Discussion in 'Windows 8' started by roirraW "edor" ehT, Sep 3, 2012.
You need to login to view this posts content.
It is the same policy adopted by M$ after the release of Win Vista, when people prefered the older (XP) to the newer (Vista)
Yeah, except it's strange that they are even bothering to allow downgrades to Vista as well as 7; although it certainly doesn't hurt the consumer in case someone's hardware is better supported under Vista than 7.
Looks like win8 market share is going to fail to take off. Not that win8 is really that bad, but because of all of the hate going around.
Possibly, but although haters call 8 the new Vista, and although I defended Vista somewhat, I didn't defend it nearly as strongly as I feel about 8, and there seems to be a lot more defenders around for 8, than there was for Vista. I try not to get involved in such far out speculation, anyway. It's impossible to tell.
Vista was bad because it was a bloated beast. Took until win7 for the HW to catch up. Win8 is bad because users will probably be too stupid to change their file associations from metro apps to the desktop versions. Also, doesn't win7 support native uEFI boot? Meaning that downgrades do not need to enable legacy bios?
Um, why did you enclose the block using a CODE tag (no word wrap) instead of a QUOTE tag? CODE is for, well, code, like commands or batch files where line wraps would change the meaning of things, but not for text, where line wraps make it readable...
I've answered this elsewhere and I don't feel like explaining again.
Then maybe link to it? You could also quote, I mean code your explanation.
Edit: Make sure to use looong lines. Scrolling left and right has grown on me and is so much fun!
When a safe downgrade to win 7/2009 edition is available, why would most go to XP/2001. For MS, clearly it makes very little sense to devote resources and money to a product that has crossed a decade in life. That is too long in this industry.
I'm not in the mood for sarcasm, go create your own thread and troll it. I give a link to the original article, or is it too difficult for you to click it in order to read it easier! They usually give nice pictures, too, in case you have difficulty reading. Let me get this straight, you want me to research the post I made the explanation in so that I can link to it? Find it yourself. I don't really care.
P.S. I apologize to anyone else who this might offend; I'm just not in the mood to put up with BS.
P.P.S. Here's a hint. You know what irks *me* more than /CODEd posts that I have to click a link to read properly? Five page long QUOTED posts that I have to scroll and scroll past. You know what I do in those instances? I click the link to the original article because the original article is usually better formatted for readability, and probably has nice pictures that the /QUOTEd one doesn't, just like mine.
Absolutely agree with you.