1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows Windows 8 Marmite thread... Because you either love it or hate it

Discussion in 'Software' started by TheStockBroker, 28 Feb 2012.

?

Windows 8: what is your opinion?

  1. Love it: I'm already using it or planning to do so.

    59 vote(s)
    41.0%
  2. Hate it: this evil spawn of Satan will never defile the sanctity of my computer.

    37 vote(s)
    25.7%
  3. It's OK with a Start Menu replacement and while bypassing Metro.

    48 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. CrapBag

    CrapBag Multimodder

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    8,332
    Likes Received:
    630
    Quite possible but I can't see anything to correct it, it's going to fast lol.

    Just resintalling now.
     
  2. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Try starting in Safe Mode, reinstall GPU drivers.
     
  3. impar

    impar Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    44
    Greetings!
    Theshadow2001 addressed the limits quite well in his post.
    Thanks for the "not normal" part. As for not loading tabs on Firefox startup, I was already using a about:config tweak to make it behave so.
    On Windows 8? I go to Desktop. ;)
    Exactly, a fullscreen Start Screen.
    Microsoft solution to the increasingly less used Start Menu is to make its successor unskippable and fullscreen.
    Will the Start Screen ever have a "most used" feature? Because that is a feature I miss.

    And it really annoys me that Microsoft chose to go the "force Start Screen to everyone" route.
    If Microsoft had a more flexible approach, the major turnoff of Windows 8 would just disappear.
    And I am not alone on thinking that Start Screen is the defining factor of 8:
    Windows 8 Will Live or Die Based on The Start Screen
    Not quite. You can also place any shortcut to any setting or folder, without them being absorved into the Explorer button.
     
  4. impar

    impar Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    44
  5. faugusztin

    faugusztin I *am* the guy with two left hands

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    270
    Actually Start Screen is a touch friendly desktop/quicklaunch replacement with icons and widgets. Start menu replacement is what you get after you push Windows+Q.
     
  6. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    I don't get the train of thought that leads from "people don't use the start menu any more" to lets have a start screen. Essentially Microsoft have taken an aspect that apparently is barely used(start menu) and instead of reducing it on the O/S they turned it into a massive full screen feature(start screen). Surely a more logical step would be to remove the start menu and replace the taskbar with a mac like launcher. I guess Microsoft would never redo a mac feature for themselves. But really they've supersized something they say no one uses, I just don't get it.
     
  7. dullonien

    dullonien Master of the unfinished.

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    29
    But what do you do then, just sit staring at a bank desktop? You obviously open a program of some sorts. Personally the first thing I do most days is start Firefox and check the rugby news on bbc sport, followed by checking for updates on the two forums I visit daily (therugbyforum and here). So for me, I wait for Windows 8 to boot (so lovely and quick even on a mechanical HDD), then click Firefox on the start screen. How is this in any way inferior than going to the desktop first then clicking on a pinned program / quicklaunch shortcut / desktop shortcut?

    See my reply to theshadow2001. Still not sure why the fullscreen part annoys you so much. A most used feature is an interesting observation. I suppose putting your most used programs at the beginning is easily enough done, but not so sure about recently used files.

    Fair enough, hadn't thought of that. I also find it slightly annoying that certain things automatically get absorbed into the Explorer button. There are work-rounds to pinning folders to the taskbar without them getting absorbed, but it's a pain in the ass. Still think that pinning shortcuts is far superior than the quicklaunch.

    Well not exactly, they've turned something that people didn't use that much into something very different, which is not limited to just launching programs, but displaying information which users should find useful. To display this information successfully, making it fullscreen was the logical choice. I still don't see the problem of having it fullscreen. Are people in the habit of continuing to use the rest of their screen when using the start menu? Microsoft phones already display loads of information on the start screen, and I for one find it very useful. MS is taking this approach and applying it to Windows.

    The Mac launcher is an absolute mess which I got bored of emulating (yzdock, stardock) 5 years or more ago, the start screen is far more useful that that!
     
  8. Weekly_Estimate

    Weekly_Estimate Random bird noises.

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    798
  9. impar

    impar Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    44
    Greetings!
    No, I launch Desktop programs.
    No need to return to Start Screen each time I want\need to launch a new program.
    Boot, launch new Desktop program from Start Screen tile, return to Start Screen, launch a new program from Start Screen tile, return to Start Screen, ... versus, lauching programs from the Quicklaunch shortcuts in succession.
    Why wouldnt I be annoyed by an always-fullscreen search screen?
    Even launching a new program\app from the Start Screen reminds me of Windows 3.1 Program Manager.
    I return the question you made: Do you stay there staring at the live tiles in the Start Screen?
    For how long?
    Which is fine in a touch-enabled 4" screen gadget. If Microsoft would upgrade existing Windows phones to 8 I would have bought one already.
    What I object is for Microsoft forcing this approach, designed for content consumption in gadgets, and exporting it everywhere whitout offering the user of a 20"+ screen KB+M machine an opt-out.
     
  10. dullonien

    dullonien Master of the unfinished.

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    29
    So what exactly is the problem of Windows starting to the start screen? That was your initial complaint, and you wanted a way for it to start directly to the desktop. But it is no more difficult to launch a program from the start screen on start-up, than any other means.

    But this is also true of the start menu. This is why MS offers the quicklaunch or pinned programs as an alternate way of launching programs. So your problem isn't the start screen, but also the start menu, and because you generally launch programs a certain way (using the quicklaunch), you think everyone should be forced to do so that way?

    You haven't answered anything there. when I open the start screen I am concentrating on the start screen, not my other monitor. Similarly in Windows 7, when I opened the start menu, I was concentrating on the start menu, so what exactly is the problem with it being full screen? I'm sure there are some scenario's where not having it full screen would be beneficial, but very rarely. The Program Manager in Windows 3.1 was very different. For one, it would get buried under a pile of other windows, this isn't the case of the start screen. People seem to dislike it, without having any real reasons for doing so.

    I glance at the live tiles on the start screen. It only takes a second to check if there's a new e-mail in my inbox, or if someone's sent me a message or tagged a photo of me in facebook.

    But they aren't forcing this approach. You can still access your quicklaunch toolbar. Other people can still access their pinned programs on their taskbar. Why should MS always have to retain all these old features in their Operating Systems? People complain about Windows being bloated, and then the same people get severely annoyed when a feature which wasn't being used much any more is removed and replaced by something more people will find useful. Like I've said before, I'm running Windows 8 on a computer with two 24" screens with KB+M input and I find the start screen just as easy to use as the start menu, and in many cases more useful. Apart from the list of recently opened programs and documents (a valid criticism, but one which may be easily fixed by MS or a third party), the start menu doesn't offer anything over the start screen.
     
  11. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
  12. Jehla

    Jehla Minimodder

    Joined:
    8 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    614
    Likes Received:
    15
    Doesn't look like there is an easy/ elegant way to have game saves also backed up. Which is a shame, I lost hours due to a bug in mass effect 3.
     
  13. impar

    impar Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    44
    Greetings!
    Need to press Enter or click Desktop tile.
    Still want.
    Sure, but when I need to launch a program, that isnt in the Quicklaunch, it usually is in "most used" column, two clicks and I am done.
    Also, when I do need to search for anything using the Start Menu I dont need to think what type of thing am looking for. Searching for a setting, program or file is easier.
    Two things need to improve in Start Screen, the "most used" and a global search (at least use the 20"+ screen most have).
    The focus.
    You not only lose focus for a fullscreen screen, you can also get distracted with any live tiles you have there and you need to look at two extremes of the screen (results appear at the left, search box and Settings, Apps or Files in the far right).
    There you are in the Desktop watching a documentary in MPC, browsing with Firefox, need Calculator, BOOM! fullscreen search for calculator without "most used".
    Fullscreen can make sense on a small screen, on large screen is just idiot.
    Sure, but at least programs ran inside windows.
    Microsoft is forcing Start Screen. That is not open to interpretations, its a fact.
    Had Micrsoft provided a classic Start Menu and allowed Metro apps to run inside Windows, pretty much all criticism about Windows 8 would disappear.
    Of course, the ones who wanted to use the Start Screen and Metro as it is now, could choose so.
    Having options on how to configure Windows would be a bad thing?
     
  14. dullonien

    dullonien Master of the unfinished.

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    29
    I give up! We're going round in circles with this point, because you simply say that you want Windows to boot directly to the desktop without giving any reasons as to why. Why do you have to click on desktop or press enter? Why not position Firefox or e-mail client as first tile and press enter to open one of those / click on one of those, then you are presented with the desktop + an open running application that you wanted open anyway. Once more, how is this more difficult, or worse than having Windows boot directly to the desktop and then you clicking a separate shortcut to open the aforementioned program.

    Thanks for sharing those. Both make sense and are valid criticism's of the start screen imo. I still feel that both are only minor points, but that's just me. I can see that they are things that you find very annoying. The list of most used programs and possibly a list of recently opened documents are both things that MS maybe should look into. There are ways around this, although it involves learning a few keyboard shortcuts GoodBytes has already given, but not everyone uses keyboard shortcuts.

    And that ability is still there. You act as though MS is forcing you to only use Metro apps. This isn't the case, all your previously used programs are still available. There are a few Metro apps I use, but I still mostly run desktop programs.

    Having too many options could possibly be a bad thing. It fragments the user base and makes programming new programs more difficult. Windows has always struggled with the weight of backwards compatibility. It's one of its biggest strengths, but also one of its biggest weaknesses. I remember reading a number of years ago that MS wanted to get rid of the registry because it was prone to attack and error, but that would render every program obsolete. Windows would be better without the registy, but it's almost impossible for them to get rid of it. Not this might not totally apply to the start menu / start screen, but having the majority of its users using Windows in a similar way is imo a good thing.

    I understand if you don't, but that is just the way I feel. It obviously helps that I like the start screen to begin with. I was expecting MS to make a classic start menu available tbh, but they've taken the decision not to it seems.
     
  15. impar

    impar Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    44
    Greetings!
    Ah! That actually makes sense, since I have Firefox always running.
    The majority of Windows users were already using Windows in a similar way.

    ______________
     
  16. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    Well they certainly have turned it into something different. This displaying of live information was essentially what gadgets used to do, which they managed without being full screen. Also gadgets seem to have such a low take up that instead of fixing the recent security hole they just discarded it (although that might also have something to do with windows 8 releasing in the next few months). In windows 8 I'm certain the users of live tiles will greatly out number the users gadgets because live tiles are embedded into the start screen and gadgets weren't marketed and highlighted properly. For example if windows had a facebook gadget, email gadget, photo gadget, and media gadget which were displayed on the desktop by default and the user had to just sign into the various accounts the take up would have been much greater. The reason I’m talking about gadgets is that live info isn't some new metro innovation its been there since vista.

    To display live information, making the tiles part of a full screen is not necessarily a logical choice but certainly one option. Another would be to pin live tiles to the start menu, a gadgets like thing on the desktop is another option. There are plenty of options. Also not all tiles are live, namely most desktop programs. Is it really worth while having a whole screen dedicated to live tiles when only a handful are actually displaying useful live info.

    The start screen is only a logical choice if you are trying to integrate the windows "experience" across all windows devices. One reason would be because doing it the other way around (make the mobile devices more like the desktop) won't work for a multitude of reasons. However this BS that users don't use the start menu any more so now we have a start screen is a poor attempt at trying to give people an excuse for metro. They are essentially trying to avoid saying that the future of popular technology is in mobile devices and having the metro interface on PCs is a useful marketing tool as we try to steer the company in the mobile direction.

    I'm not a great lover of launchers either, however I can see why some people like them. The reason I bring up launchers is not because I like them or think they are better than metro it's because I can see a clear flow of thought by combining a start menu and pinned to taskbar programs to end up with a launcher. There is no such flow of thought which starts with a start menu and ends with metro again because its more of a marketing tool than a technical advantage and natural evolution of windows.

    The problem with jumping to the start screen to open a program is that it completely interrupts focus when opening a new program. I think that completely changing the environment you are in distracts you from your work flow. Where as a start menu slips in and out of your current environment and elements are added and removed from a single environment as you work. The aural equivalent of the start screen would be a truck horn going off every time you press the start button. Big, in your face and sort of obnoxious.
     
    Last edited: 17 Jul 2012
  17. impar

    impar Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    44
    Greetings!

     
  18. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    WOW, now we know he knows nothing.
    Again, this is NOT a Windows 8 feature! This is UEFI feature. Windows 8 only supports it. That is all. Why is it Microsoft fault? That is like blaming Microsoft because it rains outside.

    Linux community is trying too hard to make Microsoft look bad, that now they look like idiots. Instead of trying to pull a revenge for nothing for Microsoft, how about they focus on making their OS better, and see solution with UEFI makers and OEM's to have this option in the UEFI settings be available. Heck even see with Europe in forcing OEM to have that option to not give Microsoft monopolistic by default.
     
    Last edited: 17 Jul 2012
  19. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    Actually it seems that it's more of a Microsoft requirement on hardware vendors than a UEFI feature per se. So the linux community can argue day and night with UEFI foundation it won't stop Microsoft insisting that the secure boot is locked down on all hardware that it ships Windows 8 on. This secure boot issue with UEFI is most definitely instigated by Microsoft. Since the linux community isn't a commercial entity and is quite disparate there are issues with simply doing what microsoft does with UEFI. It's not a case of simply "making their operating system better" in fact that has nothing to do with it. Its Microsoft saying to hardware vendors either lock down UEFI or don't put Windows on you're hardware. To which the hardware vendors are going to comply since it would be commercial suicide not to. If linux approaches the same vendors and says don't lock down UEFI or people won't be able to use Linux on your hardware. The vendor won't care because it has no impact on their business.

    Either way the community will find a way around this and this UEFI lockdown will present a new challenge which hackers and virus writers will relish. No doubt they will find plenty of holes in it.

    This outlines the linux situation better

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-windows-8-uefi-and-fedora/11187
     
  20. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Of course Microsoft wants that, else it would be disabled by default, and UEFI secure boot feature goes at the bin as no one uses it. BUT it's OEM decision to put the option IN the UEFI/BIOS configuration menu "Secure Boot" "[Enable]/[Disable]". Some OEM don't want you to change the OS of their system.. already many OEM's voids the warranty if you change the OS.. even to a older or newer Windows. So obviously, OEM are interested is not providing you that option (same for overclocking). Linux foundation can push OEM's to not remove the setting to disable Secure Boot, so that a different OS can be installed.

    The only push that Microsoft did for OEM to remove that option is for tablets. You buy a Windows tablet.. you stay with Windows. But as their is no push on the other side with argument why it's bad to do this... OEMs are going to be like: "Well... Microsoft give us a few dollars off the license for doing what they want, and the consumer wants the lowers price possible, and are perfectly happy with all the ads we dump in our systems, and the removal any disk and documentation, as the sales number shows. So following Microsoft decision will give us a price competitive advantage".

    Now if Linux foundation comes to OEM and goes "listen it's only a few dollars, and beside having the ability to change the OS, will be very welcomes to a wide market of people, it's a niche market.. here are some numbers, plus Microsoft has it's own tablet already... why not have a feature that Microsoft own tablet won't provide to attract sales to you". Or push something along the line (it's obviously lots of paper work and talking), and not that simple. But no one said it would be easy. But they can do it. Right now, they don't even try. They just bash Microsoft. They should have bashed UEFI group that made this standard or be part of it, so that Secure Boot doesn't make it., or work for some-kind of license or system where the key can be distributed to recognized and/or trusted distro's only, for free. So that Linux OS can have no trouble to run for the great majority of people, and then see for the rest.

    If they tried.. like honestly tried to even put all their energy into it.. then I would agree with you. But that is simply, in my opinion, not the case.
     
    Last edited: 17 Jul 2012

Share This Page