I guess for the gazillionth time, W8 or not? Specifically...

what do you use your desktop or laptop for that compels you to upgrade, e.g. is it security or gaming or media, whatever. Now that the "anti metro" and Start Menu is being resolved with software, if there was some advantage to W8 I'd consider the upgrade. The most compelling reason I've read not to, is someone on a forum stated a whole bunch of their software was gone or not functional after the upgrade. Now I'm using 64bit W7 Home Premium Sp1 on a machine I built in May. Thank you for any input!

 

I had to uninstall all Stardock software. Not a biggie and will likely be updated soon. I lost the use of Acronis 2012. Paid upgrade required to 2013. Lightscribe does not work anymore, so loss of functionality on multiple DVD drives. Inability to play DVDs without 3rd party software. Just a small sampling of things that eventually provoked me to return to Windows 7. I did not realize how much I missed it until I put it back. It will be staying for a while. Plus, all of my Windows 8 "apps" stopped working. I could not find a way to fix them over a 2 day period so it had to go anyway. I wanted to like 8 and may give it another go next year after it is out for a while and some updates have been released. For now it is a no go.

 

There's always going to be some pain when moving to a new OS as xxJackxx described. It helps to have a compelling reason that makes it worth putting up with the hassles. If you have a motherboard that uses UEFI instead of BIOS then you get the "secure boot" feature of Windows 8. Windows 8 also apparently boots faster then 7 and performs about the same as 7 when running, but I can't confirm as I run it in a VM. The Metro start screen was a deal breaker for me, but now that there are solutions for that I still don't care I may buy an upgrade license though (given the low cost) and store it away for a time when it would serve a purpose.

 

Good replies! My system is UEFI with a SSD so boot and shutdown are non issues (less than 20 and less than 4 seconds respectively). Purchasing a license is a thought, then again I'd used XP since ? until May so I may never use it if I could put up with it and 1gig of RAM all those years.

 

Start menu aside, there's no technological advantage to Windows 8.
Mrk

 

Yup - it offers nothing people won't get in another Windows 7 Service Pack.

 

I can confirm that at least from my experience on a real machine that Windows 8 was actually slower to boot than Windows 7. On my machine with a Z68 chipset and Intel Smart Response Technology (SSD caching) it did not seem to really speed up Windows 8, leaving me to wonder if it works yet on Windows 8. It claimed to but did not seem to. There is also the additional boot screen I have to drag up before I can log in where with 7 you are taken directly to the login screen, so 1 extra step.

 

Again, I thank you. The second wave of posts have convinced me . Shall not consider 8 again!

 

I thought it had some kind of AppArmoresque sandboxing for Metro apps?

 

It's difficult to say on the software, because it depends entirely on what you use. If you use new software that gets regularly updated, you'll probably run into fewer issues than someone who uses older software that is no longer updated (or is updated but you refuse to do it). Then there is the problem of certain software requiring a fee for a newer version (like the Acronis example).

I'll probably get it eventually, but I'm not sure if I want to get it soon or wait until my next build. About the upgrade license, is it possible to buy it and hold on to it while still using Win 7? I would think that they would revoke the 7 license after you buy 8. Unless, of course, you're able to revert to 7, which then revokes your 8 license.

 

If a company that employs ~ 16,000 can get by swimmingly on XP, no less, then there's no reason to "upgrade" to Win 8 from Win 7 for the typical home user.

 

What a depressingly incorrect assertion for someone I usually view as an expert. I suppose next you're going to tell for the past 3 years all they worked on was a start menu?

Here is the link to the list I posted last year which had over 300 changes, http://www.winrumors.com/heres-a-list-of-300-windows-8-features-that-microsoft-didnt-show/ That was in September last year and will be well over 1000 by now.

Let's conveniently forget the lower memory usage, lower CPU usage, better game framerates, improved security, improved hardware acceleration, longer battery life/lower power consumption, extra built in exploit mitigations, improved networking, etc... Heck, they even did a blog on how they manually tailored HD playback...

Do I think its all worth the better performance and security? Heck yes.
Does the new start screen bug me? Nope, it's just box shortcuts instead of text shotcuts. I still launch apps via typing in the start menu and via the taskbar. Then again, I've used Windows 8 in one form or another for about a year now, plenty of time to get used to it

It does, and it's not just restricted to Metro apps as IE10 proves. It is debatably better than Chromes sandbox and I'm anxious for Windows 8 to release so we see some real testing and comparisons on it.

 

I've tried to like Windows 8, but the wife's job required her to remote in at times and it didn't work. Indications are her place of work (utility co.) will not support Windows 8 so I've gone back to Win 7.

I will say that my eyes seem happier with 7's visual depth vs. the flatness of 8.

 

First, the number of changes is meaningless.
Second, I am not impressed by statements.
I actually take things into rigorous testing and check them by myself.

There is NOTHING Windows 8 brings that an average or even a high-end user will notice from the technological perspective. Not the framerates, not the CPU or memory usage or anything of that sort.

For that matter, the one useful thing Windows 7 started to bring to the table was 64-bit support. The rest is meaningless. People will see more improvement by buying a new computer than anything else.

And getting used to something is a silly sentence. Why get used to something that is a compromise or worse than an existing situation. Hell, you can get used to no drinking water or electricity or living in a war situation, why should anyone want to get used to that? To exercise human survival skills?

Getting used to ... aiming for mediocrity.

Mrk

 

Welcome to the Club...

 

"Why get used to something that is a compromise or worse than an existing situation."

No dog in this fight but read my post about the absence of Windows Picture and Fax Viewer in W7. So true what you've stated. Indeed, searching I found countless forums where people were just enraged that MS would change something that worked so easily and perfectly and "never" getting used to the new "thing"!

 

i would wait and see, and if you have the chance maybe buy a cheap license. theres bound to be some teething problems as with any software but give them time to iron out the bugs and read reviews and opinions from others, and shortly after its officially released you can see it in action.

Gazzer

 

Most people wait until a Service Pack is released.

Windows 8 may also become attractive if someone finds a hack to remove - not just by-pass Metro on it.

 

It's perfectly meaningful when deciding on a new purchase. Don't tell me you go out purchasing products without looking at what's changed?

That's great, and your conclusion of all that rigorous testing is that "nothings changed?" ^^

Ahh so now you're changing your argument from a broad blanket statement and narrowing it down to "average user", I see. So uhm, how many "average users" would notice ANY difference in a new Linux kernel release? How many average users would notice any changes in a new distro release? Let's take Ubuntu for example, the timeline is so short for new features that not much changes, the average user at best would notice the slight Unity tweaks, which is comparable to Windows's different UI every release.

Hey "Mr. Expert" 64bit was introduced in Vista not 7, along with KPP, etc. So I guess Windows 7 was just useless also.

You're asserting opinion, not fact. There is nothing "worse" about it other than the fact you're used to using a "standard" start menu for the past X years. For it to be statistically worse would require an actual loss of functionality. Even the fact that it's fullscreen isn't a loss in functionality, despite my distaste for that change. In fact, all previous functionality is fully preserved, and enhanced, it's only displayed differently.

 

When you use mr. expert in quotes, does that mean you somehow doubt my credentials or trying to insult me?

64-bit support was not introduced in Vista, either. There it was in Windows XP. However, public acceptance for 64-bit software started with Windows 7. Support in terms of, Microsoft finally figured out some people might want to use more than 3GB of RAM.

And the changes are meaningless, equally so in the Linux kernel. Have you ever see me use the kernel/glibc/gcc versions in my reviews? Have you ever see me copy & paste release statements about changes in this or that. No, because they don't mean anything. And for that matter, Windows 8 is at best a glorified service pack.

And no, there are no technological changes in Windows 8 worth a bother. Not one.

I'm not used to using the standard menu. I made an educated choice what suits me best for my work. And so I use the available repertoire of tools. I define the goal and adjust the tools, not the other way around.

You do lose functionality. See my RTM review. Finding windows updates, custom view, takes 2 clicks in W7, it takes 3 clicks in W8, plus two attempts to achieve that. 50% loss of functionality. Just an example.

Your entire screen flipping over. Can you tell me what programs you have open when you're in the screen view. Or how they are arranged visually? There's your loss of functionality.

Finally, do not mistake change for progress. I do not wish to descend to quoting the Godwin's Law, but it's a perfect example of how changes are misinterpreted as progress.

Do you remember Microsoft admitting: Vista was not as good as we thought, I can pull that for you if you need. You can extrapolate along those lines.

Mrk

 

Whichever you feel more comfortable with.

"Yeah I was wrong, but you were wrong too!!11one" Actually XP 64 was nothing other than a hackjob developed alongside Vista 64 to push more devs to develop 64bit software to ease the pain of the Vista changes.

Ok I see where you're coming from now. Basically you think change is meaningless unless it has an obvious affect on the user and is therefor pointless/should be ignored. So I assume you're using a 5 year old Linux distro/kernel?

Ok, that's your opinion. But what I stated was wrong was that there were no changes, which IS wrong. Calling those changes insignificant to you is another thing altogether (your opinion) it doesn't deny that they happened.

No, sorry. Loss of functionality isn't defined as an item being 1 level deeper in a menu, it would have to be entirely gone.

It doesn't matter to me because the menu is open for around 1 second before an app is launched. But like I stated earlier I dislike the fullscreen mode and think ALWAYS showing the taskbar would be a good change.

Yeah, because that's totally what I said, right? ... No, I reacted to your incorrect assertion of changes in Windows 8 which ARE progress. E.g. security, efficiency.

No one here is saying Windows 8 is a sure deal... Unless someone has a crystal ball they can gift us.

 

When I read articles like this it becomes less likely I'd want it.

 

Ratchet, you need to be careful what you read these days. So many tech journalists over sensationalise things in an effort to grab more page views, it's sad.

I suggest reading the original blog:
http://www.paulallen.com/TemplateGeneric.aspx?contentId=21

Most of what he says is infact highly positive, and at one point he criticizes the opening of files from the desktop in the Metro environment, which is actually a bug.

 

Rather than read articles or listen to what anyone else has to say, the best way to find out if you like it is to simply install it and use it yourself for a while and see. Then you'll know....

 

Yes, it's quite easy to install a Virtual Machine environment, such as VirtualBox, and then install the Windows 8 PR as a VM.