Soldato
You have got to be kidding.
Windows 8 Adoption Poor
- Thread starter philip2009
- Start date
You have got to be kidding.
Vista has a really nice user interface which is more important to most people than what occurs under the hood, Microsoft are finding that now as they've practically given W8 away since release and still it's stalling. If W8 didn't have an horrendous tablet UI most W7 users would have already made the switch like they did with W7 from Vista.
Permabanned
Yeah, if they get rid of Metro and call it Windows 9, it'll sell just fine.
Soldato
Windows 8 is much better than Vista, it's a very good o/s, the only questionable content is the UI.
MW
I completely agree with this
Even if I use the modern UI apps, it completely screws with multi-tasking and multiple monitors. A lot of apps don't support the modern UI at all which means I have to very messily manage 2 desktops.
Indeed.
metro is just a start menu replacement with a bonus of it having apps, it's not a desktop / separate OS
Last edited:
Associate
I used Windows 8 for a few months but have now gone back to Windows 7 and am much happier for it!
It's that slow realisation that Windows 8 isn't made for you. It's made purely as a result of an incredibly scared Microsoft. I imagine everyone on this forum has a smartphone and a growing amount have an Android tablet or an iPad. These already do exactly what "Metro" is trying to accomplish. I can see my email, check the weather, read the news etc. etc. in a matter of seconds because the device is constantly ready. If I go to my laptop/desktop it's for a specific need that these devices don't cover. Pretty much ("proper") gaming, file management, video watching (just due to the larger screen) and playing music through speakers. "Metro" doesn't help this at all. It gets in the way of it.
The vast majority of traditional PC users who use Windows 8 appear to be working around Metro. Either by ignoring it as much as possible, turning the Start Screen into a Start Menu (which requires much more mouse movement) or installing something like Start8. Me? I'd rather save resources*, stop having that stupid Charms bar appear whenever I close a window and live happily in Metro-less Windows 7.
*The mythical "improved performance" everyone keeps saying doesn't hold for me. It's the same. Perhaps slightly worse in 8. And if you compare Windows 7 starting up with Windows 8 starting up without Fast Boot enabled (in other words compare the two properly) it shows that Windows 8 is actually a bit of a dog.
It's that slow realisation that Windows 8 isn't made for you. It's made purely as a result of an incredibly scared Microsoft. I imagine everyone on this forum has a smartphone and a growing amount have an Android tablet or an iPad. These already do exactly what "Metro" is trying to accomplish. I can see my email, check the weather, read the news etc. etc. in a matter of seconds because the device is constantly ready. If I go to my laptop/desktop it's for a specific need that these devices don't cover. Pretty much ("proper") gaming, file management, video watching (just due to the larger screen) and playing music through speakers. "Metro" doesn't help this at all. It gets in the way of it.
The vast majority of traditional PC users who use Windows 8 appear to be working around Metro. Either by ignoring it as much as possible, turning the Start Screen into a Start Menu (which requires much more mouse movement) or installing something like Start8. Me? I'd rather save resources*, stop having that stupid Charms bar appear whenever I close a window and live happily in Metro-less Windows 7.
*The mythical "improved performance" everyone keeps saying doesn't hold for me. It's the same. Perhaps slightly worse in 8. And if you compare Windows 7 starting up with Windows 8 starting up without Fast Boot enabled (in other words compare the two properly) it shows that Windows 8 is actually a bit of a dog.
but nobody told u, u must upgrade. no way on gods earth every OS everybody will like. there will always be people that will not like things about a new OS.
just because u didn't see a improved performance on your system doesn't mean it's not there on other systems. also why would u disable this feature if it improved bootup performance?
Last edited:
Soldato
Please share these test results.
Soldato
In our organisation at the mo, we are still rolling out Windows 7 when the hardware/applications allow, but we still have quite a lot of xp machines. We are starting to see the first Windows 8 laptop/tablets, but I can't see us upgrading to it on desktops.
Why on earth would you disable fast boot? Might as well say if you compare Windows 7 with Windows 3.1 and disable directX in windows 7 it's a bit of a dog for playing games.
If Windows 8 had have released without the modern UI people would have just moaned it was Windows 7 with a couple of tweaks and should be a free service pack, not a new OS release.
I just can't figure out why people can't cope witht he start screen, unpin/remove the "metro" apps and use it as a full screen start menu. Much easier to access programs pinned to the start screen than have to go start>all programs>games>EA>Battlefield 3> BF3.exe
People seem to latch onto the "metro is unusable" bandwagon, and i'm yet to see a honest explanation of why, in particular if you're not using modernUI apps. I just don't get the hate, perhaps I'm just missing something and there's something complicated in there I've missed? Sure there's an astheic view, some may just not like the look which is fair enough, but unsuable, slow etc? To each thier own I suppose, W7 works fine so there's no need to upgrade unless you want to.
Last edited:
Soldato
I think their biggest mistake with W8 was not recognising who they should have been targeting most. The most benefit is to those that were hanging on to XP but the upgrade for those users was the least user friendly. That and the combination that alternatives now exist that mean not everyone is going to rush out and buy a new PC or Laptop just because a new version of Windows is out, some casual users will be getting on very nicely with a mobile alternative.
Last edited:
Soldato
But those hanging on to XP are certainly not interested in the latest tech, for whatever reason, and are almost equally certain to be running on older desktop hardware.
Windows 8 is designed for new mobile hardware and pushes a completely new app model. The user bases are at total opposite ends of the scale.
For me I think the bottom line is Windows 8 is an "OK" upgrade from W7, worth the £25 I paid for it and a step towards the next gen OS. It's also useful for me as it syncs setting back to my Surface. If you have Windows 7 and not interested in the new stuff then W7 is fine. /Shrug
Associate
Do it yourself. In Power Options there's a "What happens when I press the power button" selection on the left. The option to disable Fast Boot is in there.
Firstly so you (and everyone) knows what Fast Boot actually does I'll quote a guy from Microsoft posting on his MSDN blog.
The most obvious point to focus on is the last sentence which I've drawn attention to. In your experience with Windows do you really think it's going to be running at top performance if you hibernate it all the time? It's a stupid middle-of-the-line feature that nobody really needs.
If you want a quicker startup time you simply suspend the system entirely.
If you want to reinitialise the system you shut it down (or restart).
When I choose to shut down my computer I am making a choice to SHUT. IT. DOWN. Not flippin' hibernate it.
In the real world this does cause problems. I put Windows 8 on my parents computer (my Mum's addicted to Wordament
) and they kept having odd niggles. Like Wordament crashing and not working again until a restart or other such odd niggles. I realised that the only time the system actually got "shut down" was every month with Patch Tuesday. Since disabling Fast Boot months ago everything has been running fine.
Soldato
You claim Windows 8 is a dog when starting up compared to Windows 7. I don't have the means to test this. I'm asking you to please share your data.
You must have tested this yourself on a range of computers, or have access to somebody else's work. All I'm asking you to do is help us understand how you came to this conclusion.
If you can't back up your claim, then it's completely unsubstantiated.