perhaps win 9 would add such an amazing feature, but i doubt it. I do hope that they try to modificate and enhance the UI, but not without providing the older win xp- like  application style for each of their newest applications. 

A single application can have two or three GUI' s. Thats not uncommon. But microsoft seems to be trying to unifing the user interface and does in reality only produce new interfaces and new designs without the  support of older ones  ... I`m happy when they will be outdated .

regards bluedxca93

Yes, Calmira .....I've used that....along with just about every other shell idea there ever was....including Dos.

The first imitation of OSX was on Windows...BEFORE OSX was released....

Yes, it can. It has been done. Many times. And you would never know the system was a Windows box.

See kona, it's statements like that that get you into trouble.  You might not be able to discern the difference, but allow me to suggest that I (and many many others) would.

I've seen Windows computers that are skinned and hacked so well that you can't tell they are a Windows box. It takes a lot of work, and more than just skinning apps.

I'm sure that if you REALLY wanted to....you could give Windows a lobotomy....kick it back to the stone-age and it'd look just like Linux...just fine.

Of course propeller heads would be able to tell....the screen wouldn't have their kisses of devotion all over it...

Why...do...you...talk...like...this...jafo...?...!...?

Sometimes you have to type more slowly so slow readers can keep up.....

I personally wouldn't want to make Windows look like the Mac UI. But having the flexibility to customize it would be great. 

For the most part I have tolerated the subtle changes (LOL) being a M$ user since 3.1, however the little I played around with W8 and I despised it quickly,  from my point of view the interface was forced upon the user under the assumption that the designers are completely in control of my destiny and that I have no opinion as to what I would prefer to do with my PC experience, only they could possibly know what is best for the consumer and we will adapt to their way of thinking.

W7 for the most part was an improvement over XP, some still swear that XP was the worst thing that ever happened to a PC, wow apparently you have not been around very long, nothing personnel, just a fact, my only real complaint about W7 was “Libraries”, they apparently were devised for individuals that could not figure out where they put their files, lol so auto organize by extension, what a concept, brilliant for those with a complete lack of organizational skills.

The real bottom line when it comes to an OS,  is a blank screen with the complete control of how an individual accesses their cyber world in their control, the ability to have on a desktop only what they want, need and desire, I do not participate in the “facebook”  world, however every interface I have ever seen automatically assumes I  of course do, so therefore there is an access icon, window, switch that is completely un-removable, therefore becoming a useless item in my world that is just annoying, like the RSS feed button in M$ outlook.

When you force the interface that was designed by a small group that was basically designing their “dream system” upon the user under the assumption that the world was waiting for someone to completely take away everything that they were accustomed to and replace it with a system that does only what they wanted it to do, apparently the  test demographics indicated that it was the ultimate system, makes one ponder where this demographic took place considering the utter failure of W8.

When you think about the release of W8, it is a lot like a small country being taken over by a communist regime and an entire way of life being forced upon the citizens with no regard for their existing way of life.  

What Mitsubishiman said.....

Yeah, mitsubishiman. That about sums it up...

Windows 8 is much more than just a new 'skin' on an old book.  I would go into some of those 'under the hood changes' except that I have in multiple threads here already so what's the use.  Sure the 'new skin' may have irked a few (maybe even many) but I know for a fact (speaking from experience with my clients alone) that many of those who initially revolted at having to use Win8 have since (especially once the under the hood changes became more apparent) changed their tune.

I find that among those I know.......people who use multiple computational devices simultaneously these days do in fact want shit sync'd, do in fact want browser windows they open on their PC to 'magically' open on their phone / tablet if they should leave the office etc. suddenly.  They want a faster OS, they want more stability/security and don't in fact mind if their OS sometimes 'thinks' for itself.

In essence what I'm saying is that the generation of PC users (myself included here) whose OCD caused them to (and continues to cause them to) open a taskmgr window before anything else and who obsess over the ram usage of individual programs/services, and who routinely check their startup services etc. is shrinking fast.  We may think we own the PC landscape but that is simply not true anymore.

Keep in mind, I am not claiming Windows 8 to be 'the best thing ever' without room for improvement.  When Windows 9 is released and everyone loves it and jumps on the bandwagon, I hope they realize that while they may have their precious START button/menu back (among other 'skin' changes) the OS itself (under the hood) will be the core of what Windows 8 already brought to the table. 

I think in many ways, the same thing could be said about the relationship between Vista and W7...