I don't hate Win8. I hate Win8.1 and what it did to my dual graphics drivers. Now I can't play a game without "Low Video Memory" popping up every few minutes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have dual graphics and it works fine for me. It is true that I had to reinstall the Win 8.1 version for the drivers, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got blue screens left and right after my upgrade to 8.1, every time for a different reason. Ended up just reformatting the hard drive and installing Windows 8 again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think hate is the right word. :P To be on-topic: if it has more futile features, it's slower. I don't use w8 because I won't use most of the new features. From my point of view, the OS should only come with the basic features - after that I'll install addons I'll need.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bullshit :) this picture is just wrong...where is Win2k? And why is WinXP good? It was awfull, first with Service Pack 3 really usable...and why is Vista then bad when XP was good? It works now so good with SP2 like Win7 SP1...when XP is good Vista should be shown too as good...
So, you see...Picture is bullshit :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Win2k became quite popular, but Microsoft intended it to be part of the NT-Series for professional use rather then for Home-PCs and the Multimedia/Gaming-Crowd.. so it doesn´t relly belong in this list, even though it feels like it should be there ;)
Not sure what your beef with XP is though.. sure, it still had a lot of flaws, but it was quite good for its time and it was the first Windows I actually liked to use. By todays standards its bad of course, but so is Win95.
Comment has been collapsed.
WinXP was totally crap when it was first released. There were multiple problems with it. I remember that something with its registration was not popular and not working right everywhere. It also was extremely unstable and had to be rebooted very often.
The biggest problem was though, that at that time Win2k was working great and very stable. WinXP looked worse for Win2k users than Vista did for WinXP users.
The service packs and its very long time of support made WinXP finally an okay OS.
Comment has been collapsed.
Common mistake: They are not the same. WinME is the last of the Win9x OS-series. Win2K is the last of the NT series and it already integrated parts of the Win9x series, so you could call it the technological predecessor to XP.
Microsoft really messed up with the names, suggesting that Win2000 is more similar to Win95/Win98 instead of WinME.
Comment has been collapsed.
SP3 was mostly a collection of updates everybody already had anyway, so you can't really say it got usable with SP3. it already was. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This setup works for me.
Get-AppxPackage -AllUsers | Remove-AppxPackageGet-AppXProvisionedPackage -online | Remove-AppxProvisionedPackage -online net user administrator /active:yes Comment has been collapsed.
I actually prefer the look and feel of the old File Explorer by far.
And using SuperF4, I have never had any program I was unable to close.
And the options I get with DisplayFusion make the multi-monitor taskbar from windows 8 completely inferior imho.
Comment has been collapsed.
The advantage of the new File Explorer is that everything is right there, out in the open. Even turning on Hidden Item viewing is as easy as selecting a checkbox in the View tab.
The only advantage that DisplayFusion has is the ability to put the clock and notification icons on both screens. Win8 allows you to only show the items open on a screen on that screen's taskbar. If you're talking about the quick-launch icons, that's also an option that you can turn on. Also, DisplayFusion is $30 :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Not fixing what isn't broken is quite a lot different to releasing an updated version of an OS (application). What YouTube did was a case of fixing stuff that did not need to be fixed in the first place, Windows 8 or 8.1 however simply provides a different version of the OS.
Comment has been collapsed.
Easy to explain, even major sites hated the Metro UI(ModernUI) and all the peoples started to hate it again...and now Windows 8 is the tile Windows which only works with touchscreens...what is bullshit how we know...but the peoples dont want stop the hate...but! it gets better...more and more peoples tried/worked with windows 8 and theyre meaning changed...
When someone really, absolutely doesnt like the new START MENU(that is metro, nothing more) they can install alternative Launchers...like you...and can work since ever with that "shit" old menu...
I love/like the new menu. You see way more programs on one view, you can organize it better, it has some apps which are, for some, usefull AND the live tickers rock too...i can understand why some wont understand it...but the hate is wrong, just wrong...win8 offers way more then just the Metro Start Menu...
Now let the hate flow :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I don't like it because it's confusing and unnecessary change for me, I'm sure many people think the same way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing that's full screen is better than a small window that only covers a small portion of your screen when you access it.
Comment has been collapsed.
So games are better in a small window instead of full screen?
I agree regarding the start menu but just saying that you can't extend that to every application.
The way I see it is that full screen should be reserved for things that require your undivided attention for significant amounts of time but not much else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tell me why? When you use the search within the start menu it is completely nonsense to hate against ModernUI because it works the same...and for the peoples which are used to use the desktop icons and/or the folder structure from the old menu will love the new menu...because it shows every program you pinned there...
i can pin now...hm...how much can i pin on that screen? over 300 Icons...300! before i had only 10...and the desktop...but how do you get to the desktop? You need to minimize all Windows or press the button/hotkey for showing the desktop to find the icon you searched for...and then? you need to open all windows again...with modernui i just click in the left corner or press the windows button and see, like, a second desktop...without minimizing all the open stuff...
At me it would be the browser, steam client, irc, folders, photoshop and some times more...and then bring it back all up again...thanks, but no thanks...
Comment has been collapsed.
You've got the right idea with Metro being a big reason for the hate. It sucks that you have to jump through some hoops to remove something that has no place on a desktop PC but if you're a gamer getting a new PC (including new OS) there isn't any reason good enough to go Windows 7 over Windows 8.1.
Comment has been collapsed.
I switched from XP to 7 last year do to pretty much needing a new system and for the RAM handling. I was with XP for a while but loved 98SE. Also running Classic Shell on 7.
Most Businesses don't need and won't use 8.
Hell, most don't need 7.
My friend worked at the DMV in Toronto and some programs were still DOS based.
8 is the Me for this decade. I will eventually move to 9 or whatever which I am guessing will look pretty much like an optimized 7.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Cardinal sin of user friendly, always makes everything a pain in the butt to use for advanced users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, you want to Shut Down? Well just follow these easy steps!
Forget the Start Menu! Instead, put your mouse cursor in the bottom right corner to make the hidden sidebar thing appear. Obviously, right? Now, click the "Gear/Settings" button. Then "Power", then "Shut Down".
So much easier than Start (clearly visible button) + Shut Down right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Neither it's much harder. It takes approximately one extra second, but you of course count only clicks solely because the difference is more prominent.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point is, it's far less intuitive. How does a new user know there is a hidden menu that pops up if you put your mouse in the bottom right corner? They don't.
How would a new user know that "Settings" contains the Shut Down options? They wouldn't.
A system shouldn't be designed to cause confusion and generate questions. People shouldn't need to look up simple commands.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "Shut Down" thing is just an example. Things are just harder to find now and the UI is less intuitive than it was before.
Comment has been collapsed.
They're not. Some of them are just in different places than you used to, and that makes it harder personally for you to find them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Easy, people don't like changes, that's all. Instead of learning how a new OS works and using all new features that could make the work less tedious, they just like to complain on the internet.
The UAC was complained as well, ignoring the fact that the same security system is widely used on MAC OS and a lot of Linux distributions, plus is a nice tool when used on office areas made of LANs and WANs, where the admin needs to put restriction to prevent security issues. Even then, it was one of the major complains about Vista.
Comment has been collapsed.
Easy, people don't like FORCED changes.
If the Metro UI was fully optional, that you can either enable or disable (without using 3rd party tools), I'm sure there wouldn't be half as much drama as there is now.
I consider the Metro UI on a desktop computer a clunky and very incommodious way to navigate.
Just as ridiculous as a Desktop UI on a touch screen device.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody forces you to format and install W8 and when buying a new computer you can ask for a different OS than the preinstalled one.
Other than that, if you are the average user and you don't want to spend a few clicks to install a 3rd party tool (which just simplified the restore of the start bar - you can do it by yourself using the powershell), you just don't need to upgrade to W8, 7 works just fine, so again i don't see much room for complains. Otherwise, for work purposes, Metro and a touchscreen device are probably one of the best choices on the market at the moment. A tablet is good, but is unsuited for working in a LAN.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most OEM manufacturers (the PCs that you find in a retail store) do force their customers to go with the most recent OS. "Ask for a different OS than the preinstalled one" is a case of customer service and not something obligatory.
I'm not one of those people however, since I build my computers from scratch.
And why would I pass on a otherwise great OS for just one stupid feature, that I don't like?
You also don't dump the whole pizza, because you don't like that one piece of salami on it, do you?
I'm just saying, they could keep that so called change to the OS but make it optional by default, so people could meet their own decision, rather than being dictated what to use and what not to use.
Sure they want to advertise their newest features but enforcing them is PLAIN WRONG.
Comment has been collapsed.
An antitrust law dictated that the customer has the right to decide whatever OS wants on his new system, regardless of OEMs instruction, at least when it's not possible due to technical reasons.
And i'm used to remove that piece of salami by myself instead of calling the pizza guy and wasting hours complaining at the telephone.
But yeah, not being capable of changing from the beginning it's bullshit, but since it's easily avoided i think that is not a big deal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody forces you to use Modern UI (yes, it's not called Metro) and it is fully optional.
Comment has been collapsed.
If UAC pops up "for every goddamn thing" then you're doing something you;re not supposed to be doing. Under normal circumstances you virtually don't see it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Granted, Vista's UAC was far from perfect, but for offices and networks was the security measure that XP lacked of and it's better than having users do everything or nothing. For home use it's annoying, but since you can turn it off, again i don't see a big deal. People would complained anyway if Vista was full of holes like XP, so it's a nice addition.
Also 7's UAC works great and is a lot more powerful than Vista's, leaving way less justifications for complains, but still...
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot is probably also instigated by crApple fanboys.
But its always been like that since XP. Everyone was screaming how much Vista sucked, while its vastly superior to XP.
Win7 was pretty well received, and yet again people go nuts on Win8, while that too is nearly the same as Win7 with a more touch-friendly interface. I too didn't agree with the removal of the start button, but its easy to get used to. Fear of change is in human nature, but it shouldn't overrule common sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but its one thing to not upgrade your OS but its another to go out of your way to buy a computer that still has an outdated OS installed, or downgrade your OS, which is what a lot of people do when they whine about the latest windows version.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do actually, and then I upgrade whatever needs some.
Mainly laziness, I could also build one from scratch... I just don't see the added benefit of it, singular parts often turn out to be a lot more expensive.
Comment has been collapsed.
See it as bulk discount, manufacturers buy parts in huge amount - thus get a huge discount on them. Maybe it's an import issue, but where I come from... buying a pre-built PC is much cheaper in general. Dell will still be overpriced, but an ASUS one can easily save you 25% over buying spare parts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not that far away from you, only a little bit south, I've seen the prices. There always some crappy part where they save money on, usually some budget GPU :p
Now I know why the Steam discussion board is spammed by so many people who have shitty 610's and 630's gpu's :p
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact that its nearly the same doesn't really matter imho. No, an upgrade might not be necessary, but you could still be using Win95 under that logic.
The Win8 upgrade was as cheap as it gets too. Personally I would've make a huge fuss of the price of the OS, its the most important piece of software that you will be using every second the computer is running.
And by the looks of it, Win9 won't be coming for another 2 years.
Comment has been collapsed.
True enough, but the game does look very interesting. A bigger incentive than another Halo game on PC at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure if I was clear enough when I started this thread...
I'm not arguing that people should upgrade to Win8 from Win7, I'm simply saying that there's no good reason why someone should choose to buy Win7 instead of Win8, for a new PC.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point exactly, downgrading is never a good thing. (GFX drivers excluded)
Comment has been collapsed.
People probably already have windows 7, buying parts is cheaper than buying overpriced brand crap. Save money, keep using Windows 7 till Windows 9 hits. Win win :p
If they don't have a choice/gonna buy a laptop, I would buy a PC with windows 8, install my old windows 7, and sell the Windows 8. But I suppose some just dont care/even like it so they'll just keep it. :p
Comment has been collapsed.
Not only is Windows 8 an OS of bad decisions, the design is a step towards becoming a closed platform similar to what Apple has been doing. The most obvious examples of this are the closed Windows RT and the store integration that highly restricts the Metro interface.
It is an attractive model for the company and horrible for the customers. Negative feedback is necessary in order to keep Microsoft from taking it further in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
I updated my previous post slightly already, but I'll try to elaborate a bit.
The Windows RT version is already completely closed by limiting the desktop applications that you can install and integrating itself to the store. The desktop Metro interface is also integrated to the store and the applications for it are limited. The cloud attempts to tie a lot of our data to the company.
If allowed to take the design further, the company will without a question push more restrictions and integrate the store beyond what it is currently. This is a nightmarish scenario that in the worst case limits us to Windows certified applications only. As an example based on how the terms are currently worded, this would result in no Steam or several mature video games on the PC. Microsoft would instead, very likely, push their Xbox solutions as the main gaming platform. Any PC gaming would be pushed through the app store.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main issue is that the current design completely closes out the non-certified third party applications, regardless whether they'd be designed for the architecture or not.
This results in a level of quality control, but also gives Microsoft a monopoly and is restrictive for the consumers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey guys let's compare a mobile version of an OS to a desktop version of an OS. Ignoring the matter of hardware, let's just say that the mobile version is highly restricted, and should thus be compared to the desktop version, which is much, much more open. Partition your hard drive / install a new one on a desktop and run linux in combination with Win8? Go right ahead. Install any number of free/purchased 3rd party software on the desktop version of win8? Go right ahead!
That's a fair comparison, amiright?
Comment has been collapsed.
Thats why i will never move to Win8, i dont like its wanna be Apple design, and I fucking hate Apple company... Android Fan here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just a heads up, Startisback is in my opinion a much better start menu implementation than Classic Shell.
Windows 8 isn't that bad once you install a start menu program and bypass the start screen entirely. But there are other niggles as well. The insistence of providing cloud-based solutions to what were previously integrated solutions is annoying. The removal of easy access to features like shadow copies is annoying. The fact that you have to install third-party software to make it usable is annoying. The fact that they decided to implement their GUI changes to server OS's as well is annoying. Overall it's an annoyance of an OS and imo not worth the bother of upgrading if you already have Windows 7.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it's different. The human being will always feel strange when something new is presented to him. But over time, people get used to it.
I didn't like Win 8 in the beginning either and I sure as hell didn't want it on my PC, until I bought a laptop and had no choice. Honestly, I felt kinda dumb because I didn't know how to do shit on it, but it took me, what, 1 or 2 days to get used to how it works, and now I even like it.
We will always prefer routines over anything. We tend to always sit on the same seat in the bus, or at the cafe. That's how it works.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got a new computer this past August. I asked for Windows 8.
At first, I disliked the lack of a Start Menu, but loved the quick boot time. Then I got to think of the Start Screen as if it were the Start Menu (in my machine, it comes up very fast, so it is not a bad comparison). Got my most used applications and files right there, sorted them my way, and now I am quite happy with it. Just MHO.
Comment has been collapsed.
People are afraid of change. I honestly didn't like windows 8 until I tried it on a surface. Win 8 on anything that's not a touchscreen doesn't feel right.
My next pc will probably have Win 8
Comment has been collapsed.
38 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CelticBatman
12 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CelticBatman
20 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MeguminShiro
4 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
1,152 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by jzone55
40 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Mitsukuni
23 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Fluffster
82 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by ipax11
19 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by malkavian1331
357 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by Bum8ara5h
71 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by ExcelElmira
39 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by ClapperMonkey
15,373 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by DJGreggyGreg
35 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by Srekzor
Ok, I could understand all of the anti-hype around Windows 8 when it first came out, and I definitely don't think that people should shell out $100 to go from Win7 to 8. However, when you're buying a new PC and getting a new OS, why not go with Win8?
It's got a great implementation of a multi-monitor taskbar, a much better File Explorer, and a much better Task Manager (when you tell it to close something, it actually works). Benchmarks have shown that it's a bit faster in games than Win7, and it uses slightly fewer resources. Nothing to write home about, but that does matter on weaker computers.
Most of the complaints come from the scary new Start Menu and the obviously tablet oriented apps. A quick installation of Classic Shell gets rid of both of those horrible beasties, and allows you to add in custom links (which, if I'm not mistaken, you can't do in Windows 7).
In case you're not familiar with Windows 8, here's what my copy looks like atm: http://i.imgur.com/iz7eWg2.jpg
Can somebody shed some light on why one should ignore Windows 8 when they're getting a new PC?
Comment has been collapsed.