13
Contributors
30
Replies
111
Views
3 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Reverend Jim
Featured Replies
  • >they likely also wanted something new and shiny to justify selling a new OS I definitely agree. Ooooh. Shiny. Must have. Supporting tablets is worthwhile but forcing a touch-based interface (Metro) on laptop/desktop users was a big whoops. My former place of work has a few thousand computers and I … Read More

  • In my pre-retirement job, mistakes were tolerated (everyone makes one from time to time) but it was a given that if a mistake was made that it would be corrected. My calling Microsoft's decision boneheaded is not intolerance. It's an opinion. And judging from Microsoft's reaction, it is an opinion … Read More

  • > why switch to windows 8? Do these reasons count: - Mental illness - Masochism - Seeking relief from the fat wallet syndrome I'm just kidding. ;) I've never used Windows 8, so I can't really comment. > Because any mistake cannot be tolerated? Sometimes I think that the Microsoft … Read More

0

none really ,works a bit faster maybe ,unless you want to experience a totally different look ,most avid win7 users disklike win8 so much they install classic shell or some other software to make it act and look like win7.
personally i really like win8 and leave it the way it is .iam using win8.1.1 latest update .

Edited by caperjack

0

If you're happy with Windows 7, there's no need to upgrade. It's really that simple. Even folks who are still on XP choose to stay despite it no longer being supported by Microsoft.

I'm also using a base install of Windows 8.1 for my home system and quite happy with it.

0

One reason not to upgrade to Windows 8 is because a few programs that run ok on win 7 won't run on win 8, such as M$ Office 2010. I tried for over a week to get office 2010 to work on win 8 and every attempt failed. Finally bought office 365.

0

I tried for over a week to get office 2010 to work on win 8 and every attempt failed. Finally bought office 365.

That's seems odd, that a recent Microsoft application suite wouldn't run on a recent Microsoft OS. I actually use Kingsoft at home though, which works just peachy on Windows 8, and is free.

Edited by deceptikon

0

Application support is poor in Windows 8
But after 1-2 years you got to think of higher updates as Windows 7 will get outdated.

0

There is no real need, altough with the new 8.1 update 1 it should be better then before.

0

update 1 is better ,mine seems faster lol .,microsft has lower the requirements fron 2 gig ram to 1gig and from 20gig hdd to 17gig ,main reason so tablets and such will work better

Edited by caperjack

0

I installed Windows 8 and it's interface is so unfamilier. I'm really happy with Windows 7. so i re installed 7. It allows me to do what ever i want in few seconds.. But 8 isn't. Also i couldn't find a driver to my printer on windows 8.. So i prefer windows 7.

0

Windows 8 features a new interface and support for touch-screen displays, which might interest a few people, but I see no compelling reason for desktop users to upgrade.

Edited by LaxLoafer

0

I installed Windows 8 and it's interface is so unfamilier.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion. However, it strikes me as a little odd that people are so unwilling to learn something new and immediately run back to the familiar.

Edited by deceptikon

0

And we're back to the real debate. Is the Windows 8/8.1 interface significantly better than Windows 7 or is it just different? If it is that much better then that's just fine, but if not then it is just change for the sake of change and that is not fine and M$ could have made the "under the hood" changes and left the interface alone. But then who would shell out the bucks to upgrade for changes that are not visible?

0

Because people not wanting to learn new things, MS has changed 8.1 so it starts up on the desktop, the shutdown button is visible in the start screen, and apps now have a close and minimize button...

0

MS has changed 8.1 so it starts up on the desktop,

Mine doesn't. It still starts on the metro screen. [edit]Nevermind, I figured it out how to do that. Google is wonderful!

is the Windows 8/8.1 interface significantly better than Windows 7 o

IMO no, it's actually a little more difficult.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

Is the Windows 8/8.1 interface significantly better than Windows 7 or is it just different?

Therein lies the rub. "Better" is subjective. As a desktop OS, I would describe it as different, but not so different as to deserve the bad press. As an OS that runs on both my desktop and my tablet, the consistency is a big win, in my opinion. Since the goal seems to have been an OS that's suitable for tablets as well as desktops and servers, I don't think Microsoft missed the mark too much. And this is after having experience in all three arenas.

Much like moving from Windows to Linux or vice versa where the interface is different, there's a learning curve, but it's not a steep one.

And I feel that the improvements under the hood justify that learning curve, which is why I run Windows 8.1 on my personal machines.

Also note that Microsoft is listening to feedback and improving the interface. Barring the start button fiasco where the UI designers basically gave us the finger by adding a button that takes you to the start screen between 8 and 8.1, I'm seeing things moving in a positive direction. You really can't ask for much more given that the Windows 8 UI design is a step away from the tried and true OS interface. Novelty takes time to nail down the details.

0

Because people not wanting to learn new things

My argument was not that I am unwilling to learn new things. My argument is that there should be a compelling reason for having to learn a new interface. If the reason is "we changed the interface because we could" then that is not a compelling reason. That's just change for the sake of change and is a pain in the a$$ for corporations who must now provide training for all employees and suffer a decrease in productivity during the learning curve. If the reason is "the new interface is easier to use and is more efficient" then I'd like to know how that might have been determined. You'd have had to do studies with people using the new interface in order to prove this, and you'd have to already have developed the new interface in order to to the studies in which case this is an after-the-fact argument which is trying to justify a possibly bad decision.

And I feel that the improvements under the hood justify that learning curve

Why couldn't they have made the improvements under the hood and left the interface alone? Because only people really concerned with performance would have bothered with the upgrade.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Why couldn't they have made the improvements under the hood and left the interface alone?

Clearly because of Microsoft's new direction into tablets and consistency across platforms. If the only goal were backend improvements, I'd agree with you. I'm still not sure the consistency thing is even a good approach, but I've found it quite pleasant in my personal computing. At work I'm doubtful that it's of benefit at this point, in which case the UI change can be viewed as painful and unnecessary.

Supporting tablets probably isn't the only reason, but it's the most publicly touted one. In reality, they likely also wanted something new and shiny to justify selling a new OS rather than trying to get away with charging for a service pack.

1

they likely also wanted something new and shiny to justify selling a new OS

I definitely agree. Ooooh. Shiny. Must have.

Supporting tablets is worthwhile but forcing a touch-based interface (Metro) on laptop/desktop users was a big whoops. My former place of work has a few thousand computers and I can see the Metro interface being useful for only a very few employees.

0

huh!!!.. yep.. thatz funny.. :-) it's true.. if someone doesn't like something, don't use it.. don't criticize.. brothers...

0

Once again, I know the Metro screen can be disabled. The point is that Micosoft originally tried to force the Metro screen as the default and I believe that this was a boneheaded decision which they have been steadily retreating from. We'll see how much when Windows 9 is released.

0

The point is that Micosoft originally tried to force the Metro screen as the default and I believe that this was a boneheaded decision which they have been steadily retreating from.

Because any mistake cannot be tolerated? Sometimes I think that the Microsoft hate is taken a little too far. Innovation involves risk of mistakes, and an iterative approach as real feedback comes in (not just focus groups) is totally expected. Everyone loves XP now, but when it first came out there were similar complaints that were corrected in service packs.

1

In my pre-retirement job, mistakes were tolerated (everyone makes one from time to time) but it was a given that if a mistake was made that it would be corrected. My calling Microsoft's decision boneheaded is not intolerance. It's an opinion. And judging from Microsoft's reaction, it is an opinion that is widely shared. Microsoft took a big hit to their credibility with Vista and they responded with Windows 7. Presumably Windows 9 will be to Windows 8.x what Windows 7 was to Vista.

Yes, Win95 was worse but if you consider the evolution from DOS, then Windows 3.x, successive versions of Windows have tried to improve on previous versions with a few stumbles along the way.

But WinMe was just crap.

1

why switch to windows 8?

Do these reasons count:

  • Mental illness
  • Masochism
  • Seeking relief from the fat wallet syndrome

I'm just kidding. ;)

I've never used Windows 8, so I can't really comment.

Because any mistake cannot be tolerated? Sometimes I think that the Microsoft hate is taken a little too far. Innovation involves risk of mistakes, and an iterative approach as real feedback comes in

I think that what makes it more aggregious with the fumbles of Microsoft with Windows is the fact that (1) you have to pay for that faulty product, (2) you cannot choose an alternative if you don't like their "creative direction", and (3) you have to wait 3 years for the next iteration.

If you compare this, for example, to the uproar when Ubuntu introduced the Unity interface. It was a risk and many people didn't like it. For people who really didn't like it, there were plenty of alternatives (using an older version, installing the classic UI, installing a different distro, etc.). For most, they complained for a little while, but by the time the next release came (6 months later), most of the problems had been worked out, and most people were happy. And there is only so much you can complain about something you get for free.

With a faulty version of Windows (like 98, Me, Vista, and 8), the situation is completely opposite. You generally don't have alternatives when buying a new computer. You have to pay the money for it. You cannot expect that anything major will be fixed or rectified for the next 3 years, and then, you will have to pay some more for the update or you will have to suffer those problems until your computer dies.

People manage to get around these problems, but they shouldn't have to. I remember the days when Vista was the pre-installed version on all new computers, people were installing illegal versions of Windows XP left and right, one of my friends almost made it a business of installing XP on people's computers. I mean, this is crazy. It's like if you had a monopoly on making liquor, and you made it taste so bad that people started drinking moonshine instead; that should be a wake up call, and no just "let's do better with the next batch", but "let's figure out how we could have strayed so far from our clients' needs".

But I empathize with Microsoft because they have a very difficult problem on their hands. On the one hand, they need to be creative to keep up with competition creeping in from all directions (Mac, Android, Google, cloud-stuff, Linux, etc.). And on the other hand, they have to cater to their large user-base which is mostly composed of people who use Windows because it's comfortable, it's the only thing they know, and/or they need it (e.g., for specific software), in other words, they care only about consistency, not creativity.

Their release cycle is also a big problem. In many ways, I feel that Windows 8 is a response to the OS innovation (Mac, Linux, Android) that was going on in the years 2009-2011 or so. I'm afraid they will have trouble keeping up in the future.

0

you ask me.. i will say no need....
Just if u want 'little' more security and glowy metro apps to show off then you can switch to w8 else w7 is perfect to go on.

0

It reminds me of what happened with "New Coke". Anyone else remember that?

Yes, I remember it well, and what a big fiasco that was. Soon after that incident it became a classic case that is taught in college advertising courses.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.