Windows 8.1 - why'd I wait so long?

An interesting 3 page article that I've linked to before:

http://www.tweakguides.com/Windows81_1.html

 

Well obscenity is the argument used by Mrkvonic to objectively review Win 8/8.1… He says that millions have voted with their wallet against Win 8, disregarding the fact that hundreds of millions won’t install a Linux distro even if you paid them.
Win 8 is the fastest OS so far from MS, it is secure, stable (not one single blue screen in 9 months). It has a bit of a learning curve, but easily digested if one is willing to give it a real chance. Now if people say they prefer Win 7 over Win 8 because it is a proven great OS without a learning curve, I’d say fair enough, but to vilify MS simply because of the metro issue (metro UI that can disappear with one single click) it only shows Mrkvonic holds a grudge against MS.

 

nice link kirk, good read

i wonder how long it takes, to tweak 8.1 so that it behaves like win 7 (as regards look/feel)
if the tweaking process isn't too drawn-out/complex, then one could arguably take advantage of 8.1's security enhancements etc, while still using an interface which they are comfortable with/used to.
are the supposed enhancements of 8.1 over 7, worth the effort, is the question

 

Because Windows out of the box is more friendly than Linux. And millions have voted the same way towards Win7 over Win8.

Now I have tried Windows 8.1 Enterprise in VM. It looked really cool and felt much more polished than Windows 8.0. However the same quirks remained. Completely loss of flow when going between main desktop and settings on the right hand side and of course loss of smooth flow between start menu and the metro screen. The sudden blast of full screen start menu is just unpleasant to the eyes.
On the other hand Metro was awesome, not for a laptop but it would be awesome for a tablet. I would even consider buying a full Metro only cheap Surface tablet with keyboard. Especially that they had a deal with Microsoft office and so on.
However, again the metro like settings panel on the side and the start menu are completely out of flow with the desktop. It really ruined my experience even on 8.0 when I used it back last year.
Additionally, the Netflix experience was very poor with the sound quality being very low. I tried both IE11 and Metro app, in both cases there was a clear crackle and tremble. I don't know if Windows 8 is missing some drivers out of the box or what but Windows 7 VM had no problems.
Anyways Im gonna stick to Windows 7 on my VM. And in the future I may get a Metro only Surface if they come for $149 or something like that but not much more than that.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on that unless you get a used/refurbished Surface RT (1st gen).

 

Please do read selectively, that's important.
Disregard my earlier post about win 7 and emet. Helps your argument.

No one was talking about Linux.
Saying A is not bad because people don't like B is bollocks.
A can suck even if B does/does not suck.

And your experience and bsod are irrelevant, again.
Step out of your own world and look around.

Mrk

 

I wasn't comparing Win 8 with Linux, I was using your argument of people voting with the wallet.

Everyone in this thread supporting Win 8 have irrelevant arguments according to you, perhaps you may try to post your relevant argument, namely the image of the middle finger here at Wilders... Let's see how long it will last...

Look at what? Linux? Thanks but no thanks.


Mrk[/QUOTE]

 

The only relevant argument is the market share/adoption. That's it.
For a company that makes money off sales, there's nothing else.
Mrk

 

Windows 8/8.1 failed. The market says that... exactly the same way as the market said Windows XP or 7 were total Success!

If I am not mistaken, by people demand, HP decided last week that from now on will ship everything with Windows 7... and with that the case is rested!

 

When Windows 8 was released Uncle Sam bought licenses worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope you now understand why Linux is not the main OS. I don't think Canonical since its inception got cash as much as Microsoft had received in one year from the US government.

 

Personally I wouldn't pay too much attention to the actions of a maker of cheap and nasty products. If it was a manufacturer of quality products I'd be inclined to pay more attention.

 

More into the cons. Most disagreements I've read/heard are basically just circling about Metro or Start Menu. In other words, the cons are exaggerated. There are even some who said Windows 8 would have been better if Microsoft bring back the Start Menu again. Really now?

This reminds me of Vista's UAC. People whined about it so much, which I don't quite understand because they can just change the UAC setting themselves. Now in 8, people aren't forced to use the MetroUI and Metro Apps. If they want to go to the desktop environment, then they can achieve that just with a push of a button.

I hate MetroUI myself, but calling Windows 8 as a total failure is just too much. It's not like Windows 8 will give you a BSOD in every 45 minutes. It doesn't.

What about AppContainer? What about more coverage of ASLR? What about secure boot and ELAM? Nobody is really talking about it. It's only about Metro and Start Menu. For the most part, Windows 8 is underrated.

And yes, I admit that the upgrading mechanism is very annoying. I wish someday it'll be distributed from WU and the total size would be greatly reduced.

 

Agreed. Not sure I would be trumpeting what HP/Compaq, or any of their ilk are doing - honestly.

 

8.1 is relatively new. Adoption of any change is slow, regardless. This quarter will prove big for Windows 8x due to the widespread realization that 8.1 is a superior product.

Market statistics are showing an 7-12% jump PER MONTH in installed Windows 8 user base. While Windows 7 lost a full 35% of their installed base over the last 2 months.

It's not hard to see 2014 will see a meteoric rise of 8.1, with the retirement of XP, and the realization that Windows 8.1 is speedy, it's only going to boost all of this. So your prejudices, and theories - will prove wrong.

 

If you visit HP.com, you then have to click a category like Laptops or Desktop and then at the top you should see a link for Windows 7 PCs:



If you visit shopping.hp.com, then you should see this:

 

As long as MS allows downgrading to W7 and there is new version on horizon, I doubt that there will be a "meteoric rise" of W8.1. IMO it will share the same destiny as Vista. I, OTOH have switched from W7 to W8.1 full time and I like it so far. Have they not remove Start button and try to enforce this Modern UI, this release would have much brighter future.

hqsec

 

Just a quick exercise:

This quarter will prove to be slow for Windows 8x due to the widespread realization that 8.1 is inferior to both XP and Windows 7.

It's not hard to see 2014 will see a decline of 8.1, with the realization that XP will be as good as it is now even after April 2014, and that Windows 8.1 is slower then the older MS OSes.

I wanted to show you that I can twist your arguments and turn them around 180 degrees, providing zero concrete evidence (exactly like you). That lack of evidence in both cases makes it impossible to tell which one of us is really right.

 

The only reason Win 8.x will continue to rise in market share is because it's sold on most new PCs and laptops, not because of any supposed superiority. It gets a free ride because it's sold on almost every new machine, just like every version before it. Win 8.x is actually quite a big loser for MS due to the ridiculous UI. This is what people see, not the internal nuts and bolds, even if they are improved in performance.

MS will move onward to Win 9 as quickly as it possibly can now, and eventually leave 8.x in the dust, where it belongs...

 

And also the overrated Windows 7.

 

The "success" knows no bounds. Not even MS can be persuaded otherwise.
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=2335973

Mrk

 

In what way is 8.1 inferior to 7 or XP? 8.1 is faster in almost every way, lighter, and more secure. It has been proved, time and time again, old computers designed for XP actually run faster than WinXP itself on those old machines. My wifes 5 year old laptop actually feels like it got a major hardware upgrade under 8.1. I've heard from friends that put 8.1 on slow, older XP machines, and found those machines magically snappy.

I kind of feel bad for people still running XP. Sort of in a way I feel bad for people that still have mullets or mustaches.

 

Look, I was trying to make a point about not showing any proof when you say something, but my exercise clearly failed, and I'm not willing to try again. So each one of us will stick to his opinion.

 

I seriously doubt those people, you feel so bad for, doing their own thing with whatever strikes their fancy, or preference, care an iota what you feel.