If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   Windows 8: A Christmas gift for someone you hate   (seattlepi.com) divider line 210
    More: Obvious, A Christmas Gift  
•       •       •

5378 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Dec 2012 at 12:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-07 12:34:19 PM

jack21221: I have 50 desktop icons on my PC, and I know exactly where everything is. I don't see how "searchable" would be a major benefit, and what do you mean by "with information?" My desktop shortcuts and folders all have names. Is that not information enough?



I assume that you arrange your icons by "Penis".
 
2012-12-07 12:43:05 PM

Ba'boon: So much uninformed bashing in this thread.

And yes - you can run two apps in a split-screen mode at the same time. And you can have tons of apps open in the background, and switching is super easy. And being able to search your calendar, people, files, apps, music, web, etc. all from the same place is hella convenient.

I love the new remote desktop app - It's like tabs for Remote Desktop. Using the old rdp desktop application now feels like using browsers before they invented tabs.

The calendar/chat notifications are great - even when I'm just working in the desktop. The default weather app is incredible. I've had a little problem with my bluetooth module, but beyond that, this upgrade has been great for me.


Can I have three to five different applications open and visible at the same time? I need AutoCad, Trane Trace, Excel all open at the same time. Plus add in Adobe Acrobat and MS Word to round it out. If I have to stop to decide which two applications I have side by side I will blow a gasket. It goes without saying that I will have a slew of other office programs open (Outlook, PBX outlook phone tie, Equipment sizing and selection software, etc)
 
2012-12-07 12:44:35 PM
Sounds to me that Windows 8 can be customized to be usable. Every version of windows has needed some customization out of the box to be less stupid. For instance fading or moving menus. Why anyone would want to wait .2 seconds to see a menu that they could otherwise see instantly baffles me. It takes me about 40 minutes to set up windows 7 to be fast and efficient. Took about 20 to get XP working right. So I would assume Windows 8 takes about an hour and a half or less to make look right and work well. As long as it doesn't add any clicks to any navigation processes or any wait time to any function and the interface uses almost zero resources I'll be okay with it.
 
2012-12-07 12:50:59 PM

No Such Agency: You must have loved buying a new PC for the last decade or so, then. Purging all the preinstalled, naggy pay-to-upgrade bloatware (if you can find it all) is like the last thing I want to do with a shiny new computer, but it has become necessary to reclaim half your RAM and at least a few GB of drive space :(


Ha! Yeah, it's the first order of business when buying any new computer. Had to do that with the girlfriend's computer too.

Da Bum: I assume that you arrange your icons by "Penis".


Nah, just filling the left half of the screen, with the icons I use most in the rightmost column, and the "defaults" in the leftmost column (my computer, control panel, documents, network, recycle bin, etc).

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Windows 8's biggest failing is not the UI itself, but the misuse of it on non-touchscreen implementations. Which is partially Microsoft's fault for introducing/marketing it as a Windows 7 replacement, rather than what they should have done which is to sell it as an OS exclusively for touchscreen-based systems.


This is my biggest problem with it. I'm not quite ready to buy a new computer, but in the next year or two, I'll have to. When I buy a new computer, I want the option to still install Windows 7. My fear is that nobody will be selling anything with Windows 7 on it, and I'll be forced into buying Windows 8. I don't use any of the shiny new bells and whistles that people are talking about on here (no touchscreen, no social media, no songs on my computer, etc), so I don't want to have to wade through all this stuff I don't use. Windows 7 is clearly the best option for me, but Microsoft seems to be trying to cram Windows 8 and its tablet PC UI down everybody's throats. When Windows 7 came out, Vista all but vanished overnight; all new PCs seemed to use Windows 7 instead. I am afraid that will happen to Windows 7 now that 8 is out.
 
2012-12-07 12:55:12 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Minktastic Mink!: Microsoft redeemed themselves with Windows 7 by making their best OS since 3.1. Now they insult their users by making what is essentially At Ease for System 7. Yuck.

Y'know, Windows 7 got a lot of bashing too. I still strongly disdain a lot of the things they did with it. I've switched to almost exclusively using netsh to control networking because it irritates me that they've buried the interfaces under four or five other screens and I still couldn't tell you to this day how to get to the file/folder settings that used to be so conveniently placed in a menu on explorer... you know... where you'd be anyway if you needed to change those things. And forget networked printers. I've given up trying to install them in any way but creating a new IP port and using the Have Disk option because half the time you just wind up sitting at that stupid Windows Update prompt waiting for 10 minutes for it to fail to find a driver on the assumption that you're too dumb to browse to one yourself.

Personally, I think Windows XP SP2/3 was the last good Microsoft OS. Windows 7 was tolerable because it added a lot of features, but it also pisses me off that they moved so much shiat around for no reason and forced the search bar on you as a replacement for clear and well-labeled menus.

They've been trying to go the Apple idiotization route ever since Vista. Windows 8 is just the biggest leap in the direction of computing-for-tards so it's the one that gets the most hellfire. Vista and 7 were pretty stupid too, though, in their own rights.


I know I'm going to come off sounding like an evangelist here, and that isn't my intent. However... why not use Linux? The KDE desktop is Windows 7-like, XFCE feels like a polished XP (including a better implementation of nested menus than MS ever had), GNOME Shell and Unity are more like Win 8, but you might still like them better.
 
2012-12-07 12:56:32 PM

jack21221: This is my biggest problem with it. I'm not quite ready to buy a new computer, but in the next year or two, I'll have to. When I buy a new computer, I want the option to still install Windows 7. My fear is that nobody will be selling anything with Windows 7 on it, and I'll be forced into buying Windows 8. I don't use any of the shiny new bells and whistles that people are talking about on here (no touchscreen, no social media, no songs on my computer, etc), so I don't want to have to wade through all this stuff I don't use. Windows 7 is clearly the best option for me, but Microsoft seems to be trying to cram Windows 8 and its tablet PC UI down everybody's throats. When Windows 7 came out, Vista all but vanished overnight; all new PCs seemed to use Windows 7 instead. I am afraid that will happen to Windows 7 now that 8 is out.


I guess you just don't like reading or listening other opinions. As I, and others mentioned, Windows 8 is AS GOOD AS or better than Windows 7 (depending on your needs), it is in no way worse. It is unlikely to be worth the price and aggravation of an upgrade for you, but when buying a new computer there is no compelling reason to NOT get it other than being obstinate.
 
2012-12-07 01:02:10 PM

Elfich: Ba'boon: So much uninformed bashing in this thread.

And yes - you can run two apps in a split-screen mode at the same time. And you can have tons of apps open in the background, and switching is super easy. And being able to search your calendar, people, files, apps, music, web, etc. all from the same place is hella convenient.

I love the new remote desktop app - It's like tabs for Remote Desktop. Using the old rdp desktop application now feels like using browsers before they invented tabs.

The calendar/chat notifications are great - even when I'm just working in the desktop. The default weather app is incredible. I've had a little problem with my bluetooth module, but beyond that, this upgrade has been great for me.

Can I have three to five different applications open and visible at the same time? I need AutoCad, Trane Trace, Excel all open at the same time. Plus add in Adobe Acrobat and MS Word to round it out. If I have to stop to decide which two applications I have side by side I will blow a gasket. It goes without saying that I will have a slew of other office programs open (Outlook, PBX outlook phone tie, Equipment sizing and selection software, etc)


Yes. The desktop behaves exactly as in Vista/7, and you can have as many windows open as your heart desires. AutoCAD, etc., won't be metro apps anyway.

If you're really using that many apps, you probably have multiple monitors. One major improvement in W8 is better multi-mon support, specifically more customization options about app launching, the desktop, and the taskbar on your other monitors. For example, your taskbar on your second monitor can show all windows, or only the ones on that monitor, and can show custom toolbars or not.
 
2012-12-07 01:05:17 PM
Alexei Novikov:
The incredibly crappy old Toshiba laptop I'm on has a 2.0 GHz dual core, 3GB of RAM, and a sad 5,400 RPM hard drive, and it still boots, from power button to desktop, in 14-15 sec.

People on the internet make me laugh. If your laptop has dual core and multiple GB of RAM, it's not "incredibly crappy [and] old". It's a few years old and still works fine from the sounds of it.

If you're still adding the SET BLASTER= line into your autoexec.bat file by hand, then maybe we can talk "incredibly" old ;)
 
2012-12-07 01:14:03 PM

Deuterium: I hate Windows 8. I've never used it myself, but I've read enough online reviews to know I should hate it.


Worst part about it? Not NEARLY coffee-shop friendly enough.
 
2012-12-07 01:23:42 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: red5ish: I don't have any shortcuts on my desktop. I dislike clutter. I use the task bar instead. Now Microsoft has come up with an OS that looks like this:
[img13.imageshack.us image 800x450]
In my opinion, this is very ugly.

If you are using a touchscreen, which is clearly what Windows 8 is geared towards, then a task bar oriented desktop is a horrible, horrible idea.

Windows 8's biggest failing is not the UI itself, but the misuse of it on non-touchscreen implementations. Which is partially Microsoft's fault for introducing/marketing it as a Windows 7 replacement, rather than what they should have done which is to sell it as an OS exclusively for touchscreen-based systems.


Yeah, if they wanted to just make mutant Chromebook/iPad combo thing with this on it, then fine. (Isn't that what "Windows RT" is anyways?) But making this as the next desktop OS was amazingly stupid.
 
2012-12-07 01:31:16 PM

jack21221: WhippingBoy: Windows 8 isn't that bad.

You realize that this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, right? By all accounts, Windows 7 was "really good," and here you're saying Windows 8 "isn't that bad." So why would anybody choose windows 8 over windows 7?

Actually, I'm going to leave that as a standing question to everybody. What benefits does Windows 8 have over Windows 7?


By "not that bad", it means it's an incremental improvement over 7. Just a list of things Windows 8 does better:

1. Significantly less resource usage than 7
2. Storage spaces - love love love this
3. Restrictions on what can become a boot process - i.e. you won't have everyone from Adobe to that guy's activeX app your mom clicked on launching themselves at startup (this is the biggest reason most computers become slower over time).
4. Restrictions on background processes - no more applications installing random stuff as a system service, they all run as user (subject to resource restrictions).
5. Significantly smaller HD footprint.
6. Device interrupt coalescing -- in a mobile device (tablet, for instance) it won't wake up for any random PCI device that wants to do something. Instead, it queues up all of that and wakes up the CPU (and associated bus systems) in short bursts to service multiple devices. This is a significant power optimization.

All in all, they did a significant amount of work to make it feasible to run on low-level tablet hardware (less RAM, limited HD space, less processing power) with battery life in mind. And by all measurable means, they've done a good job.

But yes, by all means, biatch about the "colors"
 
2012-12-07 01:33:28 PM

FormlessOne: Old enough to know better: I've watched youtube videos of 8 in action and honestly I don't get all the hate. Doesn't seem that horrible.

Still not getting it of course. Not really enough of an improvement over 7 to justify the cost.

If you have 7 on an existing machine, keep 7 - if you're getting a new machine, get 8. That's really where the money is at present for them, as there's no pressing need to upgrade from 7. It's 7 with a few cool improvements (and a new UI that scares the old folks.)


It is not just a new UI. There are a significant amount of features that are just plain gone or are extremely tedious to reach. If your computer usage consists of install application or game. Use/play application game. Surf web. Then sure, there is not much to complain about. If you actually have to troubleshoot / debug problems within the OS it is nothing short of a complete pain in the arse.
 
2012-12-07 01:37:59 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: why not use Linux


Active directory and exchange remote management.

My primary machine runs debian, but I still have a Windows 7, soon to be 8, VM that I run so I can use the various AD DS and Exchange snap-ins and command line tools without having to remote to ab actual domain controller (which is Core anyway so I'd have to do everything in powershell).
 
2012-12-07 01:38:12 PM
OK, stupid question.

I normally have a Win 7 workstation, plenty of horsepower. I have 2 large monitors (23 each) and I have 6 or 7 applications up running across them displaying network stats or server metrics in real-time. Plus LookOut! and a browser or two as well.

Does 8 support this? All I seem to have read so far seems to indicate two monitors means two running apps. That would be a non-starter for me.

(Doesn't have a copy of 8 to try)
 
2012-12-07 01:38:34 PM

imgod2u: jack21221: WhippingBoy: Windows 8 isn't that bad.

You realize that this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, right? By all accounts, Windows 7 was "really good," and here you're saying Windows 8 "isn't that bad." So why would anybody choose windows 8 over windows 7?

Actually, I'm going to leave that as a standing question to everybody. What benefits does Windows 8 have over Windows 7?

By "not that bad", it means it's an incremental improvement over 7. Just a list of things Windows 8 does better:

1. Significantly less resource usage than 7
2. Storage spaces - love love love this
3. Restrictions on what can become a boot process - i.e. you won't have everyone from Adobe to that guy's activeX app your mom clicked on launching themselves at startup (this is the biggest reason most computers become slower over time).
4. Restrictions on background processes - no more applications installing random stuff as a system service, they all run as user (subject to resource restrictions).
5. Significantly smaller HD footprint.
6. Device interrupt coalescing -- in a mobile device (tablet, for instance) it won't wake up for any random PCI device that wants to do something. Instead, it queues up all of that and wakes up the CPU (and associated bus systems) in short bursts to service multiple devices. This is a significant power optimization.

All in all, they did a significant amount of work to make it feasible to run on low-level tablet hardware (less RAM, limited HD space, less processing power) with battery life in mind. And by all measurable means, they've done a good job.

But yes, by all means, biatch about the "colors"


There were several things in there that I had not heard about, as most tech mags are focusing on some tips and the UI biatching, but a lot of those are good talking points for OS optimization.
 
2012-12-07 01:40:10 PM

xaks: OK, stupid question.

I normally have a Win 7 workstation, plenty of horsepower. I have 2 large monitors (23 each) and I have 6 or 7 applications up running across them displaying network stats or server metrics in real-time. Plus LookOut! and a browser or two as well.

Does 8 support this? All I seem to have read so far seems to indicate two monitors means two running apps. That would be a non-starter for me.

(Doesn't have a copy of 8 to try)


Yes, you can still do all of that. When they say 'Two Apps for Multimonitors" they're talking about the Metro UI apps, that are essentially built for fullscreen viewing, as if you were on a tablet. Regular x86/x64 programs still work on Windows 8, and in desktop environment, you can have as many open as you want.
 
2012-12-07 02:07:40 PM

BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: A person that cared about not being utterly wrong would not have typed these sentences. You will eat Microsoft's shiat sandwich and like it, damnit!

Do whatever you want with your OS, shiathead. Just don't tell me I have to use Metro with 8 when I have 8 and don't use Metro.

Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?


I like how we're automatically shills.
 
2012-12-07 02:08:26 PM
I understand why both OS X and Windows have been pushing for more apps to be run fullscreen: for single-tasking, it's without question the most efficient use of screen real estate. But it's a usability problem for multi-tasking, and the Metro concept of main window + sidebar isn't flexible enough.

Letting the user position windows to single-pixel precision benefits the OS more than it benefits the user, and overlapping windows are a vestigial skeumorphism from the days when a business process required moving pieces of paper from one stack to another.

So what's the solution? A tiled interface where you define your panels' positions relative to each other and the system sizes them to occupy the available space has promise, but Eclipse users can attest that this idea has problems if the panel arrangement features are not clear.
 
2012-12-07 02:13:34 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: why not use Linux

Active directory and exchange remote management.

My primary machine runs debian, but I still have a Windows 7, soon to be 8, VM that I run so I can use the various AD DS and Exchange snap-ins and command line tools without having to remote to ab actual domain controller (which is Core anyway so I'd have to do everything in powershell).


Same as my setup (Debian as primary OS, Windows in a VM). I figured most Farkers would have (at least) played with Linux at some point. You didn't include Linux in your previous post (only Windows and OSX), so I thought it was worth mentioning as an option.
 
2012-12-07 02:13:51 PM

poot_rootbeer: I understand why both OS X and Windows have been pushing for more apps to be run fullscreen: for single-tasking, it's without question the most efficient use of screen real estate. But it's a usability problem for multi-tasking, and the Metro concept of main window + sidebar isn't flexible enough.

Letting the user position windows to single-pixel precision benefits the OS more than it benefits the user, and overlapping windows are a vestigial skeumorphism from the days when a business process required moving pieces of paper from one stack to another.

So what's the solution? A tiled interface where you define your panels' positions relative to each other and the system sizes them to occupy the available space has promise, but Eclipse users can attest that this idea has problems if the panel arrangement features are not clear.


Yes, but you're also just looking at Metro Apps themselves. You aren't thinking about Excel workbooks or Word Documents or Outlook emails. Those are still all on the desktop and still are able to be repositioned, overlapped, moved, resized, ect.
 
2012-12-07 02:43:42 PM

Marine1: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: A person that cared about not being utterly wrong would not have typed these sentences. You will eat Microsoft's shiat sandwich and like it, damnit!

Do whatever you want with your OS, shiathead. Just don't tell me I have to use Metro with 8 when I have 8 and don't use Metro.

Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?

I like how we're automatically shills.


Seriously. I like Windows 8. Where's my check, Microsoft? What the hell?

The Win8 UI is seriously just farking fine and even if it wasn't, the performance upgrade (and hard disk space reclamation) from ditching Vista is still totally worth the money. Metro is optional and it's completely unobtrusive. Once you clean up the irrational and cluttered default apps (why the hell did MS just throw a bunch of stuff on there without organizing it into groups, when that's an easily available function in the Metro UI?!) and unpin the stuff you don't want, the Start screen is brilliant. It's a perfect hybrid between desktop icons and quicklaunch bar.

And the desktop shell is gorgeous. No more frilly gradients and faux-glass stuff trying to copy OSX. Just simple, clear, easy-to-identify icons, solid colors, readable fonts, and a minimalist look that takes everything that was good about Windows 95 and updates it for the 21st century.

The one and only problem I've had so far is there's not an easy shortcut to close a Metro app (you can tab out of them or go to the desktop, and close from there, but you can't close an app from within that app, that I can find). But that's only a problem for Metro stuff, which I barely use at all.

Need a file/program you didn't pin? Just type its name in the Start screen or hit Win+Q from the desktop to search (or mouse to the upper-right corner and then click the search icon). System management tools? Right click in the lower left corner, you get a menu with task manager, disk management, control panel, etc. Want to see all your apps at once? Right-click on the start screen and click "all apps".

Shut down? There's a dozen ways to do that, all of them simple: Tap the power button on your machine. Or mouse to the upper right corner, hit the settings icon, hit the power icon. Or type ctrl-alt-delete, then hit the power icon. Type alt-F4 on the desktop. Go to the start screen, sign out from your user account, click the lock screen, hit the power icon on the sign-in screen. Or hit Win+L to get to the lock screen and shut down from there.
 
2012-12-07 02:54:24 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The one and only problem I've had so far is there's not an easy shortcut to close a Metro app (you can tab out of them or go to the desktop, and close from there, but you can't close an app from within that app, that I can find). But that's only a problem for Metro stuff, which I barely use at all.


Move your mouse to the top of the screen and your cursor should change to a hand. Now grab the app and pull down, and this will close the app. You can also pull it off to either side to dock it, but you were asking about closing. Also Alt+F4 works to close the current app.
 
2012-12-07 02:56:30 PM

Celerian: The biggest complaint I find is that people who HATE windows 8 are usually not willing to give up the "Start Menu" and feel that the OS is broken without it.


It's not broken, but it is jarring to have to switch to a totally different UI. The bigger problem for me is W8 takes the fashionable trend of hiding UI elements to the extreme. I HATE that. I even hate it in Chrome and IE and Firefox, when you use the default settings and nearly everything is hidden. Look, i have huge, high resolution screens, I don't need to save a little space with the tradeoff being I have to remember where to tickle the farking screen to bring up some UI elements.

Plus the flat boring design sucks ass. Aero glass is nice. I can turn it off myself if I'm running on a slow box, or use W7 embedded. I don't need to be brought to the lowest common denominator by default. fark's sake, should I put up with that crap on an i7 with monster graphics card? Does MS expect every vendor to boring-up their UI to be consistent with the new Windows?

Or, you could attempt to think about things a little differently and see that change isn't all bad

You're right. Ubuntu, for example, isn't bad at all. We have to write some drivers from scratch, but we'll save a bunch on licensing. I turned down my guys every time they brought up any linux distro until now, because windows was easy and it worked fine for us, but W8 opened my eyes that change is good.
 
2012-12-07 02:58:16 PM

Beta Tested:
I guess you just don't like reading or listening other opinions. As I, and others mentioned, Windows 8 is AS GOOD AS or better than Windows 7 (depending on your needs), it is in no way worse. It is unlikely to be worth the price and aggravation of an upgrade for you, but when buying a new computer there is no compelling reason to NOT get it other than being obstinate.


Sure there is: It would take a lot of customization and 3rd party programs to bring the UI back to what I'm used to. All of the Windows 8 "new stuff" is stuff that I'm not interested in and would have to take my time working around.

imgod2u: All in all, they did a significant amount of work to make it feasible to run on low-level tablet hardware (less RAM, limited HD space, less processing power) with battery life in mind. And by all measurable means, they've done a good job.


I don't doubt they've done a good job to make it work well on tablets. I don't own a tablet. I don't own a laptop. I use desktop PCs, and Microsoft seems to have forgotten those exist.
 
2012-12-07 03:04:02 PM
I finally got around to installing it. I do like some things about it, other things I don't like. Then there's little nits that make me feel like Windows 8 was half-baked and rushed out the door. This is for a desktop user.

1) If you make the window borders a dark color you can't see the text displayed in the borders anymore; they decided to make the text black... and you can't change it. The solution is to go to one of the awful high contrast settings. I don't get it though. Why put in an option that adjusts the color of the windows border but then forget to put in an option to change the text color?

2) Double click on an image. A photo app launches with the image displayed. Want to go to the next image located in the same folder? Just press the arrow like you always did. Nope, there's no arrow. You first have to add the folder to the Pictures library for anything to work properly in the photo app. So there it is, want to go to the next image? Go through the hassle of adding it to the library or close, reopen the app. The solution is to change the default program that interacts with images which brings me to my next point.

3) The apps suck. There's little or no customization to be had. The only app that didn't suck was the weather one. I unpinned all the others.

4) Why can't you use an image you want as the background on the Start screen? Why can't you change the image used on the Start screen tiles? Why are you stuck with large ugly squares with a tiny program icon in the middle? I've since found a program that allows you to do just that but I wonder.

If these were the FIRST things I tried to do with Windows 8 how did it ever get past the usability testing phase?

I don't mind the Start screen so much. I just let it be the screen where I dump what once were shortcuts on my desktop, allowing me to keep the desktop 'clean."
 
2012-12-07 03:13:13 PM

moel: thurstonxhowell: No. What I did when I did not want to use Metro was, and stick with me here because it gets pretty complicated, not use Metro. Like, instead of using it, I didn't. Complex, I know, but it works for me.

I did replace the start button out of fear of change, but I haven't used it, either. Seriously. I put the start button back, but haven't felt compelled to use it. Imagine that.

So...how do you access your apps?


They're pinned to the taskbar. If its not pinned to the taskbar, I go over to the search thing and search for it. It works pretty much like Searchlight a Mac. If you're talking about Metro Apps, I don't use them, so I don't need to access them.

BullBearMS: Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?


Hey, idiot, I'll repeat myself (paraphrased): I don't give half a shiat what you do or what you think. I was just trying to correct the factual error you made.
 
2012-12-07 03:20:38 PM
Clouds of change sweep overhead.
Old men wave their fists and yell.
Dogs bark, and the caravan moves on.
 
2012-12-07 03:22:30 PM

Bacontastesgood: Celerian: The biggest complaint I find is that people who HATE windows 8 are usually not willing to give up the "Start Menu" and feel that the OS is broken without it.

It's not broken, but it is jarring to have to switch to a totally different UI. The bigger problem for me is W8 takes the fashionable trend of hiding UI elements to the extreme. I HATE that. I even hate it in Chrome and IE and Firefox, when you use the default settings and nearly everything is hidden. Look, i have huge, high resolution screens, I don't need to save a little space with the tradeoff being I have to remember where to tickle the farking screen to bring up some UI elements.

Plus the flat boring design sucks ass. Aero glass is nice. I can turn it off myself if I'm running on a slow box, or use W7 embedded. I don't need to be brought to the lowest common denominator by default. fark's sake, should I put up with that crap on an i7 with monster graphics card? Does MS expect every vendor to boring-up their UI to be consistent with the new Windows?

Or, you could attempt to think about things a little differently and see that change isn't all bad

You're right. Ubuntu, for example, isn't bad at all. We have to write some drivers from scratch, but we'll save a bunch on licensing. I turned down my guys every time they brought up any linux distro until now, because windows was easy and it worked fine for us, but W8 opened my eyes that change is good.


I agree, it was a jarring switch and I don't advocate anyone to make the leap to 8 unless they are prepared for a learning curve as steep as the effort you put into rethinking how you normally use a computer.

I also would have preferred to be able to use AeroGlass. Apparently the design team at Microsoft felt that making their chrome and boarders look like faux-glass was out of style, but I liked that style a lot. I still hope that maybe if enough of the users request it to come back in it might make a reappearance. Hopefully along with text changes, because sometimes things can be a little hard to see.

And no Ubuntu isn't bad. If it works for you, use it. The important part is the tool services your needs. I'm not hating on all of Windows 8. There are things I do and don't like about it, but I feel the need to at least try and clarify some of the things that people are saying because a lot of it just isn't true. Windows 8 is still a solid operating system underneath that Andy Warhol paint job.
 
2012-12-07 03:22:32 PM

thurstonxhowell: moel: thurstonxhowell: No. What I did when I did not want to use Metro was, and stick with me here because it gets pretty complicated, not use Metro. Like, instead of using it, I didn't. Complex, I know, but it works for me.

I did replace the start button out of fear of change, but I haven't used it, either. Seriously. I put the start button back, but haven't felt compelled to use it. Imagine that.

So...how do you access your apps?

They're pinned to the taskbar. If its not pinned to the taskbar, I go over to the search thing and search for it. It works pretty much like Searchlight a Mac. If you're talking about Metro Apps, I don't use them, so I don't need to access them.

BullBearMS: Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?

Hey, idiot, I'll repeat myself (paraphrased): I don't give half a shiat what you do or what you think. I was just trying to correct the factual error you made.


don't even bother with it. it's his M.O. check out his winning personality in this thread. Link 
or this one.
Link
If it doesn't have fruit on it, it will get slammed.
 
2012-12-07 03:31:34 PM

olapbill: don't even bother with it. it's his M.O. check out his winning personality in this thread. Link 
or this one.
Link
If it doesn't have fruit on it, it will get slammed.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember him being a jackass in the Politics tab, too. Oh well, that's why God Drew made ignore lists.
 
2012-12-07 03:53:16 PM

meanmutton: Bacontastesgood: It's funny to see the people defending this turd. This is the pivot toward irrelevance for MS. They had a pretty good run - over 25 years of dominance on desktops and notebooks. Xbox will still be pretty good to them, and Office in some form. But the next 5 years will be exceedingly brutal in the OS space. There will be vast numbers of "what happened" articles written.

It's funny seeing Luddites who haven't spent any time with a touch-screen computer and Windows 8 knee-jerk bash what will be seen in a few years as revolutionary technology.


Touchscreens are perhaps one of the worst creations of all time.
Mouse and Keyboard forever, anything else? It's just child's play.
 
2012-12-07 04:06:29 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: styckx: The Windows 8 hate is mildly annoying at this point. The media is trying extremely too hard to make it sound like Vista.

hahahaha... omg.... wait....{cough}... damn dude, not so early in the morning!

Vista was the bomb compared to 8... and Vista sucked ass hardcore, but at least it didn't change what it meant to have a computer.

Change everything around so nobody can find a damn thing? CHECK
Make sure nobody can run more than one app at a time? CHECK
Make sure that all previous users can't upgrade anything without a dog and pony show? CHECK
Turn ordinary PCs into useless boat anchors by making them Tablets without Touchscreens? CHECK


Yup... it's got everything going for it. I have no idea what I'm talking about at all.

 
2012-12-07 04:21:46 PM
Yeah, but most people aren't MIT professors, they are dimwitted morons, so Win 8 is perfect for them.
 
2012-12-07 05:06:29 PM

jack21221: Beta Tested:
I guess you just don't like reading or listening other opinions. As I, and others mentioned, Windows 8 is AS GOOD AS or better than Windows 7 (depending on your needs), it is in no way worse. It is unlikely to be worth the price and aggravation of an upgrade for you, but when buying a new computer there is no compelling reason to NOT get it other than being obstinate.

Sure there is: It would take a lot of customization and 3rd party programs to bring the UI back to what I'm used to. All of the Windows 8 "new stuff" is stuff that I'm not interested in and would have to take my time working around.

imgod2u: All in all, they did a significant amount of work to make it feasible to run on low-level tablet hardware (less RAM, limited HD space, less processing power) with battery life in mind. And by all measurable means, they've done a good job.

I don't doubt they've done a good job to make it work well on tablets. I don't own a tablet. I don't own a laptop. I use desktop PCs, and Microsoft seems to have forgotten those exist.


Well, look at the market. Desktops are a small minority. More importantly, there's really not much that can be improved on the desktop anymore.

That isn't to say Windows 8 isn't a better OS and completely worthy of praise. Just that it may not be worth upgrading fkr desktop users.

But I would think even desktop users would appreciate the heightened restrictions against bloatware and lower system resource utilization.
 
2012-12-07 05:39:36 PM

Marine1: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: A person that cared about not being utterly wrong would not have typed these sentences. You will eat Microsoft's shiat sandwich and like it, damnit!

Do whatever you want with your OS, shiathead. Just don't tell me I have to use Metro with 8 when I have 8 and don't use Metro.

Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?

I like how we're automatically shills.


Since I've seen you claim that Windows Phone 7 "has momentum", in your case it's entirely an accurate statement.
 
2012-12-07 05:41:18 PM

No Such Agency: Alexei Novikov:
The incredibly crappy old Toshiba laptop I'm on has a 2.0 GHz dual core, 3GB of RAM, and a sad 5,400 RPM hard drive, and it still boots, from power button to desktop, in 14-15 sec.

People on the internet make me laugh. If your laptop has dual core and multiple GB of RAM, it's not "incredibly crappy [and] old". It's a few years old and still works fine from the sounds of it.

If you're still adding the SET BLASTER= line into your autoexec.bat file by hand, then maybe we can talk "incredibly" old ;)


I didn't think I had to qualify that statement with a "relatively," but apparently its omission is a sin. Mea culpa.

It is a relatively old and crappy laptop. I was trying to illustrate the not insignificant performance gains by switching to Windows 8. If you already have a powerful, up-to-date system, the difference will be present but minimal. If you have older machines around (read: anything marginally capable of running Vista or better, not antique dinosaur get-off-my-lawn machines), the difference is much more noticeable and may be worth the upgrade on its own. I cant be the only person around who has a powerful tower but prefers budget or older mid-range laptops that aren't trying to poorly imitate powerful towers with abysmal cooling.
 
2012-12-07 05:45:19 PM

thurstonxhowell: BullBearMS: Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?

Hey, idiot, I'll repeat myself (paraphrased): I don't give half a shiat what you do or what you think. I was just trying to correct the factual error you made.


Look farktard.

If Microsoft cared about the user experience, they would make all the Metro smartphone interface bullshiat optional on the desktop.

There is no error in that statement.

Microsoft cares more about trying to leverage Windows to break into the tablet and smartphone markets than it cares about it's users.
 
2012-12-07 06:18:39 PM

BullBearMS: Marine1: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: A person that cared about not being utterly wrong would not have typed these sentences. You will eat Microsoft's shiat sandwich and like it, damnit!

Do whatever you want with your OS, shiathead. Just don't tell me I have to use Metro with 8 when I have 8 and don't use Metro.

Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?

I like how we're automatically shills.

Since I've seen you claim that Windows Phone 7 "has momentum", in your case it's entirely an accurate statement.


Then Microsoft is horrifically late on their payments to my account.

I mean, with you guys, it's like freakin' politics. You've read so much crap (and that's what it is, crap) that more or less boils down to "it's unpossible to enjoy the use of a Microsoft product", and you've begun to believe it.

As for the smartphone market, hey, if you guys want two and only two major players in that market, be my guest. I mean, duopolies have done wonders for the telecommunications market, so why not extend that to the devices that operate on the networks?

That's what we're speeding towards. We have a possible third player, but moronic pundit after moronic pundit keeps casting Microsoft out, often for stupid or even non-existent reasons. Josh Topolsky and Co. over at The Verge sure as hell do it.
 
2012-12-07 06:50:41 PM
Nothing i've read says that my games will be any better switching to 8 vs 7

Call me when it makes a difference i'll drop $$$ for.
 
2012-12-07 07:02:25 PM
Eh?

Only metro apps are restricted to one or two open at a time?

But office, browsers, and 'normal' x86/a64 apps work and function as we are accustomed?

...

WTF. If that's the case, then why demand I even USE the gorram app store and the shiatty looking metro ui? That just screams retarded.

If that's the case, I'll definitely give it a whirl, I'm not sure its worth a reinstall now but I may consider it for my next rebuild.

Thanks, Fark!
 
2012-12-07 07:04:16 PM

Marine1: BullBearMS: Marine1: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: A person that cared about not being utterly wrong would not have typed these sentences. You will eat Microsoft's shiat sandwich and like it, damnit!

Do whatever you want with your OS, shiathead. Just don't tell me I have to use Metro with 8 when I have 8 and don't use Metro.

Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?

I like how we're automatically shills.

Since I've seen you claim that Windows Phone 7 "has momentum", in your case it's entirely an accurate statement.

Then Microsoft is horrifically late on their payments to my account.

I mean, with you guys, it's like freakin' politics. You've read so much crap (and that's what it is, crap) that more or less boils down to "it's unpossible to enjoy the use of a Microsoft product", and you've begun to believe it.

As for the smartphone market, hey, if you guys want two and only two major players in that market, be my guest. I mean, duopolies have done wonders for the telecommunications market, so why not extend that to the devices that operate on the networks?

That's what we're speeding towards. We have a possible third player, but moronic pundit after moronic pundit keeps casting Microsoft out, often for stupid or even non-existent reasons. Josh Topolsky and Co. over at The Verge sure as hell do it.


Microsoft's arrogant disregard of it's users best interests will be what leads to the company's downfall, not the pundits.

Shipping a brand new flagship phone full well knowing the new upgraded Phone OS they are about to release will never run on it? Shafting their early adopters with obsolete hardware with no upgrade path on a two year (at least) contract?

That shows nothing but contempt for their customers.

Forcing a tablet interface on desktop computer users throwing away nearly two decades of investment into training?

That shows nothing but contempt for their customers.
 
2012-12-07 07:36:19 PM

BullBearMS: Marine1: BullBearMS: Marine1: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: BullBearMS: thurstonxhowell: A person that cared about not being utterly wrong would not have typed these sentences. You will eat Microsoft's shiat sandwich and like it, damnit!

Do whatever you want with your OS, shiathead. Just don't tell me I have to use Metro with 8 when I have 8 and don't use Metro.

Do all the Microsoft shills think that attacking people who don't want a smartphone interface on their real computer somehow is going to change anyone's mind about the shiat sandwich that is Vista 2.0?

I like how we're automatically shills.

Since I've seen you claim that Windows Phone 7 "has momentum", in your case it's entirely an accurate statement.

Then Microsoft is horrifically late on their payments to my account.

I mean, with you guys, it's like freakin' politics. You've read so much crap (and that's what it is, crap) that more or less boils down to "it's unpossible to enjoy the use of a Microsoft product", and you've begun to believe it.

As for the smartphone market, hey, if you guys want two and only two major players in that market, be my guest. I mean, duopolies have done wonders for the telecommunications market, so why not extend that to the devices that operate on the networks?

That's what we're speeding towards. We have a possible third player, but moronic pundit after moronic pundit keeps casting Microsoft out, often for stupid or even non-existent reasons. Josh Topolsky and Co. over at The Verge sure as hell do it.

Microsoft's arrogant disregard of it's users best interests will be what leads to the company's downfall, not the pundits.

Shipping a brand new flagship phone full well knowing the new upgraded Phone OS they are about to release will never run on it? Shafting their early adopters with obsolete hardware with no upgrade path on a two year (at least) contract?

That shows nothing but contempt for their customers.

Forcing a tablet interface on desktop computer users throwing ...


It's not without an upgrade path. There's another build, 7.8, coming out Q1 2013. Nokia has indicated there may be even more than that afterwards, but that's just speculation at this point.

Changing things around isn't contempt for your users. It's not that hard to adapt to. I mean, really, like if you were to get so upset that you switched to something like Linux Mint or Mac OS X, you'd be exerting far more effort than just getting used to the new Start screen. And, by the way, it's not completely a tablet interface. You can still use the desktop... it's still there. Hell, I did some work in Adobe AfterEffects CS 6 just this afternoon on my desktop... and it's running Windows 8. It opens in the desktop application, it saves in the desktop application, it does everything in the desktop application. It's not like they took every Win32 API program ever made and told you that you would do without.

I'm taking special effects/programming/networking classes at my university, do Kinect for Windows development, and have dipped my toes in 3D modeling as a hobby... all using two or three Windows 8 PCs. If anyone could biatch about the new interface hurting productivity, it's me. Yet, here I am, still working with multiple windows on a desktop, just like I have done since my dad first showed me his new IBM Aptiva in 1995.
 
2012-12-07 07:41:37 PM

BullBearMS: Shipping a brand new flagship phone full well knowing the new upgraded Phone OS they are about to release will never run on it? Shafting their early adopters with obsolete hardware with no upgrade path on a two year (at least) contract?


img811.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-07 07:43:11 PM
How dare you call me a shill!

Now stand back and give me room to shill in!

It would have cost Microsoft nothing to allow users to turn Metro off if they don't like it.

Apple added behaviors from iOS to it's desktop OS as well, but every single one of those behaviors is optional and can be turned on or off in the Control Panel.

As for releasing a new flagship phone knowing full well the new version of the OS you are about to release will never run on it? The fact that you defend this behavior puts that whole "am I a Microsoft shill" question to rest.
 
2012-12-07 07:51:22 PM

xaks: OK, stupid question.

I normally have a Win 7 workstation, plenty of horsepower. I have 2 large monitors (23 each) and I have 6 or 7 applications up running across them displaying network stats or server metrics in real-time. Plus LookOut! and a browser or two as well.

Does 8 support this? All I seem to have read so far seems to indicate two monitors means two running apps. That would be a non-starter for me.

(Doesn't have a copy of 8 to try)


Yes. The desktop is identical to Win7 minus the start menu and plus some small improvements. You can have as many programs open as you want.
 
2012-12-07 07:55:29 PM

BullBearMS: How dare you call me a shill!

Now stand back and give me room to shill in!

It would have cost Microsoft nothing to allow users to turn Metro off if they don't like it.

Apple added behaviors from iOS to it's desktop OS as well, but every single one of those behaviors is optional and can be turned on or off in the Control Panel.

As for releasing a new flagship phone knowing full well the new version of the OS you are about to release will never run on it? The fact that you defend this behavior puts that whole "am I a Microsoft shill" question to rest.


Uh huh. Cost nothing... software engineers cost nothing. Their time is free, especially when implementing an older version of the exact same thing they're releasing in their current software.

I'll be sure to let the payroll department at Microsoft know that right after I ask them for my shill money that they've owed me all of these years. Boy howdy, have those guys been getting hosed by their own employees or what?

And I don't think you know what the term "upgrade path" means. The Lumia 900 does indeed have one. Here it is. Video Teaser of Windows Phone 7.8 Update on Nokia Lumia 900
 
2012-12-07 08:15:40 PM

Da Bum: #3 Shutting down the PC is easy to do, you are just lazy or don't know how to do it the right way because you can't unlearn how horribly clunky it really was in prior versions.


Post the steps to shut down or reboot or log out of Windows 8.
 
2012-12-07 08:21:40 PM

jack21221: This is my biggest problem with it. I'm not quite ready to buy a new computer, but in the next year or two, I'll have to. When I buy a new computer, I want the option to still install Windows 7. My fear is that nobody will be selling anything with Windows 7 on it, and I'll be forced into buying Windows 8. I don't use any of the shiny new bells and whistles that people are talking about on here (no touchscreen, no social media, no songs on my computer, etc), so I don't want to have to wade through all this stuff I don't use. Windows 7 is clearly the best option for me, but Microsoft seems to be trying to cram Windows 8 and its tablet PC UI down everybody's throats. When Windows 7 came out, Vista all but vanished overnight; all new PCs seemed to use Windows 7 instead. I am afraid that will happen to Windows 7 now that 8 is out.


Build your PC.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: jack21221: Celerian: It will also bring up several suggestions of Fantasy Football Apps to buy or install from the app store.

Oh good, my computer will advertise at me. Just what I've always wanted. *eyeroll*

Like it or not, it's the future. 10 years from now 95% of everything you do will be cloud-based, which means advertising, and there's nothing you can do about it. Yes it blows. But I embraced the horror a while back. It's inevitable.


NO. I will never allow myself to jump into the cloud. Ten years from now, I'll still be computing locally, come hell or highwater.
 
2012-12-07 08:22:29 PM

Celerian: The biggest complaint I find is that people who HATE windows 8 are usually not willing to give up the "Start Menu" and feel that the OS is broken without it. If that's their definition of broken, then yes, it's broken. This article will tell them how to edit their registry so they never see the Metro UI interface on startup and they can get one of those third part programs to bring back their start bar. Or they could just stick with Windows 7, which is also fine.


That's not why people hate Windows 8. The Start Screen replacing the Start Menu is just a symptom of the problem.

The real reason Windows 8 is being reacted to poorly is because everything about its operation - even in desktop mode - is keyed towards Tablet and Touchscreen operation. In particular, mandatory gestures and unmarked screen "hot zones" are things which make a great deal of sense on a touchscreen, but are JUST F%$#ING MADDENING with keyboard+mouse control. The "hold and drag" operation for logging in, etc. is particularly bad. On a touchscreen it's simple: touch top of window, keep finger on screen while you drag it wherever. Easy. But with a mouse it becomes a two step operation of click, hold click, move mouse at same time, release when contextually appropriate. This should not be something you have to do for any mandatory OS operation like logging in. If nothing else, it's bad for older people; my mother literally cannot do this motion more than a few times before her arthritis kicks in and her hand becomes useless.

Then there's "hot-zones", which again make more sense on a touchscreen, but even here could have been handled better. The biggest issue with the Windows 8 implementation of them is that there is NO visual indicator as to their location; you are just expected to ALREADY KNOW where they are, which means either sitting through a tutorial or asking someone else. This is a step backwards from every previous version of Windows since 95, where we had a button that LITERALLY tells us "start here". Not only that, everything's spread out among multiple hot zones. The start menu is on one corner, the "charms bar" is somewhere else entirely, as is settings. These aren't really things that need to be strictly separated, or made harder for the user to find.

Like I said, this all makes a lot more sense on a touchscreen or tablet, where these kinds of things are expected. For a desktop it's just awkward. Windows 8 is probably phenomenal on tablets and so on, but my desktop won't be running it anytime soon.
 
2012-12-07 08:48:18 PM

pudding7: Rent Party: I've only seen it on the Surface, but I'm confused. When it was folded up as a tablet, there were all these little boxes that did stuff, and I was like "Hey, that's a pretty good UI for a tablet." When I folded it down to the keyboard "laptop" style, one of the "little boxes that does stuff" took the UI back to good old familiar start button land and it looked like a laptop should.

All of that took me about 30 seconds to figure out. What am I doing wrong that causes me not to hate this?

If you're browsing Fark using IE in Metro and have a chat message from a buddy some other chat application, can you read the chat without leaving IE? Can you have a YouTube video playing off to the side while working on an Excel spreadsheet, while simultaneously keeping an eye on an FTP transfer?


YES. YES. YES. YES.

The desktop is exactly the same as Windows 7, except there's no Start button at the lower left. You can have as many windows open as you want, multitask like a motherfarker, and still pop into the Start Menu (what everyone here is still calling "Metro" even though MS dumped that name for general release) to open up a quick app for whatever purpose. If you need to find anything, you pop into the Start Menu and start typing, and Search finds it automatically. No need to open Search-- It's always there.

Honestly, I LIKE Windows 8. It's like Windows 7, except it has a lot of improvements under the hood and the Start Menu is now a whole screen rather than a little pop-up. It's faster than Windows 7. It boots up quicker than any Windows I've ever used.

I think people are just determined to hate it based on a few screenshots and a few seconds playing with the Start Menu at Best Buy.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report