Discuss: Windows 8 Impressions

Hewlett-packard / Hp pavilion g6 notebook p...
June 8, 2012 at 05:42:07
Specs: Windows 7, 1.4 GHz / 5610 MB
Hi all,

This week's poll question is about news that a recent MarketWatch review is calling Windows 8 an "unmitigated disaster." Discuss here if you think this view will turn out to be correct, and, if you like, the poll results themselves.

Thanks!
Justin


See More: Discuss: Windows 8 Impressions

Report •

#1
June 8, 2012 at 08:01:52
In my opinion, I hate the new metro interface. I find it difficult to get to the program I need. Plus, since many of the metro programs are full screen, I can't multitask. I want the Start Menu back!

This interface would work on a tablet or phone, but not on a full sized desktop.

You've been helped by a 14 year old.


Report •

#2
June 8, 2012 at 08:44:37
I haven't tried it yet, but I don't like the looks of it and from what I'm reading it doesn't sound good. I don't quite understand why you need Win8 when Win7 just came out. It seems that in the technology race, they keep coming out with new things that don't really work that well, or at all, but they're new. I'll stick with Win 7 for a long time, or at least until they really do come out with something useful.

Report •

#3
June 8, 2012 at 10:53:07
I'm impressed by its speed. Win8 boots up much faster than Win7, and all of the Metro animations render at a silky smooth 60 fps, even on older machines. I believe Microsoft finally added full hardware acceleration to Win8's GUI. Win7 is only partially hardware accelerated; window compositing, D2D, and basic GDI is done in hardware, but GDI+ is still done in software.

But speed isn't everything.

The final version of Windows 8:
-will not have a Start menu.
-replaces the Start menu with a giant version of the Windows Phone 7 UI which requires the use of a tablet or one of those lame all-in-ones for the "proper" experience. Apparently the server version of Win8 will also make use of the Metro interface. Let that sink in for a moment.
-endlessly switches between classic desktop and Metro as you use it. An incredibly jarring experience.
-removes out of box DVD playback.
-removes Media Center
-removes Aero Glass. The Desktop window styling now looks a little dated.
-adds a Charms Bar. A Charms bar. I don't even...

It's never a good sign when Microsoft attempts to be more user friendly and/or game-changing. Remember Bob? WinME? Kin?

I'll be sticking with Win7 for a few more years. Which isn't a problem because Win7 is damn near perfect.

HTPC | Pentium M @ 2.82GHz, 2MB L2) | 4GB | 1.0TB | Radeon HD5750 | Blu-Ray
Win 7 Pro | Modified PowerMac G4 QuickSilver case


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
June 8, 2012 at 22:34:36
I think Windows 8 tablet interface is impractical for daily use. I think my arms would probably start killing me after 10 minutes holding them up to a touch screen monitor.

If Windows 8 succeeds (I don't think it will, I think the interface is too radical), it will break a 17-year string of "every other" consumer Microsoft operating system being lousy in terms of sales and adoption.

Windows 95: Successful
Windows 98: Not successful
Windows 98SE: Successful
Windows ME: Not successful
Windows XP: Successful
Windows Vista: Not successful
Windows 7: Successful
Windows 8: ?

http://sdfox7.com


Report •

#5
June 9, 2012 at 07:25:12
I beg to differ with you sdfox 7

There was absolutley nothing wrong with Windows 98. I ran it for several years. There's really no point in differentiating between 98 and 98 SE as they were almost exactly the same OS with only a few additions to SE that those of us who purchased 98 upon it's initial release got as updates.

So was my OS 98 or 98 SE one year after SE was released? Any updates SE had that 98 didn't was released as an update so in the end, it really was both.

You failed to make note of the 4, or was it 5 iterations of Windows 95. I think it was 5...A, B, C, D, and finally E before 98 came out.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#6
June 9, 2012 at 07:51:49
@Curt

Windows 95 was marketed and sold as a single version. In retail form, it was only available as the original FAT16 variant. All subsequent versions were only available to OEMs.

Windows 98 was marketed and sold as two separate retail versions, Windows 98 in June 1998 and Windows 98SE in May 1999. That was my angle.

As far as popularity, in July 1999, a year after Windows 98 release, Windows 95 still accounted for 60% of the market, with many people opting for Windows 95. This is the same situation we are in now with Windows XP. Eleven years, I'm very happy with Windows XP and have no intentions of upgrading. When I get a new machine I'll take my OEM copy and downgrade it.

As a computer geek I work with Windows 95 and Windows 98 on a (almost) daily basis. Windows 98SE works out of the box with high-speed processors and 1GB RAM. The original Windows 98 (also known as First Edition or "FE") does not, it's very unstable.

You'll also find that the baseline for most USB hardware and NETGEAR / LINKSYS etc networking components requires a minimum of Windows 98SE, so there are enough changes to make a significant difference. I've worked on a lot of Dell Dimensions and OptiPlexs, the driver installations fail on Windows 98 FE.

While Windows 98 can be hacked to support mass storage USB like 98SE, they are not the same system.

http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/win98fe-usb-mass-storage-drivers.php

Hope you enjoyed my ranting!

http://sdfox7.com


Report •

#7
June 9, 2012 at 11:53:41
When any new version of Windows comes out there is always some resistance due to unfimiliarity. However ME and Vista didn't really take off. So does the team think that
Win 8 will go the same way, or is it possible we will learn to love it eventually? I accept that the changes sound a bit radical.

As an aside, I think that Vista was too early for the hardware when it first arrived. On later hardware I have found it runs very well and, as an OS, is not really a fat lot different to Win 7. Perhaps the comparison between Vista and Win 7 is similar to Win 95 and 98SE. Both W98SE and Win 7 appeared to be their earlier counterparts (W95 & Vista) put right. If so then pressure to market a new system is probably the culprit.


Report •

#8
June 9, 2012 at 23:29:35
I've "played" with win8 as a well now triple boot with win7 and one version or another of linux. I keep trying linux because I feel I need to learn. In my repair business I occasionaly get a computer with linux installed. I don't think I'll ever be truly comfy with linux as I was a windows baby for years.

Now on to win8. After about a month now all I can say is: "I don't like it." After just a few minutes of just browsing the web I find myself running back to win7. So far I haven't learned more than maybe I am too old for it. It's another of those new gadgets kids have to have but I see no use for. Maybe when the equipment that XP and Win7 run on becomes so outdated and slow that it is not worth the effort to log on I'll adapt to it but maybe high speed service won't be available in my retirement home.

Likely


Report •

Ask Question