• Windows 8
    8,715 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Hizan;35113001]My other computer I've got here will not turn on, at all. I'm faced with the power LED blinking on and off in a 1 second on, 1 off kind of loop. Last thing I did was shut down Windows 8 (via the charms settings, shut down etc). Any clues? I'm pretty sure this is because of Windows 8 because I remember reading that WIndows 8 doesn't switch off the computer, per se, but it puts it into a kind of stand by to make boot times faster, if I recall correctly. The machine will [I]not[/I] turn on at all.[/QUOTE] The blinking led usually means the computer is in sleep mode, Windows 8 doesn't do that when you select shut down (or shouldn't anyway). If the computer is in sleep any keyboard activity should wake it up (or pressing the power button). I'd assume you've tried that already though :v: Need more details anyway, will not turn on at all? As in it doesn't even go to POST? Try holding the power button down until the computer actually shuts down instead of sleeping and start it again.
[QUOTE=Marlamin;35111891]Yeah, that and VMWare Workstation make it feel native and very very speedy. Can't really notice a difference.[/QUOTE] For me it ran like shit. Had VMWare and Virtualization enabled, and allocated 4GB of RAM to the VM.
Well, pardon me for not accepting a less-than-stellar touch interface slapped haphazardly on a desktop OS with no regard to usability or functionality. I should be ashamed of myself for valuing the ability to use an operating system quickly and efficiently instead of going "ooh, pretty color squares!". What I would like to point out, though, is that I was only voicing an opinion that this entire thread held less than a week ago. Seems like some people were quick to drink the kool-aid.
[QUOTE=woolio1;35114050]Well, pardon me for not accepting a less-than-stellar touch interface slapped haphazardly on a desktop OS with no regard to usability or functionality. I should be ashamed of myself for valuing the ability to use an operating system quickly and efficiently instead of going "ooh, pretty color squares!". [/QUOTE] Some people do not have that ability, you sound like a real asshole.
[QUOTE=woolio1;35114050]Well, pardon me for not accepting a less-than-stellar touch interface slapped haphazardly on a desktop OS with no regard to usability or functionality. I should be ashamed of myself for valuing the ability to use an operating system quickly and efficiently instead of going "ooh, pretty color squares!". What I would like to point out, though, is that I was only voicing an opinion that this entire thread held less than a week ago. Seems like some people were quick to drink the kool-aid.[/QUOTE] take your smug sense of superiority to the linux forum thanks bye
snip
[QUOTE=Kaze;35113029] woolio pls go[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.cuzimuber.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ralph-pls-go.jpg[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Orkel))[/highlight]
ok well since some people said it works better with virtualization enabled, i'll try it like that, and see how it runs.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;35111638]Also seeing how most OS's on VM runs like a piece of shit what's the point.[/QUOTE] [b]Windows 8[/b] runs like shit on a VM for some people, that's a different story. Guy you replied to probably was surprised like I was too. And it seems other people in this thread have it not running like shit... so clearly it's a bigger issue than 'ALL VMS RUN LIKE SHIT OK!!' 'most OS's on VM' do [i]not[/i] run like shit. Otherwise they wouldn't be practically running the internet. [QUOTE=Hizan;35113001][B]Last thing I did was shut down Windows 8 (via the charms settings, shut down etc).[/B][/QUOTE] If this is true, then unplug it and replug it. You're done. If it's a bug due to hibernation, that's a different story. Just try booting it empty or with another hard drive, a LiveCD or something. Unless you think it's the Windows 8 -install- and you want to repair it, but that's kind of a waste of time when you could just reinstall it and be done. [QUOTE=fruxodaily;35113264]it's not like I'm going to fucking leave him and go "its like windows 7 lol bye"[/QUOTE] I think you should. Why babysit him into an OS if he doesn't even like it or navigate around in it intuitively? I don't want to convince you though, I'm not trying to put you away from W8 like that other guy, I just don't understand it. [QUOTE=Lazor;35114130]take your smug sense of superiority to the linux forum thanks bye[/QUOTE] Ok, for the record, I think woolio1 isn't reacting all nice and cuddly, so hopefully people won't act like this is me defending him. You're talking about an OS where a previous Windows user sat down and spent MINUTES[1] trying to close down Windows Explorer. You ever sit and ask yourself *why* the Linux users are bitchy sometimes (yes, some of them do it all the time) ? They've had better than Windows for years. They want better [b]on[/b] Windows too. Me and Panda X frequently discuss simply not upgrading, or having to modify the OS extensively for an upgrade to be worth it. You can file us in the Linux retarded fanboys box if you want, but it's not true. Of course it would help if a thousand sheep didn't blot out reality by bleating "PEOPLE DONT LIKE CHANGE!!!11!" to cover MS' ass whenever valid criticism is raised about their products. I realize your post was just some childish stereotype[2], but it's not a coincidence that Linux users are bitchy while Windows users seem happy (even if they both enjoy their respective OSes). It's easier to be happy and not notice the improvements you're missing out on than it is to be forced onto an OS where you're reminded of what you're missing on every second, and can't do a damn thing to the source code to change it. [1] referring to the previous video in this thread, but I can say I've seen it personally as well [2] for the record, woolio1 (under that username) has written a total of 7 posts on the Linux forums, some of which were within the context of the same discussion. He's very bad at being a Smug GNUtard, even if you consider his display in the thread. I think he just hates incompetence and bad UIs
[QUOTE=Panda X;35113646]For me it ran like shit. Had VMWare and Virtualization enabled, and allocated 4GB of RAM to the VM.[/QUOTE] I only have an Athlon64 5000+ X2 and 2GB DDR2. I gave it 1GB of my RAM, and virtualization in Virtualbox was enabled. Ran just fine for me.
[QUOTE=BananasGoMoo;35115518]ok well since some people said it works better with virtualization enabled, i'll try it like that, and see how it runs.[/QUOTE] Make sure that the video drivers for whatever VM your using are installed. It solves tons of my performance issues. In fact, in full screen, you can hardly tell its a VM.
I get this error, What do I do? [QUOTE]VT-x/AMD-V hardware acceleration has been enabled, but is not operational. Your 64-bit guest will fail to detect a 64-bit CPU and will not be able to boot. Please ensure that you have enabled VT-x/AMD-V properly in the BIOS of your host computer. [/QUOTE]
Enable Virtualization on the host computer.
[QUOTE=gparent;35116598][b]Windows 8[/b] runs like shit on a VM for some people, that's a different story. Guy you replied to probably was surprised like I was too. And it seems other people in this thread have it not running like shit... so clearly it's a bigger issue than 'ALL VMS RUN LIKE SHIT OK!!' 'most OS's on VM' do [i]not[/i] run like shit. Otherwise they wouldn't be practically running the internet. If this is true, then unplug it and replug it. You're done. If it's a bug due to hibernation, that's a different story. Just try booting it empty or with another hard drive, a LiveCD or something. Unless you think it's the Windows 8 -install- and you want to repair it, but that's kind of a waste of time when you could just reinstall it and be done. I think you should. Why babysit him into an OS if he doesn't even like it or navigate around in it intuitively? I don't want to convince you though, I'm not trying to put you away from W8 like that other guy, I just don't understand it. Ok, for the record, I think woolio1 isn't reacting all nice and cuddly, so hopefully people won't act like this is me defending him. You're talking about an OS where a previous Windows user sat down and spent MINUTES[1] trying to close down Windows Explorer. You ever sit and ask yourself *why* the Linux users are bitchy sometimes (yes, some of them do it all the time) ? They've had better than Windows for years. They want better [b]on[/b] Windows too. Me and Panda X frequently discuss simply not upgrading, or having to modify the OS extensively for an upgrade to be worth it. You can file us in the Linux retarded fanboys box if you want, but it's not true. Of course it would help if a thousand sheep didn't blot out reality by bleating "PEOPLE DONT LIKE CHANGE!!!11!" to cover MS' ass whenever valid criticism is raised about their products. I realize your post was just some childish stereotype[2], but it's not a coincidence that Linux users are bitchy while Windows users seem happy (even if they both enjoy their respective OSes). It's easier to be happy and not notice the improvements you're missing out on than it is to be forced onto an OS where you're reminded of what you're missing on every second, and can't do a damn thing to the source code to change it. [1] referring to the previous video in this thread, but I can say I've seen it personally as well [2] for the record, woolio1 (under that username) has written a total of 7 posts on the Linux forums, some of which were within the context of the same discussion. He's very bad at being a Smug GNUtard, even if you consider his display in the thread. I think he just hates incompetence and bad UIs[/QUOTE] While I don't argue against that Windows is behind the curve in some aspects, Woolio1's way of arguing is less than stellar. Let me take a quote from Garry: [quote]This forum is for people that Like Apple products to discuss them. You wouldn't go into the Car forum and post about how cars are shit - so don't do it here.[/quote] While this is about Apple products, it definitely applies here as well. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but the way you express should be more refined than than this.
[QUOTE=gparent;35116598][b]Windows 8[/b] runs like shit on a VM for some people, that's a different story. Guy you replied to probably was surprised like I was too. And it seems other people in this thread have it not running like shit... so clearly it's a bigger issue than 'ALL VMS RUN LIKE SHIT OK!!' 'most OS's on VM' do [i]not[/i] run like shit. Otherwise they wouldn't be practically running the internet. If this is true, then unplug it and replug it. You're done. If it's a bug due to hibernation, that's a different story. Just try booting it empty or with another hard drive, a LiveCD or something. Unless you think it's the Windows 8 -install- and you want to repair it, but that's kind of a waste of time when you could just reinstall it and be done. I think you should. Why babysit him into an OS if he doesn't even like it or navigate around in it intuitively? I don't want to convince you though, I'm not trying to put you away from W8 like that other guy, I just don't understand it. Ok, for the record, I think woolio1 isn't reacting all nice and cuddly, so hopefully people won't act like this is me defending him. You're talking about an OS where a previous Windows user sat down and spent MINUTES[1] trying to close down Windows Explorer. You ever sit and ask yourself *why* the Linux users are bitchy sometimes (yes, some of them do it all the time) ? They've had better than Windows for years. They want better [b]on[/b] Windows too. Me and Panda X frequently discuss simply not upgrading, or having to modify the OS extensively for an upgrade to be worth it. You can file us in the Linux retarded fanboys box if you want, but it's not true. Of course it would help if a thousand sheep didn't blot out reality by bleating "PEOPLE DONT LIKE CHANGE!!!11!" to cover MS' ass whenever valid criticism is raised about their products. I realize your post was just some childish stereotype[2], but it's not a coincidence that Linux users are bitchy while Windows users seem happy (even if they both enjoy their respective OSes). It's easier to be happy and not notice the improvements you're missing out on than it is to be forced onto an OS where you're reminded of what you're missing on every second, and can't do a damn thing to the source code to change it. [1] referring to the previous video in this thread, but I can say I've seen it personally as well [2] for the record, woolio1 (under that username) has written a total of 7 posts on the Linux forums, some of which were within the context of the same discussion. He's very bad at being a Smug GNUtard, even if you consider his display in the thread. I think he just hates incompetence and bad UIs[/QUOTE] lmao his post was just a stupid persecution complex manifesting itself. literally the entire post was addressing Shit Nobody Said or Implied. and literally the only thing i miss when i leave my yearly "lets give linux another try" installation is central repositories.
I don't want my desktop to become a tablet. I'm gonna miss the start button. I was hoping for it to look like vista but still have the user capabilities of Windows 7 and XP. I'm sorry but I don't want an XBOX as my computer. It also looks exactly the same as Windows 7 with no start button. 98-good, 2000-bad, XP-good, Vista-bad, 7-good. Seeing a pattern?
[QUOTE=Al Bundy;35120623]I don't want my desktop to become a tablet. I'm gonna miss the start button. I was hoping for it to look like vista but still have the user capabilities of Windows 7 and XP. I'm sorry but I don't want an XBOX as my computer. It also looks exactly the same as Windows 7 with no start button. 98-good, 2000-bad, XP-good, Vista-bad, 7-good. Seeing a pattern?[/QUOTE] If you look at the actual Windows releases, no. Everybody always quotes it, and it's equally shit very time.
[QUOTE=Al Bundy;35120623]I don't want my desktop to become a tablet. I'm gonna miss the start button. I was hoping for it to look like vista but still have the user capabilities of Windows 7 and XP. I'm sorry but I don't want an XBOX as my computer. It also looks exactly the same as Windows 7 with no start button. 98-good, 2000-bad, XP-good, Vista-bad, 7-good. Seeing a pattern?[/QUOTE] 2000 was great and Vista was good by the time SP1 was out. Windows 8 improves most things in 7, the main difference is the start screen and the addition of the metro apps. You don't have to use the metro apps if you don't want to, Win32 apps aren't going away.
[QUOTE=Al Bundy;35120623]I don't want my desktop to become a tablet. I'm gonna miss the start button. I was hoping for it to look like vista but still have the user capabilities of Windows 7 and XP. I'm sorry but I don't want an XBOX as my computer. It also looks exactly the same as Windows 7 with no start button. 98-good, 2000-bad, XP-good, Vista-bad, 7-good. Seeing a pattern?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://puu.sh/kCoE[/IMG] not seeing any pattern dude
[QUOTE=Al Bundy;35120623]I don't want my desktop to become a tablet. I'm gonna miss the start button. I was hoping for it to look like vista but still have the user capabilities of Windows 7 and XP. I'm sorry but I don't want an XBOX as my computer. It also looks exactly the same as Windows 7 with no start button. 98-good, 2000-bad, XP-good, Vista-bad, 7-good. Seeing a pattern?[/QUOTE] 2000 was a great OS and is still pretty usable considering its age (then again, its not much older than XP). Its still supported by Firefox and Flash player. I think your thinking of ME.
[QUOTE=Lazor;35117940]lmao his post was just a stupid persecution complex manifesting itself. literally the entire post was addressing Shit Nobody Said or Implied. [/QUOTE] His entire post was addressing shit that a lot of people have implied in various shape or form in this thread. Don't dismiss his valid criticism because you don't like how he said it, which is what I said in my post. [QUOTE=Lazor;35117940]and literally the only thing i miss when i leave my yearly "lets give linux another try" installation is central repositories.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure I mentioned Linux users, not people who try it once a year and get bored.
[QUOTE=gparent;35121481]His entire post was addressing shit that a lot of people have implied in various shape or form in this thread. Don't dismiss his valid criticism because you don't like how he said it, which is what I said in my post. I'm pretty sure I mentioned Linux users, not people who try it once a year and get bored.[/QUOTE] Oh go start an OS war someplace else..
[QUOTE=Dotmister;35121526]Oh go start an OS war someplace else..[/QUOTE] What OS war? Between Windows and Windows? EDIT: For the record, he's the one touching on that when it has nothing to do with what I've said, considering you can change 'Linux' and write "Windows 7", "Mac OS X" or "FreeBSD" and it reads the same way (if you adjust a bit in the case of Windows). I don't even know why he brought up repos.
Windows is shit. Windows is where it's at.
[QUOTE=Brock Obama;35121656]Windows is shit. Windows is where it's at.[/QUOTE] Exactly, this is the Windows 8 thread and I think possible UI regressions from its previous version are relevant without resorting to dumb stereotypes and childish OS wars. (which is why I mentioned I didn't like woolio1's approach either)
[QUOTE=Al Bundy;35120623]I don't want my desktop to become a tablet. I'm gonna miss the start button. I was hoping for it to look like vista but still have the user capabilities of Windows 7 and XP. I'm sorry but I don't want an XBOX as my computer. It also looks exactly the same as Windows 7 with no start button. 98-good, 2000-bad, XP-good, Vista-bad, 7-good. Seeing a pattern?[/QUOTE] 2000 is considered to be one of the best Windows releases ever. Secondly XP was hated as much as Vista until SP2/SP3. The difference is that XP was the latest version of Windows for 6 years until Vista came along and it had a rough start so XP became even better in the eyes of the public because the only thing you could compare it to was Vista. XP became good because it lasted so long until 7 came. Also Vista became good after SP1 by getting Server 2008 R2's kernel which was a whole year newer than Vista's kernel. It's completely stupid to judge 8 by Win2k, Vista, 7. Especially when 7 was the first OS in years to be actually considered good [I]at[/I] launch rather than 18 years afterwards.
Thanks for all of the responses. Turns out it was just me being dumb. Four of the 24-pin connector pins weren't in properly. Boots perfectly now. I guess I was just being critical of Windows 8 or something.
[QUOTE=Hizan;35122266]Thanks for all of the responses. Turns out it was just me being dumb. Four of the 24-pin connector pins weren't in properly. Boots perfectly now. I guess I was just being critical of Windows 8 or something.[/QUOTE] Yeah I would've been pretty surprised if you actually managed to break a machine with W8. Glad it was the host machine.
The metro messaging app should be able to connect to my Windows Phone, allowing it to share the texting services so like when I get a new text message, it pops up on my computer that I have one and I'm able to send a text message from my PC in reply. At least I think it would be pretty neat :v:.
[QUOTE=icemaz;35123210]The metro messaging app should be able to connect to my Windows Phone, allowing it to share the texting services so like when I get a new text message, it pops up on my computer that I have one and I'm able to send a text message from my PC in reply. At least I think it would be pretty neat :v:.[/QUOTE] I'm having a lot of problems with the Messaging app. More often than not, it will show me as Offline and "Connecting", while others see me online as Away. I can talk to people and receive messages like normal. Also, when I shut down my PC, it will still show me as signed in when I sign in elsewhere. And the overall lack of options on any Metro app is really disappointing. I think it's strange I can do more on Windows Phone 7 than on Windows 8, when it comes to Metro apps that is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.