185 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Steel]

If you're used to Windows 7 or older, Windows 8.1 is mostly fine once you've installed the ClassicShell mod. It adds a highly configurable Start Menu (Can make it look like the 98, XP, Vista or 7 Start Menu), lets you tweak Internet Explorer a little and allows you to restore Windows Explorer to both functioning and looking similar to how it did under WIndows XP, Vista or 7 (It's very configurable).

Edited by Nicholas Steel, 20 July 2015 - 12:17 AM.

[coolgamer012345]

If you're used to Windows 7 or older, Windows 8.1 is mostly fine once you've installed the ClassicShell mod. It adds a highly configurable Start Menu (Can make it look like the XP, Vista or 7 Start Menu), lets you tweak Internet Explorer a little and allows you to restore Windows Explorer to both functioning and looking similar to how it did under WIndows XP, Vista or 7 (It's very configurable).

Who even uses Internet Explorer anymore, though?

[thepsynergist]

Which Windows, thepsynergist? 

I had Windows 7 Home Premium, and because my hard drive changed, the OEM key said it didn't work because Windows detected a "hardware change" and wouldn't activate.

[Nicholas Steel]

I had Windows 7 Home Premium, and because my hard drive changed, the OEM key said it didn't work because Windows detected a "hardware change" and wouldn't activate.

Did your computer come with Windows 7 or was it a separate purchase? My XP OEM copy was a purchase from a store (Technically they shouldn't have sold me it without me buying a computer).

[thepsynergist]

Did your computer come with Windows 7 or was it a separate purchase? My XP OEM copy was a purchase from a store (Technically they shouldn't have sold me it without me buying a computer).

Came with the computer, and that's why it became an issue.

 

OEM keys like that are tied to the hardware config of the computer, and if you make any OS changes when you have different hardware than came with the computer (i've upgraded a lot over the years), the key won't be accepted if you reinstall Windows.

[Ben]

The PC I started with actually ran Vista SP2 at first, but it was not an OEM version (it was originally one of those off-brand iBuyPower PCs.) I've literally stripped out every piece of hardware other than the case at this point so it is literally a different PC, but I've been able to run the same copy of Windows 7 even before I replaced all the guts.

 

OEM copies are stupid because they're restrictive. It's one of the many reasons why it's better to build a machine than to just buy one. Unless you need a laptop, in which case lol sorry?

 

edit: I just saw this, though, and I'm not too pleased to hear that, even though I'll be running Pro and not Home.

[TheLegend_njf]

Came with the computer, and that's why it became an issue.

OEM keys like that are tied to the hardware config of the computer, and if you make any OS changes when you have different hardware than came with the computer (i've upgraded a lot over the years), the key won't be accepted if you reinstall Windows.

I'm pretty sure this was purposefully done so you do not modify your hardware. Let me explain.

The company you bought your computer from has more than likely paid Microsoft for your free version of Windows to use "their" product. If you go modifying their computer with parts from other companies, you're essentially buying from the competition and I believe this in some way voids your free windows (and certainly your warranty if you have one).

Windows is software that's usually over $100, so it's easy to bet that when this software comes free with the purchase of the computer, there is certainly a catch.

Now don't quote me on that. I'm just making a wild guess here. But that's why it would seem to me why hardware changes would effect wether or not you could reinstall Windows.

Edited by NewJourneysFire, 17 July 2015 - 08:42 AM.

[DCEnygma]

OEM licenses are always cheaper, sometimes by as much as half the cost of an open license. That's done because it's intended to be a part of a pre-packaged PC, made for mass consumption. Your copy of Windows is not free, it's included. That cost is part of what you're paying for. That's why if you're looking to have a more modular PC, you don't buy a "boxed" solution from like say Dell, because you will be extremely limited on your upgradeability. That said, you can freely upgrade memory without causing issues. It's processor and HDD changes that will cause problems.

[TheLegend_njf]

I edited my post to just a little bit late. I said afterwords to not quote me on that claim because I wasn't 100% sure. But DCE beat me to the punch.

Edited by NewJourneysFire, 17 July 2015 - 08:49 AM.

[DCEnygma]

edit: I just saw this, though, and I'm not too pleased to hear that, even though I'll be running Pro and not Home.

 

This fits with their desire to have everyone operating on the same OS to make supporting issues easier. There's no risk of people constantly reporting issues that could've been resolved if they were just updating their OS. Plus, Microsoft will be adding features regularly, ala what they've done with the Xbox One. I don't see how this is a big issue.

[Ben]

My concern is that on occasion Windows Update has caused me problems, including non-functional hardware (an update that replaced a specialized USB 3.0 driver with a generic one that caused my USB ports to stop working) to one that totally bricked my machine (an update to the kernel that wasn't compatible with my CPU.) I'd rather be able to postpone updates as long as I need to make sure they're actually right for my computer.

[Nicholas Steel]

edit: I just saw this, though, and I'm not too pleased to hear that, even though I'll be running Pro and not Home.

That's pretty shit, I'll be running Windows 10 Pro too but god that's an awful idea from Microsoft. My dad will be running the Home edition as he's upgrading from Windows 7 Home Premium while I'm upgrading from 8.1 Pro.

[Beefster]

Ugh! If that's the case, I hope they fix the nonsense of updates taking a long time to install (their current model also makes it so your OS gets more and more bloated over time). If all they're doing most of the time is replacing a bunch of files and DLLs, why does it even need to restart?

[Ben]

Those files have to be reloaded once updated. Most of the time they are in use by critical OS processes, so they also have to be unloaded, which is why a restart is necessary sometimes. Occasionally an update can reload a file on the fly by just restarting a process, but usually it's not some critical part of the system.

[Timelord]

Who even uses Internet Explorer anymore, though?

 

'Explorer' is sadly, the name of the default Windows 7 (and earlier, through Win 98) shell environment. The thing that gave you a desktop, filesystem navigation (viewing folders, files, paths), icons to double-click, a start menu, and a taskbar.

 

Not to be confused with 'Internet Explorer' although Microsoft did their best to be as confusing as possible by naming a core OS component, after their terrible browser. This, primarily because they wanted to integrate the browser into the OS at one point, and were thankfully shot down for trying that.

 

I replaced the Explorer shell with something far more useful, DOpus, years ago.

This fits with their desire to have everyone operating on the same OS to make supporting issues easier. There's no risk of people constantly reporting issues that could've been resolved if they were just updating their OS. Plus, Microsoft will be adding features regularly, ala what they've done with the Xbox One. I don't see how this is a big issue.

 

Forced updating, is one major step toward the user fully losing control over their system. You are effectively giving Microsoft the right to do whatever they please, in the EULA. That is a gigantic loss of freedom over your operating system, all your software, and your entire investment, Microsoft could declare that all i686 software is unsupported, and at any time, remove the components that permit it to run, and you have no recourse.

 

You could disconnect the system from the Internet, or block the connections to the MS servers at a hardware level, but I highly suspect that the OS will have an internal clock, that if it doesn't check for updates over X-time, it refuses to start up. This is furthering what MS did with their certification checks, in the worst way possible.

 

At least the Enterprise edition--the only one I would ever run, if I needed an OS that new--isn't going to be entirely demolished.

 

I would expect the open-source community to push as much publicity of this new 'feature' as humanly possible, exposing how evil it is, down to the core. It is literally the worst thing I've seen in a EULA to date, including clauses that permit the licensor perpetual access to your datum, or routine CPU cycle usage for their own external processor-time (distributed processing). This quite literally gives them the ability to select what software you could use, at any time.

 

P.S. If you don't think they could, or would, ever do that; look at the 'Apple Store' and iOS. That is exactly what Apple have done: They choose what programmes you can run, on a device that you bought for hundreds of quid.

 

For those interested, I have one system that runs Win 7, several that run XP, one NT-based server (2003E), a host of systems running OSX, and others running Linux. You will never see me install WIn 8.x on anything, and if it comes on something, I will clear it, and install something else. Me, shifting to Win 10 now, is not likely to happen, ever, ever. The devil to these freedom-robbing OS 'improvements'.

Edited by ZoriaRPG, 18 July 2015 - 08:01 PM.