[Geek] A “real” user proves Windows 8 fails on the desktop - Page 20  

Credibility lost just there.

A HDD that does 100mb's doesn't just magically transfer any faster under a OS. Windows has always stuck to their proven desktop Icons and taskbar. Straying from it is ofcourse going to create a negative reaction. People don't like change, and why do you think alot stayed on XP till Win 7?

If they remove a interface that they have used for what? Over 15 years? Then they have just shot themselves in the foot.

wow seriously? like someone else said, you people need to come out of your caves. windows 8 Is very innovative, and very nice and polished, and professional.

you guys brag about building these really powerful rigs, but cant adapt to a new GOOD OS? it took me an hour to find and utilize all the features on windows 8. and its a lot better then the "classic desktop experience".. iv been using the consumer preview since day one and its been amazing. no issues. if anything its faster at multitasking then any other windows os.

the problem isn't with windows 8, the problem lies within the beholder,.. you. change is going to happen no matter if you like it or not. embrace it, learn it, and make the best of it. and who knows? maybe you'll like it.

cant stay with windows 7 forever...…

and to all of you that say windows 8 is the same as 7 just with a new theme or crappy metro, its not. windows 8 was built from the ground up. there was 100,000 changes from the developer preview to the consumer preview. and METRO is all based on HTML5. yeah, may look like windows 7, but the internals are different. the only similarity's are windows explorer, and aero. everything else is different.
Edited by ajslay - 3/13/12 at 12:46am

To YOU if may be easier to navigate, but to me personally, after about 3 days of using it I still think it is worse for the power user. For the every day Joe, I agree it is easier to do things, but it requires more steps now unless you want to use a ton of Keyboard shortcuts. I may change my mind, as I have only used it 3 days and haven't learned nearly even half of where everything is now, but I am doubting it very seriously. The increase in steps is the biggest killer for me. I don't care about the start menu being gone or a completely different UI in of itself, just seems like everything takes more clicks to get the same thing accomplished. Again, unless you want to use keyboard shortcuts. Hopefully after a couple weeks with it, I will get have a better understanding of everything and will have a better report.

I've tried Windows 8. I tried its dev release and now its preview release. No, it did not make me do anything faster. And yes, I did sit down with it and give it a shot. If anything, it was more annoying because I hate scrolling horizontally. I hated having a full screen "start menu." I hate everything being maximized in metro. I hate its look. I simply don't like it. I don't care if it still allows me to do everyday stuff, I hate its UI. I don't want to get use to it when there's nothing wrong with "classic." Classic never got in my way. It never prevented me from doing anything. I like it. Metro gets in my way and its an annoyance.

Do I care if you like it? No. Do I care if you want to use it? No.

Give an option to disable it for us who don't like running a tablet interface with a mouse and keyboard. I'm asking Microsoft to allow both of us to use what we like. You are telling me to get use to it and deal with it.

Let me give you my honest opinion as a developer with actual HCI training who has been designing and tweaking interfaces for 12 years and has used pretty much every OS environment that exists, from Windows to Mac OS to every Linux DE/WM, nearly every Android skin, iOS, WP7:

Windows 8 isn't innovative (innovative implies better, W8 is different), it isn't professional, and it isn't even remotely polished. I had some hope when they released the dev preview that they would address the numerous usability issues before launch, and that it was a tech demo duct taped to what is essentially Windows 7 SP2, but 6 months have gone by and the consumer preview has only made things worse. What Microsoft has done is take ideas from other categories and brutally shoved them into Windows. Just because an interface works on a device that you keep in your pocket and only use for a few minutes at a time with your fat, oily fingers, it doesn't mean it will work on a much larger device that is designed for fast, precise input, and most importantly multitasking, which is inherently hard to do when half of your apps are running on the desktop and half are running in Metro, causing you to endlessly switch between the two. Having more than 2 windows open at a time is now no longer an option in Windows, not unless you want to completely abandon Metro, which Microsoft is making increasingly difficult.

Aye. Windows ME was genuinely bad and unstable, out of the box, and patched.
Vista, at worst, out of the box was bloated, but the issues everyone seems to blame on M$, is the lack of 3rd party support. Very few wanted to put the time/money towards developing drivers and compatible software, and what was created was pretty mediocre; causing slow downs, instability, etc.
Windows 7, is Vista w/ a slight facelift and some tweaks/reworks. Somehow that made it god-tier in most people's eyes, when really, it was mainly carried-over 3rd party support from devs when they finally pulled their collective heads out of their arses and started deving properly for Vista. Most everything developed for Vista later on, is compatible w/ 7. If you log into Windows 7 safemode, you'll see it's Windows 6.1.

M$ proved Vista wasn't inherently crappy w/ project Mojave. It really irks me so many people STILL hate on Vista when the issue was not w/ the OS itself, but lack of 3rd party support, out of the control of M$. Atop that, the fact that 7 is just "fixed" Vista, yet it's adored. Don't get me wrong, Windows 7 is a great OS IMO, but Vista, in and of itself is/was not bad either.

God, he is barely able to read the screen, let alone use fluently a computer!


@DesertRat: Yeah. Windows Vista wasn't that bad. People hated it because it hogged resources like mad compared to XP, but once again, so does Windows 7. The kernel was a huge step in performance and security from Windows XP, if your computer could run it. Especially in the security field, the improvement was overwhelming.

I used it until Windows 7 had around 6 months or so, never felt it was a bad OS. It simply needed the usual tweaks. Disabling bloat services you never use, and so.
Edited by Artikbot - 3/13/12 at 1:54am

Everyone has opinions, IMO it's more like a shortcut to explorer and control panel in addition to the start menu than File Manager.

And I prefer xfce over gnome or KDE, but I liked gnome2.

I definitely agree here, while I think it's great for your average Joe in terms of settings, I'd still prefer to be able to direct it to a home server rather than a MS owned server.

I think they should have both, Metro for those who like it, Win7 taskbar for those who like it. Not half and half mind you, during setup you'd get a choice with a short video showing the highlights of metro.

I have to agree with you. I've never had major issues (Any rampart BSODs I got, usually on 95/98 or Vista pre-good drivers, were fixed in a month at most and not too common) with Windows either.

Metro is designed for tablets, unless you're using a touchscreen with maybe two, three buttons at most, it won't be as fast. Ever.

Sure, being used to it means something but it isn't the be all, end all. Design is important too.

I severely doubt it's doubled, apart from the booting.

File copies are (nearly always) limited by the HDD, not the file system/the software controlling it all, so WIndows 8 could improve a little, but not 2x. You might get 115MB/s under 7 and maybe 120MB/s under 8, but not only does this not prove that it's actually faster (And not just the way they calculate the MB/s being changed from versions) it's most certainly not double. Functionality? How do you test that? As for install, well, that means nothing. Unless you're installing daily.
The underlying structure of Windows 8 is great, it's what MS should be doing for 7. Hell, even the new task manager is great...However Metro is atrocious. I thought the Gnome3 designers had gone insane, forcing a tablet interface on desktop (Instead of having both, separate) but Metro is even worse.

As for your performance stuff...Linux gets (generally) faster than Windows 8 in my at home testing, does that mean we should all jump to Linux over Win8?

7 Kernel version: 6.1
8 Kernel version: 6.2

As for the rest of your post...Learn what an opinion is, why are you getting so defensive over yours?

QFT. You can't lose in that scenario.

I think Vista gets a bad rap. I know it had its fair share of problems, but it gave me a few solid years throughout high school. I much preferred it over XP. My main uses were PC gaming and basic computing. I run into less problems with Windows 7, but I would say Windows 7 is an exceptionally polished OS. Needless to say I was very happy when Windows 7 came out and I could never go back to Vista.

As for Windows 8, I haven't used it yet, but I've seen the preview demoed. I have mixed feelings. On one hand, from what I've read on the web it will manage resources as well or even better than Windows 7. So that's definitely a plus. But the Metro UI needs to be optional. It looks prosthetic, to be honest. I am not a fan of Microsoft unifying the style of the UI across all their devices (PC, Xbox, mobile). I do not like Metro on PC or Xbox, while I like it a lot on mobile (which makes sense; it's a UI designed for mobile touch-screen devices). I totally would not mind Metro on PC if it was totally optional and I could do everything in 8 the same way I could do it in 7. Heck, I don't even mind the Start menu being gone, as long as there's another way to access those functions of the OS without switching over to a completely new UI.

If Microsoft intends to sell this OS to people like us I have a feeling they will listen.
Edited by pnoozi - 3/13/12 at 2:07am

Vista was better after SP1 and then purely goodness after SP2. But then like a year later, you got Windows 7 and everyone swore it was somehow loads better when 90% of Windows 7 is Vista SP2.

Sheeple follow other sheeple.