Windows 8

[JJerome]

True, and just because you like it doesn't mean it's an upgrade.

the reasons I like it are because it is an upgrade. take the ability to pause file transfers for example. it also has a lot of security improvements that windows 7 lacks.

All of the changes from Win7 can each be spun by the respective group into either an advantage or a disadvantage.

but not if someone is objectively speaking. how can one possibly argue that (for example) the new file transfer features are a disadvantage over what was previously offered, when they have more functionality?

Objectivity does not mean anything in the context of how well a tool works for you.

see above. if the features are better than their predecessors, then yes it means something. there can be no (honest) denial that it has improved features over windows 7, even if one doesn't like the os as a whole.

take windows vista for example. almost nobody liked it when it launched (?) but there can be no denying that it was a improvement over windows xp.

Edited September 21, 2012 by JJerome

[bphlpt]

take windows vista for example. almost nobody liked it when it launched (?) but there can be no denying that it was a improvement over windows xp.

LOL I think there are MANY that will argue, rightly or wrongly, with that statement. I also agree that Vista was probably underrated, but that is not the point

Seriously, I am not trying to start a flame war and I will not participate in one. If you like Win8, or Win7, or Vista, or XP, or Win2K, or 98, or any of the various flavors of Linux, and it meets your needs and you have no reason to change, then by all means continue to use it, be happy and have a nice day.

Cheers and Regards

[aviv00]

I'm pretty enjoy windows 8

cant stand metro tho but with explorer7 hack everything is cool

the speed and responsive are better, boot time improve too

for example changing tabs at Firefox is faster no hicks up no lags

however there small gives up like Aero

overall its a good upgrade

the most changing in this OS is in its core the users wont see them at once

Edited September 21, 2012 by aviv00

[vinifera]

take windows vista for example. almost nobody liked it when it launched (?) but there can be no denying that it was a improvement over windows xp.

LOL I think there are MANY that will argue, rightly or wrongly, with that statement. I also agree that Vista was probably underrated, but that is not the point

well said

Vista as itself has nothing that much radical improved over XP

I personally only liked the introduction of DWM which removes the GDI limitations that XP had which caused that OS to be totally unusable

[MagicAndre1981]

Vista as itself has nothing that much radical improved over XP

I hope this is a joke. Otherwise I can only say this: Vista was the largest architecture improvement ever to Windows

You should buy the Windows Internals book 4 (covers Xp and 2003) and 5 (covers Vista and Server 2008) to see the huge amount of improvements. Small improvements were made in Windows 7 compared to Vista...

[JorgeA]

what can the start menu do that the start screen can't??

Unlike the regular Start Menu, the Metro start screen takes over the whole monitor -- which is a hindrance to work, for instance when I'm trying to follow complicated instructions witn unfamiliar program names in a desktop window and the Metro screen covers up the next step I have to take. With the regular Start Menu, I can open it and look for the next program while still being able to see the directions telling me what I need to do.

--JorgeA

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

the reasons I like it are because it is an upgrade. take the ability to pause file transfers for example. it also has a lot of security improvements that windows 7 lacks.

IMHO, there are a ton of reasons to despise Windows 8 and Metro and only a couple to like it. But I do want to understand this alleged file copy dialog improvement.

Considering the transfer speeds we have now, what on Earth is the reason for pausing a copy? For almost two decades we have been able to start copying something, and if it doesn't complete it's task instantly simply ALT-TAB to something else, letting it go it's merry way! As the HDD and controller and other mass storage and peripheral speeds have increased enormously, problems and complaints have all but vanished. At the very least it is a classic example of fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place, like changing a car's rims to spokes for the next model year and saying wow! what an improvement!.

I'm guessing this a consequence of the retrograde ( as opposed to upgrade ) Windows 8 philosophy of reviving the thankfully long dead concept of single or dual-tasking, and the customers' are being be dragged down to same the level of revisionism, that of singing the praises of the state of the art in windows 3.x.

Besides, I think the filename collision dialogs are terrible, all of them from Vista forward. They are pretty much a joke and illustrate a dialog designed by a committee of bureaucrats. All we really needed to fix the 'legacy' conflict resolution was an option for "NO TO ALL" and it would have been fine. Oh yeah, a file compare option as well. But 'pausing' a copy?!? Who ordered that?

EDIT: just want to add that this alleged improvement should be quantitatively cited by those extolling it's virtues, how many times could one possibly need to pause a copy operation, if ever. This thing is exactly like the phony bootup speed improvement. After you subtract out hybrid sleep, and non-Windows hardware speed improvement from moving from BIOS to UEFI, what is the net gain? 20 seconds?

Edited September 21, 2012 by CharlotteTheHarlot

[vinifera]

@rant of start screen

the concept behind start screen is good bud terrible executed (like all MS ideas )

screens are big and long these days and could remove need of start menu

but only if you could have either tabbed (or "modern" buttoned) sections instead subfolders that menu has

and you'd simply have icons with names below nicely named and sorted just like in folder

there's no need for useless scrolling or intrusive full screen crap

this don't take rocket scientist to make but they fail at any UX design and make it crap

I still fail to see how they can say they spend hundreds thousands of $ on user testing and experience when in final product they always serve garbage

Edited September 21, 2012 by vinifera

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Seriously??

I would pay easily 10-100x the cost for native dvd and blue ray codecs. (I read the actual license cost for MS boils down to dimes a license sold per OS)

Millions are going to be screwed by the big-brother smartscreen filter. (It's not like a click will turn it off, it is not really easy)

Tiles (NCI) suck a** when using a desktop, plus we will see how the hundreds of popular games play on it.

[cad]

I don't start a file transfer to pause it, I want it done or I would not start it.

So file transfer pause is a waste of time.

[alucke]

I installed Windows 8 90 day trial, and I am going back to Windows 7. Since Windows 8 has no native dvd support and no media center built in. I will not pay to have those items as an add on.

[Servelius]

I installed Windows 8 90 day trial, and I am going back to Windows 7. Since Windows 8 has no native dvd support and no media center built in. I will not pay to have those items as an add on.

===> http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/microsoft/how-to-install-windows-media-center-in-windows-8-pro-rtm.asp

------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I truly hate is the lack of shadows on my running windows, it makes their borders less visible and thus rather inconvinient. Even Windows XP style was better.

Using both 7 & 8.

[maziljones]

There are several differences between Windows 7 and Windows 8. Windows 8 has a different start menu and better multiple monitor support. Its cloud integration is very impressive. Though this is equipped with latest technologies and functionalities I personally suggest you to stay with Windows 7.

Edited October 30, 2012 by maziljones