Windows 8

I think this thread will end as soon as Win 9 appears

Just for fun I thought I'd see how Linux was these days. I was quite impressed because in a few minutes I got a version called Linux Mint to install off a USB drive which allowed post partitioning of the HD. Now get option to boot to Windows or Linux. Even did the wifi networking automatically. Great to use for just surfing, if left uncluttered it seemed much faster. Also it boots in seconds rather than minutes and shuts down almost instantly.
I should add I did this on a spare Laptop running XP in case it buggered anything up!
Dave

Windows 7 boots from switch on to desktop in less than 40 seconds here. And that's including OSL2000 boot manager. Shut down is less than 10 seconds.

Quite surprised to see this topic here, although everyone seems to be talking about Windows 8 these days so I suppose it makes sense.

Anyway, I figured - being one of the people who actually designed Metro - it might be an idea to clarify some more common misconceptions in this thread lol.

The full story with regards to the design of 8/Metro can be found on my blog here: link, but in summary:

1) Windows 8 isn't "designed for touch", or "touch-centric", or anything of the sort; it was designed to be interacted with primarily via the keyboard.

2) The new UI design arose, not out of a desire to make things touch friendly, but to remove unnecessary window decor aka "chrome" around content, and present that content in a consistent, well-structured way; typography and layout being the two main considerations.

3) Windows 8 isn't a supposed to be a "smartphone OS"; people who aren't in the know often assume that the Windows Phone 7 interface was ported to Windows 8; instead, WP7 was a test run for the Windows 8 UI. It was a relatively low-risk platform with miniscule market share compared to the other players, but demoing a completely new UI offers good media interest and allowed us to gauge public feedback.

4) The whole "every other OS is okay" stuff is nonsense, as is the "OSes aren't worth using until their first service pack"; it's just what people say when they realise they HAVE to upgrade. Also, if you look at things objectively, you'll notice that EVERY version of Windows has been significantly better than the last, with the exception of the old 9x days; the NT kernel tree was always far better than the 9x kernel tree, although with a pricetag to match at the time. Personally, I ran Windows NT 3.1 as soon as I got a copy, replacing WFW 3.11; then went to 3.51, then NT4, 2000, over to ME for a little while, until they finally merged the codebases with Neptune and then XP.

The "service pack 1" fallacy originally stemmed from businesses who used proprietary legacy libraries in their in-house applications which required redistribution (generally in a different format) when upgrading to the next major release; the "SP1 point" gave them enough time to migrate their code, basically justifying 'bums on seats' jobs for the duration. For home users and experts, migrating to the latest version is best done on release, or - where possible - as soon as it goes RTM. Experts will typically install beta releases MONTHS before RTM either in a VM, a dual boot config, or on a second machine.

5) NEVER use OEM-supplied "recovery disks" to install Windows. In doing so, you're also installing every single piece of crap they thought it'd be clever/financially beneficial to slipstream, which is itself the reason why you have "problems". Performance issues, random crashes (when not caused by faulty hardware), and security flaws are all typically caused by the crapware OEMs push onto your systems at install time. Save yourself a hell of a lot of headaches and grab the official MSDN disk images off a torrent site and use your existing product key to install/activate. Make sure you've got a copy of your network drivers on a USB key first, then you can generally get the rest off the manufacturer's website or Windows Update.

6) Installing XP today is literally insanity. Even on older (I'm talking Pentium 200, here) systems, you're better off installing Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, which is based on the NT5.2 (Windows Server 2003) kernel, or Windows Thin PC, which is based on the NT6.1 (Windows 7) kernel.

XP is SLOWER than NT6 (Vista/7/ on all systems quicker than a Pentium 3 1Ghz, and about the same speed but less secure on older hardware.

Anyway, that's all I can think of for now

EDIT: Oh yeah, on a UEFI motherboard like mine, Windows 8 boots from POST to desktop in around 6 seconds.

Thanks for the interesting read, think it clears up a few misconceptions.

Is there any sign of MS bringing out a decent Filemanager?

People still struggle along with the old but Excellent Winfile from
NT4 or ME..... Much better with the free StepUp for NT extension.

I find it OK/ indispensable under XP but unusable with 7
because confirm doesn't work.


http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~davidsch/vistafm/
paste or try this_one

also see....

http://www.brydon.net/winfile/

-

I had a couple of new laptops lined up in John Lewis this afternoon, credit card primed for purchase, absolutely had decided spec-wise I was getting one of them, both Windows 8.

Asked the sales guy to demo how to quickly get to a desktop screen like windows 7 so I could start copying files over and installing software - well it went fairly pear-shaped from there. Explorer shortcut on taskbar was invalid, couldn't get any libraries to open, when eventually he managed to 'search' on the metro screen and find a 'computer' folder (apparently the only way???) the DVD drive was missing (physically it was there).

Also clicking on the live tiles opened full screen images with no menus or seemingly any way to control them. I know I just need to learn it all but frankly, I'll have to try and uninstall all the apps for social media first, then learn a new way to navigate around. The sales guy also said people were having trouble installing full versions of programs if an 'app' version was pre-installed.

In the end I was totally scared off - walked out. I am now going to buy a Windows 7 machine online. I want to get on with my photo and video work, not have to spend my time removing stuff and jumping through hoops just to get the OS to work for me!!

I can't see any reason to "upgrade" to Win8 and going by your tale of woe it seems it would be easier to install Linux and learn GIMP

Cheaper too! But a lot of us are commited to Windows through our software options - Apple is a viable alternative for some, and the big name programs are available on that platform, but the hardware is expensive and the range of compatable programs more limited.

I don't need to upgrade my OS, it works fine, I need to upgrade my laptop to a more powerful specification - its just that most of the new ones out now have Windows 8.

Sorry, but all of these "issues" are just an example of the sales guy not having a clue lol. There's nothing wrong with the shortcut to explorer on the taskbar, and Metro is SUPPOSED to be fullscreen. Also, there's physically no way that Metro apps can conflict with desktop apps and vice-versa, it's a completely separate, sandboxed environment.

Well I'm simply going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Maybe Windows 8 breaks this cycle, but given I'm running Win 7 without any problems, I've got no reason to upgrade to Windows 8. By the time I upgrade my machine Windows 8 will be history and I'll install Win 7 ( for legacy like I have XP on another boot partition on m y current machine ) and what ever the next incarnation of windows is ( assuming it's been tried and tested in the feild and got the thumbs up from actua users and not those with either a commercial or personal bias )

Just been looking into this metro business. Looks like superfluous nonsense to me. I turned all the Aero stuff of Win 7 too.

This page along with it's comments doesn't speak highly of metro ....

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138847-the-metro-desktop-interaction-in-win...


From what I can see the Windows 8 new UI looks like it would be OK on tablets and phones that have touchscreens, but rubbish for a desktop. if I had windows I'd turn it off straight away and use the regular desktop ( assuming one can do so )

You can't turn off the Metro interface in Windows 8, there is no 'classic' option, though there are 3rd party bits of software that will put the start menu back, etc.

I've had a play with it and didn't have any issues personally, though I do tend to launch most things from the Run dialog box or use keyboard shortcuts anyway and all these are the same in Windows 8 as previous versions. Losing the 'Start' button isn't the issue a lot of people make it out to be.

I don't have the urge to rush out and upgrade though.

No, you're wrong. There're an example of the OS interface not providing what this customer wants, so he won't be buying it.

I clicked on the windows shortcut many times myself, every time up comes an error message 'invalid shortcut'. Actually the Peter Jones guy was very knowledgable in general, He was realistic about the options and didn't try to push something that apparently didn't work and was unsuitable for the user. If he had a windows 7 machine for sale with suitable specs I'd have bought it from him.

Is that the next version coming out? I would like windows & as I am running XP home edition at the mo.

Where is the best place to get it please?