Originally posted by MarkJS
ETA: Back to the topic of the thread.... I have a Win8 PC with UEFI. I want to do a dual-boot with Win7 Ultimate, which has XP Virtualization. From what I'm reading, UEFI is not a big obstacle for this setup. I'll let you know in this forum if it proves otherwise.... probably about a month from now when I get my Win7 DVD.

I tried to do that some days ago, that's when I found out about this.

Windows 7 told me that it didn't recognize the drive format, so, to install Windows 7 I would need to format the disk.

As in the company where I work we have Action Pack licenses, I just turned the Windows 8 version of that laptop into the professional version to make it able to join the company's domain.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by MarkJS
ETA: Back to the topic of the thread.... I have a Win8 PC with UEFI. I want to do a dual-boot with Win7 Ultimate, which has XP Virtualization. From what I'm reading, UEFI is not a big obstacle for this setup. I'll let you know in this forum if it proves otherwise.... probably about a month from now when I get my Win7 DVD.

I tried to do that some days ago, that's when I found out about this.

Windows 7 told me that it didn't recognize the drive format, so, to install Windows 7 I would need to format the disk.

As in the company where I work we have Action Pack licenses, I just turned the Windows 8 version of that laptop into the professional version to make it able to join the company's domain.

As a rule of thumb when you setup dual boot with any Microsoft products you should always start with the lowest version first.

If you had windows 7 installed and then installed say XP then Windows 7 will stop working (though it can easily be fixed). But if you install XP first and then install windows 7 it works fine

Well...

I have seem this kind of policy backfire in the past, I don't see why it won't now. In the short term, microsoft may sell a bit more and monopolize computers used by people with not much interest in liberty of choice, but these people would use windows and only windows anyway.

In the long term, people with more knowledge in the field will simply pass by windows 8, it's a good time for other operating systems as android gain space. Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

peace...

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

Yes, but that's because they believe what people tell them, that Windows Vista was terrible, that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with cosmetic changes and the Windows 8 is not for them.

XP was good when compared with Windows 98, but it was not much good than Windows 2000 and is worse than Vista.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

Yes, but that's because they believe what people tell them, that Windows Vista was terrible, that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with cosmetic changes and the Windows 8 is not for them.

XP was good when compared with Windows 98, but it was not much good than Windows 2000 and is worse than Vista.

Yes I understand your point of view, I have seem many people using windows xp both because they like and want it in a professional way, and also because of what you mentioned "they were told xp was better"... in any case, people are still using XP, and a lot of people I know about, even a newspaper editor I know uses windows xp (she actually asked a technician to remove win7 oem and change it to win xp)...

Anyway, these concepts people have, either out of knowledge or ignorance help dictate the market...

A pleasure talking to you mate,

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

Yes, but that's because they believe what people tell them, that Windows Vista was terrible, that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with cosmetic changes and the Windows 8 is not for them.

XP was good when compared with Windows 98, but it was not much good than Windows 2000 and is worse than Vista.

No offense , but Vista was terrible.
7 is not a full version up from Vista, but is clearly more finished than vista!
Windows 2000 was a great OS.
Windows xp also is not a full version up from w2k.
XP became a good OS.
Internet explorer upto and including version 7 was criminally vulnerable.

Microsoft a driven by profit, money as always gets in the way of a more perfect product.

Originally posted by Rigel4
No offense , but Vista was terrible.
7 is not a full version up from Vista, but is clearly more finished than vista!
Windows 2000 was a great OS.
Windows xp also is not a full version up from w2k.
XP became a good OS.
Internet explorer upto and including version 7 was criminally vulnerable.

Microsoft a driven by profit, money as always gets in the way of a more perfect product.
------

Agreed, ever since I started in computing back in 1995, windows vista is by far the worst microsoft operating system I have used, and I used it because in early 2006 I bought a nvidia directx10 capable video card and I had no other option but vista. In many years of use I found it to be slow, unstable, terrible whilst handling ram memory, etc... back then I had a dual boot with windows xp sp2, in some cases I would install a game to play in directx9 in xp, even when the game supported directx10, that was the case for bioshock, in vista it had some minor graphic advantages, in xp it would run really faster and since I could up the graphics, it looked better.

Cheers,

Originally posted by rigel4
No offense , but Vista was terrible.

I was expecting that someone would say that, as I have seen many people complaining about Vista, but the fact is I haven't had one problem with it during the three years (I think) I used it.

Microsoft a driven by profit, money as always gets in the way of a more perfect product.

Capitalism was supposed to be good for the people (or so they promoted it against Communism).

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
In many years of use I found it to be slow, unstable, terrible whilst handling ram memory, etc... back then I had a dual boot with windows xp sp2, in some cases I would install a game to play in directx9 in xp, even when the game supported directx10, that was the case for bioshock, in vista it had some minor graphic advantages, in xp it would run really faster and since I could up the graphics, it looked better.

As I said on my previous post, I never had a problem with Vista.

When I first installed it I had only 768 MB of RAM on my computer, and I was able to open a 1.2 GB image in Photoshop. It took some minutes to open the image, but in the end I could work with it (I cropped a small section of the image) without any problems.

This was on my old computer, the second I built from parts chose by me.

I never had any problem in my work computer with Vista either.

The whole market share view of computing is flawed too. There is no "winner" either an OS is being developed with new versions and updates coming out or its abandoned.
Windows,Mac, Linux and Unix all have their own markets and are used for different things. The only time there are winners and losers with this is when you try to have these OSes fulfill the roles of the others.
A windows user wants to work and play and have a wide array of programs at their disposal.
Linux and Unix users usually have a specific reason they are on that OS. For example all the super computers that are capable of computing an insane amount of data at an even crazier rate are all running Linux. Because you can make Linux do whatever you want it to do (for the most part).
If I want to make my own custom desktop environment im not going to be using windows or apple and if I want to run office and play a modern game with the best performance im not going to use Linux. Most of the web pages you visit are all hosted on Linux, because Linux is simply better at it. Windows is catching up but the price tag will probably never make it a viable alternative to Linux hosting.
Apple is... geared more for people who want to say they own a computer.

All versions of windows are dreadful.
Slow, insecure, virus and spyware ridden.
The only reason microsoft has such a high market share is because you are forced to have it when you buy a new computer. I honestly think if everyone tried linux mint, they wouldn't go back to windows.

And seeing as this is a conspiracy site: Do people really trust microsoft not to be monitoring everything you are doing?
Or apple for that matter. I don't. No one sees the source code, who knows what they are up to.

This is the freedom that open source software brings.
Security.

Originally posted by Dr X
People who say there is nothing wrong with windows are people who have never tried linux.
It is a joy to have machines boot up in a few seconds and shutdown in less than one second.

Sorry I disagree because I have been running Windows and Linux (various distros) over the course of my career. As have millions of other people I am sure . Hell Im running WIn7 and 2 different distros on the same machine now. The core OS is Win7 and it boots in less than 20 seconds.

Each OS does things great and sucks at other things.

Wish people would finally realize that and move on to pressuring a company that takes the best elements of Microsoft and the best elements of Linux and build them as 1 os.

Originally posted by Dr X
It took 5 minutes to open a 1k text file in notepad!

In that case it means that something was wrong with that Windows installation, even with only 512MB (Vista's minimum) a 1k text file should open in just one or two seconds.

People who say there is nothing wrong with windows are people who have never tried linux.
It is a joy to have machines boot up in a few seconds and shutdown in less than one second.

Some months ago I tried to install Linux on a computer that was running Windows XP, but it refused to install because it didn't have enough memory (the computer only had 256MB of RAM).

Some of today's distros have almost the same requirements as Windows for doing similar things.

And I have never seen any clear difference in speed between Windows and Linux running on the same machine, but I have seen that only in a few machines.

Originally posted by Dr X
All versions of windows are dreadful.
Slow, insecure, virus and spyware ridden.
The only reason microsoft has such a high market share is because you are forced to have it when you buy a new computer. I honestly think if everyone tried linux mint, they wouldn't go back to windows.

Interesting all versions of Windows are slow, insecure , virus and spyware ridden? Really wish I would have experienced that at some point over my career too bad I havent though. I take it by your posts your a Linux or nothing person so their really is no point in my tryhing to debate with you any of your points.. Enjoy what you will while much of the rest of the world will enjoy the other or ideally both

Mint is nice..I run it as vbox on my Windows7 machine..works great.