Last edited by Brink; 28 Feb 2014 at 18:49. Reason: fixed quote
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.
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).
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.
This was complained about by so many that MS made the change.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.
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?
Decore8 provides zero functionality to the start screen. it is purely cosmetic, and I thought you hated the Metro GUI?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.
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.
Keep in mind that, the App Store is new, how long did it take Android and Apple to get a proper store?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.
They have had several years. Give it time.
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
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.
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.