Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Windows 8

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 108 Times in 106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Canada, mainly in front of the computer cursing at this random Jargon @#$%!!!!!
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Looks like just another way to make money from Apps and trying to appeal to the MAC/I phone people. I didn't really see anything new that I was really interested in.

    I very much dislike the screen it shows you after putting in your picture password. I hope that there is a way to load the desktop rather then that "start" screen :/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    Haha. Windows

    There's something really amusing about this. For anyone who has had the pleasure of using Windows 3.1 (I only have by finding old computers and using them for amusement), you'll realize that Windows 8 is the flashy version of Windows 3.1. Why is moving forward now the same as moving backwards?

    I really like having a desktop. I find it useful. I like files. I like things I can organize. Moving toward a tabs-based approach like the iphone is just a terrible idea. It may be catchy and it may be easier to use, but for a serious computer user, it's really a step backwards.

    I enjoy using my iPhone. I really do. But it's also limited. Where are the files? Nowhere. You can't access them. You can't move stuff around (the file structure; not the app shortcuts). It's good for a phone to be like the iPhone, at least as a first draft of a very useful mobile device. But a computer? Please, no.

    I miss Windows 2000. Everything since then has been a loss as far as I'm concerned. The improved stability and so forth is fine. But why does it have to be so annoyingly flashy and GUI-intensive? If there's an off switch, that's fine. But what I've noticed is that every new version of Windows has exactly enough "off switches" to move you back to the look of the previous system, so I guess now Windows 8 will allow you to move back to Windows 7. XP allowed the look of 2000, and that was a good thing. It was a decent operating system, once you fixed it to look like 2000. Then Vista allowed you to fake the look of XP. And I suppose Windows 7 must allow you to get back to 'classic' Vista.

    Of course the most ridiculous example of this was from google, with their (short-lived?) attempt to create a computer that didn't have a desktop, a file-system or anything. It was entirely web-based, so you could log on to youtube to watch movies, on to google docs to work, and on to gmail to send email. (And that's all.) This is obviously the wrong direction for computing and anyone surprised by the failure of such approaches is insane.

    At the same time, I'm perfectly open to the idea of easy-to-use do-it-for-you computers for inexperienced users, maybe kids. But for serious computer users, no. One way to look at it is the following: do the people making these operating systems intend to use them themselves?

    This terrible trend was initiated (mostly) by Apple, and I'm annoyed with them because of it. I like my Mac, but the last ~5 years has been a very bad direction for the company (though not financially yet... not yet).

    (On the other hand, the terrible quality of the newer [and older] Macbooks is really frustrating. For about $2,000 for a computer, I'd expect something that last longer than a year or two, and that's clearly not their intention, with overheating and other significant problems. At the moment, the upper left-hand corner of the metal under my keyboard is too hot to touch.)


    In the end, the real trouble is innovation itself. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But Microsoft, Apple, Google and others insist on fixing it. It's really not an improvement...
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    So.Cal
    Posts
    3,643
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 516 Times in 502 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    3.1 was fine. (I could run it from the keyboard with my eyes closed. which was nice, because I had two machines and only one monitor. geez, I had so many files, both 500MB hard drives were constantly nearly full!) Win 95 was the best thing since sliced bread.

    I have to disagree with you about 2000, though. I had the absolute worst experiences ever with that OS (at least, until Vista came along). And I don't really like 7 -- I still use XPpro, but I have to deal with 7 on my wife's netbook.

    8 looks a little (foolishly) touch-oriented. I can't even imagine the system resources it will consume... you might have a quad-core multithreaded CPU, but thanks to Windows 8, you'll never notice!

    give Ubuntu a try sometime.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 108 Times in 106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    It's interesting to see all the opinions on the newer Windows OS's. I recentely got Windows 7 (The grass is always greener on the other side ) and I really don't think it's that bad. I think it's about level with Xp (even though there are some annoying "features").

    Can we all agree that Windows Vista is the worst Windows OS to ever be made?

    I definetely don't think I'll be getting W8 when it comes out...

    Thanks for all the posts!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    So.Cal
    Posts
    3,643
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 516 Times in 502 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by keyboard1333 View Post
    Can we all agree that Windows Vista is the worst Windows OS to ever be made?
    surprisingly, no. Win ME gets my vote.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    Right. ME, if that even counts. I think everyone agrees (including Microsoft) that it was just a mistake.
    (I wonder if 2000 was so great-- in the UI, see my explanation below-- because ME was so bad. They didn't have time to make it stupid and fancy, so they just went with the basics. I wish that could happen again. Maybe it almost did in the case of Windows 7, but they seem to have included plenty of excessive stuff that gets in the way, so it didn't work.)

    I have to disagree with you about 2000, though.
    Why's that? I had my share of issues too (as with every computer I've ever used), but I liked the interface and how it should have run. Imagine Windows 2000 (ok, or even XP) running on modern machines, updated to be more stable, run modern programs, etc. I would like the (potential) improved stability with the UI of Windows 2000. Simple, to the point, and best of all-- stable.

    Computers should get faster and crash less, not fancier and consume more resources just to show the desktop.

    traq, I'm completely with you about improved processors and ridiculous OSs. I just can't understand it. For the average non-expert user, I guess it's fine (as long as the OS can run relatively well), but why should the OS keep getting heavier? At some point the processor and memory and hard drive should overwhelm the OS to the point where it's absolutely no effort at all to run. We're not there yet, but not because of technology, because of OS design.

    As for Ubuntu, I've considered it. But there are practical reasons to avoid it (eg, compatibility of programs). I do too much that needs a supported OS, like video editing. But the future may turn in that direction. Once Apple and Microsoft fully jump off of the "our computers are toys" cliff, linux (or something else) will surely be the next step for serious users. Maybe another option there is to have a pro-OS and a basic OS, with the pro-OS actually having fewer "features" and more control. If newer versions of Windows had a "simple mode" I'd be happy.

    Apple is doing almost everything wrong too, but one area that is going pretty well is their OS. It's in many ways a very nice system. Not perfect, and still going the in the stupid direction of fancy widgets and so forth, but I think it's the best out there at the moment (as a modern version) and it's very stable. The computers are ridiculously expensive and the quality has dropped, so it may not be worth the investment any more (each time I buy a Mac I find myself less inclined to do so, though I haven't yet stopped). But Apple is business-smart, knowing this and not allowing their OS to be used on another machines. Annoying!
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE PA USA
    Posts
    30,495
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 3,449 Times in 3,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    I count myself lucky. I went from 3.1 to NT to XP to 7. I'm not sure why exactly I missed most of those dogs - luck like I say, except Vista. I avoided that like the plague. But I was lucky with that as well because by the time I needed to replace my second XP machine, Win 7 was 'de rigueur'.

    Needless to say, or not - After an initial "what the f**k!" period getting familiar with each of the above that I used, I love(d) them. I think my favorite was NT, with its extended batch file language I really felt in control of the machine.
    - John
    ________________________

    Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    But John, what do you feel has been an improvement since NT? That's the issue. (And I'm entirely ignoring stability, faster processing, etc., because that should, of course, always be developed and improved.) Would you not prefer NT still, but with the improved underlying structure of the newer OSs?
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    More on that specific topic, what exactly are the benefits of 8 over 7? Is it just the next logical step, or are there some real improvements?

    It seems like Windows might be moving in the direction of Apple. About 10 years ago they released OSX, which is great, and it really has not changed at all since. Slight upgrades. But it's the same OS. (Although a huge improvement over OS9, which was similar to 8, 7, etc.) Windows has changed more from version to version, I think, but have they now settled into Windows 7, Windows 8, ...9, 10, 11? So it's just minor changes? Or are these really new OSs?
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •