Don't hate Windows 8!

Windows 8 takes a lot of getting used to, but it's the best OS made by Microsoft, and could be the best OS ever made by anyone...

Windows 8 is really hard to get used to. Really, really hard.

Don't get me wrong, even when when you're running through the install process, Windows 8 looks absolutely fabulous. Never before has so much elegance been wrought from such basic use of colour and typography. It's beautiful from the get-go.

But when you get to the Start screen -- well, it's really that where it starts to fall apart for people.

I started using Windows 8 full-time on March 1st 2012, just under eight months ago. Soon after starting I wrote a particularly harsh article about what I thought of it. Over the weeks and months that followed, I grew to really enjoy using Windows 8 and -- in all honesty -- regretted being quite so harsh.

Read more at source:
Don't hate Windows 8! | ZDNet

 

[startas]

Well, it's not just that stupid start screen or few hot corners that's annoying in windows 8 - it's the whole mobile phone user interface, like when you press on network icon in taskbar...

 

[makaveli316]

Once windows 9 is released, people will be like " What a crappy OS, i will stick with my windows 8"......

 

[steveb]

Once windows 9 is released, people will be like " What a crappy OS, i will stick with my windows 8"......

Not if you can turn off the infernal Metro in which case there will be street parties and celebration throughout the land!

 

[whs]

They are not worried too much about anything as you can see from how they stripped down their main desktop OS and simply threw a tablet gui onto an updated core and called it a day as opposed to not seeing the commercial interests always onboard. The mobile market was recent with the Windows Phone while tablet has actually been around for a decade. The only thing however is that you never saw a tablet gui tossed onto any previous version like 8 has seen since MS got into manufacturing their own tablets.

Boy you make creating a new OS sound simple, which is what they did, Windows is just an App. I personally like Windows 8 and what MS is trying to achieve. Considering I can do all the same things on Windows 8 as I can on Windows 7 I'm happy.

So why do we need it if we can do only everything we can do with Windows 7.

 

[makaveli316]

Once windows 9 is released, people will be like " What a crappy OS, i will stick with my windows 8"......

Not if you can turn off the infernal Metro in which case there will be street parties and celebration throughout the land!

I also hate the metro crap, but it doesn't bother me at all. I don't even use it.

There are plenty of shortcuts to access anything that is on the metro crap. It's faster and you don't need to see the metro interface.

I've customized it to bypass the metro on boot and even if i couldn't, it wouldn't be a problem for me, cause i use Intel Rapid Start Technology, i don't shut down my pc, i enter in hibernation/sleep mode. I only restart after windows or other updates, so that's also not a problem for me.

In the end, if we put Metro aside, windows 8 is better than 7 in every aspect.

 

[startas]

So why do we need it if we can do only everything we can do with Windows 7.

Thats the whole point, that there is no real need for windows 8 for pc (Windows 8 was created for mobile devices, tablets, bricks...), like long time ago, when we had xp and vista - xp was great, but it was too sensitive and too young - too many BSOD's and other things, and vista was just first step to the future. Windows 7 is all we really need - its more optimized (because of time), it has great UI, its less buggy, there is no noticeable improvements from os side in windows 8, the only thing left to improve is to upgrade hardware. I actually like myself windows 8 windows visual style, square corners, those minimize-maximize buttons, new task manager, but there is too much bad things that i dont like, that i mentioned in post #61, plus more incompatibility even with new software, so i will stay with 7 for a while.

 

[jimbo45]

So why do we need it if we can do only everything we can do with Windows 7.

Thats the whole point, that there is no real need for windows 8 for pc (Windows 8 was created for mobile devices, tablets, bricks...), like long time ago, when we had xp and vista - xp was great, but it was too sensitive and too young - too many BSOD's and other things, and vista was just first step to the future. Windows 7 is all we really need - its more optimized (because of time), it has great UI, its less buggy, there is no noticeable improvements from os side in windows 8, the only thing left to improve is to upgrade hardware. I actually like myself windows 8 windows visual style, square corners, those minimize-maximize buttons, new task manager, but there is too much bad things that i dont like, that i mentioned in post #61, plus more incompatibility even with new software, so i will stay with 7 for a while.

Hi there
Os'es always change

For starters W8 has HUGELY better security than W7 -- the whole way this is implemented means that the kernel is essentially largely re-written - i that by any definition is a New OS. It wasn't possible easily to retro fit the new security implementation to W7.

Other improvements -overall optimisation of code, mounting and handling of virtual ISO's, better hardware support etc etc .Even if you don't like W8 there would have been a replacement for W7 sooner or later as there will in time be one for W8.

I'll bet you can take almost any of the myriad Linux distributions out there - just go back several releases and the same applies -- even Linux releases are updated frequently.

The argument that runs "If we can do everything with X why do we need Y" is so fatuous as to hardly merit comment.

Just to take a simple argument - :We can write everything we want using pen and paper -- why should we use word processing tools (Word etc). Or we can calculate by hand - why do we need EXCEL etc.

'Nuf said on that argument.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[whs]

Jimbo, that is a thin argument. Where is the beef.

The security is only better because MSE was flimsy. With a proper AV program, Windows 7 is secure.

 

[labeeman]

Jimbo, that is a thin argument. Where is the beef.

The security is only better because MSE was flimsy. With a proper AV program, Windows 7 is secure.

Lets hope it is beef.

Whoa, there: Horsemeat passed off as beef | The Advertiser | theadvertiser.com

 

[Night Hawk]

I'm going to bluntly sum up some of the angst against Windows 8: user ignorance/lack of knowledge about using it.

Many problems would be gone in Windows 8 for many people IF they KNEW how to use it effectively. Most don't so most hate it just because they can't figure it out and sometimes don't even try to learn it and would rather toss it out the window.

But some people don't like it for other reasons...

Blunt but as usual consistently off the mark.

Just more of the I like it and why the hell don't you also. It's a lame argument.

Hasn't that been the case for each new version that has come out over the years? Some will immediately admonish the latest while others will simply frown at it! This time around I had to frown on how MS went about things.

I liked Vista while others hated it but found 7 to be Numero Uno #1 to date. And definitely keep planning to run 7 as long as it can be run until something better does actually come along!

Now that is from practical "hands on" type experience while others will jump up and down raving about 8 I wouldn't consider the trend of things to come exactly but a move yet to be understand by MS. When the MS competitors are scratching their heads that right there should say a lot.

 

[Night Hawk]

Jimbo, that is a thin argument. Where is the beef.

The security is only better because MSE was flimsy. With a proper AV program, Windows 7 is secure.

That's understating it a little! The original MS SE didn't do much of anything besides being free. The critics rate it less then av industry standards while the updated form now labeled Windows Defender in 8 actually does detect and remove bugs. I found that out when running the Customer Preview where the other program to find bugs hidden inside zip files downloads was the regular av software I have now been running for nearly 3 full years.

AVG always missed them. Avast missed them when that one was looked at. MS finally did one thing you know is right with 8 as far as how well what they call system protection does. The original Windows Defender as you know never did anything either. It's simply a shame they slapped a tablet gui on an otherwise improved core for a desktop release over not redoing the desktop gui as thay always have done until now with every other version.

 

[lehnerus2000]

In the end, if we put Metro aside, windows 8 is better than 7 in every aspect.

If you ignore the colour scheme and missing customisation options.

 

[Ray8]

Windows Defender is exactly the same as Microsoft Security Essentials, only it's installed by default, unlike MSE which you have to download and install. The first iteration of MSE wasn't great, but the second iteration came of age.

 

[Night Hawk]

I wouldn't necessarily regard 8 or any newer version as better in every aspect since that is too much of wide statement to begin with. Often you may find something missing in the latest is what you would like to see brought back in the newer!

For 7 the sidebar and Classic themes would be an item there at times. With 8 3rd party apps are having a highlight for the start button or orb as well as the programs menu.

Of course the one thing lacking in 8 is the fact that things like the Start screen only allow color shading and no other options for changing the background as well as overall look! Drab as heck is what most would say. It doesn't provide the user with options for giving Win 8 the "personal feel and look" many want!

 

[Ray8]

It doesn't provide the user with options for giving Win 8 the "personal feel and look" many want!

But don't you see? Microsoft views that as a feature. When you go from your 23" dual monitor Windows 8 desktop to your Windows Phone, you won't be confused and lost, wondering how on earth you can find things on your phone, you'll see that all so familiar interface and feel so at home. Big smiles and warm feelings all over!

 

[Rukiri]

So why do we need it if we can do only everything we can do with Windows 7.

Thats the whole point, that there is no real need for windows 8 for pc (Windows 8 was created for mobile devices, tablets, bricks...), like long time ago, when we had xp and vista - xp was great, but it was too sensitive and too young - too many BSOD's and other things, and vista was just first step to the future. Windows 7 is all we really need - its more optimized (because of time), it has great UI, its less buggy, there is no noticeable improvements from os side in windows 8, the only thing left to improve is to upgrade hardware. I actually like myself windows 8 windows visual style, square corners, those minimize-maximize buttons, new task manager, but there is too much bad things that i dont like, that i mentioned in post #61, plus more incompatibility even with new software, so i will stay with 7 for a while.

Hi there
Os'es always change

For starters W8 has HUGELY better security than W7 -- the whole way this is implemented means that the kernel is essentially largely re-written - i that by any definition is a New OS. It wasn't possible easily to retro fit the new security implementation to W7.

Other improvements -overall optimisation of code, mounting and handling of virtual ISO's, better hardware support etc etc .Even if you don't like W8 there would have been a replacement for W7 sooner or later as there will in time be one for W8.

I'll bet you can take almost any of the myriad Linux distributions out there - just go back several releases and the same applies -- even Linux releases are updated frequently.

The argument that runs "If we can do everything with X why do we need Y" is so fatuous as to hardly merit comment.

Just to take a simple argument - :We can write everything we want using pen and paper -- why should we use word processing tools (Word etc). Or we can calculate by hand - why do we need EXCEL etc.

'Nuf said on that argument.

Cheers
jimbo

Most Linux distro's are updated every 6-8 months to keep up with kernel development, I will say that linux is far more secure than windows that it's not even funny and for the vendors that support linux (if you're using a source based distro) will generally run far better than the binary and it's windows counterpart. But Windows has games so while Linux may be better but gaming is still a far cry even with steam on linux.

 

[startas]

Most Linux distro's are updated every 6-8 months to keep up with kernel development, I will say that linux is far more secure than windows that it's not even funny and for the vendors that support linux (if you're using a source based distro) will generally run far better than the binary and it's windows counterpart. But Windows has games so while Linux may be better but gaming is still a far cry even with steam on linux.

There is a little hidden thing - almost no one fkn care about linux, cause it is worse than windows in every aspect, and it has very few drivers from hardware vendors, most of "drivers" are just mini software that has no control that windows drivers has, and things like Usage share of operating systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia must say something.

What about windows security, i use windows 7 for a few years without any antivirus and havent catched yet any virus, it's more about people, if they go to sites like crakzzzzzzzzzzzz.cn, then no os will make them safe - it's like living in the middle of the field of world war 3, no shield will help you
And i dont really care about mobile phones, cause it firstly must be phone, but today it's not phone, it's big brick with too much functions and slow and bad os for mobile phones...

 

[Hopachi]

Usage share of operating systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia must say something.

XP was still big when I checked.
Win8 just started to show up.
Linux has ONE good solid percent.

 

[lehnerus2000]

That depends ...

There is a little hidden thing - almost no one fkn care about linux, cause it is worse than windows in every aspect, ...

Depends on your definition of, "... worse in every aspect, ...".

Linux:

• Uses less RAM (~400MB vs ~1.2GB)
• Uses less HDD/SSD space (~6GB vs ~20GB)
• Is immune to most Viruses and Worms that are prowling the Internet
• Runs VMs in VMware run faster and smoother.
• Costs $0

... and it has very few drivers from hardware vendors, most of "drivers" are just mini software that has no control that windows drivers has, and things like Usage share of operating systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia must say something.

Linux Mint 14 ran my Radeon HD6450 and my onboard sound card out of the box, Windows couldn't (W8CP & W8RP couldn't run my onboard sound even after I installed the driver).

Windows main advantages are:

• Games
• Business software
• Ease of software installation

People use Windows at work, so why would they bother to learn how to use a different OS on their home PCs?

BTW, I use Windows for >95% of my personal computing.

 

[Hopachi]

Linux:

• Uses less RAM (~400MB vs ~1.2GB)
• Uses less HDD/SSD space (~6GB vs ~20GB)
• Is immune to most Viruses and Worms that are prowling the Internet
• Runs VMs in VMware run faster and smoother.
• Costs $0

This is all true and tested.

The VM thing is because they decided to make a full x64 native build of VMware on Linux and not on Windows (because syswow64 can handle all 32bit stuff and they all get lazy making and not making 64bit natives).

The average man doesn't care what he runs: it's working in a single click and that's more important.