You're not happy if
its the same
its different
its modded
?
IMO the main objective of Metro isn't the UI. Its the app store.
Of course if its exactly the same as W7, what's the point of going back to W7.
Anyone gone back to w7?
- Thread starter pipson
- Start date
You're not happy if
its the same
its different
its modded
?
IMO the main objective of Metro isn't the UI. Its the app store.
Of course if its exactly the same as W7, what's the point of going back to W7.
You know even if they did that you would still get some people moaning, end of the day impossible to please everyone.
I'll say Linux users are more flexible/adaptable to changes then Windows users but then that is to be expected.
Well yes, but the chances of Windows going open source?
These all still seem pretty minimal differences? I mean come on, what's the killer feature that's going to make Windows 7 users sit up and listen?
"Well, you get a small performance increase, and we've bundled a free virus scanner with it."
"But on the flipside, we've pushed our touchscreen centric UI on you, and if you don't like it you have to bother with a third party mod."
This is the problem I have with W8 every time I install it. I try to force myself to like it but after a week I'm just left thinking "well, it feels exactly the same to use as Windows 7 except for the fact that I have to bother to get used to Metro". What's the benefit of persisting and making myself get used to Metro?
It annoys me because I want to like Windows 8. I really do - it feels weird running a version of Windows that isn't the latest. But at the same time, why do I feel like I'm forcing myself to use Windows 8 every time I install it?
I could say what's the killer feature in Win7?..Hate to say it there is not one.
Ironically I think I was more disappointed with Win7 then any Windows OS(apart from WinMe) had nothing really new(not counting speed) over Vista or XP.
As to Windows in general personally I find them boring compared to Linux,if you want new ideas, something good and useful it seems Linux is the one that always has those ideas popping up with its distros.
been using windows 8 since april (when I was considering the change) haven't had too much to moan about - start8 kinda fixed my issues - only every once in a while I get a picture or video or something that open in the metro - but that can easily be changed
I still don't get this argument about windows 8/8.1 not being user friendly with a mouse & keyboard??? I'm really confused by it!
Because I have no issues at all with a mouse & keyboard on the OS. I saw a post from Flopsy in the Apple forum & I think it clears it up nicely:
Because I have no issues at all with a mouse & keyboard on the OS. I saw a post from Flopsy in the Apple forum & I think it clears it up nicely:
Last edited:
Its more in relation to the start screen being more aimed at touch screen use and more like a version of android's home screens than it is traditional Windows GUI.
TBH I hate it even on a touch screen :S
There is a certain degree of truth to that quote but previous versions of Windows have tried to cater to the most common denominator and to a limited extent had functionality in there for other styles of use and with Windows 8 they are pushing a very specific style of use over all others that isn't the way everyone works while removing most of the other functionality.
I ended up on my 8" tablet hacking up a horrid quick and dirty Windows 95 style start menu out of what was left in the shell as I cba messing about with start menu replacement software just to get back the basic windows experience, the explorer windows do make me laugh too.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 2,137
- Location
- Deepest, darkest Essex
Never left
I run 8.1 in a VM and I'll beat myself stupid with a soggy baguette if I even dare to go near my hardware with a Install disk for a live install.
After 5 mins of trying to do simple tasks .. I get fed up and then spend another 5 mins trying to shut the damn thing down !!!
I run 8.1 in a VM and I'll beat myself stupid with a soggy baguette if I even dare to go near my hardware with a Install disk for a live install.
After 5 mins of trying to do simple tasks .. I get fed up and then spend another 5 mins trying to shut the damn thing down !!!
Last edited:
I installed it tonight, don't know why. I had a copy and figured that 8(.1) is newer than 7 so just do it and regret it later (if I do)
As stated previously, I tried 8 and didn't take too well. Installed tonight and up, running and getting on very well so far.
As stated previously, I tried 8 and didn't take too well. Installed tonight and up, running and getting on very well so far.
I did the same yesterday, as well as I had some free time and I hadn't reformatted since I built the computer in 2011. I'm using StartIsBack and desktop mode and I can't see much difference.
Actually it's more a case of the start screen being designed for a modern monitor+KB/mouse and the start menu being designed for a 640x480 screen and a person who only uses 10-15 programs.
How so?
The start screen doesn't do much else except give you really massive icons.
You can fit more in, (closer together) on a start menu, or classic desktop. So less moving the mouse around than the Start Screen. For me the less you move or type the more efficient the GUI.
The start screen doesn't do much else except give you really massive icons.
You can fit more in, (closer together) on a start menu, or classic desktop. So less moving the mouse around than the Start Screen. For me the less you move or type the more efficient the GUI.
What nonsense about Massive icons, small icons are about the same soze, and unlike the desktop, I can get instant info without opening up an app.
How anyone can prefer w7 over w8 is beyond me.
Mail app makes it worth while on its own.
How anyone can prefer w7 over w8 is beyond me.
Mail app makes it worth while on its own.
Last edited:
The context was about fitting more than 10~15 icons/short-cuts on the old interface.
You're on about something else entirely. How you use it. You basically want a screen full of widgets.
How is it totally different?
Small live tiles are basically the same size as desktop icons. So there's difference.
I don't have it full of live tiles. Things like weather, mail, package tracker etc, is extremely useful not to have to launch the app. Things like office, small icon so you can fit more stuff on.
My biggest gripe about going to 8 was I really don't like the tiles screen. So far I've looked at it once and that was to go to desktop so I can set it to boot to desktop.
My only remaining gripe is that I have to have a microsoft account to use it.
My only remaining gripe is that I have to have a microsoft account to use it.
My point was that classic desktop/start menu, is perfectly suitable for grouping large numbers of icons, shortcuts, in a small efficient space.
Secondly, as a sweeping generalisation, applications don't space their menus and toolbar icons equidistant across the whole screen or to the furthest corners of the screen. .. But on a small screen with a touch interface it does make sense to do this. For obvious reasons.
You want large tiles with live feeds great. Its not what I was talking about though.
Last edited:
You still aren't making sense. Desktop and start screen are virtually identical icon size and can display a similar amount of icons.
You said start screen has massive icons, it doesn't. Small tiles are basically the same size as desktop icons. So they aren't massive at all.
You said start screen has massive icons, it doesn't. Small tiles are basically the same size as desktop icons. So they aren't massive at all.
You can create a local account. http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToSignIntoWindows8Or81WithoutAMicrosoftAccountMakeALocalUser.aspx
Er no there was a context to what I said. The inference was that classic desktop/start menu was less suited to people with more apps/icons/short cuts.
How so... as in... much else better.....in terms of better use of space for people with lots of icons/apps.