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.

(NBC News)   Yes, Windows 8 is really worse than Vista   (nbcnews.com) divider line 205
    More: Obvious, Vista, window, web application, Windows PCs, showcases, newegg, SVP, fujitsu  
•       •       •

9728 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jan 2013 at 11:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 04:46:41 AM
It would be nice if MS just let people decide how to have the UI work, instead of forcing things on people. If someone wants the old, just let them have it and let them customize it, if someone wants the new, they can have that and customize it. It's not like it's rocket science to create a customizable UI.
 
2013-01-03 05:03:33 AM
IT professional here. I've been testing W8 for future use.
Once you get used to the changes, it's actually pretty nice.
Where W8 shines is its integration between devices, like your desktop and Surface and Window phone.
That functionality puts Apple to shame.
 
2013-01-03 05:42:42 AM
I've used Windows since 3.0 and I've never really hated any version, until now. I used Me for a year, it wasn't really that bad. Vista had a lot of problems out of the gate and its name was tarnished by them but after all the drivers caught up and a few patches it was also decent. Windows 7 is so far the best version I've ever used, but after trying Windows 8 for a few weeks...garbage. It's an ugly, unintuitive abomination that doesn't know what type of OS it is supposed to be.
 
2013-01-03 05:47:00 AM

Mikey1969: likefunbutnot: Mikey1969: If you like some features of the Metro look, yet prefer to do work in your standard desktop, you can have both. Whoever set it up at work isn't really sure how they did it, they just kind of lucked into it without much playing around, so it must be an easy option to turn on.

It's the default for any multi-display configuration. The "Desktop" app runs automatically on all non-primary monitors.

Nice... That is actually a nice feature. I've only done the most basic playing around with it, but that seemed like it had the most potential to piss me off(The Metro interface with no standard desktop). Having a dual rig like that seems like the best of both worlds.


I spent the money on a deco d monitor so I could tile another 6 terminal windows, not to use a completely different interface for some apps :)
 
2013-01-03 06:27:49 AM
I still use Vista. It works fine. But then, I don't load it down with a bunch of crap, and I'm rich enough to have put 4 gigs in it. I like 8 too. There was 15 minutes of re-orientation, but I'm smart enough to deal with that.
 
2013-01-03 06:43:24 AM

vpb: It's faster and needs less memory.  If some people can't figure out the simple changes, then just keep using 7.


That's incredibly important if you have a computer that doesn't have sufficient memory and processing to run windows 7. Since most of us use computers manufactured after 2002, I don't think it's really an issue outside of your magical time portal. The rest of us have orders of magnitude more memory than constitutes any kind of limiting factor on OS operation.
 
2013-01-03 06:57:57 AM

narkor: serial_crusher:

The Remote Desktop Connection app only allows you to have one connection open at a time now too.

This is BS. I have 5 open from Windows 8 now.

Go to your Search Charm. Type Remote Desktop Connection. Right click on it. Click Pin To Task Bar. Open one connection. Open another one. See that first connection? Still there. Open a third. First and second are still there. Rinse. Repeat.


wow.  That's not a "this is BS" situation so much as a "what a load of BS that Microsoft is that inconsistent."  Launching it from the start menu, clicking on it a second time just focuses on the already-open one.  I never considered pinning it to the taskbar as a workaround.

/ Usually I don't even use the "pin to taskbar" feature.  I still use the old school quicklaunch bar.
 
2013-01-03 07:01:28 AM

Flint Ironstag: CujoQuarrel: A few questions since I have only seen it demoed

1) Does it still want every window to be full screen
2) What do you do if you have more programs than screen real estate? With the Start Menu you had pretty much infinite space
3) Does it still do stuff when your mouse goes near a screen edge or if it does can you turn that off. I hate shiat like that

1) Only Metro apps opened in the Metro interface. If you open a traditional program in the traditional desktop it is as it always was.
2) Ditto.
3) I have Classic Shell, which adds the old Start button and menu. It has the option to turn off all the active corners. I don't mind them.


What's as Metro app as compared to a standard program
 
2013-01-03 07:10:13 AM
Windows 7 is only 3 years old and is all patched up and working for me. What incentive do I have to go through an upgrade?
Faster? It's plenty fast now. I have a high-end machine with high-end components.
Memory? memory is cheap, just add more
Interface changes. I don't want interface changes. MSFT is bad enough when they change the interface on every version of Office much less on an OS.

You ever watch their commercials for Win8? They don't show anything but people choosing icons and scrolling around. They aren't actually doing anything. They need an infomercial to convince people, not a shiny ad campaign.
 
2013-01-03 07:11:01 AM

CujoQuarrel: What's as Metro app as compared to a standard program


standard program:
www.cmec-hb.com
metro app:
imgc.classistatic.com
 
2013-01-03 07:11:35 AM

Torese: I use windows 8 and 2012 everyday at work.

I can run multiple RDP sessions at the same time on my laptop.

And when I run RDP in fullscreen mode I only get the charm bar and start menu for the RDP session.

I don't believe some of the people posting in this thread.


You shouldn't. Some of them are flat-out lying.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 07:13:52 AM

CujoQuarrel: What do you do if you have more programs than screen real estate? With the Start Menu you had pretty much infinite space


The start page can scroll left and right over multiple pages of tiles.  So theoretically infinite.
 
2013-01-03 07:25:51 AM
I can't think of any reason why I would need 8.
 
2013-01-03 07:27:31 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I can't think of any reason why I would need 8.


It sounds like I'd spend most of my time getting it back to work as well as windows 7
 
2013-01-03 07:43:44 AM
@Home
Upgraded from XP to win 8.
Installed classic shell. Skips right to desktop mode.
Problems? Finding control panel.
Solution: Take 10 minutes and actually learn something
Difficulty: uh.. accepting things change?

Also : Its just as good as 7 for games.
 
2013-01-03 07:46:12 AM
This has been my experience with Windows...

3.1: great
95: sucked
98: great
Me: sucked
XP: great
Vista: sucked
7: great

(I never used Me or Vista; I'm just going by hearsay on those)

In other words, every time they do a major redesign they basically put out a beta version (95, Me, Vista) so the users can find all the bugs, then they quickly put out another release that fixes them (98, XP, 7). I fully expect 8 and 9 to follow the same pattern, and so far I'm not hearing a lot of evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-01-03 08:13:35 AM

serial_crusher: CujoQuarrel: What do you do if you have more programs than screen real estate? With the Start Menu you had pretty much infinite space

The start page can scroll left and right over multiple pages of tiles.  So theoretically infinite.


I thought it was limited to 255, or is that only older Windows?
 
2013-01-03 08:14:53 AM
It may be easy to ascribe the disappointing sales numbers with Windows 8 as cyclical in Microsofts development history, but it may go deeper than that. Is there really a need for a new operating system at this juncture? Consumers have reached a stage with computers that they do most everything they want and at the speed they want it to happen. Technology as a whole is likely to see a massive slow down in sales as newer hardware/software offers increasingly smaller gains.
 
2013-01-03 08:21:09 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Is it still possible to use the windows key and then type in the name of the program you want? That's pretty much how I start all my apps.


You don't even have to use the Windows key. When you're at the metro desktop just start typing and the search window pops up automatically.
 
2013-01-03 08:22:38 AM

Renowned transvestite sexologist: This alone is a reason to never use Windows 8. It has two separate interfaces running at the same time. That's exceptionally retarded UI design and the guy who thought it was a good idea to have too different desktop interfaces, which have two different sets of rules for using them, running on the same machine at the same time should be FIRED immediately.


Not really - not that I particularly agree with Metro/Modern UI although I can see the idea of bringing application programming and web programming all together in the future (which is more or less what Modern UI is - basically an IE window with no chrome showing a web app). So that make sense, and not immediately abandoning all previous applications of course is the main reason people will buy windows so they can't give up on those - given that DOS was only dropped at Vista, it seems likely desktop apps will still be around, but growing less and less common each year, until around 2025-2030 before an equivalent of DOSBOX will need to be written to emulate windows desktop when Microsoft gives up including it in their OS.

My problem with Modern UI is that it isn't easy (possible?) to split screen (the window in window stuff just isn't good enough) - on mobiles that probable makes sense, but even tablets it would probably be useful and workable to have at most two things on screen at once, but by the time you get to a desktop the lack of ability to see two applications or more on one screen is just pretty stupid, and the limitation of only having Modern UI on one screen is bizarre given how common multiple monitors have become.
 
2013-01-03 08:22:45 AM

Lsherm: This would be a pretty big issue for me.  Still, I think 8's biggest problem is that MS hit it out of the park with 7 so there's no real compelling reason to upgrade unless you want to get a touchscreen.


This. I'm perfectly happy with 7. I understand why you'd want 8 for a tablet, but for laptop/desktop users, MS was trying to fix something that was not at all broken.
 
2013-01-03 08:23:09 AM
Ah, Metro. All the headache of Unity and none of the charm.

This reminds me of that stupid "Two guys walk into a bar" joke.
 
2013-01-03 08:25:23 AM

MayoSlather: It may be easy to ascribe the disappointing sales numbers with Windows 8 as cyclical in Microsofts development history, but it may go deeper than that. Is there really a need for a new operating system at this juncture? Consumers have reached a stage with computers that they do most everything they want and at the speed they want it to happen. Technology as a whole is likely to see a massive slow down in sales as newer hardware/software offers increasingly smaller gains.


Yeah, and who needs one of these "personal computers" when typewriters and hand calculators do almost everything workers want and at the speed they want?

/just because you haven't thought of it doesn't mean there aren't more uses waiting to be discovered and exploited
 
2013-01-03 08:28:11 AM

ColSanders: Seth'n'Spectrum: Is it still possible to use the windows key and then type in the name of the program you want? That's pretty much how I start all my apps.

You don't even have to use the Windows key. When you're at the metro desktop just start typing and the search window pops up automatically.


"press the windows key" is synonymous with "go to the metro desktop".  generally I'm using my computer to do work, not just sitting there staring at the start page.  "ooh, look at the pretty tiles!"

The naming inconsistency fiasco has been great too.  I'm saying "start page", sometimes still just say "start menu"; you're saying "metro desktop".  Which is it?!  I suppose it's not entirely Microsoft's fault that a German grocery store threatened to sue them over the word "metro", but I figure if anybody could buy their silence it would be Microsoft.
 
2013-01-03 08:35:42 AM

HMS_Blinkin: MayoSlather: It may be easy to ascribe the disappointing sales numbers with Windows 8 as cyclical in Microsofts development history, but it may go deeper than that. Is there really a need for a new operating system at this juncture? Consumers have reached a stage with computers that they do most everything they want and at the speed they want it to happen. Technology as a whole is likely to see a massive slow down in sales as newer hardware/software offers increasingly smaller gains.

Yeah, and who needs one of these "personal computers" when typewriters and hand calculators do almost everything workers want and at the speed they want?

/just because you haven't thought of it doesn't mean there aren't more uses waiting to be discovered and exploited


It's like you didn't read my post at all. I state that productive gains in technology are diminished as they advance over time and you point to an analogy where there is a huge difference in the gains. No doubt there will be advances, but again the trend over time is that net benefits are less in each upgrade.
 
2013-01-03 08:41:12 AM

SpacemanSpoof: This has been my experience with Windows...

3.1: great
95: sucked
98: great
Me: sucked
XP: great
Vista: sucked
7: great

(I never used Me or Vista; I'm just going by hearsay on those)

In other words, every time they do a major redesign they basically put out a beta version (95, Me, Vista) so the users can find all the bugs, then they quickly put out another release that fixes them (98, XP, 7). I fully expect 8 and 9 to follow the same pattern, and so far I'm not hearing a lot of evidence to the contrary.


I would say:
3.1 WFWG: fine
95: dodgy
98SE: okay but required regular reboots/rebuilds to retain stability
Win2k: good (stable, decent PnP for most common hardware)
XP: okay
Vista: okay (I have Vista and W7 main PCs side by side, I barely notice any difference between them in practise)
Win7: okay
Win8: okay (seems to be faster than Win7 and is stable enough the old OS2 hibernate instead of reboot for faster startup is now standard, but issues with Modern UI knock it down)

Once people are used to it Windows 8 will probably do fine for most users, and there will always be moaning about a new UI change whether it is for the better or worse, so I don't read too much into that, but it would be a concern for a more power user (software developer in this instance) if Windows starts moving away towards the current implementation of Modern UI as it currently makes switching and interleaving applications difficult - when you are working simultaneously in SQL Server, Explorer, Visual Studio, Browser, Excel, Crystal and various other things that you often are switching between. Obviously for now you can use classic shell and avoid Modern UI, but that will only work for so long if Microsoft keep going down this route. Considering Microsoft have lots of developers working for them you would think they would sort out this eventually, but who knows.
 
2013-01-03 08:52:59 AM
My computer is not a phone, and the desktop interface is crippled with no start menu, and the ribbon instead of proper pulldown menus. Windows 8 is an abomination. Zippy the pinhead should be fired.
 
2013-01-03 08:53:00 AM
Aero sucked.

Yes, it did. Translucent gradients pretending to be "glass" is cheesy and should be left behind in the early 2000s where it belongs. Not to mention it ate up system resources for no good reason.

Give me the solid colors and simple, clean geometry of W8 windows any day.
 
2013-01-03 08:54:34 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Aero sucked.


And you can turn it off...
 
kab
2013-01-03 09:07:19 AM
I'll just keep using 7, thanks.
 
2013-01-03 09:11:13 AM

likefunbutnot: Satanic_Hamster: And even then, you can go through a few phases of processor and graphics card upgrades.

When was the last time a CPU upgrade held back a gaming system? Was that before or after the release of dual core CPUs?

/Besides Dwarf Fortress.
//I all about what it does to i7s.


Somewhere between AMD X2s and now. I'd say when the i5's came out.
 
2013-01-03 09:12:52 AM
Oh and just got a $500 touch laptop from ASUS running win 8.

Kids love it.

/we are doomed
 
2013-01-03 09:36:53 AM

serial_crusher: narkor: serial_crusher:

The Remote Desktop Connection app only allows you to have one connection open at a time now too.

This is BS. I have 5 open from Windows 8 now.

Go to your Search Charm. Type Remote Desktop Connection. Right click on it. Click Pin To Task Bar. Open one connection. Open another one. See that first connection? Still there. Open a third. First and second are still there. Rinse. Repeat.

wow.  That's not a "this is BS" situation so much as a "what a load of BS that Microsoft is that inconsistent."  Launching it from the start menu, clicking on it a second time just focuses on the already-open one.  I never considered pinning it to the taskbar as a workaround.

/ Usually I don't even use the "pin to taskbar" feature.  I still use the old school quicklaunch bar.


Oh, so regardless of pinned status, you can right click any app on the taskbar and there's a context menu item with the same name as the app, which launches a new instance of said app.  Not the most intuitive way to do things, but I'm glad I know now.
 
2013-01-03 09:40:30 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Lsherm: This would be a pretty big issue for me.  Still, I think 8's biggest problem is that MS hit it out of the park with 7 so there's no real compelling reason to upgrade unless you want to get a touchscreen.

This. I'm perfectly happy with 7. I understand why you'd want 8 for a tablet, but for laptop/desktop users, MS was trying to fix something that was not at all broken.


They really could have skipped the X-86 version and just gone with the ARM iteration and called it Windows Mobil or something like that. I tested the beta for a couple of months, and it's fine - but the improvement over Win 7 is so marginal that it just doesn't justify an upgrade.
 
2013-01-03 09:44:36 AM

HMS_Blinkin: MayoSlather: It may be easy to ascribe the disappointing sales numbers with Windows 8 as cyclical in Microsofts development history, but it may go deeper than that. Is there really a need for a new operating system at this juncture? Consumers have reached a stage with computers that they do most everything they want and at the speed they want it to happen. Technology as a whole is likely to see a massive slow down in sales as newer hardware/software offers increasingly smaller gains.

Yeah, and who needs one of these "personal computers" when typewriters and hand calculators do almost everything workers want and at the speed they want?

/just because you haven't thought of it doesn't mean there aren't more uses waiting to be discovered and exploited


True, but it's reasonable to expect a massive slow down in sales until those other uses are both discovered and exploited.  It might be a while.
Nothing really revolutionary has changed in the PC business since the early 2000s when people started running all their apps through their web browser.
 
2013-01-03 09:57:37 AM
img268.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-03 09:58:12 AM
It's a fantastic OS for touchscreens. The problem is idiot hardware designers putting it on traditional devices...and Microsoft isn't helping by encouraging it.
 
2013-01-03 10:00:18 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I can't think of any reason why I would need 8.


It's simple: got a touchscreen? Then yes. No touchscreen? Then it's very pointless and is just gonna irritate the hell out of you.
 
2013-01-03 10:05:12 AM
I'm someone who LOVES windows 8 but unless you have a touchscreen laptop, don't bother yourself upgrading. Your next computer, though, should absolutely be a touchscreen enabled laptop running windows 8.
 
2013-01-03 10:06:06 AM
At a certain point the pattern becomes a business plan.
 
2013-01-03 10:10:20 AM

meanmutton: I'm someone who LOVES windows 8 but unless you have a touchscreen laptop, don't bother yourself upgrading. Your next computer, though, should absolutely be a touchscreen enabled laptop running windows 8.


gorilla arm: n. The side-effect that destroyed touch-screens as a mainstream input technology despite a promising start in the early 1980s. It seems the designers of all those spiffy touch-menu systems failed to notice that humans aren't designed to hold their arms in front of their faces making small motions. After more than a very few selections, the arm begins to feel sore, cramped, and oversized - the operator looks like a gorilla while using the touch screen and feels like one afterwards. This is now considered a classic cautionary tale to human-factors designers; "Remember the gorilla arm!" is shorthand for "How is this going to fly in real use?".

30 years later. Let's try it again!

TBF, the hand position interacting with a laptop is a little different than with a desktop monitor. That said, I saw commercials last night for an Acer "all-in-one" type PC that looks like an iMac but has a touch screen. That thing's going to give you a hell of a gorilla arm.
 
2013-01-03 10:36:55 AM
I've been putting off buying a new laptop because of 8. Waiting until they fix it so I can use it for work.  I need start. I need multiple less than full screen windows.  And no, I don't want a godam touchscreen desktop. I have a 28" monitor and keep it quite a distance away, I'd have to stretch and lean over to touch it. What I want is a bigger monitor.
 
2013-01-03 10:37:16 AM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: I like Win8, especially on multiple monitors- it really improves on Win7 there (taskbar, background spanning, etc).


So put up with hideous usability for multi-monitor support? As I see it, I can stick with Win7 and use an unsupported 3rd party app (UltraMon) to get great multi-monitor support, or "upgrade" to Win8 and use an unsupported 3rd party app to get some of the old functionality back.

Until MS caves and adds back in the ability to have the classic start menu (which will happen when corporate adoption rates fall into the toilet), I'll stick to Win7/UltraMon for my personal rig.

At work as a dev, I upgraded to Win8 so I can keep up with the times. Not diggin it, not diggin it at all. Yes, I know all the shortcut keys, but they still feel "kludgy" to me.
 
2013-01-03 10:44:30 AM

Mikey1969: Flint Ironstag: A real step backwards in functionality.

And for no legitimate reason. I think I'll install it at work so that I'm familiar with it(If we have enough licenses, that is), but for real-world use, I think I'll stick with 7, I've been happy with it since the public beta, it's nice and solid. My Boss' theory is that Windows has to alternate garbage and success, so maybe their next iteration will be good. One thing I know: If Windows wants to keep getting customers, they need to stop with this multiple-versions bullshiat. There is no reason for it, and all they do is turn off features, it's not like the different versions are different from the ground up. One OS, one price. I understand that they aren't selling ridiculously priced hardware like Apple, so their OS has to cost more, but the idiocy of trying to sell me a gutted version is really starting to piss me off.


The third version of whatever Microsoft does is almost always the one that does well.

In the case of Windows 8, their stated direction now is "cloud, cloud, cloud" - if it's not cloud services or client, it's on the end-of-life path.

My daughter got a computer with Win 8 for her birthday. It's a crap interface for a desktop, but I bet it's very good on an actual touch device.
 
2013-01-03 10:45:19 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Aero sucked.

Yes, it did. Translucent gradients pretending to be "glass" is cheesy and should be left behind in the early 2000s where it belongs. Not to mention it ate up system resources for no good reason.

Give me the solid colors and simple, clean geometry of W8 windows any day.


Maybe you shouldn't run Aero on your TI-83.
 
2013-01-03 10:47:55 AM
Put 8 on my machine. Took a bunch of customization to keep it from entering the full screen apps. Even had to install the freeware start menu.

Otherwise, I just stay in the desktop, and it's fast and has a low footprint. They just need to scrap that horrible full screen metro crap, then it'll be fine.
 
2013-01-03 11:01:38 AM
I've always had my taskbar set to hidden anyway, so the absence of a start button isn't a big deal. Move the cursor to pop up the taskbar or to pop over to Metro, no big deal. I never really liked the Windows start menu, so I had desktop or taskbar icons to start frequently used stuff.

I installed Win8 at home for shiats and giggles. All the hardware was recognised, installation was quick and easy. In under an hour I had the navigation figured out. No crashes, no bluescreens, pretty uneventful.

When XP first came out, it was an unstable mess until the 3rd service pack. The same for Vista. Lots of compatibility issues when upgrading to Win7 from XP. After SP1, it worked ok.

Every time a new Win OS comes out it's always the same biatching, then over time people adapt and move on.
 
2013-01-03 11:13:54 AM
I'll be using win7 until about 2020. Just like I used XP for 10 years.
 
2013-01-03 11:14:07 AM

vpb: It's faster and needs less memory.  If some people can't figure out the simple changes, then just keep using 7.


It's interface is also very crappy, but please do enjoy the OS if a little thing like ease of functionality doesn't concern you.
 
2013-01-03 11:18:42 AM

Torese: I use windows 8 and 2012 everyday at work.

I can run multiple RDP sessions at the same time on my laptop.

And when I run RDP in fullscreen mode I only get the charm bar and start menu for the RDP session.

I don't believe some of the people posting in this thread.


I agree, IT pro (manage 100,000+ machines (no not support that's L1 minion stuff, I'm L3 I manage). I was hugely sceptical about the new interface and expected the grief MS got for changing.
However I sat down and set up my home office machine with it. The Start page is not as bad as I expected. It took about 5 minutes to get used to it. However as mentioned above, doing advanced tasks (i.e. looking at Device Manager) was not as intuitive as it was under 7 but I was still able to do it with some finangling. I need to use it more. A lot of the benefits of it that I am interested in is not from the end user experience but from the managing a plethora of user machines. I still don't have it on my main PC and majority of the machines in my house are linux based so I wouldn't say I am a fanboy in any way but I think the declarations of Microsoft's pending death is a tad over stated.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 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