• Windows 9 Hinted to Win Over Windows 7 Users
    529 replies, posted
[QUOTE=dgg;45303352]It can cost money. Time? Seriously? Is that an argument? You can upgrade your W7 installation, it just replaces the OS and keeps all your programs and shit installed. It takes you less than an hour to upgrade. It takes you 3-4 hours to do a fresh install (just because of the hassle of installing everything again). Whilst the UI is changed, it's barely actually changed, it's all pretty much the same, but yeah I can see that bugging some people. It bugged me until I got used to it and realized it was better (as tends to happen with most things for most people) It's a mentality that supports being conservative, to deny progress and advancements. The only reason XP was supported for so goddamn long was because it would have been a giant security risk not to because people were so profusely decisive on not upgrading and businesses didn't want to upgrade (for a various good and bad reasons).[/QUOTE] (I know I'm 200 posts late but heh, I had to sleep.) Yes it takes time, when I tried W8 by upgrading a copy of my W7 install not every program was working. And I know that 4 hours for a fresh install isn't that long, but how does that matter? Why on earth would I spend an afternoon re-installing an OS when it makes no noticeable difference to me? (btw it takes more than 4 hours for me because I want to keep all my games installed all the time) And there way too many XP and Vista users for me to feel like I'm slowing down progress by being on 7.
I use windows 7 for my laptop, but windows server 2012 (based off windows 8) for some work stuff... I'm convinced Windows+x on Win8/server2012 is the greatest innovation since windows+left/right.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;45303135]you don't need a full screen menu to open a program. just hit windows key, type in the name, hit enter[/QUOTE] Or just use Launchy or another third party program :)
shit they're like the ubisoft of operating systems, always releasing another fucking windows every year
If Windows 9 has an update system like OSX or Linux (i.e. one that doesn't require a billion reboots), I'll jump to it immediately, it's my biggest gripe. Fresh Linux install? Sudo-apt-get upgrade (I think), install updates, reboot. Fresh OSX install? Download newest version over ethernet/wi-fi before installing. If you have an older version, install updates, reboot. Fresh Windows install? Updates, reboot, updates, reboot, updates, reboot.
They better make it possible to turn VSync off for the desktop, else i'll probably stay with 7 forever - Only reason that keeps me from using windows 8
I disliked Windows 8 for about the entire time I knew it and the first 2 days since I got my laptop. Once I got used to it, I was unable to go back to Win7. [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] One thing I never used was the store apps though. They take an eternity to load and aren't particularly useful.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;45306187]The only reason I haven't gotten a more recent version of Windows yet is because I can't be arsed to format and all that. I guess I'll do so once I upgrade the hardware too.[/QUOTE] But you don't have to format when installing a newer Windows
7 downgrade to XP user checking in
I tend to prefer skipping one version of the OS every time I upgrade for both comfort and financial reasons, which is why I went from XP to Seven directly and why I'll go from Seven to Nine in a similar way. In my opinion the middleground versions like Vista and Eight are released too soon after the previous version for a change to be worth it.
[QUOTE=Coment;45304586]I can't really say it applies. These forums are not a paid product, and garry does whatever the fuck he wants. By example, he also removed tables. They were objetively better at aligning things than... nothing. He didn't keep the old as an option, though. Also, it isn't that much better if they're doing another version for the (we can assume)big amount of users that requested it. We're talking about a new OS. That costs money; Microsoft must've done a lot of stats to decide "yep, it's worth it". Wouldn't you count that as "objectively superior in every way", since they're 'keeping the old (as an option)', by your own post ?[/QUOTE] Did you even read what I said? And why are you getting stuck up in the example and not the point I'm making? Facepunch is just a relate-able example to get the point across. If you give the option to revert change, people revert the change without ever trying out the new change because they didn't like the change. Had they been forced to keep the change they would have to get used to it, and through that learn how it's actually a better change, or actually worse. By being forced to accept the change people have to progress beyond the first impression and actually get to know the changes and use them, if the change is for the better they will discover that through using it, if it is worse they will still hate it after a while of having to use it. The only way Microsoft could come to the conclusion that their statistics were wrong and that people want the Start Menu in Windows is by forcing people not to have it. A lot of people hated the Start Screen at first and then learned to love it and hate the Start Menu, this would [B]never[/B] have happened had Microsoft given them an option to keep using the Start Menu. But enough people kept hating the Start Screen even after having used it for a good while and Microsoft could come to the conclusion that their change wasn't just subject to a bad first impression but also general dislike for how it works, thus in their next release they have decided to bring back the Start Menu. [QUOTE=Kagu;45304742]We're fucking 7 months into 2014, why can people not understand this yet? There is absolutely no reason to throw down 100$ for software when the current one you have is SUPPORTED AND FULLY FUNCTIONING. Keeping Windows 7 instead of upgrading to 8 isn't being stubborn or stupid, it's being smart. You diehard W8 4lyfe fans are acting like W7 is WinXP/Vista SP1 or something. [editline]5th July 2014[/editline] If you're building a new rig, then choosing 7 over 8 is where I can see not choosing 8 "stupid" or "stubborn"[/QUOTE] When did money start becoming an argument for the most pirated piece of software ever? Seriously? [QUOTE=gk99;45305773]Sorry I'd rather be able to play Gunpoint and launch Origin, two things my friend couldn't do until he "downgraded" back to Win7.[/QUOTE] Well I've never had a single problem with using Origin on Windows 8 so I don't know what you've done. [QUOTE=C0linSSX;45306115]You know how Facebook and YouTube are constantly given major UI overhauls, and despite everyone bitching about them when they happen, the shitstorm always ends after a week or so? It's been almost 2 years since Windows 8 was released now, and the majority of the market is still resisting. There are reasons why people refuse to switch besides stubbornness Metro is not made for desktop computers with mice and keyboards, it is designed for touch screens in-mind (and in the case of the Xbone, controllers). Imagine the inverse scenario; imagine using tablet where the home screen behaves exactly how you'd expect, but the application list and settings force you to use an emulated mouse cursor. Now imagine that both of these menus only take up a small portion of the screen, forcing you to awkwardly scroll through the list with a stupidly unfitting set of controls. What works well for one platform doesn't necessarily work well for another.[/QUOTE] There is a huge difference though: Facebook: there is no other option, you have to use the change or quit Facebook. Windows: I'll just use Windows 7 then and then bitch about Windows 8 without ever having used it for more than 2 hours. But yes, that is the point, The Start Screen is optimized for cross-platform use, since statistically the Start Menu seemed to be unused by people Microsoft saw it as a good opportunity to use it as a tablet-friendly desktop environment that was still easy to use on the PC. [QUOTE=Kljunas;45306963](I know I'm 200 posts late but heh, I had to sleep.) Yes it takes time, when I tried W8 by upgrading a copy of my W7 install not every program was working. And I know that 4 hours for a fresh install isn't that long, but how does that matter? Why on earth would I spend an afternoon re-installing an OS when it makes no noticeable difference to me? (btw it takes more than 4 hours for me because I want to keep all my games installed all the time) And there way too many XP and Vista users for me to feel like I'm slowing down progress by being on 7.[/QUOTE] How could it take you more than 4 hours because you want to keep your games installed? With Steam you just Take the Steamapps folder out of the Steam folder and then you put it back in when you install Steam. With pretty much every other game you just don't do anything about it. If you keep copying them back and forth on disks to avoid formatting them I suggest you partition your drive so you have a drive dedicated to games that is left untouched upon formatting the system. [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45307270]If Windows 9 has an update system like OSX or Linux (i.e. one that doesn't require a billion reboots), I'll jump to it immediately, it's my biggest gripe. Fresh Linux install? Sudo-apt-get upgrade (I think), install updates, reboot. Fresh OSX install? Download newest version over ethernet/wi-fi before installing. If you have an older version, install updates, reboot. Fresh Windows install? Updates, reboot, updates, reboot, updates, reboot.[/QUOTE] I have never ever needed to reboot more than one time to install any updates. If you're stuck in a reboot loop when installing updates there is usually something wrong with your OS installation.
Question: What does this mean for W8 users? I'm not really looking forward to buying yet another OS for a three year life-cycle. Considering XP efficiently lived 10+ years, and W7 is holding out for almost 5 years right now. I made the upgrade to W8 because my studies require it, and I can't say I'm displeased, but I really rather wanted to keep W7 because it's anything but outdated. I know piracy is a thing, but yeah.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45307523]I tend to prefer skipping one version of the OS every time I upgrade for both comfort and financial reasons, which is why I went from XP to Seven directly and why I'll go from Seven to Nine in a similar way. In my opinion the middleground versions like Vista and Eight are released too soon after the previous version for a change to be worth it.[/QUOTE] Windows Vista was released [B]6 years[/B] after Windows XP. That's too soon? Windows 7 was released 2 years after Vista Windows 8 was released 3 years after 7 Windows 9 is going to be 3 years after 8. There will be a 5 year gap between W7 and W9, but the gap between XP and Vista was 6 years, but Vista was too soon and 9 is ok?
whats wrong with windows 7?
[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;45307562]Windows 9 is way ahead of it's expected shelf life implementation and I certainly won't be upgrading to it. W8 is great and I am happy with it. They are starting to dish out operating systems like a new copy of CoD.[/QUOTE] I think your concept of time is distorted if 3 years between OS releases is too frequent. Macintosh has a new version every year, sometimes a 2 year gap. The reason why Macintosh has cheaper upgrades is because of the frequency.
[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;45307581]You've obviously got your facts right but damn it feels like windows 9 is closer to 8 than that - kinda invalidates what I said previously.[/QUOTE] You also have to remember that we are talking about Windows 9 now, but it's not coming out before next year.
can someone tell me what's wrong with windows 8.1
[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;45307599]Makes it a four year gap then, so yeah, I guess they are not creating them too quickly.[/QUOTE] No, a 3 year gap. I already included the time difference. My point was that the reason it feels so soon to you is because we are in the second year, but talking about an OS that doesn't come out before next year. [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HetsuProcyon;45307603]can someone tell me what's wrong with windows 8.1[/QUOTE] Nothing really.
[QUOTE=dgg;45307563]Windows Vista was released [B]6 years[/B] after Windows XP. That's too soon? Windows 7 was released 2 years after Vista Windows 8 was released 3 years after 7 Windows 9 is going to be 3 years after 8. There will be a 5 year gap between W7 and W9, but the gap between XP and Vista was 6 years, but Vista was too soon and 9 is ok?[/QUOTE] Six years is too soon for me, yes. I take time to adapt to a new OS and once I'm comfortable with one the least thing I want to do is change to a new version. Besides, the change between XP and Vista was huge, hence the massive time gap - but Vista was a botched OS on many aspects and 7 fixed that, if they hadn't rushed Vista it would have easily been released when 7 got out. The difference between 7 and 8 isn't big enough to deserve a version change, so I'll only switch to 9 when the OS has been proved to be worthwhile. Should be the case after six years, but the only way to be sure is to way at least a year or two after the release of the OS to make sure the biggest issues are fixed.
[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;45307630]- noone likes change - everyone loves jumping on the 'metro is shit' band-wagon - Despite adding a start menu people still cry. - Apparently the whole thing is unusable without the original start menu because most people are computer illiterate and again like jumping on bang wagons.[/QUOTE] So, there's nothing wrong with it, people are just making lame reasons to complain about absolutely nothing. You can still use programs the same way as any other version of windows, it's just a different frontend to launch those programs. Once those programs are open, you use windows as you would use windows, and if you don't like the frontend for launching those programs, you grab a free alternative such as classic shell, which takes up no system resources at all, everybody's a winner. If windows 8 doesn't run on your hardware, time to stop living in 2004 and upgrade. I have been using windows 8 since day one and I have no idea what people are complaining about, it actually feels terrible to go back to using a system such as 7 or older after using 8.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45307650]Six years is too soon for me, yes. I take time to adapt to a new OS and once I'm comfortable with one the least thing I want to do is change to a new version. Besides, the change between XP and Vista was huge, hence the massive time gap - but Vista was a botched OS on many aspects and 7 fixed that, if they hadn't rushed Vista it would have easily been released when 7 got out. The difference between 7 and 8 isn't big enough to deserve a version change, so I'll only switch to 9 when the OS has been proved to be worthwhile. Should be the case after six years, but the only way to be sure is to way at least a year or two after the release of the OS to make sure the biggest issues are fixed.[/QUOTE] Adapt to a new OS? XP/Vista/7/8 have all practically been the same OS just improved. Vista was only shit for the first three months when it was incompatible with fucking everything known to mankind. After that people were just hating it based on nothing but ignorance and miss-information that once was true. Vista was a good OS that was ruined by peoples first impression and unwillingness to try it out when it was fixed. They just kept holding to XP and dissed Vista based on old grudges that weren't valid. The change wasn't huge at all from a user experience point of view. It changed where some options were placed and the control panel was sorted a bit different, everything else was just additions and aesthetic changes, not much to adapt to beyond a day or two of using it which is the case with any OS update.
as a longtime user of 7 (and ex-hater of 8/8.1), having recently upgraded to 8 because of getting a whole new computer, im loving 8.1. sure the start menu is different but i easily got accustomed to it within a week and ive grown to like it a lot more as well. search is a hell of a lot more useful than it was in 7 as well. apps is kind of a clusterfuck though and useless, especially when you can just use search and shit comes up in a split second, or just pin shit to the start. cant really say anything about performance boost from 7 to 8 when my past computer was just downright shitty all over the place.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45303401]Because it's NOT like the control panel in W7. It's all dumbified and makes things more of a pain to do.[/QUOTE] The control panel is identical.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45303401]Because it's NOT like the control panel in W7. It's all dumbified and makes things more of a pain to do.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://toastytech.com/guis/win7controlpanel.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29209413/ShareX/2014-07-06_19-59-15.png[/IMG] ???
[QUOTE=Demache;45305871]Because he had a knackered install and took the brute force method of reinstalling Windows. Of course it would have fixed it. The only game I've had legitimate issues was GTA IV and that's because of GFWL's shittiness being amplified by being unsupported on Windows 8. But even then, it wasn't a Windows 8 exclusive issue because it runs on my Win8 laptop just fine.[/QUOTE] If Windows 8's installer can't install first-time 100% fine on a completely empty harddrive that works perfectly fine, then I have no fucking reason to give it a chance when Win7 does everything I want it to without issues. Funfact: entirely different friend can't run FO3 on his Win8 PC. Every time any of my friends have issues running games I can launch just fine, it seems they're on Windows 8. [editline]a[/editline] Oh wait, here we go: [QUOTE=RautaPalli;45303409]The only issue I've had with Windows 8 is the lack of DirectDraw support. It makes some old games unplayable since they run at like 5-10 FPS. I understand that they have to stop supporting ancient legacy stuff eventually, but it would be nice if they could add directdraw hardware support back as a separate download or something.[/QUOTE] Dealbreaker right fucking there.
I never got the Windows cycle thing. Windows 8 was pretty great and 90% of my complaints were fixed in the 8.1 update. It's a faster, objectively better and more secure version of Windows 7. Exactly what I wanted. Exactly what I was expecting.
If 8 breaks compatibility with old games, why not run them in VM? I'm sure your computers can handle that.
Guess what if you use windows 8 you don't need to use the fullscreen metro shit (only when you're logging in). And if you use netflix you can access "Super HD" quality (1080p). I use windows 8 and if I need to open an application by searching i just invoke a sidepanel with winkey + s
[QUOTE=itisjuly;45308250]If 8 breaks compatibility with old games, why not run them in VM? I'm sure your computers can handle that.[/QUOTE] Why would I do that when I can just use an OS that runs them? You're acting like Win8 is an upgrade instead of preference. And Virtual PCs are fucking slow so it's really not viable.
[QUOTE=Satane;45307254]I tried it, took longer to boot 8 than 7. I'm guessing something to do with my old SSD.[/QUOTE] Definitely you. When I had 7, boot times were 2-5 minutes, and when I upgraded to 8, 30 seconds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.