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.

(BetaNews)   Windows 8.1 release update called, "A Frankenstein product stitched together with compromises." Considering the press Microsoft usually gets that's like a compliment. You might start seeing that phrase in their ads   (betanews.com) divider line 340
    More: Followup, Windows, Microsoft, Windows 8.1, Frankenstein, Frankenstein product, Windows Store, Start Button, compromises  
•       •       •

10162 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Feb 2014 at 10:45 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-10 09:03:17 AM
Perhaps building a better mousetrap is a lot like painting.
You have to know where to farking stop.
 
2014-02-10 09:10:48 AM
awwgeeznotthisshiatagain.jpg

Also, FTA:There's no classic Start button and menu in Update 1, but that's the only thing that's really missing from the next big update. When the OS runs it will automatically detect the hardware it's on (something that should have always been the case) and adjust its behavior accordingly. If it's running on a tablet, or a touch enabled PC, Windows 8.1 will boot straight to the Start screen -- unless you set it not to. If, however, it's running on a computer with mouse and keyboard, it will boot straight to the desktop.

In other words, they still don't get it. I have a touch-enabled laptop, and I do not use the touchscreen. I installed Classic Shell and have not looked back.
 
2014-02-10 09:13:50 AM
If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.
 
2014-02-10 09:22:06 AM
So it's a lot like your marriage, subby.
 
2014-02-10 09:31:09 AM
If, however, it's running on a computer with mouse and keyboard, it will boot straight to the desktop

How innovative!  It's so truly groundbreaking that I can see how it took them several years to figure out that I still have a mouse and keyboard and not a frigging touch screen anywhere in sight..
 
2014-02-10 09:39:26 AM

xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.


I bought a new laptop over the weekend with Windows 8, and had zero problems installing Firefox (along with add-ons: xmarks, ad block plus, no script, and flash block)
 
2014-02-10 09:48:37 AM

SurfaceTension: xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.

I bought a new laptop over the weekend with Windows 8, and had zero problems installing Firefox (along with add-ons: xmarks, ad block plus, no script, and flash block)


This.

New desktop with 8.1, it automatically booted to the desktop, installed Firefox and all my other programs and even a few games that run much smoother and faster now. I can right click on the Start button to get to anywhere I need to be, and it feels a lot more faster and stable than Vista was (I know, going from bad to worse in some people's eyes).

Not too much hate on 8.
 
2014-02-10 10:07:10 AM
Microsoft got the message

Good

Now if we could destroy Unity next...
 
2014-02-10 10:20:48 AM
My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.
 
2014-02-10 10:47:43 AM
More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.
 
2014-02-10 10:48:18 AM

cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...


There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?
 
2014-02-10 10:50:20 AM

DanZero: SurfaceTension: xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.

I bought a new laptop over the weekend with Windows 8, and had zero problems installing Firefox (along with add-ons: xmarks, ad block plus, no script, and flash block)

This.

New desktop with 8.1, it automatically booted to the desktop, installed Firefox and all my other programs and even a few games that run much smoother and faster now. I can right click on the Start button to get to anywhere I need to be, and it feels a lot more faster and stable than Vista was (I know, going from bad to worse in some people's eyes).

Not too much hate on 8.


So basically it's as good as XP was?
 
2014-02-10 10:50:23 AM
Ubuntu. Done.
 
2014-02-10 10:51:27 AM

xanadian: FIREFOX BAD


www.codeodor.com
 
2014-02-10 10:51:53 AM
I can see the marketing campaign now.

Windows 8.1: It's ALIVE!!!
 
2014-02-10 10:52:18 AM

King Something: xanadian: FIREFOX BAD

[www.codeodor.com image 475x356]


James Hetfield looks hideous without Photoshop...
 
2014-02-10 10:52:19 AM
My laptop I got this fall came with 8.1 and the first thing I did was disable most of the Metro stuff and turn on classic.  This article writer sounds like a noob.  Don't get me wrong, MS completely whiffed with the concept of "It'll behave the same on all devices, isn't that an awesome idea!?" but the underlying operating system is quite good.  I like the changes to some of the system settings, task manager updates, windows explorer navigation, and so on.  Would I pay to upgrade my desktop from 7 to 8.1?  Hell no, but I would feel totally confident recommending 8.1 over 7 for people for a new system, assuming cost is the same.
 
2014-02-10 10:53:06 AM

xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.


My newest PC has 8.1. FF runs so slowly on it I uninstalled it and now use Chrome. It's apparently a well known glitch/feature. There's probably a fix for it but I'm not that guy. PC's are for using, not farking around with. I take the path of least resistance.
 
2014-02-10 10:53:15 AM

ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?


I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy.  Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.
 
2014-02-10 10:55:46 AM

xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.


www.thecampuscompanion.com
 
2014-02-10 10:55:46 AM
Meh, I'll wait for 9.0 .
 
2014-02-10 10:57:24 AM

DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.


It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers with
either? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.
 
2014-02-10 10:57:30 AM

BumpInTheNight: ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?

I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy.  Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.


I was a huge Ubuntu fan until the first iteration of Unity.

I moved to Linux Mint (The Debian Edition XFCE spin, since discontinued alas), and have not looked back.
 
2014-02-10 10:58:26 AM
Ever since my Technet subscription got canned I find that I'm migrating away from Windows products.

Especially at work.
 
2014-02-10 10:58:40 AM
Metro is great for Xbox and tablets, problem is only 7 people have a MS tablet.
 
2014-02-10 10:59:13 AM

nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.


And never upgrade before the second service pack.
 
2014-02-10 10:59:15 AM

Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.


Cool. Yet again, I have learned something on Fark.
 
2014-02-10 10:59:44 AM
Still better than flagellating myself with the corpse of Steve Jobs while shackled to an iTunes account.
 
2014-02-10 11:00:05 AM
8.1 is better than 8.0.  I'm still annoyed as hell at the lack of the old solitaire. (I'm old, deal with it.)

I don't particularly like how you can't control the individual permissions on all of the crappy apps that "require" the internet.  It's seriously intrusive. Thanks Microsoft, everyone likes universal tracking.

Usage wise, it's like having a second desktop that works incorrectly, where you can't quickly click between certain applications.
 
2014-02-10 11:00:15 AM
So this will be another thread where people will come in and tell everyone how if you don't like the Metro UI, you're a dinosaur who deserves to be put down?  Oh good...we haven't had one of those in at least a day and a half.

I actually enjoy the Metro UI on my Surface Pro (purchased at a crazy low price because no one is buying them).  On my desktop PC, not so much.  This update sounds like it...well...almost does what Classic Shell does already for me.  I'm guessing the people who run Microsoft these days are so far removed from every day work and computing that they have no friggin' clue what the average user does.  It's like they watched a few kids playing with an iPad at Starbucks and said, "My god, that's what EVERYONE who uses a computer wants now!"  Uh, no.  It's not. Especially not the business computing community, which is vastly larger than the entertainment computing market.
 
2014-02-10 11:01:08 AM

Carn: Hell no, but I would feel totally confident recommending 8.1 over 7 for people for a new system, assuming cost is the same.


I went the exact opposite way with this.  I have yet to recommend 8 to anyone.

Take for example one of my customers - he's a smart guy who is a Financial Adviser.  He makes money when he's working with clients.   He does not make money when he's learning how to deal with Metro in Win 8 - so when his laptop died we got him a new Dell with Win 7 - that was like two weeks ago.

The learning curve from XP to 7 is negligible.  From 7 > 8 is just hard enough that people like DO NOT WANT to do it, period.  They are smart and capable, but they are also focused elsewhere.
 
2014-02-10 11:01:29 AM

cman: Microsoft got the message

Good

Now if we could destroy Unity next...


Heh, Unity has conditioned me to be able to swallow Windows 8.1.  [windows key] -> [type name of program] -> [enter] is the only way to use either OS effectively, other than just pinning everything you'd ever use to your taskbar.
 
2014-02-10 11:02:22 AM
The whole "tiles" thing is wonderful for smaller screens, tablets, phones and the like. But dear god, will someone please get them a UI team for the desktop?

\I bet they have a team and just don't listen to the recommendations
 
2014-02-10 11:02:48 AM

Carn: My laptop I got this fall came with 8.1 and the first thing I did was disable most of the Metro stuff and turn on classic.  This article writer sounds like a noob.  Don't get me wrong, MS completely whiffed with the concept of "It'll behave the same on all devices, isn't that an awesome idea!?" but the underlying operating system is quite good.  I like the changes to some of the system settings, task manager updates, windows explorer navigation, and so on.  Would I pay to upgrade my desktop from 7 to 8.1?  Hell no, but I would feel totally confident recommending 8.1 over 7 for people for a new system, assuming cost is the same.


Whatever for?  What makes you say "the underlying operating system is quite good" -- how is that perceptible to you in ordinary use, over and above the underlying goodness that's the same as Vista and 7?  (Oh sorry, on second reading, you say you like where they hid the system settings this time.  Not a dig, it's just something they seem to re-hide with every version of Windows.)

It's funny the headline comes from someone who then says "I'm now a fan".  This is the kind of damning faint praise that's a MS hallmark at this point.

I just want to know if the stupid hot corners are on by default or not.  They are the most aggravating thing, even after installing ClassicShell.

The time spent lost in trying to get non-Metro versions of things like Skype to co-exist and NOT confuse the crap out of the ordinary user is time I think I'd rather spend fighting malware or something.  From the sounds of it, this new kludge still don't hunt.
 
2014-02-10 11:02:54 AM
I'm still running MicroSoft BOB
 
2014-02-10 11:03:47 AM

Sharksfan: Carn: Hell no, but I would feel totally confident recommending 8.1 over 7 for people for a new system, assuming cost is the same.

I went the exact opposite way with this.  I have yet to recommend 8 to anyone.

Take for example one of my customers - he's a smart guy who is a Financial Adviser.  He makes money when he's working with clients.   He does not make money when he's learning how to deal with Metro in Win 8 - so when his laptop died we got him a new Dell with Win 7 - that was like two weeks ago.

The learning curve from XP to 7 is negligible.  From 7 > 8 is just hard enough that people like DO NOT WANT to do it, period.  They are smart and capable, but they are also focused elsewhere.


That, and the biggest problem is that it's needlessly difficult.  If there were a justifiable reason, that's one thing, but this looks like it's so they can sell more ad space.
 
2014-02-10 11:04:00 AM
Metro is so hateful because it swaps out the whole desktop with a bunch of kid friendly giant tiles. In the ensuing brain fart you forget why you clicked on the button in the first place. That's what pisses people off even if they don't realize it.

If clicking the button launched a mini metro which slid in from the side and functioned almost analogously with the old start menu, then Windows 8.x wouldn't receive anything like the same amount of hate.

Other improvements would include being able to zoom tiles in or out to suit the screen size, multiple selection / rubber banding, properly tile groups (i.e. a tile can hold a group of tiles rather than that bizarro spacing abomination which exists right now), and general polish which acknowledges people don't always like mashing the screen with their fat fingers when they have a mouse and keyboard.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-10 11:04:15 AM
www.extremetech.com
 
2014-02-10 11:04:17 AM
Windows 8 is an epic failure. I tried it, hated it and so downloaded Windows 7, which I run on my Mac through Parallels, in MacView mode. Windows apps are run as if native Mac applications and even look like Mac Apps, with Apple style menus, widgets, buttons, etc.

For those of you who want to use 8 but want the older Windows look and feel, simply download Classic Shell and install it. This fantastic little app allows you to choose fro a number of previous Windows desktop styles.
 
2014-02-10 11:06:53 AM

d23: [www.extremetech.com image 348x196]


I need to install SteamOS on my other partition sometime.
 
2014-02-10 11:07:38 AM

InterruptingQuirk: Still better than flagellating myself with the corpse of Steve Jobs while shackled to an iTunes account.


OH SO VERY MUCH THIS
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-10 11:08:13 AM

BumpInTheNight: I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy. Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.


I am building a Linux Terminal Server and I installed Ubuntu 13.10 last night.  It's got all the bloat and more of any Microsoft release.  It's too bad too as Ubuntu started off so promising.  I moved to an lubuntu for my terminal server, and I started using Mint for my laptop last year.  Ubuntu has the nicest repositories and available no-hassle software, and Mint takes that advantages and puts a non-stupid desktop on top of it.

//fark microsoft.  Never looking back to that.
 
2014-02-10 11:09:30 AM
95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?
 
2014-02-10 11:10:01 AM
they should brand the update as:

Windows 8.11 for Workgroups
 
2014-02-10 11:10:06 AM

SurfaceTension: xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.

I bought a new laptop over the weekend with Windows 8, and had zero problems installing Firefox (along with add-ons: xmarks, ad block plus, no script, and flash block)


Joke
^
|
|
|
You

Please do a youtube search for "phil hartman frankenstein monster" - You'll be glad you did.

RIP, Phil.
 
2014-02-10 11:12:05 AM
The solution is stupidly simple. Re-release Windows 7 and apologize for Windows 8. It is a stinking rotten lemon.
 
2014-02-10 11:13:11 AM
Most of our family gatherings fit that description. I could not imagine suffering through those things without alcohol.
 
2014-02-10 11:13:39 AM
My home desktop computer has Windows 8 (my old one took a dump and I was too lazy to build one from scratch and got a good deal on a floor sample).  It works fine for what I use it for-running games from Steam and surfing the web.  I can tell it would be horrible if I needed it for anything else, though.
 
2014-02-10 11:14:20 AM

d23: I am building a Linux Terminal Server and I installed Ubuntu 13.10 last night. It's got all the bloat and more of any Microsoft release. It's too bad too as Ubuntu started off so promising. I moved to an lubuntu for my terminal server, and I started using Mint for my laptop last year. Ubuntu has the nicest repositories and available no-hassle software, and Mint takes that advantages and puts a non-stupid desktop on top of it.


I've been messing with SuSe VM's lately and I'm been liking the builds.  I just do really have a need to use it unfortunately yet.
 
2014-02-10 11:16:12 AM
The whole "one experience for everything in your life" is straight out of some creepy dystopia.

It also sounds like something a few design people got erections over.
 
2014-02-10 11:18:04 AM

Dafatone: The whole "one experience for everything in your life" is straight out of some creepy dystopia.

It also sounds like something a few design people got erections over.


And something that all of them are working towards now, from Google to Apple to MS.
 
2014-02-10 11:20:38 AM
The problem with the new windows is that for basic desktop or laptop use, the learning curve is not rewarded with increased functionality or ease of use, meaning that I would gladly switch back to Win 7.

On my TV, I prefer windows 8.1, but not by a huge margin. I can see that everything is headed in the direction ofhaving to be online at all times. I am starting to wonder though, if there is a new opportunity for Linux here as Microsoft tries to steer people toward more costly services and hardware.

Of course somebody says that every few years and is proven wrong because MS rules the business markets. That will continue for now.
 
2014-02-10 11:20:47 AM

Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?


Nope.  See they're rushing to get 9 out the door to deal with the bad publicity from 8, which leads to the problem of 9 basically being 8.
 
2014-02-10 11:21:45 AM

Dafatone: The whole "one experience for everything in your life" is straight out of some creepy dystopia.


Agreed. It's like being married, and *not* having a mistress as well. Who the hell wants that???
 
2014-02-10 11:22:07 AM
 
2014-02-10 11:22:46 AM
The incongruity I find most annoying is the 'PC Settings' function that is only available as a metro app. Why the fark are the very same settings not available through control panel?

My metro apps were broken due to a microsoft store/account problem. The only way to edit was via PC Settings, which is a metro app ONLY. goto 10. arggggg.
 
2014-02-10 11:22:52 AM
I still have Win 7 and I like it, but I often access my pc remotely with a small tablet so Win 8  is looks appealing.
 
2014-02-10 11:23:30 AM

Animatronik: The problem with the new windows is that for basic desktop or laptop use, the learning curve is not rewarded with increased functionality or ease of use, meaning that I would gladly switch back to Win 7.

On my TV, I prefer windows 8.1, but not by a huge margin. I can see that everything is headed in the direction ofhaving to be online at all times. I am starting to wonder though, if there is a new opportunity for Linux here as Microsoft tries to steer people toward more costly services and hardware.

Of course somebody says that every few years and is proven wrong because MS rules the business markets. That will continue for now.


The other side of that is because there's been no big corporate push for Linux, so it gets swept under the table.  I'm hoping SteamOS can at least take a small chunk of the market share.
 
2014-02-10 11:24:12 AM
The problem with 8 (and even 8.1) is that people continued to use it like they did the previous versions. Instead of taking advantage of the new features, they tried to shoehorn in their method of doing things like they did in previous versions.

That isn't to say it doesn't have its faults, there are a handful of things that bug me a little in 8, but overall the hate is just people making noise. It works well, and if you use the interface as intended (yes, even without touch), you can see what they were going for and why it works.
 
2014-02-10 11:25:19 AM

drxym: Metro is so hateful because it swaps out the whole desktop with a bunch of kid friendly giant tiles. In the ensuing brain fart you forget why you clicked on the button in the first place. That's what pisses people off even if they don't realize it.

If clicking the button launched a mini metro which slid in from the side and functioned almost analogously with the old start menu, then Windows 8.x wouldn't receive anything like the same amount of hate.


That's actually a great idea -- it preserves the context the user is currently in, but still is fancy enough that MS marketing might be satisfied.  The problem, as you point out, is how jarring a shift it is to fill the whole screen in the middle of your work, with something only tangentially related to a fleeting need.  Unfortunately this seems to be a trend in bad design.  It's how the browser tabs on Android work, too, and it drives me a little nuts.

d23: I am building a Linux Terminal Server and I installed Ubuntu 13.10 last night. It's got all the bloat and more of any Microsoft release. It's too bad too as Ubuntu started off so promising. I moved to an lubuntu for my terminal server, and I started using Mint for my laptop last year. Ubuntu has the nicest repositories and available no-hassle software, and Mint takes that advantages and puts a non-stupid desktop on top of it.


I skipped Mint for a few reasons,  but I have to say that Kubuntu is still a damn fine distribution, with lots of KDE goodness.  And no Unity!
 
2014-02-10 11:25:33 AM

Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME Star Trek V bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?


FTFY

ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?


In the context of the article I think it would be self evident.
 
2014-02-10 11:26:04 AM

ikanreed: Nope.  See they're rushing to get 9 out the door to deal with the bad publicity from 8, which leads to the problem of 9 basically being 8.


Eh.  7 was basically Vista w/SPs with a different set of default options checked and a couple minor issues with the UI resolved (asking permission for every little thing every damned time).  And 7 was good.

So "basically 8 but with the complaints addressed" might not be a bad thing.
 
2014-02-10 11:26:23 AM
I bought a new laptop bundled with WIndows 8, and then downloaded the 8.1 update.  I haven't gotten around to tweaking it with third-party mods since the 8.1 update.

It boots fast, and you can set it up to run as a three-quarter assed Windows 7.  That's about it.

It would be fine if you could configure it to a touchpad-friendly "tablet mode" and a mouse & keyboard-friendly "desktop mode" and let the users decide which mode they prefer.
 
2014-02-10 11:28:35 AM

Far Cough: drxym: Metro is so hateful because it swaps out the whole desktop with a bunch of kid friendly giant tiles. In the ensuing brain fart you forget why you clicked on the button in the first place. That's what pisses people off even if they don't realize it.

If clicking the button launched a mini metro which slid in from the side and functioned almost analogously with the old start menu, then Windows 8.x wouldn't receive anything like the same amount of hate.

That's actually a great idea -- it preserves the context the user is currently in, but still is fancy enough that MS marketing might be satisfied.  The problem, as you point out, is how jarring a shift it is to fill the whole screen in the middle of your work, with something only tangentially related to a fleeting need.  Unfortunately this seems to be a trend in bad design.  It's how the browser tabs on Android work, too, and it drives me a little nuts.

d23: I am building a Linux Terminal Server and I installed Ubuntu 13.10 last night. It's got all the bloat and more of any Microsoft release. It's too bad too as Ubuntu started off so promising. I moved to an lubuntu for my terminal server, and I started using Mint for my laptop last year. Ubuntu has the nicest repositories and available no-hassle software, and Mint takes that advantages and puts a non-stupid desktop on top of it.

I skipped Mint for a few reasons,  but I have to say that Kubuntu is still a damn fine distribution, with lots of KDE goodness.  And no Unity!


Gentoo FTW!  Pick whatever you want!  Enjoy your binary-only distros
 
2014-02-10 11:28:39 AM

drxym: Metro is so hateful because it swaps out the whole desktop with a bunch of kid friendly giant tiles. In the ensuing brain fart you forget why you clicked on the button in the first place. That's what pisses people off even if they don't realize it.

If clicking the button launched a mini metro which slid in from the side and functioned almost analogously with the old start menu, then Windows 8.x wouldn't receive anything like the same amount of hate.


In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before.  Change is bad."  Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly.  The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.
 
2014-02-10 11:29:06 AM

Sharksfan: Carn: Hell no, but I would feel totally confident recommending 8.1 over 7 for people for a new system, assuming cost is the same.

I went the exact opposite way with this.  I have yet to recommend 8 to anyone.

Take for example one of my customers - he's a smart guy who is a Financial Adviser.  He makes money when he's working with clients.   He does not make money when he's learning how to deal with Metro in Win 8 - so when his laptop died we got him a new Dell with Win 7 - that was like two weeks ago.

The learning curve from XP to 7 is negligible.  From 7 > 8 is just hard enough that people like DO NOT WANT to do it, period.  They are smart and capable, but they are also focused elsewhere.


I can understand this.  Then again, people like that can't learn anything new anyway.  I'm a programmer and I was hesitant to get 8.1 but after a five second google and 5-10 minutes of playing with settings, Metro is mostly gone from my laptop or at least I don't see it.  I still need to uninstall the OOB apps and widgets, I don't need that bullshiat and I don't like the task switching for desktop OS.
 
2014-02-10 11:29:52 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-10 11:30:26 AM

macdaddy357: The solution is stupidly simple. Re-release Windows 7 and apologize for Windows 8. It is a stinking rotten lemon.


Again, the only thing obviously wrong with it is the Metro UI, which is fine for tablets and "okay" for desktops, just requiring you to learn how to do things again. If they let Metro apps be resized/multiple on a page (and no, split screen isn't enough) and just folded the damn charms menu into the start screen, half the complaints would go away. Seriously, that charms menu is pointless. Does anyone even use it to access anything but settings?
 
2014-02-10 11:30:39 AM

Far Cough: That's actually a great idea -- it preserves the context the user is currently in, but still is fancy enough that MS marketing might be satisfied. The problem, as you point out, is how jarring a shift it is to fill the whole screen in the middle of your work, with something only tangentially related to a fleeting need. Unfortunately this seems to be a trend in bad design. It's how the browser tabs on Android work, too, and it drives me a little nuts.


I forgot to add, there's a real analog to this in the physical world.  We're much more likely to forget what we're looking for when we walk through a doorway.  This has been tested a bit from what I recall.  It's some kind of environmental calibration we rely on as humans, I think to save processing time and memory requirements in dealing with the world.  Or maybe we're just stupid, I don't know.
 
2014-02-10 11:31:00 AM
Artist's rendition of Window 8.1:

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-02-10 11:31:25 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-10 11:31:37 AM

Far Cough: That's actually a great idea -- it preserves the context the user is currently in, but still is fancy enough that MS marketing might be satisfied.  The problem, as you point out, is how jarring a shift it is to fill the whole screen in the middle of your work, with something only tangentially related to a fleeting need.  Unfortunately this seems to be a trend in bad design.  It's how the browser tabs on Android work, too, and it drives me a little nuts.


Agreed. What is nice about how the new system works is if I want to say, launch word, I no longer have to go Start-Programs-Microsoft Office-etc. I just hit the windows key, type in a rough aproximation of what I was looking for, and it finds it and i hit enter. Its helpful when you have a brazillion programs\apps installed on a computer and are looking for something that you don't use enough to dedicate a shortcut to. Sure, I could do that in previous versions by doing start->run and typing winword, which works fine for something that has a simple executable in the path that I know the name for, but not every program is like that.

The problem with the 8 interface is that even though I can now quickly search for what I want, I've got to blank my desktop to do so. I think you hit it on the head when you say that is jarring when you are in the middle of work, and I just wanted to quickly bring up say, calculator to confirm some math or something.

My other complaint is that there isn't an easy and intuitive way to set default behavior. Case in point, I spend all day in a ton of different terminal sessions. When I run my terminal emulator, I want i to open a new one each time. You can't do that (or at least I haven't figured out an easy way of doing it) using the method described above. It will just keep bringing you back to what you already have open.
 
2014-02-10 11:31:42 AM

Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad sucked dicks in Hell
XP good
Vista  bad sucked farts through Satan's asshole after Taco Bell
7 good
8 bad
9 good?


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2014-02-10 11:32:13 AM

Marine1: More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.


With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.
 
2014-02-10 11:33:25 AM

Sharksfan: The learning curve from XP to 7 is negligible. From 7 > 8 is just hard enough that people like DO NOT WANT to do it, period. They are smart and capable, but they are also focused elsewhere.


Yep, that's the biggest problem in my mind.  I'm a pretty smart feller, but also impatient.  So when I can't readily find the ways to set permissions, or create a local admin account on a Win 8 computer (sure, I could look it up, but i'm in a farking hurry, dammit!), I get a bit peeved.

Although, from what I've seen, 8 runs pretty freakin' quick... It supposedly has less bloat than 7.

For someone brand-spanking new to computers, I'm sure they'll take to 8 quite easily.  But for us old fogeys who are used to pretty much the same layout since Win95, there's a bit of a learning curve.
 
2014-02-10 11:33:41 AM
Can't really complain about running Win 7 on my home system.  But as an old IT guy, I think the "80/20" rule still applies to software development: 80% of the users will only 'use' 20% of the available applications.

And on that note, why would I want to watch "Everyone Loves Raymond" on my cell phone?  Never did like that show.
 
2014-02-10 11:34:37 AM

Marine1: [img.fark.net image 500x500]


You forgot the 90% of that wheel that should be dedicated to "time spent making pointless charts attempting to justify a bad operating system"
 
2014-02-10 11:34:41 AM

dv-ous: Please do a youtube search for "phil hartman frankenstein monster" - You'll be glad you did.


*nucks*
 
2014-02-10 11:34:53 AM

Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.


Yah because having all 18 of Office's stupid little obscure apps along with every other executable in one gigantic unsorted tile set resembling an detonated skittle bag is so great.  The superior Start Menu from 7 had a self learning 'commonly used' section front and center and then an organized tree to hold all those bullshiat apps you use once a century, and it also featured a search by typing right there as well.  Sure Metro would be okay for people who barely scratch the capabilities of a computer, but anyone doing any real amount of work on a system has enough apps installed that the flat sprawl gets hideous.
 
2014-02-10 11:35:54 AM

ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?


This. I *love* VmWare Unity, it lets me have Outlook and MS Communicator windows coexisting with my various konsoles and emacsen, so I can actually communicate with others in this corporation.
 
2014-02-10 11:36:48 AM

kid_icarus: So it's a lot like your marriage, subby.


Hey now marriage is great always. Sure I get no bjs anymore, but I get to pay all the bills... wait one moment....
 
2014-02-10 11:37:52 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.

With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.


Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Learning how to use Windows 8 requires the skill set of a guy who gets paid $2.50/hour in a call center in India that takes help desk questions. That's it. If you can't figure it out after that, you're an incompetent computer user. It takes less time to get used to than Linux. End of story. Moving on.
 
2014-02-10 11:40:07 AM

xanadian: For someone brand-spanking new to computers, I'm sure they'll take to 8 quite easily.  But for us old fogeys who are used to pretty much the same layout since Win95, there's a bit of a learning curve.


It was a deliberate design choice on MS's part: make the learning curve steeper in exchange for saving screen real estate that would be otherwise used by "affordances" (things what make UIs discoverable).

The thought being: once someone learns the various ways to get things done, they'll remember.

Not that it was a *good* design choice (among other things, non-tablet monitors don't really need to squeeze out every last pixel of wasted UI space), but they at least knew the consequences. (I think).
 
2014-02-10 11:40:37 AM

LineNoise: Far Cough: That's actually a great idea -- it preserves the context the user is currently in, but still is fancy enough that MS marketing might be satisfied.  The problem, as you point out, is how jarring a shift it is to fill the whole screen in the middle of your work, with something only tangentially related to a fleeting need.  Unfortunately this seems to be a trend in bad design.  It's how the browser tabs on Android work, too, and it drives me a little nuts.

Agreed. What is nice about how the new system works is if I want to say, launch word, I no longer have to go Start-Programs-Microsoft Office-etc. I just hit the windows key, type in a rough aproximation of what I was looking for, and it finds it and i hit enter. Its helpful when you have a brazillion programs\apps installed on a computer and are looking for something that you don't use enough to dedicate a shortcut to. Sure, I could do that in previous versions by doing start->run and typing winword, which works fine for something that has a simple executable in the path that I know the name for, but not every program is like that.

The problem with the 8 interface is that even though I can now quickly search for what I want, I've got to blank my desktop to do so. I think you hit it on the head when you say that is jarring when you are in the middle of work, and I just wanted to quickly bring up say, calculator to confirm some math or something.

My other complaint is that there isn't an easy and intuitive way to set default behavior. Case in point, I spend all day in a ton of different terminal sessions. When I run my terminal emulator, I want i to open a new one each time. You can't do that (or at least I haven't figured out an easy way of doing it) using the method described above. It will just keep bringing you back to what you already have open.


Not sure if this applies to every program, but I believe 8 now differentiates between running instances and opening a new instance of that program. For example, typing "Firefox" on the start screen brings me two entries, one blue (open) and one the normal color (new instance). Beyond that, you can try pinning it to the taskbar and shift-clicking.
 
2014-02-10 11:40:51 AM
Carn:
My laptop I got this fall came with 8.1 and the first thing I did was disable most of the Metro stuff and turn on classic.  This article writer sounds like a noob.

And that's where MS has failed. The common user is a noob, and does not want to, or know how to work around to get rid of the Metro stuff.
Sure, it's easy for me to install classic shell. Not so much for my older relatives that just want to turn on their new computer, and see something that is familiar to them.
 
2014-02-10 11:41:40 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.


When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.
 
2014-02-10 11:42:04 AM

hawcian: Not sure if this applies to every program, but I believe 8 now differentiates between running instances and opening a new instance of that program. For example, typing "Firefox" on the start screen brings me two entries, one blue (open) and one the normal color (new instance). Beyond that, you can try pinning it to the taskbar and shift-clicking.


Actually, nevermind. That's actually because Firefox doesn't play nice with Windows 8. But the shift-click should still work.
 
2014-02-10 11:42:24 AM

LineNoise: Far Cough: That's actually a great idea -- it preserves the context the user is currently in, but still is fancy enough that MS marketing might be satisfied.  The problem, as you point out, is how jarring a shift it is to fill the whole screen in the middle of your work, with something only tangentially related to a fleeting need.  Unfortunately this seems to be a trend in bad design.  It's how the browser tabs on Android work, too, and it drives me a little nuts.

Agreed. What is nice about how the new system works is if I want to say, launch word, I no longer have to go Start-Programs-Microsoft Office-etc. I just hit the windows key, type in a rough aproximation of what I was looking for, and it finds it and i hit enter. Its helpful when you have a brazillion programs\apps installed on a computer and are looking for something that you don't use enough to dedicate a shortcut to. Sure, I could do that in previous versions by doing start->run and typing winword, which works fine for something that has a simple executable in the path that I know the name for, but not every program is like that.

The problem with the 8 interface is that even though I can now quickly search for what I want, I've got to blank my desktop to do so. I think you hit it on the head when you say that is jarring when you are in the middle of work, and I just wanted to quickly bring up say, calculator to confirm some math or something.

My other complaint is that there isn't an easy and intuitive way to set default behavior. Case in point, I spend all day in a ton of different terminal sessions. When I run my terminal emulator, I want i to open a new one each time. You can't do that (or at least I haven't figured out an easy way of doing it) using the method described above. It will just keep bringing you back to what you already have open.


Win+r mstsc.  I think it still has the old run, need to verify on other machine.
 
2014-02-10 11:43:23 AM

hawcian: Not sure if this applies to every program, but I believe 8 now differentiates between running instances and opening a new instance of that program. For example, typing "Firefox" on the start screen brings me two entries, one blue (open) and one the normal color (new instance). Beyond that, you can try pinning it to the taskbar and shift-clicking.


Its a program thing, and yea, you can pin it, or create your own shortcut, or do a few other things to make it open in a new instance, so it isn't a show stopper, its just a minor annoyance.
 
2014-02-10 11:44:33 AM

Telos: and even if you don't see it you can type to search.


You, could, do, that, ever, since, Vista.  I was no big fan of the old Start Menu, but it served a need and wasn't distracting from what you were doing at the moment.  The new start screen is just awful.

LineNoise: Sure, I could do that in previous versions by doing start->run and typing winword, which works fine for something that has a simple executable in the path that I know the name for, but not every program is like that.


Please see above.  :)  You haven't needed to hit "Run" for a while (since XP).  Now, it doesn't always find everything, but that's another biatchfest.

/Team Ribbon-Blows-Monkeys
 
2014-02-10 11:44:39 AM

Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.


Who the fark are you?  What are you a 12 year old?   They put all the relevant tools in one place, conditioned us for 20 years to look in that place and it the next instance of the OS took it away.  Those of us in the Enterprise, don't have time to relearn how to use our goddamn tools.

If you want to provide a "new" interface (which nobody cares about) at least leave the functionality of the old interface. 

fark MS, I'll be waiting for Windows 9, if it's Metrofied, they can EABOD
 
2014-02-10 11:44:56 AM

Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.


I still hate the ribbon with a passion.

I remember the first time I saw it, I laughed my ass off hard thinking it was some sort of joke. Sadly I was mistaken.
 
2014-02-10 11:44:57 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Carn:
My laptop I got this fall came with 8.1 and the first thing I did was disable most of the Metro stuff and turn on classic.  This article writer sounds like a noob.

And that's where MS has failed. The common user is a noob, and does not want to, or know how to work around to get rid of the Metro stuff.
Sure, it's easy for me to install classic shell. Not so much for my older relatives that just want to turn on their new computer, and see something that is familiar to them.


Completely agree.  For those of us who are willing and able to poke around a bit, it's a bit of an upgrade from 7.  Not a huge one mind, and I'm still running 7 pro on my desktop and work laptop.  Would have stuck with it on my new laptop also if it was a choice due to fear of change.  Looks like my new work laptop will have it so I'm glad I've been exposed already.
 
2014-02-10 11:45:07 AM

Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.


Yep.  My users shiat bricks when they had to start using the Ribbon in Office 2007.  Good times.
 
2014-02-10 11:45:10 AM

ikanreed: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Nope.  See they're rushing to get 9 out the door to deal with the bad publicity from 8, which leads to the problem of 9 basically being 8.


Isn't that the problem with Windows 7 basically though? I mean despite the stupid "good/bad" meme, Windows 7 is essentially identical to Vista in normal use. The only minor differences I ever note between my two computers at home is the bizarre 3-5 minute "timeouts" I get all the time in Windows 7 where files can't be moved/renamed as it claims something else is using them, which my equivalent (couple of years older) Vista system never really gets (except where you would expect it as you do have the file open in something).


The Windows 7 box also never remembers my NAS password despite some messing around with some advice from random web sites to try and manually store it somewhere, whereas Vista just remembers automatically.


They both seem to run about the same speed, despite the Windows 7 box being 3 years newer, although they are fairly high spec for gaming purposes, so just tatting about in the OS might be expected to not stretch either system.
 
2014-02-10 11:45:50 AM
I like 8, but I have a hybrid laptop/tablet, which seems perfectly suited to the schizo nature of 8.
 
2014-02-10 11:46:20 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Carn:
My laptop I got this fall came with 8.1 and the first thing I did was disable most of the Metro stuff and turn on classic.  This article writer sounds like a noob.

And that's where MS has failed. The common user is a noob, and does not want to, or know how to work around to get rid of the Metro stuff.
Sure, it's easy for me to install classic shell. Not so much for my older relatives that just want to turn on their new computer, and see something that is familiar to them.


I get that the average user is an idiot. 

What I don't get is the idea of constantly kowtowing down to the lowest common denominator in everything related to software design even when it means not advancing a product in a meaningful way to take advantage of the most recent innovations in the field.

Windows 8.x is perfectly usable. 8 was alright; 8.1 is good.

If you cannot figure out a few small changes in the user interface (and it's just that... small), you are screwed as a computer user. Period. If you don't like Windows 8, and switch to OS X or Linux, you'll find yourself spending more time installing and preparing the machine than it would have taken to figure out Windows 8. This gets more true as your level of experience with computers decreases, so that noob you're talking about needs to stop being such a noob and take 15 minutes out of his/her day to figure out the answers to a few questions.
 
2014-02-10 11:46:29 AM

Marine1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.

With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Learning how to use Windows 8 requires the skill set of a guy who gets paid $2.50/hour in a call center in India that takes help desk questions. That's it. If you can't figure it out after that, you're an incompetent computer user. It takes less time to get used to than Linux. End of story. Moving on.


Your personal anecdote != the head of Windows development admitting that it loses productivity.
/Not to mention that you just admitted that you lost productivity, too.
 
2014-02-10 11:47:03 AM
I really hate how the metro interface is integrated into Server 2012.
 
2014-02-10 11:47:11 AM

Carn: Win+r mstsc.  I think it still has the old run, need to verify on other machine.


Oh, yea, I know, like I said there are plenty of ways of doing it, but they defeat the point of the whole new UI when you want the default behavior of an app to work differently than it does out of the box (even when its an app that would make sense to default a different way).

I think they will get it right with some polish, but the point is in here. It isn't that the windows 8 UI is bad. Most of the examples people tout out are outright wrong, or, like me, they just need to spend 5 minutes to figure out how you do something the new way vs how it worked in 7, and people don't want to do that.

If you are someone who runs office, a browser, and a couple of games, the start menu is fine for you, and I get that. But if you suddenly have a brazillion apps on your desktop, which is what happens when you introduce the app store and the like, it starts getting to be a clunky way of organizing stuff. Tiles and a robust search make sense. They just need to figure out a middle ground of sorts
 
2014-02-10 11:47:51 AM

Sharksfan: The learning curve from XP to 7 is negligible.  From 7 > 8 is just hard enough that people like DO NOT WANT to do it, period.  They are smart and capable, but they are also focused elsewhere.


Let alone supporting an endless stream of "should have retired 20 years ago" types and "never wanted to use a computer" ex-Kindergarten teachers.

Look, I'm a geek.  I've successfully used more computer interfaces than years I've been alive.  100 flavors of CP/M, GEOS, Amigas, WinNT 3.5, SGI IRIX, dead mobile platforms etc, etc.  And, on that broader picture, Windows 8 (Metro and all) is perfectly fine for me. I do what I need to with it.

About half of the "non-geek" computer world came in over Win95/98, about half have never really used anything but XP.  Any change you make to them has to be a lot more gradual than the 7->8 change was.
 
2014-02-10 11:48:03 AM

Rabid Badger Beaver Weasel: xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.

[www.thecampuscompanion.com image 700x375]


The Startup Screen plays "Putting on the Ritz".
 
2014-02-10 11:48:56 AM

PluckYew: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

Who the fark are you?  What are you a 12 year old?   They put all the relevant tools in one place, conditioned us for 20 years to look in that place and it the next instance of the OS took it away.  Those of us in the Enterprise, don't have time to relearn how to use our goddamn tools.

If you want to provide a "new" interface (which nobody cares about) at least leave the functionality of the old interface.
fark MS, I'll be waiting for Windows 9, if it's Metrofied, they can EABOD


Exactly

Revolutionary changes have always pushed customers away. This is something very common in the computer world. The Mac was a flop for a few years and the IBM XT pretty much showed that IBM no longer commanded the PC market. Windows 8 would not have been that bad if it was a slow evolution to Metro over several releases. Microsoft should have introduced a metro-like start menu to introduce us to the new interface.
 
2014-02-10 11:51:05 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.

With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Learning how to use Windows 8 requires the skill set of a guy who gets paid $2.50/hour in a call center in India that takes help desk questions. That's it. If you can't figure it out after that, you're an incompetent computer user. It takes less time to get used to than Linux. End of story. Moving on.

Your personal anecdote != the head of Windows development admitting that it loses productivity.
/Not to mention that you just admitted that you lost productivity, too.


Everyone does whenever they encounter a new software product.
 
2014-02-10 11:51:43 AM

cman: Revolutionary changes have always pushed customers away.


I'm not sure what's supposed to be revolutionary about the UI, though.  It's just bad, not like, bad but solving a problem we weren't aware existed.
 
2014-02-10 11:52:08 AM

OtherLittleGuy: The Startup Screen plays "Putting on the Ritz".


I blame Gary Cooper.
 
2014-02-10 11:52:19 AM
I'm currently running Win 8.1 at the office and on a personal laptop.  Granted on both systems I'm running VMWare and have plenty of other OSes running, but in my opinion the 8.0 to 8.1 transition made the operating system more usable but it still sucks to use.

The missing traditional "Programs" menu, especially with how Windows 7 handled it is the biggest feature that I'm missing. I typically use the same programs most of the time, but especially at work I go through phases with other programs, so having the list of "recently used" programs, plus with Office Applications then breaking into recent documents just a couple of clicks away was great.  I found that I could pin the application launcher to the taskbar in Win8.1 and right click to get a much shorter list of recent documents than 7 had available, but I like to try to have a clean desktop so having all of the Office icons pinned to the task area drives me crazy especially for the ones that I rarely use except to verify documents for staff.
 
2014-02-10 11:53:15 AM

Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.


No, it's different because it takes away all context while launching another app. What was I doing last? What am I doing here again? It takes the brain a few more seconds to figure out what it was up to last and it's just a nuisance. A brain fart. If it launched in from the side and provided analogous functionality (which does not mean identical behaviour) as start menu then this wouldn't happen.
 
2014-02-10 11:53:37 AM
cdn.unwire.hk
 
2014-02-10 11:54:00 AM

Begoggle: I'm still running MicroSoft BOB


Ahh yes, from back in the days when I had herpes AOL dialup.
 
2014-02-10 11:54:18 AM

kdogg73: [cdn.unwire.hk image 600x450]


Well, there goes my afternoon.
 
2014-02-10 11:54:30 AM

LineNoise: Carn: Win+r mstsc.  I think it still has the old run, need to verify on other machine.

Oh, yea, I know, like I said there are plenty of ways of doing it, but they defeat the point of the whole new UI when you want the default behavior of an app to work differently than it does out of the box (even when its an app that would make sense to default a different way).

I think they will get it right with some polish, but the point is in here. It isn't that the windows 8 UI is bad. Most of the examples people tout out are outright wrong, or, like me, they just need to spend 5 minutes to figure out how you do something the new way vs how it worked in 7, and people don't want to do that.

If you are someone who runs office, a browser, and a couple of games, the start menu is fine for you, and I get that. But if you suddenly have a brazillion apps on your desktop, which is what happens when you introduce the app store and the like, it starts getting to be a clunky way of organizing stuff. Tiles and a robust search make sense. They just need to figure out a middle ground of sorts


Yeah I'm with you, on my home machine I can avoid running widgets thankfully so the couple of times I had to switch between them I was only horribly annoyed for a few seconds.  I run vms at work and always have multiple terminal sessions like you so we'll see how enraged this will make me on a daily basis.  I'm not sure MS will ever get it 100% right.  Win7 was pretty close.  The biggest annoyance when it first came out was how intrusive the User Access Control box was.  Every time you did anything "is this ok is that ok can I rub your back?" which they toned down after the service packs.  Now they tried to help their non-existent mobile share but cocking up the desktop user experience.  You'd think they would have learned this lesson already with all of the major OS failures they've had but whatever.  I guess the safe bet will always be not to get any Microsoft product until sp1, maybe even sp2 these days.
 
2014-02-10 11:56:10 AM

Marine1: Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.


Shill like typing detected?  Seriously, nobody really uses Bing, come on now.  I don't even use Google myself any more (directly) but it's exceedingly rare that I'll run out of enough options to have to use Bing.

(But it's okay I guess.  Just as many privacy issues, search is about 40% as good as Google, but I think they're still using those ridiculous full page backgrounds.)

/I know it powers other search engines too
/I spend time in Vista, 7, 8, OSX, and various Linuxen, and frankly XP works more smoothly than any of them.  Really.  Smaller is better.
 
2014-02-10 11:57:58 AM

exparrot: The incongruity I find most annoying is the 'PC Settings' function that is only available as a metro app. Why the fark are the very same settings not available through control panel?

My metro apps were broken due to a microsoft store/account problem. The only way to edit was via PC Settings, which is a metro app ONLY. goto 10. arggggg.


That is what we call "a show stopper"

It sounds like a good reason for Microsoft to stop trying to ram Metro down people's throats and take a step back. Ideally, the settings should all be doable from the command line, but since the original Windows 1.0, the control panel has "just worked" so it has not been an issue. Moving one of the most important parts of the OS to a chunk of code that can break is inexcusable.
 
2014-02-10 11:58:47 AM

Marine1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.

With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Learning how to use Windows 8 requires the skill set of a guy who gets paid $2.50/hour in a call center in India that takes help desk questions. That's it. If you can't figure it out after that, you're an incompetent computer user. It takes less time to get used to than Linux. End of story. Moving on.

Your personal anecdote != the head of Windows development admitting that it loses productivity.
/Not to mention that you just admitted that you lost productivity, too.

Everyone does whenever they encounter a new software product.


Yeah.
Which is why the most jarring thing about moving from OSX 10.1 to OSX 10.9 is mouse gestures, and you can still use a farking one-button mouse the same way.
Right.
And why phones, tablets, and MP3 players all work the same way.

Slam Apple all you want, but their HCI continuity is farking impressive.
 
2014-02-10 11:59:56 AM

kdogg73: [cdn.unwire.hk image 600x450]


That making-popcorn like noise is a temple-based blood vessels of everyone who's ever dealt with a pre high speed internet based MSDN subscription.
 
2014-02-10 12:00:01 PM
Hipsters dual-boot Commodore 64 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 emulators on their brand-new desktops.
 
2014-02-10 12:00:46 PM

Marine1: What I don't get is the idea of constantly kowtowing down to the lowest common denominator in everything related to software design even when it means not advancing a product in a meaningful way to take advantage of the most recent innovations in the field.


I don't get a couple of things:

1) Why you're white knighting Microsoft when they themselves have admitted their farkup. They aren't going to sleep with you.
2) Why you don't seem to have any clue that a design is to promote usability, not complexity. What was it do you think was broken about the previous Windows UI that Metro "fixed"?
 
2014-02-10 12:01:51 PM

Marine1: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Carn:
My laptop I got this fall came with 8.1 and the first thing I did was disable most of the Metro stuff and turn on classic.  This article writer sounds like a noob.

And that's where MS has failed. The common user is a noob, and does not want to, or know how to work around to get rid of the Metro stuff.
Sure, it's easy for me to install classic shell. Not so much for my older relatives that just want to turn on their new computer, and see something that is familiar to them.

I get that the average user is an idiot. 

What I don't get is the idea of constantly kowtowing down to the lowest common denominator in everything related to software design even when it means not advancing a product in a meaningful way to take advantage of the most recent innovations in the field.

Windows 8.x is perfectly usable. 8 was alright; 8.1 is good.

If you cannot figure out a few small changes in the user interface (and it's just that... small), you are screwed as a computer user. Period. If you don't like Windows 8, and switch to OS X or Linux, you'll find yourself spending more time installing and preparing the machine than it would have taken to figure out Windows 8. This gets more true as your level of experience with computers decreases, so that noob you're talking about needs to stop being such a noob and take 15 minutes out of his/her day to figure out the answers to a few questions.


Stop sucking MicroSoft's dick they, won't come in your face. I work in a company with 32,000 and, I don't have time to reteach them all. There is a simple fix to to make Win8 usable

1. Right click on Desktop
2. Personalization
3. Windows Classic theme
 
2014-02-10 12:02:37 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.

With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Learning how to use Windows 8 requires the skill set of a guy who gets paid $2.50/hour in a call center in India that takes help desk questions. That's it. If you can't figure it out after that, you're an incompetent computer user. It takes less time to get used to than Linux. End of story. Moving on.

Your personal anecdote != the head of Windows development admitting that it loses productivity.
/Not to mention that you just admitted that you lost productivity, too.


Nail...Head

Why the fark would I need to Bing anything for basic OS operation?  I've been using Windows for more than 20 years.  fark Win 8, 8.1, 8.x it's a shiatshow.
 
2014-02-10 12:03:18 PM

Nick Nostril: Begoggle: I'm still running MicroSoft BOB

Ahh yes, from back in the days when I had herpes AOL dialup.


i.imgur.com

We've noticed your AOL subscription has lapsed. Is there a problem with the software itself? I'm empowered to offer you a month of free service today in recognition of the work you've put into helping us improve our user experience...
 
2014-02-10 12:03:43 PM
I really, really hope that by the time I'm forced to a work laptop with a new version of Windows, it has progressed, or maybe regressed, to something more like Win 7.  I just can't take another Microsoft crap OS.
 
2014-02-10 12:03:55 PM

RedPhoenix122: d23: [www.extremetech.com image 348x196]

I need to install SteamOS on my other partition sometime.


Don't bother for a while. It's called an alpha for a reason.

SteamOS needs a couple years at least in the oven yet.
 
2014-02-10 12:04:22 PM

SurfaceTension: xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.

I bought a new laptop over the weekend with Windows 8, and had zero problems installing Firefox (along with add-ons: xmarks, ad block plus, no script, and flash block)


I had the same experience. It also loads Chrome and its add-ons without a problem (we use Chromecast). Actually, for my purposes, I haven't really had any difficulties since the 8.1 upgrade. I work from Desktop. It's easy to get there. I pin what I need to the Desktop bar. The icon for the menu screen is enough like start that even Mr. H., who is non-techy and hates change, can use the system with ease. You can also right-click the Start Menu icon for a list of common operations, including Shutdown and Restart.
 
2014-02-10 12:05:29 PM

Unobtanium: In other words, they still don't get it. I have a touch-enabled laptop, and I do not use the touchscreen. I installed Classic Shell and have not looked back.


I donated $100 to classicshell.net, just because I have so many older clients that got rid of their XP units, bought a Win8 desktop, and lost their farking MINDS. With good reason, MS decided to push a tablet interface on them with NO INSTRUCTIONS, just because they were desperate to gain mobile market share.

They call me, I go over there, install Classic Shell, and teach them the magic "go home" Windows key on the keyboard. THAT'S IT. They're farking happy again! They have a Start menu that they're used to, and a way to get back to the desktop in any situation. They write me a check, and everyone's dancing in the streets!

Why couldn't MS do this? Wait, I just answered my question above.

Marine1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Marine1: More time has been spent biatching about Windows 8's interface than has been lost in productivity due to the interface.

With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Learning how to use Windows 8 requires the skill set of a guy who gets paid $2.50/hour in a call center in India that takes help desk questions. That's it. If you can't figure it out after that, you're an incompetent computer user. It takes less time to get used to than Linux. End of story. Moving on.


Wow, everyone should be that savvy! You don't deal with everyday computer users, you're 733T because you use Linux! Those great unwashed out there should just leave computing to real men like you! You're biatchEN!!!
 
2014-02-10 12:06:11 PM

Carousel Beast: Why you don't seem to have any clue that a design is to promote usability, not complexity. What was it do you think was broken about the previous Windows UI that Metro "fixed"?


High/low on a response along the lines of resolving a proper touch interface ecosystem which just doubles down on a system no one wants for a sit down desktop experience in the first place.
 
2014-02-10 12:07:00 PM

nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.


Outside of the hideous metro interface I'm having about the same positive experience with 8 that I had with 7. I just built a new gaming machine last month, and I had been planning on using 7, but had driver issues with the brand new hardware... so I upgraded to 8 (I bought Win 8 Pro on a promotion MS ran last year for $40) and everything works flawlessly now.

But I don't see much of a compelling reason to upgrade from 7 if your hardware isn't so new that you have issues like I did. Once you check the right options and install Classic Shell or something Win 8's experience is pretty much the same as 7's... except on 7 you don't have to do all that stuff to make it desktop friendly again. Metro SUCKS on a desktop. It just annoyed and frustrated me... so I got rid of it. They would be smart to understand that the UI which works on a tablet or other touchscreen won't be as good on a desktop.
 
2014-02-10 12:08:11 PM
I run three monitors under Win 7, with a half-dozen apps running simultaneously. Work great in Win7. Anybody doing something similar in Win 8?
 
2014-02-10 12:08:48 PM

nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.


Sadly, this is quite true.

95 was junk (I missed out on 3.11), 98 was much better. ME was a joke and XP was worth the wait. Vista, as a very later adopter was fine, but 7 was and still is better.

The craptop I'm using right now came with 8 and I promptly downgraded to 7. If I want a touch-screen experience, I'll play with my phone.
 
2014-02-10 12:09:20 PM

mokinokaro: Don't bother for a while. It's called an alpha for a reason.

SteamOS needs a couple years at least in the oven yet.


Yes, but like all things open source, the community has vastly improved it.  Gonna check out Ye Olde SteamOSe.
 
2014-02-10 12:09:33 PM
Windows 7 is awesome. Not sure about 8, it's probably just different enough to be annoying. My Mom figured it out.

This weekend I plugged an older HP OfficeJet into my LAN. Tried to install the printer on my Macbook: "what printer?". Tried to install it on my W7 laptop: "You mean the HP 6300 series?" Y. "Drivers installed. Print Test Page?" Y. Test page prints out.

I used the W7 configuration info to manually install the printer on my Mac.

"It just works, except when it doesn't".
 
2014-02-10 12:09:35 PM

Far Cough: Marine1: Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Shill like typing detected?  Seriously, nobody really uses Bing, come on now.  I don't even use Google myself any more (directly) but it's exceedingly rare that I'll run out of enough options to have to use Bing.

(But it's okay I guess.  Just as many privacy issues, search is about 40% as good as Google, but I think they're still using those ridiculous full page backgrounds.)

/I know it powers other search engines too
/I spend time in Vista, 7, 8, OSX, and various Linuxen, and frankly XP works more smoothly than any of them.  Really.  Smaller is better.


I occasionally type the queries on things I don't get into the search charm. It's Bing. Other times, I use my phone, which is a Nokia Lumia. Also Bing. Most of the time, I use Google, though.

Carousel Beast: Marine1: What I don't get is the idea of constantly kowtowing down to the lowest common denominator in everything related to software design even when it means not advancing a product in a meaningful way to take advantage of the most recent innovations in the field.

I don't get a couple of things:

1) Why you're white knighting Microsoft when they themselves have admitted their farkup. They aren't going to sleep with you.
2) Why you don't seem to have any clue that a design is to promote usability, not complexity. What was it do you think was broken about the previous Windows UI that Metro "fixed"?


1) They're "admitting" their fark-up because no one will give it a damn rest. The tech press (and Fark headlines) are notorious for never giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on  anything. They screw up, but Metro wasn't one of their screwups.
2) Using it on a touchscreen, which is a desired feature of most devices today. All of those things "replacing" PCs have them. Sticking with the traditional user interface on such a product would have meant death for Windows, because Windows 7 was a PITA to use on a touchscreen or with any touch interface. Windows 8 is not as much of a PITA to use on a traditional KVM setup as Windows 7 was on a touchscreen. Once you get used to it, like anything else, it's actually better. No more guiding your cursor through a tiny channel in a dropdown menu to get to a program. No more hunting through a list of items in 12-point font in a scrollbox to get to your program folder. No more dead space on the desktop sitting there doing nothing when it could be displaying information.
 
2014-02-10 12:15:22 PM

RedPhoenix122: Animatronik: The problem with the new windows is that for basic desktop or laptop use, the learning curve is not rewarded with increased functionality or ease of use, meaning that I would gladly switch back to Win 7.

On my TV, I prefer windows 8.1, but not by a huge margin. I can see that everything is headed in the direction ofhaving to be online at all times. I am starting to wonder though, if there is a new opportunity for Linux here as Microsoft tries to steer people toward more costly services and hardware.

Of course somebody says that every few years and is proven wrong because MS rules the business markets. That will continue for now.

The other side of that is because there's been no big corporate push for Linux, so it gets swept under the table.  I'm hoping SteamOS can at least take a small chunk of the market share.


I'd happily try out steam OS. I already run dual boot on a laptop and desktop. On the laptop it works great and I use Ubuntu more than windows for just about all routine stuff. On the desktop I never use linux, which is on a separate drive, and mostly use win 8.1,but Id gladly replace that with steam os if I could.
 
2014-02-10 12:16:51 PM

kdogg73: [cdn.unwire.hk image 600x450]


LOL 3,711 disks.

CygnusDarius: kdogg73: [cdn.unwire.hk image 600x450]

Well, there goes my afternoon.


Pretty accurate if you assume 5 seconds between disk changes, that would be just over 4 hours. Have floppy drives gotten any faster recently?
 
2014-02-10 12:17:25 PM

RedPhoenix122: mokinokaro: Don't bother for a while. It's called an alpha for a reason.

SteamOS needs a couple years at least in the oven yet.

Yes, but like all things open source, the community has vastly improved it.  Gonna check out Ye Olde SteamOSe.


Again no. It's not worth running at all yet.

Valve massively locked it down to ease testing so unless you're an extreme Linux power user you won't be able to do much with it.
 
2014-02-10 12:18:00 PM

Marine1: Far Cough: Marine1: Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Shill like typing detected?  Seriously, nobody really uses Bing, come on now.  I don't even use Google myself any more (directly) but it's exceedingly rare that I'll run out of enough options to have to use Bing.

(But it's okay I guess.  Just as many privacy issues, search is about 40% as good as Google, but I think they're still using those ridiculous full page backgrounds.)

/I know it powers other search engines too
/I spend time in Vista, 7, 8, OSX, and various Linuxen, and frankly XP works more smoothly than any of them.  Really.  Smaller is better.

I occasionally type the queries on things I don't get into the search charm. It's Bing. Other times, I use my phone, which is a Nokia Lumia. Also Bing. Most of the time, I use Google, though.

Carousel Beast: Marine1: What I don't get is the idea of constantly kowtowing down to the lowest common denominator in everything related to software design even when it means not advancing a product in a meaningful way to take advantage of the most recent innovations in the field.

I don't get a couple of things:

1) Why you're white knighting Microsoft when they themselves have admitted their farkup. They aren't going to sleep with you.
2) Why you don't seem to have any clue that a design is to promote usability, not complexity. What was it do you think was broken about the previous Windows UI that Metro "fixed"?

1) They're "admitting" their fark-up because no one will give it a damn rest. The tech press (and Fark headlines) are notorious for never giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on  anything. They screw up, but Metro wasn't one of their screwups.
2) Using it on a touchscreen, which is a desired feature of most devices today. All of those things "replacing" PCs have them. Sticking with the traditional user interface on such a produc ...


Speaking as an IE11 convert, you are full of shiat
 
2014-02-10 12:18:48 PM

loaba: nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.

Sadly, this is quite true.

95 was junk (I missed out on 3.11), 98 was much better. ME was a joke and XP was worth the wait. Vista, as a very later adopter was fine, but 7 was and still is better.

The craptop I'm using right now came with 8 and I promptly downgraded to 7. If I want a touch-screen experience, I'll play with my phone.



8 actually adds a number of OS tweaks that are nice compared to 7.  Explorer and Task Manager come to mind as being nicely upgraded.  It's a bit faster loading too.

I don't get the 8 hate.  I came in with 8.1 so I boot to desktop, but the start pages don't bother me, especially after watching the "who moved my cheese" video.  And in multi-monitor, 8.1 is a huge upgrade.

I do have a touchscreen and its great in presentation situations.  I had a meeting with a client the other day (an architect) and we were flipping through slides and images with it.  It's much more graceful and a crowd pleaser for sure.

I'm sure Apple will eventually give in and put a touchscreen on the macbook and everyone will ooh and ahh about how amazing it is.
 
2014-02-10 12:19:47 PM

Animatronik: RedPhoenix122: Animatronik: The problem with the new windows is that for basic desktop or laptop use, the learning curve is not rewarded with increased functionality or ease of use, meaning that I would gladly switch back to Win 7.

On my TV, I prefer windows 8.1, but not by a huge margin. I can see that everything is headed in the direction ofhaving to be online at all times. I am starting to wonder though, if there is a new opportunity for Linux here as Microsoft tries to steer people toward more costly services and hardware.

Of course somebody says that every few years and is proven wrong because MS rules the business markets. That will continue for now.

The other side of that is because there's been no big corporate push for Linux, so it gets swept under the table.  I'm hoping SteamOS can at least take a small chunk of the market share.

I'd happily try out steam OS. I already run dual boot on a laptop and desktop. On the laptop it works great and I use Ubuntu more than windows for just about all routine stuff. On the desktop I never use linux, which is on a separate drive, and mostly use win 8.1,but Id gladly replace that with steam os if I could.


Also, one positive for Win8.1: it's the easiest OS install I've ever done, on my Frankenstein homebuilt hardware, and runs pretty flawlessly. I like running it on my TV. I wouldn't like it on my nontouch laptop simply because I like the win7 interface better for that. So even with Steam OS dual booting capability I'd continue to use Windows.
 
2014-02-10 12:22:12 PM

Marine1: Using it on a touchscreen, which is a desired feature of most devices today. All of those things "replacing" PCs have them. Sticking with the traditional user interface on such a product would have meant death for Windows, because Windows 7 was a PITA to use on a touchscreen or with any touch interface. Windows 8 is not as much of a PITA to use on a traditional KVM setup as Windows 7 was on a touchscreen. Once you get used to it, like anything else, it's actually better. No more guiding your cursor through a tiny channel in a dropdown menu to get to a program. No more hunting through a list of items in 12-point font in a scrollbox to get to your program folder. No more dead space on the desktop sitting there doing nothing when it could be displaying information.



Using a touchscreen - is fine on a portable device that is primarily used for content consumption. In a home desktop/laptop installation, when I'm working with a real keyboard and a mouse etc, then no, it's not fine. When I'm working and creating content, I'm not touching my screen.

Sticking with a tradition interface - ON A MOBILE PLATFORM - would have indeed meant death for Windows. Metro on my smart phone? Sure. Maybe. If Android starts to suck (which it won't), I'll think about it.

MS was late to mobile party (they've never had a decent mobile OS) and their desktop users are paying the price for that now.
 
2014-02-10 12:23:44 PM

beerdini: I'm currently running Win 8.1 at the office and on a personal laptop.  Granted on both systems I'm running VMWare and have plenty of other OSes running, but in my opinion the 8.0 to 8.1 transition made the operating system more usable but it still sucks to use.

The missing traditional "Programs" menu, especially with how Windows 7 handled it is the biggest feature that I'm missing. I typically use the same programs most of the time, but especially at work I go through phases with other programs, so having the list of "recently used" programs, plus with Office Applications then breaking into recent documents just a couple of clicks away was great.  I found that I could pin the application launcher to the taskbar in Win8.1 and right click to get a much shorter list of recent documents than 7 had available, but I like to try to have a clean desktop so having all of the Office icons pinned to the task area drives me crazy especially for the ones that I rarely use except to verify documents for staff.



There may be another way of doing this, but you can go into the start page, click the down arrow to the program listing.  Then change the apps listing to "Most Used".

I typically pin my most used apps to the start page to skip the additional step.
 
2014-02-10 12:24:12 PM
LineNoise:

It isn't that the windows 8 UI is bad.

Yeah, it is.
 
2014-02-10 12:24:27 PM

Marine1: 1) They're "admitting" their fark-up because no one will give it a damn rest. The tech press (and Fark headlines) are notorious for never giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on anything. They screw up, but Metro wasn't one of their screwups.


Yes.  It was.  Which is why they're backing away from it, why everyone involved was shiatcanned, etc.  Putting Metro on a desktop OS was a screwup, period.  (Hell, even the NAME Metro was a screwup, since they're not allowed to use it.)  It's no conspiracy.  It's not that the press is too critical of MS; it's that they're too UNCRITICAL of Apple.

2) Using it on a touchscreen, which is a desired feature of most devices today. All of those things "replacing" PCs have them. Sticking with the traditional user interface on such a product would have meant death for Windows, because Windows 7 was a PITA to use on a touchscreen or with any touch interface. Windows 8 is not as much of a PITA to use on a traditional KVM setup as Windows 7 was on a touchscreen.

True enough, I suppose.  But this wasn't the answer either.
 Once you get used to it, like anything else, it's actually better. No more guiding your cursor through a tiny channel in a dropdown menu to get to a program. No more hunting through a list of items in 12-point font in a scrollbox to get to your program folder. No more dead space on the desktop sitting there doing nothing when it could be displaying information.

So untrue.  It's better to "hunt through" screen after screen of unsorted tiles, with office applications mixed in among accidentally installed spammy apps and games?  Oh, just type the name you say?  Like we could do in Windows BEFORE the ugly Metro crap?


No more dead space on the desktop sitting there doing nothing when it could be displaying information.

Seriously?  The dead space is not there because you can't see the desktop, or ANYTHING YOU WERE ALREADY RUNNING.  Because the useless chaos of the Start screen has entirely taken over your giant screen.
 
2014-02-10 12:29:21 PM
Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.
 
2014-02-10 12:31:53 PM

PluckYew: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

Who the fark are you?  What are you a 12 year old?   They put all the relevant tools in one place, conditioned us for 20 years to look in that place and it the next instance of the OS took it away.  Those of us in the Enterprise, don't have time to relearn how to use our goddamn tools.

If you want to provide a "new" interface (which nobody cares about) at least leave the functionality of the old interface. 

fark MS, I'll be waiting for Windows 9, if it's Metrofied, they can EABOD


If you think that I'm not in the 'Enterprise' (why is the capitalized?) you are mistaken.  Most of us don't care where the tools are because we have been accessing them quickly and easily without using the start menu long before windows 8 was released.  The start menu is a crappy UI choice and metro is a slightly less crappy UI choice, your conditioning to the start menu notwithstanding.

If you are visually searching the start menu you are a casual user. A casual user probably enjoys visual cues, live tiles, and all the associated other crap.  If you know what you want then it's faster and easier to just use the search. If you use what you were looking for often it's likely that you already have it pinned to your taskbar.  There is simply no reason for the start menu to exist and barely any reason for metro to exist. It's a pointless vestigial organ and not worth the rage directed towards it.

Basically if you are upset about metro you should be upset about the start menu too but since they are both meaningless in terms of efficient operation of your PC it's not worth the energy to get upset about either of them.
 
2014-02-10 12:33:10 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P



Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E
 
2014-02-10 12:33:16 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


He meant that they keep on hiding them further and differently in each version of Windows.
 
2014-02-10 12:33:59 PM

Molavian: Ever since my Technet subscription got canned I find that I'm migrating away from Windows products.

Especially at work.


I'm one of them, and I've had 0 problems with my 8.1 tablet. Though, ASUS ruined their camera app by not allowing the camera flash to work, but that doesn't have anything to do with MS.
 
2014-02-10 12:37:08 PM
I worked in IT all the way back to Windows 3.11.  I used to manually set IRQ settings on boards for Pete's Sake.  I put up with NT 3.51, 4.0, Win98, WinMe, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and finally Windows 7.  We did skip WinMe at work - everything else our CIO decided had to be implemented.  I got used to all of it.  This Windows 8 interface sucks donkey cock.  It needed to be said.  I have no other point.
 
2014-02-10 12:37:23 PM

PluckYew: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

Who the fark are you?  What are you a 12 year old?   They put all the relevant tools in one place, conditioned us for 20 years to look in that place and it the next instance of the OS took it away.  Those of us in the Enterprise, don't have time to relearn how to use our goddamn tools.

If you want to provide a "new" interface (which nobody cares about) at least leave the functionality of the old interface. 

fark MS, I'll be waiting for Windows 9, if it's Metrofied, they can EABOD


Far-king THIS.

The classic Windows UI is not necessarily obsolete simply because the year is 2014 and regular end users tend to use user-friendly smartphones and tablets, something that the Metro interface is completely suited to be used on.

Try using it on a desktop PC, however, and you get the major shiatshow we're seeing right now.

At the very LEAST, they could have made both Classic and Metro UIs separate built-in options, and defaulted to Metro upon installation since they're pushing it so damn much.

Microsoft shouldn't have omitted the very feature (the Start/Programs menu) that made them farking successful in the first place. I understand computer technology changes in a heartbeat, but *some* things just shouldn't change.

Now, if only I could get Win 8.1 to stop using over half of the 4GBs on my new laptop.....
 
2014-02-10 12:37:40 PM

Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

I don't know why people keep saying this?

For YEARS Windows XP was complete and absolute crap and people weren't going to move away from Windows 2000 (which you left out). Until SP2, and even a bit in SP3, XP was one of the worst offenders for crashes and bluescreens on the planet. It seemed like if you did anything to the video card drivers, you'd bluescreen that operating system. I remember the pain of having to deal with Bluetooth drivers and having to use 3rd party controls to get devices to work properly. And god help you if you wanted to search & index the operating system and a large external media drive. In XP, it's like working with a snail.

 It seems like people love to look at that Fisher Price operating system with rose colored glasses.
 
2014-02-10 12:38:32 PM

TheDirtyNacho: 8 actually adds a number of OS tweaks that are nice compared to 7.  Explorer and Task Manager come to mind as being nicely upgraded.  It's a bit faster loading too.

I don't get the 8 hate.  I came in with 8.1 so I boot to desktop, but the start pages don't bother me, especially after watching the "who moved my cheese" video.  And in multi-monitor, 8.1 is a huge upgrade.

I do have a touchscreen and its great in presentation situations.  I had a meeting with a client the other day (an architect) and we were flipping through slides and images with it.  It's much more graceful and a crowd pleaser for sure.



I do like some of the tools in 8/8.1, main feature that stands out for me is the ISO feature. In 8, you can mount a ISO and run it directly in Windows. In 7, you'd need a 3rd-party app like DEAMON tools. I also like the file transfer functionality of win 8 as well.

For a touchscreen presentations, I'd rather use my Asus Transformer. It's smaller and easier to carry and it has a cool name...
 
2014-02-10 12:39:17 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

that is cool... I never knew that... is there a central list / cheat sheet for key combinations?


Just google windows 8 shortcuts..  for the win+x menu, you can hit the key with the underline to go right to it.  So Win+X then M = Device Manager
 
2014-02-10 12:40:03 PM
Metro sucks for me because I prefer a clean desktop. I have 0 shortcuts on my desktop and 3 pinned applications, explorer, firefox and steam. If I want to open a program I open it's exe directly from the install folder, rarely Start>whatever. Metro just looks messy.
 
2014-02-10 12:40:08 PM

TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E


Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.
 
2014-02-10 12:42:22 PM

Far Cough: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.



I must admit I didn't start looking into uses for the Win key until I learned about Win X :-)
 
2014-02-10 12:44:00 PM

Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?


Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?
 
2014-02-10 12:44:05 PM

MrSteve007: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?
I don't know why people keep saying this?

For YEARS Windows XP was complete and absolute crap and people weren't going to move away from Windows 2000 (which you left out). Until SP2, and even a bit in SP3, XP was one of the worst offenders for crashes and bluescreens on the planet. It seemed like if you did anything to the video card drivers, you'd bluescreen that operating system. I remember the pain of having to deal with Bluetooth drivers and having to use 3rd party controls to get devices to work properly. And god help you if you wanted to search & index the operating system and a large external media drive. In XP, it's like working with a snail.

 It seems like people love to look at that Fisher Price operating system with rose colored glasses.


Win 2000 was a NT platform, not really a home-user OS. And yes, XP was rock-solid. The main reason I was a late Vista adopter, was because XP was still rocking along.

Windows 8 is not a bad OS, MS simply erred in the hamfisted way the forced the the Metro (now Modern) UI on traditional desktop users. Win 8 should have featured a first-run wizard that gave users some choice in how they wanted to setup and use their new system.
 
2014-02-10 12:45:36 PM

Pick: Ubuntu. Done.


As soon as I can get reliable support for my Steam library, I truly will be done with Windows.

I can do everything else with tools supported by Ubuntu.
 
2014-02-10 12:45:57 PM

dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?


And
img.fark.net
?
 
2014-02-10 12:46:38 PM

TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E


Well you'll be happy to know that in windows 9 Win+X opens media player and plays shake your love by debbie gibson.  Admin tools you will need to press Win+~@---^^^, and put your left foot in.  Why?  Because.....
 
2014-02-10 12:47:58 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Far Cough: Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows? It's really sounding desperate out there.Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.

yes it does... so why be desperate about something you have no intention of using?


Uh, what?  I'm not sure what you're saying, but I have to help people using the predominant versions of Windows all the time.  It's what many IT people do.  And buying new PCs with Win7 has become increasingly difficult, though not impossible.

I was calling out the fact that most of these keyboard shortcuts, sometimes touted as the saving grace of the otherwise unusable Win8 interface(s), existed long before Win8.
 
2014-02-10 12:48:17 PM
Windows 8 is a great OS the same way the Pontiac Aztek was a great car. Under the hood it's stellar.
 
2014-02-10 12:48:31 PM

Pangea: Pick: Ubuntu. Done.

As soon as I can get reliable support for my Steam library, I truly will be done with Windows.

I can do everything else with tools supported by Ubuntu.


Linux is great, kind of, sort of. But not really.

/seriously - Linux' biggest problem is all of the choices it offers and it'shiat-or-miss peripheral support.
 
2014-02-10 12:49:40 PM

Egoy3k: Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.


What if you use a proper keyboard....? (ie. Model M)
 
2014-02-10 12:50:11 PM

nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.


That is the same model I follow.
 
2014-02-10 12:55:44 PM

LineNoise: The problem with 8 (and even 8.1) is that people continued to use it like they did the previous versions. Instead of taking advantage of the new features, they tried to shoehorn in their method of doing things like they did in previous versions.


Because in the business world when you're a corporation that employs more than 50 people who use PCs every day as an integral part of their productivity you cannot afford anything that will cause massive disruptions to people's workflow. You've probably at some point had an efficiency expert streamline your processes or simply through experience developed an efficient pipeline that maximizes productivity. Upgrades are an inevitable part as newer versions of software and hardware no longer support or fully function on older operating systems. Computers break down and need to be replaced.

The learning curve moving from a Windows XP environment (which is what most of the business world runs on) to a Windows 7 environment is minimal. The changes are minor and for the most part intuitive so most of your staff will be able to function business as usual which means no loss of production which means no loss of revenue.

Jumping from Windows XP to Windows 8 is like running headlong into a brick wall. It's painful and disorienting.

Users should not have to "shoe horn" their productivity pipelines into their new operating system. The new operating system should accept their already established and optimized work flow and augment it with new features and functionality as seamlessly as possible.

Windows 8 does not do that.

It's one thing for some tinkerer at home who never uses his computer for more than playing games, e-mail, and surfing the web to peck and hunt at the new operating system until they're able to figure it out. It doesn't matter if for a few weeks or even months he has to remind himself "oh yeah, that's not the way things work any more, DOY!"

But that sort of shirt won't fly in the workplace.
 
2014-02-10 12:55:55 PM

Far Cough: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P

He meant that they keep on hiding them further and differently in each version of Windows.


There is an option for that:

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-10 12:58:22 PM

DanZero: SurfaceTension: xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.

I bought a new laptop over the weekend with Windows 8, and had zero problems installing Firefox (along with add-ons: xmarks, ad block plus, no script, and flash block)

This.

New desktop with 8.1, it automatically booted to the desktop, installed Firefox and all my other programs and even a few games that run much smoother and faster now. I can right click on the Start button to get to anywhere I need to be, and it feels a lot more faster and stable than Vista was (I know, going from bad to worse in some people's eyes).

Not too much hate on 8.


Same here on 8.1. A well-equipped but by no means new Dell Precision M600 boots noticeably faster and is rock-steady stable under it.

Firefox still wants to eat all the RAM it can find. Eventually, I close it and open it again if I've had a lot of tabs open, but I can't blame Windoze for that.
 
2014-02-10 01:03:39 PM
8.0/8.1 has more spag-code on top of 7. Why have more spag-code? Clean & tweak 7.0 and you're good to go.
 
2014-02-10 01:04:21 PM

dj_spanmaster: dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?

And
[img.fark.net image 300x400]
?


Very nice reference, grammatically.

Though of course it wasn't an OS per se.

/Win 3.0
/Win98SE
/Windows for Workgroups (various versions)
/Windows for Alpha
/NT 3, 3.51, 4, etc.

It's all the same codebase since forever at this point, not unlike Unix/Linux/BSD/OSX.
 
2014-02-10 01:09:01 PM

MrSteve007: For YEARS Windows XP was complete and absolute crap and people weren't going to move away from Windows 2000 (which you left out). Until SP2, and even a bit in SP3, XP was one of the worst offenders for crashes and bluescreens on the planet. It seemed like if you did anything to the video card drivers, you'd bluescreen that operating system. I remember the pain of having to deal with Bluetooth drivers and having to use 3rd party controls to get devices to work properly. And god help you if you wanted to search & index the operating system and a large external media drive. In XP, it's like working with a snail.


Once they got to XPsp3 - it was one of the most stable OS's Microsoft has ever released.  And if they continued with incremental improvements instead of these bing bang releases - Microsoft wouldn't of found itself in the shiatstorm its presently in.
 
2014-02-10 01:09:18 PM

dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?


2000 was more server oriented, it's the NT equivalent of ME, except it actually works.
1 and 2 barely count as functional, and 3.1 only counts if you count 8.1 as well.
 
2014-02-10 01:10:20 PM
I'm on 8.1 and was on 8 when it launched. It's noticeably faster than 7 was. I have no problem with Metro (though I'm usually in desktop mode) because I have most of my favorite programs pinned to the Taskbar, and other shortcuts on my desktop. If I need something I don't have in the desktop area, I hit the Windows key, type the name, and press enter. Boom, it starts.

I really don't get all the whining about Windows 8. It's fine.
 
2014-02-10 01:10:29 PM
Funny thing; even with all the negative backlash that Win 8 has gotten, it's still better than Linux.
 
2014-02-10 01:15:21 PM

Egoy3k: Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.


Yeah this.  Even on my Windows 7 rig I have never scrolled through all the Start menu.  If you dont' know the name of the app you want to use you probably don't need it.  Pin the important stuff to the bottom and be done with it.  I was at a conference and I looked at this guys Macbook and I kid you not he had about a 100 items pinned at the bottom.  I was right behind him and I could not make out what the icons were they were soo small.
 
2014-02-10 01:19:25 PM

Carn: LineNoise: Carn: Win+r mstsc.  I think it still has the old run, need to verify on other machine.

Oh, yea, I know, like I said there are plenty of ways of doing it, but they defeat the point of the whole new UI when you want the default behavior of an app to work differently than it does out of the box (even when its an app that would make sense to default a different way).

I think they will get it right with some polish, but the point is in here. It isn't that the windows 8 UI is bad. Most of the examples people tout out are outright wrong, or, like me, they just need to spend 5 minutes to figure out how you do something the new way vs how it worked in 7, and people don't want to do that.

If you are someone who runs office, a browser, and a couple of games, the start menu is fine for you, and I get that. But if you suddenly have a brazillion apps on your desktop, which is what happens when you introduce the app store and the like, it starts getting to be a clunky way of organizing stuff. Tiles and a robust search make sense. They just need to figure out a middle ground of sorts

Yeah I'm with you, on my home machine I can avoid running widgets thankfully so the couple of times I had to switch between them I was only horribly annoyed for a few seconds.  I run vms at work and always have multiple terminal sessions like you so we'll see how enraged this will make me on a daily basis.  I'm not sure MS will ever get it 100% right.  Win7 was pretty close.  The biggest annoyance when it first came out was how intrusive the User Access Control box was.  Every time you did anything "is this ok is that ok can I rub your back?" which they toned down after the service packs.  Now they tried to help their non-existent mobile share but cocking up the desktop user experience.  You'd think they would have learned this lesson already with all of the major OS failures they've had but whatever.  I guess the safe bet will always be not to get any Microsoft product until sp1, maybe ...


VMS?!??!!!???

I didn't think ANYBODY still had a VAX running.  The last one I knew of was shut down about 5 years ago.
 
2014-02-10 01:20:36 PM

MrSteve007: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?
I don't know why people keep saying this?



Fine.

95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
tree pretty
beer foamy
Parker bad *bonk*
 
2014-02-10 01:22:56 PM

Holly_Wight: I'm on 8.1 and was on 8 when it launched. It's noticeably faster than 7 was. I have no problem with Metro (though I'm usually in desktop mode) because I have most of my favorite programs pinned to the Taskbar, and other shortcuts on my desktop. If I need something I don't have in the desktop area, I hit the Windows key, type the name, and press enter. Boom, it starts.

I really don't get all the whining about Windows 8. It's fine.


Because it was completely unnecessary.

/Windows 7 boots and runs faster then Windows 8 on my newly built rig
//and it took until Windows 8.1 release for Microsoft for Microsoft to fix some network bugs that were long resolved in Windows 7
 
2014-02-10 01:24:30 PM

gingerjet: Once they got to XPsp3 - it was one of the most stable OS's Microsoft has ever released. And if they continued with incremental improvements instead of these bing bang releases - Microsoft wouldn't of found itself in the shiatstorm its presently in.


That's the thing - they spent eons working on making XP stable. XP launched in October of 2001: that version was a half-baked buggy operating system and stability nightmare. People absolutely hated it. Then it took a year to get SP1 in the fall of 2002 - most people still hated it  It was a stability nightmare. Fast forward another 2 years, to summer 2004 (three years after launch), and SP2 came out. It improved a lot, quieting down many of the complaints but it wasn't perfect.

XP Service Pack 3 came out mid 2008 . . . nearly SEVEN YEARS after the operating system launched. It took them that long to simply make the OS stable (it was still Swiss cheese when it came to security, requiring constant patching of zero-day exploits).

In comparison, in the same timeframe, we've gone through Windows Vista, Win 7, Win 8 and 8.1 in the time it took MS to get XP SP3 out. The development cycle has gone into turbo, with far more features, stability and security baked into each operating systems, while keeping OS footprint and resource needs for nearly a decade. The only complaint people have now is UI changes for wider range of input types, which is kind of sad.
 
2014-02-10 01:24:57 PM

cman: Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

I still hate the ribbon with a passion.

I remember the first time I saw it, I laughed my ass off hard thinking it was some sort of joke. Sadly I was mistaken.


I am also a ribbon-hater. Quick Access Toolbar is my friend. I have added a whole munch of options I use on a regular basis, so I don't have to go rooting through the ribbon options and sub options. Keep with Next,  Bookmark, Wrap Text, Shapes, and Quick Parts are all a part of my Quick Access toolbar. There's also a Quick Access Toolbar for Excel. Unfortunately, it's not an option for SharePoint 2010, and the ribbon there has a level of suck that exceeds anything in the Word or Excel ribbon even without Quick Access.
 
2014-02-10 01:25:19 PM

DarkVader: VMS?!??!!!???

I didn't think ANYBODY still had a VAX running.  The last one I knew of was shut down about 5 years ago.


It's been walled-off.
 
2014-02-10 01:25:51 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Far Cough: HindiDiscoMonster: Far Cough: Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows? It's really sounding desperate out there.Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.

yes it does... so why be desperate about something you have no intention of using?

Uh, what?  I'm not sure what you're saying, but I have to help people using the predominant versions of Windows all the time.  It's what many IT people do.  And buying new PCs with Win7 has become increasingly difficult, though not impossible.

I was calling out the fact that most of these keyboard shortcuts, sometimes touted as the saving grace of the otherwise unusable Win8 interface(s), existed long before Win8.

you just sound generally butthurt when people like 8 or list features that people (re)discovered in 8... If you had read my post about my experience with 8 you would realize I am an IT person.


"Butthurt"?  I don't care if you or anyone else likes what I don't like.  What I don't care for is the disingenuousness, intentional or not, of lipsticking a pig by pretending no other pigs ever had curly tails before.

/I don't know what it means either.  I just type what the brain tells me.

Seriously, your own earlier reaction is an example of what I mean -- oh wow, check out the cool Win8 shortcuts.  If anything, ESPECIALLY as an "IT person", I'd think you'd be grateful to know that the shortcuts aren't limited to 8.  Win-M is my favorite, and works on just about everything.
 
2014-02-10 01:29:51 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: DarkVader: VMS?!??!!!???

I didn't think ANYBODY still had a VAX running.  The last one I knew of was shut down about 5 years ago.

It's been walled-off.


And a non-legend: VAXen in nuclear power plants.
 
2014-02-10 01:32:06 PM
OtherLittleGuy:
Fine.
95 bad
98 good bad
98SE good
2000 good
Bob bad

ME bad
XP good bad
XP SP1 bad; stability
XP SP2 ok; stability, new features
XP SP3 good

Vista bad; stability, UAC, UI changes
Vista SP1 bad; but only for UI changes

7 good; at launch, since it was essentially Vista SP2
8 bad; because people don't like UI changes, even though the OS is rock solid stable, faster, more secure and usable on more device types
8.1; still bad, because people want the old start menu triggered on the lower left start button


Fixed that for you.
 
2014-02-10 01:32:43 PM

DarkVader: Carn: LineNoise: Carn: Win+r mstsc.  I think it still has the old run, need to verify on other machine.

Oh, yea, I know, like I said there are plenty of ways of doing it, but they defeat the point of the whole new UI when you want the default behavior of an app to work differently than it does out of the box (even when its an app that would make sense to default a different way).

I think they will get it right with some polish, but the point is in here. It isn't that the windows 8 UI is bad. Most of the examples people tout out are outright wrong, or, like me, they just need to spend 5 minutes to figure out how you do something the new way vs how it worked in 7, and people don't want to do that.

If you are someone who runs office, a browser, and a couple of games, the start menu is fine for you, and I get that. But if you suddenly have a brazillion apps on your desktop, which is what happens when you introduce the app store and the like, it starts getting to be a clunky way of organizing stuff. Tiles and a robust search make sense. They just need to figure out a middle ground of sorts

Yeah I'm with you, on my home machine I can avoid running widgets thankfully so the couple of times I had to switch between them I was only horribly annoyed for a few seconds.  I run vms at work and always have multiple terminal sessions like you so we'll see how enraged this will make me on a daily basis.  I'm not sure MS will ever get it 100% right.  Win7 was pretty close.  The biggest annoyance when it first came out was how intrusive the User Access Control box was.  Every time you did anything "is this ok is that ok can I rub your back?" which they toned down after the service packs.  Now they tried to help their non-existent mobile share but cocking up the desktop user experience.  You'd think they would have learned this lesson already with all of the major OS failures they've had but whatever.  I guess the safe bet will always be not to get any Microsoft product until sp1, ...


Sorry that's my lazy abbreviation for virtual machines :D
 
2014-02-10 01:33:37 PM

Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.


My opinion: Unless they break down and UPGRADE to the Gnome 2.0 menu system (where the programs are -forced- into the proper section, not haphazardly placed on the menu), I'll wait til they upgrade to the classic 7.0 shell. When you have hundreds of programs, it's a pain to go through a menu system that requires a touchscreen... with a mouse or trackball.
 
2014-02-10 01:33:38 PM
Oh, and I'm sorry, Windoze was NEVER a good operating system.  Hell, it wasn't even an operating system until NT, it was just a MS-DOS overlay before that.  And for most of you, it wasn't even an OS before XP, since you probably had 98 before that, which was really just still an overlay on MS-DOS.

The first release that wasn't a complete steaming pile of dogshiat was 7.  It was still shiat, but it had time to cool down and didn't stink as badly.

Windoze 8 is freshly dropped and steaming again, with a runny diarrhea quality added to it.

At least I don't have to use that turd.  I've been using Macs on the desktop and in the server room since the late '80s, and Apple IIs before that, with some Linux servers quietly crunching away in the racks these days too.
 
2014-02-10 01:33:39 PM

MrSteve007: The only complaint people have now is UI changes for wider range of input types, which is kind of sad.


Nothing sad about. My needs as a mobile user are not the same as my needs when I am a static user. Pretty simple, really. My desktop and laptop computers need a different interface then, say, my phone or tablet.

As a static user, I don't want the lock screen or the start screen or the charm bar. You can keep all the shiate, please.
 
2014-02-10 01:33:41 PM
Thats the weird thing about Microsoft. Every other OS kinda sorta works.
 
2014-02-10 01:35:13 PM
I used to like Win 8, but now I really like 8.1, and am sure to find the next update an incremental improvement. I'll even wager that I'll love the OS so much by the time 9 is released, that I'll be utterly disgusted that the laptop replacing this one comes with 9.

9 sucks balls already. There, I said it. Happy now?!?
 
2014-02-10 01:35:45 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Far Cough: dj_spanmaster: dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?

And
[img.fark.net image 300x400]
?

Very nice reference, grammatically.

Though of course it wasn't an OS per se.

/Win 3.0
/Win98SE
/Windows for Workgroups (various versions)
/Windows for Alpha
/NT 3, 3.51, 4, etc.

It's all the same codebase since forever at this point, not unlike Unix/Linux/BSD/OSX.

if you want to be hyper technical, then:

for the 9x, and 1 through 3.11 codebase, the OS is: IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS

everything else is an accessory (including any GUIs or COMMAND.COM)

for the NT codebase (from 3.1 to Current Windows versions including XP,Vista,8): NTLDR, NTDETECT, NTOSKRNL

from the loading of HAL.DLL on, these are all accessories, and not the OS itself.

Granted, the OS is useless by itself without some kind of user interface, which is why most people consider COMMAND.COM or the GUI as part of the OS itself... but is not technically correct... just like the Linux kernel is the OS... any interface loaded beyond that point is again, an accessory.


Yeah, I was one of the ones arguing that all the 3s and 9xs were still just DOS.  I was mostly right, though there are good arguments either way.
 
2014-02-10 01:36:52 PM

Marine1: No more dead space on the desktop sitting there doing nothing when it could be displaying information.


This right here is the source of all that lost productivity. Sure stock brokers night need a ticker tape of information displayed constantly on their desktop, but for every one stockbroker there are hundreds of non-stockbrokers displaying "news" feeds.

Let me just check my email, oh wait Justin Beiber did what?!?!? Better read all about that shiat. Productivity, lost.
 
2014-02-10 01:39:12 PM

Rabid Badger Beaver Weasel: xanadian: If my OS starts screaming "FIREFOX BAD," I'm downgrading.

[www.thecampuscompanion.com image 700x375]


Here's Hans Delbruck and Abby Someone.
images.indianexpress.com
 
2014-02-10 01:40:57 PM

Unobtanium: In other words, they still don't get it. I have a touch-enabled laptop, and I do not use the touchscreen.


Lolwut? Why did you buy it then?
 
2014-02-10 01:42:40 PM

BumpInTheNight: ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?

I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy.  Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.

.
Ugh. While I'm not an Ubuntu user (been using Fedora/RedHat since 1998 or so), Gnome 3 is just as bad as Unity, I end up alternating between Mate, Cinnamon, Enlightenment, and Fluxbox.
 
2014-02-10 01:43:15 PM

Nurglitch: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

Cool. Yet again, I have learned something on Fark.


It's amazing how many people don't know you can do this. I pretty much always launch programs with windows key, a few letters, and enter.
 
2014-02-10 01:45:54 PM

Carn: Sorry that's my lazy abbreviation for virtual machines :D


Yeah, I know.  It was funnier the other way, though.
 
2014-02-10 01:47:56 PM
Umm i'd just like to say...that win8 isn't as bloated as earlier versions is mostly bollocks...

yes when you first install it it's a damn sight faster than win 7... HOWEVER i've got a VM here, that is literally win8, office 2013 and the dynamics plug in...

in the last 5 months, it's gone from speedy...to slower than a legged horse nailed to the floor.

Honestly it's farking rediculous.....
 
2014-02-10 01:47:57 PM

loaba: Nothing sad about. My needs as a mobile user are not the same as my needs when I am a static user. Pretty simple, really. My desktop and laptop computers need a different interface then, say, my phone or tablet.

As a static user, I don't want the lock screen or the start screen or the charm bar. You can keep all the shiate, please.


That's the thing. As processors get more power efficient (while roughly keeping up with Moores law for processing power), it makes sense to have an operating system that is the swiss army knife, that can be different things in different situations. Why have a separate desktop, laptop and tablet?

I use my Surface Pro 2 as all of them.

When at work, the machine is docked and I'm driving 4 large external monitors, a desktop keyboard, hardwired to my gigabit network, USB 3 to DVD burner and large external drives. While I can't do any GPU heavy lifting CAD rendering, it actually does a nice job with HD video editing and any other "desktop" need you can through at it. In this mode, I'm almost always in the old style desktop.

Then I undock my machine and with the keyboard cover, use it like a laptop while commuting on the train - checking emails, writing replies, etc.

Then when I get home, I can use the kickstand and touch interface on the couch or in bed and use it just like a tablet (except I have all the programs I could ever want to use). I have ~8-10 hours of battery life, which is more than enough to watch Netflix before heading to sleep.

It's doable to do all that with Win 7, but without a stylus, it's a terrible touch interface. And XP is completely antiquated with this scenario.

I still have a traditional desktop for gaming at home. But at this point, that's all it does. With exception of games, I could completely replace it with a docking station.

/now if I could only get a real external GPU solution . . .
 
2014-02-10 01:50:04 PM

nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.


Win2K was good, and XP was better.  Vista.....well, let's not speak of Vista.
 
2014-02-10 01:50:42 PM

Handsome B. Wonderful: Unobtanium: In other words, they still don't get it. I have a touch-enabled laptop, and I do not use the touchscreen.

Lolwut? Why did you buy it then?


Because it had all the other features I wanted at the price (it's an Asus X202). At the time I was looking for an i3 or i5, 13.3 or smaller, at least one USB 3.0 port, slim and light so I can carry it for personal stuff along with my work laptop (a 15.6 Lenovo), under $500.00. It came with the touchscreen, but I didn't have to have that feature.

I had several computers that I was looking at, but decided on this one because it went on sale when I as ready to buy. I just looked - I paid less for it than most of the on-line offers for new ones available today.
 
2014-02-10 01:52:34 PM

vegas_greaser: BumpInTheNight: ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?

I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy.  Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.
.
Ugh. While I'm not an Ubuntu user (been using Fedora/RedHat since 1998 or so), Gnome 3 is just as bad as Unity, I end up alternating between Mate, Cinnamon, Enlightenment, and Fluxbox.


Why you no give love for KDE?  Why?

DarkVader: Carn: Sorry that's my lazy abbreviation for virtual machines :D

Yeah, I know.  It was funnier the other way, though.


I thought at least one of you was serious, because of course the DEC Alphas ran both VMS and MS Windows.
 
2014-02-10 01:58:13 PM
I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2014-02-10 02:00:06 PM
HindiDiscoMonster:

I agree with you. Windows 8 is not suitable for a cookie cutter environment. People are far too used to using the classic Windows interface.

Isn't that the entire point of Windows? Shouldn't the UI's entire purpose to let the user do what they want as transparently, easily, and efficiently as possible?

I know, let's have everyone remember key combos on our GUI. That's intuitive and there's no way that won't require massive numbers of calls to tech support.
 
2014-02-10 02:05:32 PM

Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.


Gonna need a screenshot to show your work please. I'll wait for the snail mail of your dot matrix printout.
 
2014-02-10 02:06:18 PM

dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?


And ignoring the dire first releases of XP and 98 for convenience too.
 
2014-02-10 02:06:24 PM

Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.


Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.
 
2014-02-10 02:11:43 PM
Have they fixed the useless search bar?  It shouldn't be an all day affair to search for files with (2) in the name.
 
2014-02-10 02:14:59 PM

Far Cough: Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.


Kids these days.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-10 02:17:04 PM
Windows Server 2012 is feeling left out
 
2014-02-10 02:17:34 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Metro is great for Xbox and tablets, problem is only 7 people have a MS tablet.


7? Optimistic, aren't you? ;)
 
2014-02-10 02:21:44 PM

mokinokaro: dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?

And ignoring the dire first releases of XP and 98 for convenience too.


The first release of XP has a farkGW place in my heart.
 
2014-02-10 02:22:24 PM
stupid filter
fark
G
W
 
2014-02-10 02:23:21 PM
I hit the upgrade before I came to work, somes like I'll have an interesting time when I get home.
 
2014-02-10 02:23:25 PM
ARGH!!!!

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-10 02:23:29 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Far Cough: Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.

Kids these days.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x400]



Let's not get crazy.

www.eecis.udel.edu

upload.wikimedia.org

/used both
 
2014-02-10 02:23:43 PM
I rolled back to Win7 because of the audio software I use (Ableton Live 9 and Traktor Pro 2.x) had nothing but latency issues with the USB drivers for both my MOTU and my S4 deck in Win8.

/ymmv
 
2014-02-10 02:30:56 PM
Fark is an awfully strange place.  136 posts about the biggest movie opening of the year to date (Lego) but 234 posts in this latest edition of "Win8 Blows, Does Not, Does Too".
 
2014-02-10 02:40:15 PM
I'm not a codemonkey, but when Windows 8.1 shat the bed on my computer, leaving me unable to even do a factory reset (I suspect malware was involved--my bad, I know) or download the iso (because the windows product key is etched on my motherboard--thanks, Sony), I said "screw it" and installed Linux.

I made a Linux Live key and tried out Ubuntu first, then Mint.  I'm glad I made the decision--even when something goes wrong, I'm learning a lot about how operating systems work, and am able (with the assistance of the innumerable online resources) to eventually figure out how to fix it.  (I'm not a coder, but I'm not an idiot either.)

So I guess I have Microsoft to thank for me making the transition to open-source software.  Thanks, Microsoft!
 
2014-02-10 02:40:30 PM

Far Cough: Fark is an awfully strange place.  136 posts about the biggest movie opening of the year to date (Lego) but 234 posts in this latest edition of "Win8 Blows, Does Not, Does Too".


A lot of people ignore the entertainment tab.
 
2014-02-10 02:41:24 PM

Far Cough: Fark is an awfully strange place.  136 posts about the biggest movie opening of the year to date (Lego) but 234 posts in this latest edition of "Win8 Blows, Does Not, Does Too".


Your definition of 'biggest movie opening of the year' is also very odd....
 
2014-02-10 02:41:42 PM

Far Cough: demaL-demaL-yeH: Far Cough: Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.

Kids these days.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x400]


Let's not get crazy.

[www.eecis.udel.edu image 850x370]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

/used both


Fortran III, IV, or 77 on punchcards?

/All of the above.
//Typed about 6 damns* a minute, thank you.
///*Damn! *pop out punch card, rip, drop in convenient garbage can*
 
2014-02-10 02:43:02 PM

BumpInTheNight: Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.

Yah because having all 18 of Office's stupid little obscure apps along with every other executable in one gigantic unsorted tile set resembling an detonated skittle bag is so great.  The superior Start Menu from 7 had a self learning 'commonly used' section front and center and then an organized tree to hold all those bullshiat apps you use once a century, and it also featured a search by typing right there as well.  Sure Metro would be okay for people who barely scratch the capabilities of a computer, but anyone doing any real amount of work on a system has enough apps installed that the flat sprawl gets hideous.


This.
 
2014-02-10 02:43:56 PM

moel: Far Cough: Fark is an awfully strange place.  136 posts about the biggest movie opening of the year to date (Lego) but 234 posts in this latest edition of "Win8 Blows, Does Not, Does Too".

Your definition of 'biggest movie opening of the year' is also very odd....


What do you mean?  It's the best reviewed and doing the best so far, as far as I know.  For the record, I'm literally the only person in that thread who wasn't impressed by the movie.  Literally.
 
2014-02-10 02:46:03 PM
One thing they still don't have right is the ability to "window" non-desktop apps.  Once again, Stardock MetroMix long ago fixed the mistakes that MSFT made in Metro/Modern/Windows Store/Fisher-Price UI.  "The Windows that can't window."  I have a 28" primary monitor.  I don't want one goddamn application hogging the entire screen.
 
2014-02-10 02:50:31 PM

Far Cough: Fark is an awfully strange place.  136 posts about the biggest movie opening of the year to date (Lego) but 234 posts in this latest edition of "Win8 Blows, Does Not, Does Too".


First off, the year to date is what, five weeks old? Second, we're not all children.
 
2014-02-10 02:54:29 PM

Orgasmatron138: Far Cough: Fark is an awfully strange place.  136 posts about the biggest movie opening of the year to date (Lego) but 234 posts in this latest edition of "Win8 Blows, Does Not, Does Too".

First off, the year to date is what, five weeks old? Second, we're not all children.


Geez, guys, take it easy.  It was just a random observation.  It's funny that in that thread I'm the one pilloried for not enjoying the movie enough.
 
2014-02-10 02:54:41 PM

coffeeburns: Windows Server 2012 is feeling left out


We've started using WS2012 here, it's not bad so far
 
2014-02-10 02:58:24 PM
Installing ClassicShell fixed 90% of my issues with Win8.
 
2014-02-10 03:03:39 PM

nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.


Well, of course every other version is garbage. Why would they release two good versions in a row? If they release a crappy version every other version, people will still buy it either from new computers or from being in a situation where they need 'the latest system for compatibility.' I like to say "Every even version is the extended beta for every odd version." Windows 95 was just one long beta test for Windows 98. Windows Vista was one long beta test for Windows 7. Windows 8 is just one long beta test for windows 9.
 
2014-02-10 03:04:12 PM

Burning_Monk: Installing ClassicShell fixed 90% of my issues with Win8.


Pfft

Start8 is the only true start menu replacement.

It is the closest one that emulates the Windows 7 Start Menu.
 
2014-02-10 03:04:39 PM

nekom: My long standing "every other version" policy has never failed me.  XP was great.  7 is fantastic!  8 can go to hell.  Can't wait for the next one.


THIS.  I'm an IT professional, this has been a solid policy since win98
 
2014-02-10 03:04:58 PM

syrynxx: One thing they still don't have right is the ability to "window" non-desktop apps.  Once again, Stardock MetroMix long ago fixed the mistakes that MSFT made in Metro/Modern/Windows Store/Fisher-Price UI.  "The Windows that can't window."  I have a 28" primary monitor.  I don't want one goddamn application hogging the entire screen.


I'm not really sure why you'd want to window the apps.  They pretty much all suck for non-tablet environments and I feel like I'd much rather be using the desktop versions of them.
 
2014-02-10 03:06:26 PM
Spaghetti Code.
 
2014-02-10 03:12:33 PM

Securitywyrm: Windows 8 is just one long beta test for windows 9.


Looks like it's going to be a short beta test. They're rushing out windows 9 in early 2015 to hopefully dissipate the stink windows 8 is leaving. I'm hoping this won't mean windows 9 ends up suffering because of this.
 
2014-02-10 03:14:45 PM

MrSteve007: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?
I don't know why people keep saying this?

For YEARS Windows XP was complete and absolute crap and people weren't going to move away from Windows 2000 (which you left out). Until SP2, and even a bit in SP3, XP was one of the worst offenders for crashes and bluescreens on the planet. It seemed like if you did anything to the video card drivers, you'd bluescreen that operating system. I remember the pain of having to deal with Bluetooth drivers and having to use 3rd party controls to get devices to work properly. And god help you if you wanted to search & index the operating system and a large external media drive. In XP, it's like working with a snail.

 It seems like people love to look at that Fisher Price operating system with rose colored glasses.


Man, you really play up the Microsoft Party Line, don't you?

XP was great because it was a refined Windows 2000, just as Windows 7 is great because it was a refined Windows Vista. By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k (mostly because of holdovers to the Win9x ecosystem) got ironed out and became standard. Games were far more playable on XP (and that is your killer computer application, after all)

Likewise, Vista implemented a TON of security stuff and signed drivers, both were things nobody was really prepared for. Developers were mostly too lazy to actually code the security bits into their apps before Vista came out, because the APIs allowed them to get away with it. When those holes got tightened up, it broke a lot of apps. Likewise, signed drivers made XP a necessity for many people and businesses because the original vendors were no longer supporting hardware - which some companies planned on using for a decade or more - and thus, never released drivers for. It took a while for older (but still supported) hardware to get signed drivers, which made Vista unusable for many people.

With the Vista misstep, XP had plenty of time to become finely tuned and well understood by users and IT departments. Setting Group Policies is always tricky, but benefgitted from the extra time tweaking XP to balance security and utility. Supporting your existing capital investments (hardware and applications) also meant that the status quo, as long as performance and productivity were not an issue, was the Golden Rule. For 95% of corporate America, a 6~7 year old Windows XP machine with 2~3GB of RAM can do everything its users need to do,

Of course, Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in selling an OS 12 years ago and continuing to support it, so it has to push newer versions and give compelling reasons for users and corporations to buy it. HArdware vendors have no vested interest in supporting hardware they sold 6 or 7 years ago, so they have to push new hardware and give compelling reasons for their purchase (some, like Epson, get downright dirty and timebomb their products)

It is unfortunate that Microsoft doubled down with Win8. They confused "compelling" with "imposing their will" in trying to leverage their desktop beast as a means of forcing their mobile UI intot he worldwide acceptance.

Please stop arguing that Windows 8 (and we are talking about the Metro UI here) is great, too... if it was, in any measure, than Ballmer would still be in charge, and the team responsible for Windows 8 would still be around. It was a mistake, plain and simple, and a decade or two from now, after the fallout has finally settled, it will be chronicled by those involved as a big mistake.
 
2014-02-10 03:15:23 PM

Far Cough: vegas_greaser: BumpInTheNight: ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?

I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy.  Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.
.
Ugh. While I'm not an Ubuntu user (been using Fedora/RedHat since 1998 or so), Gnome 3 is just as bad as Unity, I end up alternating between Mate, Cinnamon, Enlightenment, and Fluxbox.

Why you no give love for KDE?  Why?

DarkVader: Carn: Sorry that's my lazy abbreviation for virtual machines :D

Yeah, I know.  It was funnier the other way, though.

I thought at least one of you was serious, because of course the DEC Alphas ran both VMS and MS Windows.


LOL Honestly I do *like* KDE, but I've never really used it for long periods of time. I did set up my nephew and wife's PC's with KDE4 and they have no issues with it. I don't know, just never really could get used to it as my main desktop.
 
2014-02-10 03:16:29 PM

Kahabut: THIS. I'm an IT professional, this has been a solid policy since win98


Well then you got stuck with shiatty XP for a few years.  IT pros know not to upgrade until atleast SP1.   I love how many people forgot about what kind of dogshiat vanilla XP was.
 
2014-02-10 03:18:00 PM

Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.


As someone who sees a lot of this every day:
www.photoinduced.com
The Ribbon is actually much easier to use than the big menu trees of Office prior to 2007. I can find things a lot faster and easier. I think the ribbon debate just comes down to if someone is more visually oriented. Being a very visual person I find it a godsend because it is so much easier to find things now in Office.

Windows 8, on the other hand, is incredibly annoying. Mainly because I hate how UI elements jump up at you when you come close to a hot corner, which causes me to do things like accidentally switch to a metro app when I'm trying to pull up a file menu.
 
2014-02-10 03:21:47 PM

Ghastly: Securitywyrm: Windows 8 is just one long beta test for windows 9.

Looks like it's going to be a short beta test. They're rushing out windows 9 in early 2015 to hopefully dissipate the stink windows 8 is leaving. I'm hoping this won't mean windows 9 ends up suffering because of this.


Why do people still say this? Windows Vista came out in 2006 while Windows 7 came out in 2009 while Windows 8 came out in 2012. That's three years, the same amount of time Windows 8 will be on the market before the introduction of 9
 
2014-02-10 03:25:27 PM

TNel: Kahabut: THIS. I'm an IT professional, this has been a solid policy since win98

Well then you got stuck with shiatty XP for a few years.  IT pros know not to upgrade until atleast SP1.   I love how many people forgot about what kind of dogshiat vanilla XP was.


I didn't get stuck with shiat.  We didn't put XP on a single machine in the office until sp1 was well out and several other fixes as well.  We ran 2000 for a long time as a result.

But then, I get to dictate policy, so we don't touch anything until I've tested the hell out of it.  Windows 8 fails on the interface alone.  It doesn't even matter if it's "better", because it's a pile of re-training just waiting to happen, and no organization can afford that.
 
2014-02-10 03:26:19 PM
My only problem with 8.1 is that my computer will never go into sleep mode. Apparently this is a known bug that will be fixed with 8.2. Anyone else had this problem?
 
2014-02-10 03:28:44 PM

LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.


I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.
 
2014-02-10 03:35:07 PM

Mad_Radhu: Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

As someone who sees a lot of this every day:
[www.photoinduced.com image 139x700]
The Ribbon is actually much easier to use than the big menu trees of Office prior to 2007. I can find things a lot faster and easier. I think the ribbon debate just comes down to if someone is more visually oriented. Being a very visual person I find it a godsend because it is so much easier to find things now in Office.

Windows 8, on the other hand, is incredibly annoying. Mainly because I hate how UI elements jump up at you when you come close to a hot corner, which causes me to do things like accidentally switch to a metro app when I'm trying to pull up a file menu.


Wait. They farked up Paint, too?
 
2014-02-10 03:35:29 PM

Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.


That's the problem, it fills the while screen with something that can be done in a small window. I usually have a pile of stuff open at once, laid out on a large monitor. Often I'm watching a video or some other real time thing and a full page start screen comes up over that.

I get it, there are some people who want the latest and greatest no matter what and cannot fathom or even are offended that someone else may use their computer differently or have different preferences. That doesn't change the fact that I hate windows 8 and a good half of the market does too, I'm not an anomaly and yes I have used it.

Here's the thing, I'm the customer, the customer is always right. Offer the product that I want and I will buy it. Don't offer the product that you want and then get butthurt when I say that it sucks.
 
2014-02-10 03:37:26 PM

Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?


Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.
 
2014-02-10 03:38:05 PM

MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.


Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement?  In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.
 
2014-02-10 03:41:09 PM

James10952001: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.


Win2k is actually a different animal. It uses the NT code base while 98 is built uses the 95 code base.
 
2014-02-10 03:42:38 PM

MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.


Oh, 64-bit XP is a nightmare, no doubt.  I do not include that in any serious consideration of Windows XP, which was very much (for consumers, at least) a fine 32-bit OS for the hardware of the time.

I'm just saying that XP was the first "consumer" grade "big boy" Windows OS. You could play games and it was well supported by hardware vendors. Even considerign the state before service packs, XP was a decent operating system. It's only real flaw was the activation nonsense that continues today. Apparently "we got over it"

I'm not saying I prefer XP over Win7, though. My point was that it became well understood by the people that had to understand their systems to administrate them. Ever have to set up Group Policies for an intranet with 400,000 users? I've seen minor changes break machines to being almost unusable (Vista machines that had to be dealt with physically to fix). Familiarity became its strong suit. Most Corporate IT departments have been happily phasing in Windows 7 for the last few years, now that they understand the tighter security and need the 64-bit OS to install on systems equipped with 4GB of RAM or more.

I am also not saying that there weren't underlying performance improvements to Win8.x - just that the UI mess is a fiasco and should have been handled differently. In fact, there were people inside of Microsoft who URGED it be handled differently, but were ignored and pushed out. The Metro UI might be great for a number of users, but they aren't in the majority... nor is the majority opinion that the Start Menu was bad.

Assuming a majority of your customers are wrong is a terrible way to do business.
 
2014-02-10 03:45:10 PM

LineNoise: The problem with 8 (and even 8.1) is that people continued to use it like they did the previous versions. Instead of taking advantage of the new features, they tried to shoehorn in their method of doing things like they did in previous versions.

That isn't to say it doesn't have its faults, there are a handful of things that bug me a little in 8, but overall the hate is just people making noise. It works well, and if you use the interface as intended (yes, even without touch), you can see what they were going for and why it works.


But don't you see the problem there? A PC is a versatile tool that people use to get stuff done. The tool should be flexible enough to adapt to my workin style, not the other way around. It's fine to have a new interface available but it's a mistake to try to force everyone to adapt. There are millions of users who don't really *like* computers, they're not enthusiasts, they just need to get stuff done. Change can be good, but change for the sake of change is not good.
 
2014-02-10 03:47:36 PM

Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?


32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.
 
2014-02-10 03:47:47 PM

Burning_Monk: James10952001: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.

Win2k is actually a different animal. It uses the NT code base while 98 is built uses the 95 code base.


Win2k also didn't have the graphics API that XP did until much later. Win2k shipped with Dx7, i.e. no T&L. Gaming was quite limited for some time.
 
2014-02-10 03:47:52 PM

Far Cough: demaL-demaL-yeH: Far Cough: Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.

Kids these days.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x400]


Let's not get crazy.

[www.eecis.udel.edu image 850x370]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

/used both


You forgot one:
leemartinauthor.com
Yep, used it in high school.
 
2014-02-10 03:50:24 PM

syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.


WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?
 
2014-02-10 03:50:33 PM

LineNoise: Carn: Win+r mstsc.  I think it still has the old run, need to verify on other machine.

Oh, yea, I know, like I said there are plenty of ways of doing it, but they defeat the point of the whole new UI when you want the default behavior of an app to work differently than it does out of the box (even when its an app that would make sense to default a different way).

I think they will get it right with some polish, but the point is in here. It isn't that the windows 8 UI is bad. Most of the examples people tout out are outright wrong, or, like me, they just need to spend 5 minutes to figure out how you do something the new way vs how it worked in 7, and people don't want to do that.

If you are someone who runs office, a browser, and a couple of games, the start menu is fine for you, and I get that. But if you suddenly have a brazillion apps on your desktop, which is what happens when you introduce the app store and the like, it starts getting to be a clunky way of organizing stuff. Tiles and a robust search make sense. They just need to figure out a middle ground of sorts


How is it clunky? I have dozens and dozens of programs installed. They're all neatly arranged in categories in my start menu with the 3 or 4 I use most often in the quicklaunch toolbar. The desktop is my workspace, stuff I've downloaded that needs to be sorted, things that need immediate attention, the recycle bin, network shares, etc.

That's how I've done things since Win95 and it works very well for me. That's how I intend to continue doing things. The beauty of a PC is that it's customizable and configurable. If I wanted to do it the way the vendor wants me to do it and only that way, I'd have bought a Mac years ago.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:11 PM

James10952001: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.


===============

Yup, I held on to Win2K until I bought a new scanner and found that there were no drivers for that particular scanner that would allow it work with Win2K.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:40 PM

Kahabut: MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.

Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement?  In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.


Yeah, that's the thing... most people don't really need anything more than a Chromebook at work.

As a developer,. though, I run 32GB, often with virtuals running both on my own system and a dedicated ESXi server in my basement.  I'm kind of grateful that users have "come along for the ride" to more powerful machines and operating systems.
 
2014-02-10 03:52:25 PM

Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.


I'm not sure if you'd call architecture an entrenched industry, but most of our CAD and rendering products have been 64 bit for a while now, AutoCAD, Revit, 3ds Max (are far faster than their 32-bit versions). Office has been 64-bit for a while, browsers are 64-bit nowadays, most of the Adobe Suite, including Acrobat is 64-bit - which greatly speeds up our transfer and printing of building blueprints.

Come to think of it, I think almost all of the productivity programs we install in our office are 64-bit and many of them are GPU accelerated too.

If you are an accountant, I can understand having no need for 64-bit. But even a basic office secretary/office assistant will benefit from 64-bit Acrobat when assembling/printing documents and proposals.
 
2014-02-10 03:53:50 PM

LesserEvil: MrSteve007: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?
I don't know why people keep saying this?

For YEARS Windows XP was complete and absolute crap and people weren't going to move away from Windows 2000 (which you left out). Until SP2, and even a bit in SP3, XP was one of the worst offenders for crashes and bluescreens on the planet. It seemed like if you did anything to the video card drivers, you'd bluescreen that operating system. I remember the pain of having to deal with Bluetooth drivers and having to use 3rd party controls to get devices to work properly. And god help you if you wanted to search & index the operating system and a large external media drive. In XP, it's like working with a snail.

 It seems like people love to look at that Fisher Price operating system with rose colored glasses.

Man, you really play up the Microsoft Party Line, don't you?

XP was great because it was a refined Windows 2000, just as Windows 7 is great because it was a refined Windows Vista. By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k (mostly because of holdovers to the Win9x ecosystem) got ironed out and became standard. Games were far more playable on XP (and that is your killer computer application, after all)

Likewise, Vista implemented a TON of security stuff and signed drivers, both were things nobody was really prepared for. Developers were mostly too lazy to actually code the security bits into their apps before Vista came out, because the APIs allowed them to get away with it. When those holes got tightened up, it broke a lot of apps. Likewise, signed drivers made XP a necessity for many people and businesses because the original vendors were no longer supporting hardware - which some companies planned on using for a decade or more - and thus, never released drivers for. It took a while for older (but still supported) hardware to get signed drivers, which made Vista unusable for many people.

With the Vista misstep, XP had plenty of time to become finely tuned and well understood by users and IT departments. Setting Group Policies is always tricky, but benefgitted from the extra time tweaking XP to balance security and utility. Supporting your existing capital investments (hardware and applications) also meant that the status quo, as long as performance and productivity were not an issue, was the Golden Rule. For 95% of corporate America, a 6~7 year old Windows XP machine with 2~3GB of RAM can do everything its users need to do,

Of course, Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in selling an OS 12 years ago and continuing to support it, so it has to push newer versions and give compelling reasons for users and corporations to buy it. HArdware vendors have no vested interest in supporting hardware they sold 6 or 7 years ago, so they have to push new hardware and give compelling reasons for their purchase (some, like Epson, get downright dirty and timebomb their products)

It is unfortunate that Microsoft doubled down with Win8. They confused "compelling" with "imposing their will" in trying to leverage their desktop beast as a means of forcing their mobile UI intot he worldwide acceptance.

Please stop arguing that Windows 8 (and we are talking about the Metro UI here) is great, too... if it was, in any measure, than Ballmer would still be in charge, and the team responsible for Windows 8 would still be around. It was a mistake, plain and simple, and a decade or two from now, after the fallout has finally settled, it will be chronicled by those involved as a big mistake.


For every product out there, even the worst ones, there are a few fans who think it's great. Even Bob must have some fans, anyone remember that?
 
2014-02-10 03:57:48 PM

Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?


I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.
 
2014-02-10 03:58:07 PM

Mad_Radhu: Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

As someone who sees a lot of this every day:

The Ribbon is actually much easier to use than the big menu trees of Office prior to 2007. I can find things a lot faster and easier. I think the ribbon debate just comes down to if someone is more visually oriented. Being a very visual person I find it a godsend because it is so much easier to find things now in Office.

Windows 8, on the other hand, is incredibly annoying. Mainly because I hate how UI elements jump up at you when you come close to a hot corner, which causes me to do things like accidentally switch to a metro app when I'm trying to pull up a file menu.


I've hated the ribbon from the start, and after years I having to use it at work, I still hate it.

The thing that really gets me is that they could have easily left the classic menu in place and given the choice of using the ribbon with or instead. That would be the best of both worlds, offer the ribbon for those it works well for, but retain the classic menus for the rest if us. Choice, it's a good thing.
 
2014-02-10 03:58:36 PM
Mrs. Gates does.
 
2014-02-10 03:59:28 PM

James10952001: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

That's the problem, it fills the while screen with something that can be done in a small window. I usually have a pile of stuff open at once, laid out on a large monitor. Often I'm watching a video or some other real time thing and a full page start screen comes up over that.

I get it, there are some people who want the latest and greatest no matter what and cannot fathom or even are offended that someone else may use their computer differently or have different preferences. That doesn't change the fact that I hate windows 8 and a good half of the market does too, I'm not an anomaly and yes I have used it.

Here's the thing, I'm the customer, the customer is always right. Offer the product that I want and I will buy it. Don't offer the product that you want and then get butthurt when I say that it sucks.


But if you are searching the start menu visually you really aren't watching the video, or anything else.  Just the start menu.
 
2014-02-10 04:00:10 PM

LesserEvil: XP was great because it was a refined Windows 2000, just as Windows 7 is great because it was a refined Windows Vista. By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k (mostly because of holdovers to the Win9x ecosystem) got ironed out and became standard. Games were far more playable on XP (and that is your killer computer application, after all)


All bullshiat. Win2k was born out of NT, not DOSWIN. WinNT4 was not a consumer OS, so of course hardware support was limited. But Windows HAD to go in that direction, or else we would've been stuck with ME. XP was an incremental update (Win2K is NT5.0, WinXP is NT5.1) that eschewed actual system and kernel improvements for shiatty blobby graphics designed to capture the attention of grandparents. Drivers got better as a matter of course, but Win2k support was keeping pace at least until Vista came out.

I still avoid XP as much as possible. If I have a machine with more than 1GB of RAM, I run 7. If it's got less, I run 2k.
 
2014-02-10 04:00:20 PM

mokinokaro: dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?

And ignoring the dire first releases of XP and 98 for convenience too.


It is funny watching the internet halo being placed over XP, especially for those of us who remember it as a new system (when we had onions tied to our belts, which was the style at the time) - the campaign to boycott XP over the activation system, the constant blue screens, the requirement for many to upgrade hardware, etc.


For those that didn't live through the early days (or were still in diapers until SP3 came out), try something like this:  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1304348,00.asp (stored in my favourites somewhere because of the amusing complaint about System Idle Process hogging all the resources and slowing things up when shutting it down).


My general rule of thumb for a windows release: whether it will be remembered as good or bad will largely depend on how long it was around, the longer it was the "current" windows release, the more patches it got, and the better people will remember it.


Essentially I see it like this, the CEOs/marketing department decide on some random high level things about the next version of windows that will make it worse for users to actually use, but will be the USP (or whatever the current marketing bullshiat term of art is at the time) that will be highlighted in adverts and so on as the reason to not just stick with your old version of windows. The release comes, and it is crappy and lots of people complain about how the new features are annoying and hard to use, etc. At that point of course the CEO/marketing idiots have moved on to new pastures and dumped the mess in the lap of the technical guys who will respond to the complaints and over time brush things up so the whole thing is usable and doesn't crash as much, etc.


If given long enough they will end up with a pretty decent OS, however if the execs want to churn forward the number and try to make more money from OS sales to fund gambling on some new venture like Surface or buying up another random tech company for no discernible reason then that version obsoleted relatively quickly will end up comparatively badly remembered.


*windows 7 doesn't fit the pattern so well unless you consider it a partially paid for and re-branded Vista patch rather than an actual new version of Windows
 
2014-02-10 04:00:43 PM

Mad_Radhu: Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

As someone who sees a lot of this every day:
[www.photoinduced.com image 139x700]
The Ribbon is actually much easier to use than the big menu trees of Office prior to 2007. I can find things a lot faster and easier. I think the ribbon debate just comes down to if someone is more visually oriented. Being a very visual person I find it a godsend because it is so much easier to find things now in Office.

Windows 8, on the other hand, is incredibly annoying. Mainly because I hate how UI elements jump up at you when you come close to a hot corner, which causes me to do things like accidentally switch to a metro app when I'm trying to pull up a file menu.


Once I got used to the ribbon, I wondered how I ever tolerated having the old menu system. There are so many more things available immediately on-screen, as opposed to having seven or eight things with several levels of sub-menus.

Like I said earlier about 8, I have a laptop/tablet hybrid that 8 seems perfect for, but my dad (for some reason) bought a non-touchscreen laptop with 8, and it's pretty maddening to use.
 
2014-02-10 04:00:55 PM

Marine1: Far Cough: Marine1: Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Shill like typing detected?  Seriously, nobody really uses Bing, come on now.  I don't even use Google myself any more (directly) but it's exceedingly rare that I'll run out of enough options to have to use Bing.

(But it's okay I guess.  Just as many privacy issues, search is about 40% as good as Google, but I think they're still using those ridiculous full page backgrounds.)

/I know it powers other search engines too
/I spend time in Vista, 7, 8, OSX, and various Linuxen, and frankly XP works more smoothly than any of them.  Really.  Smaller is better.

I occasionally type the queries on things I don't get into the search charm. It's Bing. Other times, I use my phone, which is a Nokia Lumia. Also Bing. Most of the time, I use Google, though.

Carousel Beast: Marine1: What I don't get is the idea of constantly kowtowing down to the lowest common denominator in everything related to software design even when it means not advancing a product in a meaningful way to take advantage of the most recent innovations in the field.

I don't get a couple of things:

1) Why you're white knighting Microsoft when they themselves have admitted their farkup. They aren't going to sleep with you.
2) Why you don't seem to have any clue that a design is to promote usability, not complexity. What was it do you think was broken about the previous Windows UI that Metro "fixed"?

1) They're "admitting" their fark-up because no one will give it a damn rest. The tech press (and Fark headlines) are notorious for never giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on  anything. They screw up, but Metro wasn't one of their screwups.
2) Using it on a touchscreen, which is a desired feature of most devices today. All of those things "replacing" PCs have them. Sticking with the traditional user interface on such a product would have meant death for Windows, because Windows 7 was a PITA to use on a touchscreen or with any touch interface. Windows 8 is not as much of a PITA to use on a traditional KVM setup as Windows 7 was on a touchscreen. Once you get used to it, like anything else, it's actually better. No more guiding your cursor through a tiny channel in a dropdown menu to get to a program. No more hunting through a list of items in 12-point font in a scrollbox to get to your program folder. No more dead space on the desktop sitting there doing nothing when it could be displaying information.


I will just reiterate what I've said in previous stories about this.

In the consumer preview there was a registry hack to boot to desktop. And yes it was wonderful with a tablet.

In the release preview MS double-downed and removed the registry hack. They were mandating Metro. Everything would have been better if they had done the boot to desktop option from the beginning and maybe get rid of the charms interface on non-touchscreens.
 
2014-02-10 04:01:06 PM

MrSteve007: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.

I'm not sure if you'd call architecture an entrenched industry, but most of our CAD and rendering products have been 64 bit for a while now, AutoCAD, Revit, 3ds Max (are far faster than their 32-bit versions). Office has been 64-bit for a while, browsers are 64-bit nowadays, most of the Adobe Suite, including Acrobat is 64-bit - which greatly speeds up our transfer and printing of building blueprints.

Come to think of it, I think almost all of the productivity programs we install in our office are 64-bit and many of them are GPU accelerated too.

If you are an accountant, I can understand having no need for 64-bit. But even a basic office secretary/office assistant will benefit from 64-bit Acrobat when assembling/printing documents and proposals.


I think you've hit on one of the more progressive industries.  Certainly I wouldn't even begin to argue that anything design related doesn't benefit from 64 bit.  From web to cad to 3D these are the programs that need 64 bit.

But a standard desktop, running office gains almost nothing from it, and chances are the 10+ year old software they use doesn't work on it.  Generating PDFs might be the only case where its better, and I think spending thousands on new software, change over and training is not worth a few minutes a year in PDF generation savings.

I can throw a stone and hit 10 businesses.  Not a single one can move to 64 bit because the software they consider critical isn't compatible, and they don't want to spend another 50k to buy the newer stuff, and then even more to train their employees.  I know this because I maintain the systems at all of these businesses.  I have offered them upgrades, not a single remotely interested party.   Granted, none of them are design related.

Still, I'm more than willing to admit that isn't anywhere near the entire industry, as long as you admit that it is pretty damn typical.
 
2014-02-10 04:01:13 PM

Kahabut: MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.

Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement?  In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.


There is one compelling reason I've run into. 32 bit can only address 4GB of RAM. That sounds like a lot until you've got a couple of VMs running or are working with really big image files or doing nonlinear video editing.

The vast majority of home users will be fine with 32 bit, but there sure are compelling reasons for 64 bit workstations.
 
2014-02-10 04:02:33 PM

redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.


Put up, or shut up.
 
2014-02-10 04:04:54 PM

DjangoStonereaver: BumpInTheNight: ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?

I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy.  Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.

I was a huge Ubuntu fan until the first iteration of Unity.

I moved to Linux Mint (The Debian Edition XFCE spin, since discontinued alas), and have not looked back.


I've been a huge Linux Mint fan since the first split from Ubuntu. Even though the original versions were nearly identical to each other, their philosophy on updates is what really sold it. I'd use Linux (or better yet, FreeBSD) as my main OS if it wasn't for the dependency hell that plagues Unix-Likes.
 
2014-02-10 04:06:02 PM

InterruptingQuirk: Burning_Monk: James10952001: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.

Win2k is actually a different animal. It uses the NT code base while 98 is built uses the 95 code base.

Win2k also didn't have the graphics API that XP did until much later. Win2k shipped with Dx7, i.e. no T&L. Gaming was quite limited for some time.


I remember that well as I was working at MS at the time Win2k was released. I was already not much if a gamer by then but I recall it would run Quake and AOE II just fine and that was about all I was playing. It was a nice stable OS for getting stuff done while being loads more user friendly than NT4.

ME was meant to be the home OS with the Win2k look on the Win9x framework. Unfortunately it was the worst of both worlds.
 
2014-02-10 04:06:40 PM

Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.


Development VMs, Using the Adobe suite, video editing, Visual Studio, audio editing...

Audio and video editing are more niche obviously, but you're going to find people needing VMs and using Visual Studio across pretty much every industry
 
2014-02-10 04:07:43 PM

Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.


This is what you both sound like:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/westwing-techsupport-crew-be-a-bunc ha -wack-biatches,16370/
 
2014-02-10 04:08:39 PM

LesserEvil: Yeah, that's the thing... most people don't really need anything more than a Chromebook at work.

As a developer,. though, I run 32GB, often with virtuals running both on my own system and a dedicated ESXi server in my basement.  I'm kind of grateful that users have "come along for the ride" to more powerful machines and operating systems.


I don't think 64 bit is a bad thing.  I try and push my clients towards fully 64 bit systems and networks daily.  But the reality is that a great many businesses are built on some really farking old software.  Once you get outside mainstream office productivity suites and standard (shiatty) accounting software (looking at you quickbooks), 32 bit is king, and will be until the day it actually breaks and has no choice but to be replaced.

For crying out loud, the city of portland runs an AS400 at some rather extravagant expense because the code base is only adapted for that machine, and supposedly it would cost more to upgrade.  That's just one of countless examples.  It just happens to be a rather amusing one.

DELL computers still uses a nearly 20 year old DB system that runs on a 32 bit system ONLY.  This is the customer support DB.  Which is complimented by a fully modern web interface for scripts and troubleshooting, but notes your tech leaves... yeah, in a shiatty DB running on god knows what.

It's excellent that most desktops are now fully 64 bit.  But the fact is, outside certain fairly specific software, the gains have been entirely fictional.  (from a business standpoint, from a consumer software standpoint it's a different argument entirely, and 64 bit is winning, thank god)
 
2014-02-10 04:10:28 PM

Egoy3k: James10952001: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

That's the problem, it fills the while screen with something that can be done in a small window. I usually have a pile of stuff open at once, laid out on a large monitor. Often I'm watching a video or some other real time thing and a full page start screen comes up over that.

I get it, there are some people who want the latest and greatest no matter what and cannot fathom or even are offended that someone else may use their computer differently or have different preferences. That doesn't change the fact that I hate windows 8 and a good half of the market does too, I'm not an anomaly and yes I have used it.

Here's the thing, I'm the customer, the customer is always right. Offer the product that I want and I will buy it. Don't offer the product that you want and then get butthurt when I say that it sucks.

But if you are searching the start menu visually you really aren't watching the video, or anything else.  Just the start menu.



That's as wrong as wrong can be.  When you're shifting gears you're not really watching the road.  While putting popcorn in your mouth you're not really watching the movie.  When noticing a car approaching from the right you're not watching anything in front of you.  While chewing gum you're not really walking.

Right, having the plug pulled from your television every time the phone rings is EXACTLY the same as glancing over to see the callerID.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:14 PM

LesserEvil: Kahabut: MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.

Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement?  In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.

Yeah, that's the thing... most people don't really need anything more than a Chromebook at work.

As a developer,. though, I run 32GB, often with virtuals running both on my own system and a dedicated ESXi server in my basement.  I'm kind of grateful that users have "come along for the ride" to more powerful machines and operating systems.


That's precisely why PC sales are slow. The PC is not dead, there are millions and millions of them in daily use. The PC is dead in terms if sales though because everyone already has one and even a low end PC I a few years ago is more than adequate for what most people do at home.

I'm old enough to remember when a high end desktop could easily cost $10k and was barely adequate by the time you got it out of the box. My friends dad bought a shiny new 486-66 tower and we were awestruck at how well it played Doom. A year later it was feeling pretty slow an a year after that it was hopelessly obsolete. Now days a 10 year old PC will still do email and Internet, casual games, it's not great but it's not so bad compared to a 10 year old PC ten years ago.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:15 PM

I Like Bread: LesserEvil: XP was great because it was a refined Windows 2000, just as Windows 7 is great because it was a refined Windows Vista. By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k (mostly because of holdovers to the Win9x ecosystem) got ironed out and became standard. Games were far more playable on XP (and that is your killer computer application, after all)

All bullshiat. Win2k was born out of NT, not DOSWIN. WinNT4 was not a consumer OS, so of course hardware support was limited. But Windows HAD to go in that direction, or else we would've been stuck with ME. XP was an incremental update (Win2K is NT5.0, WinXP is NT5.1) that eschewed actual system and kernel improvements for shiatty blobby graphics designed to capture the attention of grandparents. Drivers got better as a matter of course, but Win2k support was keeping pace at least until Vista came out.

I still avoid XP as much as possible. If I have a machine with more than 1GB of RAM, I run 7. If it's got less, I run 2k.


WinXP was released as hardware vendors started making drivers for "NT" - and yes, those drivers worked in Win2k, too. XP **WAS** a refined version of Win2k. It had a "hipper" windowing UI, which made it more familiar to Win9x users. Over all, it was more comfortable to jump into. A lot of the acronymity against XP was due to the "Genuine Windows" authentication nonsense.

Again, not saying I'd use XP today. Win7 is my "go to" OS install, unless I need a server, and for a lightweight Windows server, it's Server 2003. I would never run a physical machine with less than 2GB of RAM these days, but virtuals... I can run a domain controller in Server 2003 for 256MB of RAM on my virtuals server.
 
2014-02-10 04:20:13 PM

Egoy3k: James10952001: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

That's the problem, it fills the while screen with something that can be done in a small window. I usually have a pile of stuff open at once, laid out on a large monitor. Often I'm watching a video or some other real time thing and a full page start screen comes up over that.

I get it, there are some people who want the latest and greatest no matter what and cannot fathom or even are offended that someone else may use their computer differently or have different preferences. That doesn't change the fact that I hate windows 8 and a good half of the market does too, I'm not an anomaly and yes I have used it.

Here's the thing, I'm the customer, the customer is always right. Offer the product that I want and I will buy it. Don't offer the product that you want and then get butthurt when I say that it sucks.

But if you are searching the start menu visually you really aren't watching the video, or anything else.  Just the start menu.


Can you not casually watch something while looking at something else? I don't need to focus 100% on both things at once.

Fact is, a start menu works very well for my usage style. I can't force you to understand that, but do realize that not everyone works the same way an the fact that you find no advantage to something doesn't mean that someone else won't.

Would you like it if I came in and organized your room in a way that works well for me? It's better, trust me, your old way of organizing your house is obsolete, you shouldn't be using it anymore, just get used to doing it my way.
 
2014-02-10 04:25:02 PM

Kahabut: I think you've hit on one of the more progressive industries. Certainly I wouldn't even begin to argue that anything design related doesn't benefit from 64 bit. From web to cad to 3D these are the programs that need 64 bit.


One interesting thing we're going through in our industry is the widespread adoption of subscription based models for our software. At least for Autodesk, they've made the model decently priced. Before, we used to upgrade our CAD software on a three year cycle. They released a new version almost every year, typically like this:

Year 1 - huge rendering improvements! But unstable and some nagging issues. SP1 issued 3 months in, SP2 6 months.
Year 2 - nagging issues removed, some stability improvements. Same service pack schedule.
Year 3 - everything running smoothly, minor performance updates.

Rinse, repeat. We'd try to hop in at mid year 2.

Now, it seems like they've gone to a more steady & incremental upgrade cycle, with annual minor improvements. Before, we'd pay ~$3,500 for the software every 3 years, with a huge jump in UI changes and features. Now we pay ~$1,000 a year per seat for constant, steady updates. At least when it comes to training the users, it's much easier today. They also seem much better dealing with changing environments and UI's.

As for our internal upgrade cycle, we now put into our design contracts that we upgrade software on an annual cycle, typically near the downtime of Thanksgiving. This is because when we start a new skyscraper, we work with a wide assortment of mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and contractors. If we make a software version change, they should also make a change (to reduce the chance of a model error, putting a beam somewhere it shouldn't be) and ensure they can open the files correctly.

Since we do hundreds of projects a year, in 42 states and several countries, and projects may take 2-4 years from start to finish, you can see why it's important for our contractors to have a steady and published upgrade cycle. This gives enough time from the software version launch in the spring, to iron out any major stability issues by the late fall.

But again, as you can see we aren't a standard type of business. We have to be moving constantly with software and the hardware to stay competitive and cut down on the time it takes to bring projects to construction and reduce chance of mistakes by building BIM models with our design partners. It'll spend about $5,000 on the workstation, and before subscription service came around, about $5,000-$7,500 on software, per station, every 3-years.

5 years ago, we could make a model render for a client by running a computer over the weekend. Now we can do a photorealistic render over lunch, or set up all the stations to run distributed rendering for a walk-thru video overnight. For us, going back to 32-bit would be productivity equivalent to cutting off the left hand of every one of our architects and designers.

When we're billing clients on the order of $125 an hour of labor, and we have 8 people working on a project for weeks at a time - cutting 15% off render times or increasing performance an equivalent amount is serious money in our pockets.
 
2014-02-10 04:27:27 PM

Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.


People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.
 
2014-02-10 04:29:39 PM

redmid17: Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.

Development VMs, Using the Adobe suite, video editing, Visual Studio, audio editing...

Audio and video editing are more niche obviously, but you're going to find people needing VMs and using Visual Studio across pretty much every industry


For what it's worth I have two VMs on my machine. I use them for ODBC/JDBC connectivity testing, middleware testing, web services, snmp walks, wmi testing, et al.  A lot of times I need to test against certain versions of browsers as well. I need a certain amount of RAM to do that as one of the middleware applications refuses to run with less than 512 MB RAM, which is about half of what I usually assign to my VMs. Those VMs on top of my normal outlook/chrome/excel/communicator programs would have my OS paging like it's going out of style.

I'd be more than happy to put these VMs on a server, but I work from home or a client's site. If I don't run them from the same computer, I'm going to have to have 2x as many VMs or spend an unnecessary amount of time setting up a tunnel between my home server and the client site (which would never be allowed for good reason).
 
2014-02-10 04:34:14 PM

James10952001: I'm old enough to remember when a high end desktop could easily cost $10k and was barely adequate by the time you got it out of the box. My friends dad bought a shiny new 486-66 tower and we were awestruck at how well it played Doom. A year later it was feeling pretty slow an a year after that it was hopelessly obsolete.

CSB time.

It was well before my time here, but I know our firm's first computer was a Microstation CAD computer running on an IBM AT with 6MHz processor in the 1984. I believe the first station cost ~$15,000 and the CAD software & support cost $15,000 a seat. I know I still have the original receipt around here somewhere.

We discovered, doing computer rendering - compared to hand drafting, one CAD user could more precisely do the work of 10 drafters. It completely revolutionized our industry overnight.
 
2014-02-10 04:45:07 PM

Far Cough: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.


Odd, Win+x doesn't do a damn thing on my 7 (Ultimate) and I have x-keys enabled. Which version is it in?
 
2014-02-10 04:46:57 PM

MrSteve007: James10952001: I'm old enough to remember when a high end desktop could easily cost $10k and was barely adequate by the time you got it out of the box. My friends dad bought a shiny new 486-66 tower and we were awestruck at how well it played Doom. A year later it was feeling pretty slow an a year after that it was hopelessly obsolete.
CSB time.

It was well before my time here, but I know our firm's first computer was a Microstation CAD computer running on an IBM AT with 6MHz processor in the 1984. I believe the first station cost ~$15,000 and the CAD software & support cost $15,000 a seat. I know I still have the original receipt around here somewhere.

We discovered, doing computer rendering - compared to hand drafting, one CAD user could more precisely do the work of 10 drafters. It completely revolutionized our industry overnight.


I still remember visiting my dad at work when I was a toddler and marveling at the electric pencil eraser his colleague had and watching them draw blueprints for industrial plant equipment on huge sheets of paper. He bought an early IBM PC with an 8088 CPU and later added a 20MB hard drive. At the time it was one of the first computers in the office. Amazing how fast things changed.
 
2014-02-10 04:47:55 PM

James10952001: People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.


Your argument precludes the concept of static systems and twitchy software.

Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner.  Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me.  I can run the software on a 64 bit system.  I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.

Can this stuff be done?  YES.  It is economically viable to do so in the majority of cases ?  Not even slightly.  Therefore: 32 bit legacy systems will hang on for as long as they possibly can, I manage several that are older than I am.

You can point to all the modern options you want, it doesn't have shiat to do with the reality in the world.
 
2014-02-10 04:50:45 PM

ReverendJynxed: Far Cough: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.

Odd, Win+x doesn't do a damn thing on my 7 (Ultimate) and I have x-keys enabled. Which version is it in?


I don't have a Windows key on my keyboard. I dug out an old clicky AT keyboard in the mid 90s when hitting the Windows key would crash out of most games. Still love the feel of that keyboard so I've stuck with it. Never got in the habit of using that key since it caused so much frustration back in the day.
 
2014-02-10 04:51:59 PM

Kahabut: James10952001: People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.

Your argument precludes the concept of static systems and twitchy software.

Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner.  Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me.  I can run the software on a 64 bit system.  I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.

Can this stuff be done?  YES.  It is economically viable to do so in the majority of cases ?  Not even slightly.  Therefore: 32 bit legacy systems will hang on for as long as they possibly can, I manage several that are older than I am.

You can point to all the modern options you want, it doesn't have shiat to do with the reality in the world.


I don't believe anyone said that 32-bit legacies wouldn't hang around. You asked : "Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case? "

People have given you several reasons.
 
2014-02-10 04:56:05 PM

James10952001: ReverendJynxed: Far Cough: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.

Odd, Win+x doesn't do a damn thing on my 7 (Ultimate) and I have x-keys enabled. Which version is it in?

I don't have a Windows key on my keyboard. I dug out an old clicky AT keyboard in the mid 90s when hitting the Windows key would crash out of most games. Still love the feel of that keyboard so I've stuck with it. Never got in the habit of using that key since it caused so much frustration back in the day.


I love my mechanical keyboards. Membrane keys are a bane.

But yeah, win keys were prone to screwing games along with alt-tab which is why a lot of games allow you to disable the key presses while in game.

Had win-x been available to me I probably would have put it to use rather than going menu hunting or typing out the .msc in the command line.
 
2014-02-10 04:57:46 PM

James10952001: Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.

People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.


At my work, people routinely run with 20+ webpages open, streaming Spotify, have 20+ office docs open, multiple images open, maybe some video queued up. This can easily get into over 3gb+ of ram. After that it's a performance hit as it's starts write ram to disk. This is just general every day office stuff.

/I've got Firefox, Outlook, and an IM client running and I'm using 3.2GB
 
2014-02-10 04:58:00 PM

Kahabut: James10952001: People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.

Your argument precludes the concept of static systems and twitchy software.

Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner.  Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me.  I can run the software on a 64 bit system.  I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.

Can this stuff be done?  YES.  It is economically viable to do so in the majority of cases ?  Not even slightly.  Therefore: 32 bit legacy systems will hang on for as long as they possibly can, I manage several that are older than I am.

You can point to all the modern options you want, it doesn't have shiat to do with the reality in the world.


I'm not sure I we're having the same debate here. Yes, legacy systems will be around for a while, hell I still have an ancient win98 laptop I use with my EPROM programmer which connects to the parallel port. It's something I use too rarely to buy a modern one but too frequently to simply dump it.

The need for a 32 bit system is becoming esoteric these days though while 64 bit is now mainstream.

If it gets to where you can't get a 32 bit machine, you can still boot a 32 bit OS on 64 bit hardware. The backward compatibility is impressive, eventually it's not practical to support old stuff forever. You don't see any PCs made in the last 8 years or so with ISA slots, but sure there are loads of them still ticking.
 
2014-02-10 05:01:50 PM

Phil Moskowitz: I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.


It was the cursor lag you couldn't turn off without a registry hack that irritated the piss out of me.  And I don't have a slow machine - it just can't keep up with my typing.
 
2014-02-10 05:05:42 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Metro is great for Xbox and tablets, problem is only 7 people have a MS tablet.


as one of the seven people with a win8.1 tablet, let me say it is awesome and i am never buying another android tablet again.

not going windows phone though. i hope the ubuntu phone thing works out.
 
2014-02-10 05:08:56 PM

Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?


Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.
 
2014-02-10 05:11:40 PM

Lsherm: Phil Moskowitz: I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

It was the cursor lag you couldn't turn off without a registry hack that irritated the piss out of me.  And I don't have a slow machine - it just can't keep up with my typing.


Maybe they learned that from Google. I rarely use the gmail web UI but when I do at work, it can't keep up with my typing on a core i7 2600. It's ridiculous.
 
2014-02-10 05:20:50 PM

syrynxx: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.


To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.
 
2014-02-10 05:25:17 PM

Kahabut: Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner. Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me. I can run the software on a 64 bit system. I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.


Which version exactly? Checking the company website, if I have the right device, the W&W C-400 microfilm scanner supports both 32 and 64 bit version of Windows 7 . . .
http://www.wwl.co.uk/aperturescanner-cseries_machinespec.htm

And the controller PC can be Win 7 or Win 8 32 or 64 bit.
http://www.wwl.co.uk/aperturescanner-cseries_pcspec.htm
 
2014-02-10 05:26:18 PM

redmid17: syrynxx: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.

To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.


Especially considering current versions of Exchange require 64bit only operating systems
 
2014-02-10 05:28:54 PM

redmid17: To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.


Well, the first sentence was the reason, the rest was just further clarification in case he actually wanted to learn something about 64-bit OSes which he apparently does not.  Exchange was one of the first apps that grew too big to even run in a 32-bit address space so I used that as an example, but I don't think it'll even install on a workstation OS.  You used to be able to do a registry hack in Windows NT 4.0 that would make NT 4 Workstation think it was NT 4 Server (which was about $800 more expensive), but MSFT 'fixed' that in NT 4 SP 1.
 
2014-02-10 05:30:48 PM

MightyPez: redmid17: syrynxx: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.

To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.

Especially considering current versions of Exchange require 64bit only operating systems


Yeah and I just know looked up how far back that requirement went. I'd not have guessed that it was 2007. I figured it would have been Exchange 2010.
 
2014-02-10 05:38:58 PM
I wonder how quickly MS will fall apart now.  History books will lump it together with Standard Oil and AT&T.
 
2014-02-10 05:56:42 PM
fark the mouse, fark trouchscreens,
 
2014-02-10 06:04:26 PM

James10952001: Maybe they learned that from Google. I rarely use the gmail web UI but when I do at work, it can't keep up with my typing on a core i7 2600. It's ridiculous.


Um.

Fark it. Somebody else, please tell him.
 
2014-02-10 06:41:11 PM
I'm no interface genius or anything, but wouldn't the Metro start screen be more efficient if 20% of the vertical screen area wasn't dedicated to the pointless word "START"?

Check out  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unFdxJOEKp0 to see a Metro-ripoff that does it much better
 
2014-02-10 08:55:50 PM

d23: [www.extremetech.com image 348x196]


Ah, Steam.  The software distribution system Valve created so they could issue small and quick episodic content to Half-Life 2 easily and often.  So they only did it twice and have left that game rot for 7 years.
Gabe should have SteamOS shined up and ready for the Linux mouthbreathers sometime around 2027.
 
2014-02-10 09:14:40 PM
DNRTFA.

But, Ballmer's out and Gates is apparently taking a closer personal interest in the company.

I've not used a Windows 8 device, and, to be honest, the advertising campaign raised red flags. It suggested that Windows 8 would provide the same experience on all devices. And that's farking stupid. I don't want my desktop computer to have the same interface as my mobile phone.

Apple did have a thing going on for a little bit, where they emphasised that the iPhone ran OS X, but they got their shiat together and renamed their mobile OS iOS.

Yeah, I'm providing no sources, but I've also heard that MS intends to put 8 behind it ASAP, and move on to 9. But, it's always been the way with MS, hasn't it? Vista was dogshiat, Windows 7 was usable.

/Was is not MS-DOS 4.0 that used to wipe out your sexy 100 Mb hard drive for no reason?
 
2014-02-10 09:21:47 PM
"A Frankenstein product stitched together with compromises."

And fine-tuned with the bitter tears of Zune and the pathos of Microsoft Bob..
 
2014-02-10 09:24:51 PM

iron de havilland: I don't want my desktop computer to have the same interface as my mobile phone.


Congratulations, you're (over)qualified for the position of CEO of Microsoft Corporation.  Can you start next Monday?
 
2014-02-10 10:07:54 PM

redmid17: syrynxx: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.

To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.


If I'm reading the pacing of this thread correctly, the moron in question may not actually be aware that 2K was a server OS as well as a workstation one.

Meaning, he's completely unaware of the NT code-based server OS that spawned AD and the workstation OS that came with it, and the entirety of the Windows servers that followed.

But don't tell him. Let's see if he figures it out.
 
2014-02-10 10:08:08 PM

theurge14: d23: [www.extremetech.com image 348x196]

Ah, Steam.  The software distribution system Valve created so they could issue small and quick episodic content to Half-Life 2 easily and often.  So they only did it twice and have left that game rot for 7 years.
Gabe should have SteamOS shined up and ready for the Linux mouthbreathers sometime around 2027.


They developed Steam three years before Half-Life 2 and the original idea was to update the Counter-Strike expansion for the original HL, which was proving more popular than the game itself because of new maps, new game play, etc.  HL2 was the first game that required Steam and it was used as an auto-update client so Valve could add more video card support and patches back in in the day when it was extremely likely a game you bought wouldn't play on the PC you wanted to play it on.  It morphed into an episodic game delivery system, used much better by other companies, but the original idea was to cut out the delays for customers in getting the latest patch.  For online game play, like Counter-Strike, it helped create a baseline for client systems so users couldn't take advantage of exploits in earlier, unpatched systems.

I was the greatest CS player in my office until they started enforcing patching.

And as far as digital delivery systems - it's better than Origin and it's better than GFW.  Hell, it's better than most older content protection systems that came with physical media.  It doesn't limit how many computers you can download the games to - it just doesn't let you play them on more than one at the same time.  That's an even trade-off.  I've never had to worry about Steam games running on a new computer I bought because of licensing issues.
 
2014-02-10 10:32:22 PM

BumpInTheNight: Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.

Yah because having all 18 of Office's stupid little obscure apps along with every other executable in one gigantic unsorted tile set resembling an detonated skittle bag is so great.  The superior Start Menu from 7 had a self learning 'commonly used' section front and center and then an organized tree to hold all those bullshiat apps you use once a century, and it also featured a search by typing right there as well.  Sure Metro would be okay for people who barely scratch the capabilities of a computer, but anyone doing any real amount of work on a system has enough apps installed that the flat sprawl gets hideous.


"Unsorted" being the biggest issue for me.  The part where the Start Screen insists on taking up the whole screen?  Okay, yes, less than ideal and a big downside, but that might have been survivable if they hadn't also prevented you from making more than one layer of sub-folders.  What the fark is the point of disallowing that?

Right now, my start menu has several basic categories for first-level folders (Audio, Internet, Games, General, Maintenance, Video, etc.), then sub-folders within that.  Makes it a lot easier to find what I need.  With Windows 8 I can't do that. I'm expected to go hunting through several screens of unrelated crap.

Limiting folder complexity and making the whole thing take up the whole screen are bad enough by themselves.  Combined?  Nuh-uh, not even trying.  Try again.
 
2014-02-10 10:36:47 PM

Geotpf: My home desktop computer has Windows 8 (my old one took a dump and I was too lazy to build one from scratch and got a good deal on a floor sample).  It works fine for what I use it for-running games from Steam and surfing the web.  I can tell it would be horrible if I needed it for anything else, though.


Aaand this is how its done, folks.
By ones & twos,
The hundreds and thousands.
The stars wink out.
Minds succumb to soft machine,
creators now obey and serve.
In a starless void.

=I Robot=
 
2014-02-10 10:58:53 PM

yukichigai: BumpInTheNight: Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.

Yah because having all 18 of Office's stupid little obscure apps along with every other executable in one gigantic unsorted tile set resembling an detonated skittle bag is so great.  The superior Start Menu from 7 had a self learning 'commonly used' section front and center and then an organized tree to hold all those bullshiat apps you use once a century, and it also featured a search by typing right there as well.  Sure Metro would be okay for people who barely scratch the capabilities of a computer, but anyone doing any real amount of work on a system has enough apps installed that the flat sprawl gets hideous.

"Unsorted" being the biggest issue for me.  The part where the Start Screen insists on taking up the whole screen?  Okay, yes, less than ideal and a big downside, but that might have been survivable if they hadn't also prevented you from making more than one layer of sub-folders.  What the fark is the point of disallowing that?

Right now, my start menu has several basic categories for first-level folders (Audio, Internet, Games, General, Maintenance, Video, etc.), then sub-folders within that.  Makes it a lot easier to find what I need.  With Windows 8 I can't do that. I'm expected to go hunting through several screens of unrelated crap.

Limiting folder complexity and making the whole thing take up the whole screen are bad enough by themselves.  Combined?  Nuh-uh, not even trying.  Try again.


I'd expect at some point they will bring that back, because even on my iPhone you can make a folder and put 8 things in it.  This:

imagizer.imageshack.us

Is not realistic.  I had to take three screenshots on a 1920x1200 monitor to get all of them in (the cat face is duplicated on the right because it didn't fill an entire screen).  You can argue that I should go through all the icons and remove the ones I don't need, but how the fark is that an improvement?  What you're seeing on that screen was 10 root folders in Windows 7 that branched out based on categories I created.  Now I've got three full monitors worth of icons to pick through.
 
2014-02-10 11:32:19 PM

Lsherm: yukichigai: BumpInTheNight: Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.

Yah because having all 18 of Office's stupid little obscure apps along with every other executable in one gigantic unsorted tile set resembling an detonated skittle bag is so great.  The superior Start Menu from 7 had a self learning 'commonly used' section front and center and then an organized tree to hold all those bullshiat apps you use once a century, and it also featured a search by typing right there as well.  Sure Metro would be okay for people who barely scratch the capabilities of a computer, but anyone doing any real amount of work on a system has enough apps installed that the flat sprawl gets hideous.

"Unsorted" being the biggest issue for me.  The part where the Start Screen insists on taking up the whole screen?  Okay, yes, less than ideal and a big downside, but that might have been survivable if they hadn't also prevented you from making more than one layer of sub-folders.  What the fark is the point of disallowing that?

Right now, my start menu has several basic categories for first-level folders (Audio, Internet, Games, General, Maintenance, Video, etc.), then sub-folders within that.  Makes it a lot easier to find what I need.  With Windows 8 I can't do that. I'm expected to go hunting through several screens of unrelated crap.

Limiting folder complexity and making the whole thing take up the whole screen are bad enough by themselves.  Combined?  Nuh-uh, not even trying.  Try again.

I'd expect at some point they will bring that back, because even on my iPhone you can make a folder and put 8 things in it.  This:

[imagizer.imageshack.us image 800x200]

Is not realistic.  I had to take three screenshots on a 1920x1200 monitor to get all of them in (the cat face is duplicated on the right because it didn't fill an entire screen).  You can argue that I should go through all the icons and remove the ones I don't need, but how the fark is that an improvement?  What you're seeing on that screen was 10 root folders in Windows 7 that branched out based on categories I created.  Now I've got three full monitors worth of icons shiat to pick through.


FTFY.
 
2014-02-10 11:50:47 PM
I don't know why you all are complaining. I have no problem forwarding emails to my grandson and printing out pictures from MySpace with it. He is in college at State now. He really is a good kid.
 
2014-02-10 11:56:34 PM
Can't justify switching to Windows 8 due to the backdoor features installed that allow certain entities access to your machine. Till they get rid of that, never touching 8, or any other "new" windows for that matter.

Though it may come down to actually modding the software to remove those security vulnerabilities.

/worst ones are the hardwired vulnerabilities on some new motherboards
 
2014-02-10 11:58:39 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Far Cough: Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.

Kids these days.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x400]


What do you know, kid?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-11 12:11:17 AM

Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.


Psst, Ballmer's out on his ass, and the armistice has been signed.  You can put down your sword and Banzai flag and come out of the woods.
 
2014-02-11 12:11:45 AM

Ruiizu: Can't justify switching to Windows 8 due to the backdoor features installed that allow certain entities access to your machine. Till they get rid of that, never touching 8, or any other "new" windows for that matter.

Though it may come down to actually modding the software to remove those security vulnerabilities.

/worst ones are the hardwired vulnerabilities on some new motherboards


This.

Sad thing is, 98% of users have no idea....
they just swallow
 
2014-02-11 12:22:50 AM

JSTACAT: Ruiizu: Can't justify switching to Windows 8 due to the backdoor features installed that allow certain entities access to your machine. Till they get rid of that, never touching 8, or any other "new" windows for that matter.

Though it may come down to actually modding the software to remove those security vulnerabilities.

/worst ones are the hardwired vulnerabilities on some new motherboards

This.

Sad thing is, 98% of users have no idea....
they just swallow


Not that I don't believe that some are in there, but are you talking about the one that the German government denied and Die Zeit retracted?
 
2014-02-11 12:30:17 AM

theBigBigEye: Lsherm: yukichigai: BumpInTheNight: Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.

Yah because having all 18 of Office's stupid little obscure apps along with every other executable in one gigantic unsorted tile set resembling an detonated skittle bag is so great.  The superior Start Menu from 7 had a self learning 'commonly used' section front and center and then an organized tree to hold all those bullshiat apps you use once a century, and it also featured a search by typing right there as well.  Sure Metro would be okay for people who barely scratch the capabilities of a computer, but anyone doing any real amount of work on a system has enough apps installed that the flat sprawl gets hideous.

"Unsorted" being the biggest issue for me.  The part where the Start Screen insists on taking up the whole screen?  Okay, yes, less than ideal and a big downside, but that might have been survivable if they hadn't also prevented you from making more than one layer of sub-folders.  What the fark is the point of disallowing that?

Right now, my start menu has several basic categories for first-level folders (Audio, Internet, Games, General, Maintenance, Video, etc.), then sub-folders within that.  Makes it a lot easier to find what I need.  With Windows 8 I can't do that. I'm expected to go hunting through several screens of unrelated crap.

Limiting folder complexity and making the whole thing take up the whole screen are bad enough by themselves.  Combined?  Nuh-uh, not even trying.  Try again.

I'd expect at some point they will bring that back, because even on my iPhone you can make a folder and put 8 things in it.  This:

[imagizer.imageshack.us image 800x200]

Is not realistic.  I had t ...


You're correct, God forbid I need to use my computer for what I want it to do.  How silly of me.  I should have consulted you first.  That's what's important.

Are you farking retarded?
 
2014-02-11 12:36:50 AM
Lsherm:
 I had to take three screenshots on a 1920x1200 monitor to get all of them in "

Wow, i'd shoot a monitor that looked like that,
with a can of green leaves.img.fark.net

Text Lists, no icons, very small print. Tiny icons, each is a separate universe.
since i speed read... any clutter in a folder makes me uptight. [no folder trees, thats what arrows are for]

Got a netbook  with w-7 & their dam folder trees & icons, i'm just gonna wipe it off the machine.
w-7 full of back doors too.

I can't fathom how people can put up with the huge cartoon like icons, charms, and tiles, let alone folder views that are not very adjustable.
Work = 10 tiny folders 30 x 120px with lists, open all at once & still room for a doc + edge views of the trees. Must have the Green Trees!
 I'd be totally slowed down if i had to dismiss 2 or 4 folders eating up the whole screen to see some others.
 
2014-02-11 12:39:25 AM

Sytherek: I run three monitors under Win 7, with a half-dozen apps running simultaneously. Work great in Win7. Anybody doing something similar in Win 8?


Yep.  8.1.  Pinned commonly used programs to the task bar, which mirrors the task bar on every screen.  Much less mouse movement to get to a task bar app.  Right click on the app on the task bar to open a second instance.  Commonly have about 30 windows open in a day.

Really like some of the diagnostics tools built in.  Fairly useful.  I'd have a tough time going back to Win 7 actually.

For those apps I don't commonly use, simple windows key, start typing app name.  Enter.

Now, that said, I'm rarely if ever in the start menu.  If I visually needed to scan and scroll with my mouse, it would be the death of me.  Those tiled apps are awful.
 
2014-02-11 12:50:10 AM
redmid17:

Not that I don't believe that some are in there, but are you talking about the one that the German government denied and Die Zeit retracted?


Not aware of that one, if the German govt was willing to blow the whistle on IE, and now, some crap in a 15 gb os from the usa,
Good :(
It could be the Germans who get Linux into greater desktop use.
msft is wearing pretty thin in Europe. probably 75% of the nations are planning to ditch the bit h msft.
Thanks! Obama! Really, Thanks!
But, i would hesitate to trust a German Linux.
 
2014-02-11 12:53:50 AM

JSTACAT: Lsherm:
 I had to take three screenshots on a 1920x1200 monitor to get all of them in "

Wow, i'd shoot a monitor that looked like that,
with a can of green leaves.[img.fark.net image 410x307]

Text Lists, no icons, very small print. Tiny icons, each is a separate universe.
since i speed read... any clutter in a folder makes me uptight. [no folder trees, thats what arrows are for]

Got a netbook  with w-7 & their dam folder trees & icons, i'm just gonna wipe it off the machine.
w-7 full of back doors too.

I can't fathom how people can put up with the huge cartoon like icons, charms, and tiles, let alone folder views that are not very adjustable.
Work = 10 tiny folders 30 x 120px with lists, open all at once & still room for a doc + edge views of the trees. Must have the Green Trees!
 I'd be totally slowed down if i had to dismiss 2 or 4 folders eating up the whole screen to see some others.


I don't even know what you're trying to sell with that post.  Drink more.
 
2014-02-11 12:57:35 AM

yukichigai: Right now, my start menu has several basic categories for first-level folders (Audio, Internet, Games, General, Maintenance, Video, etc.), then sub-folders within that. Makes it a lot easier to find what I need. With Windows 8 I can't do that. I'm expected to go hunting through several screens of unrelated crap.


Thank you!  Some moron up-thread said if you're visually looking through the start menu you must be a casual user.  LOLWAT?

I don't say this with pride but of the 20 hours I'm awake a day, I spend about 15 of them in front of a computer.  I have dozens of programmes installed in my home computer, some of which I only need to use on a very rare occasion for a very specific use.  I have about 20 different video ripping, editing and converting programmes installed.  Hell, I have nine different media players* installed.  I can't remember the name of all of them, good organisation through folder structure and a visual search is required.

There also always seems to be a few shills who clasp their hands to their bosoms and complain about tortuously wending their mouse through the impossible "narrow channels" and "tiny print" of the start menu.  Funny they don't complain about having to do this on the menus of installed software, which are smaller than the start menu.  I can only imagine that when forced to use a mouse they can do nowt but stare forlornly at the desktop, crippled by their inability to reliably click on anything smaller than an inch square.

*Winamp, Media Player Classic, VLC, MediaMonkey, iTunes, JetAudio, SonicStage, Nero, Windows Media Player (never been used)
 
2014-02-11 01:02:11 AM

Lsherm: JSTACAT: Lsherm:

I don't even know what you're trying to sell with that post.  Drink more.


Hey, wanna cop some xp?
got some linux too, the old good stuf...
 green sunshine, Debian Red.

Swedish Toastimg.fark.net
 
2014-02-11 01:10:07 AM

LesserEvil: Please stop arguing that Windows 8 (and we are talking about the Metro UI here) is great, too... if it was, in any measure, than Ballmer would still be in charge, and the team responsible for Windows 8 would still be around. It was a mistake, plain and simple, and a decade or two from now, after the fallout has finally settled, it will be chronicled by those involved as a big mistake.


Or in other words, Windows 8/"It's not called Metro anymore" is the new "New Coke".  Yes, while the products themselves are good in a limited use case scenario (Metro makes sense for tablets), replacing the established, well-loved flagship product with them was an idiotic move.

MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*


Are you sure you're not the one who's never played with XP x64?  I ran it on my Sager laptop (yes, a laptop) from the Beta days and never had driver support issues, save for Apple devices.  Until 7 released it was also my main desktop OS, again with no issues.  I'll admit that in the early days finding x64 drivers was difficult for some things, but once Vista hit it was barely an effort to find drivers.  9 times out of 10 you could just download the Vista x64 driver and use that without issue.

LesserEvil: WinXP was released as hardware vendors started making drivers for "NT" - and yes, those drivers worked in Win2k, too. XP **WAS** a refined version of Win2k. It had a "hipper" windowing UI, which made it more familiar to Win9x users. Over all, it was more comfortable to jump into. A lot of the acronymity against XP was due to the "Genuine Windows" authentication nonsense.


XP was basically the anti-ME: it combined the good features of 2k and 9x and eliminated most of the bad ones.

Man On Pink Corner: Telos: In other words "it's different so it's bad, I want the exact same thing as before. Change is bad." Sorry, but the old start menu sucked horribly. The new start menu (aka Metro Desktop) is much better in that you don't have to sort through tiny folders to find what you want, and even if you don't see it you can type to search.

Psst, Ballmer's out on his ass, and the armistice has been signed.  You can put down your sword and Banzai flag and come out of the woods.


Save your breath.  He's going to die old and grey and wrinkled inside a booby-trapped cave on a forgotten island that the Japanese formally acknowledged belonged to the US more than five decades ago.  Metaphorically speaking.
 
2014-02-11 06:09:46 AM
Well that turned into an interesting circle jerk.
 
2014-02-11 08:42:18 AM

yukichigai: Are you sure you're not the one who's never played with XP x64? I ran it on my Sager laptop (yes, a laptop) from the Beta days and never had driver support issues, save for Apple devices. Until 7 released it was also my main desktop OS, again with no issues. I'll admit that in the early days finding x64 drivers was difficult for some things, but once Vista hit it was barely an effort to find drivers. 9 times out of 10 you could just download the Vista x64 driver and use that without issue.


LesserEvil: WinXP was released as hardware vendors started making drivers for "NT" - and yes, those drivers worked in Win2k, too. XP **WAS** a refined version of Win2k. It had a "hipper" windowing UI, which made it more familiar to Win9x users. Over all, it was more comfortable to jump into. A lot of the acronymity against XP was due to the "Genuine Windows" authentication nonsense.


XP was basically the anti-ME: it combined the good features of 2k and 9x and eliminated most of the bad ones.


Dude XP 64bit was garbage, just because your pre-configured laptop worked with it doesn't discount anything. The reason it was garbage because it was shoehorned in and you had to verify that every device you had was compatabile and most drivers were never made for it or if they were made they barely worked at best.  I had to make 1 PC for someone years ago and they wanted 64bit because they wanted a lot of RAM and that thing was painful to work on.

Again Xp was great after 2-3 years after it was released which is pretty damn close to what 8 is now.
 
2014-02-11 11:20:49 AM

JSTACAT: But, i would hesitate to trust a German Linux.


I could be wrong, but I thought that Windows NT, which gave rise to all of MS's modern OSs, was largely coded in Germany.
 
2014-02-11 11:26:11 AM

Fissile: JSTACAT: But, i would hesitate to trust a German Linux.

I could be wrong, but I thought that Windows NT, which gave rise to all of MS's modern OSs, was largely coded in Germany.


Digital Equipment Corporation was located in Germany?

/kidding
/?
 
2014-02-11 12:53:35 PM

iron de havilland: DNRTFA.

But, Ballmer's out and Gates is apparently taking a closer personal interest in the company.

I've not used a Windows 8 device, and, to be honest, the advertising campaign raised red flags. It suggested that Windows 8 would provide the same experience on all devices. And that's farking stupid. I don't want my desktop computer to have the same interface as my mobile phone.

Apple did have a thing going on for a little bit, where they emphasised that the iPhone ran OS X, but they got their shiat together and renamed their mobile OS iOS.

Yeah, I'm providing no sources, but I've also heard that MS intends to put 8 behind it ASAP, and move on to 9. But, it's always been the way with MS, hasn't it? Vista was dogshiat, Windows 7 was usable.

/Was is not MS-DOS 4.0 that used to wipe out your sexy 100 Mb hard drive for no reason?


That's the thing. My phone is awesome, not because it has a great user interface but because it fits in my farking pocket yet still manages to perform a worthwhile subset of the tasks I would otherwise do on a PC. The touch interface is simply the most practical way to work within the constraints of the form factor, but without those constraints, a mouse and keyboard are far superior.
 
2014-02-11 12:58:24 PM

Fissile: JSTACAT: But, i would hesitate to trust a German Linux.

I could be wrong, but I thought that Windows NT, which gave rise to all of MS's modern OSs, was largely coded in Germany.


Thats a new bit of info for me, and very interesting. I will add this factor to many different mind files and see what develops.
It means that America is "subservient" intellectually in a major field. Makes me want to take it [NT] apart bit by bit...
Nahh too much time, i will compute the effects working with images.
NT has numerous built in doors as well, but seems more controllable than newer windows versions.
I really -HATE- the mft, in windows, that should be easy to wipe on a regular basis, but it isn't.
It just keeps getting fatter like a red faced German bartender.

The psychology of the Germans is interesting, They have a special touch with tech of all kinds.
If we don't watch out, they will end up with their fingers in everyone's pie, in a dominant sort of way.
The EU is a good example.
And now windows.... somehow, i feel disappointed in America, like we didn't win the war... we got "infected" and they are our invisible, inevitable rulers.
OTOH, i am German.... WTF
explains a lot, nationally and personally.
Machines, physics, tech in general come so easily to me its like climbing a tree, done with little effort, little study,, for fun. Did i get that from ancestry?
Yikes!
 
2014-02-11 01:43:18 PM

People_are_Idiots: demaL-demaL-yeH: Far Cough: Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.

Kids these days.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x400]

What do you know, kid?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 360x248]


Not only have I used a slipstick, I know it's useless without the farking log tables.
 
2014-02-11 01:52:44 PM
For people who are frustrated with settings on Win8, go HERE, and follow the directions. All the tweaks in one place.
 
2014-02-11 01:53:12 PM
"Slipstick"?  Is that why the old Exchange site is called that?

Never heard that name for a sliderule.  (Used one but just for fun.)
 
2014-02-11 02:44:12 PM

Far Cough: "Slipstick"?  Is that why the old Exchange site is called that?

Never heard that name for a sliderule.  (Used one but just for fun.)


And I used it for real.
 
2014-02-11 03:24:35 PM

JSTACAT: Fissile: JSTACAT: But, i would hesitate to trust a German Linux.

I could be wrong, but I thought that Windows NT, which gave rise to all of MS's modern OSs, was largely coded in Germany.

Thats a new bit of info for me, and very interesting. I will add this factor to many different mind files and see what develops.
It means that America is "subservient" intellectually in a major field. Makes me want to take it [NT] apart bit by bit...
Nahh too much time, i will compute the effects working with images.
NT has numerous built in doors as well, but seems more controllable than newer windows versions.
I really -HATE- the mft, in windows, that should be easy to wipe on a regular basis, but it isn't.
It just keeps getting fatter like a red faced German bartender.

The psychology of the Germans is interesting, They have a special touch with tech of all kinds.
If we don't watch out, they will end up with their fingers in everyone's pie, in a dominant sort of way.
The EU is a good example.
And now windows.... somehow, i feel disappointed in America, like we didn't win the war... we got "infected" and they are our invisible, inevitable rulers.
OTOH, i am German.... WTF
explains a lot, nationally and personally.
Machines, physics, tech in general come so easily to me its like climbing a tree, done with little effort, little study,, for fun. Did i get that from ancestry?
Yikes!


Again, I'm not certain that Windows NT was coded in Germany, but that's a story I was told once a long time ago.   Perhaps someone knows the real story behind it?
 
2014-02-11 07:06:10 PM

Fissile: Again, I'm not certain that Windows NT was coded in Germany, but that's a story I was told once a long time ago.   Perhaps someone knows the real story behind it?


It was coded in Redmond under the leadership of Dave Cutler from DEC ('VMS' : 'WNT' :: 'HAL' : 'IBM').

There's a decent book on the project and personalities behind it.
 
Displayed 340 of 340 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report