You keep saying 8.2, do you know something we don't?
You keep saying 8.2, do you know something we don't?
No typo, sorry. :shame:Originally Posted by A Guy, post: 7822, member: 22
I know that Windows 7 Forums is there to hate on Windows 8. However, most of the revelant news for the future Windows are not on Windows 7 so I have to, much to my disappointment, have to be on the other forums.Originally Posted by davehc, post: 7714, member: 120
Some people will say that I'm against changes... Well, that's false. I jumped on in from XP to Vista and own two boxed copy (one of them That I won in a contest in W7F back in 2009 I believe) even though it has a very bad rep and, personally, had no problems with it but I did acknowledge its problems. I then tried some of the Win7 builds when it was still in development and immediately jumped on the bandwagon at release. However, after that, the more windows 8 was revealed the more I disliked it obviously because of Metro/Modern UI. Even though it could be controlled with keyboard and mouse, I just thought it was counter intuitive just looking at it and my mouse and keyboard. Even more on touchpad. The lack of Start menu is extremely disorienting and couldn't see myselff living without it and the Start Screen isn't its replacement for me. Installing a third-party app is just killing the purpose of upgrading.
Windows 7. Hoping Windows 9 can overthrow seven and XP. I really cannot stand metro, but the OS I use now is 8.1 with boot to desktop, lock screen gone and charms disabled.
I think MS realized their mistake and are making Win8.1 more customizable, as they should have done from the beginning.
Having said that, I am using Win8.1 on just about all my computers and have no issues using the start screen, just think everyone should have choices about the way their OS looks and how they prefer the UI to look/work.
I have my desktops and laptops boot to desktop, tablets boot to start screen.
I find it encouraging you guys are liking 8.1 enough to replace 7 with it. I have a full retail 7 here for whatever my next PC may be, but it's nice to know 8.1 doesn't suck, lol. I like to theme my windows, and I see the guys at Virtual Customs have some nice 8 themes. A Guy
" The lack of Start menu is extremely disorienting and couldn't see myselff living without it and the Start Screen isn't its replacement for me. Installing a third-party app is just killing the purpose of upgrading."
No disrespect! It is a remark which comes up often, as a criticism of Windows 8-
I do use the modern screen as my start menu, but, fwiw, since Windows 95/xp, I have installed third party programs which are more comprehensive than the built in Microsoft offerings (Paint?). It gives me no source for distress to have to, if I wish, install a third party start menu.
I voted for Windows Longhorn, the developmental and utterly crashed and burned operating system that came before the devil vista.
The concepts and ideas of Longhorn were so innovative and WAY ahead of it's time, even today with Windows 8.1 we are still seeing the remnants of the Longhorn wreckage being used.
But otherwise, Windows 8.1.
I have to say 8.x. It was and is a bold step, but it was simply one which needed to be made.
If MS don't start moving on phone and tablets then they're just going to get left in the dust even more so than they already have been by iOS and Android. Windows Mobile was a pretty poisoned branding, and Windows Phone still is, by association. It's only really fairly recently with Nokia Lumia 'x' devices that some people have started to change their views.
Simillarly, those whom were soured on Windows experiences thanks to the manufactorer laptops/netbooks/notebooks which come out of the box loaded with trials and their own proprietry software and system processes are blaming Windows: ''Well my phone is Samsung, and that is a much better user experience - it must be Windows' fault - i'll just get a Samsung Galaxy Note/Tab tablet next time.''
It's smart to converge their devices, making a phone-like OS for Windows 8, making desktop and tablet OS's use the Windows 8 Start Screen and aps. It's just a case now of bringing Windows Phone, and it's years of advancements from WP7-WP8, more in line with Windows 8. Soon MS won't even have it's business users to fall-back on (bring your own device), or it's education users to fall-back on (using ipads or chromebooks).
Microsoft have some strong brands under their belts in Surface, Lumia and Xbox (at least before the whole Xbone fiasco). I would say they are the ones standing in their own way by overpricing their goods. SurfaceRT's/Surface 2's should be priced lower to get people to try them. Then you have people experiencing the touch gestures instead of getting a Win8 device with no touchscreen and complaining/adding to the Win8 hate. Practically give Surface RT/2's away for cheap to increase marketshare. Then if people want more things, such as x86 compatability then they have the option of getting a Surface Pro. And even those should be cheaper than they are if they seriously want people to adopt them.
This is true.Originally Posted by ksdixon, post: 10470, member: 181
Some say, "Just make Windows for desktops and non-touch PCs and another for tablets." Well, guess what, ios COMPLETELY marginalized mac os to the point where apple isn't even known for the mac anymore. Yes, people still use it and whatnot, but it's not enough for a developer to build for it. That's also very similar to the Windows Phone situation...but nonetheless.
I'd rather see ONE operating system that works effectively, is the power of Windows, and scales appropriately across devices. Something like that has happened once before with Windows Xp where it was used on desktops, laptops, and even tablets. Problem was back then that no one needed or cared for tablets. There was even Windows Mobile that ran on smartish-phones and netbooks. Thing is though, if a separation of platforms was to be taken seriously, we'd have Windows only on desktops, and Windows Mobile on everything else that is obviously mobile. But we don't.