My, my, such swagger, skill, and self confidence. That deserves a cheer...!
Why not, Steve Sinofsky did......
Although to tell the truth, he does look like a character from the "Village People". This brings a whole new dimension to the term, "metro-sexual". (Of course the pun was intended).
I'm guessing a pink, over the shoulder laptop handbag would complete the ensemble......
I'm pro-productivity. I work on the platform developing every day. I have an MSDN subscription and install the latest versions of every office and development related MS product as soon as they are released so these complaints are from experience. As a developer I don't want to take a backward step in productivity. VS2012 was "social-mediaified" (Pending Changes is unusable compared to VS2010 - I don't care about the UI theme changes really but many do), Office 2013 looks to be solid with no discernable advancements or drawbacks, Win8 doesn't seem to have any discernable advantages (apart from perhaps better SSD support which if MS really wanted to, they could include in a Win7 service pack as it is just extra support in the kernel).
The Win8 copy dialog is nice... there are 3rd party free tools that do the same thing for Win7 and earlier and have been around for many years.
A touchscreen based interface for desktops is laughable. Seriously, how comfortable is touching a 24", 27" or 30" screen all day? While mouse and keyboard works on it, it clearly is not designed for them.
I would love for MS to come to our workplace and demonstrate how Metro works in our environment.
Good one - touche' - I was tired at the time and had been reading comments about Win 8 for hours, and it just hit me, are we all really so bored that this is all we have to worry about? I guess the answer is "yes"
"Good one - touche' - I was tired at the time and had been reading comments about Win 8 for hours, and it just hit me, are we all really so bored that this is all we have to worry about? I guess the answer is "yes".
God you are so right. I've spent the past 20 years trying to decide what to do with my life. And I had no real purpose in life until Windows 8 was released. Now, I have a reason to live. My purpose in life has become to troll Windows 8 threads for no other reason than pure bordem. Sure, I could be playing some cool FPS games like TF2, Battlefield 3, any one of the fine series of COD games, going to the gym to life weights, watching cool movies, trying to pick up girls or working on finishing my college degree in CSIS. But those things don't seem to give me real purpose.
Therefore, I post my opinions about the pathetic Windows 8 operating system for absolutely positively no other reason on planet earth than to simply ***** out of maddening bordem.
Your one of the few people who have figured it out. You must have a degree in psychology. Thank you helping us all. I cannot change until I realize that I must.
I think <I>you</I> don't get it. Which, no offense, is not at all surprising among the Windows 8 "blind critics." Let me let you in on a little secret:
The code has already been removed.
I'm sorry, but did you think this was a progressive thing? That there is a fight to win? No, sir. There's no going back. The potential success of Windows 8, as evident by your fears, is what subconsciously fuels most the blind critics. The fear is, as you've implied, that future versions will not go back if somehow collectively voicing "it sucks" doesn't make MS think twice.
Well, it won't. It's Windows 95 all over again.
The program I mentioned, brings the lost code back into Explorer. You know, that's what I meant by native. Essentially, as "dooming" as the sales figures you see might seem, know there are three simple things you can do: you either get on the Metro bandwagon, the Windows 8 + Start Menu bandwagon, or stick to Windows 7. Your choice, just know the latter isn't future-proof.
P.S. The only reason the Menu can be brought back is because Metro still utilizes foundational code that simply doesn't make sense to remove.
I seem to be pointing this out to a lot of people lately (not that surprising, really): Windows 8 has been available to OEMs, partners, an select enterprise customers <I>before</I> general availability. This means sales figures publicized are of actual consumer sales.
Now, about upgrades. Let's assume for a second the released figures so far are not upgrades but actual sold copies. It's still successful.
But let's consider, as I'm sure you want to consider, that the released figures <I>do</I> include upgrades. Let's analyze this for a second. What would it mean? What would knowing the upgrades tell you, exactly? That there are more people upgrading than there are buying? That there more people buying than there are upgrading?
Another side of this point is that upgrades are indeed cheaper. You could then argue, if you agree the reported sales figures do include upgrades, that most people did because it's cheaper. Let's also consider this. To the average consumer: Windows 8, with a radically different Start Screen, <I>aimed at touch</I>, with it's own "store" akin to the likes of iOS, <I>on a desktop</I>, it's 80% cheaper than what Windows 7 was (which, besides the better marketing, wasn't such a radical change from the Vista fiasco), so <I>why on earth should I upgrade?</I>
It seems to me there's every possible reason for the regular consumer to have decided against buying Windows 8, whether it be for the potential reasons above or for no need due to Windows 7. And yet, whether there are more upgrades than sales or vice-versa, the amount of consumers that decided to <I>get</I> the radically new OS so far outweighs the grim picture people like you would love to paint.
By what metric was 7 better than 8? Well, real world--benchmarks aside--usage shows that it's simply faster. Faster at booting, faster at opening documents, faster at indexing. Improved task manager and efficiency as also evidenced by its ARM support. For less tech-savvy folks it now comes with MSE disguised as Windows Defender.
Changes from Vista and 7? Except for MSE and the new taskmanager, just copy and paste what's above.
Because they are trying to compete in the mobile space. The desktop is <b>not going anywhere.</b>
You can "vote" with your wallet, sure, but know it's futile. Just know if you want, you can remove Metro's idiosyncrasies.
I too hated Windows 8. Well, only one part, really: it's hot-corners (I was indifferent to the Start Screen as I really didn't use it). Nothing infuriated me more whenever I, for instance, selected a tab or pressed Back button in Chrome and accidentally switched to an "app." It was so poorly thought-out it made me puke.
But I take comfort in the fact that I use an OS that allows me to tinker with it as much as possible. I won't miss out on its benefit based on ethics. It's also rather foolish to believe the "end" of the Start menu will come if the people unwilling to adapt don't voice their opinion, when the sad reality is that the Start menu is gone for good and the only option is to either adapt, take advantage, or stay in the past.
Me? I decided to <I>take advantage</I> of the very characteristic people like you say MS took from Windows: it's openness.
Yep, I knew you were confused.
Lol y'all getting owned by this lawfer guy ... I guess I can give windows 8 a chance if I can get the start menu back. That has been my only reason for not upgrading really as I know under the hood there are some legit improvements. Will have to see about the drivers for my laptop though...
No argument? I'm disappointed.
Every war has two apposing sides, just because you picked his side doesn't mean its the winning side.
And for the record, I'm not fighting for the Start Menu. I'm fighting for something that looks better than the Start Screen. Even if it is to bring back the Start Menu, I want it natively coded. Hell I could be happy with translucent tiles, if I could choose a nice looking background. But we all know translucency effects was removed from Windows 7, when they created Windows 8 to run on tablets.
I'm done with you!!!
Lawfer seems to be ignoring history, and "y'all" seem like a troll, jus' tryin' to stir the pot.
Windows Vista was an enormous fail. People bitched, people complained, people voted with their wallets, an M$ fixed what ailed it, and renamed it, "Windows 7". Everybody seems to like that a bunch.
Guess what? Vista is gone, and it's no longer supported, may it rest in peace. But guess what else, Windows XP is still supported. Is that a paradox? Not on your life, people really like XP, so it survives.
M$ is heading in a dangerous direction for any of its customers who still have a brain cell left working. If you just let them glide over to the complete Apple business model, (which is exactly what it appears they're trying to do), y'all are in deep doo doo.
Now, instead of being some transient trying to provoke or prolong this argument, why don't you kick back and watch the videos I posted a while ago? (posts #'s 64 & 76). They might be right up your alley.
If you want a system that is truly open, you may want to try one of many versions of Linux.
You didn't answer the question...
Faster booting - if you run an SSD this is not a problem anyway. To me this is not a reason to upgrade.
Faster at opening documents - again on an SSD the gain is not significant.
Indexing - indexing is rubbish anyway. I always turn it off as the results are not what I want whereas the legacy search returns perfect results every time.
Improved task manager - Process Explorer is a million times better than Win7 and Win8 task manager. It can show DLL handles, file handles, GPU, CPU usage per process, strings, process hierarchy and much much more and is extremely lightweight and is also a Microsoft free download.
ARM support? Well ok if you need it fine.
Unless you are a developer. Which is kind of important because you can't have applications in mobile space without development I think?
Or need bleeding edge horsepower (CPU/GPU/physics).
Also there are a LOT of businesses out there that work on desktops. For the vast majority, this has not and will not change anytime soon. Unlike home users, Metro is counter-productive. The idea is not to spend most of your time looking at live tiles and opening social media!
EDIT: I should add, App finder is slow compared to start menu search. Pretty frustrating really and a big step back in productivity.
Which question? I guestimated the numbers in my examples...
I hate Metro. It's like Microsoft's attempt at being more stylish than Apple. And they failed. They failed miserably. Microsoft can do it though.
I just want a desktop version of these applications.
Here is another interesting article on the topic
Top rated comment (not from me!) but similar to my point of view:
"The blog article on the Windows development is obviously a rationalisation exercise to try and convince people it all makes sense. However, the section on Windows 8 makes it clear that Win 8 is aimed solely at the mobile user personal entertainment market and totally ignores the real needs of business, the enterprise, and workplace productivity except where they can make it seem to fit in.
That all makes sense for the smartphones and tablets, but is a major slap in the face for enterprise and those after an OS for productivity, and also for those who want to have something they're familiar with to use at home. If they'd left the Win Classic desktop and start as an available option they'd have had a winner, but what they've done is make life way too hard for too many users." >> Deadly Ernest 1 hr ago
Is Mint worth it for someone pretty much entirely new to Linux/Ubuntu? Knoppix seemed simple and navigable enough to me, but if there are more refined versions of Linux out there, it would be more sensible to start with them so I can get a better grasp of it.
The question, you may recall, was "This is arrant nonsense - how come concert pianists always seem to use their fingers, if a mouse is so precise?"
And you are using an example that was invented centuries before computers existed. Your example is null and void of being a legitimate comparison because of the time it was invented.
You need to let this go. The comparison which you've drawn has an almost a -1 correlation. If you like, I can PM you with my thoughts on the issue, rather than discussing it in the forum.
No, my point, which you are clearly missing, is that it would be mind-numbingly difficult to play a classical piano piece using a mouse (and a PC, not a piano keyboard, obviously, before you jump on me for that as well!). As for the example being "invented centuries before etc.etc.", this is a logical impossibility, how can anyone have compared mouse performance with anything before the existence of them??
I apologise if this bizarre communication schism is my fault, perhaps I used the wrong type of English?!
Yes, your syntax was quite misleading, and portrayed your meaning to be exactly the opposite.
Let's suppose they had mice in the heyday of the harpsichord anyway. All mechanical keyboard instruments are "polyphonic". Each key produces one unique pitch. Humans have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs, operable simultaneously.
That means, using your hands you can produce 10 individual notes at once. (Possibly even a couple more, if you strike across multiple keys).
So, to duplicate that, you would need 10 mice, as each one has only one cursor. Accordingly, you would need 10 arms to control them. (You see how this renders any comparison beyond merely abstract, to the extent null and void, don't you)?
In any case, I believe they were developing the mouse during those times, but gave up because no one was working on the cathode ray tube. Thus rendering them unable to test it)...
We'll be back after the break, and turn our attentions from milestones in science, to current events..............
This just in......, "here comes Santa Claus, here comes Santa Claus, right down Santa Claus way".
A mouse is a completely different input device. A piano has 60+ keys. A mouse has usually 2 or 3. The accuracy of input locations on a mouse is pixel resolution. A piano you have a much larger margin for error. They simply are not comparable. Completely different purposes.
Can you use a piano for the functional purposes of a mouse? How efficient would it be for that purpose? And vice versa?
Of course not - I must remember to insert more smileys....
Or perhaps if you explain in MUCH greater detail, for days on end, I might begin to see the latent merits of your argument?
PS How about using a piano as a mouse - not much precision, but you'd develop one humongous forearm!