Windows 8 does absolutely nothing better than 7 does that an end-user will actually appreciate, and in many ways harms them because they have to get used to a completely different UI outside of the Desktop. It's an OS without a reason for existing, and that's why it's not selling.
the only time I ever used win 8 was at a best buy store display. I could proably see myself able to navigate it, but the fact of the matter is, this thing is a poor hybrid of pc and Tablet OS.
when you want a simple start menu of a PC, it gives you the start screen of a tablet.
To me, that screen is the biggest turn off. for one thing, I have several programs with start menu folders and every folder can be seen on one screen.
With Win 8 I'd have to scroll though pages like I do on my Nintendo Wii.
Even if I were to put short cuts to the programs I most use on it, I'd still find it easier to have them on a list much like a start menu or like Steam in list mode.
Also the whole pass picture thing. no, just no. Just give me the basic password function and call it a day. Give that picture stuff exclusively to the Tablets.
I could take the increased performance no problem, just don't force feed me stuff that's meant for Tablets and hide the start menu.
Also, I'm an XP user currently.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;39059618]I disagree. Not from concept, which I could do, but from [I]experience of having used eight[/I]. Shocking, I know.
But, y'see, I'm a guy that uses his computer in a very, very specific way. There are some programs that I use a lot, and thus have on my start menu. But there are some '[I]programs[/I]' of a different sort which I don't run often. So you wanna know where I can find these '[I]programs[/I]' of a different sort which I don't use often in a much more convenient way than a fullscreen prompt?
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13214184/there.png[/img]
THERE.
So, in summation: If the supposed benefit of this new start screen is having the things I don't run often- which in my case are exclusively games on my steam account- 'easier' to access but with the hindrance of being significantly less practical or efficient than the previous method for what I actually need it for, what reason have I to use it?[/QUOTE]
Well, let me get it this way. You should use the start screen in the same way that some people abuse their desktop -just fucking put all programs on there. Then make groups and and place them in the order of what you use the most. What you end up with is a much more efficient system, where you generally don't see programs that you don't need, but you don't have to dig them up from a hole every time that you [I]do[/I] need it. This is pretty much the difference between 7 and 8 for me.
Hell, I'm even pinning all my school-related stuff to the start menu, I'd never do that in 7 ('bout 10 different folders just for that), yet it's much faster.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39062295]I don't have 84 programs that I use frequently, why should I be made to occupy my ENTIRE SCREEN to look at the >10 programs I do use frequently?
[/QUOTE]
Normally "you're using it wrong" is a bad argument, but it kinda applies here. Try pinning every little turd program that you use once in a while (every game you have, some folders and what not) then organize it as I've already described. The thing is that if you treat the start screen precisely the same as the start menu, then it's not gonna work out for you. If you do, however, you'll find it to much more convenient.
[QUOTE=Foda;39062229]Because people base their opinion off of simply untrue facts, or hate the entire OS due to one change (full screen start menu). Battery performance in 8 is like x100 better yet no one cares about that. Or native ISO mounting, USB 3.0, UEFI boot, wayyyyy better multimonitor support, Hyper-V, etc.[/QUOTE]
Want to know why I don't like Windows 8's Start menu? Because I don't want every last program sprawled accross my screen. I don't want to see all my games spread across the screen for no real reason. If I'm looking for one particular thing, I simply move my mouse over to the Start button, look it up, file-dive for it, or just use the "recently used" program list. I want to be able to access thing easily, and have it tucked away nicely. If I can't find what I'm looking for with the Search Bar, I know it'll either be in the Downloads folder or in my Steam library. Most likely Downloads. With W8, I can't get there easily. I also don't want my Email account's address in large sprawled across the screen when in public. Nor do I want entire chunks of the space taken up by "Cpt. Kyle Obvious says: switchen seets while drivin 130 mph #YOLO". And, no, I don't want 1,000 different programs on one screen lagging my computer to its death bed.
Good, maybe MS will fuck off with their tablet OS bullshit in W9.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39064170]Normally "you're using it wrong" is a bad argument, but it kinda applies here. Try pinning every little turd program that you use once in a while (every game you have, some folders and what not) then organize it as I've already described. The thing is that if you treat the start screen precisely the same as the start menu, then it's not gonna work out for you. If you do, however, you'll find it to much more convenient.[/QUOTE]
I don't have to organize my start menu, though. My most recent apps are right up front (and I only have about 10 apps that I launch all the time) and I don't have to pin any programs or organize anything. When I install an application, I have it make shortcuts that I'll probably only ever use a few times. The argument "I don't need a whole screen for 10 apps" still stands.
On top of that, I already have 4 applications pinned to my taskbar. I don't want any more than that.
Oh, and I have two shortcuts on my desktop: Recycle Bin and Super Control Panel.
[QUOTE=Foxtrot200;39064212]I don't have to organize my start menu, though. My most recent apps are right up front (and I only have about 10 apps that I launch all the time) and I don't have to pin any programs or organize anything. When I install the application, I have it make shortcuts that I'll probably only ever use a few times. The argument "I don't need a whole screen for 10 apps" still stands.[/QUOTE]
Seems like you missed by point completely. Reread my post and I'll write up an appropriate answer. To specify what you missed, my post is how you should hypothetically use the new start screen, not the old start menu.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39064230]Seems like you missed by point completely. Reread my post and I'll write up an appropriate answer. To specify what you missed, my post is how you should hypothetically use the new start screen, not the old start menu.[/QUOTE]
I understood you completely, but why? Why tamper with a system that works and does it well? The start screen isn't any better than the menu. I hardly touch the subfolders in the start menu let alone "All Programs." Why are you suggesting I clutter my screen with them? It's more crap to sort through. If you organize it, it's an organized pile of shit. If I wanted to browse through icons, I'd throw all of my shortcuts onto my desktop. I can get there and back with a keystroke, too. There's even a little button on the corner of the taskbar for it.
While I do think that Metro could have been integrated better (and I'm sure it will in Windows Blue this year), if your eyes are fixated on the lower left hand corner of the screen, why not just make it full screen? It isn't like you could be multitasking while the menu is open because once you click off of it, it closes.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39064230]Seems like you missed by point completely. Reread my post and I'll write up an appropriate answer. To specify what you missed, my post is how you should hypothetically use the new start screen, not the old start menu.[/QUOTE]
I understand that it is ALSO capable of getting feeds/adverts and you can resize stuff to "prioritize" them, but its still something that forces the use of the entire screen. Thats what 8 feels like its trying to emphasize, the use of a SINGLE program at a time, with the user doing a SINGLE task. use ONE program, go to start, takes up ENTIRE screen and demanding your undivided attention to its entirety so you can move to your next single program.
It completely blocks what I was looking at on my desktop, and that bugs the everloving shit out of me. Granted I'm also far more comfortable with Linux's multiple workspaces thing, I [I]love[/I] that system. Multitasking is made far easier on something like Gnome or KDE.
With the way the start menu is now, it interrupts my flow. Right now I can have a couple terminals open, web browser, and with a couple flicks and clicks I can have a notepad open to copy down something from whatever, all without interrupting my view of what I'm copying.
I like the additional functionality that the start menu has now, but I HATE its use of the ENTIRE screen.
[QUOTE=Foxtrot200;39064323]I understood you completely, but why? Why tamper with a system that works and does it well? The start screen isn't any better than the menu. I hardly touch the subfolders in the start menu let alone "All Programs." Why are you suggesting I clutter my screen with them? It's more crap to sort through. If you organize it, it's an organized pile of shit. If I wanted to browse through icons, I'd throw all of my shortcuts onto my desktop. I can get there and back with a keystroke, too. There's even a little button on the corner of the taskbar for it.[/QUOTE]
Have you tried it? By what authority are you telling me that doing this makes no difference, when I, for the last year and 3 months, have been experiencing exactly that? I gave you a tip on how to use it, and I said that it probably wouldn't work out well if you didn't do something like this, yet you tell me that you just don't want to because it wouldn't make a difference?
And place shortcuts on the desktop? The desktop is extremely hard to organize, and to access those shortcuts you'd have to hide all active windows, making the end result exactly the same as with the start menu, just with no organizing at all. That's a shit argument, and you know it.
You know how Windows 8 would have fared better?
Strip the new UI, and make its "performance increases" a [I]goddamn service pack.[/I] and add the new UI as an [I]option.[/I]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39064345]I understand that it is ALSO capable of getting feeds/adverts and you can resize stuff to "prioritize" them, but its still something that forces the use of the entire screen. Thats what 8 feels like its trying to emphasize, the use of a SINGLE program at a time, with the user doing a SINGLE task. use ONE program, go to start, takes up ENTIRE screen and demanding your undivided attention to its entirety so you can move to your next single program.
It completely blocks what I was looking at on my desktop, and that bugs the everloving shit out of me. Granted I'm also far more comfortable with Linux's multiple workspaces thing, I [I]love[/I] that system. Multitasking is made far easier on something like Gnome or KDE.
With the way the start menu is now, it interrupts my flow. Right now I can have a couple terminals open, web browser, and with a couple flicks and clicks I can have a notepad open to copy down something from whatever, all without interrupting my view of what I'm copying.
I like the additional functionality that the start menu has now, but I HATE its use of the ENTIRE screen.[/QUOTE]
I personally haven't been bothered by it, as it's a rare case where I actually have to look at something at all times to work with it. It applies to videos and the like, though, and it's a totally valid point. Still, I'd argue that you're directing all your attention on the start menu in the first place, but I won't say you're wrong at all.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39064399]Have you tried it? By what authority are you telling me that doing this makes no difference, when I, for the last year and 3 months, have been experiencing exactly that? I gave you a tip on how to use it, and I said that it probably wouldn't work out well if you didn't do something like this, yet you tell me that you just don't want to because it wouldn't make a difference?
And place shortcuts on the desktop? The desktop is extremely hard to organize, and to access those shortcuts you'd have to hide all active windows, making the end result exactly the same as with the start menu, just with no organizing at all. That's a shit argument, and you know it.[/QUOTE]
The start menu is a faster "Show Desktop" button. If you integrated the new start menu's features into the desktop itself? dude I'd be [I]all over that shit.[/I]
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
FUCK, our merges
[QUOTE=Zanfall;39058381]There actually is a easier way to do this.
- Open the Charms bar (right hand corners or Win+C)
- Click Settings
- Click Power
This trips up a lot of people. Its really poorly placed.[/QUOTE]
Because tablets don't get turned off as often as desktops.
Although the OS is supposedly more resource efficient than W7, the start menu is not optimized for the preciseness of the mouse, which doesn't need the room and space that touch requires, and works better with smaller movements rather than swipes to the other side of the screen. It seems they did fuck all to comfort mouse users in the desktop version. Like a bad console port to the PC.
[QUOTE=Hawke7;39064479]Because tablets don't get turned off as often as desktops.
Although the OS is supposedly more resource efficient than W7, the start menu is not optimized for the preciseness of the mouse, which doesn't need the room and space that touch requires, and works better with smaller movements rather than swipes to the other side of the screen. It seems they did fuck all to comfort mouse users in the desktop version. Like a bad console port to the PC.[/QUOTE]
I was expecting Windows 8 Pro to be similar to Windows 7 in terms of the environment. But the user interface was just shat on both.
Win8 is fairly nippy even on an 7200RPM hard disk, it boots quickly but the interface puts everything off. I still find Windows 7 touch-screen optimized while it retains the Start Menu.
[QUOTE=Hawke7;39064479]Because tablets don't get turned off as often as desktops.
Although the OS is supposedly more resource efficient than W7, the start menu is not optimized for the preciseness of the mouse, which doesn't need the room and space that touch requires, and works better with smaller movements rather than swipes to the other side of the screen. It seems they did fuck all to comfort mouse users in the desktop version. Like a bad console port to the PC.[/QUOTE]
i actually prefer to have big buttons on the start menu than to aim for tiny ass lines of text
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
also my dad uses windows 8 and he likes it just fine, with all the gestures and metro apps and shit
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
and i actually like the start menu, even the metro apps
it's pretty cool that i can see notifications from emails and shit in there
Welp
Windows 8 is compatible with more games from gog.com over windows 7, the sole reason I bought it :v:
[QUOTE=MadBomber;39064643]Windows 8 is compatible with more games from gog.com over windows 7, the sole reason I bought it :v:[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't believe that - it simply makes no sense.
Seriously look at some.of the games on the site, quite a few are listed as 'xp, vista, 8' for example RealMyst and sanitarium are cunts to get running on 7 properly but so far they've ran with out any need for tweeking on 8. I'm sure back when they announced 8 Microsoft promised better legacy support.
[QUOTE=MadBomber;39064705]Seriously look at some.of the games on the site, quite a few are listed as 'xp, vista, 8' for example RealMyst and sanitarium are cunts to get running on 7 properly but so far they've ran with out any need for tweeking on 8. I'm sure back when they announced 8 Microsoft promised better legacy support.[/QUOTE]
Uh... Anything that can run on Vista, can in all probability run on 7 too.
Belive me I've been using gog games for a few years now and the compatibility issues are there. No I don't know why and I don't know what witchcraft is happening here. The gog forums are a good place too see the ammount of issues if you're still skeptical and I don't blame you.
The aesthetic looks really eh imo but I said the same about 7, lol. (And now I love it) I won't be buying it anytime soon but I feel like with a few fixes/updates it'll be a lot better. Interested in seeing where it's going
xp supreme master os
I tried windows 8 out
It was beautiful on a laptop that had a touch screen, for flicking about the tiles menu thing
I just don't see any reason to upgrade from 7,
[QUOTE=FlashFireSix;39064848]I tried windows 8 out
It was beautiful on a laptop that had a touch screen, for flicking about the tiles menu thing
I just don't see any reason to upgrade from 7,[/QUOTE]
It's definitely more enjoyable than 7 on my low-specced laptop - didn't think it'd make such a difference, but damn is it faster.
Windows 8 as it currently is should've been a tablet only OS.
Since it doesn't offer a full-out "classic" mode with keyboard+mouse as first priority.
[QUOTE=Van-man;39064867]Windows 8 as it currently is should've been a tablet only OS.
Since it doesn't offer a full-out "classic" mode with keyboard+mouse as first priority.[/QUOTE]
This point has been debated a bazillion times - just read any thread about Windows 8 and you'll get your counter-arguments. And I'll just ask whether you've actually tried it out for more than 5 minutes or not.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39064865]It's definitely more enjoyable than 7 on my low-specced laptop - didn't think it'd make such a difference, but damn is it faster.[/QUOTE]
I can get that, but I've got a powerful system running with 7 currently and it'd be a lot of hassle
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
