Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Finally WINDOWS 8.2 going back to classic desktop we know sinds win95!
Classicstar
Member UncommonPosts: 2,697
in Hardware
This maybe for me the catalyst to switch from win7 to 8.2.
Imust say MS listend to critics and dare change it. Prolly has to do with bad sells win8 but still...
http://www.geek.com/microsoft/start-menu-to-return-in-windows-8-2-codenamed-threshold-1579294/
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Comments
Microsoft: "PC's are being phased out; their time is gone; tablets are the future now, no more PC's."
How the heck do you play thos egames and MMO's on a tablet? Those flash games perhaps, but not the good ones.
Boy did they fall flat on their face with this tablet OS for PC's.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
about time.. that was the biggest mistake they made with windows 8..
Desktop computers did not need an interface overhall.. they way the windows UI has worked since 95 has been basically perfect.. sure make it look better and streamline it.. but force all desktop users to use a tablet OS.. bad move..
I really wonder about that decision. I would love to see an insider's view on why they did that. Was it a disconnect between the marketing, design and development teams? Did somebody high up in the organization just push the tablet interface?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Meh, at this point i could care less about the start menu, ive been using windows 8 since it came out and have adjusted to typing for things I want, or having a folder on my desktop for games/apps.
I dont use the metro interface for anything.
I guess this will be good for all the troglodytes who cant be bothered to learn something new though.
I got new PC year ago. Acidentally it was in same time Win8 was launching and I got the deal for 15$ so i installed it.
So yes, the Metro interface sucked. But it took me 1 minute to install Start8 , app that basically removes Win8 interface and turns it into Win7 interface.
So how is Win8 (but with normal interface)
Basically its much faster version of win8 with many improved functions. Better file explorer , file indexing , built in firewall , better task manager , better memory indexing , and freeze protection.
And it boots in (i measured it) 6 seconds!
Can win7 do that ?
So yes sad decision for interface (metro) but it was 1 minute fix. Otherwise much better and faster system.
Aloha Mr Hand !
I play games like EVE Online; don't see that playing myself on a tablet, wonder if it is even possible/playable. Consoles are a big NO for me anyways so they will never earn $$$ from me for that lol.
That said; all the IT ppl at my company downgraded the new W8 OS on the new machines to a W7 and in some cases: Linux for business use.
Personally I like the old feel of WIndows, if they can make it much mroe stable and much faster; that would be enough.
Curious how this version will do. Classic Desktop is a big plus, wonder if they implement everything else that is not ported to W8 from 7.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I'd have to disagree. Maybe for a light user or the common PC user, but I have given win8 enough time to get fully used to the interface and I still can't stand it. For people who are power users and/or know what they're doing, the old desktop interface is SO much better and faster. I loathe that retarded app-like interface more than anything.
If you are not using your PC for office work, I guess you are right. For any office purposes tho, it is a nightmare and without specialized app that brings your desktop back, unusable.
The intentions with Win8 are logical, pulling it off tho, is entirely different matter. Win8 were released too much ahead of time, the world is not ready yet for the concept.
Windows 7 (and Linux as 2nd) is running perfectly atm, but W8, would be a legal option when they phase out W7 support.
But by then MAYBE they have learned their lesson and made W8 viable or maybe a W9.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Helicopters have pedals for yaw control. I think a more accurate analogy would be like putting helicopter yaw control pedals on a car and moving the throttle and brake to hand controls.
Analogies aside, I think the 2015 projected release for a start menu is ridiculous. Programs like Classic Shell provide a start menu for free right now. Why does it take over a year for one of the largest companies in the world to make some computer code that already exists? Personally, I don't care if or when they release it. I am happy with Windows 8 and my third-party start menu.
Little misleading for anyone who doesn't actually read the article.
Windows ISN'T going back to classic desktop, they're giving you the ability to boot directly to standard desktop instead of having to load the windows 8 desktop first, and possibly the ability to load apps from the standard desktop.
The ability to run windows in the standard desktop was always there, you just had to do it after booting into the windows 8 version first.
People seem to be confused by this.
You might want to look at the technical improvements in the OS under the hood before decide that.
The Start menu is a lie.
Wasn't that supposed to be the big selling point of Windows 8.1?
Anyway - it doesn't really matter. If you couldn't get used to Metro, or you couldn't be bothered to download Start8/ClassicShell, the fact that Windows is re-enabling the old start menu won't be enough to get you to switch -- because it's always been an option the entire time.
People are avoiding Windows 8 and it gets all this bad press not because it's a bad OS, it's because they fear change. There are good reasons to dislike change, particularly when it is a change for the worse or when it's just change for the sake of change and severely impacts productivity - and while you could make good cases for either of those, I won't make that arguement because there are equally valid counterarguments that have been hashed out thousands of times by now.
That, and if Windows XP/Vista/7/95/3.11 still does what you need it to do, really then, why should you pay to upgrade? That's the real and practical reason for most people.
Windows 8 already has a stigma - must like Vista, and ME. No patch will be able to overcome that now. If they want to move more Windows SKUs, they need to go ahead and call it Windows 9 -- which is exactly what they did with Windows 7.
Ok so win8 was perfect OS for desktop pc and all who did not switch where dumb (me included it seems) not to go win 8 which it seems go in(first time i hear this) 6 sec desktop is in 1 min win7 with third party shell and is completely build around desktop not tablets/phones and touchscreens. Damn i could have had a superior OS win8 a year ago damn why oh why i did not switch.
No win8.1 was never a selling point for start comeback. but the TASKBAR was MS always said for win8.1 start won't comeback.
As soon games demand dx11.2 and my win7 perform poorly(which do not) ill maybe concider switching. But i prolly wait for win9 not sure yet im already on dx11.2 videocard amd 290x
To me, the saddest thing about the whole Win 8 touchscreen-tablet-OS-for-your-PC fiasco was that there was no competitor ready to pounce on this corporate blunder with a competitive product. There was money to be made, vast amounts of it, and a opportunity to be grasped. But there's no real vendor competing for the OS market, and the customers are at the mercy of Microsoft.
Such are the dangers of an OS monopoly.
Edit: For the record, I was happy with XP. The only advance Win 7 gave me was DirectX10 and DirectX 11. Those could have been fitted to XP just as easily.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
That's largely because Microsoft is right - the desktop PC isn't dead, but it's been relegated to old hardware and the workplace where you can't get away from Word/Excel/Photoshop/Visual Studio/etc.
All the new consumer computing is mobile and/or touchscreen. Go to Best Buy, or Costco, or Wal-Mart, and 75%+ of all computers there will either be laptops (many with touchscreens), hybrids (most with touchscreens) or tablets (almost all with touchscreens). And even that market is rapidly shifting - most of those tablets and many of those hybrids and laptops aren't running x86 - they are running ARM, and a lightweight OS (Android/iOS) and leveraging connectivity (i.e. "The Cloud") to make up the difference - and while there will always be some segment that this can't work for, for many many people, it does works, and it works very well.
Apple realized this back in 2008 - and that's why we haven't seen much movement in their desktop hardware or software -- it's still there, they know people will always have a need for it, but that isn't a growing segment. Desktop use is on the decline to some baseline level -- you support what you already have, you make incremental low-effort improvements so you don't drop off the map, but you don't throw a lot of money in after it thinking it'll be huge.
Windows already has two major competitors (although I hesitate to call them competition, that really isn't the right word, because your right, they have a near monopoly on the desktop OS) - OS X is popular, but it's hardware restricted, you can't run it on any desktop, so that's a big setback to OS X. And there's Linux, but it's fragmented into hundreds of different distributions, all hoping to be the next breakout -- but not many of them have much in the way of financial backing, and the fragmentation (which they love to bill as "choice") is actually a detractor, particularly when it introduces problems with software distribution and compatibility. Maybe SteamOS will help solidify that camp, but that remains to be seen.
So why would something new jump in there? They'd be jumping after a sinking ship, and I think most companies that are in a position to develop or release a desktop OS realize that.
The problem Microsoft has is that they realized this about 4 years too late. They needed to start shifting with this after Vista. They have a good strategy with Windows 8 - provide a common interface across phone/tablet/touch/desktop - that makes sense, on paper. And if your coming into computers fresh - it works ok because you don't have any preconceived notion of what should be where. But pretty much everyone is comfortable with the desktop metaphor - it's been around since before 1984 where the original Macintosh made it the de facto standard (iirc they ripped it off of Xerox Parc to be fair). Windows 8, in all it's incarnations, makes a push away from that. Compound that by the fact that there's a lot of inoperability between the different Windows 8 versions (aside from Office, what else can you do on RT?), and you end up with 3 different versions of Windows 8 that, while they look the same on the outside, really aren't the same at all and are extremely segregated in terms of what they have available.
The Windows 8 plan sounded good in theory, but it failed in execution of the little details. If you could run Phone/RT apps on an x86 (via an emulator, which probably exists for developers), and one purchase works on all devices (Phone/RT/x86), and x86 didn't treat every computer as a handheld touchscreen (try having a forced full screen email client on a 32" monitor - it's ridiculous - and that's the real problem with Metro, not the Live Tiles Start screen), and a handful of other minor details that got glossed over in the touch-inspired mania, the Windows 8 ecosystem would have been a juggernaut.
Did the same with Start8 and I agree: it really is a better OS. All the knocks against metro are justified but that spills over into knocks against the OS itself that are not.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
First of all Microsoft doesn't give a flying %#$& about pc gamers. The reason win 8 exists is for the new platforms out there and for enterprise environments. 99% of you won't even use the advanced enterprise options included within win 8 or know about how it works even if using it at work.
Gamers are not the driving force behind these changes. I deal with clients every day that still use the old win 98 interface and if you move one icon on their desktop they become completely lost. It is the business user driving change not pc gamers.
Gamers can move to win 8 for whatever reason but it certainly isn't one MS really cares about.
You stay sassy!
They did, its called Win 7/64 bit. And for the record, windows 8 is nowhere near as good, and for those who seem to think that win 8 has a faster boot time, thats only into the rt interface mode, not the desktop, and to boot that fast to desktop you would need a SSD, but here's the thing, if you use sleep mode on win 7, it boots to desktop in just 2 or 3 seconds, and thats without a SSD. Whichever way you cut it, Win 8 does not improve on Win 7 in any single way that actually matters, Windows 8 is just a mistake, its based on faulty design reasoning - integrate Xbox and PC's. The only way MS is going to sell a new OS now, that will really encourage gamers, and by definition, Win 7 users to 'upgrade' is to come out with a Win 9 that actually improves something. Win 8 is a dead end, much the same way that Windows ME was (and who remembers that without using 4 letter words!)
Win 8 is dead. MS is trying to revive a corpse
Win8's big thing was to force people into using Microsoft's mobile interface, to get them used to it, instead of Android or ios or some such. It was a brain dead move because it forced a touchscreen interface onto a user base that had a very low percentage of touchscreens. It could easilly have asked (or checked) at installation which you had. But that wasn't the point. They also focused strongly on optimizing start up times, because they had discovered through focus groups that that's what people mostly noticed. There's also the lure of a walled-garden Apple-style app store. Microsoft would love to control that sort of thing.
Instead of providing options they decided to throw in all sorts of basically unneeded desktop changes. In part because if they didn't have loads of changes, people might ask why they didn't just upgrade Win7.
When I get a touchscreen, I will try Win8.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.