Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Fury on October 18, 2013, 12:16:45 pm
-
Windows 8.1 was released yesterday and of course I went and installed it as soon as I got home from work. Not even two hours after install was complete, I got my first BSOD. I also got some random error messages about missing stuff. Well today I got another BSOD and even more error messages. Sfc /scannow didn't find anything amiss.
Decided it was time for fresh install, so I proceeded to back up whatever little is not already on the second HDD. Then went to find out the handy option in Windows 8 settings that lets you reinstall, you can even choose if you want to leave your own files untouched or do clean install. I wanted clean install, except it didn't let me because it couldn't find all the files it needed. I do not have Windows 8 media because this was upgrade install I got for 14.99€.
So I didn't have any other choice than to reinstall using Windows 7 DVD. Afterwards I proceeded to acquire the Windows 8.1 installer from Microsoft website. Only to find out it doesn't accept Windows 8 product keys. After several minutes of cursing at Microsoft, I downloaded Windows 8 installer. It accepted the product key like it should, except it then greeted me with a message that Windows 8 is not available for download in my region.
Seriously Microsoft? **** you. Plain and simple, **** you.
I almost went and installed Linux instead, but since I already had installed Windows 7 I decided to keep using it.
Once more, **** you Microsoft.
Edit: The Windows 8 installer was the same I used to install Windows 8 in the first place, so it used to work.
-
I agree. Thanks for the warning, too. I have 8, and I think I'll force it to not update for a few weeks until this is fixed.
Stupid MS, won't even sell Windows 7 anymore on their own website, despite the absolute piles of money they could make doing that. Seriously, there's no reason for it that isn't [adjective describing extreme stupidity]!
-
I've been using Windows 8.1 for some weeks, no issue whatsoever...
-
Why would they sell an outdated software that would mean they would have to support for with more personnel and for a longer time than usual?
Hope you get your 8.1 running afap.
-
I have a policy of skipping every other generation of microsoft OS. I went from 98 to XP, XP to 7. I don't plan on changing this policy anytime soon
-
unless windows 9 is totally awesome im not sure that strategy would work for me. im actually starting to consider alternatives.
-
Upgrade installs should be banned by law.
Even when they work, you can't help but wonder whether any random issue that surfaces was due to submitting to that unholy practice.
-
lol windows 8
-
unless windows 9 is totally awesome im not sure that strategy would work for me. im actually starting to consider alternatives.
fun fact: there will be no win 9 :D
-
unless windows 9 is totally awesome im not sure that strategy would work for me. im actually starting to consider alternatives.
fun fact: there will be no win 9 :D
I'm pretty sure the shareholders would have something to say against that.
-
theyre gonna pull windows blue and then it's all auto updates from that moment on.
-
I sincerely hope you called or emailed MS support, Fury. There is no way you shouldn't be able to do a godamned clean install of 8.1, especially considering that it's being released on DVD.
-
I tend to work on a policy of only upgrading my OS when my current one is actually getting in the way of programs running or system security. Of course, this depends heavily on how you use your computer, some people will find Windows 7 is insufficient far sooner than others, especially those such as Fury who do a lot of server-oriented stuff and need to keep the system up to date (Just to clarify the fact that this isn't some kind of statement about Fury's choice to upgrade, merely on my own practices).
IF Blue does turn out to be the final version of Windows (something I take with a rather large pinch of salt, I suspect it more likely means Microsoft are planning to restart with a whole new OS rather than constantly update the final release) I will consider investing in it, but the way I use my computer Windows 8 has little to offer over Windows 7 at this time.
-
I have Win 7, a Win 8 upgrade license (not used yet). So I can get 8.1, but I'm thinking I want to do a clean install when the time comes. How ever am I going to manage that?
/me whistles tunelessly and goes over to browse the mydigitallife forums.
-
The technical stance of their software, microsoft products are becoming more and more a mess of inefficiency resulting in lots of wasted time and treating the user like a retard.
This issue here appears to be the efficiency of the new software. Tossing in a windows 8 key and performing an upgrade. It's supposed to be easy. Someone probably forgot to upgrade one piece of software out of the huge mess of multiple ways to upgrade.
Other things that irk me.
Can't install the latest service pack because a language pack must be removed first, language pack refuses to uninstall, download special hotfix that doesn't work, do more reasearch and wast even more time, hotfix finally uninstalls after devising a way myself, then upgrade to service pack whatever.
Can't batch install/uninstall.
Get reminded that i have to restart for update every 4 hours (updates will get taken care of when i shutdown the computer at the end of the day, and install when turned on the next).
Get ****ing reminded if i'm really really really really sure that i want to shutdown/restart (i hit shutdown, i'm pretty sure that's what i intended to do even with open programs).
Windows activation is a hassle (install and then done? no).
Windows update and how you have to run it a few times to finally get all of the updates (i understand certain being installed before others, but i don't want to have to run windows update six or more ****ing times after a fresh install to get it up to date, maybe it could download all of the updates first, the install them in a certain order later).
I hate working on windows computers, so i just don't anymore. I don't want to find out how convoluted stuff is in newer releases. I can't call windows non-****. The other thing i also think a lot about is the user. If it's this much of a pain to work to fix and prep windows, then how much of a pain is it for somebody trying to be productive on it? How easy is it for users to break stuff?
-
So glad I got a new computer just before Windows 8 came out.
-
yeah, i was too slow. i've been out of the laptop game since 2007, so by the time i fully decided it was time for a new one i didn't have time to find the right one before all the 7's were gone. how long until the next one?
-
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2056283/microsoft-temporarily-pulls-windows-rt-8-1-update-due-to-a-situation.html
-
So I'm back running Windows 8. How?
- Followed instructions in this Neowin article (http://www.neowin.net/news/here-is-how-to-get-the-windows-81-iso-and-create-a-usb-install-stick) to get myself bootable Windows 8.1 USB installatiocn stick.
- Used generic Windows 8.1 Pro install product key to perform clean install. Then activated the installation with my own product key. Generic keys are listed in the article's comments. Generic keys cannot be used to activate Windows, only to let it install.
Whereas two days ago I couldn't download Windows 8.0, it worked now. Glad it did, because otherwise I wouldn't have clean 8.1 install now.
I'll invent few new cussing words if these BSODs and errors appear again.
-
I dunno, when I upgraded my PCs, everything went pretty smoothly.
-
One of the issues I encountered with upgrade to 8.1 is caused by VirtualBox 4.3 (https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57893) and also appears to affect some versions of VMWare vSphere. Unfortunately older versions of VirtualBox are even more incompatible with Windows 8.1. It would seem that reducing number of available CPU's in virtual machines to 1 solves the problem.
Maybe I should see if migrating to Hyper-V is a viable choice. Last time I tried Hyper-V it didn't work with my 4G modem at all though, so chances of Hyper-V working now aren't that good.
-
Yet another Win8.1 problem (http://www.neowin.net/news/report-windows-81-causing-heavy-mouse-lag-in-some-pc-games). It's been nearly two months since I've had time to play any games, so I probably won't encounter this problem anytime soon...
-
I know i'm wierd on this topic. But, i am using it to learn more about windows 8.
-
Mh.. so far 8.1 works fine for me on 3 different PC's.
One of them was an Windows 8 Upgrade from a fresh Vista install even.
(Finally something that those leftover VISTA boxes are good for LOL.)
Still using Win7 on my work box though - just in case - where all I want is no nonsense / reliability.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it ... lol.
-
It's exactly this kind of **** that made me start learning how to use Debian.
-
MS released hotfix to Win8.1 mouse issues.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2908279
Supports following games:
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Call of Duty: Black Ops - Multiplayer
Call of Duty: Black Ops II
Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Multiplayer
Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Zombies
Call of Duty: Ghosts - Multiplayer
Call of Duty: MW2
Call of Duty: MW2 - Multiplayer
Call of Duty: MW3
Call of Duty: MW3 - Multiplayer
Call of Duty: MW
Call of Duty: MW - Multiplayer
Counter Strike: Global Offensive
Counter Strike: Source
Deus Ex : Human Revolution
Deus Ex : Human Revolution Director's Cut
Hitman Absolution
Hitman Sniper Challenge
Half Life 2
Metro 2033
Portal
Tomb Raider
And for any game that's not listed but has mouse issues, it is possible to add support by editing registry and running rundll32 with certain parameters.
-
I know this will get negative attention drawn toward me. I'll be hailed as an idiot, as someone who can't fix their own computer, etc.
Then again, i've been hailed as an idiot from a definite idiot who didn't want to upgrade from win98.
I still highly don't recommend running as admin 24/7 in windows. You know, because preventative measures to lessen work are stupid and all :lol:
In before someone says i don't know how to fix computers (and somehow it is theorized that i will actually care what they're occupation is...that person certainly went on a personal attack tirade, and in the end i was still right), that i let my computers treat me like an idiot, that i'm afraid to get into the nitty gritty, that i don't know what i'm actually doing, etc.
Yeah, preventative maintenance results in bad stuff (yeesh).
All i can say is from my rant. Windows 7 is actually decent, then again, windows vista is more decent (windows 7 is windows vista with features removed). It's why i told my dad not to upgrade from vista because that would be 100% pointless. Now, as much as i don't like using windows from a technical standpoint dealing mainly with it's inefficiencies, I don't hate it, i just know it could be better (this is why i run linux). But, windows 8 was such a folley. Don't buy it just to be hip and new. But, in all seriousness staving away from the bugs it has (it's still new, i will fault them on this, i have choice in running stable software while remaining up to date...without spending money is a different thing i'm not focussing on currently, but, you think microsoft would like to release stable products).
When you have to make a microsoft account, and enter in a phone number, and more information about yourself just to make a user account. I ask why people would want to subject themselves to more bull****. Want to make as many user accounts as you want with different permission settings the easy way? Fine, then run win2k/xp/vista/7. You'll get it done a lot easier and faster. The actual point i'm reaching here is this, ease of use is out the door; windows 7 is the last of it's kind for windows. That's the part i don't like, because it diverges almost completely from standard ways of doing things on computers to more difficult steps to take to get something rather easy done to difficult.
I'm use to making other user accounts for users on other systems, i should be able to do it without the user being there. Asking them to make a microsoft account or whatever, phone number, full name, address for adding to a system. When it's not your own system running windows 8 doing this. Then, you'll think differently when you're (just for example) going to college and the staff make you a user account for the campus system (why is the tech asking so much information about me? are they a creep?). This makes it even more difficult to work on windows because it guarantees more down time in the area of working on user accounts.
-
You don't have to use a Microsoft account to use Windows 8, you can use local accounts...
-
You don't have to use a Microsoft account to use Windows 8, you can use local accounts...
Oh good. Seriously, that's good to know. But, i didn't like the one time i was working on a windows a touchscreen laptop. There was no way to make a new user account without making a microsoft account. And well, before the start menu was released for windows 8. There was no other way to do it. Control panel was just lacking more than usual. The damn girl just wanted to retitle here user account name. The only work around i could find was performing a reinstall, which would bring up the prompt for a user account. Then again, windows 8.1 brought some features back. This was before 8.1.
And even still...
Now i understand what you mean. But, i guess settings were buried, hidden, and not to be found so easily; i'm used to that, i couldn't find anything (another thing not so easy to find in windows 7 is resizing the taskbar (not a complaint of 8, but windows in general, it's easy as pie to go into the properties of a linux task manager and be able to actually resize it)). This i guess is new what you're letting me know about. It gets down to what should be easy to find, why isn't it easy to find?
-
I'm not sure why you think it's not easy to find, when the first time you are booting Windows 8, it explicitly gives you the choice between a local and a windows account.
If afterwards, you try to create a new account, the option is still there to create a local account...
-
You miss the point. As i detailed earlier, i had to work on someone elses computer who had previously selected the windows account option. And no, the option was quite not there to create a local account. Maybe i couldn't find it. But, i'm pretty damn sure it was harder to find so that microsoft could have more people use a microsoft account instead.
-
You miss the point. As i detailed earlier, i had to work on someone elses computer who had previously selected the windows account option. And no, the option was quite not there to create a local account. Maybe i couldn't find it. But, i'm pretty damn sure it was harder to find so that microsoft could have more people use a microsoft account instead.
You can also unlink your current account from the microsoft account.
[attachment deleted by an evil time traveler]
-
This is good to know. But, to what affect? They already collected your information.
-
All i can say is from my rant. Windows 7 is actually decent, then again, windows vista is more decent (windows 7 is windows vista with features removed).
Like, for example?
I'm serious, I am unaware of any feature from Vista that wasn't also present in 7. Please enlighten us.
-
A few days back I was able to lay my hands on a win8 laptop.
After a few minutes toying with it I came to the conclusion this version is completely oriented towards touch screens, and thus not usefull to me until I actually get a touch screen for my pc.
win7 I hug u 4eva.
-
All i can say is from my rant. Windows 7 is actually decent, then again, windows vista is more decent (windows 7 is windows vista with features removed).
Like, for example?
I'm serious, I am unaware of any feature from Vista that wasn't also present in 7. Please enlighten us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_7
However, it's not like Win7 didn't add new ****. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
A few days back I was able to lay my hands on a win8 laptop.
After a few minutes toying with it I came to the conclusion this version is completely oriented towards touch screens, and thus not usefull to me until I actually get a touch screen for my pc.
win7 I hug u 4eva.
Win8 Start screen is designed for touch screens. But apparently you failed to notice that you are not forced to use the Start screen. The old desktop (sans Start-menu) is still there.
-
8.1 puts the Start button back, and changes its function to act as a switch between the Start screen and the Desktop. At least, IIRC. I saw it in action about a week ago, on a laptop upgraded from 8 to 8.1
-
A few days back I was able to lay my hands on a win8 laptop.
After a few minutes toying with it I came to the conclusion this version is completely oriented towards touch screens, and thus not usefull to me until I actually get a touch screen for my pc.
win7 I hug u 4eva.
Win8 Start screen is designed for touch screens. But apparently you failed to notice that you are not forced to use the Start screen. The old desktop (sans Start-menu) is still there.
You underestimate my toying habilities. I did notice the possibility to change to desktop by moving the mouse to the left side, or access the "advanced" menu from the right side, I just think it's a horrible design IMO.
Not changing to win 8.1 anyways. No matter how good ppl say it is my first impression was "hey! what you know... another crappy windows" and I'm not about to change my opinion until win7 is dead and buried in a cold forgotten trench.
-
You underestimate my toying habilities. I did notice the possibility to change to desktop by moving the mouse to the left side, or access the "advanced" menu from the right side, I just think it's a horrible design IMO.
No argument there.
Not changing to win 8.1 anyways. No matter how good ppl say it is my first impression was "hey! what you know... another crappy windows" and I'm not about to change my opinion until win7 is dead and buried in a cold forgotten trench.
Making Windows 7 out to be another Windows XP is only going to create more problems than it solves. Windows 8(.1) is a huge disappointment to a lot of people and I get that. But I seriously hope MS gets its **** together in Windows 9 or whatever it will be called. Otherwise we certainly will have another Windows XP in our hands and that's going to be a pain in the butt 10 years down in the line. That said, it's exactly this kind of attitude from people that annoys me even more than MS's shenanigans in designing their OS's.
-
"I seriously hope MS gets its **** together in Windows [NEXT VERSION]"
Where the **** did I hear this before? It sounds SO familiar.
-
You hear it every other OS.
Or the entire pre-XP era. :p
-
Well we hear it because of something.
I'm inclined to believe ppl will always assimilate the improvement, not just the shiny new stuff just because it's shiny and new.
And to just to clarify my position, it's not like I'm some kind of delusional dumbass that likes to get stuck with old OS's. Windows 8 is clearly not though out for a user such as myself, I knew the second I tried using it.
It needs another pass through the design table, all that andoid-gadget thingy they just splatter all over the place is not feeling native for the pc user I am today.
-
"pre-xp era". Clearly someone here is under some kind of amnesia of the phenomenal events of 2003 and what that year meant for both Windows XP and Longhorn's development.
-
I have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. I simply meant that every single version of Windows for home users before XP was, quite frankly, rather ****.
-
I'm talking about the blaster worm that managed to infect every single XP computer in the world (or close to that), exposed Windows XP's internet security as the shameful lunacy that it was and grinded Longhorn's development to a halt, so they could focus on building the service pack 2 (I think it was 2), that stopped the bleeding.
From that moment on, whenever I installed windows xp and connected it to the internet for more than a few minutes (before installing said service pack), it would inevitably get blaster and then other copy cats. It was a manic race to go to the windows site and download the SP before I got the worm.
Ah what a great OS! And of course, we all ended up having Windows Vista in all its paranoia glory due to this specific incident (instead of the maddeningly promising Longhorn's paradise).
But I'll give you this, there were some good naive years between 2001 and 2003.
-
that can happen to any OS. and when it probably does happen again, the same thing will be said about the target OS's security.
as for making 'another XP', I am ALL for that. consumers for once showing a little bit of common sense and refusing to accept a crap product simply because it's the 'new version'. what is so glaringly wrong with windows 7 that it needs fixed by using a new version, or what is so outstandingly awesome offered by 8 that it warrants paying over $100 and putting up with all the really crappy parts to go along with it?
-
that can happen to any OS.
No it couldn't. XP's fragilities were mind-boggling on their own. Even for 2001.
-
as for making 'another XP', I am ALL for that. consumers for once showing a little bit of common sense and refusing to accept a crap product simply because it's the 'new version'. what is so glaringly wrong with windows 7 that it needs fixed by using a new version, or what is so outstandingly awesome offered by 8 that it warrants paying over $100 and putting up with all the really crappy parts to go along with it?
I agree. I'm still on XP on this old scrap-heap because there's yet to be any pressing reason for me to upgrade further: this over-10-year-old OS still does everything I need it to do on a daily basis. If this is still my only machine (and I hope to God it won't be) when next April rolls around and security support for XP finally stops, I'll bite the bullet and shell out for 7. I really don't see any purpose in upgrading to a new OS every other year, when the only real thing that generally changes for the end-user is the coat of paint on top.
-
I'm talking about the blaster worm that managed to infect every single XP computer in the world (or close to that), exposed Windows XP's internet security as the shameful lunacy that it was and grinded Longhorn's development to a halt, so they could focus on building the service pack 2 (I think it was 2), that stopped the bleeding.
From that moment on, whenever I installed windows xp and connected it to the internet for more than a few minutes (before installing said service pack), it would inevitably get blaster and then other copy cats. It was a manic race to go to the windows site and download the SP before I got the worm.
Ah what a great OS! And of course, we all ended up having Windows Vista in all its paranoia glory due to this specific incident (instead of the maddeningly promising Longhorn's paradise).
But I'll give you this, there were some good naive years between 2001 and 2003.
And once you had SP2 installed, the problem went away. Many of us just slipstreamed SP2 into the install CD and kept on using XP without any major issue.
Vista on the other hand is **** no matter what you do to it. As is everything MS came up with before 2000. As is Windows 8.x. Like I said since Windows ME MS have been on a ****/usable cycle. Windows 9 (or whatever they call it) will probably be the combo breaker though.
-
Oh of course the problem "went away", but the point is that at that moment the saying "I hope MS gets their **** together in their next OS" came back with a vengeance.
Vista's development cycle was one of the worst pile of **** ever since Cairo or Copland. Of course the end product was going to stink.
-
I must be completely weird then for actually preferring 8.1 over 7.
-
Not really, from what little I've seen, I think it's an okay OS. The double UI is awkward (although pretty), mostly because it betrays dumbfoundedness from the part of the designers of it, and as an user it's like I'm constantly being bombarded by this company's cluelessness. It's not a good emotion that emanates from the system.
But I've been trying Ubuntu and as a comparison I can definitely say that oh god Windows has come a long way.
-
I must be completely weird then for actually preferring 8.1 over 7.
Not a popular opinion, because the internet hates change, but I've been using 8 since the release preview and 8.1 since it was released. I like the under-the-hood changes (seriously, one of my laptops is an absolute dinosaur, 2GB of RAM, crappy Core 2 Duo, 5400 RPM hard drive, and it boots in less than 16 seconds on Win8 - I found it pretty impressive for specs that awful) and I really, really just don't hate the Metro interface. It's clunky, sure, but the start screen works almost the same as the start menu in most cases. The sheer tsunami of rage confuses me a little.
-
At one point in the past I had Win ME as my main OS. I did not have any issues with it that were any worse than the rest of the 9x series (well maybe the default startup sound) and I found it perfectly usable, even when I got my first dual core CPU (yes I know ME wasn't multi core aware). I even managed to run the apparently XP only Doom 3 and Quake 4 in WinME without crashing even once.
Now can somebody give me a decent reason why WinME is supposed to be so bad? I am not trying to defend ME or anything, its just that I am confused as to why a OS that has run on 3 different system configurations, a OC'd Celeron 300A (runs at 450MHz with stock cooling), a Duron 1.3 and a Barton core Athlon XP 3000+ without any major issues other than the normal driver related 9x quirks.
-
What I'm finding obnoxious about Windows 8 is the way some very common features in the advanced user settings (Control Panel, etc) have been reorganized. It's not intuitive.
What is also not intuitive is the various swipe-up/swipe-out/etc commands - sometimes they're context-sensitive, sometimes they aren't. How do I determine that? Try it and find out. If not, then settings must be accessed some other way.
I like the idea of a tablet-environment running the Windows architecture and therefore able to run the same software I use on my computer. That's awesome. What is decidedly less awesome is the bastardized way in which that was glued on top of the desktop environment. What the hell is wrong with having two separate, toggle-between interfaces and environments? 8.1 moves it more in that direction, but I am still dependent on the Metro interface for a large number of things, and it is bloody annoying having to flip interfaces to load different programs. Seriously, let me boot directly to one mode or the other, and stick all my links to applications in one place (accessible to both environments!) regardless of which effing environment it runs in.
I look at Win8 and 8.1 and it just screams "beta product." I use it on this tablet I'm trying at work, but I will certainly not be installing it on any of my existing PCs, and I hope there is either another major update or Windows revision before I have to replace my PCs, because I'm just not feeling the love here. It's a good idea as a beta version, but it has a screaming need for further refinement. In terms of productivity, it is considerably less efficient than Windows 7 simply due to all the flipping back and forth.
And whatever they do, they need to move all the settings to one location - it is ****ing ridiculous that I need to be in one mode or the other to access various settings. Everything in one spot, damnit!
-
I'll admit that my intense dislike for 8 is solely based on aesthetics, since I've honestly never used it myself, but I take one look at that Metro start screen and just think...my God, that is hideous. The completely-flat rectangles that waste massive amounts of screen real estate, the color scheme that looks like someone shut their eyes and stabbed their finger at random on a palette...it looks for all the world like Babby's First OS, and I want absolutely no part of it. Most of us have been using the Start Menu since 1995; it works just fine, and over the years it's received incremental improvements that let it work even better. So why in all the nine hells was there any need to toss it out completely in favor of that monstrosity?
Honestly, it feels like there's this bigger trend among a lot of developers to make drastic UI changes mostly for the sake of corresponding to some perceived sense of "modernity," as opposed to whether or not said changes are actually necessary or desirable. The biggest personal offender for me has been Firefox; its most recent default appearance changes (along with the hyper-fast update schedule) make it clear that it's trying its very hardest to be as much like Chrome as possible. But here's the thing: if I wanted something that looked like Chrome, I'd go and ****ing download Chrome. I've done my very best to keep things looking as much like the classic FF3 layout as possible: the separate stop/refresh and home buttons all in a row, tabs on the bottom where they belong, the classic menu bar, the whole enchilada. I know I could theoretically do the same with 8, but I shouldn't have to download third-party external mods to preserve the basic Windows look. As much-maligned as the big Ribbon update for Office was several years back, at least it had the advantage of taking some functions that were buried under two or three layers of dialog boxes and putting them out in the open. Tell me, if you're not using a touchscreen, what the hell does Metro do for you?
Bottom line: change just for the sake of change is a terrible thing and should be kicked in the nuts.
-
To be honest, the new start menu also offers some usability improvements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law), especially as we move towards bigger screens.
-
What I'm finding obnoxious about Windows 8 is the way some very common features in the advanced user settings (Control Panel, etc) have been reorganized. It's not intuitive.
What is also not intuitive is the various swipe-up/swipe-out/etc commands - sometimes they're context-sensitive, sometimes they aren't. How do I determine that? Try it and find out. If not, then settings must be accessed some other way.
I like the idea of a tablet-environment running the Windows architecture and therefore able to run the same software I use on my computer. That's awesome. What is decidedly less awesome is the bastardized way in which that was glued on top of the desktop environment. What the hell is wrong with having two separate, toggle-between interfaces and environments? 8.1 moves it more in that direction, but I am still dependent on the Metro interface for a large number of things, and it is bloody annoying having to flip interfaces to load different programs. Seriously, let me boot directly to one mode or the other, and stick all my links to applications in one place (accessible to both environments!) regardless of which effing environment it runs in.
I look at Win8 and 8.1 and it just screams "beta product." I use it on this tablet I'm trying at work, but I will certainly not be installing it on any of my existing PCs, and I hope there is either another major update or Windows revision before I have to replace my PCs, because I'm just not feeling the love here. It's a good idea as a beta version, but it has a screaming need for further refinement. In terms of productivity, it is considerably less efficient than Windows 7 simply due to all the flipping back and forth.
And whatever they do, they need to move all the settings to one location - it is ****ing ridiculous that I need to be in one mode or the other to access various settings. Everything in one spot, damnit!
That's a valid complaint, and it is a pain when I accidentally get into the Metro settings screen instead of control panel. Hell, I told MS /that/ during Win8 beta. I think my huge problem with the rage is that not everyone is like you or most of us here. They just say "Windows 8 SUCKS, rabble rabble rabble," and never get around to saying why. MS doesn't know what we like and what we hate unless we tell them. Bonus dumbass points if the person complaining has never actually used Windows 8. I have a friend that does this and it kinda makes me want to punch him in the nads.
-
Most of us have been using the Start Menu since 1995; it works just fine, and over the years it's received incremental improvements that let it work even better. So why in all the nine hells was there any need to toss it out completely in favor of that monstrosity?
Honestly, it feels like there's this bigger trend among a lot of developers to make drastic UI changes mostly for the sake of corresponding to some perceived sense of "modernity," as opposed to whether or not said changes are actually necessary or desirable.
Bottom line: change just for the sake of change is a terrible thing and should be kicked in the nuts.
Yes! Preach, Mongoose! Preach! :D
-
Oh of course the problem "went away", but the point is that at that moment the saying "I hope MS gets their **** together in their next OS" came back with a vengeance.
And then they got their **** together in the same OS.
In fact XP is probably the only example of MS actually getting their **** together without charging the customer for leading them out of the hell hole they led them into in the first place. Windows 8.1 is a great example of them failing to do that.
-
Windows 8.1 is not Microsoft charging customers from the "hell hole" that you think W8 was. W8 was not a hell hole. It was just more cumbersome.
I never bought (and stopped the office from doing so) that version, and we kept W7. Everyone had that choice. No one really had the choice of going back to W98 when Blaster charged into our pcs.
-
I wonder if some of you are misunderstanding. MS is not charging for 8.1, it is free upgrade to 8.
-
I know, but it doesn't sound like it solves the problems with Win 8 either. i.e MS's record of not solving the problems with their OSs for free is intact cause although 8.1 is free, it doesn't solve the basic problems with Win 8. You'll have to pay for that solution most likely.
I never bought (and stopped the office from doing so) that version, and we kept W7. Everyone had that choice. No one really had the choice of going back to W98 when Blaster charged into our pcs.
People buying new PCs don't always get that choice though. Especially people buying their first PC who don't know any better.
-
I must be completely weird then for actually preferring 8.1 over 7.
8.1 gives much better performance in BF4 then 7.
That was reason enough for me to upgrade.
-
People who buy new pcs definitely have that choice. You just don't buy it in your standard mega store.
People who "don't know any better" won't have the problems you have with W8.1. This is really a "geek's" problem, and geeks do know how to solve it.
I remain unimpressed with the "problem". But I take your word that this is at least annoying for a lot of people.
-
I like 8's under the hood bits. But since I got it for 20$ through my university I felt fine with shelling out for stardock's Start 8. Metro UI begone, and it was so.
-
Fun fact: Did you know, if you had Windows '95 Upgrade (from Windows 3.x), you could actually choose to use Windows' Program Manager by default (precursor to Win 9.x/XP's Explorer.exe)? And it was included (although you had to manually launch it) in all versions of Windows 95, 98, and Me? Yup, good old progman.exe to the rescue for old fogies who wanted to use that terrible, terrible interface. ... So, why don't they allow the same for 7's pretty-much-ok interface??? :confused:
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_Manager) (although some of us probably knew that just from poking around the windows directory years ago)
For those that missed the wonders of 3.x:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Program_Manager.png)
-
Fun fact: Did you know, if you had Windows '95 Upgrade (from Windows 3.x), you could actually choose to use Windows' Program Manager by default (precursor to Win 9.x/XP's Explorer.exe)? And it was included (although you had to manually launch it) in all versions of Windows 95, 98, and Me? Yup, good old progman.exe to the rescue for old fogies who wanted to use that terrible, terrible interface. ... So, why don't they allow the same for 7's pretty-much-ok interface??? :confused:
Because this wasn't about aesthetics or usability. It was about backwards compatibility for programs written against progman, not to give people a way to not learn new things.
Since the only changes to the shell between 7 and 8 were cosmetic (the underlying API stayed the same), there was no reason to provide a similar hack.
-
http://www.classicshell.net/
(As to why MS doesn't include it by default, I absolutely do not know, although they are aware of the desire and they are aware of programs like classic shell... It's probably part of some long-term strategy that, at this point, we will all say it has no use and in ten years it turns out it will have had succes anyway or something).
Also, the Belgian beverage known as "Duvel" is awesome.
-
Fun fact: Did you know, if you had Windows '95 Upgrade (from Windows 3.x), you could actually choose to use Windows' Program Manager by default (precursor to Win 9.x/XP's Explorer.exe)? And it was included (although you had to manually launch it) in all versions of Windows 95, 98, and Me? Yup, good old progman.exe to the rescue for old fogies who wanted to use that terrible, terrible interface. ... So, why don't they allow the same for 7's pretty-much-ok interface??? :confused:
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_Manager) (although some of us probably knew that just from poking around the windows directory years ago)
For those that missed the wonders of 3.x:
[MY ****ING EYES]
http://s9.postimg.org/ypoma34q5/toobigdamnit.png
Small images should not be placed between lvlshot tags. :nono:
-
I just wanted you to experience the full Chinese torture that was Program Manager is all. :P
-
I'd already experienced it way back in the day, which is why I used File Manager instead. :p
-
Yeah, File Manager was sorta kinda mostly ok. But there was one irritation with it, besides the 8.3 limitation, and I forget what it was, that kept me from using it instead of Explorer. (I liked having the icons for the assigned drives, and having the actual filesystem being the view instead of then-confusing shortcuts that didn't tel me where they led (Desktop, etc).
-
i would be happy if they kept an os's user interface constant and just upgraded the guts. then kept the whole thing compact with reguards to the amount of space the os needs to function (20+ gb for an os is insane). and stop being bundled with a bunch of software that i either dont use or use a better alternative (and thats just the **** the os comes with, **** the crap oems litter your system with). oses just try to do too damn much out of the box.
-
Well, in Win 9x, at least you had the option to go into details during the OS install and de-select what you wouldn't be using (phone dialer?! really?). You can still remove them from newer OSes by going into the Windows components section of Add/Remove Programs (if you can't find it on 8.x, just put in appwiz.msc -- that will launch Add/Remove on all versions of Windows from 2000 up, IIRC, maybe even 9x, I forget).
Or, you can use nLite (XP) or vLite (Vista on up) to strip the fat from the install image.