More about a possible Windows 12

jimbo45 said:

Your more than welcome.
Cheers
jimbo

You´re welcome.

At least here we have the advtage of magnificent scenery etc

e.g two pics I´ve used as Windows backgrounds :

Ist one magnificent waterfall -- see the size of the "Human" atthe bottom to get an appreciation of the scale of the thing.
View attachment 192



and another one : Nice fiery Volcano :

View attachment 193


As for Energy - we've abundant spare capacity of Gethermal and Hydro -- I'm amazed UK / Norway hasn't thought about a 1600 KM undersea cable -- can't be that difficult these days -- could supply endless renewable energy - no need for Russian Gas etc !!!!

Cheers
jimbo

Click to expand...

Yep. I'd bet Iceland is the Geothermal capitol of the world.
If I was northern Europe... I'd be fighting to tap into that. ^^

Maybe tomorrow, maybe not or maybe never

Word has it, rollout starts today at 10:00 AM PST.

WXC said:

Word has it, rollout starts today at 10:00 AM PST.

Click to expand...

... Well, it didn't happen.


...I guess the April 1st. thing, kind of fell flat. Snap!

WXC said:

... Well, it didn't happen.


...I guess the April 1st. thing, kind of fell flat. Snap!

Click to expand...

I was expecting a lot more on this forum

WXC said:

... Well, it didn't happen.


...I guess the April 1st. thing, kind of fell flat. Snap!

Click to expand...

Which are you referring to, the Win 12 rollout or your April Fools joke about the rollout?

Ghot said:

Which are you referring to, the Win 12 rollout or your April Fools joke about the rollout?

Click to expand...

Hi, buddy.

Apparently, both.

Here we are --- "Back to the Future " type logo




Cheers
jimbo

I thought the 12 at the end of windows would be bigger... like they are proud it's windows 12 not little like they are insecure about it.

It'll be changed before it's released

The-Hive said:

It'll be changed before it's released

Click to expand...

New taskbar, new corners, and... WinNT 10!!!

jbcarreon123 said:

New taskbar, new corners, and... WinNT 10!!!

Click to expand...

We called it Windows NT - Windows Neanderthal or Windows No Thanks -- take your pick.
Windows NT was the most miserable and complicated thing ever to call itself an OS - to get even the simplest tasks working needed a Doctorate in Computer Science. For Servers W2K3 Server was so much a vastly superior system I'm surprised so many people hung on to Windows NT -- but the name says it all - Windows Neanderthal - and a lot of business management is still today like that - they just see decent I.T as an unnecessary business overhead -- they don't realize that without it in most cases their entire business is GONE. !!!

Cheers
jimbo

Windows NT was perfect for the time it was used The systems then were run by People who had degrees in computer science, so it was designed to work as much as possible as the old Mainframe systems worked. It also worked very well for real time tasks, the number of industrial automation projects that was controlled by PC's running NT was immense, and those were working well into the 21st Century some I believe still are. systems they As the needs of the users changed at the end of the Nineties so did the OS, Win2K came along which was a lot simpler for the enthusiast market to understand.

We still hear many members amongst all our the forums longing for the days of XP which was basically a version of NT with a bit of W2K and a GUI designed by Disney, (which many pro's switched off and used the NT/W2K one instead), but it sold, to a different audience than the original NT.

Vista was of course the major update that Windows needed, though it was not popular as it was sold on old XP hardware but a few cosmetic changes and a name change to Windows 7, and another star was born

barman58 said:

Windows NT was perfect for the time it was used The systems then were run by People who had degrees in computer science, so it was designed to work as much as possible as the old Mainframe systems worked. It also worked very well for real time tasks, the number of industrial automation projects that was controlled by PC's running NT was immense, and those were working well into the 21st Century some I believe still are. systems they As the needs of the users changed at the end of the Nineties so did the OS, Win2K came along which was a lot simpler for the enthusiast market to understand.

We still hear many members amongst all our the forums longing for the days of XP which was basically a version of NT with a bit of W2K and a GUI designed by Disney, (which many pro's switched off and used the NT/W2K one instead), but it sold, to a different audience than the original NT.

Vista was of course the major update that Windows needed, though it was not popular as it was sold on old XP hardware but a few cosmetic changes and a name change to Windows 7, and another star was born

Click to expand...

NT was always a more stable platform than Windows 9x. That's why they made XP based on it. XP is still my favorite version of Windows and I loved the GUI. All the UI's since have been boring by comparison. Vista was not good at all and 7 was a lot more than just cosmetic changes. Vista was much slower and cumbersome than both XP and 7. On the same hardware, 7 was much better than Vista. Normally , older hardware does not run as well on the newer OS. Going from Vista to 7 it was exactly the opposite.

Dch48 said:

NT was always a more stable platform than Windows 9x. That's why they made XP based on it. XP is still my favorite version of Windows and I loved the GUI. All the UI's since have been boring by comparison. Vista was not good at all and 7 was a lot more than just cosmetic changes. Vista was much slower and cumbersome than both XP and 7. On the same hardware, 7 was much better than Vista. Normally , older hardware does not run as well on the newer OS. Going from Vista to 7 it was exactly the opposite.

Click to expand...

My favourite OS was actually W23K server which I modded to run as a desktop -- it allowed for > 4GB Ram even though it was a 32 bit OS. The old Luma Black theme was brilliant. I still use it regularly as a VM !! as I run some old Vinyl cutting hardware and software on it - the hardware still working perfectly - I create bespoke vinyls for people as a little sideline !!-- and I also have a Pro minidisc recorder (the one without sony's useless DRM stuff-- the domestic ones were riddled with drm which is what the minidisc never took over from CD's and cassette tapes at the time -- even though you could get high qualit 8 hr recordings on them.

Cheers
jimbo

Vista was made deliberately demanding to force people upgrade their PCs or replace them. Many bought a laptop with Vista and downgraded to XP for much better performance. Windows 7 had similar performance to XP, much faster than Vista, they learned their lesson. Windows 11 similarly tries to make us upgrade our unsupported PCs but thankfully there are workarounds to install it on any 64-bit dual core or better system. They never learn!

PS: Smile! You can patch XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 or 10 32-bit to see up to 128GB RAM like in Windows Server 2003! See this thread: How to patch windows 7, 8, 10 32-bit to see above 4gb ram (new patch) - Windows 10 Help Forums

Didn't seem to be like that in the UK

Vista was a major OS upgrade and it required a significant upgrade in hardware to run correctly, I specified a number of systems for various uses, and these worked extremely well, when specified correctly based on the original specs.

Unfortunately for the home market the Microsoft Sales department caved into the demands of the Major OEM manufacturers.

The OEMs had already pre ordered, and paid for, a large number of XP era components that were insufficient for use with Vista, even in it's lower spec Home versions.

Microsoft then lowered the baseline technical specifications for the required hardware for Vista to meet the level of the hardware that the OEMs had in stock - and so Vista home machines were often close to unusable

I even ran Vista Pro as a server for a commercial Network using XP and Vista workstations and this ran well into the Windows 7 era

In theory the minimum system requirements to run Vista are the same as Windows 7. At least 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM for the 32-bit versions. But the same computer running Vista is noticeably slower than running Windows XP or 7. This is immediately obvious when upgrading from Vista to 7. It feels like you have upgraded the CPU or added more RAM. So Microsoft made any Vista computer noticeably slower to force us replace it with a new computer. Of course a new dual core computer would seem a great leap forward compared to a typical Pentium 4 system and we would have the illusion that Vista perform better at the "proper" hardware. This illusion is instantly removed when upgrading to Windows 7 and see a great performance difference. You can install Windows Vista in a virtual machine and then upgrade to Windows 7 to see what I mean. For the test to be realistic don't give more than 2GB RAM to the virtual machine. I would give only 1GB.

At least Windows 11 have the same or better performance than Windows 10. The installation requirements just discourage the average user to use it on unsupported machines. The little more advanced user should have read anywhere online that it is possible to run Windows 11 on unsupported computers with some compromise on security. If he, like most of us, doesn't care about missing these features, hacks setup and uses the latest Windows OS without having to upgrade the hardware. Can it run Windows 8 64-bit? Then it can also run Windows 10 64-bit and Windows 11. Of course there are some exceptions, but not the rule. The rule is that any computer compatible with Windows 8 64-bit can also run Windows 10 64-bit and 11, no matter how low specs. Never forget that. I have installed Windows 11 on an old Pentium 4 64-bit socket 775 computer (Intel 6xx CPU, first Intel 64-bit CPU family), so don't worry. If you have same age or newer computer 99% it can run Windows 11.

barman58 said:

Vista was a major OS upgrade and it required a significant upgrade in hardware to run correctly, I specified a number of systems for various uses, and these worked extremely well, when specified correctly based on the original specs.

Unfortunately for the home market the Microsoft Sales department caved into the demands of the Major OEM manufacturers.

The OEMs had already pre ordered, and paid for, a large number of XP era components that were insufficient for use with Vista, even in it's lower spec Home versions.

Microsoft then lowered the baseline technical specifications for the required hardware for Vista to meet the level of the hardware that the OEMs had in stock - and so Vista home machines were often close to unusable

I even ran Vista Pro as a server for a commercial Network using XP and Vista workstations and this ran well into the Windows 7 era

Click to expand...

I disagree that it was a major upgrade. Or even any upgrade at all. It was just a bloated mess of an OS. Windows 7 was the legitimate successor to XP.
"Vista Home machines were often close to unusable". Yes, they were but the same machines saw large improvements in performance if upgraded to Windows 7. I had one here in this house. It was a single core eMachines Intel Celeron desktop that was slower than molasses in January with the Vista it came with. When upgraded to 7, it was still slow but much better than with Vista.