10 stupid things 'experts' try to tell you about Microsoft

In Silicon Valley (and in media satellites that take the NoCal mindset to New York and beyond), everyone has an iPhone, a MacBook Pro, and a Gmail account. Microsoft products and services might as well be from Mars. So be skeptical when you read analyses or predictions of what's coming next from Redmond.

Read more at: 10 amazingly stupid things the 'experts' will try to tell you about Microsoft | ZDNet

 

[waltc]

...
Probably remarkably similar to what people here know about Apple products.

Actually, it's been Microsoft's history to basically ignore Apple in its advertising, and in most Microsoft-based forums Apple isn't a subject broached very often. The point I made earlier was about the image featured in Apple's official advertising in the CNET article linked in this thread: it's at least a decade out of date--as the CNET author points out. Heh... Apple does this deliberately, and most of its customers don't know any better (which is why Apple keeps spinning such yarns.) Honest Injun'......most Microsoft people know enough about Apple products to clearly understand why they don't want them. (That's my opinion, anyway.) It isn't difficult at all for me to expound on the reasons why Apple's closed, proprietary "walled garden" leaves me cold. Closed, proprietary, and limited is the way Apple's been for its entire history. You'd think the company would have learned better by now, wouldn't you?

 

[lehnerus2000]

No sarcasm or other intended, but, for my curiosity, I would be grateful if someone could point me to any specific threads on the web, as to suggestions as to what should be included in Windows 8.

I can only assume that you didn't read the comments (on the official MS blog articles) during the beta stage of W8.

There were a lot of angry/disappointed people posting "suggestions".

 

[davehc]

I would be grateful ( and enlightened!) if you could link me to one.

Yes. I was, in fact, involved in the blogs and was , at that time, as an OEM distributer/partner, given early access to the "betas". I certainly do recall many, many, comments regarding the new start up desktop. As I said, in an earlier post, that is not my consideration in the essence of this thread.
There were, other than that, many smaller suggestions, but not a lot of criticism of the general performance of the OS.

But, with sincerity, my remark which I think may have accelerated the input in this thread, (Post #10) quote.

"Leaving aside the boring, and repetitious comments on the Modern GUI, what is it the users here are finding prohibitively wrong with Windows 8, as compared with previous "after the event" comments on Windows 7 and, even earlier, XP. They were numerous."

Has not been addressed, so I will have to make only one assumption, and cease adding fuel to the thread fire - lol.

 

[MasterChief]

Still awaiting comments on, apart from the above, what users are finding devastatingly wrong with Windows 8.

It's not Windows 7. haha

 

[jimbo45]

Still awaiting comments on, apart from the above, what users are finding devastatingly wrong with Windows 8.

It's not Windows 7. haha

You might just as well say it's not THIS either. (Screenshot enc) (Still works in a VM !!!!).

Actually W8.1 runs far better on my machines than W7 - I keep W7 because of necessity of running some corporate apps that don't work on W8.1. I've customized the menu via custom toolbars - and I find it much better than the rigid W7 fixed menu and I don't even have to look at the metro interface at all (boot straight into desktop).

Yes M/S DID make a mistake assuming a mobile phone interface (and a flawed one at that too - as android is showing its limitations too with the tile interface - as you get more than a few pages of apps on a phone scrolling / screen swiping gets really annoying switching between apps) - would be OK for the desktop --it obviously wasn't and will be addressed in future. Meanwhile W8.1 is perfectly useable and for a lot of people a perfectly sensible upgrade from W7.

Davehc is 100% correct -- most of the complaints against W8.1 are really unjustified. You can make it run however you want (and is probably more customiseable than W7 anyway).

Cheers

jimbo

 

[pparks1]

The point I made earlier was about the image featured in Apple's official advertising in the CNET article linked in this thread: it's at least a decade out of date--as the CNET author points out. Heh... Apple does this deliberately, and most of its customers don't know any better (which is why Apple keeps spinning such yarns.)

But I don't think most Apple customers see this in the ad and that is what convinces them to make the purchase. For many, it's word of mouth from others who have already made the investment in the Apple products.

Honest Injun'......most Microsoft people know enough about Apple products to clearly understand why they don't want them. (That's my opinion, anyway.) It isn't difficult at all for me to expound on the reasons why Apple's closed, proprietary "walled garden" leaves me cold. Closed, proprietary, and limited is the way Apple's been for its entire history. You'd think the company would have learned better by now, wouldn't you?

I've never been able to justify the cost increase of going with the Apple, but with the price gap shrinking I've seen a great number of my friends (many that are Windows IT guys), swithing over to Mac Book Pros's and Air's. A system engineer buddy of mine recently bought a Mac Book Air, and when I asked him why he said, "Well, the Mac doesn't do anything outstanding, but it does a bunch of everything really well. It's small and easy to carry around, it sleeps and comes back from sleep instantly, and the battery holds it's charge very well. I go all day from meeting to meeting and never had to give a second thought to my battery. For my day to day tasks, the Mac just provides me with an overall better experience". To me this says a lot, he's not a sheep and he's extremely well informed and very technically savvy.

 

[Tepid]

File manager, in Metro they want you to click the search icon, type in "This PC" click on it. just to bring it up in desktop. The same was for control panel (which has been changed) and so many other functions. It is simply a nightmare to navigate.

No, it actually isn't once you learn how to use it properly. This is he biggest issue with people.
They refuse to take it in and actually learn how to use it properly then say it sucks.
It's like taking a perfectly good recipe, not paying attention and
actually learn how to make the dish from the recipe then saying the dish sucks.
It's not the recipes fault.

I liked the old installation of apps in 8, over the new version. In Win 8 it placed it at the end and you moved it to where you want, with the new, it puts it in the all apps, the only way I can find them if I re-sort by date, all that just to add it to the start screen, extra steps again.

This was complained about by so many that MS made the change.
So, there ya go. People didn't like it that way and MS changed it.
Now others don't like it.
So I ask, which is it, People get listened to and things get changed by popular demand, or what?

I could go on and on, bottom line is that it takes so much time just to do basic functions, mapping drives, networking troubleshooting, those all go back to the desktop. Honestly, the only way I can use Windows 8, is with my Start8, Modern Mix and Decor8.

Decore8 provides zero functionality to the start screen. it is purely cosmetic, and I thought you hated the Metro GUI?
Why skin it?

Hit the windows key and start typing what you are looking for,, it's a heck of a lot faster than the start button.
Hit start key on keyboard, type exp and hit enter, takes like 2 seconds
At top click Map Drives, it's right there, i can completely map a drive in about 30 sec as long as I know exactly the path and stuff
But it is a lot easier to get at through the start button on the keyboard. Basicaly, hot keys and typing.
Less time off the keyboard, and less Mouse use can make moving around and getting to things twice as fast.
Most people have no need to get at the Control Panel often, so that is moot.
Knowing what you want to do and getting it done in Win8, is a lot faster than in 7, sorry, that is a fact not opinion.
But you have to learn how to use it properly.

Poor apps, they really have nothing, other and games, clocks and calculators, that are really useful. I even use the desktop Netflix over the metro app. Anything useful is a legacy application, hence the desktop again.

They should have refined Windows 7, instead of burying it, and left Metro as a backend. People don't hate Windows 8, but why use it, if you don't have to. Just my two cents worth and apparently millions of others. If you like it fine, for me, I just think it is poorly designed. Plus, I think it is ugly.

Keep in mind that, the App Store is new, how long did it take Android and Apple to get a proper store?
They have had several years. Give it time.

 

[ainteinstein]

My favourite is number 6, Windows is secure it is the app's aka 3rd party software that makes Windows insecure. Okay, the heart of the Windows OS is Q-DOS aka the kernel. Q-DOS was not the most "secure" and "bug-free" operating system and it really never got corrected. (Compare it to the Linux kernel, that is the start of a secure system.) But besides that, why would you intertwine a known security risk program into IE? And then, not allow that program to be removed? And who owns IE? Microsoft blaming Microsoft for an insecure app, that is funny. But I would like to know, why could not their team of programmers design their own "Flash"? And remember, Eight was to be the most secure Windows, um and then Microsoft changed their minds and recommended you have a third party security for your system.

What people really do not like about Eight is the fact that it is not a desk top OS. Perhaps it would be fine for a tablet or a phone, but desk top, no. The other reason, again Microsoft has put out a resource hog of an OS that crashes older computers, The minimum requirements are always too low. Sorry, the rule of thumb since 3.1 has been whatever Microsoft says you need to operate it... double it.

Two links if you want to read...1. about security and the other deals with hardware.
UK's security branch says Ubuntu most secure end-user OS | ZDNet
10 reasons to choose Ubuntu 12.10 over Windows 8 | PCWorld

 

[MasterChief]

They did design their own Flash. It's called Silverlight.

I would have to disagree with that double it theory about min. requirements. It's the opposite. They give themselves overhead for a margin of error.

 

[ainteinstein]

Okay, if they designed their own Flash, Silverlight , why didn't they use it in IE? Or is Silverlight just another name for Flash?

I still stand by my "rule of thumb" on Microsoft's min requirements. Once you begin using adding programs etc to your system, it if doesn't slow down to crawl, it crashes.

 

[MasterChief]

Adding programs doesn't crash a system in any way, whatsoever, unless there is an inherent flaw in any particular program's driver(s) that should never be installed anyhow. Adding programs also does not slow a system down whatsoever, unless it uses resources like services or startup items (which more often that not can be disabled), and that is independent of the OS itself.

The reason Silverlight is not downloaded much and Flash is necessary, is because websites like Youtube and pr0n sites use Flash - and the only place I know of that uses Silverlight is Microsoft tutorials (I am sure there are other places though.)

 

[ainteinstein]

Gamers tend to run into that problem quite a bit along with those who use their computers for a recording studio. Microsoft gives you the min to run the OS, if you want to do more than run, let us say Windows 8, yes you at least need to up the RAM.

Interesting about Silverlight, I wonder why Microsoft did not just try to buy Flash?

 

[MasterChief]

lol I have a professional quality recording studio. See my specs. I game often too - hours every day.

No, you can run Windows very well with little RAM - even less than they demand officially.

Years ago when I had only 1 GB RAM then upgraded to 2 GB, I did not notice any performance difference - and you would be very hard pressed to find someone that uses computers in more ways than I do.

 

[ainteinstein]

I am amazed that you do not experience drop-out when recording with only 2 GB of RAM. Now gaming I could understand, depending on what games you play. What is interesting is the fact that I have been considering upping my old XP to 2 GB when, according to Microsoft the min is 128 mb. Although, nobody recommends that because that would be very slow. XP RAM equaling 7? I don't know...according to what I have read and experienced for my own use, even 8 is recommended at 4 GB. But hey, if it works for you who am I to question that?

How much RAM do I need? (Early 2013 edition) | ZDNet

 

[MasterChief]

My system/audio interface can record 8 discreet analog channels at once at 192 KHz, 24 bit, in addition to various digital inputs as well. Further, I can run demanding VST plugins that process the audio while recording - that is known as "wet" audio. Tracks for both "wet" and "dry" can be recorded simultaneously as well, so you can go back and remodel the sound to your liking after the fact of recording.

If I added another MOTU Traveler, I'd be able to double all that to have twice as many inputs.

It all worked well when I only had a P4 3.5 GHz and 1 GB DDR RAM - but then, I'd have to not put some VSTs on highest quality settings because CPU could not keep up with processing.

It also utilizes 4 separate mix buses that can be used simultaneously for 8 analog outputs and various digital ones too.

People recommend lots of things, lots of times. Doesn't mean it's wrong, doesn't mean it's gospel either.

Here is a screenshot of the Mixing Console that I use when not actually recording inside of a DAW:



I can tell you with full confidence of vast experience on 1 GB that this is trash (from the article you posted):

"Gaming with this much RAM is going to be painful, and carrying out tasks such as image processing or ripping a CD will pretty much take over the entire system. As for video editing, forget about it." <<< I stopped reading right there. (Maybe he is selling for the industry? lol How well ripping a cd goes does not depend on amount of RAM at all, too.) I've been using Photoshop since at least 2000 or so and never had any complaints in performance.

I'm a pioneer in video encoding and routines for the underground, and have developed many methods used widely, too.

I play latest games on my system very well, including titles like Crysis 3 etc...

 

[ainteinstein]

You do compromise by not being able to use the highest quality settings. For you, that works. For others, that is not where they would be willing to compromise. But then again, I ran the XP on min RAM where I know many would not have put up with that!

 

[MasterChief]

No. Now I have Pentium D 3.0 GHz instead of Pentium 4 3.4 GHz and I don't have to take VST off high any longer. Soon I'll be putting a Core 2 x6800 Extreme which benches at 3x the speed compared to what I have now.

 

[ainteinstein]

Believe me, I do follow what you do. But one must consider the simple people who buy what they can afford off the shelf. The simplest and cheapest upgrade for them is to increase their RAM.

 

[Tepid]

Believe me, I do follow what you do. But one must consider the simple people who buy what they can afford off the shelf. The simplest and cheapest upgrade for them is to increase their RAM.

That is true, and despite what MC says,, Ram upgrade/addition does improve stability and performance, up to a point.
The minimum on any new PC's today, imo, should not be less than 4G. but the majority of users will never need more than 4G.
So, really, modern PC's, and majority of people should not have less then 4G and do not need more than 4G.

When it comes to Gaming and other things, More is only sometimes better.
For Gaming, 6 to 8G would be the limit of what I would recommend. and really only 6G.

For Audio/Video, Photo, Art, VM's, etc. I wouldn't recommend less than 12G.
If that is the primary focus of that PC. And 64bit of course.

 

[MasterChief]

That is true, and despite what MC says,, Ram upgrade/addition does improve stability and performance, up to a point.

It can improve performance under certain situations, but it cannot improve stability. Actually, it can lessen stability because many times, people add extreme amounts of RAM and that often needs special attention to settings that they have no clue how to deal with.

I'm perfectly happy with my 2 GB DDR2 - I could put it to 4 GB but don't really care either way, to be honest. It's fine as it is.