backtop


Print 114 comment(s) - last by rdhood.. on Jul 10 at 11:00 AM


  (Source: Microsoft)
Any version of Windows XP, Vista, or 7 will be eligible for inexpensive upgrade

Say what you will about its touch reforms, and extreme user interface makeover, but Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) is at least moving aggressively to give its customers a favorable price point.

To counter Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) $19.99 USD Mountain Lion licensing, Microsoft is offering Windows 8 "Pro" for only $39.99 USD via download.  A DVD version will be available for $69.99 USD (that's one expensive disc).  Clearly Microsoft is trying to funnel customers to its online process, which it hopes will lead to a more pain-free and automated installation.

Comments Microsoft:

We believe that your upgrade experience in Windows 8 will be a breeze by offering a faster experience, a single upgrade path, and compatibility from prior versions of Windows. We’ve continued to listen to our customers and have expanded the ability to download to over 100 countries and 37 languages. We have simplified the Windows upgrade experience with the Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant which supports you during your upgrade with everything from selecting your language to pausing your download to built-in compatibility checks - it’s seamless. And if you’re an enthusiast you will have the flexibility to download and control how you upgrade.

Somewhat strangely Microsoft is offering customers who purchase the download the option to purchase a backup DVD for $15.  In other words you can order the download and get a DVD via the backup option for $54.99 USD, or pay $15 USD extra to buy it in store.

It seems a bit counterintuitive, to say the least.

Of course if you want to snag a download or disc install be sure to first check that your hardware is capable of running Windows 8.  To test that you can grab Microsoft's Release Preview of Windows 8 from here, which comes with a test-phase build of the upgrade assitant.

Windows Team engineer Brandon LeBlanc writes Microsoft is continuing to "drive toward the RTM milestone."

Source: Windows Team Blog



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/2/2012 4:40:28 PM , Rating: 5

I think it will be great for tablets and laptops with touch screens, or even a media PC as a 10ft interface, but for my desktop. Nah....Ill pass.




RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/2/2012 4:42:35 PM , Rating: 1
FML...

title should have been

39$ to get rid of my start button?


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By BruceLeet on 7/3/2012 7:14:18 AM , Rating: 4
Why! WHY! no proofread?!?!?!?!?!

Using just a tad of common sense I got what you meant though.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Gnarr on 7/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/3/2012 10:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
Youd think that would help, but yeah....not so much :P


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Da W on 7/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/2/2012 4:53:48 PM , Rating: 5
I do fuck stick. Why else would I have made the comment? I think its a step backwards for a desktop.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By polishvendetta on 7/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/3/2012 12:08:14 PM , Rating: 5
Have I commented on every article? nope. Did I feel like commenting on this one? yup. It wasnt until the latest release candidate that they removed the code for it, and that was a month ago, not months. Its a forum!!! share your opinion! but dont lie.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Da W on 7/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/3/2012 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 3
You cherry pick my post and call me a dick? OK, now lift your boy toys nuts off your eyes and read the damn post. I only said I would pass for my desktop. For tablets, laptops, and even media PCs I think its great, just not for my desktop.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By EricMartello on 7/3/2012 4:12:14 PM , Rating: 1
The start button may not show up but I heard MS is including an edit button if visit Microsoft's website and enter the following key seqence: Hold down "CTRL" then press S+T+F+U, and right after that hit "F4+G" at the same time.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/3/2012 5:56:27 PM , Rating: 1
How clever of you. In order to keep from confusing you, I wont hide it in pretend commands. Fuck off.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By 91TTZ on 7/2/2012 4:56:50 PM , Rating: 5
Most Windows users use it.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By kleinma on 7/2/2012 5:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
It is still there, the start menu just takes up the entire screen now and is called the start screen.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/2/2012 5:05:47 PM , Rating: 3
They should shrink it back down to a tile, a round one that sits in the bottom left corner. No need to take up the whole screen.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By kleinma on 7/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/2/2012 5:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
JTMFC....
Your insight into my computer usage habits is amazing! Read my first post.

Ive downloaded and used every beta and pre release build. Even played with it on an MSI Windpad for a bit. If the Windpad was a bit faster i would have really enjoyed it. Like I said in MY FIRST POST, I think its great for tablets, and latops w touch screens, and media PCs as a 10ft interface. Not on my primary desktop.

WTF do you think I use it for? From the start menu I access my documents, my programs I use at work. Granted I do have some apps pinned, but I use a lot of different programs and pinning them all is retarded. I have certain windows that are up all the time so having icons underneath them does me no good. Thats why i like my start menu.

I dont want MS to turn the UI into a bunch of giganto tiles. To me its counterproductive on a desktop. I do want them to continue to improve security, streamline the OS, and make it more efficient. I want to see this new file structure thats been in the works for a long time now. Not every change is visible. I do not see the point in removing the option to have it.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Spuke on 7/2/2012 6:52:53 PM , Rating: 1
I hardly use the start button. All of my most used stuff is pinned on the taskbar. I won't miss it at all.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/2/2012 11:43:54 PM , Rating: 3
Still. Microsoft could have catered for both types of people rather easily.

Hows about left-cliking on the start button to bring up metro, right click to bring up the start menu? GENIUS! Everyone goes home happy.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Manch on 7/3/2012 3:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, why take away the option. This is stupid like forcing an upgrade to Vista in order to get DX10. All it does is alienate your user base. Give/keep the features people ask for and they will buy it!


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Trisped on 7/2/2012 5:40:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is still there, the start menu just takes up the entire screen now and is called the start screen.
This is not true. The Start Menu provided certain features, search, links to installed programs, links to the user's folders, links to the control panel, and links to the file system (my computer). These were all there by default. The new start screen does not provide anything but links to installed apps. Ok, so maybe I just need to customize my start screen. Can I add Google Chrome to it? No. Why not? No Idea, apparently I have to first go to the desktop, then I have to find chrome, then I have to pin it. That is not so bad, except I cannot find where the Chrome exe is so I can start the program so I can pin it.

The Start Screen is a nice idea, especial for touch input devices; but it is not a replacement for the Start Menu, nor is there an efficient work around for all features of the now removed Start Menu.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By vincentxweb on 7/2/2012 7:49:47 PM , Rating: 3
In the start screen, just start typing, and it'll search your files and programs. That's the same as the start menu. Once you find your program (which usually is added automatically once you install), you can right click and pin to the start screen and/or task bar.

The added bonus of the start/Metro screen is that tiles provide more information.

It's not as much of a change as people think. Just a bit to get used to, but it's almost the same thing.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By villageidiotintern on 7/3/2012 1:21:33 AM , Rating: 5
I want to BROWSE my start menu. Browse it. Wrap your mind around that. NO, I do not need an excuse to want to browse my menu, just like I don't need permission to browse anything else. WTF!


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By bah12 on 7/3/2012 9:58:08 AM , Rating: 1
Last I checked explorer was still there. Browse away buddy. Oh wait is that too much detail, so you want to "browse" it but not all the way to the file level.

ALL the start menu is is a list of shortcuts. PERIOD nothing actually existed on the start menu. What all you whiners are complaining about is that "browsing" your short cuts has changed. If you want an antiquated way to "browse" feel free to pop open explorer and get to clicking. Good god how can bigger, scale-able, searchable, completely customize-able ACTIVE icons be worse than at BEST the alphabetized list you get in WinXP-Win7?


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Arsynic on 7/3/2012 9:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
You can pin Google Chrome to it if Google comes up with a Chrome Metro app.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By bah12 on 7/3/2012 10:27:49 AM , Rating: 2
Ding! There in lies the real problem. Everyone is throwing MS under the bus again (just like Vista), because 3rd party apps (instead of drivers like Vista) are not up to par.

People you cannot blame MS for non-metro apps (blame the lazy application provider). Google has had loads and loads of time to prep Chrome as a Metro app, but hey they have a vested interest in MS looking bad.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By rdhood on 7/10/2012 11:00:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People you cannot blame MS for non-metro apps (blame the lazy application provider). Google has had loads and loads of time to prep Chrome as a Metro app, but hey they have a vested interest in MS looking bad.


Ah, yes we can. Laying blame is not something that you or MS has control over. That is the power of the free market. That is the power of the consumer. If the consumer perceives that this is MS's problem, then they are to blame (like it or not). Heard of "Vista"? Lots of people (most) kept Windows XP because MS dumped on their customers with Vista. MS blamed 3rd party apps for not being compliant or having compliant drivers. Consumers voted with their pocketbooks... and did not purchase Vista. They blamed MS, and it stuck like glue.

Now MS are dumping on their customers with Metro. If customers perceive this is an MS problem (and they will), they will vote with their pocketbooks. The real question is: why does MS continue to shoot itself in the foot like this?


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Pirks on 7/2/2012 5:00:31 PM , Rating: 3
By Trisped on 7/2/2012 5:29:56 PM , Rating: 4
The article proves you wrong.
quote:
And so we saw the Start menu usage dramatically dropping, and that gave us an option.
Obviously they did not see its use drop down to 0, otherwise they would have said something like "And so we saw the Start menu usage stop."

The fact is someone at Microsoft saw a trend, and decided it would be a law and moved on it. Only the trend was short lived (usage is not still dropping from the Microsoft statements).

The fact is:
- They saw a trend (Start Menu is not used as often).
- They interpreted the trend (people are pinning applications, so when they use the Start Menu they are not loading applications).
- They came up with a new idea (Start screen which is a funner, easier, more customizable, more tablet friendly way to launch apps then the Start Menu).
- They then decided to remove the Start Menu (which is still being used, though probably not to access programs) and replace it with the start screen.

This makes no sense. If people are using the Start Menu, and not to launch programs, then why would a feature which launches programs be a good replacement? Wouldn't it make more sense to make a replacement which makes it easier to access the components of the Start Menu which people are using?

It doesn't matter what the PR machine tries to tell you, the fact is either Microsoft is stupid for miss reacting to a trend or Microsoft is trying to trick us into believing that we do not want something we use daily.


By Trisped on 7/2/2012 5:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Also, you should have linked to the DT article:
http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Claims+it+Kille...


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Florinator on 7/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Motoman on 7/2/2012 5:22:30 PM , Rating: 1
MS is full of BS.

This is like Chrome and Opera removing the URL history arrow from their address bars, claiming "no one ever uses them." This is some of the stupidest stuff any IT company has ever done.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Florinator on 7/2/2012 5:32:08 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I guess that's why they have been so successful for 37 years, because they are stupid and made a lot of mistakes...


By Trisped on 7/2/2012 5:41:27 PM , Rating: 3
Companies can change. They often do as leadership and market pressures change.


By Motoman on 7/3/2012 11:41:42 AM , Rating: 2
Success is not an indicator of virtue.

When people say something like "hey, we hit our sales target, so we must be doing something right!" you should punch them in the face. It means no such thing...all it may mean is that you appear to suck less than your competitors...and if you shaped up, maybe you'd double your sales figures.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Trisped on 7/2/2012 5:46:01 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that MS is BSing.

Your analogy doesn't work for me though. I rarely ever used the URL history arrow. With integrated search I usually just type what I am looking for and either select a Google search or click on the history item I am looking for. Even if I did use a site enough that it would be in the URL history and I did not want to type the first 2-3 letters of the URL into the bar, a link to the site would be on my start page as either the 8 most visited pages or as a bookmark.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By bah12 on 7/3/2012 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
With integrated search I usually just type what I am looking for and either select a Google search or click on the history item I am looking for. Even if I did use a site enough that it would be in the URL history and I did not want to type the first 2-3 letters of the URL into the bar, a link to the site would be on my start page as either the 8 most visited pages or as a bookmark.

So why are you so opposed to this OBVIOUSLY more efficient way of doing things at the OS level? By your own admission searching is FAR superior than drudging through history (aka short cuts, aka the start menu). Honestly since Win7 I rarely open control panel. The clicks involved to do so are not nearly as quick as typing the first 3 letter of what I want to do. Tell me that changing the power profile is easier by using the lame start menu vs typing... pow, down arrow, enter.

If the search is smart enough (and since Win7 it now is), you don't need to stroll around looking for crap. Web users have known this for years now, why all the resistance on the OS side?


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By AmbroseAthan on 7/2/2012 5:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
You can add the history button back in Opera (dragging it out of the Buttons in the Appearance area). But like you said, no idea why it was removed as a default.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Motoman on 7/2/2012 7:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know. The worst part is that Opera won't admit it's wrong, and put it back in by default, despite *overwhelming* pressure from the user community to do so.

It's one thing to do something stupid, then admit it was stupid and fix it. To pretend that what you did wasn't stupid, when it clearly was, and not do anything about it is rather spectacular.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By Belard on 7/2/2012 10:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Opera's trashcan is more usable... but click on history from the menu isn't difficult. and of course the UI is super customizable.


RE: 39$ to get of my start button?
By frobizzle on 7/3/2012 8:39:58 AM , Rating: 1
Florinator is an obvious troll, probably working out of Redmond, Washington.


By Florinator on 7/3/2012 2:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
At the very least I stick to the subject and don't promote personal attacks.


By Motoman on 7/2/2012 4:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
99.99% of all PC users.


By Schmide on 7/2/2012 7:29:42 PM , Rating: 1
I haven't used more than 640k since Bill declared it satisfactory.


By BZDTemp on 7/3/2012 4:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
I have been using the preview versions for months now and I like most of it.

At first it is very annoying to be without the start menu and it program menu tree and if I could that would still be there like since Windows 95. After a while I find my self finding apps just as fast using the "search" function in Windows 8 because it simply fills the screen with all the programs plus offering a searh function, picking the needed program from all the icons is fast and maybe even faster than with the old start-menu. I don't use the "phone" page of Win 8 to other than pick the first program after a reboot after which I get the desktop.

Overall I like most of the new in Win 8 but the best Win 8 would really be a Win 7 with the new features like the file copy progress bars and such (and not the phone interface). I guess Microsoft won't let us have that and even if Win 8 was free I would say upgrading from 7 is not worth it. Moving from say XP to Win7 or Win8 then I'd say only do it if needed and if so then look careful before you choose which OS.


Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By gigahertz20 on 7/2/2012 5:00:38 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think Win8 will be that big of a hit. Most people that have Win7 installed will not see an important enough feature that Win8 has that is worth upgrading for. I haven't read about any new features yet that just blow me away.

MS is putting out a new OS way too soon, if you are going to launch a new OS just a few years after your last one, you better have some great features that will make your average ma and pa computer user want to upgrade. If you don't have those, people will just be content with what they have. XP to Win7 was a nice jump for many people, Win7 to Win8 will just make people wonder, what's the difference?




RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By Manch on 7/2/2012 5:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
Its already kown that the corporate world will skip this. Plus look at the price. Its a minor upgrade at best. think Windows ME. You paid for it, youre not sure why, and then you realize the tragic mistake you made and cry when you realize you cant go back bc you cant find your discs.

Its really not ME bad. Its meant for tablets and laptops. For those applications, it works. Not serious desktop work. Who wants to spend the day finger banging there screen when a mouse and keyboard is much better and easier?


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By gigahertz20 on 7/2/2012 5:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
They should have called it Windows Touch and just marketed it towards touch screen users. Win8 makes it sound like it's suppose to be the new MS desktop OS, which I guess it's also suppose to be, but it's just gonna be seen as another ME or Vista now.


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By Manch on 7/2/2012 5:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
That would have made more sense.

Everybody dogs on Vista, but Win 7 is merely an upgrade of it. Vista is/was a decent OS. How MS implemented it was just plain idiotic, and the hw/sw manufacturers didnt help things. Im running vista on one of my boxes, and i cant justify upgrading it to Win 7.


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By sviola on 7/2/2012 6:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Vista was a decent OS, but 7 has a lot of improvements under the hood, specially on the graphics stack. In Vista, you have a single entry point for graphics data, while in 7 they fixed it allowing for multiple resources to use the graphics stack at the same time.


By noirsoft on 7/2/2012 11:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the feature you are talking about was introduced in Vista. Unless you mean something other than GPU virtualization.


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By ET on 7/3/2012 3:43:04 AM , Rating: 2
Which is exactly the case for 8. People find it hard to look past the UI change, but underneath it's a similar upgrade to 7 to what 7 was to Vista.

Personally I'm put off by Metro, but that doesn't mean I can't see the advantages. I don't know if I'll buy it, since I'm just now planning to upgrade my desktop from Vista to 7, but I still think it's decent value for people who care about performance. Still, I can understand people who stick to what they know and are comfortable with. A lot of people stuck to XP for gaming even when Vista became faster.


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By Manch on 7/3/2012 4:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
The forcing of the UI/removing of the start button is what most people are taking issue with. Forcing you to switch to a UI you do not want in order to get the other upgrades is stupid. They pulled this with Vista and DX10. Rememebr the backlash because of that?


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By Spuke on 7/3/2012 12:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to use the Metro UI. I don't understand why this is soooooo difficult to understand.


By Manch on 7/3/2012 1:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
you may not have to use the tiles and can go to the start screen but its more cumbersome than the start button. As I said in my first post, its a great interface for a mobile platforms, media PCs but, to me its a step backwards for a desktop. Why not let people keep the start button in addition to the metro UI. To me its like a playstation controller. It works great as it is. Tweak it, fine, add features, fine, but do not scrap it for something else. Youre throwing the baby out with the bathwater here


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By Florinator on 7/2/2012 5:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 8 is a slightly optimized Windows 7 + Metro UI. Everything that worked on Windows 7 will work on Windows 8. You don't like the Metro UI? No problem, don't use it.

Nobody claimed Windows 8 was a major update, not even Windows 7 was a major update from Windows Vista.

In fact, let me share a little secret with you. If you check the build number of Windows Vista you get something like this: 6.0.x.
Windows 7 build numbers are: 6.1.x.
Windows 8 build numbers are: 6.2.x.

There you go, they are all minor updates from Windows Vista.


RE: Doesn't offer enough over Windows 7
By Belard on 7/2/2012 10:48:20 PM , Rating: 1
You CANNOT use Windows8 without using metro.

The Start button is hidden and the whole metro interface *IS* the start "menu", its just a big ugly screen that runs metro APPS that look like metro apps on the WindowsPhone, but on a 24" screen... its like... PUKE!


By steven975 on 7/3/2012 9:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
I think Win8 makes a good case for 2 desktop monitors.

With the preview, I run a 17" 5:4 and a 24" 16:10. Metro on the smaller one. I like it.


Nope.
By Motoman on 7/2/2012 4:59:56 PM , Rating: 1
...if it forces you to use the Metrosexual UI, and has no Start button, it's value is $0.




RE: Nope.
By Florinator on 7/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nope.
By Motoman on 7/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nope.
By Florinator on 7/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nope.
By aftlizard on 7/2/2012 5:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
You know its really not that hard to right click and select show all apps on Metro UI. Thats essentially the same as the start menu(and of course you can add or remove apps to the start screen at any time). If you want an easier option..just do a search. Thats all I ever used the start button for anyways, that and the calculator app.


RE: Nope.
By sviola on 7/2/2012 6:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
So, do you navigate a couple hundred icons on the start menu? There's a lot of productivity lost there...or do you use the search box (which has been improved for Windows 8)?


RE: Nope.
By Motoman on 7/2/2012 7:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
I have never used the search box - ever. It's infinitely faster to use the fly-out menu and click on what I need than it would be to remove my hand from the mouse and type it in and wait for a search. I know of no one who ever uses the search box. If MS wanted to get rid of something, get rid of that.


RE: Nope.
By ShaolinSoccer on 7/2/2012 8:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
lol, you may save 1 second. that's about it...


RE: Nope.
By Motoman on 7/3/2012 11:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
...then what is the point of doing something that takes more effort and costs you even just one second of extra time?

Your way is worse. You just admitted so. So why do it?


RE: Nope.
By noirsoft on 7/2/2012 11:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
I've gotta call it. You are just stupid or trolling. It is far from "infinitely faster" -- in fact, it is demonstrably faster to move to the keyboard(which you are already on if you hit the windows key to start your program search) and type "maya" than to navigate to All Programs/Autodesk/Maya 2008/Maya

Plus, if you do that a lot, it's faster still to pin to the taskbar.

You also must know no one, because anyone who knows about start search prefers it and uses it all the time.


RE: Nope.
By Motoman on 7/3/2012 11:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
You're catastrophically wrong. All my friends work for major software companies, like IBM. I even ran a quick poll around to get other opinions...not a single person thinks it's anything but moronic to search for a program when you already know where it is...taking your hand off the mouse to do so, and wasting more time.

It takes less time to use the Start menu and launch the program with the mouse, period, end of story. When you want to go to a website, do you go to Google and search for "www.website.com" too? Pretty much the same thing.

You're wasting time, and there's no way around that fact.


RE: Nope.
By Newspapercrane on 7/3/2012 3:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it is moronic to search when you know where something is when you've spent half of your life memorizing exactly where all of your programs are in your start menu. Personally, I haven't a slightest clue how things are arranged in "All Programs" on my desktop these days. Hit the windows key, and type the first few letters of what you want and then use the arrow keys to get to it if there are multiple reults. Hit enter. That's it. Anything that I use often enough to warrant it gets pinned to the start menu, or if I use it even more often it get's pinned to the task bar.

Also, because your friends work for "Major software companies, like IBM" does not make them experts on software usability. I'm sure if you actually even asked them the question, the way in which you asked was horribly slanted toward your opinion. Try observing their workflows sometime, I'm sure you'll find something diffent.

When I want to go to a website I start typing the address in the bar and then select it from the suggestions that pop up. That's actually the same thing. Much faster than going through three favorites menu's to find the link.


RE: Nope.
By Spuke on 7/2/2012 7:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
You actually have a couple hundred icons on your screen? And you're calling other people stupid? LOL! Maybe you should rethink that Moto. You know how many icons I have on my screen? Three. Most used apps pinned on the taskbar. I wouldn't mind have those most used apps be my start screen. I also use the Library which works fantastic for finding my data. That's pinned by default. Clean, easy to use. I guess Win8 was designed for at least one person here. LOL!


RE: Nope.
By Motoman on 7/2/2012 7:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to take Reading Comprehension 101 again.

I don't have a couple hundred icons on my screen. And I don't want them. Which is why, like anyone with a brain in their head, I want the Start menu to stay.

Like you, I typically have only a handful of items on my desktop. But I have assloads of programs installed on my computer, and the Start menu is the best possible way to organize and navigate them.


RE: Nope.
By Spuke on 7/3/2012 12:33:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But I have assloads of programs installed on my computer, and the Start menu is the best possible way to organize and navigate them.
I reread what you said and I read it wrong. Still, I disagree. I find that using the Start button takes too many steps and uses too much time. At work, I either pin my most used or put my less than most used on my desktop. Much quiker than Start button, wait, All programs, wait, app, wait, subfolder, wait (I use CAD apps where you might have multiple apps under folders). With Win8, I can have all of those (most and lesser used apps) on the my start screen. Makes that task even quicker (don't have to Show Desktop for the lesser used apps). More productive for me and probably many others (cause none of us are unique...but that's another thread). I can understand something not working for you (and the general bitchiness for new Microsoft stuff that will die down in about 2 years) but how is that stupid?


RE: Nope.
By Manch on 7/2/2012 5:32:35 PM , Rating: 1
Probably bc we dont want to go back to the days of 3.11 with a shit load of icons everywhere.


no thank you.
By chromal on 7/2/2012 4:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Now, why in the world would I want to upgrade my i7-3820 system from Windows7 to Windows8? I have enough aggravation in my life without the Metro UI and losing a broken start menu.




RE: no thank you.
By Florinator on 7/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: no thank you.
By chromal on 7/2/2012 5:30:31 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, I couldn't have upgraded from Windows XP to Windows7 because I was running Vista and had been since 2007. Why? Because Vista had a number of technological improvements over mainstream XP, including meaningful x86_64 architecture support, SuperFetch, and TRIM support for SSDs. What does Windows8 add excepting, of course, its brain-damaged UI?


RE: no thank you.
By Florinator on 7/2/2012 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 3
Faster boot time, lower memory footprint, DFSR, BranchCache, better Cloud integration and a few minor UI improvements in the Desktop, such as graphs displaying the bitrate for copying or deleting files, etc.

You see I didn't even mention the Metro UI, so I don't upset you :-)


RE: no thank you.
By chromal on 7/2/2012 5:51:55 PM , Rating: 1
I already boot faster than the windows logo can animate, and could boot faster still if I turned on UEFI. Of course, I reboot about once every 6-8 weeks, so that doesn't count for much.

I have 16GB of RAM, because RAM is cheap. Apparently, I'm using 3.15GB right now. What do I need a lower memory footprint for, to say $1.50 worth of RAM (that's getting cheaper by the month).

How will DFSR help my standalone home PC? I don't need or want a distributed filesystem. If it isn't on my PC, it's on my CIFS/SMB NAS server.

BranchCache is simularly without value to this home user, and what's more, it's already available in Windows7. My NAS server also runs a Squid web proxy/cache, anyway.

The cloud can go shove things up its rear end, that's one trendy fad that needs to choke on its own offal and die.

I like the file copy graph, the one change on my Win8 public beta box that doesn't drive me into fits. It's not a good enough reason to upgrade, much less put up with all the other crap.

So, you were saying?


RE: no thank you.
By Florinator on 7/2/2012 6:00:57 PM , Rating: 3
Haters gonna hate... :-)

My best friend has a list of famous quotes on his wall in high-school. One quote I remember said:

"I can't give you the key to success, but I can give you the key to failure - try to please everyone."


RE: no thank you.
By chromal on 7/2/2012 6:20:47 PM , Rating: 1
Well, on that we can agree: Windows8 is a recipe for failure because they're trying to please everyone (e.g.: the tablet users) with a mainstream desktop/server OS. Make a sideline OS for tablets if you must, but don't mess with the OS for real computers.


RE: no thank you.
By Ammohunt on 7/2/2012 6:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextThe cloud can go shove things up its rear end, that's one trendy fad that needs to choke on its own offal and die.


I once thought as you did..haven't been immersed in business associated with it its here to stay.


RE: no thank you.
By chromal on 7/2/2012 6:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's attractive in the same up-front ways that outsourcing manufacturing to China has been with corporate execs. And like outsourcing, the less infrastructure and expertise you have in house, the more you're out the mercy of forces outside your control. Folks who depend upon Amazon Cloud services in the Virginia/DC area can attest to that.


RE: no thank you.
By Ammohunt on 7/3/2012 9:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
If a company’s data center was in DC then they would have had a lot longer outage. At least with Amazon they can turn it up at other datacenters across the globe.
The model I would suggest to companies interested in cloud services is to supplement their computing needs with cloud based services as an extension to on premise private clouds. For example if your business has periodic load spikes say at month’s end the extra capacity can be scaled out to the cloud temporarily.


RE: no thank you.
By sviola on 7/2/2012 6:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
You are forgeting the new task manager as well...


RE: no thank you.
By ShaolinSoccer on 7/2/2012 8:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I couldn't have upgraded from Windows XP to Windows7 because I was running Vista and had been since 2007. Why? Because Vista had a number of technological improvements over mainstream XP, including meaningful x86_64 architecture support, SuperFetch, and TRIM support for SSDs. What does Windows8 add


If you're upgrading "from XP", you'll get support for DirectX 10 and higher. Not to mention OS support for much longer than XP. $40 is well worth it and I'm definitely upgrading!


Great price
By TakinYourPoints on 7/2/2012 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
Can't argue with that price, really awesome that they're doing this




RE: Great price
By johnsmith9875 on 7/2/2012 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't touch an online update with a 10 foot pole. Just too many bad things could happen.


RE: Great price
By TakinYourPoints on 7/2/2012 4:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why? It still gives you the option to burn an ISO to DVD or flash drive. I've done this with both Windows and OS X, works like a charm. I also get all my games an applications via download these days, whether it is from developer/publisher websites or Steam.

I don't see what the problem is, but if you're that concerned then the disc is still reasonably priced compared to prior upgrades. As for me, I'll certainly be putting this on a flash drive, a clean install to my SSD should only take a few minutes. :)


RE: Great price
By Kyuu on 7/2/2012 9:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
Does it give you the option to burn an ISO to a DVD or flash drive? If so, the $30 online option is great. Though I can't imagine who would order the CD for a $30 up-charge if that's the case.


RE: Great price
By TakinYourPoints on 7/3/2012 5:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
Sure does!

And yeah, the physical option from MS makes no sense given the option to just burn your own ISO


RE: Great price
By Florinator on 7/2/2012 5:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
I've already used the online option when I installed my Windows 7. No backup disks, nothing. It's worked like a charm.


RE: Great price
By Belard on 7/2/2012 5:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
good for you... its been a nightmare for some.

Which I responded? If you're going to spend $150 for an OS - Why didn't you just go to the store and buy it.

Installation failed badly. Had they had a real disc, it would have resolved the problem.


RE: Great price
By Reclaimer77 on 7/3/2012 4:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome?

They should be paying US $30 to try that Technicolor pos Metro.


Visual Studio?
By johnsmith9875 on 7/2/2012 4:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
Does this OS break every Visual Studio program ever developed with such a radical UI change?

Also, will it work in portrait mode, I have never seen a tablet flipped vertically yet running Windows 8.




RE: Visual Studio?
By Florinator on 7/2/2012 5:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, it doesn't. It doesn't break anything, your programs will run just as well as they did before.

The Metro UI and the Desktop are two different worlds. All your old apps will run in the Desktop mode (Windows 7 look and feel) and new Metro UI apps (purposely developed as such) will run in the Metro UI mode. These two worlds don't really mix, they are completely separate, the API's for these different types of apps are very different.

I don't understand why people are so scared of Windows 8, it offers full backward compatibility with Windows 7 and adds something new on top (or on the side, if you will).

Even Windows 7 runs in portait mode on existing tablets, this is an old feature, it's been there for years. Get a Windows 7 tablet, flip it vertically and you'll see how the task bar rearranges itself on the bottom (or wherever you had it in landscape mode).

None of this is new... in fact, Microsoft invented the tablet PC in the first place (in 2002) ;-)


RE: Visual Studio?
By Ammohunt on 7/2/2012 5:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
Its not fear its just the lack of features which provide reasons to upgrade right now Metro is the primary reason to upgrade not good enough Microsoft; what ever happened to the new file system they were working on?


RE: Visual Studio?
By Etsp on 7/2/2012 5:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
As far as Visual Studio is concerned: No. Apps that used the UI elements from Windows 7 will work just fine on Windows 8, they just won't use the metro interface.


Why
By bupkus on 7/2/2012 5:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To counter Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) $19.99 USD Mountain Lion licensing,
Of course we all realize that Apple doesn't get its high profit margins from selling software alone.
Why is MS doing this? I don't suppose Apple will start selling their OS to just anyone who may be assembling an Hackentosh.
I for one will always build my own and I would just as well use linux as use ML. What?,... so they can sell more of their Office program?




RE: Why
By TakinYourPoints on 7/3/2012 5:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
Good question given that Microsoft makes their money by selling Windows and (more importantly) Office. It is important to note though that they've done this with prior operating systems, like Windows 7 for $50 for a limited time.

The bulk of their Windows sales come from PC manufacturers selling new computers anyway, so I don't think that promotional sales to consumers puts that much of a dent in their bottom line.


RE: Why
By Sazabi19 on 7/3/2012 3:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
Because they wouldn't move very many units if they didn't price it into the dirt. I will not be getting it, I had XP, XP x64, Vista Ultimate x64, and Win 7 Ultimate x64. This will be a huge pass, hope they revert back and get rid of the Metro UI with all the backlash they are and will continue to see. Great for mobile devices that use touch, but anything else including managing is a nightmare. I have been using for months on my laptop and hate it, I'm not sure it will grow on me, but I've tried.


By firstone on 7/2/2012 5:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
For those worried about all the changes in Windows 8, I think we'll do just fine despite Microsoft's stubbornness in removing the start Menu and some other stuff that relates to the "current" desktop we're all used to.
I use this neat program, Classic Start Menu for a while. I hate the new format of the start menu in Windows 7 and use the classic (Windows XP classic format) thanks to the Classic Start Menu utility. I just tested the Release Preview of Windows 8 with version 3.5.1 and it's a breeze, everything the way I want is back there, my Windows 8 looks just like I want, if I want to play with the Metro Interface it's a no brainer as well, back to the classic desktop, no problem.
So, there's a FREE solution to this little snag.
So far I can tell Windows 8 runs smoother in all computers that I tested (some old stuff also), very responsive and with the classic view that I love.




Idea
By Ammohunt on 7/2/2012 5:21:04 PM , Rating: 1
I would pay $50 a copy if i get a windows 7 classic option that includes a start button.




lmao
By Argon18 on 7/2/2012 11:16:03 PM , Rating: 1
they have to give it away b/c nobody wants it. a tablet or phone gui on a desktop is idiotic. try again microsoft, call me when windows 9 is released.




I'll pass...
By WinstonSmith on 7/3/2012 9:50:10 AM , Rating: 1
According from reviews I've read, Win 8 is horrible on the desktop. I'll pass just as I did with Vista. Microsoft will rush to make something else when Win 8 crashes and burns in the desktop market as it will.




LOL! Not worth $15... sure not $70!
By Belard on 7/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: LOL! Not worth $15... sure not $70!
By Belard on 7/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: LOL! Not worth $15... sure not $70!
By gixser on 7/3/2012 2:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect you were downrated for implying its possible to snort too much coke off prostitutes butts.


By Belard on 7/3/2012 2:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
Ah! My mistake. Sorry, I never done coke before... never will.

I'm a Dr.Pepper type of guy.


By troysavary on 7/3/2012 2:29:00 PM , Rating: 1
Your just repeating Charlie's sad butt-hurt Linux fanboy rantings. In his irrational hatred for all things Microsoft, he leaps to spectacular conclusions. Somehow he goes from HP announcing they will forgo the ARM tablet market to concentrate on Win8 Pro x86 tablets to all MS tablet partners are fleeing to Android. HP is making the right decision. No one except Apple is making money off of ARM tablets. The market is crowded, and it will be impossible to compete with tablets being sold below cost. HP is still strong in enterprise, and their enterprise customers will want the full capabilities of a real Windows version if they go for tablets.

How on earth Charlie gets that HP is abandoning MS from this, I don't know, and repeating his mis-information makes you look as much an idiot as him.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki