Some people arguing on this thread that this is just a minor detail are forgetting that this is just one out of many. It just so happens that the topic of this thread is not "Windows 8 has many flaws, here are all of them so we can keep track of the global pros and cons" but instead it is just focusing on one new thing that was discovered. How is being strictly on topic now being turned against people who have already talked about the other aspects in other threads ?
I also find it funny that people are praising Windows 8 for booting fast, but at the same time they say that they no longer cold boot Windows 7, essentially putting it into sleep mode, which basically ensures an almost instant on (on my rig it takes a while for the ethernet connection to re-establish, but other than that it's practically instant, basically the time for the fans to start spinning and the monitor to come out of standby) but they have no concrete evidence to tell if after weeks of operation, installing and uninstalling applications and copying stuff form one place to the other, if Windows 8 is still faster than Windows 7.
And don't forget that it was because of many small details that Windows Vista was a flop.
Originally Posted by Rubers
Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy
People really need to learn to be able to look at a product and evaluate from more than the perspective of it being made specifically for themselves.
For people who aren't good with computers, Metro is an almost perfect solution.
My grandma for instance. We bought a laptop for her recently to use Skype while she's living at home overseas.
Her biggest problem is figuring out where to find simple apps. With metro, everything is right there.
Want to go on the internet? Hit them big fat button that says "internet" on it.
Want to use Skype? Hit the big fat Skype button.
Music? Videos? Same thing.
For everyone else? Click the desktop button and go about your business.
It's very easy as a "power" user of Windows to look at the newest iteration and start the "they're trying to control us!!!"/"soon we wont be able to even have a desktop!!!" hype.
However, its quite obvious to me that when looked at from a non alarmist/ majority of windows users viewpoint, Metro will go down very well.
And all that has nothing to do with letting advanced users pick for themselves what to use.
Sorry, but as always, you're wrong.
Whether or not Metro will go down well with non-advanced users has nothing to do with Microsoft intentionally making it harder for advanced power users to choose and avoid Metro. I'm sure Metro will be great for people like my Nan. But for me it's not.
MS intentionally being obtrusive is specifically to stop people like me avoiding Metro, not my Nan, who isn't going to accidently create a scheduled task.
Originally Posted by lordikon
Originally Posted by Shmerrick
Originally Posted by BizzareRide
This is an excellent point, really.
No, no, it's really not. I have the official enterprise release and we've had 'tablets' for a good month now. Win8 is hard to navigate and requires a complete relearning of how to operate windows with their new metro UI. But please, teach my 3000+ user's how to use metro's new interface when they can barely operate Win7 as it currently is. I don't have the time, or the money to waste in redoing everything that currently works simply because it looks different. Yes, there are server optomizations and what not, but in any corp you are limited by this amazing thing called a budget.
It took me all of 60 seconds to learn how metro worked and how to avoid using it. Is it really so complicated as to warrant staying with an older OS?
I'm not saying metro is great or anything, I honestly dislike it, a lot. But, that wouldn't stop me from using Windows 8, considering how easy it is to avoid using metro, and with the optimizations made in Windows 8 it seems to me like the benefits outweigh the downsides.
I'm suddenly reminded of the countless threads of Vista hate 4+ years ago when it came out, tons of people saying XP was so much better. Vista wasn't perfect, but it was much nicer than the 7 year old OS it was replacing, the driver problems were not Microsoft's fault, Vista's only real problem is that it was resource heavy, which is the main thing that was changed with Windows 7. Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3, and Windows 8 is basically Windows 7 + Metro. Not worth freaking out about IMO, but that won't stop half of OCN from doing so anyway, and then in 2 years half of everyone here will be using it and saying it's no big deal.
Yes, and from what you're saying we can always extract the analogy that we all know how 2 years after having been released everybody was using Windows Vista.
And yes, the driver problems WERE Microsoft's problem, they should have ensured drivers for essential hardware (graphics cards) did not make the system BSOD.They should have worked with their partners to ensure a lot more hardware had drivers ready. And it's so much their fault that now, for Windows 8, they have a lot of drivers for printers that were written by Microsoft themselves. How about that ?
And what about the file copy operations that were sometimes slow on Windows Vista and needed a patch even before SP1 ? And the lousy backwards compatibility with older programs that meant that they had to release a lot of updates to improve compatibility ?
And RAM requirements ? Back in the beginning of 2007, 1 GB of RAM was expensive. So if Windows Vista performed poorly on systems that had only 1 GB of RAM (sometimes with built-in IGP's sharing system memory), and only worked well with systems with 2 GB of RAM how on earth wasn't this Microsoft's fault ? Are people supposed to be rich to purchase a PC with 2 GB of RAM just because Windows Vista was a resource hog ? That is the reason it was never popular on Netbooks and the reason Windows XP stayed as the popular choice for Netbooks.
At it's core Windows Vista had potential, but just like Windows 8, it was a work in progress on many fronts. And if people think that Windows 8 is great as a tablet OS, go read the article on ARS Technica
. Windows 8 is a huge work in progress. The amount of changes between Developer Preview, Consumer Preview, Release Preview and RTM is so big that it's self-evident that they still haven't finished their work.
They have made so many compromises in order to try to give an equal front-end for both tablets and laptops and desktops that the OS is neither a polished tablet experience nor a polished desktop experience.
Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy
Originally Posted by andrews2547
They knew enough about "us" to become "damn billionaire businessmen" in the first place. Whether you like it or not I think W8 is going to be huge with the "average" user.
There aren't relatively
many people who use their (windows) computers for any more than web surfing, chat, media, games or document creation. All of which is right there in W8s start menu. I'd bet the same even applies to this very forum in fact, regardless of its enthusiast tone.
For those who feel they absolutely MUST use W7, all they have to do is keep on using W7.
And so, after gaming starts becoming popular on Linux, Microsoft can kiss a lot of their marketshare goodbye. All of the things casual users do that you just mentioned can be accomplished on Linux. Linux has come a long way in the last few years.
And with OpenGL ES becoming popular on smartphones and the new version of OpenGL being compatible with the mobile version, the ability to program using the same API will make a lot of developers ponder whether they should not invest money in a more open platform instead.
Because free has potential and they have made great progress with usability, while keeping options, versus Microsoft, that is now selling Windows 8 at a subsidized price, expecting to make money from people who will buy Metro apps after having been forced to pass by the start screen. In essence this has potential to become just like Xbox live, which is a service people pay for, yet they are still served ads.Edited by tpi2007 - 8/7/12 at 7:15pm