Windows 8 is the new Windows Vista...

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Windows 8 is the new Windows Vista...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

4962 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#970013 20-Jan-2014 14:22

I have just revived an old HP laptop that had Vista on it with Windows 8. It used to take about 3 years to start up, ran like a dog and was just generally rubbish.
Win8 has transformed it. Start up is quick. Apps load instantly. And it's all running on old hardware with 4GB of RAM.

Metro is excellent. Simple swipe from the right hit Start and there are all my apps how I want them. Not how the Start menu says I should have them.
Then when the desktop is required Classic Shell removes any need to complain about the lack of one button. If anything Win 8 makes you more productive because it is some times quicker to use the keyboard shortcuts that have been in Windows for years.

Win 8 was a big win IMO.

Seems people just get sh1tty because a single button on the taskbar was gone. Oh the horror!!

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#970023 20-Jan-2014 14:42

MaxLV:

Nothing ill conceived about Metro at all IMHO. It's just another way to access programmes, and it's a lot easier to use than the old start button where your had to remember which folder programmes were in, and often navigate through multiple levels of folders just to find what you're looking for. Either that or everything has been dumped in one folder and you have to spend minute scrolling up and down trying to what you're looking for.

As a touch-screen interface it is "Ok"...still not as good or intuitive overall as IOS or Android IMHO, but I am sure it will catch-up.

Where it fell down horribly for me on a normal desktop/laptop with a decent amount of screen real estate is that by default, it forces you into using these full-screen apps (with limited functionality and interface options) which is anathema to productivity when compared to using multiple, user-scalable/tile-able windows with full drop-down menus and functions. The default apps for imaging, videos, audio, PDFs etc etc all do this.

Yes I know it is easily changeable for those that know how, but A) not everyone does know how and B) why would it force a worse user experience on you rather than given you a simple option to chose what kind of device you are working on?

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I also found it very jarring transitioning repeatedly from full screen "Metro Start" back to a "real desktop" application when searching/launching as well.

I certainly don't bemoan the lack of the old school Start button per se, but the replacement wasn't a viable alternative for me and many others.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#970044 20-Jan-2014 15:25

It must be true, it's in a Blog.

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#970154 20-Jan-2014 17:19

Honestly didn't have much issue with Vista and still run it on two PC's here without issue, I run Windows 7 Pro on my main PC.

Drop the price further to within the range of Mac OS and I might consider going to Win 8, otherwise I will stick with Win7 until I forced to upgrade, due to hardware or other issues.

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#970157 20-Jan-2014 17:23

I feel Windows 8 is almost the exact opposite of Vista.

Vista was well designed, had an interface that worked, was designed for the way the majority of users used it (keyboard+mouse, no touch screen), and was intuitive and familiar with older versions of Windows. The issue with Vista was performance. I never had much of an issue with this because I had relatively high end hardware. In fact, my 2007 Vista box is still functional, used frequently for many tasks, and still works fine. But pre-SP1, particularly if you had been suckered by Microsoft's information on the minimum hardware specs needed to run it acceptably, it ran like an absolute dog. Vista's big problem was bugs and performance.

In total contrast, Windows 8 seems to perform well and flys even on lower-end machines. However, it suffers from an totally, utterly execrable user interface. Designed around a tablet paradigm and for hardware that most laptop/desktop users don't have (touchscreen etc), and are unlikely to have for some time.

Performance and feature wise I would have it in a heartbeat. If only it wasn't for the abominable UI. Give me an option that properly restores the start button/menus and never, ever, ever, exposes me to something that looks like Metro and I will quickly upgrade.

My next machine will likely be Win7. I have already priced the build I want from an OEM. I don't want the god-awful UI. Also, given that it will be on a KVM with a Vista box and a Win7 box, I don't want the UI paradigm changing totally every time I press a button.

BruceHamilton

77 posts

Master Geek

#970199 20-Jan-2014 18:26

I'm using Windows 8.1 with Office 2013 on a HDD desktop and non-touchscreen SSD laptop, having switched from XP/Office 2003 laptop/desktop systems - mainly because the imminent lack of support for XP. I've used windows 8/8.1 for almost 12 months, and find the interface, reliability, and performance work extremely well.

Windows 8 family works well for me. My major gripe would be that many of the default "features/apps" irrelevant to me are time-consuming to annihilate, and that Office 2013 has way too many choices for my use. They should allow simpler initial configurations.

I also use daily two systems using NT 4.0, two with XP sp3, and will keep those running - but isolated from the Internet. The few times I have to reboot NT4 ( start of each year after holiday shutdown ), I'm always surprised how quickly it starts compared to all later versions of Windows, except 8/8.1 on SSD.

My iPad, with about 20% of the utilisation of the laptop, needs to be rebooted more often. One happy Windows 8.1 camper....

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#970216 20-Jan-2014 18:56

MaxLV:
An opinion piece isn't 'news'. It's from someone who used to be Microsoft's most famous number one Fan boy. I really have to wonder why he decided it was a good 'story' to publish.

Here's a few more "opinion pireces" for you:

What Windows 9 Must Do To Avoid Flopping Like Windows 8[

Windows 9 release date, news: Microsoft plans 2015 release and move away from Windows 8

Windows 9 slated for 2015 - The next version of Windows is slated to arrive by April 2015 as the current version, Windows 8, is "tanking".

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#970293 20-Jan-2014 21:00

MaxLV: With Metro you can set up all your apps, desktop, Windows Programmes, data locations, etc in their own named group and simply scroll left or right to find what you're looking for and click once. That beats a multilevel start button menu system hands down, and it works just as well with a mouse and keyboard as it does with a touch screen.

Although you could do this on the desktop also - replace the 'group' with 'folder'. The only real difference is a tile is customisable.

MaxLV: The criticism of Windows 8/8.1 is ALL about the Metro Interface, and how people 'dont like it' because it's different to the Start button. Not that it doesn't work, or that Windows 8/8.1 is buggy, slow, like Vista...

Fixed.

Bang on here - a large majority of people simply hate the interface. It's too different and requires a learning curve people hate having forced on them. Resistance to change is a very basic human trait and one you'd think the UI developers should've had a good handle on. They didn't and the real sales of Win8/8.1 (as opposed to the forced OEM sales) are why the headline has been bandied about.

Off topic but related to my previous comment: I used a beta preview of Win8 and hated the interface from both an intuitive usability and aesthetic* pov, especially the single-tasking apps which took up the entire screen. I was also unimpressed with the removal of WMC as using this (and having it act as a server) is one of the primary functions of my main computer. This second point was the deal-breaker for me as there's no way I'm going to pay for a feature reduced version of something I already have and which works perfectly well. On the flip side, I was very impressed with the noticeable speed improvements (especially boot) and overall slickness of the product.

I was happy to pay to upgrade from Vista to Win7 - there's absolutely nothing compelling about Win8/8.1 that would ever cause me to part with my hard earned dollars for it.

* a 25" screen running 1920 x 1200 = a small amount of clustered tiles and a vast expanse of ugly nothing.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#970352 20-Jan-2014 22:58

Buzz Bumble:
MaxLV:
An opinion piece isn't 'news'. It's from someone who used to be Microsoft's most famous number one Fan boy. I really have to wonder why he decided it was a good 'story' to publish.

Here's a few more "opinion pireces" for you:

What Windows 9 Must Do To Avoid Flopping Like Windows 8[

Windows 9 release date, news: Microsoft plans 2015 release and move away from Windows 8

Windows 9 slated for 2015 - The next version of Windows is slated to arrive by April 2015 as the current version, Windows 8, is "tanking".

Yeah, you're right, they're opinion pieces, all about the author's opinions from the first opinion piece.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#970360 20-Jan-2014 23:19

JimmyH: I feel Windows 8 is almost the exact opposite of Vista.

Vista was well designed, had an interface that worked, was designed for the way the majority of users used it (keyboard+mouse, no touch screen), and was intuitive and familiar with older versions of Windows. The issue with Vista was performance. I never had much of an issue with this because I had relatively high end hardware. In fact, my 2007 Vista box is still functional, used frequently for many tasks, and still works fine. But pre-SP1, particularly if you had been suckered by Microsoft's information on the minimum hardware specs needed to run it acceptably, it ran like an absolute dog. Vista's big problem was bugs and performance.

In total contrast, Windows 8 seems to perform well and flys even on lower-end machines. However, it suffers from an totally, utterly execrable user interface. Designed around a tablet paradigm and for hardware that most laptop/desktop users don't have (touchscreen etc), and are unlikely to have for some time.

Performance and feature wise I would have it in a heartbeat. If only it wasn't for the abominable UI. Give me an option that properly restores the start button/menus and never, ever, ever, exposes me to something that looks like Metro and I will quickly upgrade.

My next machine will likely be Win7. I have already priced the build I want from an OEM. I don't want the god-awful UI. Also, given that it will be on a KVM with a Vista box and a Win7 box, I don't want the UI paradigm changing totally every time I press a button.

Yes, the problem with windows 8.1 is not the actual perforamcne of the OS, which performs better than previous versions. It even performs better than XP on my machine. The probelm is the interface, with the desktop part of it, and how it works with the metro touch screen part. But then again, you are trying try to merge a 30 +year old OS interface, with an new style touch screen interface with tiles, that is less than 5 years old. It is that jarring gap when you switch between the two, and how some things are metro, while other things are desktop, which is the problem. Metro is not a bad touch screen interface, and in some places it is better than IOS, but in other parts worse, but it is reaolly only any good on touch screen devices. It is painful to use with a mouse on dual screen. Really they should never have recmoeved the start menu, and given that as an option for desktop users.. People don't want to go to a full screen touch screen interface to access their desktop programs, that was just madness. I can certianly think of ways they could have done it better as I am a designer, but I am not paid the millions to do that. I am glad though that the next version of windows will very likely fix the problems.

The other thing is that the removal of things like tranparent windows, flip 3d and widgets, it does dumb down the desktop interface back to windows 95. I think windows 7 / Vista is a far more beautiful interface, and IOS 7 has 'borrowed' some of those advancements with it's overlays. The removal though probably helps with improving it's performance on tablet devices, but I doubt by a huge amount, esp as they will only get more powerful

gundar

488 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#971688 21-Jan-2014 14:45

KiwiNZ: It must be true, it's in a Blog.

It's an opinion until you add a stock photo.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#972474 22-Jan-2014 20:24

According to Computerworld and The Enquirer it seems HP has recognised that a lot of people don't want Windows 8, and it's holding back PC sales. Responding to the perception of Windows 8, they are bringing back and overtly marketing Windows 7 as an option on their consumer machines.

"HP is now preloading most of its PCs with Windows 7 as standard, with Windows 8 having been relegated to an optional customisation."

They even appear to be offering a discount as an incentive to take the Win7 option.

Given that HP is (I think) the second biggest OEM on the planet, this vote of no confidence in Win8 seems pretty significant?

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#972518 22-Jan-2014 23:45

JimmyH: According to Computerworld and The Enquirer it seems HP has recognised that a lot of people don't want Windows 8, and it's holding back PC sales. Responding to the perception of Windows 8, they are bringing back and overtly marketing Windows 7 as an option on their consumer machines.

"HP is now preloading most of its PCs with Windows 7 as standard, with Windows 8 having been relegated to an optional customisation."

They even appear to be offering a discount as an incentive to take the Win7 option.

Given that HP is (I think) the second biggest OEM on the planet, this vote of no confidence in Win8 seems pretty significant?

Also from the Computer World 'article'.

HP's selection of Windows 7 consumer-grade machines is small, just five models: Two notebooks and three desktops, with discounted prices starting at $480 and topping out at $1,000. By comparison, HP listed 68 different Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 laptop, desktop and hybrid models on its for-consumer website Monday.

So, again it's an opinion piece, not letting the facts get in the way of a sensationalist headline. (seen it all before with every new version of Windows...)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#972526 22-Jan-2014 23:59

And once it got into the blogging echo chamber it got a gigantic dimension and life of its own...

deepred

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#973152 23-Jan-2014 20:25

From past experience, Vista, for all its issues, didn't seem to cause the kind of desktop/laptop slump that's been associated with Windows 8.

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6