backtop


Print 259 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Jan 24 at 2:07 PM


  (Source: Flickr)
Notably, more than half of gamers who DO pick the embattled OS downgrade within weeks

Arguably the most important, but relatively underdiscussed single story at the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show can be expressed in a single word -- "solidarity".  Whether it was Intel Corp. (INTC) pushing customers towards touch-friendly devices or companies like Hewlett-Packard Comp. (HPQ) and Lenovo Group, Ltd. (HKG:0992) pushing Windows 8 hybrids/laptop designs, everyone was standing firmly behind Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) embattled Windows 8 operating system.

With past releases Microsoft was blasted for not being innovative enough compared to Linux and OS X, in terms of user interface design.  Windows 8 flips the tables innovating wildly -- well beyond what Linux distro makers or Apple, Inc. (AAPL) have dared do.  And now the equation has flipped: Microsoft finds itself under attack for innovating too much.

Whether its DailyTech's readers or online critics, it's important to recognize that much of the criticism is coming from the enthusiast sphere.  Average consumers -- who generally gravitate towards bright, colorful, touchable devices like moths to a light -- tend to react more kindly to Windows 8 when exposed, at least in my anecdotal experience.

But the numbers are troubling.  Despite Microsoft playing an interesting licensing sales game selling a deluge of licenses to OEMs at a rate that would indicate Windows 8 to be outselling Windows 7, the usage numbers indicate that OEMs are only moving a fraction of those licenses.  Windows 8 is only drawing around a tenth of the internet traffic Windows 7 did at a similar point in the adoption cycle; in fact Windows 8 trails Windows Vista in internet traffic.

For obvious reasons I won't name the particular company I heard this from, but during a discussion this week with a company who makes enthusiast laptops and desktops for gamers I heard a somewhat interesting and startling statistic that drives home just how much Windows 8 is indeed struggling.

Windows 8
Less than half oif enthusiasts give Windows 8 a try, and over half that do downgrade to
Windows 7 quickly, according to an industry source. [Image Source: Reuters]

According to the the source:

It's really interesting... what we see is more people selecting Windows 7 [than Windows 8]... because we offer both side by side.  And we actually see more people switching [back] from Windows 8 [to Windows 7] which is interesting.

The source said that over half of the purchasers of enthusiast PCs who do take the Windows 8 drive tend to bail within a couple weeks.

Now bear in mind a couple of qualifiers:
  1. Not all the enthusiasts desktops/laptops sold by this company come with touch monitors (hence limiting the Windows 8 UI).
  2. The target audience is enthusiasts, who as mentioned tend to "hate on 8".
Still, the idea that 3 out of every 4 buyers of new machines are rejecting Windows 8 should be a startling one for Microsoft.  Microsoft should be very thankful for the solidarity shown by its partners at CES 2013, in the face of that kind of sales trend.


Comments     Threshold


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

wrong
By Motoman on 1/11/2013 7:16:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Microsoft finds itself under attack for innovating too much.


Making 3-legged pants isn't "innovating too much."

Making a square wheel isn't "innovating too much."

Making a baseball bat out of meatloaf isn't "innovating too much."

It's called being stupid. There isn't a single person in the world who is attacking MS for being too innovative. They're being attacked because they're morons.




RE: wrong
By bug77 on 1/11/2013 7:35:14 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I was about to say, they're not catching flak for innovating too much, they're catching flak for innovating in the wrong direction. Touch interface in a non-touch world? What could be wrong with that.

And I'm not saying it's impossible to use Metro UI, I'm sure it can be done. But I shouldn't have to relearn everything every time Microsoft feels like designing a new UI. Look at OS X and how its interface hasn't changed in 12 years and tell me there's no value in there.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/11/2013 7:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
Its not that it can't be done or that it needs to be learned, its that it sucks. Its just irritating to me.


RE: wrong
By ICBM on 1/11/2013 8:01:55 PM , Rating: 5
Then why bother with Metro at all. Just click desktop and stay there?

I agree, Metro on keyboard/mouse sucks, but for touch its great. Its one OS that works great in both places. You just need to use what works well for in your situation.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/11/2013 9:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Then why bother with Metro at all. Just click desktop and stay there?
Still irritating

I agree, Metro on keyboard/mouse sucks, but for touch its great. Its one OS that works great in both places. You just need to use what works well for in your situation

That's the issue... It is great for touch, but irritating as hell for a PC. I just don't like it... Count me as part of the 3/4 of tech users that don't like it. Cool that you do, I just don't.


RE: wrong
By inighthawki on 1/11/2013 10:20:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Still irritating

It's still irritating to not have to use something, simply knowing that it exists on your system bothers you? I'm sorry for you.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/12/2013 7:57:27 AM , Rating: 5
No. I use the taskbar for the few things I launch the most often and I use the start button for the 10-15 things I launch slightly less often. I don't like to clutter up my desktop with icons that I cant see without minimizing my current windows. I have about 16 things on the immediate start bar that I use. Not buried in the all programs menu, but pinnned right on the immediate start bar that 8 has no good answer for.


RE: wrong
By inighthawki on 1/12/2013 3:50:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
but pinnned right on the immediate start bar that 8 has no good answer for

How about customizing the start screen? Any complaint of it taking up the whole screen is moot. Microsoft performed eye tracking tests to see where people actually looked when opening the start menu to see if that exact complaint held any merit and as it turns out nobody ever looked anywhere except where the start menu was - The heatmap didn't have a single pixel of color outside of the start menu itself.

Not only that, the start screen can hold so many more programs in a 2 dimensional setting, meaning you can utilize spacial memory more effectively than a linear list of applications. It turns out to be fairly effective if you give it a proper chance.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/12/2013 4:39:34 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I just don't want to do all that to make it suck less. I already have something that doesn't suck, Windows 7 it works perfectly and I like it. I will go with Windows 8 when and if I decide to get a touch screen... to me it's less productive end of story.


RE: wrong
By inighthawki on 1/12/2013 7:34:50 PM , Rating: 3
But you still have to customize windows 7...

I can understand if you said

"I don't want to switch to 8 because then I'll have to re-customize everything and it takes time"

but you've been stating that windows 8 sucks because it's simply inferior. Customizing the windows 8 start screen takes no longer than it does to customize the windows 7 start menu.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/13/2013 10:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say its inferior. I said the touchscreen UI on a non-touch screen device is irritating to me . Irritating enough that I dont want to use it. I did try it for over a month before finally saying screw it. I just dont like it. Why do you care. I am happy with 7. Its not like I am a minority either. I am part of the 3 in 4 of enthusiasts that dont like it.


RE: wrong
By xti on 1/14/2013 4:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
the word enthusiast implies minority.


RE: wrong
By polishvendetta on 1/15/2013 1:13:57 PM , Rating: 1
I agree and wish I could vote this up as well.

I have a gaming PC. Run a minecraft Server on it, play AAA titles on it. I built it my self. Does this make me an enthusiast? I would say so. I also run and love Windows 8. And I've never had an issue with the start menu over the start screen. In my opinion the start screen is far superior.

I have lots of issues with these statistics stemming from how you clasify an "enthusiast". If youre telling me an enthusiast is someone who builds their own computers then these numbers dont make any sense. You're telling me someone is going to spend 1000$ on a computer, put it together themselves, pay for a legit copy of windows 8, and then un-install it and pay for a legit copy of windows 7?

Or is an enthusiast one of these "bros" that play call of duty on the laptops their daddies bought them and then cry because it has the wrong operating system?

Either way, minority.


RE: wrong
By damianrobertjones on 1/13/2013 9:05:41 AM , Rating: 3
Yet I see no real difference in my productive day in work with Windows 8? How does it actually dent your productivity? All my icons and applications are exactly where they were before... Maybe you're just seeing something that isn't there


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/13/2013 10:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
" I use the taskbar for the few things I launch the most often and I use the start button for the 10-15 things I launch slightly less often. I don't like to clutter up my desktop with icons that I cant see without minimizing my current windows. I have about 16 things on the immediate start bar that I use. Not buried in the all programs menu, but pinnned right on the immediate start bar that 8 has no good answer for."


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 2:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
But the start screen is simply a list of pinned start menu items just as it was in the start menu from windows 7. They didn't even take the "all programs" button away, it's there you just have to right click for it. Seriously the start screen is just the start menu laid out in full screen with live tiles. What pisses me off the most is when people refer to it as a touch UI, as if it's somehow inferior to use it with a mouse and keyboard. I prefer to use it with a mouse and keyboard. Of all my systems only ONE is touch screen with windows 8, the rest are desktops and laptops that have been upgraded.


RE: wrong
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2013 3:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's more difficult to get to. It's just not as natural. If most people felt the way you did, you'd be hearing stories how everyone loves Windows 8 and how it's selling so great. But you don't. Most people feel the way we do.

It's only a very vocal minority that actually thinks it's an improvement. It was this way with Windows ME and Vista, too. Most people hated it, but a few very vocal people kept singing its praises.


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 3:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
What, exactly, is more difficult to get to? The Start screen? There’s a hot corner just for it (right where the start menu was), there's the button on the charm bar, and there's the win key right on your keyboard. The only one of these that is really "new" is the charm bar. So they moved it's "location" down by ~3/4" (give or take with varying screen sizes) making it a hot corner rather than a button and then they ADDED a method for getting to it...

Trust me, I'm used to being in the minority when it comes to my ideas about computing. Sometimes I worry that I'm the only sane person left who isn't jumping on the "hate on everything Microsoft attempts to do" band wagon.


RE: wrong
By JediJeb on 1/13/2013 11:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only that, the start screen can hold so many more programs in a 2 dimensional setting, meaning you can utilize spacial memory more effectively than a linear list of applications. It turns out to be fairly effective if you give it a proper chance.


But if those programs are located behind the one you are currently using you still have to minimize or use show desktop to see them to activate them. With them in the Start Menu or pinned to task bar you can start a program without having to minimize the one you are currently using. I usually have two or three active simultaneously with windows staggered so I just move between the, with the Start Screen I would need to move them to start another program.


RE: wrong
By inighthawki on 1/13/2013 4:37:51 PM , Rating: 4
Have you never used windows 8? You dont have to minimize anything to access the start screen. It's basically a fullscreen version of the start menu (overlays on top of whats open, and disappears when you're done with it)


RE: wrong
By TSS on 1/13/2013 12:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
Damn i'm old fashioned. I've got a desktop with icons and that's it. I hardly even browse since i got shortcuts to the folders i use the most on the desktop.

with a 1920x1080 resolution i've got so many rows/columns available that i can sort them into neat little groups. Got programs on the left, bottom left for folders, got the right for games, with the most played at the top. Last time i ran out of space was back in the 1280x920 days.

Aren't the iphone and android systems also basically a desktop? I mean you've got icons. I'm not sure if you can drag them around top order them (i don't have a smartphone myself), but if you can that's no different from windows.

Soooo.... why use the start menu? except for looking up an odd icon i don't have on my desktop yet so i can drag it to my desktop....


RE: wrong
By maugrimtr on 1/14/2013 8:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
That's what is so irritating about Windows 8. Normally, I'm the same but some applications core to Windows 8 now kick you into the Metro fullscreen view (where Esc doesn't exit). Now I have to move to a corner and switch to desktop (there is no retore/minimise button since these apps aren't windows). It's counter intuitive, requires much more mouse moving and clicking.

Maximised windows apps are even becoming annoying. The windows buttons and menus can be so close to the Desktop corners that you accidentally trigger a Metro menu. The new iTunes seems to have done this deliberately - it's menu button when maximised is mere pixels away from the top left corner.

As for Gamers switching back to Windows 7 - my motherboard needed new drivers and, worse, a BIOS update. Flashing the BIOS is easy for any enthusiast but the whole PC is horrendously unstable before I did it. A less-than-enthusiastic user upgrading to Win8 would have a big problem.


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 2:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
So uninstall whatever metro app it's kicking you to. Literally right click the tile and click uninstall at the bottom... POOF problem solved! The uninstall process literally takes seconds, even on slow computers! Or you could use that little guy that's been in windows since well before 7, you know "default programs" to customize where it "kicks" you...


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 10:03:49 AM , Rating: 1
FFS, how many articles have to cover this issue before people listen. There are numerous solutions to this:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/9-win...

Start8 is the best solution but it will cost you $5. Classic Shell is a good alternative that is free.

You're welcome. Now please stop bitching.


RE: wrong
By johnsmith9875 on 1/24/2013 2:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
At least until Microsoft changes the kernel with a service pack and breaks all the hacks and 3rd party mods you installed.


RE: wrong
By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 9:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
. It is great for touch, but irritating as hell for a PC. I just don't like it... Count me as part of the 3/4 of tech users that don't like it.


Touch works great on your phone because you can quickly wipe off all the smudge marks on your shirt. That's not easily done with a laptop so your screen is always going to look like crap.


RE: wrong
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
And reaching across your desk to close apps on a 24 inch display also sucks. How close to you sit in relation to your desktops display? At my desk its not even within arms reach.


RE: wrong
By damianrobertjones on 1/13/2013 9:06:10 AM , Rating: 1
Use your mouse... . Hardly an issue to close apps.


RE: wrong
By inighthawki on 1/13/2013 4:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Or don't close them at all, because the system managed the lifetime of all apps for you. Apps are suspended in the background, and when memory gets congested the system will close off the least recently used apps for you.


RE: wrong
By GotThumbs on 1/14/2013 12:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
No need to reach. Just try and think outside your box.

Touch pad for PC's:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

This new interface could be very useful for those who have limited ability with their hands and a touch like interface could work better....combined with windows8 improved voice interface.

The world does not revolve around one person, so one size/interface does not fit all.

Best wishes,


RE: wrong
By GotThumbs on 1/14/2013 12:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
A better and less expensive option would be something like this...but not a reconditioned one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

MS could do some damage control if they offered devices like this with Win8 Desktops. IMO.


RE: wrong
By damianrobertjones on 1/13/2013 9:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm using the new UI on my desktop now and I see, practically ZERO difference in my working day and at times it IS faster.


RE: wrong
By bug77 on 1/12/2013 6:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then why bother with Metro at all.


Because you have to. Some actions will take you Metro apps no matter what (like opening an email link). Can you disable/uninstall Metro?

Also, Vista was one of those OSs that worked great on 4GB RAM after some tweaking. In a world where most people don't know how to tweak and could only afford 1-2GB of RAM.


RE: wrong
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2013 9:30:56 AM , Rating: 3
Opening email links does not require metro.

I have Firefox as my default browser and everything opens there. The only metro APPs I use are the weather and financial apps. The rest, I just uninstalled them.


RE: wrong
By GotThumbs on 1/14/2013 12:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
"Can you disable/uninstall Metro"

Can you disable/uninstall the Start Menu?

That's all Metro is....

You can create shortcuts to various applications/commands on the Win8 Desktop if you'd prefer to avoid the Metro option.

Any OS will require tweaking for anyone who doesn't fit into the the vanilla mold.


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 2:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
You don't disable metro, you disable whatever application it's taking you to. If that's the metro mail app, and you hate the metro mail app either change you default mail client in the default programs dialogue (open start screen and type “default” and you should see it pop up, if not try clicking setting on the right) or uninstall the mail app by right clicking the tile and clicking uninstall... Are you sure you really "tried" windows 8?


RE: wrong
By Ammohunt on 1/12/2013 10:06:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then why bother with Metro at all. Just click desktop and stay there?


Thats what i did! stayed on windows 7 desktop..and my desktop has a start button. When microsoft releases Win 8 SP1 that include the classic UI then and only then will i consider upgrading...otherwise i will stick with windows 7.


RE: wrong
By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
You really don't have to use Metro for anything.. been on 8 since the dev preview first came out, and took me all of an hour to figure that out.

And what do you need a start button for? Why clutter the taskbar with a big cartoonish icon unnecessarily, when we all know where to click?

I do believe Metro is entirely transitional, being intended as a baby step for something far different (imagine we'll end up with win NT again at some point). Without the transition, all you whiners would be complaining far more.


RE: wrong
By Solandri on 1/13/2013 3:16:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And what do you need a start button for? Why clutter the taskbar with a big cartoonish icon unnecessarily, when we all know where to click?

Admittedly my case is a bit unusual, but I run a bunch of virtual machines.

With Win 8, you have to move the mouse to one corner to get these to pop up. That's fine if the UI is taking up your entire display - just shove the mouse as far as you can in a diagonal and it'll pop up.

It doesn't work for a virtual machine running in a window. The mouse will move to the corner of the physical machine's desktop. Depending on when the VM's shared mouse movement routine kicks in and reverts control back to the physical machine, that may leave the VM's mouse in the corner, or on the desktop a short distance away from the corner.

To access Win 8's settings and program lists, I have to very carefully and slowly move the mouse to the VM's corner without going past the edge the edge of the VM's window. I imagine there are similar difficulties if you're using a multi-monitor setup.

I don't really mind Metro, but removing the Start button resulted in a loss of functionality for my purposes. IMHO that's a cardinal sin in UI design - things should not become less functional. Even if they're trying to encourage people to adopt the new interface, they should've left an option to re-enable the Start button for cases like mine where the new way simply doesn't work very well. I just ended up installing a third party Start button, but I shouldn't have to do that.


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/13, Rating: 0
RE: wrong
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
Why couldn't they just give us the option? there is more to it than "just use the desktop"

for example I had to use Metro netflix app since It wouldn't work at all on the desktop. Some stupid siverlight DRM error. Netflix couldn't figure it out either. So I had to use the metro version and its was buggy as all get out. Half the time it simply kicked me back to the desktop and then it would take three tries to get the metro app to finally work again. It just sucks and MS should have given us an option to install a desktop OS or a metro OS. This kicking me to the desktop wasn't limited to the netflix app by the way so it wasn't the app.


RE: wrong
By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Blame Netflix for that... had a silverlight problem on my win7 install that forced me to discontinue the service as I couldn't use it no matter how hard I tried (even after a reboot) -- after MS ended had support for silverlight, and long had notified devs of it's impending demise. Just be glad you have an alternative that I didn't on win7.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/12/2013 3:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
"Blame Netflix for that"

Not really the point who's fault it is. It seems to me that at this time Win7 provides better functionality. Upgrading to Win8 and blaming Netflix doesn't get him a functional Netflix. It gets him less functionality and an irritating UI.

I am not someone that shys away from new UI's. I adopt every OS early, from Win95 to Win7. I even liked Vista. After SP1, and some tweaks, it ran great, but Win8 just doesn't make me want to upgrade. Its' just irritating on a non- touch screen device. That is the problem, it's a touch UI that they are forcing on a non-touch platform. Win 8 is the first MS OS in 18 years I am not jumping on at or prior to its release. I just dont see any reason to switch. I have even wiped out th Win8 partition on my PC. Tried it for over a month and just don't like it.


RE: wrong
By InsGadget on 1/13/2013 2:41:18 AM , Rating: 3
I'm using Win8 on my existing non-touch laptop. No complaints here. I treat the Start screen as a glorified Start menu (which is all it is), and since then I've had no problems with Win8. In fact, it's been the best upgrade yet, for me; literally no compatibility issues, which no other Windows upgrade could claim for me.


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 12:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
You could always do what I did and use netflix in the browser till the app was fixed. Last I checked on all my PC's the Netflix app was working fine after the lastest round of updates. I do agree though, the app was/(maybe) is buggy as hell.


RE: wrong
By lexluthermiester on 1/13/13, Rating: 0
RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 10:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
MANY of the settings that a user needs to change can only be accessed through the "Metro" UI

Not true. All you have to do is open the control panel, which looks just like the Windows 7 control panel. There are several ways to do this.

-- Power user menu
hit Window key + X
or
right click the lower left corner of the screen
This menu contains lots of useful shortcuts, one of which is a link to the Control panel.

-- Desktop shortcut
Right click desktop, click Personalize, click on the link to choose desktop icons, add a Control Panel icon.

-- God Mode
Yes, the old 'God Mode' folder trick from Windows 7 still works.

quote:
Microsoft trying to get into the touchpad based tablet market was expected. But this is not how to do it

I disagree. The tablet market is where all the growth is happening right now, and they want to maintain a common interface/experience across all their platforms. Computer interfaces change and have to be relearned with every generation. Yes the jump from 7 to 8 is a big one, and yes it sucks for power users. But power users aren't the target market (never have been), and by definition aren't using the stock install anyway and will customize it as they see fit. The net result is that most users, the ones that do fall into the target market, will learn one interface and it will be the same whether they use a Microsoft tablet or a Microsoft PC. In the long term that is a solid plan, albeit with growing pains in the short term.

quote:
And Microsoft wonders why it's failing?

I guess you don't work for a large company. It certainly is not failing there.

quote:
They wonder why Open/Libre Office is fast becoming the Office suite of choice?

Again, you must not being using the software for anything productive, because Open/Libre Office is woefully inadequate for real work. It's fine for typing up a report or making a simple slideshow, but try doing anything serious, especially in spreadsheets, and it falls short.


RE: wrong
By MrBungle123 on 1/15/2013 10:49:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tablet market is where all the growth is happening right now, and they want to maintain a common interface/experience across all their platforms. Computer interfaces change and have to be relearned with every generation.


Thats just idiotic. A bicycle, a freight train, a toyota corolla, an aircraft carrrier, and a 747 are all vehicles and they all have their own UI and controls which are setup in a way that makes sense for the type of vehicle that they are. In the same way, a cell phone, a tablet, a virtualization server, and a workstation are all computers but they need a UI and controls that make sense for the task at hand. What MS is doing is as stupid as trying to put rudder pedals and a cabin pressure system on a bicycle.


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/15/2013 11:05:56 AM , Rating: 3
Your analogy is ridiculous because you're comparing things which aren't even remotely similar. We're talking about devices which will all be used by consumers sharing a common interface. For the average user who has enough trouble memorizing/understanding one interface, let alone a unique interface for each device they own, having a common interface makes sense.

If you had compared a scooter, motorcycle, and ATV as sharing a common interface, and contrasted that with cars and pickup trucks which share a different interface, I'd have agreed with you. I would have then pointed out that there are cases where hybrids of the two makes sense (ex: UTVs). I would also have pointed out that while there are differences, the user interfaces on an ATV vs a car are not really all that different. The same basic controls exist but in different manifestations. However, you did not do any of the things I just described. Instead you compared a bicycle to a 747, which truly is idiotic.

Also, this:
quote:
In the same way, a cell phone, a tablet , a virtualization server, and a workstation are all computers but they need a UI and controls that make sense for the task at hand.

Cell phone and tablet UIs have no appreciable differences. In fact Android has merged the once separate tablet and phone distributions into one. Also, as the line between home PC and living room appliance becomes blurred, the tablet style interface makes more and more sense. Win8s Modern UI might be horrible for a business workstation, but it will be excellent for an HTPC.


RE: wrong
By MrBungle123 on 1/15/2013 12:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
No, my analogy is valid. MS in their infinite wisdom has platered their Modern UI on everything from cell phones to servers. What exactly does a mobile phone have to do with a server? What does a tablet have to do with a development workstation?

A tablet is as useless to someone that is writing programs or designing buildings in CAD as a bicycle is to an airline pilot. The same could be said about someone that needs a powerful system to host a bunch of virtual servers... of what value is a cell phone when you need that? nothing. These devices are not comparable and as such they need different UIs.

Whoever signed off on this unified interface idea at Microsoft has absolutely no clue what these products do or how they are used. It sounds good on paper to the layman but in practice it utterly falls flat on its face.


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/15/2013 2:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
1) That you think your analogy was valid is laughable at best, horrifyingly stupid at worst.

2) You aren't even arguing with me at this point, you're arguing with yourself. I explained the circumstances in which I think Microsoft's decision makes sense; server and workstation applications were not among them. In fact I explicitly stated that I thought the Modern UI was bad for business applications. My entire discussion of this topic has centered around home use by the average person...nothing at all to do with business.


RE: wrong
By lexluthermiester on 1/15/2013 8:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how idiotic you come off? And Bungle's point and analogy is spot on. Windows 8 is the failure it deserves to be. The lack of universal adoption, the very weak public reception and the fact that power users & casual users alike are avoiding it is proof positive of how badly 8 has failed. There is no point arguing further.

I've tried some of your "suggestions" above... Guess what? There are at least 18 settings that even "GOD" mode can't access. Not to mention that things that used to take one or to clicks of a mouse, take three to five now. And before you sing the praises of the touch screen interface, try to remember, the human fingertip is NOT a tool of precision. A mouse pointer, by design, is.

And if you think that Open/Libre office is lacking in the way you claim, you really need help. Go try it out again...

Like Windows 8 if you wish. Your choice, but the "average person" seems to have spoken, not to mention folks like me. There is a saying; "If it's not broken, don't fix it!" Innovation is a good thing, as is change. But 8 is not innovative, and the changes made are very much less than intuitive. 8 is a failure bigger than "MS BOB", Vista and ME combined. The public response and sales numbers prove it.

End of Line...


RE: wrong
By damianrobertjones on 1/13/2013 9:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
I have no issue with the Modern UI on a desktop and neither do the testers in work? Maybe you should try harder.


RE: wrong
By maxxcool on 1/14/2013 12:06:28 PM , Rating: 1
Becuase using a mouse on it is #$%ing awefull. I mean REALLY $%^&ing #$%itty bad. terrible.

"mouse over" the bottom right to get the power options ? are you $%^&ing kidding me? if you move the mouse wrong the menu goes away? idiots.

no clean way to get to the "management panel??" Idiots
No way to make a color change ? IDIOTS
FORCING transparency ? IDIOTS
no "recent" menu ?? IDIOTS
terrible ui bugs? IDIOTS
hiding all the power user functions from people know what there doing ? IDIOTS

NONE of that is fixed by clicking the desktop icon. It is all borked into different places that are painstakenly awful to use.

this is by far the worst OS i have ever used... an that includes really shitty versions of linux and windows Millennium

FOR CHRIST FUCKING SAKES AT LEAST I CAN RIGHT CLICK "MY COMPUTER" IN WINDOWS Millennium AND GO TO "MANAGE". YOU ^&*KING RETARD M$ IDIOTS!


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 4:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, are you retarded?

Management panel?? You mean computer management? uh, in metro bring up the charm bar, go to tiles, click "show advanced tiles", from desktop, move mouse to lower left hot corner, when start pops up... right click.

Color changes can be made to the desktop and metro interfaces JUST as you could in past windows versions. Color changes are more limited in metro though.

Forcing transparency... what? Right click desktop, click personalize, choose a theme without transparency.

ui bugs... I swear to god you've got to be using the beta still, you have no idea what you're talking about.

hiding the "power" functions? What are you talking about? The power on/off functions or the "power user functions", either way, see above. if you take more than a 0.5 millisecond look at it, it's all there and pretty easy to find if you have more than two brain cells.

Right click "my computer" and go to manage? ummm, you can still do this. you can also get to it easily from windows explorer. or you could, ya know... hit the windows button on your keyboard and type "manag" or something to that effect and under the settings list (win + w) it'll pop up instantly.

I understand if you don't like the operating system. Obviously it's not for everyone. If it's not for you then don’t use it, but there's no reason to go making an @$$ of yourself to prove a point you don't have.


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 5:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
I've confirmed it now that I'm home and posting from 8. Open windows explorer, right click computer (on left), select manage.

Or, open start screen, type computer, right click. Manage is at the bottom of the screen, you can also pin computer to the start screen to make this easier.

Or, bring mouse to bottom left, when start screen preview pops up right click, computer management is here. This menu can also be accessed with winkey + x.

There, 3 options to easily access the management item that's soooooo hidden in windows 8. Proving once and for all that this guy is an idiot!


RE: wrong
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2013 1:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
I like the look of Windows 8 but the touch optimizations just kill it.

How do I get the start menu? I had to install Start8. After deleting the full screen "apps" which Microsoft is trying to push and getting back the start button, Windows 8 is finally an improvement over Windows 7.

The fact is that Windows 8 made a departure from a conventional PC OS and tried to move towards mobile. This is a problem when 95% of your userbase is going to use it on a desktop.

The buying public made the informed decision to use an OS that is optimized for the non-touch desktop/laptop that they have, and ignored Windows 8. As a result it's floundering. Windows 7 had 10x the usage by this point in its life cycle.


RE: wrong
By damianrobertjones on 1/13/2013 9:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
Fantastic argument there. Well done.


RE: wrong
By Da W on 1/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/13, Rating: 0
RE: wrong
By lexluthermiester on 1/15/2013 9:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any useful advice falls mostly on deaf ears.


Actually it hasn't. I used Classic Shell instead of other similar offerings, but that only solved one problem. Unlike the genius above I like the transparencies. But why in hell should anyone have go through all the headaches? Windows 8 is a waste. Period. Windows 7 is much better. Hell, even Vista is better and for simple reasons, it's easier to use, and finally runs well[as long you have SP2]. Either can be made to run lean and clean with a lot less nonsense and effort.

Now, to be fair, I've tried it on a touchpad device and it works well. But not on a desktop or laptop. For touchpad's, if they clean it up and fix the glaring problems/bugs/glitches it could be a success. Otherwise is total failure.


RE: wrong
By GotThumbs on 1/14/2013 11:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
With laptops that have a decent touch pad, navigating around Win8 only has a small learning curve for those willing to try.

What might be the answer for Win8 on desktops is the addition of a touch interface similar to:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

It's a touch pad for PC's and just may be better than having to use a mouse.

Thinking outside the box and expanding One's mind can bring about advancements. Just open your mind to some possibilities.

Else just don't buy it and stop your childish whining.


RE: wrong
By GotThumbs on 1/14/2013 12:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
A better and less expensive option would be:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

Just wish MS would think to offer something like this with Win8 desktops.


RE: wrong
By AnnihilatorX on 1/13/2013 7:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is not MS is attempting to support touch or innovating too much

The Modern UI (not Metro anymore) is good. But there is no synergy with the desktop mode. Applications and apps are segregated. There is not enough thinking behind how they will work together seamlessly, and resulting in seemingly half assed product in both parts.

While I do applaud other background kernel optimisations MS has put in. Battery life and performance are improved slightly. You have to agree Windows 8 is quite cheap, so even if people don't like it, they don't necessarily feeel ripped off.


RE: wrong
By johnsmith9875 on 1/13/2013 6:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft removing the Start button would be if Apple removed Finder from their OS.
(Apple hasn't removed finder nor relocated it since 1984)


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 10:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Modern UI (not Metro anymore) is good. But there is no synergy with the desktop mode. Applications and apps are segregated. There is not enough thinking behind how they will work together seamlessly and resulting in seemingly half assed product in both parts.

I agree.

quote:
While I do applaud other background kernel optimisations MS has put in. Battery life and performance are improved slightly. You have to agree Windows 8 is quite cheap, so even if people don't like it, they don't necessarily feel ripped off.

Exactly. After spending <$70 for the OS, I don't feel annoyed at all for having to spend $5 on Start8 to resolve the interface issues. In the end I still saved a lot of money and have no major complaints.


RE: wrong
By damianrobertjones on 1/13/2013 9:02:35 AM , Rating: 1
What will you say when the OSX interface changes? It'll happen... the store is already there!

The iPad has sold million upon million of devices... non-touch world? Hardly. Just look at the mobile phone sector


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/13, Rating: 0
RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 3:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, the truth hurts, doesn't it?


RE: wrong
By Motoman on 1/14/2013 4:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think the truth that hurts is the fact that you think it's a reasonable thing to tell consumers to just buy a "new and improved" product, and then have to go an "fix it" to make it usable.

That's not acceptable. MS can either fix it, and get rid of the craptastic Metrosexual UI that essentially no one wants, or people can stay with Win7 and never buy Win8.

All these people saying "just do <this>" or "just do <that>" are utterly missing the point. Why should we have to do *anything*? Win8 is horribly defective, and Win7 isn't. Ergo, stay with Win7 and don't buy Win8. Period.


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/15/2013 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
you think it's a reasonable thing to tell consumers to just buy a "new and improved" product, and then have to go an "fix it" to make it usable.

I think it's a reasonable thing for a company to design the UI of their operating system as they see fit, and to allow that UI to be modified as the user sees fit. Win8 usable as-is, but nobody is forcing users to stick with the Modern UI.

quote:
MS can either fix it, and get rid of the craptastic Metrosexual UI that essentially no one wants, or people can stay with Win7 and never buy Win8.

I already agreed that there's not much reason to upgrade from 7 to 8. That said, your framing of the discussion as either-or is incorrect. Those are two options, but there are others. For example, Microsoft could offer Windows 8 at a discounted price in order to ease growing pains of the UI switch and boost early adoption rates. They could also allow users to customize the UI as they see fit. Oh wait, they already did both of those things.

quote:
All these people saying "just do <this>" or "just do <that>" are utterly missing the point. Why should we have to do *anything*?

No, they aren't missing the point. The people saying "just do this or that" are being practical by realizing that something like the UI is trivial to modify and does not outweigh the other merits of the OS. You don't have to do *anything*. You could actually give the thing a try. Lots of people do end up sticking with the Modern UI. You could also happily stick with Win7. What's missing the point is bitching about something that nobody is forcing you to use.

quote:
Win8 is horribly defective, and Win7 isn't.

Windows ME was defective. Windows 8 doesn't suit your personal preference. Big difference.


RE: wrong
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 12:19:29 PM , Rating: 1
I don't get it? I use Win 8 on several devices, only one of which is touch based. The primary system I use it on is a twin Xeon desktop with 32 gigs of RAM, 3 monitors, g19 keyboard with g13 attachment and a sidewinder mouse. Even my mouse has an LCD screen! I wouldn't switch back to windows 7 if you paid me. Maybe you like slower operating systems but I prefer something that's fast and fluid. Not to say that 7 was slow, but it's slower than 8 by a good margin. Seriously, do you dig through "all programs" to access what you want... I don't! I either click a pinned task on my taskbar or a hit my windows key and click a pinned task in the start menu, or I hit my window key and start typing (this one being MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH improved in windows 8). How is this ANY different in windows 8? ohh, that start screen is full screen, such a scary world we live in. I prefer Windows 8 with a mouse and keyboard. It's better. The quick commands are better, the menus are better, the ribbon bar in explorer is better, the task manager is a freaking god send (no other operating system on the market, hands down, has anything NEAR as good as windows 8 for a task manager). 10 seconds of use and I was proficient with "Metro". I can do everything I could in windows 7 but significantly faster. I've run every distro of Linux you can probably think of (my favorite being debian), mac osx, hpux, solaris, aix, and many others... I don't get it. Maybe they are interviewing the wrong enthusiasts? Don't most enthusiasts shop on Newegg anyway?


RE: wrong
By superstition on 1/20/2013 9:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Look at OS X and how its interface hasn't changed in 12 years"

Nonsense. It has changed, and I'm one of those who is not happy about the latest Mountain Lion release for a variety of reasons, such as:

1. Drab small hard-to-see grey scroll bars.
2. Tiny window widgets.
3. Ugly log-in screen.
4. Loss of "Save As"

And those are just some of the big annoying changes in 10.8 alone. The last great version of OS X was 10.6 "Snow Leopard" and even it had inferior previewing. In 10.4 "Tiger", the preview window provided controls for watching videos.


RE: wrong
By MrBungle123 on 1/11/2013 9:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
The problem for MS when more than 3/4 of the Enthusiasts hate their new OS is that each enthusiast costs them much more than the 3 or 4 systems that they may personally own. I would imagine that many of you are like myself (or are on your way to getting here) where you work in IT and influence the purchase of hundreds of systems through work and a few dozen others through a network of family/friends... If MS loses me they lose about 350 windows licenses as many office licenses, 30 server licenses, and 4 or 5 SQL server licenses... On my own its not significant to a company of their size but when its all enthusiasts it matters.

Back in AMD's glory days I remember one of their higher ups saying in an interview that the enthusiast market was small but each person in that market had a disproportionally large influence on the computer market in general which made catering to them very important. I suspect that is still valid today.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/12/2013 3:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
Exactrly, not just that, but in the corporate sector too. I am not having any of our nearly 500 users upgrade. When we order new PC's it will still be Win7. No way in HELL am I taking calls "how do I this, and how do I that". Not when Win7 works so well.


RE: wrong
By JediJeb on 1/13/2013 12:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When we order new PC's it will still be Win7. No way in HELL am I taking calls "how do I this, and how do I that". Not when Win7 works so well.


Ugh, I wish our IT guy was like that. He simply says "It is coming better get ready" even though he doesn't like W8 himself. He is a MS fanboy completely. LOL he even blocked access to the OpenOffice website a few years ago when I suggested to management we consider switching to it instead of paying out the nose for MSOffice.


RE: wrong
By retrospooty on 1/13/2013 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
LOL.then he's not a very good IT guy. He should be worried about end users ease of use and productivity not end users getting used to new tech. What a Dingus.


RE: wrong
By Ramstark on 1/14/2013 8:40:10 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I was about to sit this one out, but after reading this post I just have to reply...
So, you say "No way in HELL am I taking calls of "how do I do this, and how do I do that"?? Mmm...interesting, as it is atl least, PART OF YOUR JOB. IT departments are about providing the tools for the business whether you like it or not, but no, you will stop the business and innovation (it doesn't matter if the innovation is to the other side of the street you like) mainly because you are LAZY.

So, there I said it, most complaints about W8 are of LAZY people that do not want to learn new things, that want just "BETTER FASTER SAME THINGS THAT BEFORE!!" without thinking out of the box. That gentlemen is what make civilization really advance, not just improving actual technology, if that were the case, we would have hyper economic gas engines instead of new, (faulty) but in the right direction hybrid vehicles.

Your opinions are welcome, but please, do not use your "power" on the masses to slow down tech, we need to be exactly the other way around: "you know, I hate that thing, but it is faster, and a better integrated environment, try it out" :


RE: wrong
By Da W on 1/13/2013 1:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
We saw what happened to AMD. Computers illetrate makes the market. And that market is moving away from PCs.


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 10:44:33 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Computers illetrate

Well played, sir. (I assume that was deliberate)


RE: wrong
By MrBungle123 on 1/14/2013 11:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
AMD lost out because their processors got too far behind the competition in terms of speed and power usage not because they were catering to enthusiasts too much.

Why do you think Intel offers unlocked processors on 1155 and the entire 2011 platform? It isn't because of the average computer illiterate buying a $350 system from walmart. Its because an enthusiast is generally going to recommend a cut down version of what they have to family/friends/work. Its a halo effect, its why nVidia and AMD fight so hard over the GPU speed crown. They may not sell very many GTX 680s or HD 7970s but they sell a lot of GT 650s and HD 7750s because of the high end parts.


RE: wrong
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2013 3:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
AMD does poorly because Intel is such a huge player.

Intel has a lot of money they can spend on R&D and they design good chips. They'll eventually gain a stranglehold of the mobile market as well. They have all the necessary experience to do so: they have the best chip designers and they have the best fabs. Whereas fabless chip companies can gain inroads in the short term, in the long run it will be Intel who is able to devote the resources to design better chips and they'll have the production capability to make them cheaper than their competitors.


RE: wrong
By Bravo1214 on 1/14/2013 9:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
Let's be reasonable. For coporate computing, you are gonna lose the window then go do what ? Tablet's and cloud BS ? Wanna work for Amazon ? I agree that WIN8 has two faces that doesn't have a body but you are going to root for pretty desktop for how much longer ? How about using your talent to improve WIN8 so we have another stock market bonanza..


RE: wrong
By MrBungle123 on 1/14/2013 11:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree that WIN8 has two faces that doesn't have a body but you are going to root for pretty desktop for how much longer ?


Windows 7 is supported until 2020 after that I'm not sure. I do know this, people are at work to do a job. They need spreadsheets, a word processor, an email client, and something that can RDP into our terminal servers so they can use the Electronic Health Records system.

Touch is not something that people can comfortably use in this environment for 8+ hrs a day. We are not physically built to reach out and touch screens at arms length all day. So why run an operating system that is optimized for that? Its going to require retraining which is lost productivity/revenue, its clumsy for multi tasking, and with all its cloud integration its a HIPAA security nightmare. An OS just needs to work, we don't need live tiles, we dont need touch, we don't need new ways of doing the same tasks we've been doing for the last 10+ years. If MS wants to make corporate customers happy they need to leave well enough alone because thats all we want them to do.


RE: wrong
By damianrobertjones on 1/13/13, Rating: 0
RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 10:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
At times I think that people moan just to moan

At times? How about all the time? People in general love to complain. That's all that most of this noise is about.


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 10:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
And yes, I do see the irony of complaining about people complaining.


RE: wrong
By computered on 1/13/2013 9:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
Okay now lets throw out the bandwagon beating of Windows 8 for a moment and answer a question for me. other than the interface being a pain to deal with, can you tell me any other area were Windows 8 is just a bad OS?


RE: wrong
By Motoman on 1/13/2013 10:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
Nope. Just the interface. If they'd throw away that horrific Metrosexual UI, I'm sure it would be fine.

That is the one and only issue that anyone has with Win8, as far as I have heard.

But it's so catastrophically bad, that that one issue will prevent the vast majority of people from ever even considering it. There's not a single thing wrong with Win7 - and with such a massive flaw in Win8, there's not the slightest argument that will hold any water with the vast majority of people to get them to abandon Win7 for Win8.


RE: wrong
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 10:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your observation, and I cite it as evidence for my continued assertion that the vast majority of people are idiots.

That said, I agree there's not much reason to switch from 7 to 8. Windows 7 is great. However, if you're upgrading from anything other than 7, it only makes sense to go with 8.


I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By kingmotley on 1/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By StevoLincolnite on 1/12/2013 1:08:51 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
And glad I am I jumped to the W8 boat. Of course it's not perfect, but in terms of usability - and performance - it's a very nice leap from what Windows OSs have been offering till now.


I personally noticed ZERO difference in performance on my Desktop.
Mind you I do have a couple of SSD's in Raid 0, Core i7 3930K @ 4.8ghz, 32gb of ram so it's expected I wouldn't notice a performance difference.

However, where Windows 8 really kicked into another gear performance-wise was on a Netbook with a slow 5400rpm hard drive and Intel Atom processor, it booted and became usable far faster than Windows 7 could hope to dream of.

quote:
And another goodie about W8... The revamped task manager is just great! Only needs an integrated debugger to be the oracle of nerdvana in its own right lol


Completely and utterly agree.
That task manager should have been in Vista/7, it's fantastic.

Most of peoples problems though are with the Metro interface, I don't blame them, it's "different". - Things are hidden that would otherwise be in plain view and people just don't seem to be able to grasp it.

Thankfully though, it's also a non-issue, the "classic" Desktop is still there.


By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2013 1:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
I have a similar setup, excpet that I use an i7 2600k sans overclocking.

I find it to perform better while booting (9 srcs vs 14 in w7) and moving files around.
Also the use of the page file looks less frequent and there seems to be less background disk activity whwn following those items from within the performance monitor.

And the regularly used memory footprint looks lower than in w7 as well.
I agree about it being hard to notice when using 2x256 ssds in raid 0 plus 32gb of ram, but well... I'm an efficiency junkie and didn't care disabling as many services here as in w7 lol
The use of resources seems even more refined than w7 which was already quite good in that regard.

Ps: used the word "seems" a lot because numbers are better, but after switching to w8 I also upgraded versions for a lot of programs and didn't install some others I had there before occupying space and maybe adding background activity. So, my comparison is pretty un-scientific.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 9:17:06 AM , Rating: 3
I have seen gaming benchmarks comparing win7 and win8 and there was absolutely no significant difference.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen a few that did as you stated, though mostly from the lower-level enthusiast sites, with incomplete benchmarking or unscientific approaches. The vigilant reviewers though.. pretty much a 3-7% increase across the board (outside of a few outdated/incompatible system tests). In benchmarks regarding boot times or file transfers.. quite a huuuuge improvement. Check out the rage3d.com review for a quick and easy read. Even 3-7%.. if you were running a business and increased profits that much -- you're doing great. One percent is still great..

I can deal with the new UI changes.. with all the real-world performance increases I've enjoyed since the first dev preview.


By TheJian on 1/13/2013 1:45:48 AM , Rating: 1
Retraining all these people takes time. Which costs money...And it's far more than 1% cost.

Phones ringing off the hook all day in IT isn't free and stops us from doing anything else.

I'd call 1% margin of error at best and a foolish waste of money if this is the gain we can expect to get from win8 in enterprise. I'd say the same at 10% if it takes months of training to get it. It's just a total loss for business if you don't get more and get it much quicker. I'd rather upgrade my entire company to SSD. It's cheap, and nobody needs to be told anything to gain from it.

Can you point to these unscientific sites with incomplete benchmarks?

Vigilant=anybody showing a win for windows 8 eh?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gami...
Toms shows it going both ways, basically margin of error. They fools too? They ran both AMD/Nvidia cards in both OS's.
"Aside from those couple of idiosyncrasies, performance under Windows 8 is indistinguishable from Windows 7."

So, no point in paying to learn based on gaming either then eh? The idiosyncrasies they mentioned were sleeping dogs dying. :) Surely fixed now.

Your own link (rage3d.com - which I consider 2nd rate IMHO...LOL):
vs. win7
3Dmark LOSS for win8
PCmarkVantage LOSS for win8
PCmark7 LOSS for win8
x264 gained 5.7% or so on first pass but wash on 2nd pass..
Mediaespresso failed on the upgrade, basically margin of error on fresh install
Games were basically a wash, except for Supreme commander which clearly loves win7.
"Our performance testing shows near parity for the Windows 8 clean install against the Windows 7 one, with a few minor bumps in favor of Windows 8, some for Windows 7, making it a wash."
"There is really nothing compelling for the desktop user at this time, it's all cool factor and keeping up with the Joneses"
"You don't magically gain performance, and you don't lose anything."
"New users might find it easier to get along with, if you're the family support go to guy then you'll want to get it installed just so you can get a head start of the user training issues, but otherwise enjoy your Windows 7 platform and be happy"

This your idea of a vigilant reviewer? Pretty much you gain nothing says your link...LOL. My thoughts exactly. Enjoy win7...move along...I don't want to train for nothing gained. Most of us are NOT new users. Therein lies the problem. A person who has NEVER touched a pc has a learning curve no matter what. Win8 might work for this person. But anyone who has previous PC/Mac etc experience is retraining for NOTHING gained. Don't believe me though, go read your own link...LOL. Thanks for wasting my time...I already knew the results ;)

I can't believe you said "1% is still great"...ROFL. Work for bill gates or what?


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 10:42:13 AM , Rating: 5
You have no clue how many people have tried it and bashed it vs how many havn't and bashed it. You are assuming you know and you know what they say about assuming right?

I used it for months and I'm back on 7 and happy to be. I'm also sure I'm not the only one. If you like it good for you but that doesn't mean those that don't havn't used it.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By damianrobertjones on 1/12/13, Rating: 0
By Director12 on 1/12/2013 7:05:59 PM , Rating: 4
Until he returns....

Same thing here, I had it running for a week or so and went back to W7. I was able to make it functional by using 'start 8' so I got my start menu and desktop back but even despite that the annoyances were enough to make me ditch it. The primary one was crashes while gaming, mind you I only got to the point of installing BF3. Maybe it was a driver issue, I don't know, what I do know is that it works fine on W7. Also didn't like the way it kept leaving the desktop environment and jumping back to Metro. I DON'T WANT to have to get a MS email account in order to do things with the app store and most of my clients struggle with the single email account that they already have, forcing them to get another one just aint happening. There were a few other things that I can't remember as well. And try teaching a 70-year-old to use it....Most of my clients are oldies and it's not pretty. You'd think that having big colourful blocks to press would make it simpler for them but it doesn't. They want to be able to do things the way that they've spent years learning to do them. Older brains are not as elastic as younger ones.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By lexluthermiester on 1/13/2013 1:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You simply did not backup your position with ANY meaningful statements.


Nor does he need to. Personal preference needs ZERO validation.

Many of my clients still use and prefer Windows XP. Does it matter why? Granted there are MANY reasons but why should they be explained to likes of you?

So you like Windows 8. Wonderful. Glad you like it! You are in the vast minority. And that is likely because your computing needs are very simple and do not need more than the minimalistic offerings of 8's UI. For you, that may work well. But it would seem that most of the rest of us need more.


By lexluthermiester on 1/13/2013 1:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
And FYI, I'm finding that my client's prefer Android or Apple based tablets, and mostly because of the UI. Apple's iOS has a clean and easy to use UI and Android offers much the same but with FAR more customization options. Windows 8 is a miss. It's too little, too late and just doesn't offer anything better than what can be found elsewhere, including other versions of Windows.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By V-Money on 1/11/2013 8:46:02 PM , Rating: 5
I tried it, I've been using it for months, can't say I care for it. There are various reasons for it which I am sure you will deny because you are so dedicated to saying how great it is. Before I begin though, I had a MSI GX660R which had Win7 and I upgraded to Win8 the day it came out. About 3 weeks ago upgraded to an MSI GT60 which came preloaded with Win8.

First off with the change in UI, I personally don't care for it but its not really an issue if you install stardock. I think its stupid that Microsoft doesn't give you the option, it wouldn't have cost them anything to simply include it. Talk all you want about tiles, but I prefer my desktop. I also own and love my zune, where the similar UI makes sense because of the small touch screen interface, but for my PC I hate it. Like I said though, I have my start bar back so I won't use that as my argument.

My only big issue with Win8 so far has been bluetooth. I used it all the time on Win7 without ever having a problem, as soon as I installed 8 it stopped working completely. On my new laptop (with Win8 preloaded) the bluetooth works kind of, but is very buggy. I have to unpair, forget, and re-pair with my phone (Galaxy Nexus) every time I use it, otherwise it refuses to work more than the initial time. Since I use this feature (at least used to) quite a bit this has been a constant pain to deal with.

I also don't like how it will randomly decide to install updates at the worst times, or even more annoyingly reconfigure services. About a week after buying my new laptop I wanted to quickly take care of something before I went to bed and was met with a "please wait while Windows configures services, do not shut down your device" and there wasn't any way to bypass it. It took 2 hours, that's unacceptable under any circumstance no matter what the hell it was trying to do. I didn't care for the Win7 method so much either (windows is restarting, would you like to postpone this>>yes>>4 hours later it restarts without warning no matter what you are doing). I know I can disable the updating and such, but nothing the OS does should ever take that long, on Win 7 it was a matter of minutes at most.

I've also noticed that the OS is just a little buggy as well. Certain things will slow it down and it seems to like using my disk a lot. This is a new laptop and I've only installed a couple programs (i.e. Office, Chrome, Zune, Picasa, and Steam) and since its an MSI it sure as hell didn't have any programs preloaded except to play around with all of the settings. I've intentionally not installed anything more than needed just to see how it acts. For instance I notice if I open up MSconfig that there is a short pause in anything I'm doing and if I'm listening to music it will crackle.

Lastly, there are certain programs that just don't work on it. For instance I use Audials Tunebites and just bought version 9 not long ago and it doesn't work on 8. Neither does a couple other dozen apps I have (on my old laptop, its loaded with apps) that should.

To put it in my honest perspective though, Win8 didn't help my last laptop at all and now with my new laptop I feel as if my old one ran better with Win7 during routine operations. I am tempted to reload this with Win7 just to see if it runs any better. You can disagree all you want but I have used Win8 for months now and I'm really not all that impressed. I'm just hoping that the new "blue" upgrade coming out makes it work a little better.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By dgingerich on 1/12/2013 11:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
I've been using Windows 8 since it came out. I've never seen any of the problems you complain about here.


By V-Money on 1/13/2013 1:19:33 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you for sharing that, it must all be in my head, I withdraw all of my complaints about Win8 because it is clearly the greatest OS in existence...

...Seriously though, I am just comparing my experience to Win7. I'm not saying it's the worst OS in the world, just that I don't particularly see any great reason to upgrade. I've been using it for months and I will use it until Blue is out (assuming it's a free upgrade) to see if it worked out most of the kinks. It works well enough for the most part, but why suffer the minor annoyances if I don't have to. My last laptop came preloaded with 7 and never had an issue in the >2years I've owned it.

Speaking of which, now I remember why the updating annoyed me so much. On my old laptop when you put it into standby mode it had a 50/50 chance of turning back on (and yes, I did have the most up to date GPU drivers), otherwise you had to restart it. Because of that I was forced to sit through the updates any time it decided to do it (granted it never took as long on that lappy, still annoying though). I'm glad that you are having a wonderful time with it, but I still fail to see any reason you can give me for sticking with it.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By kleinma on 1/12/2013 11:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you need stardock when you can dock all your apps to the taskbar? I owe stardock, but find no use for it since Windows 7.


By kleinma on 1/12/2013 11:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
*own


By V-Money on 1/13/2013 12:54:57 AM , Rating: 3
I agree for the most part, my most used programs are there, but I like the start bar for the quick search and for accessing certain folders and system apps quickly that I don't want to necessarily pin to the taskbar. I like that you can search for stuff in Win8 simply by typing, but since I normally use the desktop view I find it easier to just search for things there than to switch to the other view.

I'm not saying its necessary, but why not give us the option. It's like having a passenger side mirror on a car, it's not technically required or even necessary with a good enough rear view mirror, but I still want it and not to have it as an option seems asinine to me. It's not a matter of "why do I need it", its a matter of "why do you not want me to have it so badly."


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 5:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
If your oem doesn't support appropriate drivers for Bluetooth then you can hardly blame MS


By TheJian on 1/13/2013 12:28:02 AM , Rating: 2
Does it matter who's at fault? It only matters it isn't working for OP. You go to what works. Or are you just saying suffer through it dude? :)


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By V-Money on 1/13/2013 1:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
Sure I can, because in both cases Microsoft installed it's drivers and said it was working properly (even on my old laptop it claimed to recognize it and that it was working properly). On my old laptop it just won't let me access it in any way and on my new one it works fine, I just need to completely forget/reconnect to my phone every time I want to sync them in any way.

In any case, I am just saying why I personally prefer Win7 over Win8, because regardless of who is at fault for these issues, these weren't issues on Win7. I'm not damning the OS, I'm still using it so obviously I am still giving it a chance, I'm just saying that as a Win8 user I am so far not impressed.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By lexluthermiester on 1/13/2013 2:08:14 AM , Rating: 2
The bluetooth problems you are having are related to the way the default MS drivers interact with the devices you are using. If you force 8 to use 7 drivers[the ones that worked properly] your problems will go away. Been seeing a lot of this with my clients PC's. Had a similar problem with my personal HP Color laser printer's scanner function. So if it's giving you problems, return to what worked for you. It's that simple.


By lexluthermiester on 1/13/2013 2:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
And before anyone chimes in and claims that Windows 7 drivers won't work in 8, TOTAL NONSENSE. Microsoft implemented a unified driver spec for Vista[one of the things they did right] and improved upon it in 7. ALL Vista/7 drivers are compatible with Windows 8 for X86 and X64 systems. Haven't found one yet that isn't.


By JediJeb on 1/13/2013 12:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also don't like how it will randomly decide to install updates at the worst times, or even more annoyingly reconfigure services. About a week after buying my new laptop I wanted to quickly take care of something before I went to bed and was met with a "please wait while Windows configures services, do not shut down your device" and there wasn't any way to bypass it. It took 2 hours, that's unacceptable under any circumstance no matter what the hell it was trying to do. I didn't care for the Win7 method so much either (windows is restarting, would you like to postpone this>>yes>>4 hours later it restarts without warning no matter what you are doing). I know I can disable the updating and such, but nothing the OS does should ever take that long, on Win 7 it was a matter of minutes at most.


We have the same problem at work, even with W7 we have to disable auto updates because we have equipment running 24/7 that can't be shutdown at just any time and a reboot for a update has cost us a lot of money before we turned the updates off. I prefer to get the notification "as update is ready to install" or "a new update needs to be downloaded" to remind me and let me choose when to update.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By michael67 on 1/12/2013 12:56:00 PM , Rating: 1
I get that sometimes you have to force users to change there behavior, but in this case they gone to far imho.

I sorta like Metro on my server as i use only 5 applications, and the big icons? in Metro also displays like a gadget what is happening to the program.

On the desktop i tried Metro for 3 weeks, and its just a pain in the ass, specially on 3 Eyefinity monitors plus two old 15'' above them like i have, its a lot of blue!

And yeah i also almost don't use the start button anymore, because i pin all my most used programs to the taskbar, so what, i just want the start button to be there when i need it.

Its just like volume nob always turns to the right side, for volume up, and is something i have to think about doing.
Some things just don't have to change, even do i now use 99.99% of the time a remote, i don't wane learn a new way of doing things if i use the nob on the amp, because for me the old way was not broken!

Same go's for the start button, its there it takes about 1% of my desktop space in, why am i forced to use metro when i don't want to use it!


By michael67 on 1/12/2013 1:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ooo yeah...

For reference i have a one of the first Lumia 800's WP7.5 phones when they got out, and have now a lumia 900, and have to say i like using it.

So you could say i am used to the way Metro dose things.

But a mouse is not a finger, so one size fits all dose note work here.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Donkey2008 on 1/11/2013 7:52:33 PM , Rating: 3
I think these are subjective arguments.

What I do see are wondeful security enhancements, a more useful task manager and improved file transfer. I also see a parasite OS (Metro) that is useless to me, Metro apps that I already have on my Android/iDevice and a "reorganization" of settings and menus in the desktop UI that is way more inefficient than any version of Windows to date.

I used 8 throughout the beta, I used 8 for a few months after retail and now I use 7 again. I do not regret my decision at all. To each his own.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/11/2013 8:08:24 PM , Rating: 1
Have you read these shortcuts for W8?

http://blog.laptopmag.com/15-essential-windows-8-k...

Try them if you didn't, they're great


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Norseman4 on 1/11/2013 11:58:15 PM , Rating: 5
<sarc title="(LOL, I can not resist)">
Windows 8 ... A GUI that is so good, that it requires magical keyboard shortcuts to work right.
</sarc>

Honestly though, I didn't know most of those. After I heard about Windows+D to initially move to the desktop, then the Windows key to move back and forth from GUI to the Fischer-Price*-like tiles and back to the GUI I never had to really work with much more. OK, that's not exactly right, but if the Desktop is the only Metro app that you have running, it's true.

I have a touch enabled laptop though, so to actually use the device with this OS I don't need the shortcuts. (I did have to search online how to stop a metro style app though, and funnily enough, the first true answer on the Bing search was not from a MS site.) I do try and navigate the OS with just the track-pad at times, I find that sux, and use of a wireless mouse isn't much better. (The touchscreen for nav make for a much better navigation experience for me)

(* Somebody on the DT forums initially posted the Fischer-Price style for the 'formerly known as Metro' interface ... it was funny)

Now then, from that site ...
Win+C - They call that the Charms menu?

+X - That could be actually useful. Very similar to half of what the Win7 Start menu has. Some extra option, and some fewer ... If only they'd put in a Win7 style text/expandable group list of installed apps, it would be perfect, IMO.

+I - useful for Metro apps, since being consistent and just tapping the Alt key to bring up the app's menu, if it has one, just didn't make sense.

+Q - If anybody thinks that the 'apps search' interface is in any way better than the Win7 start menu, they are either blind/can't read and require the icons, or receive compensation of some sort.

+D - As stated earlier, very useful to get a person quickly to the GUI from the menu.

+Tab - Only switches between Metro apps, of which the GUI and menu are both considered to be. Alt+Tab is better since it moves you through all opened apps, metro or desktop, except for the actual Fischer-Price menu.

+H - S hare (to S ocial media) is an H ... get those people a dictionary. (Win+S is still available, so it's obvious that this particular key combination was not thought out to well. (BTW, this does not work from the desktop.)

+M - Almost the same as hitting Win+D to bring up the desktop, then Win+D again, to minimize/restore application windows. (Except this isn't a toggle, you can't hist Win+M again to restore your application windows) Kind of a waste.

+W - Ahh, search for settings (meaning apps) instead of things like Printer settings. (Win+W Control Panel, then Printers ... so much better then going directly to the Printers control panel app, which you could do from the Win7 Start menu </sarc>)

+F - Seems to be the exact same as Win+W (Love the redundancy)

+R - Combining the Win+W/F, Win+R and Win+Q gives almost the same functionality and clicking the Win7 start menu. (You have to do the +R thing to run Calc since +W or +F will only show that there is a calculator app, but not run it)

+E - Exactly the same as Win7

+(1-9) - WTF ... use Alt-Tab to move to the open application, FP or GUI since you get a small preview of what that app actually is. This Win+(1-9) means you have to know what the application that you want is actually internally numbered, and only on the desktop, and only the first 9 desktop applications are available to this mode of navigation. (Worthless)

+. - Ugh! Hey, at least you can see what's happening with 2 metro apps at a time ... that's got to be worth something right?

+Z - Since simply hitting that pesky Alt key to bring up hidden menu's was just too much to ask for consistency. (Metro apps cannot have any of the common controls/interfaces that are seen on the desktop apps ... that just wouldn't make sense.)

---

I'm glad the site that you posted and similar such sites exist, since navigation shortcuts and application conventions are different from nearly everything in the history of Windows and often between the two platforms within this OS. (Metro/Desktop)

Without pages such as these, I'd still have problems closing a metro app, since even Win+Z on the Weather metro app doesn't give a button to close the application. This is indicative of peoples issues with Win8, since the new Metro style apps do not conform to the age-old convention, of having a button, usually in the upper right corner (for Windows) to close an app. (Not click/drag from the very top of the screen all the way to the bottom of the screen to close the app)

(OK, that was a longer post then I intended, but I think I'll keep the snarky comments about the shortcuts, since while some are useful, and one is completely unchanged, the rest are either redundant or worthless. NOTE: This is my opinion only. YMMV)


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By crispbp04 on 1/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:01:36 AM , Rating: 5
What laughable is that it now takes them to make the OS user frendly that's if you can even remember half of them. We didn't need them before Win 8.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By kleinma on 1/12/2013 11:30:41 AM , Rating: 2
Every single keyboard shortcut is just that. A shortcut. Each thing you can do with a windows key shortcut can be done with a mouse or a touchscreen. Does the fact that I use ctrlC ctrlV ctrlX about a 1000 times a day in my life mean that I can't copy and paste using other methods? Keyboards are still king to most people. Especially people who use computers to do real work.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By WinstonSmith on 1/12/2013 2:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Keyboards are still king to most people. Especially people who use computers to do real work."

Win8 provides no significant advantage over Win7 (by significant I mean performance increases, better file system, etc.), so why "upgrade"?

This is merely Microsoft's attempt to strong-arm a content-consumption smart phone and tablet OS onto every desktop, including ones used for content-CREATION, so they can eventually increase their microscopic presence in the high growth mobile market. Content consumers will see the Win8 UI on a phone or tablet and buy it because they already know the UI.

Windows 8 — Disappointing Usability for Both Novice and Power Users

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappoi...

Usability Expert: Windows 8 on PCs is Confusing, a Cognitive Burden

http://blog.laptopmag.com/usability-expert-windows...


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 5:52:32 PM , Rating: 1
There are six year old kids that just jump onto Windows8 and use it with zero issues. Then again kids can take to change quite well.

Boot times have greatly increased with WIndows 8 over 7, with 7 managing an off to desktop in 15 seconds WITH an SSD (My own tests)


By WinstonSmith on 1/13/2013 10:31:44 AM , Rating: 1
You didn't read any of the material at either of those links, did you?

"There are six year old kids that just jump onto Windows8 and use it with zero issues. Then again kids can take to change quite well."

Yep, it's an OS for six year olds.

"Boot times have greatly increased with WIndows 8 over 7, with 7 managing an off to desktop in 15 seconds WITH an SSD (My own tests)"

Clean install or update? Even if it's the latter, it's quite possible that Win8 does some major registry cleaning, eliminating all kinds of boot slowing registry entries left over from many installs in Win7 that are completely N/A under Win8.


By drlumen on 1/13/2013 1:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. This appears to be the M$ way to crowbar Surface and winphone into the market using windows. This has been their modus operandi for decades with different things. I can't see why they would change now.

The thing I really dislike is this third reich, interior decorating approach they took. It's like Ursa came into my workshop and said it was mandated to be made prettier. The table saw in the corner had to go. Drill press - Gone! "We will replace them with some plants and color coordinated hand tools. We will tile the walls and hang ribbons everywhere" she says.

So now, if I want to use my table saw and drill press I will have to use those in another workshop (desktop) and I can't use tools from one in the other. Why bother with all that and just let me keep my original workshop?!


By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
I know the shortcuts.. I just don't use them (outside of copy/paste, etc). Still had no problem adapting to the new interface. Been on it since the first dev preview -- took me a day to figure out, a week to get used to, and a month to be zipping around faster than before -- same experience I've had with every win transition.


By Piiman on 1/12/2013 10:57:33 AM , Rating: 4
The whole point of a Windows UI is you don't or shouldn't have to remember keyboard short cuts. What is this DOS? IMO this is a step backwards just like running one app is a step backwards. I love how MS ads play up being able to run TWO apps at once as though its magic when we can run unlimited in a normal desktop enviroment. oh and don't forget one of those apps needs to run in a 3 inch wide screen LOL

Its a step backwards not a feature.

If Windows 8 had been Windows 8 and not windows METRO/8 I would have been happy with it but Metro was buggy and not good on a desktop PC.


By TheJian on 1/13/2013 12:34:29 AM , Rating: 1
It cracks me up when someone says "learn these shortcuts and you'll love win8".

Never needed them before, and try getting your user base to learn all that crap. This OS is unsupportable in an enterprise environment. The phone ringing all day will bring your IT dept to its knees.

There's a reason why even enthusiasts downgrade (and we usually like new stuff). There's just nothing you gain from win8 except a bill and a learning curve.

Please don't say boot times...ROFL. I do that once a month at best on upgrades to the OS that require it. On an SSD even XP is super fast at this. On an SSD (who doesn't have one today as a boot drive?), all 3 OS's boot in seconds not minutes.

People are better off buying an SSD than Win8. No change, and their entire OS/APP/Game experience is sped up, not just the boot time or shutdown (which we rarely do in either case).


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/11/2013 8:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
PS:

Of course my arguments are subjective.
As subjective as those coming from the ones critiquing the OS, specially those that do so without having ever used it.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:03:58 AM , Rating: 3
How do you know they never used it any more than we know you used it? It's like me saying the fact that you like it says you havn't used it :-)


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 6:07:44 PM , Rating: 3
It was painfully obvious a few days before and after the release of Windows 8 that many or even most people posting negative comments hadn't even used the OS. Literally, a few weeks ago, I was in a 'discussion' with a poster on here that stated that he and his 'techie' friends didn't want to touch Windows 8...

... By the end of the discussion he'd admitted that he'd not used Windows 8 and didn't know of the options that I'd described.


By TheJian on 1/13/2013 12:55:44 AM , Rating: 1
Links please?... :)

You're pretty much calling everyone who has a negative opinion of the OS a liar saying they've never used it if their opinion differs from yours.

So prove you had this conversation ;) I expect the links to show it's s a few weeks old and you're in the conversation :)

Also, just getting the idea of this conversation it sounds like the rest...Learn this and that, study these shortcuts then you can function like before...LOL. Why waste our time, they shouldn't have changed what worked to begin with. It's ok to add stuff, but to make me learn just for the sake of learning? Learning to do something a new way with no gain in speed is pointless. It's just wasting time. Why would I want to learn anything that does the exact same thing just a different way to do it? Now, if you said to me, it would run 50% faster if you click X instead of Y, well that's a different story. But that's not the case here.

Yes I've used it, watched training for it (lynda & totaltraining work well if people really want to suffer with win8 & keep it), and realized you gain nothing. Knowing that I deemed IT would ignore it so no point in going further and went back to 7. On an SSD I don't even see it's seemingly only redeeming feature (as everyone loving it mentions it) - BOOT TIMES...LOL. Never saw it, as 7 boots just as fast, so does xp on SSD. I never do this anyway. That's kind of the point of a stable OS. I only reboot or even shutdown when I have updates that require it.

Anyone who mentions boot times, should have bought an SSD instead of win8. Why pay to speed up boot times with a huge learning curve to get them, when you can speed up EVERYTHING you start/close etc with no learning at all?


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Flunk on 1/11/2013 8:58:09 PM , Rating: 3
I HAD to move to Windows 8 because I develop for Windows Phone. After the first day or two of "how do I do this" I've been really liking it. Microsoft has whittled down Windows even more and overall everything is faster, especially boots (Alienware m14x R2 with SSD boots in 12 seconds or less every time). I think the full-screen "WinRT" apps need some work, especially for multitasking on large screens but all the desktop stuff is still there.

The Start Menu? I wasn't using it anyway between the taskbar buttons and search functions in Windows 7. I've never liked it but before Vista it was a necessity.

Anyway, for me it's a bit better at a low price. I'm interested to see what they do with Windows 9. I just want them to keep going because we were really getting stuck on the Windows 95-style interface.


By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
I think metro in win9 could be better. One of my biggest gripes with win8 is that it keeps bouncing back between metro and desktop. Its insanely frustrating, if your going to have metro I think it should be enforced so that everything opens in metro. Its a hybrid interface and like most hybrid devices its somewhere in between and not as good as either of the originals. Windows RT on a tablet would be much more palatable to me than win8 on a laptop.


By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:14:54 AM , Rating: 1
"(Alienware m14x R2 with SSD boots in 12 seconds or less every time)."

Guess what? My Win 7 boots in 11 seconds and Win 8 pulls a David Cooperfield trick where it boots to the desktops faster but you can't use it for several more seconds as its not really finished booting, but hey you can look at the desktop while you wait for it to finish..AMAZING!

And seriously who cares if it boots faster unless your pc take 2 minutes to boot its not going to change your life saving 3 seconds of boot time.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 10:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just want them to keep going because we were really getting stuck on the Windows 95-style interface.


Are you one of those people who likes change for the sake of change? The Windows 95 style interface was deemed to be the most efficient interface type for desktop users.

It reminds me of all these harebrained inventors who make 3 wheeled cars and try to push them off as "progressive", since current cars all have 4 wheels and a change must be an improvement.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Samus on 1/12/2013 12:41:23 AM , Rating: 5
I hate 8. Takes forever to do anything. Why do I have to right click the home screen just to view all my apps? Why are there two control panels (one neutered?) How come virtually everything you have to do at a system level still has to be done from the desktop, which is crippled without a start menu? What was the reason for REMOVING the start menu in the first place? Seriously? Could have just left it alongside Modern UI.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2013 2:07:07 AM , Rating: 3
In the start menu, you needed 2 clicks to get to the list of apps.
Here you also need 2, albeit each of a different kind lol.
I put all the apps I use most in the main metro screen and got rid of most of the metro crApps which don't look quite right on a hi res desktop and add very little convenience if any at all.

Some sys utilities I pinned right to the desktop's taskbar (sysfan for example)

I can access my fave apps without even a click on the menu and have dozens of them readily available instead of just 10. Works pretty good for me.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 9:24:52 AM , Rating: 1
If you wanted easy access frequently used programs you put them on the desktop. This was the original concept of apple operating systems way back when and is what you see on phones. Somewhere along the line people decided they wanted a pretty desktop and just left everything on the start bar. Double clicking on a desktop shortcut is by far the quickest method, no start screen required.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2013 7:38:00 PM , Rating: 3
I always hated that concept, from the very beginning.

All of my desktops, virtual or real, are neat, perfectly organized and with the bare minimum number of things in them. No clutter. No things lying around. Just the wallpaper, trashcan, computer icon and a weather widget.

So in W7 I made extensive use of "pin to taskbar" and "pin to start menu", libraries etc, and was very grateful for those as they didn't exist in XP or former because they did help me have my desktop clean.

I even used custom shortcut keys for frequently used application shortcuts (say this because I don't know many people using this feature)

with W8 I can get the cleanest possible desktop, and all the apps I want readily accessible in a pretty visual way.

I still can't figure out why is it so wrong for many people to have a full screen "start menu".


By inighthawki on 1/12/2013 8:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Because "they're not used to it." Plain and simple.
A lot of poeple try to argue that "going fullscreen is so jarring and disorienting, and now I can't see all my open windows" but it is complete BS.
Microsoft had eye tracking data that showed that when a person opens the start menu, they never look at anything outside of the start menu window.

I think most people actually make themselves believe otherwise just so they can justify not immediately liking the start screen, despite it being objectively better in many ways. People can surprisingly teach themselves to hate anything they want fairly easily, even when every part of their brain has no objective reason to do so.


By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:22:40 AM , Rating: 4
"What was the reason for REMOVING the start menu in the first place?"

to train us to use Metro because they want to wall up Windows to be like Apple so they can get 30% of all the app written for Windows. Make no mistake this is about MS making more money and they want to do it across all Windows devices and in doing so decided your desktop should be a phone OS.


By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 9:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
I went back to win7 on my laptop. Win8 interface absolutely slowed me down.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 10:37:05 AM , Rating: 3
first you say
" The OS feels more refined, runs better and is more organized than W7 ."

then you say
" I don't like is to use the metro apps, feel a bit unpolished but the metro UI in general"

And thats the problem METRO. The start flips you to Metro then you launch something and it flips you back to the desktop or some metro full screen app. Then there's the one app at a time BS.. oh wait you can do two if you like running one in a 3 inch wide screen. lol
Its not refined its half ass two OS's stuck togeather.

If they had given options, like they always have in the past, like install for desktop thus giving you a normal desktop and start button I might agree with you.

But this OS is obviouly an effort by MS to turn windows into a walled garden like Apple as done and make $$ off the new MS app store. They are going to force all devs to use the new Metro API and soon you will have to buy all your apps from MS and run them in a phone OS on your desktop. LAME!

"IMHO is miles better than the cluttered traditional start menu."

What cluttered about it? Its ordered and easy to read. I use it when I know I have some application I seldom use and can't remeber the name. But one look in the old start and I remember it.Try that with metro, I mean how are you going to search when you don't know the name?

The new Start PAGE will install all sort of icons when you install an application from the desktop and you have to organize them yourself, talk about cluttered!

Used 8 for two months and happily back on Win 7. Home sweet home


By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:26:56 PM , Rating: 3
This is like how all those crazies were griping about the new start menu in vista that was leaps ahead of the horrid one in XP... You want to go back to XP..? I still know plenty of idiots who think it's faster than 7.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By kleinma on 1/12/13, Rating: 0
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
"The problem is Windows 8 got a bad rep from the press right out of the gate. There was no trial period"

Wrong
You could have tried it for months in advance.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By p05esto on 1/12/2013 12:38:10 PM , Rating: 1
You either work for MS or you are NOT an enthusiast! Win8 sucks back, it's the Start screen and lack of quick access to all your programs (I have dozens of apps and utilities).

Take the kiddie Win8 and shove it. I will in fact move to another OS if I need to, I'll find a way - trust me.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well.. you know you can just open the new start menu, start typing the first few chars of an app's name, and then just press enter after it pops up after typing 3-5 chars..? Same as win vista/7, though actually a bit more natural and faster by the time you get used to it. On the very rare occasion I use the start menu, I'm out of it quicker than ever before and doing the work I need to do.


By Lord 666 on 1/12/2013 6:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds similar to the argument that some how PowerShell is faster and easier to use than a GUI.

I've used Win 8 and its OK. I'm forcing myself to adapt to it so my skills stay relevant, but I now prefer to work in OS X 10.8


By SongEmu on 1/12/2013 4:42:56 PM , Rating: 3
While I agree that Windows 8 isn't bad, you know what tine tweak Microsoft could do that would make me give it an A+++++ rating?

Put a simple setting in the control panel to KEEP THE WIN 7 AESTHETICS. That's it! Win 8 has a solid foundation, but they locked that crap down harder than Steve Jobs in a UI china shop.

I think Win 8 is decent. But it rubs me the wrong way.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By lexluthermiester on 1/13/2013 12:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
So you're 37? That means you're old enough to remember Windows 3.11. Granted, itn't exactly the same, but that's what I was reminded of very strongly when I first used Win 8. And too me, that is a step backwords and not in a good way. Refined is not the word most chosen to describe Windows 8 in this neck of the words[Salt Lake City].

I'm among those counted in that group of people who gave 8 a try for a while and then went back to 7, XP and in some cases Vista. I personally lasted a month. Really wanted to give it an honest try. After two weeks, I installed Classic Shell to get my start menu back, but some things are simply to cumbersome in 8 and was effecting my personal productivity, and enjoyment of my computing experience. Gave it an honest try. This end users opinion, 8 is a failure for Microsoft. Even more so than WinME and Vista. At least those two OS's could be tweaked and config'd to run decently. Windows 8, even when tweaked is simply unacceptable to anyone who wants to get the most of their computing experience. Most of my client base that I showed it too were less than impressed and won't touch it. The ones that have given it a go, asked me to get them back to XP or 7 within weeks[very closely following the trend mentioned in this article]. I have stopped offering any installation/upgrade services relating to 8 except to remove it. I mean seriously, when 6 of my clients bring their systems in with their VISTA restore discs and ask me remove 8, to do my thing to make Vista run it's best, we know there is something very wrong.

I don't personally care how much the venders try to push it, 8 is a failure and unlike Vista, it can't be fixed. Microsoft went in the wrong direction and it's going to cost them.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/13/2013 9:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I used 3.11 shortly. Spent a bit more time with 3.1 and DOS.
Windows 3.x and 95/98/Me were a huge disgrace to my eyes so I moved to OS/2 Warp which I loved and kept using it till Windows NT/4 appeared and started using that one. A great piece of software as OS/2 going to rust because the crappy windows 95 had been pushed so successfully even though how terrible and huge, inefficient resource hog it was.

Back to our days... Let's get one thing clear:
If most customers reject it, IT IS a failure, but that doesn't mean the OS is actually bad. It means the public is not accepting it, which for any commercial enterprise is the very definition of failure. Specially given the low prices of W8 compared to 7.

Now... Could you detail why you feel W8 made you less productive, what you find cumbersome and difficult to do after figuring out the first initial confusing quirks (like not knowing where the power off button is... that happened to me but once I learned where it is, it became a non issue).

For me W8 UI makes it vastly more comfortable and fast to use than the start menu. Now I'm not force to use the search function everytime.

What puzzles me more is:
Why go back to Vista? What's wrong with 7 that you want to come back, basically, to a higher resource taxing XP that only adds some eye candy here and there?

If W8 didn't exist, for me it would be XP vs W7. I wouldn't use or recommend Vista to anybody at all.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By whatamess on 1/13/2013 11:42:35 AM , Rating: 2
I should know better than to get in the middle of this, but I must point something out: Vista is Windows version 6, as are "Windows 7" and "Windows 8". XP is Windows 5. For use in the traditional desktop model, Vista, 7, and 8 are essentially identical. Yes, there have been some performance improvements over the years, but most of them have been rolled into service packs and apply retroactively to Vista as well.

After some time, people will get over the fit they're throwing about having the interface tweaked, and will go on about how great "Windows Blue" is, even though it will almost certainly be 6.x. When it comes down to it, people just don't brain very well. For the record, I'm typing this on a Win 8 tablet, and it's fantastic when paired with a touchscreen, but I wouldn't dream of putting 8 on my living room desktop (because it wouldn't allow me to do anything I can't do with Vista...the same reason I never upgraded the same machine to 7).


By lexluthermiester on 1/20/2013 6:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is Windows version 6, as are "Windows 7" and "Windows 8". XP is Windows 5.


Ok, you're talking about the core/kernel of the OS. The problems are not in the core. They are in the User Interface. And no, some of us WILL never get over the "fit" we're "throwing". And to be fair, The transision from the UI in Vista to the UI in 7 was a "tweak". From 7 to 8? That was a complete remake. and not a positive one. You dais it yourself, you wouldn't dream of putting 8 on your desktop.

Your experience on your tablet might be positive, but that is not the perspective shared by all. 8 is more difficult to use, lacks a few important details and just doesn't feel right. MS needs to take a step back and rethink this problem. It's not going away. Every self-respecting gaming machine maker is making 7 the default choice, and letting 8 be an option. The numbers are in on that. Few are choosing 8.

Gee, I wonder why? /Sarcasm


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2013 3:44:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I love W8. It's here to stay and I won't go back to W7 EVER, as now the start menu feels stupidly clumsy to me.


If consumers continue to receive Windows 8 and metro devices the way they have been (poorly with lackluster sales), I can say for certain that it's NOT here to stay.

If it was a big hit then it would definitely be here to stay. But it has flopped. It flopped on the desktop side and it flopped on the mobile side. Not many people want it. Unless Microsoft has secretly found a way to make money by losing customers, they're going to have to reconsider the direction they want to go.

Shortly after the negative reviews (and probably initial sales figures) came in, we saw the high profile departure of one of Microsoft's executives. I wouldn't be surprised if we see the departure of a few more, since managers generally don't like it when they pay someone to come up with good products and they come up with stuff that doesn't sell.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/15/2013 9:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
I only meant my PC :)

Given the bad reviews and comments all over, I'd expect an update rather soon.

Are they going to loose the metro UI? I don't think so, I believe they are going to integrate it more seamlessly with the desktop and/or offer the alternative of "old interface".

For me the mistake is not the UI itself, rather that it's a big change and people do not like big changes at all and don't respond well when they happen. They need a more incremental, evolutionary approach than revolutionary.

That's for PCs. For the ultramobile market it's a very different story as I think all bets are still open there.


RE: I can´t begin to understand this
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 10:17:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
For me the mistake is not the UI itself, rather that it's a big change and people do not like big changes at all and don't respond well when they happen. They need a more incremental, evolutionary approach than revolutionary.


I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that Microsoft took away consumer choice. If Microsoft made the Metro UI with no start button the default choice but allowed you to change it, I don't think there would be all this backlash. But they went out of their way to remove customer choice so people HAD to use the mobile-centric theme. Earlier on in the development cycle you were able to change a registry entry to bring back the start menu. Microsoft then went out of their way to "fix" that, since it got in the way of their REAL plan, which is to force desktop users to get accustomed to the mobile look so that they'd be more likely to buy Microsoft's mobile products like phones and tablets. You see, Microsoft feels that mobile is the future and they want to corral their users into that new market, therefore converting their dominance in the desktop market into dominance in the mobile market.

Windows XP is a good example. I hated the cartoony look of the default UI, but they gave you the option to customize it and choose classic mode. Once I changed it I was satisfied and I liked the OS. Why did they feel the need to remove choice from the customer in Windows 8?

I have a feeling that after this whole debacle the next version of Windows will allow you to choose to display a start menu.


Windows Vista > Windows 8
By SAN-Man on 1/11/2013 7:11:06 PM , Rating: 5
I'd actually rather use Windows Vista than Windows 8. At least with Vista all the functionality I wanted was there out of the box and I didn't have to fall back on third party hacks.




RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By menting on 1/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By Camikazi on 1/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 11:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well then I guess you just want to be part of the Win 8 MS fanboy club.


By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 6:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Bit of a pointless post!


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By Camikazi on 1/12/2013 9:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've used Windows 8, I learned how to use the new UI, it took almost no time and it works fine. It is not perfect but it's not the horrible, OS destroying thing that some of you make it out to be. I don't see a point in being a fanboy of any company since all that does is limit you as a consumer, so no I'm not a fanboy of any company but I don't arbitrarily put down any new feature for no reason other than it is too different and I would have to relearn things.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 1:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
So just because someone likes something and can't understand you're baseless rants about how much you hate that particular something it automatically makes them a fanboy eh... what does that even mean? Seriously what does the word fanboy mean anymore? Everyone pretty much uses it unilaterally to describe any one they disagree with when talking about various tech products. Why do you care what operating system people like anyway? Personally I love windows 8 and wouldn't ever go back to 7. Does that make me an MS fanboy? I'm sure you'd say "lol, ya", but then I also love Debian with KDE, and live on various Linux platforms as well, so am I also a Linux fanboy or just a Debian/Windows fanboy, I’m confused. I like Windows phone 8 from everything I've read but prefer Android... so am I an Android fanboy? How about we cut the stupid BS "fanboy" talk and act like adults. I'm a consumer with a different point of view from you... that is all.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 9:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
The refresh button on your wifi server list.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By lotharamious on 1/13/2013 9:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry. This is a totally stupid argument.

The solution: F5.

"But, liek, omg, it should totally have a button to click on!!11one"

Any other unfounded h8?


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By max_payne on 1/12/2013 10:44:19 AM , Rating: 3
not a functionally but a backward design. It miss the gorgeous and luxury look of AERO. W8 desktop look like Window 98. I can't find any justification why MS drop it. May be that it looks to good against their vga Metro UI.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By bug77 on 1/12/2013 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 5
Because the UI is aimed at tablets and phones and those can't handle transparency and other fancy effects.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By inighthawki on 1/12/2013 8:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
It has a pretty tremendous reduction in power consumption and processing power as well. I do still wish they hadn't removed it entirely, as those of us with high powered, always-plugged-in desktops benefit from the option of having a subjectively better looking UI. Lack of aero glass is actually one of my few complaints about Windows 8, but I think there are enough advantages to 8 that I can live without it for the time being.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By Luticus on 1/14/2013 5:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
agreed.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By max_payne on 1/13/2013 8:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
agree on those things but we are talking PC here. Why do I have to suffer because of the inability of tablets/phones ? Every PC of the last few years has no issue with aero. It can also be trimmed down in W7 for the purists.


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:47:11 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps because it looks even better, cleaner, allows apps better window manipulation.. and is fully hw-accelerated and takes a minuscule fraction of resources.

My first response to aero was horror and an immediate disabling, until I got it tweaked and trimmed enough to work smoothly. In 8, I notice absolutely no performance difference disabling every visual effect and theming, and using the classic 2000 style start menu interface versus running all decked out -- a stark comparison to MS's interface 'improvements' in vista, 7, and esp XP (where practically every interface transition was just a huge lag).


RE: Windows Vista > Windows 8
By MrBungle123 on 1/14/2013 6:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My first response to aero was horror and an immediate disabling, until I got it tweaked and trimmed enough to work smoothly. In 8, I notice absolutely no performance difference disabling every visual effect and theming, and using the classic 2000 style start menu interface versus running all decked out -- a stark comparison to MS's interface 'improvements' in vista, 7, and esp XP (where practically every interface transition was just a huge lag).


What were you running for a system that you actually noticed a difference between aero on and off?


I find it's the other way round
By Johnmcl7 on 1/11/2013 8:11:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Whether its DailyTech's readers or online critics, it's important to recognize that much of the criticism is coming from the enthusiast sphere. Average consumers -- who generally gravitate towards bright, colorful, touchable devices like moths to a light -- tend to react more kindly to Windows 8 when exposed, at least in my anecdotal experience.


In my experience it's the average consumers that are the most critical of Windows 8 because they spend a couple of minutes with it in a shop, don't like it fundamentally because it's different and then complain vocally about how Windows 8 will be the end of Microsoft and they will either never leave Windows 8 or change to OSX.

On the other enthusiasts are more likely to spend time with the operating system and appreciate there are improvements. Although I found Windows 8 a bit odd at first after spending time with it I think it's good, you lose very little over Windows 7 and there's a lot of small improvements all over the place with Windows 8 - it's faster and more responsive, the task manager is vastly improved, the file transfer system is much better, the power user menu in place of the start menu is more convenient (giving one click access to most of the functions I'd go into the start menu for anyway) and other little touches such as each piece of hardware having its own mini events system.

I initially didn't bother with the start screen on non-touch systems but I'm finding that handy as well, previously when you clicked the start menu you'd only get one click access to the recently used applications while others would be access by expanding the programs section and finding the suitable application. Now however with one press of the start button I get access to a screen that gives me access then straight away to a decent number of applications.

My main annoyance is just the intrusiveness of the touch applications, on the non-touch PC's I need to turn off all the tiles in the start screen and then modify all the file associations to stop them launching in the touch version of the applications. If there's a quicker way to do it I'd be grateful to hear it.

What amuses me about Windows 8 is that many of the arguments I see about it from people who don't appear to have spent any time from the operating system is that they're almost word for word the same as those voiced against the ribbon interface in Office 2007. That interface that was to be the end of Office as no-one was going to buy it is not only still in Office it's now integrated into the file explorer and I see third party applications ranging from Winzip to Autocad now offer it.

John




RE: I find it's the other way round
By croc on 1/11/2013 8:44:02 PM , Rating: 3
For REAL office users, the menu system was / is still the most productive interface to use, and yields by far the greatest screen real estate. Try doing some pre-press publishing with Office 2003 vs. any ribbon version, get back to me. Now try doing the same test, but throw in some Photoshop work, and do it using a newer office 'ribbon' and win 8. Don't bother getting back to me, you won't...


By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 6:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine a person that opens up Photoshop for the first time: They'll start using the new or old interface without issue.

I'm sure you get my point..


RE: I find it's the other way round
By lotharamious on 1/13/2013 10:04:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, go back to your hole, troll.

I am a REAL office user. Trust me, millions will tell you that if you have a problem using post-Office 2003-era interfaces, the only problem is between the chair and keyboard.


RE: I find it's the other way round
By JediJeb on 1/13/2013 12:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
The Ribbon is functional but to me it wasn't needed. Maybe it was just MS way to help out monitor manufacturers since you need a larger monitor to recoup the lost space the ribbon take up :)


By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 11:06:57 AM , Rating: 2
This is the only thing that bothers me about the ribbon. I wish it were vertical so that the screen real estate could be used more efficiently.


RE: I find it's the other way round
By JediJeb on 1/11/2013 8:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I initially didn't bother with the start screen on non-touch systems but I'm finding that handy as well, previously when you clicked the start menu you'd only get one click access to the recently used applications while others would be access by expanding the programs section and finding the suitable application. Now however with one press of the start button I get access to a screen that gives me access then straight away to a decent number of applications.


So my question is, what is the difference between a screen full of large, various sized icons for programs on the Metro screen and having nice small icons for your programs on the desktop on W7? Other than you can get more of the small ones on the screen in W7.

Aesthetically I prefer a few small mostly transparent icons sitting on top of a pleasant photo (the Milkway Galaxy, one of my Lunar photos, ect) as opposed to a screen totally covered with large tiles. As far as useability, a double click on my program icon or a single click on a Tile, both start the program I need, underneath that makes no difference to me as far as useability as I can tell no difference, not doing anything warranting the changes under the hood. For me it costs me nothing to stay with W7, or even XP on my older computer, but would cost me to purchase W8, and by the time I do buy another computer I imagine W8 will not even be offered so I probably will never have anything that uses it myself. Then again I still see no reason to have ever left Win3.11, it worked for me just as well as anything else.


RE: I find it's the other way round
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2013 2:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is where personal preference prevails the most:
I always hated the icons all over the working desktop and tried to keep them at a minimum.
Now I don't even have to try: the working space and the "app picking" space are completely independent and each looks optimal now to me.

I'd love the metro UI to float over a blurred desktop once called instead of having an own background - a graphical, full screen app menu if you will - and also I'd like the possibility of creating app groups/aisles and dividers at will instead of having a fixed format but I find this kind of interface a lot faster than the traditional start menu with its many folders created by each app forcing me to use the search mlre often than not (manually arranging the start menu is a royal pain, in metro it's very easy to pin or unpin stuff as needed)


RE: I find it's the other way round
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 12:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
then you would love fences from Stardock. Place all your icons on the desktop and then double click and Puff they are all hidden. double click again and puff there they are. No Metro screen required.


RE: I find it's the other way round
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 12:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
"Windows 8 - it's faster and more responsive,"

Are you comparing it to a freash install of win 7 or your old 2 year old install? I personally see no difference when they are both freash installs.

"the task manager is vastly improved,"

How many average users use it though? I think the default view is less useful. It doesn't even say a task isn't responding any longer.

"the file transfer system is much better,"

How so? I use Opus to replace it anyways so its a non feature for me.

" the power user menu in place of the start menu is more convenient "

Yeah can't wait for some novice user to fire up that disk managment utility and delete all thier partitions. Some things just should be made easy.


By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 6:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
"the file transfer system is much better,"

How so? I use Opus to replace it anyways so its a non feature for me.

Your reply makes ZERO sense.


By johnsmith9875 on 1/13/2013 6:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft seems committed to making its operating systems hard to use, and they take away useful things, like Firewire PC to PC transfers.
The network setup screens in Windows 7 are already a confusing mess. Windows 8 is like being in a maze.


By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 6:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Standard consumers do not know what to think most of the time. I presented Windows 8 to the various testers in work as a positive thing and 9/10 people do like Windows 8. The only person to dislike it is a guy who has ALWAYS hated change and moans about everything.

On the other hand when people read negative commemnts about something they'll tend to join that side due to not wanting to be out of place or, of course, just simply go along with it


RE: I find it's the other way round
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2013 2:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my experience it's the average consumers that are the most critical of Windows 8 because they spend a couple of minutes with it in a shop, don't like it fundamentally because it's different and then complain vocally about how Windows 8 will be the end of Microsoft and they will either never leave Windows 8 or change to OSX. On the other enthusiasts are more likely to spend time with the operating system and appreciate there are improvements.


Yeah, and 3 out of 4 enthusiasts felt that Windows 7 is a better fit for them. The rest of the buying public was even less receptive.

Windows 8 is doing worse than Vista. This is what happens when you're in a market where you're supposed to cater to the customers' wants, and instead you decide to attempt to corral them into the market you want them to be in. The attempt failed miserably.


Suprising
By mshimohi on 1/12/2013 3:00:54 AM , Rating: 3
It's suprising that one out of four accept such stupid UI OS.
I don't reject it, just ignore it.




RE: Suprising
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2013 8:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
The suprising thing is that there are 3 out of four that don't know how to use it.

Not liking the aesthetics of the metro start screen or saying that the native Metro apps are not well suited for desktop use is one thing and arguably understandable.

But saying that it's harder to do things than before and that there's missing functionality is just wrong because everything you need is there and you can access things as easily as you did before.

I can't understand why everyone seems to love so much the stupid start menu interface with all the clutter and limited capability to pin favourite applications.
The only good thing about the Start Menu was when in Vista they introduced the search function. I have to us XP at work and the start menu plus icons all around the desktop make me waste a lot of time finding things.

You people know that you can pin whatever application you want to the metro screen and you can have dozens of them right at hand, not just 10, right?
Or are you all so occupied by the questionable looks that didn't even try the functionality?
Or that you can blow all of the silly metro apps away?
Or that you can push right click and select "uninstall" in any icon you have there, that it will do so right away for metro apps? (in the case of normal apps it takes you to the program administrator, I'd rather have them integrate that so the uninstall process starts right away but it's accesible anyway)

The start menu, that you accessed by pressing the Windows key, is now named "metro UI", because that's just what it is: a full screen, more visible, more functional and easier to access start menu.

I don't know, for me it's puzzling that you can't find this thing usable and practical - for me it's a lot more so than that almost 30 year old crappy start menu - though unsightly.

Just give it a try in spite of the looks. I think that's all what really refrains you from making it work: centering on how the thing looks.


RE: Suprising
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 12:40:27 PM , Rating: 4
"The suprising thing is that there are 3 out of four that don't know how to use it."

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just becasue we don't like doesn't mean we don't know how to use it.

"But saying that it's harder to do things than before and that there's missing functionality is just wrong because everything you need is there and you can access things as easily as you did before."

No its not wrong. You now have to remember keyboard short cuts, hidden "charms" menus, No close button,(have to drag down)..really? Only ONE app in metro. WhooWhoo! Heck its hard just to figure out how to shut it down the first time you use it. Who in their right mind would think to look in a hidden menu under settings to find "shut down"? There are many more you just don't want to admit it.

It may not be missing functionality but they sure hide a lot of it and stepped backwards on others.

"I can't understand why everyone seems to love so much the stupid start menu interface with all the clutter and limited capability to pin favourite applications."

How is having a list of all your apps in in order in the start button clutters?
Its called chooses not everyone is like you.

"The start menu, that you accessed by pressing the Windows key, is now named "metro UI", because that's just what it is: a full screen, more visible, more functional and easier to access start menu"

Please explain how it is more functional or easier to access? I'll grant you that a Gaint full screen is easier to see if your blind though.

"for me it's a lot more so than that almost 30 year old crappy start menu - though unsightly."

Ok the start menu isn't 30 years old and how is it unsightly or crappy?

"Just give it a try in spite of the looks. I think that's all what really refrains you from making it work: centering on how the thing looks."
Tried it through the beta and used the release for two months. You're assuming alot here and its based on nothing other than your imgination.


RE: Suprising
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2013 5:06:37 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, not 30 years old... "ONLY" 28 to be precise (introduced in 1995 with, well... you guessed it: Windows 95)

It's not my imagination. Just my own experience.

I find things faster and feel more comfortable with W8 than I did with W7.
In w7 I pretended start menu didn't exist by using the search function. Now I have a usable start menu.

PS: as for hidden things, I have to yield in that one. It's true. I personally don't have an issue with that as I have a tendency to like things hidden and bring them up when I want them (hidden taskbar, hidden icons, etc). But I can understand that for many out there it can be inconvenient. It took me almost a couple minutes to find how to turn off the computer, was confused but once I found it, I liked it a lot but I reckon it may not be convenient to many.

PS:
You read my paragraph wrong: my comment about being unsightly is about the METRO UI. I find it rather ugly. But to me, usable and fast for finding and launching apps wins over aesthetics. Anyway I hope the integration of the Metro UI and its appearance get better with future iterations as its aspect does now leave quite a bit to be desired.


RE: Suprising
By 3ogdy on 1/13/2013 8:52:40 AM , Rating: 3
Man, now I understand why Microsoft engineers put out such products -- they must have DONE THE MATHS the way you do

HOW ON EARTH COULD SOMETHING MADE IN 1995 BE TWENTY-EIGHT(28) YEARS OLD IN 2013 , FOR GOD'S SAKE?
AND YES, SAYING THE START MENU IS "30 YEARS OLD" when it's actually a lot closer to HALF of that, is quite shocking.

REALLY? " "ONLY" 28 to be precise(introduced in 1995 with, well... you guessed it : WINDOWS 95 (NINETY-FIVE!) )".
You've got to be kidding me.
Are you sure you're not CONSIDERABLY YOUNGER than the START BUTTON ITSELF?
Time to go to school.

"It took me almost a couple minutes to find how to turn off the computer, was confused but once I found it, I liked it a lot but I reckon it may not be convenient to many."
I personally own an Eyefinity configuration - it took me more than 5 MINUTES on the clock just to figure out how to properly restart my system. Since the mouse cursor would go on the right screen once you put it closer to the right edge of the main screen.
I thought multi-display computing was an improvement productivity-wise ...well, Microsoft engineers are too dumb to understand that. Hell, maybe they don't even use multi-screen computers over there at Microsoft, the biggest computer software company on planet Earth.
They haven't even heard of it - oh, let me correct that, they MUST HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT.(trying to avoid saying they are too stupid to even consider that designing something compatible with that)

RULE: NEVER TRADE GOOD LOOKS FOR PRODUCTIVITY WHEN THE FIRST DOESN'T GET IN THE WAY! No reason to use a screwed up blocky interface - and yes, I'm still against Microsoft forcing users to patch their systems in order to use themes under Vista/Se7en(8 isn't even worth mentioning anyway).
Thank God we have support for Windows 7 until 2020...otherwise, it would've been time for many of us to start migrating to a different OS.


RE: Suprising
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/13/2013 10:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, are you telling me we are not in 2023?

What a boomer. I'll have to wait 10 more years to make that post right then :)


RE: Suprising
By polishvendetta on 1/15/2013 1:33:33 PM , Rating: 1
" RULE: NEVER TRADE GOOD LOOKS FOR PRODUCTIVITY WHEN THE FIRST DOESN'T GET IN THE WAY! "

All of these comments against windows 8 make this same basic argument. But this isnt an argument at all. Its a statement. The people who make this "argument" seem to be on the imediate defensive about Metro, or Windows 8. But everyone has a choice. You people clutter forums and comments about how you dont like it and dont want it, or how Windows 7 was better.

But are you all really that insecure with your knowledge and intelect and wit, that you feel the need to try to convince others not to use a produce that you have a choice to use or not?


RE: Suprising
By delphinus100 on 1/13/2013 3:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The start menu, that you accessed by pressing the Windows key, is now named "metro UI", because that's just what it is: a full screen, more visible, more functional and easier to access start menu.


It's rare that I use the Start Menu, first thing after booting up. I almost always want to open a program, or use a personally created shortcut, whose location I know.(I always turn off the 60 day cleanup in XP...I arrange icons a certain way, similar functions grouped together, and I want them to stay that way, no matter how little they're used.)

If I don't go to Start right away, why would I want to be presented with its 'replacement' right away...?


RE: Suprising
By espaghetti on 1/13/2013 12:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You people know that you can pin whatever application you want to the metro screen and you can have dozens of them right at hand, not just 10, right?

Who wants 10 pages of apps to scroll right through to get what they're looking for?

Why can't I just use a windows classic theme like every other version of windows?


Wrong title
By dgingerich on 1/12/2013 11:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
The title should read "more than 3 out of 4 enthusiasts have not tried Windows 8" in my opinion. I tried it, I got used to it, and I like it. It is at least equal to Windows 7. Sure, there are a few downsides, but there are also upsides that even everything out.

Above all, this immensely stupid complaint that the start button and menu are missing are totally WRONG. They aren't missing at all, they just changed form a little bit. It's not even that much of a change. To me, they'e easier to use than the Windows 7 version. The only people who complain about it are the ones who haven't even tried to use it.




RE: Wrong title
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 12:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
"The title should read "more than 3 out of 4 enthusiasts have not tried Windows 8" in my opinion. "
Or it should say 1 in 4 have no clue? Its as valid as your silly claim we havn't used it.

The fact that we are talking about "enthusiasts" says they more than likely have tried it for many months. After all that what enthusiasts do, try new things.

"Above all, this immensely stupid complaint that the start button and menu are missing are totally WRONG"

No its not wrong. are you blind? do you see it in the corner where it has lived for 15 years? Whats that, no?

"It's not even that much of a change."

lol seriously are you a troll?

"The only people who complain about it are the ones who haven't even tried to use it."

And you're DEAD!


RE: Wrong title
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 1:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Damn no edit button

That last line should read "You're DEAD WRONG"


RE: Wrong title
By max_payne on 1/12/2013 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, those are not called "enthusiasts" for nothing. Basically they are PC lovers who are after every inches of performance and speed enhancement they can get for their machines. So, you can bet that they have been on W8 since the preview version. I will thrust these guys more then any reviewers for performance analysis and they have spoke now.


RE: Wrong title
By damianrobertjones on 1/12/2013 6:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because enthusiasts want performance and being one of those guys I prefer to know that if I require an 'app' in the future it'll install in its own space instead of adding startup services and other crap to my system (Google and Apple please stand up).

Heck I'm prepping to vLite Windows 8 and the Modern UI will be staying.


RE: Wrong title
By nocturne on 1/12/2013 2:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
It'd be great to know the actual figures of those who have used 8 primarily for more than a week versus novel users, and tie them to the statements made by many on here..

Sadly, this may be a tech site.. but most of these people aren't 'real' tech enthusiasts, or just aren't bright enough or experienced enough to be. Just takes a quick glance at the comments for any real techie to notice..


RE: Wrong title
By retrospooty on 1/13/2013 10:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
" The title should read "more than 3 out of 4 enthusiasts have not tried Windows 8" The only people who complain about it are the ones who haven't even tried to use it."

That is kind of an ignorant comment. The very word enthusiast means what it means and for you to just assume that no-one tried it is way off. I am an enthusiast. I have adopted every MS release at or prior to launch since Win95. I even liked Vista after much tweaking. I installed the Win8 developer preview the day it was released (and it had a start button). I also tried the production preview and the official release as well. I had the official release on my system in a separate partition for over a month before removing the whole partition. This is the 1st MS OS that I am not sticking with... I just don't like the UI for a non touchscreen device. It just irritates me. NOT because I didn't try it for more than a day, I did. I don't know how to find things, I do. NOT because I cant make shortcuts, I can. It is because I DON'T like the UI for a non- touchscreen device.

ANY modern OS gets the job done. The whole difference these days is about the UI and productivity. That boiled down to how you interface with the computer. A KB/Mouse and a touchscreen are 2 totally different beasts and need 2 different UI's, and for a touch screen, Win8 is nice. I do like it, but to force it on us for non-touch screens is just not usable to me... Especially since it was there and then removed on purpose. Not even because of any technical reason, just because MS wanted to. And for the record, people aren't complaining about it, they are simple not using it. I am certainly not complaining. I tried it, dont like it, am sticking with Win7 and I am a happy camper, happy using my MS Windows OS.


RE: Wrong title
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
Spot on.


Choice !
By max_payne on 1/12/2013 8:57:58 AM , Rating: 5
It only come down to one thing for W8 ; CHOICE. If MS would have let people choose how they want to use W8, all this polemic will have been muted and every one would have embrace the new OS without any discussion. But the new "Steve Jobs" approach, forced every one to play by our rules is what that killed it. Forced Modern UI, no start button, dumping AERO all this to promote their phone/tablet OS was a huge mistake. That pissed a lot people. So even with all my grudges about W8, just that reason is enough to make me walk away and give the finger to MS. I want to and use my OS the way I want. And yes, I tried and learn it through and through for a few weeks. Just to find that Microsoft has become a bully.




RE: Choice !
By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 10:02:51 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not pissed off, but I would like my $15 back that I spent to upgrade win8 since I reverted back to win7.


RE: Choice !
By Piiman on 1/12/2013 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
BINGO!


RE: Choice !
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/14/2013 11:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
I can't help you with the loss of Aero, but the Start button/Modern UI dilemma is easily resolved. Windows 8 isn't a walled garden like iOS, as you do have a choice of installing mods.
Take your pick:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/9-win...


I really Like Windows 8!
By iluv2fly on 1/12/2013 9:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
I really like Windows 8 over 7.

Mainly I do so because all the added apps features (love it!) the possibility's that it offer that W7 did not have.

I wish they would change a couple of things.

- Make it so we can choose a desktop mode were it would default to the desktop on start up. That works better for some users and PC's then the windows key would be used for taking you to the start page when YOU want it and not when Microsoft wants it! I really like the start page but I want to be the one that chooses when I want to see it!

- Bring back the desktop gadgets. I miss the clock and calender on the desktop.




RE: I really Like Windows 8!
By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2013 10:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
I always said MS should have made two versions or at least two modes. One for metro and one for people who prefer the desktop.