Well, my new Dell came today and I spent about six hours this evening getting it configured. I wound up downloading Classic Shell to give me back the familiar Windows start menu. With that in place, I like Windows 8. Seems to be much snappier than Vista, but that could be because I've got a much more powerful system than before with twice the RAM.
Windows 8 isn't too bad.
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Yeah Vista was a dog. Im happy with W7 on my work machine and in parallels on my mac.
I played with W8 on a computer at Staples the other day, and I rather like it. It removes the need for the user to think about the process of using the computer and puts actually USING the computer at the forefront, where it should be.
I've been a Windows user since 3.0, and I really like the new interface. I never cared too much for the Start Menu anyway...it funneled too much of the computer's functionality through one button on the screen. Ironically, W8 gets closer to the interface of pre-95 Windows and its old Program Manager and different program icon groupings. Everything you need to do is right there on the screen, laid out in an order that you can understand.
Bravo to Microsoft. I think it's a move in the right direction.
I've been a Windows user since 3.0, and I really like the new interface. I never cared too much for the Start Menu anyway...it funneled too much of the computer's functionality through one button on the screen. Ironically, W8 gets closer to the interface of pre-95 Windows and its old Program Manager and different program icon groupings. Everything you need to do is right there on the screen, laid out in an order that you can understand.
Bravo to Microsoft. I think it's a move in the right direction.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Ironically, W8 gets closer to the interface of pre-95 Windows and its old Program Manager and different program icon groupings. Everything you need to do is right there on the screen, laid out in an order that you can understand.
Bravo to Microsoft. I think it's a move in the right direction.
Windows 8 and its Metro UI, IMO, take computing back to the days of MS-DOS, where you had one application running, full-screen, at a time. Multitasking was not possible. The whole concept with Windows was the ability to have multiple applications running simultaneously in separate "windows" and a UI that enabled you to conveniently switch between them.
Bravo, Microsoft, for bringing the world of PCs full-circle and giving us a 64-bit version of MS-DOS.
Ironically, W8 gets closer to the interface of pre-95 Windows and its old Program Manager and different program icon groupings. Everything you need to do is right there on the screen, laid out in an order that you can understand.
Bravo to Microsoft. I think it's a move in the right direction.
Windows 8 and its Metro UI, IMO, take computing back to the days of MS-DOS, where you had one application running, full-screen, at a time. Multitasking was not possible. The whole concept with Windows was the ability to have multiple applications running simultaneously in separate "windows" and a UI that enabled you to conveniently switch between them.
Bravo, Microsoft, for bringing the world of PCs full-circle and giving us a 64-bit version of MS-DOS.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Ironically, W8 gets closer to the interface of pre-95 Windows and its old Program Manager and different program icon groupings. Everything you need to do is right there on the screen, laid out in an order that you can understand.
Bravo to Microsoft. I think it's a move in the right direction.
Windows 8 and its Metro UI, IMO, take computing back to the days of MS-DOS, where you had one application running, full-screen, at a time. Multitasking was not possible. The whole concept with Windows was the ability to have multiple applications running simultaneously in separate "windows" and a UI that enabled you to conveniently switch between them.
Bravo, Microsoft, for bringing the world of PCs full-circle and giving us a 64-bit version of MS-DOS.
+1 This is how I use my machine. True, few programs run in Metro. But, Im going to assume the worst and they want everything to go there eventually. The Desktop is just there for backwards compatibility. Forced full screen of everything makes the whole thing useless.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Ironically, W8 gets closer to the interface of pre-95 Windows and its old Program Manager and different program icon groupings. Everything you need to do is right there on the screen, laid out in an order that you can understand.
Bravo to Microsoft. I think it's a move in the right direction.
Windows 8 and its Metro UI, IMO, take computing back to the days of MS-DOS, where you had one application running, full-screen, at a time. Multitasking was not possible. The whole concept with Windows was the ability to have multiple applications running simultaneously in separate "windows" and a UI that enabled you to conveniently switch between them.
Bravo, Microsoft, for bringing the world of PCs full-circle and giving us a 64-bit version of MS-DOS.
+1 This is how I use my machine. True, few programs run in Metro. But, Im going to assume the worst and they want everything to go there eventually. The Desktop is just there for backwards compatibility. Forced full screen of everything makes the whole thing useless.
Did I not play with it enough? Does Windows 8 really force you to have only one application running at the same time? I couldn't believe that it would, but if it does, then I would certainly retract my statement. Haven't even smart phones been able to multitask for a decade now? I certainly must be misunderstanding something here.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Did I not play with it enough? Does Windows 8 really force you to have only one application running at the same time? I couldn't believe that it would, but if it does, then I would certainly retract my statement. Haven't even smart phones been able to multitask for a decade now? I certainly must be misunderstanding something here.
You can have a dozen or more apps running, but the Metro UI is not multitask friendly because the apps don't run in separate windows, they each run full screen (or if you get creative in a third of the screen or a quarter of the screen). The Windows environment is what made multi-tasking efficient and user friendly.
Did I not play with it enough? Does Windows 8 really force you to have only one application running at the same time? I couldn't believe that it would, but if it does, then I would certainly retract my statement. Haven't even smart phones been able to multitask for a decade now? I certainly must be misunderstanding something here.
You can have a dozen or more apps running, but the Metro UI is not multitask friendly because the apps don't run in separate windows, they each run full screen (or if you get creative in a third of the screen or a quarter of the screen). The Windows environment is what made multi-tasking efficient and user friendly.
I never run stuff in partial screen mode myself, so I will yield to that aspect of it and retract my statement. Interesting change.
As a computer tech I hate windows 8 its built for people who do not know how to use a computer. Once you really need to do some real work its impossible to do anything. Garbage OS. I guess if all you do is surf the web then it will work for that.
Garbage OS? I think it's their best yet, even for business.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Garbage OS? I think it's their best yet, even for business.
I have seen the evidence of performance improvements. The new task manager is nice. Going into desktop mode and installing a third-party start menu gives similar utility to previous versions of Windows. However, inevitably you end up going into Metro for something occasionally. Then theres the whole installing a third-party app for something that should have been there to begin with. That whole setup and having to go back and forth is wierd and frustrates me. Its too bad they didnt make it a option to disable metro. Another idea would be to delete the old interface entirely and force everyone to use Metro all the time. The number of Microsoft apologists running around trying to convince everyone its a great OS would be much lower, I think.
Honestly I could see using Metro on a phone or tablet as its not much different from Android or iOS in functionality as far as multi-tasking goes. But I wont unless the PC version is fixed to be useful again.
Garbage OS? I think it's their best yet, even for business.
I have seen the evidence of performance improvements. The new task manager is nice. Going into desktop mode and installing a third-party start menu gives similar utility to previous versions of Windows. However, inevitably you end up going into Metro for something occasionally. Then theres the whole installing a third-party app for something that should have been there to begin with. That whole setup and having to go back and forth is wierd and frustrates me. Its too bad they didnt make it a option to disable metro. Another idea would be to delete the old interface entirely and force everyone to use Metro all the time. The number of Microsoft apologists running around trying to convince everyone its a great OS would be much lower, I think.
Honestly I could see using Metro on a phone or tablet as its not much different from Android or iOS in functionality as far as multi-tasking goes. But I wont unless the PC version is fixed to be useful again.
Last edited:
Just for you G-MAN:
After reading some of the responses on here and some reviews on the interwebs, I think I must have gotten a different version of W8 or something? I didn't really know about any of the problems (like a lack of split screen) until I read about it on the interwebs, because having multiple windows up was working just fine for me, and I'm able to do work on the computer?
I do find it funny that much of the bashing involves what MS "might do". I can really only speak to the product that's on my computer, not some theoretical version in the future, and it all works fine.
All of the clamoring over the start screen is particularly funny to me, because I'm old enough to remember it the first time around--when they introduced it on XP. You'd think the world was coming to an end, how MS was "forcing" people into that one box...I never really liked it, and after setting up tiles for the programs which I use regularly (and start screen functions like the cmd prompt, device manager etc), and moving the tiles to groups that work for me, I like it way better. I'm having a hard time seeing how a customizable start screen is worse than taking what MS thinks I need or use? I did use W+X for a while until I got my groups set up. I doubt I'll be using it much now though, and I'm certainly now doing to be installing a start-screen shell.
Yes, if you install W8, you have to spend some time learning some things that aren't intuitive, such as the new keyboard shortcuts. You may have to create a shortcut to put a power button on your taskbar if hitting "W + I" is a huge hardship. That said, if one invests just a little bit of time, it seems to be like it's worth it. It that makes me a Window's apologist, so be it.
I do find it funny that much of the bashing involves what MS "might do". I can really only speak to the product that's on my computer, not some theoretical version in the future, and it all works fine.
All of the clamoring over the start screen is particularly funny to me, because I'm old enough to remember it the first time around--when they introduced it on XP. You'd think the world was coming to an end, how MS was "forcing" people into that one box...I never really liked it, and after setting up tiles for the programs which I use regularly (and start screen functions like the cmd prompt, device manager etc), and moving the tiles to groups that work for me, I like it way better. I'm having a hard time seeing how a customizable start screen is worse than taking what MS thinks I need or use? I did use W+X for a while until I got my groups set up. I doubt I'll be using it much now though, and I'm certainly now doing to be installing a start-screen shell.
Yes, if you install W8, you have to spend some time learning some things that aren't intuitive, such as the new keyboard shortcuts. You may have to create a shortcut to put a power button on your taskbar if hitting "W + I" is a huge hardship. That said, if one invests just a little bit of time, it seems to be like it's worth it. It that makes me a Window's apologist, so be it.
Start screen introduced on XP? Are we talking about the same thing here? Im referring to the start button that has been there since 95.
Originally Posted By: Colt45ws
Start screen introduced on XP? Are we talking about the same thing here? Im referring to the start button that has been there since 95.
I'm referring to the start menu accessed by the start orb. Sure, it's been there since the beginning but when XP came out there was all sorts of squawking about how it "radically changed" and lots of people immediately went back to the old "classic view". It's pretty much the same stuff I hear now. I think people are just resistance to change. While I don't necessarily like change for the sake of change, there are things with the tiled start menu I like a lot better--mainly the way I can customize all of the programs I use regularly into groups, and the way the "search" functions works.
Start screen introduced on XP? Are we talking about the same thing here? Im referring to the start button that has been there since 95.
I'm referring to the start menu accessed by the start orb. Sure, it's been there since the beginning but when XP came out there was all sorts of squawking about how it "radically changed" and lots of people immediately went back to the old "classic view". It's pretty much the same stuff I hear now. I think people are just resistance to change. While I don't necessarily like change for the sake of change, there are things with the tiled start menu I like a lot better--mainly the way I can customize all of the programs I use regularly into groups, and the way the "search" functions works.
Of course they are. I dont mind learning new things, but it feels like...its made intentionally difficult? I know thats not right..
So, I went an used it. I fired it up in VMWare again. Release Preview, btw.
Some things aren't intuitive is an understatement.
First thing was, the network wasnt connected, so I went to try to investigate.
I hovered over the right side to try to bring up the thing. After I got it to cooperate I hit 'Settings' then 'Network'.
I get there and see 'Network Limited' I click it and it bumps. The line of text and icon representing the connection get smaller for a split second, but otherwise nothing happens.
I'm Going, "What? Then what is this #%$#$ even for?"
I right click and get, 'Turn Sharing On or Off'? Thats it?
Now Im starting to overheat, "So, pretty much this whole menu is a worthless sack of #@#%#%^%@?"
So I attempt to go back and hit the word 'Networks' which is next to the back arrow. Actually, I didnt even read the actual word. Im just used to words next to a button being part of the button and thought it would bring me back. It of course did nothing, which only aggravated me further.
Once I read it though, I found it redundant. Its placement next to the back arrow makes me think it should indeed bring me back to Settings, but then again, Im in Networks right now. Then, right under that, it says 'Connections'? Isnt that the same thing? Why not have 'Settings' next to the back arrow, and under it 'Networks' like a tree? So you know you are in 'Networks' and back is 'Settings', which is above it in the tree.
After I figured out you have to actually hit the back button, I hit 'Change PC Settings' at the bottom. Network configuration is a PC setting, right?
I went through the ENTIRE thing and found NOTHING relating to network settings. In addition to that, when I accidentally hit 'HomeGroup' the thing softlocked for about 20-30 seconds; completely unresponsive save for a moving mouse and the spinning 'IM BUSY!' in place of the cursor.
Now Im HOT and feel like my head is going to pop; "You @#$@##^ worthless !@#!!, !@#@#, !@@!@$@"
One last thing to try; I hit WinKey and 'Desktop'
I bring up the right sidebar, which LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT DID ON METRO.
Hit 'Settings', which LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT DID ON METRO.
OH WAIT, IT does not!
Now it has 'Control Panel' at the top. FINALLY WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!
From there Im easily able to get to the right area to fix the problem.
Why are there three places that it looks like I could fix the network problem from, but only one of them bears fruit? Its something I now know, so I learned how to get there. But why is it so difficult? Now that I think about it, I think I went through this before; Im having a serious case of deja vu, here.
Why take such effort to hide essential adjustment mechanisms? Why doesn't the 'Settings' menu under Metro have 'Control Panel' on it as well? It could simply pop you to Desktop and bring it up. What is 'PC Settings' for? It appears to have many things that were once a part of Control Panel in older variants of Windows. Except its broken off into this new fancy menu design and called something that makes me think I can fix the network settings. However, 'Network Settings' != 'PC Settings' Right.
My favorite Linux Distro is Gentoo. Im no stranger to difficulty. I dont know how much you know about Linux, but Gentoo is pretty DIY. Meaning, it does not have an installer. When you boot the install disc, it drops you to a shell and you have to install it pretty much manually by typing all the commands to partition, format, mount, download and untar the stage3, which is a stripped down Linux install, download and compile the kernel, install that and on and on and on.
It takes some work to install it, and maintain it, but I feel the pay off is worth it as the resulting machine is tailored for the programs and stuff that I want to run with no extra stuff that I dont use.
With Win8 Im like a dog chasing my tail, a lot of work for no pay off.
It feels like they were developing two versions of Win8, one for tablet and other for PC. At some point, later in the production cycle, someone decided to merge them together in this cobbled together mess. The 'PC Settings' is supposed to be the dumbed down menu on tablets. It has pretty much nothing that I care about in it.
So, pretty much, landfill material.
So, I went an used it. I fired it up in VMWare again. Release Preview, btw.
Some things aren't intuitive is an understatement.
First thing was, the network wasnt connected, so I went to try to investigate.
I hovered over the right side to try to bring up the thing. After I got it to cooperate I hit 'Settings' then 'Network'.
I get there and see 'Network Limited' I click it and it bumps. The line of text and icon representing the connection get smaller for a split second, but otherwise nothing happens.
I'm Going, "What? Then what is this #%$#$ even for?"
I right click and get, 'Turn Sharing On or Off'? Thats it?
Now Im starting to overheat, "So, pretty much this whole menu is a worthless sack of #@#%#%^%@?"
So I attempt to go back and hit the word 'Networks' which is next to the back arrow. Actually, I didnt even read the actual word. Im just used to words next to a button being part of the button and thought it would bring me back. It of course did nothing, which only aggravated me further.
Once I read it though, I found it redundant. Its placement next to the back arrow makes me think it should indeed bring me back to Settings, but then again, Im in Networks right now. Then, right under that, it says 'Connections'? Isnt that the same thing? Why not have 'Settings' next to the back arrow, and under it 'Networks' like a tree? So you know you are in 'Networks' and back is 'Settings', which is above it in the tree.
After I figured out you have to actually hit the back button, I hit 'Change PC Settings' at the bottom. Network configuration is a PC setting, right?
I went through the ENTIRE thing and found NOTHING relating to network settings. In addition to that, when I accidentally hit 'HomeGroup' the thing softlocked for about 20-30 seconds; completely unresponsive save for a moving mouse and the spinning 'IM BUSY!' in place of the cursor.
Now Im HOT and feel like my head is going to pop; "You @#$@##^ worthless !@#!!, !@#@#, !@@!@$@"
One last thing to try; I hit WinKey and 'Desktop'
I bring up the right sidebar, which LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT DID ON METRO.
Hit 'Settings', which LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT DID ON METRO.
OH WAIT, IT does not!
Now it has 'Control Panel' at the top. FINALLY WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!
From there Im easily able to get to the right area to fix the problem.
Why are there three places that it looks like I could fix the network problem from, but only one of them bears fruit? Its something I now know, so I learned how to get there. But why is it so difficult? Now that I think about it, I think I went through this before; Im having a serious case of deja vu, here.
Why take such effort to hide essential adjustment mechanisms? Why doesn't the 'Settings' menu under Metro have 'Control Panel' on it as well? It could simply pop you to Desktop and bring it up. What is 'PC Settings' for? It appears to have many things that were once a part of Control Panel in older variants of Windows. Except its broken off into this new fancy menu design and called something that makes me think I can fix the network settings. However, 'Network Settings' != 'PC Settings' Right.
My favorite Linux Distro is Gentoo. Im no stranger to difficulty. I dont know how much you know about Linux, but Gentoo is pretty DIY. Meaning, it does not have an installer. When you boot the install disc, it drops you to a shell and you have to install it pretty much manually by typing all the commands to partition, format, mount, download and untar the stage3, which is a stripped down Linux install, download and compile the kernel, install that and on and on and on.
It takes some work to install it, and maintain it, but I feel the pay off is worth it as the resulting machine is tailored for the programs and stuff that I want to run with no extra stuff that I dont use.
With Win8 Im like a dog chasing my tail, a lot of work for no pay off.
It feels like they were developing two versions of Win8, one for tablet and other for PC. At some point, later in the production cycle, someone decided to merge them together in this cobbled together mess. The 'PC Settings' is supposed to be the dumbed down menu on tablets. It has pretty much nothing that I care about in it.
So, pretty much, landfill material.
"Isn't too bad" is an accomplishment for MS.
I liked it the 5 minutes I played with it; but I wasn't trying to get work done.
I liked it the 5 minutes I played with it; but I wasn't trying to get work done.
Last edited:
Metro UI is NOT suitable for a desktop or laptop environment, it is designed for phones and tablets.
That being said all MS had to do was ALLOW THE CUSTOMER TO DECIDE WHICH UI TO BOOT INTO.
I want to be able to boot DIRECTLY to the desktop without being forced to go through Metro first.
That being said all MS had to do was ALLOW THE CUSTOMER TO DECIDE WHICH UI TO BOOT INTO.
I want to be able to boot DIRECTLY to the desktop without being forced to go through Metro first.
- Status
Similar threads
