Windows 8 'Irrelevant' For PC Users

[pantherx12]

Every program puts an entry or several into windows registry when it gets installed, aka basically a Program ID. If Windows OS could autosync and auto populate other drives without having to install programs again that would be awesome.

Ahh the duality of the registry system

Love it when fiddling/haxoring but hate it for having to install stuff over and over.

 

[LiveOrDie]

There is reason for me to upgrade to it the improved system management i run the DP on my media center when copying/moving/deleting files windows will group all commands into the 1 task instead of having a lot of windows open.

 

[eidairaman1]

a Program should be fully self contained within its own file folder, n only put entries in registry as a ID and then a means to uninstall it from Windws Uninstall. if you move say a secondary HD that has all ur programs on it, windows should automatically sync the drive with those IDs and means to uninstall plus the files needed in the OS to work right (if a program needs to install files on the OS drive itself)

 

[Liquid Cool]

Windows 8? Cool...now you can be monitored, tracked...and sold worthless goods to with better efficiency than before. I'll be the first to stand in line for my copy. I better get the tent ready - just in case.



Mint's a pretty good flavor.

Liquid Cool

 

[jagjitnatt]

Nope. Actually, the Apple side have been complaining about the "tablet-isation" of the OSX echosystem. Apple is bringing sandboxing and heavy restrictions to what softwares can access. There are also talks of an OSX appstore becoming mandatory for ALL software installs.

I don't see that happening. What Apple is doing is fetching the best features of iOS and implementing in OS X. Eg: LaunchPad. Its a great feature, allows you to access all your programs with a single mouse click.
The Apple mouse is touch sensitive, so it allows all sorts of gestures to be used. Implementing that in OS X is brilliant. But OS X is still very different from the iOS. There are no restrictions as you mentioned. I've been using using OS X Lion, Windows 7 and Ubuntu 10.04 on my PCs.

NOt bashing anyone here, but the traditionnal "workstation" desktop for powerusers is a declining trend, including games.

Sort of. But I think the OS X and Linux platforms are still good for the traditional desktop. What Microsoft should do is release different versions for different purposes. Tablet edition for Tablets, Desktop version for Desktops and Server editions for Servers.

 

[bostonbuddy]

don't forget you may want to use the metro style when using gesture controls w/ ur kinect hooked up to your htpc.

 

[Drone]

I like 8 with all its optimizations and faster loading/booting.

 

[laszlo]

It will be 11 years in 2012 that XP exists... An OS shouldn't survive for more than a decade

a good OS will and even more...not everybody on the planet had latest gen PC's in fact i think up to 20% are still using P-2-3 machines and poverty is not people's fault..

 

[eidairaman1]

a good OS will and even more...not everybody on the planet had latest gen PC's in fact i think up to 20% are still using P-2-3 machines and poverty is not people's fault..

ya to extent its government mismanaging money. Any version of windows i wouldnt recommend running without 1 Gig of memory (Excluding Vista which requires just 4 to run decent...)

if Upper Govt Officials- President, Congress, HORs would take a 5-10% cut in pay or have part of what they make put to lower pay brackets n certain pensions they have removed after they are promoted etc n not a separate pension for every promotion. Get rid of the universal healthcare system (had no money to begin with) Stop worrying about supporting other nations and help ourselves first before helping anyone else. Its odd- there used to be a Working Class, those who could afford Cost of living but without excess and not worry too much about making ends meet. now there is just Rich and Poverty. Very sad Govt and Free Enterprise.

 

[Rhyseh]

Lol wut?

So as a network administrator I have to shut off the the features of Win8 (if I choose to upgrade) because I don't need app integration, media use or social networking on my domain? how does that benefit me at all? Why would I even consider this OS for my work networks over XP or 7?

Given everything I've read on the OS and what I do on my own computer I don't see any real reason to embrace this OS at all.

While the OP does not cover all potential usage of the OS, I hardly see it as a hate/hit piece.

You already have to do a butt load of configuring when you build an SOE anyway, changing a desktop setting will add a few seconds of building an SOE if that. Complaining about having to turn things off in a corporate environment is pretty silly seeing as any Sys Admin worth their salt would turn all the unneccessary shit off anyway (which both XP and 7 have).

The better resource management alone makes it worth the upgrade I know a few engineers at work who would probably love to have a faster system without having to buy new hardware...

Any one who works in the corporate world now will understand the demand from the user base for mobile devices. Some organisations have gone out and purchased such devices as iPad's, however we all know that an iPad is not designed for business and provides a challenge for Systems Administrators to integrate. Windows 8 is a solution for the customers demands for tablet and mobile devices, while still being easily managed, without having to spend significant dollars on upgrading the back end. From a business perspective Windows 8 makes alot of sense. Instead of laptops mobile users could have the choice of a tablet running Windows 8 with a dock at work and a 4G SIM in the back connected into a corporate APN. A tablet on the go with everything you need a touch away and a fully functional PC when docked.

Windows 8 will likely herald an explosion of integrated tablet devices and phones to the corporate world. Combine this with a seamless home integration of Microsoft products and Microsoft market share increases.

 

[Quantos]

Well, it's irrelevant because of the UI. Other than that, if the performance upgrades are decent, it can be a good OS. I think the mistake being made here is that the Metro UI shouldn't be a default UI. It should be the other way around: by default the UI is the usual Windows UI, but if you want to use Metro, you can switch to it. Of course, that doesn't make much sense in terms of marketing... "Yes, we have created this brand new, fantastic UI... but we don't use it by default".

Even better, the UI could be selected depending on the device used. By default, tablets should use Metro and PCs should use the Windows UI. After all, for tablets, Metro does seem quite nice.

One could argue that if a user is bothered enough by Metro, he/she will probably know that it can be deactivated, but that's not really something you want for an OS. By default, it should be optimal, and though that's subjective, as some people will probably be quite content with Metro, I just don't see it being a step forward in terms of productivity, and management for admins. Also, if we consider that a lot of people that use Windows products are employees that are given a computer at work, that's not really people you want to piss off. People that see the product at work and find it annoying to work on will not be tempted to buy it for their home use, even though it could probably be better for a home computer than a work computer. That said, I'll grant that it's rather unlikely that a company computer would get the upgrade to Windows 8 before a home computer.

 

[eidairaman1]

I felt the same with running Office 2003/2007 friggin confusing and annoying, Office 97 with 98 updates and office 2000 were very easy to use and navigate to find what you needed.

 

[Rhyseh]

Also, if we consider that a lot of people that use Windows products are employees that are given a computer at work, that's not really people you want to piss off. People that see the product at work and find it annoying to work on will not be tempted to buy it for their home use, even though it could probably be better for a home computer than a work computer. That said, I'll grant that it's rather unlikely that a company computer would get the upgrade to Windows 8 before a home computer.

Sadly how annoying an OS is to use in the work place usually has nothing to do with the OS itself but the applications, how the OS is implemented and ludicrous ICT policies that many companies IT departments use/enforce. I have seen many companies butcher their SOE and make their employee's "IT Experience" as irritating and inefficient as possible (mainly in government entities). On the flip side I have also seen some very good implementations where the IT management actually recognise that the end user experience is important, thus easy to use SOE's are born.

 

[Mussels]

Then what is the huge benefit over win 7?

My computer is on 24/7 so I could care less about boot up.

Memory is cheap so using slightly less is not a motivator to invest money in a new OS.

I won't be using metro, so what would make a win7 desktop guy want to spend money on 8?

support for new CPU instructions, like the ones benefitting bulldozer CPU's, for one.

its new memory management will allow it to do the same with less memory for better multi tasking as well.

i've already seen lots of improvements to the mobile features, such as the ability to tell windows to go 'low bandwidth' on certain internet connections and not others - so you can tell it to update away while at home, but use minimal data on your 3G/work internet, for example.


people need to realise that software updates (and new versions of windows) rarely have anything to do with performance. its features, or improvements to existing features.

 

[ice_v]

Then what is the huge benefit over win 7?

My computer is on 24/7 so I could care less about boot up.

Memory is cheap so using slightly less is not a motivator to invest money in a new OS.

I won't be using metro, so what would make a win7 desktop guy want to spend money on 8?

Finally some common sense! And pretty good question to go along with it too

I use my pc mostly for gaming...got a good rig for excellent gaming on a 1680x1050@120Hz monitor (no 3D, just over 60fps gaming ). Upgrading to Win7 bit64 from xp 32bit was most definattly worth it and I know I'm not talking smack when I say I'm more expert than the average pc user...though I still can't find a reasonable motivation to upgrade. I guess I'll leave that to entusiasts... those guys who jerk off in front of bench numbers and the wizzards of the liquid nitrogen to which I humbly bow in respect

 

[LiveOrDie]

Then what is the huge benefit over win 7?

My computer is on 24/7 so I could care less about boot up.

Memory is cheap so using slightly less is not a motivator to invest money in a new OS.

I won't be using metro, so what would make a win7 desktop guy want to spend money on 8?

spend money nar never just dl for free

 

[Quantos]

Sadly how annoying an OS is to use in the work place usually has nothing to do with the OS itself but the applications, how the OS is implemented and ludicrous ICT policies that many companies IT departments use/enforce. I have seen many companies butcher their SOE and make their employee's "IT Experience" as irritating and inefficient as possible (mainly in government entities). On the flip side I have also seen some very good implementations where the IT management actually recognise that the end user experience is important, thus easy to use SOE's are born.

True, true, for the end user, the policies are what matter most, but remember that we're not talking about tech-savvy users necessarily. I recall the ribbon in Office 2007 bringing itself quite a lot of hate from users who were accustomed to the way Office 2003 worked, and who didn't want to learn something completely new. The quality of the new solution isn't necessarily at fault; for all we know, Metro might turn out to be a good productivity environment. What's to blame for the hate is the simple fact that people don't like change, sometimes even if the new solution is better. Now, add to that the policies and you end up with a UI that the user has never seen, which is restricted, sometimes as you said heavily. That's not a good productivity cocktail.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

don't forget you may want to use the metro style when using gesture controls w/ ur kinect hooked up to your htpc.

someone paying attention to news and adds. microsoft are already showin the world its new ui on every advert blending it into the phsyci , and coincidentally kinect for pc is out a similar time as win8,imho making kinect useable on a desk looks to have been a thought with metro

ive had win8 as a second boot a while and while initially anoying it ends up being win 7.5ish without metro ,i liked all the slight changes to copying files and what not, so id say it wouldnt offend a vista or win7 user to much, but damn xp owners are Not gona like it theyll spend 3 days trying to find the control panel

i look forward to their attempts to get us all to buy win 8 tho bit much poss

give up with the xp no way is that shit still doin anyone using it any favours

 

[digibucc]

i got teared a new one for suggesting it was anything short of brilliance on our thread here when it was first released - and that's really all i said. for desktop pc users it only adds complication, and does nothing really better. i did like the task manager & file copy, though that's a little late coming, i use third party software for both of those now.

 

[Static~Charge]

Yeah I get the feeling that there are many angry ignorants who think the Metro interface is going to be jammed down their throat. Metro is for tablets, people. It's not going to touch the desktop interface that everybody uses for real, productive work.

Maybe people have that opinion due to their Microsoft Office experience. Microsoft changed the Office suite from pull-down menus to the ribbon bar in the 2007 release. Many people complained loudly about the jarring change of interface, and Microsoft blew them off ("It's an improvement, trust me!"). That sort of behavior doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[newtekie1]

Honestly, I'd still be using Vista as my primary OS if I didn't get Win7 free from my Microsoft partnership. People say there are performance improvements, but they aren't really noticeable, and they aren't worth shelling out any money.

Ahh the duality of the registry system

Love it when fiddling/haxoring but hate it for having to install stuff over and over.

No one is actually forcing program developers to use the registry. I've seen plenty of programs that never touch the registry, all their configuration is done via a file either in the directory with the program or generated in some other place(like Documents or Roaming etc.).

Everyone that wants to complain about the registry needs to talk the software developers that are creating the programs.

 

[Steevo]

The registry is just a one stop shop for system wide alterations, some are needed most are not.



I actually bought my own copy of 7 as I didn't like the new partner terms and conditions, specifically the part where any and all software you get through partner channels they can force you to remove, or revoke the keys for at any time. I have been getting other hard copy software that I sell, or uhh trade...... since it is NFR.


Windows 8 will be like Vista in the aspect that people will need to get used to it, it is poised to be the next vista if MS pulls the same stunts they did by throwing out features in order to get it finished on time. The difference between Vista SP1 and 7 RTM was enough to make most people move, and even have MS give away free upgrades. really the issues that plagued Vista were due to lazy manufacturers that didn't bother writing drivers, or writing good drivers and software for it. I had my copy for at least 16 months before it hit the market, and if a company can't get off their ass and write a few MB of good code to at least get started in that timeframe they have issues unto themselves.

 

[Ahhzz]

The first pre-release Windows 7 builds were just as 'irrelevant' to anyone who used Vista. It's only after beta and RCs that people started seeing the performance improvements.

I can see that being the case... of course, I can also see the case where the numbers of people who were actually licking a cow pie...err... "using vista" I mean, were so ridiculously small compared to the XP users, that argument really kinda falls short....

 

[johnnyfiive]

All the people complaining need to realize the Windows 8 you're previewing is the DEVELOPER PREVIEW. Which clearly means, its for developing and testing apps for the Metro UI. If you don't like it, just disable it. If you're using the Windows 8 dev preview thinking it will be a 100% awesome stable OS, get real. It's a preview. This isn't even a real beta yet. The majority of non-developers are complaining because they don't realize this isn't a complete OS. Metro isn't for the general desktop users. It's for touch devices.

 

[digibucc]

Metro isn't for the general desktop users. It's for touch devices.

this is the entire point of this thread, as noted by the title.