Windows 8 Preview users can upgrade to final version for $39.99

[dividebyzero]

I think this is more of a problem for 'click' generation than for people who grew up using 'keyboard' as primary input device

The odd thing is that it shouldn't be much of a hindrance (if any) regardless of whether you've been kb or mouse orientated- imo. The full page start menu gives a lot of scope once you downsize/cull the tiles, and as you say, the desktop is only a click away...and how many applications/services can't be pinned to the start page and/or given a shortcut/pin to taskbar treatment with the desktop? After adding a two dozen or so must haves (Resource Monitor, Performance monitor, Regedit, assorted admin tools, Doc's etc.) virtually anything becomes a one or two click operation even if you're not conversant with kb shortcuts. Most of the admin tools (Control panel, Computer Management, Task scheduling etc etc.) are already available -all that's needed is to click the Metro Search -assuming you've checked the Show Admin Tools option I assume.

From a personal PoV, I don't find it any more difficult to use than Win7 (easier in some respects). The functionality is little different from previous Windows iterations, and for the first time ever, my 70+ year-old parents aren't totally bewildered and intimidated by exploring their home computer- I can't see how this is a bad thing.

As for performance, I'll reserve final judgement until both the Win7 and Win8 installs have had 3-6 months of usage. I have baseline performance for both from the clean install. I'll compare again once the systems have had a chance to get ravaged by the usual barrage of updates, programs install/reinstall, and general wear and tear.

 

[maxxxenem1]

Im glad so many people are stuck in the past on ( win 7) ! Windows knows this that's why they will sell me an upgrade for $40..LOL

 

[ig-88]

All that space wasted for just one complaint I.e. W8 UI is a derivative of WP UI. Beyond that there is absolutely nothing substantial in your argument. I think this is more of a problem for 'click' generation than for people who grew up using 'keyboard' as primary input device.

What MS is doing is 'very bold' IMHO, as they are essentially on path to create 'one windows to rule them all' (thanks to Sebastian over at EE for this) I.e. same kernel will drive OS on smartphones / tablets / PCs / Xbox and what not. The logic behind this approach is very practical and correct, remember MS integrated browser in the OS before anyone else did? Now everyone has essentially copied that concept.

As the OS will be supporting native code, in most cases porting an app will be as simple as turning on a switch in visual studio. It also means that common graphic drivers + DirectX support across all versions of OS. So at least theoretically, this mean even WP can run any PC game as well. Native code support will also result in much easier route for porting iOS / Android apps to WP. Now imagine the cost savings this will bring? Simply put, developers are going to be very happy about this change.

[FONT=Arial]This should also clarify you one thing, that why MS was forced to choose one UI for all versions of OS.[/FONT]

What about users then? Well, in general people (I am not targeting anyone here) are averse to change, so I can understand all this negativity related to such a major UI overhaul. But really, getting into desktop mode is just one 'key press' away, if you want your beloved 'Start' button back, it is not that difficult either. Or one can easily get Start8 (or whatever it is called) by Stardock.

To wrap it up, even Apple is slowly bringing iOS features to OSX (I.e. style Notifications, iMessage support, GameCenter integration, AirPlay Mirroring, Notes and Reminders). Will they merge mobile / desktop platforms? One can only guess but who knows they may end up following their competitors.

All that wasted space to tell us that people who don't embrace Windows 8 with open arms are simply averse to change. One of the many talking points used to psychologically coerce people into trying an operating system that they are apprehensive about using. Oddly enough, Windows 7 was a change from XP and XP was a change from Windows ME and Windows ME was a change from Windows 95 and I didn't have a problem with installing and trying "any" of those operating systems. I have no want to install and try Windows 8. There is no desire at this point.

To be honest, nothing you said clarifies anything about why Microsoft choose one UI for all versions of Windows 8. My theory for Microsoft choosing a single UI across all devices was for no other reason than a "consistent look" across all compatible devices. The question I ask myself is this: Do I want to sit close enough to my monitor to where I have to reach out and touch my screen and swipe tiles all day long to get things done? And if I am not willing to sit inches from my computer screen(which promotes eyestrain, btw) so that I am able to touch or swipe my screen all day long does it make sense to hack the operating system and use a keyboard and mouse with an interface that was designed for me to use my fingers? God forbid the day I lose my physical keyboard to a virtual one. I waste more time on my cellphone hitting the delete/backspace key than I do sending out actual text messages or dialing phone numbers.

And who forced Microsoft to implement a touch-screen tablet/cellphone interface for the desktop? The user interface for an operating system should be situated a layer above the kernel. Not embedded in it. You talk about flipping a switch in Visual Studio to make an application run on a certain device. Why couldn't the user interface logic be contained in that switch also? Why couldn't the UI be generalized so that creative people could implement the interface thats feels and looks best for them? If Microsoft wants to do something really cool they should implement functionality into Windows 8 that allows developers to create new UI options and for users to select their UI of choice with the "flip-of-the-switch" so to speak. Make it similar to selecting a theme on the desktop or like a plug-in for a browser. Does Microsoft really want people sitting 3" from their screen touching purple tiles all day while playing their XBox 360 or 720? If not, why in the hell are they expecting desktop users to do this? People talk about how easy it is for their "grandparents" to use Windows 8 and those same people turn to me and want my *** to go hunt down 3rd party applications to restore functionality that should be a first class citizen, not a second place option.

If Microsoft wanted all devices to scale-up using a common kernel for the core of the operating system to make it easier for cross-platform development thats all fine by me. I don't see any reason why desktop users should have to accept the UI of the least powerful devices in the name of consistency. The powerful combination of a keyboard and mouse can never be replaced by the swipe of the finger. I am sorry but It's just not that simple. And if I have to go out and hunt down add-ons for my "out-of-box-experience" after installing Windows 8, as you suggested I do, it makes me wonder why the functionality was taken "off stage" to begin with.

The vision of Microsoft to have a common kernel across all computing devices is fine but they went one step too far. The UI is NOT required to be part of that common kernel. But Im just stating the obvious at this point because everybody already knows, especially Windows 8 lovers, that the traditional user interface still exists, proving my point. The kernel and the UI are not the same thing. The diversity in specifications of all computing devices that exists today demands a tailored UI for each device. It does NOT demand or require that we accept the least powerful UI on the most powerful device. For me to have to go out and hunt down this functionality out-of-the-box is ridiculous. For me to have to raise one finger to restore this functionality as a desktop user is ridiculous. It should just be there.

Metro should have been positioned as an alternative to the traditional desktop user interface, not as a replacement. In the end, forcing Metro on desktop users is, in my opinion, Microsoft's "Fatal Error".

 

[ig-88]

Im glad so many people are stuck in the past on ( win 7) ! Windows knows this that's why they will sell me an upgrade for $40..LOL

Desktops are old school bro.If I am stuck in the past why are you still using a desktop and not "just" a cellphone or tablet? Explain that one Mr. Comedian.

P.S. Please post your Microsoft employee ID number when responding so I can give you positive feedback for your funny jokes.

And one last thing. Since people are so gung-ho and hell bent on embracing change for no other reason than changes sake alone, I recommend we change the name of the Windows operating system from Windows 8 to Tiles 2012. The name Windows is so old school now. Who's with me?

 

[Guest]

Nobody ig. Nobody is with you.

 

[GodsDontMiss]

There is an entire operating system behind that screen. You should try it on a computer its actually pretty nice.

 

[Guest]

Generally speaking, the operating system is not physically situated behind the screen, arguably not physically anywhere, so the above statement is false. Incidentally, the OS in question is very poor indeed, the screen in question being one of the (many) weak points.

 

[blackdragon1230]

there will be choices in brands, but the world is moving to more universal all in one devices. if you dont like it then make your own. but this is the way of things.

 

[abysal]

With windows 7 users didn't need to wait for the service pack to upgrade, but I'm afraid that many will wait for the service pack for windows 8. I'm still hoping they will manage to make the start screen NOT ALWAYS FULLSCREEN. If they gave users the option to change between fullscreen and a window then 75% of the people that are complaining now would have loved the new OS.
I know they that need to force us to use metro so that developers actually have a user base to tap into, but I just don't like it.
I'm using the Start8 application so that I can have a start button and I also made a custom toolbar with my most used programs for quicker access.

Yep you're right, even with the awful looking aesthetics.

 

[abysal]

Wow, I see as usual most of you are missing the point of this upgrade entirely. Metro isn't going to be a big deal. The only reason people are complaining is because most people are always complaining about anything they aren't used to. The main thing most users should be considering is that this new OS has improved speed in almost every category compared to Win 7 and XP. For those people who have a hard time understanding this, that means just about everything you do on your computer everyday will go faster than it does now. Speed tests have proven this. But the best part is that all of this comes at only $40. That's a pretty sick deal for a speed boost across the board.

People can get used to anything over time. I can get used to eating cold pizza and drinking warm beer. But if I have a choice I want hot pizza and cold beer. Windows 7 Ultimate was new when it came out and I never had to "get used to it".
The reason everything goes faster on Windows 8 is because cellphones and tablets were added to the equation when calculating what the final product would be like. "Speed" isn't the holy grail of how one chooses which operating system to use. It's a factor to be considered amoung many, many others. The speed of Windows 7 on my computer is just fine. Stripping out complex UI themes for simplistic tiles and telling me its faster isn't an incentive to upgrade to Windows 8. Of course its faster. Because instead of attempting to harness the full power of a desktop they started with the power of cellphones/tablets and used that as the common base when making software design choices. Saying everybody should upgrade to 'Windows 8' because of a speed boost is ludicrous. Releasing the same functionality at an improved speed would be something to talk about. Designing an operating system with cellphones/tablets in mind and then adapting it to the desktop and then telling everybody its faster than Windows 7 is comparing Apples to Oranges.
Yeah, $40 is a pretty sick deal. That's not a bad price to convert my desktop to a cellphone/tablet OS.

@DBZ
There is one huge thing which many missed with regard to new UI/kernel unification + optimization, I.e. MS is drawing up a course for 'unified' application development for mobile+desktop platforms. Skipping the merits or demirts of it, the logic seems solid IMHO, and if they succeed in it, it will stump both Google and Apple, putting them on-course to continue to dominate computer industry for many more years. The question is, can they pull it off and get programers on-board?

Actually, I don't think alot of people are missing what Microsoft is attempting to do at all. I think almost everybody who is unhappy with the new Windows 8 OS sees exactly what Microsoft is attempting to do. I think the unified application development of desktop+mobile platforms is the most obvious and glaring reason for most people's complaints about Windows 8. It's an assumption that one UI can be designed that will work equally well across all devices. So, whether or not you using a 27" desktop monitor or a 4.3" cellphone screen you will be using the same interface. I don't how your brain works but, on the contrary, this doesn't seem logical to me at all. It seems completely delusional. And since cellphones and tablets lack the raw power a desktop CPU the "unified" operating system gets designed around the lowest common denominator so that no child gets left behind.

Exactly why aero transparency UI is no more.

 

[Guest]

It's the same propaganda that's been used in the past. Upgrade to Windows 8! It's better!....

Actually, not really. The speed improvements are minimal and I won't even get into the interface. The boot time has been improved by no more than a few seconds, if that, on most machines from the hundreds of reviews I've read throughout the internet world.

I recently got off my XP high horse and upgraded to Windows 7 SP1. I wasn't sure what to expect but can say that Im thrilled I did it. XP was Microsoft's best release until 7 SP1 came along. How about we get a Service Pack 2 and you take a little more time on Windows 8. Rushing things is what screwed you with Vista and is what will screw you with Windows 8. Get it right. That's all your users want and ask for. Seriously, Microsoft, it's not that difficult.

 

[ReederOnTheRun]

I think your second paragraph has very valid logic. My only concern with it as it applies to Windows 8 is, why then, did Microsoft choose to implement the UI of the least powerful platform across all other devices? They choose the UI that was most practical across all devices. So, whether you want to admit it or not, Windows 8 for the desktop has been branded with a tablet/cellphone UI even if everything else under the hood is better, faster, and more powerful than a speeding locomotive. It's this perception, whether true or false, that has a lot of people worried. And so in the end the truth may not matter. Only the perception. We will see soon enough.

So just so we have this straight, you want to give up proven speed boosts, unparalleled compatibility between devices, and all the other features they've added at 1/3 of the price of windows 7 all because the start up UI is too simple for your tastes? I like win 7 too, but this is a big step into the future of how companies design there products. If you're ever going to upgrade, this wouldn't be a bad time.

 

[Guest]

Really? This comment thread is about Windows 8, not about your hate towards Microsoft. If your going to post garbage, find the appropriate forum.
As for Windows 8, I've installed it and keeping an open mind. Its a bold change. Some will like it, some wont. It's still new to me but after I learn it, I'll post pros and cons

 

[SNGX1275]

...The speed improvements are minimal and I won't even get into the interface. The boot time has been improved by no more than a few seconds, if that, on most machines from the hundreds of reviews I've read throughout the internet world.

I recently got off my XP high horse and upgraded to Windows 7 SP1. I wasn't sure what to expect but can say that Im thrilled I did it. XP was Microsoft's best release until 7 SP1 came along. How about we get a Service Pack 2 and you take a little more time on Windows 8. Rushing things is what screwed you with Vista and is what will screw you with Windows 8. Get it right. That's all your users want and ask for. Seriously, Microsoft, it's not that difficult.

Boot time is immensely improved on older machines. Perhaps if you have an SSD and a CPU made within the last 2 years there isn't much boot difference, but there are a lot of computers that don't have super modern tech in them.

It took you a while to get off your high horse about XP, perhaps you are just a bit close minded about progression. People often forget how XP wasn't very good for a long time. There was a lot of driver support problems, poor drivers, still lots of BSODs (although less than 9x). It took until about SP2 before things really got very good for XP. I think a lot of the love for XP is from people that are in their mid 20s or younger, by the time they were really using computers for more than kiddie games XP was pretty good.

There are a lot of things covered in this thread, and in particular the discussion on Win 8 that is stickied at the top of Windows OS forum, so I won't rehash them all. Win 8 is bringing a lot of improvements over 7, and the only criticism about 8 is Metro/lack of traditional start menu.

Businesses will stick to 7 for a long time, but not because 8 is bad, but rather because its an expensive and time consuming process to upgrade computers.

 

[Guest]

Boot time is not immensely improved on older machines. It is improved on newer machines.

 

[Jay Pfoutz]

SNGX1275 - the man is well read! (y) Good read my man!

 

[Zoltan Head]

I used to work with a Will Reid - I wonder if they're related?

 

[SNGX1275]

Boot time is not immensely improved on older machines. It is improved on newer machines.

Really? My 2.4Ghz P4 w/HT and a 160GB hd would strongly disagree. I boot Windows 7 Basic on it and Win 8 CP, the difference is immense.

 

[Archean]

On my 'reasonably old' C2Q 8400/4GB RAM, it boots up roughly in half the Win7's time, which is very reasonable improvement IMO.

@SNGX
After months of trial, I'm positive that there are no ghosts in win8 (or its UI), and it is pretty easy to live with.

 

[Guest]

@SNGX - what are you comparing the boot time of the (oldish) P4 with? I can't see the new hardware?

 

[SNGX1275]

^ I'm comparing it with itself. I have that system dual booting both Win 7 and Win 8.

 

[HuntForTheWOrst]

Af the week after I buy 7 the preview comes then the month later whoopy the final version is out I was so pissed on that day I had to get 7 cause I need it for North Park Secondary school but the week later that sucks then theirs the people who got it the day before the final realease but in my opinion without all the hate I dont like the way their making the newer models look I had XP one of my best computer R.I.P my XP tbh.

TBH the start screen in my opinion isn't the best the couldve done

 

[Guest]

@SNGX again - In that case, it is absurd to contradict the statement "Boot time is not immensely improved on older machines. It is improved on newer machines.", if you only are using one (older) machine? Where's the newer machine? Where's the older? It's the same one!

 

[SNGX1275]

What are you going on about? Boot time is immensely improved on older machines, I displayed that with 7 and 8 on the same older machine. I'm not, nor was the dude I quoted, saying you are going to get an older machine to boot faster than a new machine. I'm sure there could be countless examples shown where older hardware with 8 would boot faster than newer with 7, but that wasn't at all what I was replying to nor what I was trying to say.

I think you have misread the original post I was replying to.

Comparing boot times with identical hardware is the only fair way to compare boot times of differing operating systems.

 

[ig-88]

So just so we have this straight, you want to give up proven speed boosts, unparalleled compatibility between devices, and all the other features they've added at 1/3 of the price of windows 7 all because the start up UI is too simple for your tastes? I like win 7 too, but this is a big step into the future of how companies design there products. If you're ever going to upgrade, this wouldn't be a bad time.

The start up UI isn't "too simple for my tastes". It's too retarded for my taste. It's a fish out of water. The UI belongs on a cellphone, not on a desktop.

Proven speed boots at what costs...Because Aero no longer exists? Because less processes are loading at startup? Because we get pretty tiles instead of a desktop? Im supposed to get all giddy inside just because the OS boots faster? What makes it boot faster? Is it because the code is superior to Windows 7 code? Your talking points can't simply exists in a vacuum all by themselves. We need someway to understand why it matters that it boots faster. Do we get all the same functionality we had in Windows 7 for the faster boot times or were there trade-offs and compromises made that make Windows 8 boot faster. Customer to salesman:"Why should I upgrade to Windows 8?" Salesman to customer: "Duhhhh, because it boots faster". Yeah, okay.

Unparalleled compatibility between devices? *yawn*, there's already enough compatibility between devices. If a device comes with a driver and is USB 2.0 or USB 3.0 compatible it pretty much works. Your panting over a consistent UI between compatible devices. That's all that "unparalleled compatibility between devices" really means.

Should I run out and buy a polished turd if there is a 1/2 price sale? Who cares if Windows 8 is 1/3 a 1/4 or a 1/5 the price of Windows 7 if you can't stand using it? I don't know that I would want to use it even if it was free.

These are the arguments you wanna use to persuade people to upgrade to Windows 8 over Windows 7???

Get rid of the romper-room tiles, the cartoony fish, make Windows 9 what Windows 8 "should" have been and I'll pay $80 for an upgrade. I won't be paying 10 cents for Windows 8.