Windows 8

[Q2]

You must have a 2011 or newer macbook pro then. I haven't upgraded and personally experimented but the word on the street is that 2010 or older models are super buggy with Mountain Lion.

I do.

 

[reave]

Sorry, but "Mountain Lion" has got to be the gayest OS name I've ever heard.

 

[geminigod]

I'm still using Windows XP if that tells you anything. :lol:

Dude... What if I told you you could spend $90 to make your 60 year old wife keep all her wisdom and maturity but suddenly look like a 20 year old babe? You'd spend that $90 wouldn't you. Do yourself a favor and upgrade to windows 7. Your future self will thank you.

:-D

Depending on how old your CPU is, XP isn't even designed to handle new CPU and memory efficiently.

 

[wabid]

Dude... What if I told you you could spend $90 to make your 60 year old wife keep all her wisdom and maturity but suddenly look like a 20 year old babe? You'd spend that $90 wouldn't you. Do yourself a favor and upgrade to windows 7. Your future self will thank you.

:-D

Depending on how old your CPU is, XP isn't even designed to handle new CPU and memory efficiently.

Or you could spend 40 and upgrade to Windows 8 which is faster and uses less system resources.

 

[nOmArch]

Or you could spend 40 and upgrade to Windows 8 which is faster and uses less system resources.

Have you even read this thread???

+1 for what Geminigod said.

 

[Q2]

+1 for what nOmArch said, so I guess that gives Gemini a +2.

 

[geminigod]

Or you could spend 40 and upgrade to Windows 8 which is faster and uses less system resources.

Could be wrong, but guessing that the $40 deal to upgrade requires having Windows 7 anyway.

 

[Q2]

It does. You need either Windows 7 or Vista.

 

[wabid]

I guess I am not old enough to have entered the get off my lawn phase yet. Metro replaces the start menu, not explorer or the taskbar. Last I checked, Winkey+D brings you right back to your old desktop. I have not installed the RTM yet.

If you have a new computer, the upgrade is only 15 dollars. https://windowsupgradeoffer.com/en-US/Home/ProgramInfo You can use the update to update any computer with XPSP3 or later, not just the new Win7 pc.

I am curious how many of you claiming the sky is falling have actually tried Windows 8, because to me it feels like a faster 7.

While having some nice features, until they get rid of the metro interface for the desktop versions 8 can go fuck itself.

Metro replaces the start menu, not the desktop.

I tested the preview of 8 for 15 min before uninstalling.

I guess I don't even use the start menu. I press the windows key, type the first 4 letters of the program I want and I press enter. Most of the apps I use are pinned to the taskbar anyway. Could anyone clarify what they actually use the start menu for? Search and settings have been moved to the charms bar, which is accessible from every app, metro or not. http://www.guidingtech.com/10146/windows-8-charm-bar-introduction/

I don't understand why Microsoft and Apple have to spit out these sloppy intermediate OS's in between stable versions.

This is completely the opposite of actual history. There are no signs of Windows 8 being less stable than 7. Vista was unstable because the graphics drivers sucked (blame ATI/Nvidia, Intels were solid) and the kernel had a couple issues. Vista RTM was basically a beta, and they needed their customers as beta tester. Then they wrote the rock solid Server 2008, and backported the kernel as Vista SP1. By SP1 Vista was rock solid and sort of a memory hog. As long as you had more than 4GB of memory you were fine. Windows 7 was a spitshine, and basically Vista SP2. Not much changed and a bunch of buttons got moved. 7 SP1 doesnt count as anything, it was a bunch of minor patches. Windows 8 is Vista SP3.

There were HUGE changes between XP and Vista related to user account controls, where on the harddrive/registry programs were allowed to write data, etc. The uac gui was annoying but the underlying code was necessary and rock solid. 7 scaled back the uac prompts

Vista was not sloppy. It was a humongous rewrite to make XP secure. XP was broken and couldnt be patched. These rewrites caused a lot of programs compatibility and driver issues. In exchange, as retail software was updated, it was much less likely to crash. Now that application developers have fixed their programs, the same programs written for Vista work just fine on 7 and 8. Vista was a necessary evil, both to get application developers to write safer programs, and to iron out unforeseeable kinks by betatesting with a large enough sample of setups they could not obtain any other way. They could have tested Vista for 5 more years but until they actually put it into millions of different configurations, it would not have mattered. I have been using Windows 6.x variants since 2002 (10 years now) and from a security perspective, they are a remarkable improvement over XP. New applications are continually going to be written with the WinRT api (which seems to be an extension of .NET along with entirely new sandboxing layers which sit between the kernel and the application), so if you want to use new applications...

The easiest way to prove I am right is to look at version numbers. NT is Windows v4.0. Windows 2000 was v5.0. XP was v5.1. Windows Server 2003 was v5.2. Vista/Server 2008 was v6.0. Windows 7/Server 2008R2 is v6.1. Windows 8/Server 2012 is NT v6.2. They increment the number every time there is a major change which breaks compatibility. Windows 7 and 8 are both minor releases.

Take note though, Windows 8 is also a FORK. Windows RT for ARM processors will only support new programs, existing x86/64 code will not run. This is the codebase you will see on tablets and what microsoft hopes is the future. There are a bunch of nasty changes to Windows RT (secure boot without the ability to turn it off) and only being able to download apps through the microsoft store. Windows RT, being microsoft's hopeful future, is their attempt to kill off the x86/64 line, at least in the consumer marketplace. Windows RT is their newest beta being thrown at consumers (like vista) to test the waters and get developers ready for more drastic changes. For now the Windows x86/64 line will be compatible with the old and new codebases, which is why there is no reason to avoid Windows 8.

8 isnt some sloppy release, it is another Vista spitshine. Honestly, the upgrade is worth it for the changes to file copying and multimonitor improvements alone. I mean comeon, you can finally PAUSE file copies and mount ISO/IMG/VHD files without additional software. Then you have built in Antivirus. Plus you can use your microsoft account and have your account follow you between your computers. Just think, the last suit err Windows you will ever configure again. Please excuse the poor MIB reference.

 

[geminigod]

This is completely the opposite of actual history.

Nice defense of windows 8. As one who hasn't tested it, I can only base a judgement off of 2nd hand reports. Same goes for Mountain Lion.

But when you say that the every-other phenomenon is completely the opposite of actual history, you are perhaps confessing the fact that you are "too young" to remember actual history and the roll-out of these new OS's. Your own defense of Vista is not a very good defense and confesses the fact that it was clunky, to say the least. It is not comparing apples-to-apples to be comparing OS's after multiple service packs. I was there. I experienced it. I have friends in their 30's who make a living doing computer tech & security work. Vista was such a debacle when it first came out that some of these folks still haven't gotten over it. They are still using XP even though Windows 7 is vastly superior. There is a reason why so many people still use XP.

Before XP, there was Windows 2000. I was there when that initially rolled out. I did computer repair in college to support the POS. It was crap as well until a couple patches later. It secured Microsoft's reputation of rolling out buggy software too soon. Keep in mind we are now talking early and pre-Internet days here. Not so easy to just roll out a Service Pack.

I have less history with Apple, but on that side of things, it went Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion. My info on Mountain Lion is 2nd hand but the every other trend seems to be holding up there (in recent history at least) as well.

Few people give a damn how dramatic the changes are for a new operating system in terms of what is going on behind the curtain. If Microsoft wants me to spend money and waste a huge chunk of my time fucking with a new OS, it had better provide some significant added functionality, and it had better be stable.

 

[theslime]

I don't understand why Microsoft and Apple have to spit out these sloppy intermediate OS's in between stable versions. It seems to consistently go every other one. Mountain Lion is a disaster right now as well. Is the money really worth the hassle, support problems, and customer frustration?

Windows 7 and Lion work perfectly fine. I see no reason to upgrade any of my computers.

Funny. Just yesterday I overheard a mac expert make the complete opposite argument, and as a longtime mac user I mostly agreed with it. Leopard introduced a lot of new stuff (and was slightly buggy) - Snow Leopard optimized and bugfixed Leopard; Lion introduced a lot of new stuff (mostly bollocks stuff, but I digress) - Moutain Lion is an attempt to fix some of these issues. If it looks messy now, wait for 10.8.1 to fix the issues. Basically, the trailblazer releases 10.5 and 10.7 are buggy, and the next releases fix the issues. (I've heard about the battery issues in ML, but I'm guessing they'll be fixed when 10.8.1 rolls out.)

Snow Leopard is the Windows 7 of the mac world - rock solid and optimized. I know developers who are clinging on to it even though essential software like the Java Developer Kit already requires Lion.

On windows, I think wabid is mostly right, although underestimating the initial crappiness of Vista (though SP1 did help a lot). The IT department where I work bypassed Vista entirely on their computers and went from XP to 7. Of course Vista was such a major rewrite that it would initially cause bugs, but the instability wasn't just driver-related. It just wasn't good enough.

If you're a proud XP user in 2012 you're IMHO either a Luddite or just delusional. No offence. It's old, badly designed, slow, soon-to-be unsupported and insecure.

 

[TV's Frink]

Sorry, but "Mountain Lion" has got to be the gayest OS name I've ever heard.

But it's... fabulous!!!

 

[white43]

I guess I am not old enough to have entered the get off my lawn phase yet. Metro replaces the start menu, not explorer or the taskbar. Last I checked, Winkey+D brings you right back to your old desktop. I have not installed the RTM yet.

If you have a new computer, the upgrade is only 15 dollars. https://windowsupgradeoffer.com/en-US/Home/ProgramInfo You can use the update to update any computer with XPSP3 or later, not just the new Win7 pc.

I am curious how many of you claiming the sky is falling have actually tried Windows 8, because to me it feels like a faster 7.



Metro replaces the start menu, not the desktop.



I guess I don't even use the start menu. I press the windows key, type the first 4 letters of the program I want and I press enter. Most of the apps I use are pinned to the taskbar anyway. Could anyone clarify what they actually use the start menu for? Search and settings have been moved to the charms bar, which is accessible from every app, metro or not. http://www.guidingtech.com/10146/windows-8-charm-bar-introduction/



This is completely the opposite of actual history. snip.

TL;DR
.

I work in IT. I don't care how stable Windows 8 may be.

I can tell you these things as facts from commerical experience:

Windows XP was good for about 6-8 months before it started getting woefully slow and needed a re-install. However, it was considerably better than 95/98 & ME(which was considerably worse than 98)
Windows Vista was a memory hog and had awful OTT security features.
Windows 7 was the polished version of Vista. It did everything right.

Within all these versions of Windows, you had a start menu that worked more or less in the same way. Millions of people are used to that method. How one works is dependent on the desktop enviroment. There's nothing wrong with it, it's efficient and it works. The old addage - If it's ain't broke......

So what do MS do? Destroy the start menu and replace it with a tablet type front end formerly called Metro. Now, it's not only more difficult to find the things you want, it's more difficult to do simple things. Multitasking is more difficult. Metro apps are full screen. This is all angled at Tablet use, because apparently, this is the way of the future. Even Linux desktops are doing it - Gnome3 and KDE.

We tried Windows 8 and we couldn't see why anybody would want to use that - it's way overconvoluted to do what was straight forward before. I can't see business users even entertaining Metro. It's even on Server 2012! Awful. The only difference is, when you launch something on server from Metro, it actually goes back to the desktop to launch it.

My manager is already questioning continuing with Windows, with a perhaps Linux replacement.

This isn't like Windows 7, when that came out, everyone was very impressed - there were good vibes. Now, how many people are voicing concerns at Windows 8? I bet if MS released a way to turn off Metro, Win8 adoption would be fine. Anyway. Whatever.

 

[Q2]

Having played with Windows 8 this is what I can tell you. It is great for tablets and, assuming Surface works as it should, will give the iPad a run for its money. It is NOT good for a desktop system and here's why:

• while I'm not adverse to Metro I don't like that there is no way to auto default to the traditional desktop for desktop PCs
• no Start Orb: we shouldn't have to rely on a third-party "patch" to get it back, and this patch doesn't bring back the full Orb. Also, MS seems to keep trying to break it
• no easy access to the Control Panel. After installing Windows 8 it took me about a half hour to get the wireless working
• shutting down now takes longer. Not that actual shut down process, but getting to the shut down option. You first have to back all the way out of windows and log out before you can shut down

I think with some refinement Windows 8 could be a very good OS. It is faster, definitely, but in trying to simplify the OS I think they've over simplified it for the more tech savvy person. Metro actually is a good idea, though I do think it's poorly designed for desktops that have larger screens. The widgets should be smaller, and if MS is hellbent on killing the Start Orb then they should have the open to add a widget to access all installed programs. Hopefully MS will either fix some of these missteps or they won't stop third-party developers from improving upon the design.

 

[nOmArch]

While having some nice features, until they get rid of the metro interface for the desktop versions 8 can go fuck itself.

Metro replaces the start menu, not the desktop.

I think you need to read my quote again :lol:

I think White and Q said it all, even John Carmack thinks Windows 8 is a waste of time.

 

[geminigod]

^ what White said. I totally forgot about 95, ME, & 98 windows incarnations! Lol. Ok maybe the every other rule doesn't perfectly hold up.

Who remembers Windows 3.1 and DOS?? King's Quest 5, baby! I had to learn how to write a DOS script to make a special bootable floppy disk in order to get enough free memory to make the game work!

The vast majority of the tech savvy world passed on Vista, and either switched to Mac or waited for next OS to be released. Vista so scared all of us that we were (and many still are) even afraid to give Win 7 a shot. Enough said on that.

Snow Leopard. I may be overstating that OS's problems. It was a minor upgrade to Leopard. I just remember some initial software app incompatibility issues people had.

As for Mountain Lion. Don't get me started on Apple right now. The battery issue mentioned "as its only problem" is a new problem I hadn't even heard of until now. Just go to apple's website and read the review comments about Mountain Lion on their own website! Everyone I have talked to who has downloaded and installed it is pissed except for a small handful of people who have 2011 or newer computers. Use Parallels? Tough luck. Use Airplay? Tough luck. Want the new cool looking features where the laptop/desktop integrates more tightly with your apple mobile devices? Tough luck unless you have 2011 computer or newer. Want to setup iCloud (MobileMe now discontinued) on computer to keep all your shit synced across all your devices? Tough luck unless you have Lion OS, even though it works perfectly fine on older systems. Want Lion OS? Tough luck unless you have 2008 or newer computer. Do you have an older computer that you upgraded hardware components in? Tough fucking luck. For the first time in computer history, compatibility is based on an arbitrary computer model number instead of the hardware components inside the computer.

Apple is doing something unprecedented and insanely stupid right now. They are deliberately creating incompatibility issues with older equipment across the board with all their products in effort get people to buy new shit. Conspiracy theory? The evidence is quickly becoming so abundant that it is getting hard to refute. Steve Jobs is rolling in his grave right now, and every friend I have more tech savvy than I am has sold their Apple stock.

 

[wabid]

Before XP, there was Windows 2000. I was there when that initially rolled out. I did computer repair in college to support the POS. It was crap as well until a couple patches later. It secured Microsoft's reputation of rolling out buggy software too soon. Keep in mind we are now talking early and pre-Internet days here. Not so easy to just roll out a Service Pack.

See, Windows 2000 was never intended for the consumer market. It was meant for corporate/business use. ME was released AFTER 2000 for home users, because compatibility (eg games) was a big deal. I am not sure how many of you used the XP betas, but going into the final one, the Sims still didn’t run. Had they released XP without Sims support, I could have honestly seen it flopping. The Sims was the reason half of kids even used the computer. XP was the first OS to use an NT kernel and be targeted at consumers. 2000 is another example of a major release. ALL the major releases have rocky starts and it is usually related to third party software (drivers, etc.)

Vista was such a debacle when it first came out that some of these folks still haven't gotten over it. They are still using XP even though Windows 7 is vastly superior. There is a reason why so many people still use XP.

Yea, basically poor marketing and lack of knowledge of the topic, or because they still have legacy hardware. The system requirements for Vista were too low, it needs a lot more memory than they said. It also in most cases needs new hardware.

It was crap as well until a couple patches later.

That is my point. Microsoft has no way of finding the bugs and dropping patches UNTIL they release the OS into the wild. As I keep saying, ALL their major releases have rocky starts, and said "blunders" are a necessary evil to create a stable product. Why do you think google keeps their stuff in beta for YEARS. Windows 8 is NOT a major release. 2000 and XP and Vista were. Comparing major to point releases is comparing apples to oranges. You can install Windows 8 over 7 and it will keep all your documents, settings, and applications intact. This is because the security/compatibility layers have not changed significantly, like it did from XP to Vista.

I remember 3.1 and 95 dropping, and 98 dropping, and everyone going apeshit that ME sucked. ME is just a 98 point release, and probably should have been free. ME also pushed the limits of what DOS could do, hence them moving over to the NT/2000 codebase for consumer releases. I am in the small minority that didn't see ME as being worse tha 98 per se, just broken in different places.

On windows, I think wabid is mostly right, although underestimating the initial crappiness of Vista (though SP1 did help a lot). The IT department where I work bypassed Vista entirely on their computers and went from XP to 7.

Mine too, and do you know why we made that decision? Because NONE OF THE APPLICATIONS/DRIVERS that our users needed were compatible. Everyone is blaming microsoft/Vista for a crappy OS, but most of the poor experiences were caused by third party software (a lot of blame goes to Nvidia/ATI.) A lot of corporate environements have software that does not work well in Vista, because the software was not written with security in mind. The developers were lazy and didn't heed microsofts suggestions. It is not that it wasnt "Good enough" it is that EVERYONE ELSE needed time to catch up and rewrite their software to support the new security restrictions. Also remember RAM was more expensive. How many of you had 4GB of ram in your system when Vista dropped?

If you're a proud XP user in 2012 you're IMHO either a Luddite or just delusional. No offence. It's old, badly designed, slow, soon-to-be unsupported and insecure.

Exactly

I work in IT. I don't care how stable Windows 8 may be.

It sounds like we all work in IT. Windows 8 isnt a corporate release. Most companies are still transitioning to 7, and the added features to 8 really don't benefit the corporate workplace. Some of the WindowsToGo stuff is cool, but I dont see it catching on right away. I would expect most corporate environments to skip 8. Home users on the other hand really shouldn’t considering the price... Think of Windows NT v6.x as this. Vista=Beta, 7=Corporate, 8=Home. Then they will either bounce between Corporate and Home releases, or increment to Windows NTv7.x and break compatibility again. Microsoft is MUCH BETTER about maintaining legacy compatability than Apple. Infinitely better.

Within all these versions of Windows, you had a start menu that worked more or less in the same way.

Not really. The Vista startmenu is completely different than prior incarnations. When users went from XP to 7 there was troves of them complaining about how their start menu changed. Over time they grow to like it. Things take time to get used to. Remember the Office Ribbon? Not a fun time to work in IT. Old dogs, new tricks.

Now, it's not only more difficult to find the things you want, it's more difficult to do simple things. Multitasking is more difficult. Metro apps are full screen. This is all angled at Tablet use, because apparently, this is the way of the future.

It is actually just as easy to find your apps. You open the Charms bar on the right side of the screen, and type the application you want into the search bar. Apps you use often should be pinned to the taskbar. It is not microsofts fault that nobody seems to pin things. I can fit over 45 applications pinned across the bottom of my screen. No one is forcing you to use Metro apps. It is completely up to developers if they want to write for the Win32/.net or the WinRT APIs. So blame developers that transition, not Microsoft. Again, I must be in quite the small minority that finds the start menu to be clunky, and kind of poorly arranged. The 6 links on the right can all be pinned to your explorer/libraries icon on the taskbar. The other ones can be directly pinned to the taskbar, or accessed from the charms menu. I am perfectly fine with the search function moving from the lower left to the right side of the screen.

while I'm not adverse to Metro I don't like that there is no way to auto default to the traditional desktop for desktop PCs
no Start Orb: we shouldn't have to rely on a third-party "patch" to get it back, and this patch doesn't bring back the full Orb. Also, MS seems to keep trying to break it
no easy access to the Control Panel. After installing Windows 8 it took me about a half hour to get the wireless working
shutting down now takes longer. Not that actual shut down process, but getting to the shut down option. You first have to back all the way out of windows and log out before you can shut down

That is like saying you dont like that windows boots with the start menu open. Closing it takes one click or two keys (winkey+D). I dont care about the orb, I usually press the windows key or throw the cursor into the corner and click anyway. I dont actually look for the icon. Control panel can be accessed from the charms bar. You can access all your installed programs from the charms bar. Is it really that big of a deal that Windows is now booting with the start menu open?

 

[Neglify]

Vista=Beta, 7=Corporate, 8=Home.

This idea makes a lot of sense to me. Being semi non-tech, I haven't tried 8 out myself, but have watched videos of it. I love a lot of the functions but the metro look kills it for me.

 

[white43]

I still maintain. If I sat a user down in front of Windows 8, they will look at me and say 'How the f*ck do I do anything, WTH is the start menu?'. Hidden menus, typing in what you're looking for. Yea, OK, maybe good for the kids - but I seriously think this will alienate many people.

I don't think it's intuitive. You should be able to work out how to do things with a minimum of fuss - not have to Google it every 2 minutes. Expecting people to start learning keystrokes etc..it just ain't gonna happen. It may look simple, but it isn't easy. I'm thinking of my mother - she's 67, can just about cope with Win7. I wouldn't dream of sticking 8 down in front of her. Linux Mint maybe.

It just feels like change for the sake of it.

 

[nOmArch]

That's because it is.

Forcing Metro onto the desktop users is just plain stupid.