Dissapointed but not suprised.

Those of you who know me from SevenForums and EightForums will recall that originally I hated Metro with a passion (Win 8 DP), but that by the time the RTM was released I'd customised 8 heavily with 3rd-party options to make it more user-friendly, and was coming to quite like it.

Rather than simply 'diss' 8 on the basis of Metro, I was one of those who, despite disliking Metro intensely, was prepared to persevere with 8 and put in the time and effort needed in order to 'learn' it thoroughly, and was happy enough with it upon its release to the public to take MS up on their cut-price intro offer (A$60 against a full price of A$399) and to also grab a WMC key while they were available for free. Adding this basically gives you Win 8 Ultimate (and it shows as such in SANDRA).

I upgraded that installation to the Win 8.1 RTM upon its release, and it is this which I am still running (updated to Win 8.1.1). In Win 8 I used Classic Shell as my start menu but upon upgrading to 8.1 I elected to 'give it a go' without any start menu replacement at all, it was a challenge at first but I kept at it and have now got my All Apps set up and customised to be my 'Start Menu' (and I almost never see the Start Screen at all, haven't even bothered to rearrange or resize its tiles). I do have (as always) the old XP/Vista 'Quick-Launch' toolbar enabled, which does substitute somewhat for not having a dedicated Start menu

So far, I'd tend to opt not to run the Start Menu in Win 10 as I'm now so totally comfortable and at home with my custom Win 8.1.1 start setup that I really don't want to change back. I did try to set the start options (with the Start Menu disabled) in Win 10 to replicate the experience I get in 8.1.1 and couldn't. 10 doesn't even come close (yet).

I do love my Win 8.1.1 setup, and consider it to be far superior to either the original Win 8 or Win 7. It's a far better OS than either its reputation suggests, or it's detractors believe. And that's not just my opinion. I, for one, certainly know I'll miss it (well, I won't, really, because it'll always be running on one of my 'other' machines, as indeed do my XP and Vista setups to this day ). I must be one of the very few who loves 8.1.1 and ISN'T desperately hanging-out for MS to get rid of it? I'll seriously be as disappointed to see the end of 8.1.1 as I was to see the demise of DOS 6.22, Win98SE or Win 7.

Windows 10 will need to bring a LOT more to the table than just a re-vamped Start menu to tempt me away. Hint: Putting the full bloody Aero experience (a la Vista/7) back again would be a major tempter for me.


Wenda.

groze said:

HippsieGypsie said:

Windows 7 = Ancient tech

Windows 8.1 = Modern, quick tech

Windows 10 = Step backwards

IMO, of course.

HippsieGypsie.

Windows 7 = Ancient? I just bought mine in Jan 2014. Not ancient to me. If you are having speed issues with windows 7, it could be either the software or the hardware. I found out through mine, it was actually a faulty motherboard. If it is videos not playing or buffering, that most likely you internet service provider or the webpage itself. Since, my motherboard got replaced under warranty, speed increased this was on 4gb machine with 64 bit windows installed. I have not tested out virus programs like avg or avast since I did that. I like MSE, it knows how to utilize memory.


All,
I know I have a low memory system but as I told others I am going to stick with it. I have also notice that a lot of windows 8/8.1 64 bit computers only have 4 gb of ram and a 500 gb hard drive. The OEM and/or Microsoft should made a minimum of 8 gb of ram if that what it is really needed. There are also report on the web saying you really don't more than 8 gb of ram. Since, I am not good at getting inside the "All-in-one" systems, I would have to take it to a computer shop to do that, I might as well by another computer. Which I am not.

Well, Win7 did come out on Oct 2009 so it's about 5 years old and that is ancient tech from my perspective at least. When the beta of Win7 came out I dropped Vista and used 7 as my primary right away. And I bet a few of the others here did the same so for us it's what we would call "old".

As for memory, I had 4gb but I upgraded to 8gb and I would never have less than that from now on. In fact if I could I might add another 8gb of the same type of memory. It's not that you need it it's just that it does make a difference in your systems performance, IMO.. YMMV.

Bunny J wrote:

As for memory, I had 4gb but I upgraded to 8gb and I would never have less than that from now on. In fact if I could I might add another 8gb of the same type of memory. It's not that you need it it's just that it does make a difference in your systems performance, IMO.. YMMV.

My 'super-lappy' (an Acer Aspire 'ETHOS' i7 2670Qm quad-core 'desktop-replacement') runs Windows 8.1.1 Pro w/WMC 64-bit and has 8gb RAM. It is 2½ years old.

My brother has a Toshiba Satellite with a 'Pentium' quad-core and only 4gb RAM. He runs Windows 8.1 Core 64-bit. His machine is brand-new.

Even taking hardware differences into account, the difference the extra 4gb makes is more than just 'noticeable'. The super-lappy simply jumps all over its younger cousin from a considerable height.

And in a couple of months the super-lappy's getting an upgrade - a 256gb (minimum) SSD C: drive to replace one of the two 750gb spinners currently fitted, and another 8gb of RAM. So that will increase the gap (and the super-lappy's performance) considerably...


Wenda.

Wenda said:

Bunny J wrote:

As for memory, I had 4gb but I upgraded to 8gb and I would never have less than that from now on. In fact if I could I might add another 8gb of the same type of memory. It's not that you need it it's just that it does make a difference in your systems performance, IMO.. YMMV.

My 'super-lappy' (an Acer Aspire 'ETHOS' i7 2670Qm quad-core 'desktop-replacement') runs Windows 8.1.1 Pro w/WMC 64-bit and has 8gb RAM. It is 2½ years old.

My brother has a Toshiba Satellite with a 'Pentium' quad-core and only 4gb RAM. He runs Windows 8.1 Core 64-bit. It is brand-new.

Even taking hardware differences into account, the difference the extra 4gb makes is more than just 'noticeable'. The super-lappy simply jumps all over its younger cousin.


Wenda.

Could be very true but I just get the feeling that it's faster and I guess that's what counts for me at least.

mousegolf said:

Microsoft does not need to make these changes to the OS (it's called marketing). Heck, XP users are still having a good time with their machines and simply ask me to disable IE and install GC or MFF.

Yeah, let's not change anything. It's better to to do as is always done, no use to get anything new. We don't need new.

Who needs these big wide screen displays with millions of colors, the 14 inch 4 to 3 EGA display from 1981 when IBM PC was introduced is good enough. Windows 3 worked well, why on earth has MS decided to change it time after time introducing new bells and whistles? Who needs several gigabytes of RAM, the IBM PC had 384 KB and it worked well. Why do we ever developed modern broadband systems when the connections worked well using the phone line and a 2.400 baud modem?

Please MS and PC manufacturers, please do never change anything, do not evolve your products. Let us just use the old systems as we have always used.