View Full Version : Windows 8: Great OS or Greatest OS?
I think we can all agree that Windows 8 is the pinnacle of human achievement. Just the other day, after using Windows 8, I won the lottery and several attractive people asked that I sex them. This sort of thing just happens when you use Windows 8.
Discuss. And maybe move the other bits of Win8 discussion to new thread.
http://youtu.be/O2ySMXsuMiw
I am going to get windows 8 at work soon... mainly because I will have to support it and that will be easier than trying to guide windows 8 users while using windows xp...
No doubt I will be posting of my exploits from my pleasure yacht surrounded by topless models in a few weeks time...
I am going to get windows 8 at work soon...
And I bet you are 100% stoked!
There are three Windows-ish PCs in the Casa de Lemur; the kids' PC, my work laptop, and my personal rig.
I want minimal headaches with the kids, so I put them on Win7. Work is also standardized on Win7. But I went ahead and tried out 8.1 on my rig. It's ... interesting.
Like I said in the other thread, I know enough about working in an unfamiliar OS to undo some of the more horrible stuff, but I have Strong Sympathy for the average computer user. Windows 8 has some interesting technology inside (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5630/indepth-with-the-windows-8-consumer-preview/13), but the front-end is basically a land-grab for Microsoft apps (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5630/indepth-with-the-windows-8-consumer-preview/15). Many of which you wouldn't touch with your worst enemy's Johnson.
If you have a touch screen, the Windows8 interface kinda works.
Otherwise, it's just mystifying why they decided to do things the way they did. Why force desktop users to run "apps" full screen? Why force a jumble of icons over an organized Start menu? Why force gestures over clicks and keystrokes?
They're trying to force a tablet experience onto the desktop. Why? Apple successfully maintains a separate desktop & touchscreen OS- they didn't try to cram them together. I suspect Microsoft did so because their mobile offerings weren't gaining any traction, so they thought they could leverage their PC dominance into the mobile market by unifying the OS.
This guy (http://jay-machalani.squarespace.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8) actually has some nice ideas for interface improvements IMO.
I haven't read all of it but had a look at the screenshots on a news site a while ago, those mostly looked pretty nice.
Gregoshi
01-09-2014, 07:02
Hi. My name is Greg and I'm a Windows 8 user.
It all started innocently enough when I bought my laptop and Win 8 was the only OS option available. I was optimistic back then. I'd heard how bad Win 8 was but figured I could handle it. Those complainers were weak and undisciplined. I would tame the beast. I was wrong.
The first sign of trouble was the Metro interface. Charms. Apps. Finger gestures. After several days I had mastered only one finger gesture - it didn't do anything, but I felt better after using it. And Charms - they had none. But apps I detested. Even the word "apps" annoyed me. Install any software and your system is flooded with a diarrhea of apps - an app for the Readme file, an app for visiting the company website, an app to visit the company store, an app for software updates, an app for uninstall, an app for software documentation and so on. The Metro interface quickly becomes cluttered with a crapp load of apps.
Unfortunately I discovered the Desktop-without-a-Start-Menu. Sure, it looked like good ol' Win 7 - except too many things have issues. Skype doesn't go online or I can't answer a call. Shockwave doesn't work with Firefox often - hanging for 30 seconds and then a popup window to answer for each page making browsing certain websites painful. Gmail and other Google feature go into a "Not Responding" state for several seconds making their use annoyingly slow. Windows Media Player doesn't play DVDs or Blu-ray disks - by choice! Even something as basic as the volume control locks up often. And so it goes.
The joys of computer use have diminished under Win 8. I am beaten down. I look longingly at Win 7 on Amazon and dream of better days ahead. Well, that is my story. Thank you for listening.
Hi. My name is Greg and I'm a Windows 8 user.
Hello, my name is secret and I will try to help with some of your problems.
It all started innocently enough when I bought my laptop and Win 8 was the only OS option available. I was optimistic back then. I'd heard how bad Win 8 was but figured I could handle it. Those complainers were weak and undisciplined. I would tame the beast. I was wrong.
That was a good start, I applaud that.
After several days I had mastered only one finger gesture - it didn't do anything, but I felt better after using it.
Finger gestures are optional and the basic ones I'm aware of are really simple because you just swipe from the lef or right side of your mousepad to open either the charms bar(menu) on the right or to switch beetween open apps.
But apps I detested. Even the word "apps" annoyed me. Install any software and your system is flooded with a diarrhea of apps - an app for the Readme file, an app for visiting the company website, an app to visit the company store, an app for software updates, an app for uninstall, an app for software documentation and so on. The Metro interface quickly becomes cluttered with a crapp load of apps.
Only if you want it to, all of the functions are available without apps on the desktop and Windows up until 7 couldn't open pdf files at all without additional software. :inquisitive:
Unfortunately I discovered the Desktop-without-a-Start-Menu. Sure, it looked like good ol' Win 7 - except too many things have issues. Skype doesn't go online or I can't answer a call.
Skype on my Win 7 machine doesn't work as it simply refuses to transmit the clearly available microphone input that works in all other applications. Even reinstalling didn't help. On Windows 8, Skype works flawlessly. I assume the problem with Skype is something other than the Windows version one uses it on.
Shockwave doesn't work with Firefox often - hanging for 30 seconds and then a popup window to answer for each page making browsing certain websites painful. Gmail and other Google feature go into a "Not Responding" state for several seconds making their use annoyingly slow.
You mean Adobe Flash Player? That's a horrible piece of software that wouldn't even play full screen video on a 2.0 GHz DualCore notebook without very heavy stuttering at 100% CPU load. Something is off here because it works just the same with Windows 8 and Windows 7. My new notebook has an i5 and it performs relatively fine with Flash on Windows 8.1 using Opera 18.0. Are you sure your laptop is properly configured and has all drivers etc.?
Windows Media Player doesn't play DVDs or Blu-ray disks - by choice!
Yeah, with DVD that is a change, IIRC they could offer it 10 bucks cheaper without the codec due to licensing costs. As for Blu-Ray, you wouldn't have any more luck with Windows 7: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-pictures/windows-7-media-player-will-not-play-back-bluray/36f826cd-db66-45e7-bfad-1ad7f37f42af
IIRC up until Windows Vista or XP, Windows couldn't play DVDs out of the box either, new drives used to come with a free (light-)version of some player such as WinDVD (http://www.corel.com/corel/category.jsp?rootCat=cat20140&cat=cat3430071) or PowerDVD (http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdvd-family/introduction_en_US.html), which also offer Blu-Ray playback nowadays.
Even something as basic as the volume control locks up often. And so it goes.
That is incredibly mysterious, for me it even remembers settings for different apps and different output devices respectively so I can turn the built-in speakers off for mobile use and when I connect other speakers at home, the sound will automatically be on again until I disconnect them again and so on. I was really delighted to see it work so dynamically, even when I turn the sound for a single program off, it remembers that per output device. It's working pretty fine and I suspsect there is something wrong with your desktop or your software other than the OS itself.
The joys of computer use have diminished under Win 8. I am beaten down. I look longingly at Win 7 on Amazon and dream of better days ahead. Well, that is my story. Thank you for listening.
No problem, but a bad Windows 7 installation isn't any more joy I'm afraid and I doubt Windows 8 by itself is the core of the slowdown and other more technical problems you seem to experience
The Black Douglas
01-09-2014, 11:19
i've never understood how an operating system can be exciting, it's like chefs who are passionate about food.
i still miss xp, IF ITS NOT BROKE DONT FIX IT (UNLESS YOU WANT TO FORCE USERS INTO A TRAP THAT FORCES THEM TO CONFORM TO THE CYBER FASCIST MIND CONTROLLERS, BUT STILL GIVE THEM ENOUGH GIMMICK SO THEY CAN SHOW OFF TO THEIR LADYBOY INTERNET BRIDES)
i'm sure W8 will be lovely.
Got Win8 on two machines (laptop + desktop). Best thing that happened to OS since Win2000.
Have a win7 laptop as well and it feels "old".
The only aber I had was a blue outlook, but I survived that and are now enjoying the new simplistic office 2013.
The "old" start menu (<- win7) is odd looking these days.
edit: Hahaha... watching that youtube clip in OP, I notice they are speaking Norwegian in the first clip (after the Polish/Russian chick on the phone) where the co-worker throws himself across the desks and attacks his colleague.
i've never understood how an operating system can be exciting, it's like chefs who are passionate about food.
i still miss xp, IF ITS NOT BROKE DONT FIX IT (UNLESS YOU WANT TO FORCE USERS INTO A TRAP THAT FORCES THEM TO CONFORM TO THE CYBER FASCIST MIND CONTROLLERS, BUT STILL GIVE THEM ENOUGH GIMMICK SO THEY CAN SHOW OFF TO THEIR LADYBOY INTERNET BRIDES)
i'm sure W8 will be lovely.
Most people have forgotten this apparently but when XP was first released, people hated it even more than the y hate Windows 8 now. There were several reasons:
- it was too colourful, made for children, green start buttons are child's play and grey is what real nerds want on their computer
- it was based on Windows NT, a work system for companies, games even had issues with it sometimes and self-respecting gamers would stay with 98 (SE) or the horrible ME.
- it was totally buggy, seriously, the older ones were far more refined and how could Microsoft dare to release such a broken OS
- it was too slow, the horrible candy graphics for children were needlessly taking away up to 3%* of peoples' fps and it was a real atrocity that noone needed
*number is made up
This stuff repeats with almost every new Windows, people will find something to complain about while the new CoD that is even more the same as last year's iteration is totally awesome and breaks all sales records yet again. I wouldn't claim that Windows 8 is super awesome, I'm just a little tired by people complaining about every change Microsoft makes even though quite a few changes are usually for the better and allow for better utilization of hardware and so on. I remember how much people used to hate the glass interface when Vista was released and now I heard someone say Windows 8 looks bad because it doesn't have the shiny glass look...
Bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkucf6wxU4
[W]hen XP was first released, people hated it even more than the y hate Windows 8 now.
Eh, that wasn't true in the circles I traveled back in the day. Most of us were on Windows 2000, and the general verdict was, "It's Win2k with better drivers." Which, in fact, it turned out to be.
Of course, Windows 2000 was the last decent OS released by MSoft without Windows Genuine Advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Genuine_Advantage) (paging George Orwell, paging George Orwell), so in a way it was the last great hurrah.
Eh, that wasn't true in the circles I traveled back in the day. Most of us were on Windows 2000, and the general verdict was, "It's Win2k with better drivers." Which, in fact, it turned out to be.
It may depend on circles, yes. IIRC Win 2000 was mostly a work-OS and was quite a bit problematic for gaming (because of the driver issues and stuff), at least early on. Back in 2000 I was also in the middle of highschool so maybe I just didn't hang out so much with productive grownups at the time.[/QUOTE]
Of course, Windows 2000 was the last decent OS released by MSoft without Windows Genuine Advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Genuine_Advantage) (paging George Orwell, paging George Orwell), so in a way it was the last great hurrah.
Yeah, there was also all this talk about mainboard chips that will only allow MS-certified software to run becoming mandatory with Vista and so on but I still haven't seen any of this really scary stuff. At least until now I can install almost any program from the internets without my Windows telling me the chip does not allow it. There is some issue with installing some really uncertified old drivers in Windows 8 (I tried because I have a really old scanner that only works with a modified driver for a newer but similar scanner since Vista/7), but apparently that can be worked around by turning certain protections off. Not the simplest task though.
If you have a touch screen, the Windows8 interface kinda works.
Otherwise, it's just mystifying why they decided to do things the way they did. Why force desktop users to run "apps" full screen? Why force a jumble of icons over an organized Start menu? Why force gestures over clicks and keystrokes?
They're trying to force a tablet experience onto the desktop. Why? Apple successfully maintains a separate desktop & touchscreen OS- they didn't try to cram them together. I suspect Microsoft did so because their mobile offerings weren't gaining any traction, so they thought they could leverage their PC dominance into the mobile market by unifying the OS.
gnome-shell is an effort to do the same thing - essentially it's a smartphone/tablet GUI.
but I still haven't seen any of this really scary stuff
Have a read about secureboot and UEFI, particularly with respect to ARM chips.
gnome-shell is an effort to do the same thing - essentially it's a smartphone/tablet GUI.Oh definitely! And I hate it as well. :yes:
Eh, that wasn't true in the circles I traveled back in the day. Most of us were on Windows 2000, and the general verdict was, "It's Win2k with better drivers." Which, in fact, it turned out to be.Yeah. I remember lots of complaining about the candy-like XP theme, but once that was disabled everyone pretty much liked it.
Most people seemed to really like Win98SE, hate WindowsMe, like WindowsXp, hate Vista, like 7 and hate 8. Microsoft seems to be dropping a turd every other OS when it comes to desktops.
Have a read about secureboot and UEFI, particularly with respect to ARM chips.
What's scary about that? It's a restriction, sure, but I wouldn't buy a Windows Phone if I want to install Linux on it, I'd get an Androif Phone instead. For the same reason I wouldn't get an iPhone to install Linux on it. Might as well complain that you cannot exchange the graphics card or upgrade the RAM of your smartphone like you can in your desktop.
Most people seemed to really like Win98SE, hate WindowsMe, like WindowsXp, hate Vista, like 7 and hate 8. Microsoft seems to be dropping a turd every other OS when it comes to desktops.
A lot of people also got stuck in that exact mindset before they had even tried 8 and decided they would hate it long before that as well.
If you try out the new interface after having told all your friends that you will never like that, you'd have to admit that you were wrong if you tell them that it's actually usable. And I wouldn't underestimate how far a whole lot of people go just so they won't have to admit to having been wrong even in the most trivial cases...
Win8 outperforms Win7 on a two screen setup (extended desktop).
Win8 outperforms Win7 on a two screen setup (extended desktop).
In what way? I ask in all sincerity.
I've used Windows7 and dual screens at 2 different jobs now for several years. I wondering what shortcomings there are that it addresses... none spring to mind. It's not that Windows7 is dual screen perfection, I just can't think of any glaring omissions.
Most people have forgotten this apparently but when XP was first released, people hated it even more than the y hate Windows 8 now. There were several reasons:
- it was too colourful, made for children, green start buttons are child's play and grey is what real nerds want on their computer
- it was based on Windows NT, a work system for companies, games even had issues with it sometimes and self-respecting gamers would stay with 98 (SE) or the horrible ME.
- it was totally buggy, seriously, the older ones were far more refined and how could Microsoft dare to release such a broken OS
- it was too slow, the horrible candy graphics for children were needlessly taking away up to 3%* of peoples' fps and it was a real atrocity that noone needed
You forgot the programmes "XP-Antispy" etc, people used to get, as Microsoft fit the OS is government tracking devices and software so they can download all your secrets over your 56k modem and this intrusion on our civil liberties will get worse.
In what way? I ask in all sincerity.
I've used Windows7 and dual screens at 2 different jobs now for several years. I wondering what shortcomings there are that it addresses... none spring to mind. It's not that Windows7 is dual screen perfection, I just can't think of any glaring omissions.
Both screens are interactive.
You have the menu bar in both screens with the active windows, and you can access the start menu from both screens. If you point the cursor at the bottom left corner in your right screen (the extended desktop), you can access the start menu and it will show in the right screen. clicking on a program will launch it there on the right screen. This is out of the box Win8. I can't do this in Win7.
Both screens are interactive.
You have the menu bar in both screens with the active windows, and you can access the start menu from both screens. If you point the cursor at the bottom left corner in your right screen (the extended desktop), you can access the start menu and it will show in the right screen. clicking on a program will launch it there on the right screen. This is out of the box Win8. I can't do this in Win7.
[...]working with Windows 8 on my notebook is absolutely no problem, in fact I think it has quite a few advantages, multi-monitor support is better, you can access the Start screen on both monitors,[...]
You're mostly right but the starting of programs only applies to the new apps and well-programmed desktop apps apparently. I have a few that do not follow this rule such as the program that came with my TV card that seems to go by X:Y pixel coordinates and may just start outside your visible screen space with no hope of recovery(Windows key + Left/Right does not work on it either) if you disconnect the second screen. If you're using properly programmed apps, they should adjust just fine of course.
BroskiDerpman
01-11-2014, 23:29
Am I the only one who still uses the grey ui and blue background?
I'm fine with all the other ui options as they look good too... It must be the style that makes it look more like; you're using a computer in a more traditional sense.
If you want something traditional, use a paper and an abakus, computers are meant for progress.
BroskiDerpman
01-12-2014, 18:26
I was just saying I liked the old grey ui due to it's style. I'm perfectly fine with the newer ui looks and I don't see anything wrong with liking the older ui's look.
I was just saying I liked the old grey ui due to it's style. I'm perfectly fine with the newer ui looks and I don't see anything wrong with liking the older ui's look.
There is nothing wrong with that, I was just trying to give you advice on real traditional values. And I just don't like this old style as much anymore, but I do write on paper sometimes.
Loose the pink TAs. It's so unmanly and Win7.
Wasn't pink the colour of kings?
Wasn't pink to colour of kings?
No... it is the colour of little girls.
Wasn't pink to colour of kings?
That's purple.
Pink was the colour of boys whilst a light blue was the colour of girls. That ended up being reversed.
That's purple.
Pink was the colour of boys whilst a light blue was the colour of girls. That ended up being reversed.
No, new independent research by Husar & the other Inc. concluded that pink is indeeed the colour of kings.
:focus:
Such weighty conversations as which FA color(not pink) is more manly belong in the Watchtower. :stare:
BRING BACK CLIPPY!
https://i.imgur.com/pvs3MSy.jpg
Forget Clippy- if they want to save Win8, they need to bring back BOB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_bob).
11799
Tellos Athenaios
01-14-2014, 18:19
That's purple.
Pink was the colour of boys whilst a light blue was the colour of girls. That ended up being reversed.
Pink was the colour of boy girls. Light blue of girl girls. Unless you are proposing servants in pink, which I suppose might be an adequate description of TAs.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.