OS WARS MEGA THREAD (Now debating proprietary vs. open-source!)

[Izack]

Actually, that works just as well in Windows 8. Granted, you're using the Start Screen instead of the Start Menu, but it doesn't make any difference if you're using the keyboard anyway.

Indeed it does. My only point is that I see no point in upgrading merely because the new OS does the same thing my current one does, with added features I'm not likely to use (web-related apps will simply fail on this unreliable connection, and hog what bandwidth there is away from the applications I need). I would however recommend Windows 8 to someone looking for a new OS, especially with the fairly low cost of upgrading.

You bring up a valid point about not upgrading unless required, however, in my experience, Windows 8 has been almost perfectly stable, save from some booting problems (and I think my computer's the cause there, not the OS).

Yeah. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd say Windows 8 is one of Microsoft's best OS releases ever. Remember XP before service packs? ME? Bob??

 

[RisingFury]

I would have continued to use XP if DirectX 11 was released for it. DirectX 11 is the only reason I *tolerate* Windows 7 and it's many many many small quirks and irritations that XP never had. Will I be "upgrading" to Windows 8 any time soon? HELL NO!

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

After using Windows 8 for about a month, let's say that Windows 8 is like a girl with bi-polar personalities: either you fell in love with her, or you will find her annoying.

 

[TMac3000]

Tried Windows 8 on some laptops at my local Walmart. Honestly, I didn't like it. Somehow it felt too tight, too controlled. I like an OS that just sort of sits in the background, and lets you do your thing. Windows 7 was great at that.

The best desktop interface I have ever seen is Gnome 2.x. One simple menu let you access your programs, your files, or your settings. It really doesn't get simpler or more elegant than that.

Well, Gnome 2.x unfortunately went away, so now I use Linux Mint 12 with KDE, which is a little wonky, but still very smooth and relatively unobtrusive. I'll stick with Linux, thanks

P.S.--I still feel a little bit of Fedora 9 nostalgia every now and then:lol:

 

[FADEC]

I did not yet try it. And I won't.

One reason is that I don't have a tablet PC. And since Windows 8 obviously is made for tablet PC users above all I don't see a need to try it and change to it. Another reason is that Windows 7 works perfectly well and suits all of my purposes without any trouble. Since it will be supported until 2020, and since Windows 8 obviously won't offer useful innovations for me, I'll skip Windows 8 and stick to Windows 7.

Only because Microsoft releases operating systems more frequently again it does not mean that the old saying became obsolete: never change a running system. Especially if I remember Vista, which was a worse nightmare than 98 and XP during release.

 

[N_Molson]

Hehe I just bought Windows 7 this summer, so Windows 8 isn't an option for now. I guess my next one will be Win 10 or Win 11

 

[Ghostrider]

Windows 8 is like a girl with bi-polar personalities: either you fell in love with her, or you will find her annoying.

Actually what happens is you fall in love with her, then she shifts into someone you don't really know.

It's all fun and games until one night you wake up and you find her standing beside your bed staring at you with one eye twitching...

 

[orb]

 

[Face]

I'm running (actually had to run) Window 8 since about a month now at work - preview first, then release. It has some nice features, but I really, really hate the Metro interface. The design is so ugly that I first got nausea from the feeling of going back in time into 1992. That said, I must admit that I never had a thing for the Bauhaus design school...

The first thing most of us installed was this, BTW: http://code.google.com/p/power8/

 

[orb]

And if you prefer more the XP menu, you can use this: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

 

[Fisherman]

And if you prefer more the XP menu, you can use this: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

I resisted upgrading from Win98 until XP Pro came along and now I still don't want to change. My XP menu is Win95 style. Can I do that in Win8?

 

[orb]

I resisted upgrading from Win98 until XP Pro came along and now I still don't want to change. My XP menu is Win95 style. Can I do that in Win8?

With 3rd party shells, like the Classic Shell? Sure.

 

[Linguofreak]

I'm running (actually had to run) Window 8 since about a month now at work - preview first, then release. It has some nice features, but I really, really hate the Metro interface. The design is so ugly that I first got nausea from the feeling of going back in time into 1992.

More like 1985. Metro goes all the way back to Windows 1 (tiling window managers FTW! :facepalm adds a bunch of glitz and glitter, and then removes even more functionality (such as the ability to arbitrarily determine where the boundary between two of your tiled Windows should be).

Disclaimer: I haven't used Windows 8 myself, but that Metro tiles windows like Win1, and doesn't let you arbitrarily position tile boundaries, is demonstrated around the 6 minute mark (and at one or two other points) in this video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0fsyb-ttcw"]Windows 8: It's Almost Not Terrible - YouTube[/ame]

 

[APDAF]

What like this?

 

[Linguofreak]

What like this?

Exactly like that.

 

[Hielor]

That's not "tiling," and the intent is different. Windows 8 style full-screen apps don't allow for multiple apps simultaneously on screen, with the exception of what they do there--"snap" one app in a narrow format to the side while another app takes up the remainder. The intent is to allow you to do things like have an IM conversation snapped to the side while watching a movie with the rest of the screen.

Note that this only applies to Windows 8 style apps, not traditional desktop apps. You can still do whatever you want with sizing of traditional desktop apps. The only "removed" functionality as far as desktop apps goes is transparent window titles and borders.

The modern interface is intended to be good for tablet hardware, and the ability to have two apps simultaneously visible is something that many competitors don't offer.

If you don't ever want to use modern style apps...don't. Stick with the same stuff you've been using on Windows 7, and it'll work just the same.

Perhaps you should actually try Windows 8 before drawing incorrect conclusions about the inability to "tile windows"?

 

[Linguofreak]

That's not "tiling,"

It is exactly tiling. You have two areas of the display (windows), corresponding to two different applications, which are not allowed to overlap.

and the intent is different.

That may be, but...

Windows 8 style full-screen apps don't allow for multiple apps simultaneously on screen, with the exception of what they do there--"snap" one app in a narrow format to the side while another app takes up the remainder. The intent is to allow you to do things like have an IM conversation snapped to the side while watching a movie with the rest of the screen.

...because users are going to have different screen sizes and preferences, non-user determined snap widths are a misfeature whatever the intent.

Note that this only applies to Windows 8 style apps, not traditional desktop apps. You can still do whatever you want with sizing of traditional desktop apps. The only "removed" functionality as far as desktop apps goes is transparent window titles and borders.

The modern interface is intended to be good for tablet hardware, and the ability to have two apps simultaneously visible is something that many competitors don't offer.

I am aware of both of these facts. My complaint, and Face's, however relate to the use of Metro (and new apps written for it) on PC hardware.

On a space-constrained touchscreen, I can believe that Metro is quite a good interface. For a full-sized monitor with a mouse and keyboard, it's very deeply flawed (though, mercifully, the desktop is still available for legacy apps), and on devices where this is the only method of user interaction, it really shouldn't be there (except maybe as a compatibility feature, in which case it should be displayed as a window on the desktop).

Perhaps you should actually try Windows 8 before drawing incorrect conclusions about the inability to "tile windows"?

It's not inability to tile windows I'm concerned about, it's being *forced* to tile them for certain apps (and with less flexibility in tiling than even Windows 1 had).

 

[Hielor]

Non-user-determined snap widths actually can help to improve the user experience by allowing developers to target a smaller set of possible display areas, thereby providing a better experience within that world.

You are never forced to tile apps. You can run all metro apps full screen and never snap them if you don't want to. Or just never run metro apps. If they're designed for tablets, just don't use them on desktops.

 

[Face]

More like 1985. Metro goes all the way back to Windows 1 (tiling window managers FTW! :facepalm adds a bunch of glitz and glitter, and then removes even more functionality (such as the ability to arbitrarily determine where the boundary between two of your tiled Windows should be).

My complaint, and Face's, however relate to the use of Metro (and new apps written for it) on PC hardware.

Hm. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Metro is like Windows 1 in terms of usability. As I said, it has some nice features.

My opinion is just that I personally find it ugly. The color-scheme is ugly, the blocky design is ugly, the whole "function before looks" approach is ugly. I know that this is a personal taste of mine, but it just is the way it is. I can't help it.

Trying to discuss my personal taste away with technical arguments is a bit pointless, because I understand why something was done in Windows 8. And I agree that it was a logical decision by Microsoft. I even can see that it will work great on tablets and mobiles.

Still I find it ugly. Maybe this will change later on, but for now I will not use it if I'm not forced to. Not even on laptops with touchscreens. I tried some on public displays at our local Media Markt, and I think even with Metro the experience is sub-par to e.g. Apple's iPad. Not responsive enough (I know, I know... bad hardware), not intuitive enough (I know, I know, it is just new, I'll get used to it), not even close to be as beautiful to look at (I know, I know, personal taste)...

On the positive side, Windows 8 is certainly a stable platform (as stable as a new release OS can be). It is also fast. So if you like the Bauhaus design school, go for it. If you think that PCs are going to die and that mobiles/tablets are the way to go in computing, I can also see why you should take a look at Windows 8.

If you are anything like me - using PCs and Laptops as work tool, content creation devices - I can only suggest to wait for the next iteration in Microsoft's plan, though.

my :2cents:

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0fsyb-ttcw"]Windows 8: It's Almost Not Terrible[/ame]

This video really sums up the problems with the Windows 8 user interface - even if you are using a tablet! I managed to get used to it (although I still bump into problems every now and then), but this is really a PITA for the majority of potential Win8 users. As an example, I let my sister (who never tried Win8 before, and was using Win7 on her laptop) to try to find the shutdown button - it took her two whole minutes just to find it! :facepalm: