Windows 7 continues to grow at a faster rate than Windows 8 and 8.1 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Chryseus;43382409]There is a rather big difference, the start menu was a logical step forward from the program manager greatly minimizing screen usage and increasing productivity, metro on the other hand does the exact opposite placing aesthetics over productivity. I don't know about others but I'd sooner switch to Linux than subject myself to using Windows 8.[/QUOTE] It's still a change. No matter what the change is people will bitch and moan about it to no end for a while. Then just shut up and use it anyway unless it is literally unusable (and I mean literally, which Metro is nowhere near being). People complain about both minor and major changes to the Youtube and Facebook layout like it's the end of the product, but they are still using it next week, and the week after, and the week after that. [editline]1st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Trumple;43382414]I'm loving 8.1. Just got it the other day. The only thing that annoys me is when it uses words like "slide" and "tap" on a desktop... Other than that, Metro is beautiful, and blazing fast. And the rest is Windows 7 in a cleaner theme.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's one of the many strange inconsistencies Win 8 has. It should be able to display proper strings based on input method last used or something.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;43382409]There is a rather big difference, the start menu was a logical step forward from the program manager greatly minimizing screen usage and increasing productivity, metro on the other hand does the exact opposite placing aesthetics over productivity. I don't know about others but I'd sooner switch to Linux than subject myself to using Windows 8.[/QUOTE] Actually I'd argue the opposite! I love the layout ability in Metro. Lots of space for custom item placement. And nice and eye pleasing too! [url]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2014-01-01_21-43-33.png[/url]

It's really weird how Microsoft is having to compete [I]with their own product.[/I]

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43382353] So tell me how to one enable the good old fashioned and homely start menu in windows 8? 'cause I'm pretty damn sure you'd need the help of a third party company to fix that problem.[/QUOTE] Right click instead of left click on the bottom left corner.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;43382409]There is a rather big difference, the start menu was a logical step forward from the program manager greatly minimizing screen usage and increasing productivity, metro on the other hand does the exact opposite placing aesthetics over productivity. I don't know about others but I'd sooner switch to Linux than subject myself to using Windows 8.[/QUOTE] no because in terms of productivity, the start menu has been replaced by a) taskbar, which takes even less space than the start menu, can hold just as many programs, and is even more readily accessible (think of this like the pinned items in your start menu) b) Metro, a much bigger interface holding a lot more items than the start menu, trading [i]maybe a fraction of a second[/i] in workflow (think of this like wading through "All Programs" in your start menu) for options like the control panel and shutdown, you can right click the start icon not to mention that statistically, the start menu was being phased out for the taskbar anyways

[QUOTE=Trumple;43382450]Actually I'd argue the opposite! I love the layout ability in Metro. Lots of space for custom item placement. And nice and eye pleasing too! [url]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2014-01-01_21-43-33.png[/url][/QUOTE] Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I value usability over looks.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;43382497]Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I value usability over looks.[/QUOTE] I do too, but I do think Metro is more usable. Have you tried it?

[QUOTE=areolop;43382249]I've fiddled around with a friends laptop that has 8. The metro shit ruins all appeal to me. Its not needed or wanted[/QUOTE] I find metro quite useful to be honest. Hit windows and type the name of the program you want and its there for you. If you clear out all the shitty weather/film/bloatware tiles the actual screen itself becomes useful. I find the old start menu rather clunky after metro. Windows 8 itself is a pain though, lots of older games and software aren't readily compatible. Major turn off.

[QUOTE=Satane;43382541]I have and it is not.[/QUOTE] What is your reasoning behind your opinion? I'm genuinely interested when people attack Metro, I can never seem to see the problems they do

I'm getting weird vibes from years ago when people were switching back to XP instead of using Vista. That aside, this is good news to me.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43382544]I find metro quite useful to be honest. Hit windows and type the name of the program you want and its there for you.[/QUOTE] The start menu worked the exact same way since Vista

Got 8.1 for free through uni and it's ok, once you disable all that disgusting tablet shit. Just ok though, had I paid even a single Euro for it I'd be regretting it. Anyone who has W7 has really no reason to upgrade except maybe for size for SSD users I guess.

[QUOTE=Trumple;43382554]What is your reasoning behind your opinion? I'm genuinely interested when people attack Metro, I can never seem to see the problems they do[/QUOTE] I'll put in my $0.02. On my desktop computer, Metro is seldom used, just as the start menu was in Windows 7. The taskbar outclasses it for shortcuts, and I only used the start menu for seldom used programs and shutting down the computer. Shutting down the computer requires the same amount of clicks, just a right click to begin with, and for those seldom used programs take the same amount of time in Metro as the start menu. Metro is entirely unnecessary on a desktop computer, and it's only different from the start menu. Not better, or worse. Just different. Metro apps are also even more rarely used. On my tablet, however? Windows 8 is a fantastic OS, and works wonderfully. Was Metro necessary on Desktops? No, but Microsoft just improved Windows 7, and made it compatible with tablets. If you can use Windows 7, you can use Windows 8.

[QUOTE=Trumple;43382535]I do too, but I do think Metro is more usable. Have you tried it?[/QUOTE] I have. It took me at least 15 minutes to properly find my way around it, then I had to remove all the garbage Microsoft includes with Windows 8 (prebuilt systems are even worse). Probably the most annoying thing I noticed right away was how some of my programs started opening in metro even when I was on the desktop such as Google Chrome, this might have been fixed now I'm not sure, it just didn't feel like metro was part of Windows rather something that has been crudely slapped on top. After I got metro out of the way using classic shell it was much better but I still had a pretty bad time in the few months I used it for with some applications refusing to work, the only features I can honestly say I found to be useful was the improved file explorer and the reduced boot time, eventually due to I presume a driver bug the entire thing stopped working and I had to reinstall 7. I really see no reason to switch to it from Windows 7, but what really makes me want to avoid Windows 8 is Microsoft itself what with them trying to push an interface that is clearly disliked by the majority of Windows users, I don't use Windows for a pretty interface if I wanted that I'd go buy a Mac.

[QUOTE=acds;43382624]Got 8.1 for free through uni and it's ok, once you disable all that disgusting tablet shit. Just ok though, had I paid even a single Euro for it I'd be regretting it. [B]Anyone who has W7 has really no reason to upgrade except maybe for size for SSD users I guess.[/B][/QUOTE] This is also incredibly true. Back when Windows 8 was a $15 upgrade, totally worth it. However, if you have Windows 7 working fine, don't pay $100 for the upgrade. [editline]1st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Chryseus;43382689]I have. It took me at least 15 minutes to properly find my way around it, then I had to remove all the garbage Microsoft includes with Windows 8 (prebuilt systems are even worse). Probably the most annoying thing I noticed right away was how some of my programs started opening in metro even when I was on the desktop such as Google Chrome, this might have been fixed now I'm not sure, it just didn't feel like metro was part of Windows rather something that has been crudely slapped on top. After I got metro out of the way using classic shell it was much better but I still had a pretty bad time in the few months I used it for with some applications refusing to work, the only features I can honestly say I found to be useful was the improved file explorer and the reduced boot time, eventually due to I presume a driver bug the entire thing stopped working and I had to reinstall 7. I really see no reason to switch to it from Windows 7, but what really makes me want to avoid Windows 8 is Microsoft itself what with them trying to push an interface that is clearly disliked by the majority of Windows users, I don't use Windows for a pretty interface if I wanted that I'd go buy a Mac.[/QUOTE] What, specifically, took you 15 minutes to find? And AFAIK, the software that Microsoft gives pre-installed can be uninstalled in very few clicks, and Windows 7 pre-built machines also come with a lot of software from the manufacturer. Chrome is a legit excuse though. It didn't default to Windows 8 mode for me, so I was confused when I heard my friend deal with it.

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;43382475]Right click instead of left click on the bottom left corner.[/QUOTE] Still isn't a start menu as the people are used to. Also lol telling people to change using mouse button.

[QUOTE=ironman17;43382215]I'll admit, there's not much modern stuff you can do with XP's weaksauce RAM addressal nowadays. Many games nowadays require way more than 2 Gigs, so I'm definitely gonna need an upgrade to at least 7, since I'll definitely need the 8 Gigs.[/QUOTE] Windows XP :64 bit Boogaloo

If only there was a way for the user interface to not be tied to the underlying OS, good thing there isn't! That kind of thing could be disastrous for Microsoft in the Enterprise.

[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;43382582]I'm getting weird vibes from years ago when people were switching back to XP instead of using Vista. That aside, this is good news to me.[/QUOTE] Didn't Vista suck? I heard the Ultimate Edition (32-bit at least) used nearly half of its RAM capacity just at base operating levels, though that was probably years ago before patches were applied.

quality humor there buddy [t]http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/software/2009/06/102713577.06.01.lg.jpg[/t]

Thank fuck XP is dying

Yeah, true; it worked back in the day, but now it's time to begin again and let go. Just as soon as I've transferred some files from my current drive to my new external hard-drive, then put them onto a new machine.

[QUOTE=ironman17;43383079]Didn't Vista suck? I heard the Ultimate Edition (32-bit at least) used nearly half of its RAM capacity just at base operating levels, though that was probably years ago before patches were applied.[/QUOTE] post-update vista is a perfectly serviceable OS better than XP, at any rate

What was the max amount of RAM addressable on the 32-bit version of Vista, anyways?

[QUOTE=ironman17;43383213]What was the max amount of RAM addressable on the 32-bit version of Vista, anyways?[/QUOTE] still 4gb, unless you have the starter OS then it's 1gb [editline]1st January 2014[/editline] the only problem with metro is that apparently no-one can be bothered to get used to it

[QUOTE=ironman17;43383213]What was the max amount of RAM addressable on the 32-bit version of Vista, anyways?[/QUOTE] 4GB is what I got in this machine, and it sufficed during 7th gen. It won't take anymore

4GB? Doesn't sound too bad though 8GB from W7 is still a better bet. Also was Metro some sort of internal search program or was it tied into how the Start Menu worked? Also also, I remember back in the day when Quick Launch was still a big thing, that little window with icons for certain applications... One last thing; does W7 still have that part of the Taskbar that has icons showing the net and important processes next to the system clock, like it does on XP?

[QUOTE=ironman17;43383079]Didn't Vista suck? I heard the Ultimate Edition (32-bit at least) used nearly half of its RAM capacity just at base operating levels, though that was probably years ago before patches were applied.[/QUOTE] I never had Vista use that much RAM back when I used it. Even with SP0.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;43382701]This is also incredibly true. Back when Windows 8 was a $15 upgrade, totally worth it. However, if you have Windows 7 working fine, don't pay $100 for the upgrade. [editline]1st January 2014[/editline] What, specifically, took you 15 minutes to find? And AFAIK, the software that Microsoft gives pre-installed can be uninstalled in very few clicks, and Windows 7 pre-built machines also come with a lot of software from the manufacturer. Chrome is a legit excuse though. It didn't default to Windows 8 mode for me, so I was confused when I heard my friend deal with it.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing Chrome will open in Metro mode if you have a touchscreen enabled device. Otherwise, it opens in desktop mode. Example: My Fujitsu tablet opened Chrome in Metro by default. My MacBook with 8.1 doesn't. There is also a menu option to switch between the two.

There is nothing wrong with windows 8.1