Now they're chopping up the Start Button's bones

[submix8c]

Windows 8 is the future it is superior, faster (bla bla...) change nothing (bla blah) blunt is not trolling (bla bla) clinging delusion.

I note that you've been a member since 2007 and have jumped from Vista->7->8 and... what? Nobody's knocking your point, but maybe you should go to Linux and post there as a fanboy instead.

I consider the post a troll due to... please reread your post.

If you're the "same ColdFlo" found via Google, yes, you are rather opinionated... Do yourself a favor... Free Your Mind!

Edited June 11, 2012 by submix8c

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

... where Vista was a fine product running on less than capable hardware, not so with Metro, where the hardware is fine but the software is crippled

A most excellent point.

There are many reasons to call Windows 8 the next Vista, but as you point out in one important way, they are completely opposite.

There is no way for Microsoft and sycophantic fanboys to spin that yarn again. Current hardware like i3, i5, i7 can tear up any software that Microsoft creates, and then some. Vista was at least 2 years ahead of the average hardware and should never have been used on anything less than dual-core but it often was. They really had always been doing that exact same thing forever really. Releasing Windows (and even DOS) designed and tested on bleeding edge hardware to a consumer market where the average system was lagging by at least a year.

So we are really at an unprecedented time here. This will be the first time in my memory where the Microsoft OS release is easily handled by current average hardware. For example we can even easily run Win8 in a VM on Win7 or WinXP, or run WinXP or Win7 in a VM on Win8. The way this whole thing pans out may be in a different direction than we ever guessed. Perhaps the hardware will simply make Microsoft and their idiotic decisions completely irrelevant. Then Microsoft can limp away and succumb to their self-inflicted wounds.

[Fredledingue]

Adapt or perish; the time it takes you to learn a new interface is nothing compared with the reduced stress from using it

Sure I'll adapt... and find a solution to avoid w8.

Not because we don't like it, in fact there are good things in it, it's just very badly, horribly implemented.

No, I'll avoid losing time with W8 because it will be dead in a few months.

There is no point in learning to use something that won't exist save on small hand-held devices which work completely differently anyway.

As the market is concerned Windows 8 will be DoA (Dead on Arrival).

You can already see it whith Micrososft backpedalling fast as they try to improve the app screen to make it closer to a classic desktop and pretend to put a fake start menu at the same place of the real one.

But it won't be enough to avoid a total fiasco.

You know ColdFlo, the poeple are not stupid: They will see very quickely that the only goal of Metro is to put advertisements on your monitor screen.

Just like you have adds on TV and on the radio, media companies find normal to bring adds to computer screens and Metro just serves this function.

It will not work. Poeple will reject it massively.

It's OK to have sponsor adds on websites, it's less OK to have adds everytime you turn on your PC.

There is a red line here which MS is crossing dangerousely.

Anyone who had used a PC before and who will be confronted with Metro will return their machine to the store and ask the vendor to remove this garbage.

___________________

Windows 7 is a step back from this precisely because of what you described. Grouping taskbar items means that I need an additional click to see what's open.

That's definitely not what I'd personally call a step back.

This illustrates well why user choice is so important.

Personally, I find the wordless taskbar icons harder to use, as they don't immediately convey as much information to me as the wide verbose taskbar buttons.

.....

The bottom line, of course, is that Windows has been eminently customizable to suit the user's way of working/thinking, but with Windows 8 and Metro this aspect starts getting palpably curtailed.

Yes, With W8 the MS team has lost touch with the userbase and its need of customization.

Out of respect, we are not telling which taskbar configuration is the best.

We give our opinions based on pesonal experience.

JorgeA and me we prefer text labelled buttons, Coffee prefer large visaly, rich icons.

Important Note: when a non-grouped taskbar is too cluttered, quickely drag it up and the buttons align on two rows instead of one.

It makes them already much easier to read.

Drag it one floor up and on 3 rows and you have almost the full text caption on all of them.

Now drag it even higher, to 1/4 of screen height. Wow, it's like you have a cool new "task arranger" without installing any freeware! (You just had to know that you can do it)

Then go even further and drag it to half of the screen. Wooah! ... Metrofied! :dazed: The uLtiMATE C*00*L!

And that's why it was important to remind.

Maybe someone will like the W8 Metro interface, why not.

The point is to have the option.

The option to enable or disable Metro.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Fredledingue

[CoffeeFiend]

Windows 8 is the future it is superior

That's your opinion. To reuse your own words, one could say it's a delusion too. I'd say it's vastly inferior, and if that's the future of Windows, then my future is bound to be mostly Windows-free.

Adapt or perish

With Metro, Microsoft picked the "perish" option

the time it takes you to learn a new interface is nothing compared with the reduced stress from using it

It's easy to learn the new stuff, just like it's always been. It's just too bad that Metro is just a gimmicky hindrance, merely getting in your way. Win8 feels like a crippled version of Windows -- and borderline not calling it Windows anymore (closer to a phone OS)

I wouldn't say it will be another Vista. It'll be far worse than that!

[JorgeA]

While researching something else, I came across this discussion of a performance problem for Windows 8.

There are questions as to whether the DPC Latency Checker works properly in Win8, but even if we ignore that data, the first eight lines of the chart and the observations at the top of the OP don't exactly put MS's new operating system in a favorable light.

And now, for some dark humorous relief, a quip seen in another thread on the same topic:

Install Windows 8 and make your PC as awesome as your phone!

--JorgeA

[submix8c]

I like this one better -

windows 7 is going to hold on longer then xp did, in the business world. win8 is for us dumb consumers, simply put.

[MagicAndre1981]

whether the DPC Latency Checker works properly in Win8

no, this tool is so old. User here often upload xperf traces and the DPC checker driver itself causes high DPC latencies. This tool is made for XP nearly 10 years ago.

[JorgeA]

whether the DPC Latency Checker works properly in Win8

no, this tool is so old. User here often upload xperf traces and the DPC checker driver itself causes high DPC latencies. This tool is made for XP nearly 10 years ago.

MagicAndre,

I have a question about this. They say on their website:

DPC Latency Checker for Windows 7, Windows 7 x64, Windows Vista, Windows Vista x64, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 x64, Windows XP, Windows XP x64, Windows 2000

Is it really suitable for Vista/Win7?

And a follow-up question: How about this one -- will this tool give more reliable results for Vista/Win7? (These folks do specify that Win8 is not supported.)

--JorgeA

Edited June 13, 2012 by JorgeA

[MagicAndre1981]

yes, this tool is better. I've linked it in my DPC tutorial.

[andreaborman]

I have finally done it. I have installed Windows 8 RP 32bit.

And as you can see there is more choice of colors for the start screen,like these cool pastel pink and pastel blue colors. Which I like better than the dark and drab colors in Windows 8 CP. And also I have the Windows XP start menu and look on my Windows 8 RP thanks to Classic Shell. The Aero theme is still on Windows 8 RP, but I am not using it.

And all of the Windows XP and Windows Vista software works on Windows 8 RP. And so do the Windows NT and 95 games,Microsoft Entertainment Pack, which are 16 bit software. Andrea Borman.

[submix8c]

And as you can see there is more choice of colors for the start screen,like these cool pastel pink and pastel blue colors

ARRGGG! Shades of Win9x!!! That is something I NEVER did! Worse, working on someone else' PC it was GAWD-AWFUL to see anything! Give me DRAB so I can be HAPPY when I get something to "work"!

To each their own... Doubting the majority of Techies ever fiddled with it either (eye-candy)...

And all of the Windows XP and Windows Vista and Windows7 software works on Windows 8 RP.

More than likely (32-bit).

And so do the Windows NT and 95 games,Microsoft Entertainment Pack, which are 16 bit software.

Doubt that. You must NOT be referring to the DOS-based games. I.E. later Entertainment Packs were 32-bit as opposed to EARLIER ones. Indeed you needed the Windows 3.x 32-bit add-in to achieve it with many. Better read up on 16-bit... They will NOT run on XP and up hence my doubt (you NEED a dual-boot). Go ahead and try OLD Duke Nukem (could be wrong about that one)!

edit - My bad - there is a "switch" for 16-bit...

http://www.winbeta.org/news/windows-8-will-run-16-bit-apps-says-microsoft

http://www.askvg.com/windows-8-comes-with-built-in-16-bit-application-support/

XP 16-bit problems -

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324767

...and more than likely Vista and Win7...

SO... they must have FIXED the nasty "bugs"... Kind of like "Compatibility Mode"...

Edited June 14, 2012 by submix8c

[andreaborman]

And as you can see there is more choice of colors for the start screen,like these cool pastel pink and pastel blue colors

ARRGGG! Shades of Win9x!!! That is something I NEVER did! Worse, working on someone else' PC it was GAWD-AWFUL to see anything! Give me DRAB so I can be HAPPY when I get something to "work"!

To each their own... Doubting the majority of Techies ever fiddled with it either (eye-candy)...

And all of the Windows XP and Windows Vista and Windows7 software works on Windows 8 RP.

More than likely (32-bit).

And so do the Windows NT and 95 games,Microsoft Entertainment Pack, which are 16 bit software.

Doubt that. You must NOT be referring to the DOS-based games. I.E. later Entertainment Packs were 32-bit as opposed to EARLIER ones. Indeed you needed the Windows 3.x 32-bit add-in to achieve it with many. Better read up on 16-bit... They will NOT run on XP and up hence my doubt (you NEED a dual-boot). Go ahead and try OLD Duke Nukem (could be wrong about that one)!

edit - My bad - there is a "switch" for 16-bit...

http://www.winbeta.org/news/windows-8-will-run-16-bit-apps-says-microsoft

http://www.askvg.com/windows-8-comes-with-built-in-16-bit-application-support/

XP 16-bit problems -

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324767

...and more than likely Vista and Win7...

SO... they must have FIXED the nasty "bugs"... Kind of like "Compatibility Mode"...

I have got the games from Microsoft Entertainment Pack.Which was made for Windows 95 and Windows NT but works on all other versions of Windows and on Windows 8. But no,they are not the Doss games. I downloaded MEP from this website here-My link

Andrea Borman.

Edited June 14, 2012 by andreaborman

[Fredledingue]

With some effort and third party apps one can turn W8 into an almost pallatable system.

Still W7 is more advanced IMO.

[tomasz86]

I'm not sure if it's a security flaw in Windows 8 but I managed to edit a protected file using the 16-bit "edit.com" command. Could anyone else check it? I haven't got access to Windows 8 at the moment.

[MagicAndre1981]

what have you done? Use psr.exe to show all steps.