[centenian]

Quote

bobc4012 said
"will continue the seismic sea changes started in Windows 8." Don't even have to read the rest of the story to hope it fails. I tried 8 for a few moments and decided that I don't want to learn to like it at all. This shows that you don't want to learn so you can understand it better. Why did you even go to school? Having to go to school has nothing to do with it. You heard the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Windows XP was not broke (at least not anymore than Windows 7 nor, most likely Windows 8). So if waht I have does everything I need to do, why shoukld I upgrade to something different and spend the next few months going through a learning curve rather than being productive. Also finding out that what work no longer works on the new version either forcing me to find an alternative or shelling out more money for the new replacement to continue doing what I was able to do prior to the new release. There is stupidity and there is common sense. Your reply about not wanting to learn does not show common sense. If no one ever fixed what wasn't broken, the world would never progress. We would be in the stone ages still.

[brainout]

centenian, on 09 December 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

There is stupidity and there is common sense. Your reply about not wanting to learn does not show common sense. If no one ever fixed what wasn't broken, the world would never progress. We would be in the stone ages still.

Windows 8 IS broken. That's the problem. The software is causing problems for 80% of the users installing it, problems during installation and problems afterwards. Suddenly what WAS working in the earlier OS, no longer works. Suddenly we're on an Easter-Egg hunt trying to find out how to do basic things we did well, in the earlier OS. Suddenly the things we used to be able to tweak or customize, we now can't. And all the while, a Fisher-Price interface as ugly as Youtube's own interface and PC World's new style, stares us in the face, replete with advertising, as noted by most of those users and even ZDnet, who showed the Pantene ad MS embedded inside one of its OS functions. I provided links to all those problems so you yourself can read the users and pundits reporting the problems, to my video's description, here: https://www.youtube....h?v=SVgInjnaunI

The description's links span about 3000 users' reports, not to mention the number of pundit columns and the comments in them.

BLUE would be fine, if it wouldn't be buggy. But the sad fact is, every Windows OS and every update IS buggy. BSoDs come from the updates, because MS doesn't do its homework prior. If they charged for the updates, no one would mind IF only 1) the updates weren't buggy, and 2) they DID NOT CHANGE THE INTERFACE.

Simple solution to 2, is to just give the user the customizability options like he had under XP. I don't know if 1) is curable, as MS has never been able to do it well before. Maybe if we had to PAY for the updates, MS would -- to insure sales -- do a better job of coding.

You get what you pay for. 'If it's broke don't fix it' is a sound maxim. All innovation comes from the fact something WAS broken. It was broken, to shoot with arrows, so someone invented guns. It was broken, to shoot from a gun you had to reload each time, so someone invented a multi-chambered gun. It was broken, to ride on horseback, so someone invented the testudo and the tank. All innovation is spawned by something BROKEN.

Here, MS itself is broken. Just like Detroit, others saw the problems and innovated. So, now imported cars outsell US cars in the US. So now, non-MS software will soon outsell MS. So BLUE might be what saves MS. I hope so. But unless it radically changes its registry-dependent tyrannical OS mindset to a more modular system which allows the user to tell IT how to behave, MS OS won't ever get fixed.

In short, MS made a fatal strategic error: they use SHORT TERM thinking, and imitate Apple. They should instead use LONG TERM thinking, and imitate what's good in Linux. The latter suffers from too much console dependence, and yeah now MS is imitating some of that, introducing typing with Vista and Win7, which is expanded in Win8. But that's what users don't like about Linux. What they like about Linux, is the ability to CUSTOMIZE and DICTATE to the OS, what to do. For those things are what MS increasingly disallows. What they also like about Linux, is its ability to handle FILE MANAGEMENT since the Linux kernal isn't so tyrannical. MS disallows that without extensive edits to the registry. What they further like about Linux, is the ability to stave off attacks over the internet, which again MS doesn't adequately address, hence the hundreds of updates it keeps on churning out for its MS OS and Office products (over 40 in the last two days, on my newly-installed MS Office 2003 in my Win7 machine). Finally, with Linux, if you don't like the interface, you can change it modularly. MS doesn't offer this, at all.

So with regret, I must conclude the future belongs to Linux. But I hope that BLUE means blue skies ahead for MS, as via BLUE it has the opportunity to get its coding act.. right.

This post has been edited by brainout: 09 December 2012 - 08:11 AM

[CookyMonzta]

Change is good, Waldo, when change is for the better, even if at a slow pace. Unfortunately, the customer feedback tells a rather dismal story for what's in store for Win8. Here is a prime example:

I added up all the customer reviews at Newegg.com, for every variation of Win8, and on a scale of 1 to 5, as of 6:45 P.M. today, this is the tally:

131 people gave it 5 eggs,
60 gave it 4 eggs;
28 gave it 28 eggs;
46 gave it 2 eggs;
132 gave it 1 egg.

When you have a product that yields as many negative reviews (33%) as positive, you have a problem. That is what Microsoft has on its hands with Win8, because in the first 6 weeks even Vista, for its failures, didn't register this highly in the negative range as it did positive; not even close!

This is change for the worse, plain and simple. Microsoft's biggest mistake is that they thought that ONE SIZE FITS ALL! Who the hell gave them the idea that an operating system that was made for a TABLET could and would be used for a DESKTOP? There is a reason that very few touch-screen tablet PCs were able to sell BEFORE the introduction of the iPad: Because WinXP, Vista, Win7, and even MacOS X, and even their predecessors, were all made for the DESKTOP!

Worse yet, Microsoft's attempt to create an operating system that is 2 operating systems in one backfired, and its attempt to infiltrate the tablet market may suffer. They should have made the Metro interface a Service Pack option for Win7, for usability with Windows laptops and tablets, rather than make it the primary interface even for desktop PCs.

Suffer no delusions: There will be repercussions after Christmas. Android is in no danger from Windows 8 in the tablet market, and it looks as if Windows 7 will remain the premier OS in the PC desktop market for another 3 years.

[CookyMonzta]

Quote

I added up all the customer reviews at Newegg.com, for every variation of Win8, and on a scale of 1 to 5, as of 6:45 P.M. today, this is the tally: 131 people gave it 5 eggs, 60 gave it 4 eggs; 28 gave it 28 eggs; 46 gave it 2 eggs; 132 gave it 1 egg.

My bad. My time of observation is Eastern Standard Time, and the middle row should read "28 gave it 3 eggs".

[waldojim]

CookyMonzta, on 09 December 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Change is good, Waldo, when change is for the better, even if at a slow pace. Unfortunately, the customer feedback tells a rather dismal story for what's in store for Win8. Here is a prime example:

I added up all the customer reviews at Newegg.com, for every variation of Win8, and on a scale of 1 to 5, as of 6:45 P.M. today, this is the tally:

131 people gave it 5 eggs,
60 gave it 4 eggs;
28 gave it 28 eggs;
46 gave it 2 eggs;
132 gave it 1 egg.

When you have a product that yields as many negative reviews (33%) as positive, you have a problem. That is what Microsoft has on its hands with Win8, because in the first 6 weeks even Vista, for its failures, didn't register this highly in the negative range as it did positive; not even close!

This is change for the worse, plain and simple. Microsoft's biggest mistake is that they thought that ONE SIZE FITS ALL! Who the hell gave them the idea that an operating system that was made for a TABLET could and would be used for a DESKTOP? There is a reason that very few touch-screen tablet PCs were able to sell BEFORE the introduction of the iPad: Because WinXP, Vista, Win7, and even MacOS X, and even their predecessors, were all made for the DESKTOP!

Worse yet, Microsoft's attempt to create an operating system that is 2 operating systems in one backfired, and its attempt to infiltrate the tablet market may suffer. They should have made the Metro interface a Service Pack option for Win7, for usability with Windows laptops and tablets, rather than make it the primary interface even for desktop PCs.

Suffer no delusions: There will be repercussions after Christmas. Android is in no danger from Windows 8 in the tablet market, and it looks as if Windows 7 will remain the premier OS in the PC desktop market for another 3 years.

Newegg didn't exist when Windows 95 was launched, so it is impossible to retrieve the statistics from that time. However, from what memory serves me, there was just as much fear, and doubt over Windows 95 as there is Windows 8. WHY? Because of the massively different interface. No one thought it was better at the time. They just saw the unstable mess of Windows 95, with next to no drivers, severe performance impact, and complete lack of "gain".

What we have now, is people fearful of moving away from the typical desktop. or people fearing a new way of interacting with their PC. Nothing more, nothing less. Given a few years time, we will all look back and wonder what it was that we feared so much that we felt we had to act with such ignorance.

[CookyMonzta]

Quote

Newegg didn't exist when Windows 95 was launched, so it is impossible to retrieve the statistics from that time. However, from what memory serves me, there was just as much fear, and doubt over Windows 95 as there is Windows 8. WHY? Because of the massively different interface. No one thought it was better at the time. They just saw the unstable mess of Windows 95, with next to no drivers, severe performance impact, and complete lack of "gain". What we have now, is people fearful of moving away from the typical desktop. or people fearing a new way of interacting with their PC. Nothing more, nothing less. Given a few years time, we will all look back and wonder what it was that we feared so much that we felt we had to act with such ignorance.

I must disagree. The skepticism toward Win95 was hardly as brutal as the skepticism toward Win8 is deserving. No one paid attention to Windows until the introduction of Win3.0 in 1990. It was quite straightforward, and you could boot into it or go back to DOS at any time. Same for its upgrades, 3.1 and 3.11. From my experience, people were actually looking forward to the introduction of Win95 (as was I). We had well over a year and a half of previews of the program that was either known to many as Win4.0 or by its code name, 'Chicago', on computer shows on cable or at various expos. Once more, it had been only 5½ years since programmers started taking Windows seriously.

From what I remember, reviews were quite positive, especially due to the fact that many programs that were made for Win3.1 worked quite well in Win95. The only problem that I can remember was that it still had a problem addressing more memory than the typical 640K DOS limit for some DOS programs (games in particular). I never used Win98, but I believe that Win98 solved that problem. By that time, all the major manufacturers were making programs exclusively for Windows, which made it less of a problem for users when WinXP was introduced.

Microsoft has a problem not with the Metro interface alone, but with who and what it was INTENDED for. It is now more than 22 years since the introduction of Win3.0, and you'd figure they would know better than to make an OS that was intended specifically for the TABLET user (clearly exemplified by the fact that Metro is based on a design made famous by Windows Phone 7), to the point where many aspects of the Metro interface are incompatible with the desktop interface. Again, I thought I read somewhere that there are two SEPARATE Internet Explorer programs; one for Metro and one for the desktop, each of which must be installed separately to its corresponding interface because they are not cross-compatible. The Metro version does not support plug-ins.

Given the feedback I've been reading all over the Web, that is not the only problem Win8 has. Even Vista didn't have as many issues as this. And therein lies the failure of Win8, for which this thing called Windows Blue or Windows 9 will have to clean up. They tried to make 2 operating systems in one, tried to have them coexist with one another; yet too many aspects of the Metro interface and the desktop are not compatible with one another.

In which case, they should have made 2 separate operating systems; one for the touch-screen laptop or tablet, and one for the desktop machine. Clearly they need to reconsider that option. That is why the people have routinely skipped a Windows release to wait for the next one, and once again, this is such a time. Again, big mistake to release Win8 only 3 years after Win7, when it was 6 years between XP and Vista. If they wanted to introduce Metro, they should have made it a Service Pack option for Win7. They've been entirely sloppy this time, in their attempt to anticipate what the public wants.

[waldojim]

CookyMonzta, on 10 December 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

I must disagree. The skepticism toward Win95 was hardly as brutal as the skepticism toward Win8 is deserving. No one paid attention to Windows until the introduction of Win3.0 in 1990. It was quite straightforward, and you could boot into it or go back to DOS at any time. Same for its upgrades, 3.1 and 3.11. From my experience, people were actually looking forward to the introduction of Win95 (as was I). We had well over a year and a half of previews of the program that was either known to many as Win4.0 or by its code name, 'Chicago', on computer shows on cable or at various expos. Once more, it had been only 5½ years since programmers started taking Windows seriously.

Really? Windows 95 introduced problems like no other OS in Microsoft's history. For a first time, Windows had total control of the PC. For the first time, the Windows registry was implemented system-wide, which is a bane to users even today. For the first time, software compatible from the previous environment. Memory requirements went from a few kilobytes to several megabytes. 32bit drivers were a necessity, even though Microsoft claimed you could still use Dos drivers, they caused more system instability than most viruses. Then there was the performance impact. The common mans machine at the time was either a 386 or 486. Both ran too pitifully to be of real use. It wasn't even until OSR2 that I even saw Windows 95 overtake the desktop market in anyplace but the home. Even then most businesses didn't want to touch it, and for good reason.

No, Windows 95 was a failure - for all intents and purposes, until USB made it's big debut, and for USB, you had to get Windows 95B (OSR2).

Quote

From what I remember, reviews were quite positive, especially due to the fact that many programs that were made for Win3.1 worked quite well in Win95. The only problem that I can remember was that it still had a problem addressing more memory than the typical 640K DOS limit for some DOS programs (games in particular). I never used Win98, but I believe that Win98 solved that problem. By that time, all the major manufacturers were making programs exclusively for Windows, which made it less of a problem for users when WinXP was introduced.

Microsoft has a problem not with the Metro interface alone, but with who and what it was INTENDED for. It is now more than 22 years since the introduction of Win3.0, and you'd figure they would know better than to make an OS that was intended specifically for the TABLET user (clearly exemplified by the fact that Metro is based on a design made famous by Windows Phone 7), to the point where many aspects of the Metro interface are incompatible with the desktop interface. Again, I thought I read somewhere that there are two SEPARATE Internet Explorer programs; one for Metro and one for the desktop, each of which must be installed separately to its corresponding interface because they are not cross-compatible. The Metro version does not support plug-ins.

Given the feedback I've been reading all over the Web, that is not the only problem Win8 has. Even Vista didn't have as many issues as this. And therein lies the failure of Win8, for which this thing called Windows Blue or Windows 9 will have to clean up. They tried to make 2 operating systems in one, tried to have them coexist with one another; yet too many aspects of the Metro interface and the desktop are not compatible with one another.

In which case, they should have made 2 separate operating systems; one for the touch-screen laptop or tablet, and one for the desktop machine. Clearly they need to reconsider that option. That is why the people have routinely skipped a Windows release to wait for the next one, and once again, this is such a time. Again, big mistake to release Win8 only 3 years after Win7, when it was 6 years between XP and Vista. If they wanted to introduce Metro, they should have made it a Service Pack option for Win7. They've been entirely sloppy this time, in their attempt to anticipate what the public wants.

There were many more software problems than you seem to be letting on to. I remember many problems quite clearly, partially due to my desire to enjoy games. Quake never ran correctly in Windows 95 on any of my machines, nor did any of my DOS software. In fact, it was Windows 95 that finally convinced me to install Linux, not to play those games mind you, but to use the boot loader. With Linux, I could install Windows on one hard drive, Dos and Linux on a second, and use Linux to manage all three.

But there were CDROM drive issues (drives randomly disappearing), sound card problems, the constant video driver problems, and so on. I was constantly helping neighbors repair their machines when they finally got it. Windows 95 was a mess of epic proportions.

Metro has multiple uses, and it depends on the user to determine what works best for him/her/it. It has become clear, not just to me, but Microsoft as well, that users don't WANT separate OSes for everything. They tire of having to learn, and re-learn how to use EVERY device they own. This is why Metro exists. It bridges a gap. People that adapt to a tablet interface, can adapt quickly to a Windows 8 PC. It is consistent then to both their phone and tablet.

Those of us that have other needs, simply end up with a very nice start menu replacement. No longer to I have to waste my time digging through endless menus looking for software, or use BrainOuts approach of having every icon of importance lining the entire border of my display. I have a clean task bar, a clean desktop, and a well organized FLAT start menu called Metro. Finally Microsoft got smart and disabled plugins in the Metro-IE, removing yet another nightmare from those who have to fix 'grandmas' machine: tool bars. No more crap hijacking the browser. You have a consistent, clean browser should you need it. I don't use Metro for any other purpose than what I need it to do. Telling me all the things it won't do that don't actually affect me means nothing. For most users, you will find it is the same for them. They just need to decide what is best for them.

The performance changes speak for themselves. I have Windows 8 installed on a server, and it boots an AMD 3Ghz machine on a 7200RPM hard drive FASTER than my Intel i7 laptop with a SSD running Windows 7. Not only does it boot faster, it responds better. It handles the server load better than Windows 7 did, and in the end, makes it more productive. Not to mention the fact that 99% of the drivers were already in place. Something Windows 7 never managed. Windows 7 had about a 50% driver compatibility rate on its own. With most of my machines having network cards that Windows 7 didn't like. Windows 8 has made full use of every network card in my house, including wireless cards.

You have to look at things from more than just the negative view points in life, else you just end up a negative person (not saying you are negative at all - you have been one of the few sane people worth discussing this with). Go look at Windows 8 again, from a positive angle. Look for ways that it makes life better. You might actually be surprised at what you find.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 10 December 2012 - 02:09 AM

[CookyMonzta]

Quote

Really? Windows 95 introduced problems like no other OS in Microsoft's history. For a first time, Windows had total control of the PC. For the first time, the Windows registry was implemented system-wide, which is a bane to users even today. For the first time, software compatible from the previous environment. Memory requirements went from a few kilobytes to several megabytes. 32bit drivers were a necessity, even though Microsoft claimed you could still use Dos drivers, they caused more system instability than most viruses. Then there was the performance impact. The common mans machine at the time was either a 386 or 486. Both ran too pitifully to be of real use. It wasn't even until OSR2 that I even saw Windows 95 overtake the desktop market in anyplace but the home. Even then most businesses didn't want to touch it, and for good reason. No, Windows 95 was a failure - for all intents and purposes, until USB made it's big debut, and for USB, you had to get Windows 95B (OSR2).

I didn't get that perception from the reviews and the few bits of feedback that I remember. I didn't move to Windows 95 until I got a new machine with OSR2 in 1997; so, I didn't experience the problems that the first release of Win95 had. And USB didn't become popular until well after the release of WinXP, because at the time of Win98's release, a 1GB USB drive cost as much as $1,500, if not more!

Quote

There were many more software problems than you seem to be letting on to. I remember many problems quite clearly, partially due to my desire to enjoy games. Quake never ran correctly in Windows 95 on any of my machines, nor did any of my DOS software. In fact, it was Windows 95 that finally convinced me to install Linux, not to play those games mind you, but to use the boot loader. With Linux, I could install Windows on one hard drive, Dos and Linux on a second, and use Linux to manage all three. But there were CDROM drive issues (drives randomly disappearing), sound card problems, the constant video driver problems, and so on. I was constantly helping neighbors repair their machines when they finally got it. Windows 95 was a mess of epic proportions.

Again, I didn't have those problems with Win95 because I had OSR2. The one exception I had was a game called 'Darklight Conflict', which was tied to the hip with the DOS memory limit. DOOM, Quake, pinball, my racing games, all worked well. Again, I had OSR2.

Quote

Metro has multiple uses, and it depends on the user to determine what works best for him/her/it. It has become clear, not just to me, but Microsoft as well, that users don't WANT separate OSes for everything. They tire of having to learn, and re-learn how to use EVERY device they own. This is why Metro exists. It bridges a gap. People that adapt to a tablet interface, can adapt quickly to a Windows 8 PC. It is consistent then to both their phone and tablet. Those of us that have other needs, simply end up with a very nice start menu replacement. No longer to I have to waste my time digging through endless menus looking for software, or use BrainOuts approach of having every icon of importance lining the entire border of my display. I have a clean task bar, a clean desktop, and a well organized FLAT start menu called Metro. Finally Microsoft got smart and disabled plugins in the Metro-IE, removing yet another nightmare from those who have to fix 'grandmas' machine: tool bars. No more crap hijacking the browser. You have a consistent, clean browser should you need it. I don't use Metro for any other purpose than what I need it to do. Telling me all the things it won't do that don't actually affect me means nothing. For most users, you will find it is the same for them. They just need to decide what is best for them. The performance changes speak for themselves. I have Windows 8 installed on a server, and it boots an AMD 3Ghz machine on a 7200RPM hard drive FASTER than my Intel i7 laptop with a SSD running Windows 7. Not only does it boot faster, it responds better. It handles the server load better than Windows 7 did, and in the end, makes it more productive. Not to mention the fact that 99% of the drivers were already in place. Something Windows 7 never managed. Windows 7 had about a 50% driver compatibility rate on its own. With most of my machines having network cards that Windows 7 didn't like. Windows 8 has made full use of every network card in my house, including wireless cards. You have to look at things from more than just the negative view points in life, else you just end up a negative person (not saying you are negative at all - you have been one of the few sane people worth discussing this with). Go look at Windows 8 again, from a positive angle. Look for ways that it makes life better. You might actually be surprised at what you find.

What you just described, with your first experience with Win95's first release, is pretty much on par with the experiences that consumers are having with the release of Win8. As negative as your experience with Win95 was, their experience with Win8 is the same today, and some of these users remember Win95 as well as you do. The fact that the first release of Win8 has earned so many negative reviews for so many different aspects of the OS leads me to believe that Win8 has too many problems that need to be resolved, just like the first release of Win95, so you say.

Which is why it is always better not to go after the initial release of any major OS revision, which is what Win8 is. Nevertheless, given the reviews and feedback that I have read (hundreds upon hundreds), Microsoft needed to do a better job of merging the usability of Metro with the desktop, which so far looks like a failure, given that 2 versions of IE are needed. I'm almost afraid we will be hearing more about how certain programs made for one interface (like IE) are also not cross-compatible with the other interface. How soon before gamers and game designers give Win8 the thumbs down? Companies like Blizzard (Diablo) and Valve (Half-Life) are considering sitting on the sidelines until the first big fix or Win9 is released.

I was very tempted to get Win8 (which I have played with in store demos), until I saw the customer feedback ratings. Compared to Vista, this could be a disaster. Ballmer is feeling the heat right now, and I imagine by February they will be in conference to get started on a major fix for Win8, or a whole new Windows.

Again, big mistake to have designed this OS primarily for the tablet user. 3 years was too soon.

[CookyMonzta]

And am I hallucinating, or did I read right, from one user who says that advertisements run in some of Win8's apps? I never came across anything like that, while playing with a Win8 machine on display, but I wouldn't mind that much, so long as the ads are directly related to the app that it's running on, and it doesn't compromise the SPEED of the app (fat chance for someone with dial-up or a slow DSL connection), and you have the option of removing the ads. BIG problem, though, and another major fail for Microsoft, if the ads are REQUIRED, like some kind of shareware that requires an ad banner on your screen at all times, and the functionality of the ad-generating program sucks the functionality and speed right out of the app.

[compnovo]

CookyMonzta, on 10 December 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

And am I hallucinating, or did I read right, from one user who says that advertisements run in some of Win8's apps? I never came across anything like that, while playing with a Win8 machine on display, but I wouldn't mind that much, so long as the ads are directly related to the app that it's running on, and it doesn't compromise the SPEED of the app (fat chance for someone with dial-up or a slow DSL connection), and you have the option of removing the ads. BIG problem, though, and another major fail for Microsoft, if the ads are REQUIRED, like some kind of shareware that requires an ad banner on your screen at all times, and the functionality of the ad-generating program sucks the functionality and speed right out of the app.

Some of the free apps do have ads which can be removed if you purchase the app. For instance, one of the Solitaire apps I like had ads that went away when I spent the couple of bucks for it. The ads didn't show any noticeable hit on the performance of the game, and they were down in the corner of the game and unobtrusive, but were not related to the game itself.

Edit: For clarification, the app I referred to was on a Surface RT.

This post has been edited by compnovo: 10 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

[Eli12nw]

Windows Blue Screen of death...Nice.

[tcook1943]

I genuinely like and use Win 8 however I am forced to retain an earlier version of Windows simply because 8 though, (Mostly) fair enough when running new software is pants when running software more than a few months old where some work but much does not.

When Blue, Win 9 or whatever arrives it had better garnish a few favourable reviews or there is at least one Eight user that will revert to 7.

[danwat1234]

I wonder if Windows Blue will have the same problem that XP, Vista, 7 and 8 have; Explorer.exe does not officially support file path lengths larger than 255 characters. This is highly annoying when dealing with nested folders in My Documents and other situations. I use Total Commander to take care of business.
NTFS supports file path lengths of up to around 30,000 characters so why is explorer.exe use/have APIs that are back in the stone age of computing?