Microsoft: Windows 8 Can Boot Up Too Quickly

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Utter crap from MS - "boot too quickly to register keystrokes such as F2 or F8" unbelievable garbage!

To MS: it's the bit BEFORE and AFTER these keystroke options that define >99.9% of boot times......are you seriously telling us that putting a delay-for-keystroke of e.g. 4 seconds at this point will have a significant effect on TOTAL boot delay! Bolloks! If you can get the 'before' and 'after' down to
 
[citation][nom]LessThanRadical[/nom]@ killerclickSigh, actually it can be done, drag from top down then to the right or left will dock one 'metro' app to one side of the screen now your free to shove another metro app onto the other side, but your free to believe it's not possible if you like.[/citation]

That works if you want an 80:20 split, but how do you get 50:50? :)

Nice try Microbot.
 
[citation][nom]dauntekong[/nom]Windows 3.1 = ehhh it's a startWindows 95 = getting betterWindows 98 = GoodWindows ME = BadWindows XP = GoodWindows Vista = BadWindows 7 = GoodWindows 8 = BadWait for the next Windows = Good I hopeThat's Microsoft's line of product.[/citation]

He just missed a few:
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows Me
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7

(Embedded-, Server- and Mobile-Versions excluded)
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]So... I don't get it, how the hell are they going to bypass F2/F8/etc.? That's BIOS, after all, not part of the OS![/citation]
Microsoft rules the world. They can bypass anything, they can hypnotize you into believing that your system never does POST. In fact, without Microsoft, the Earth would no longer orbit the Sun.
 
[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]The question for people is are you going to upgrade to windows 8 because you have to or because you want to? I mean what can't Windows XP do for the avg consumor that surfs the net watches video and does word processing that it prompts an upgrade to where they have to get an new operating system ever 3 years. None.If you are a gamer or into heavy graphics what can Windows 8 do that Windows 7 can't? Both support DrectX 11 so where is your money better spent if you are a gamer or into heavy graphical workloads, spending 200 dollars on a retail version of Windows 8 or putting 200 dollars towards upgrading your hardware when the need prompts too. If you have Windows 7 there really isn't a need to upgrade to Windows 8 i have yet to see one real legit reason where you have to upgrade to Windows 8 from Windows 7 unlike Windows XP where if you were a gamer or into heavy graphical workloods yuo really didn't have an choice if you needed an OS to take advantage of latest DirectX software. Now i can understand why people upgraded from Vista to Windows 7, due to memory leakage peoblems that Vista had that MS couldn't fix without reworking the enitre kernal and that became an issue for gamers and people that did a lot of graphical worklaods that needed to take advantage of all of their resoruces, without having to worry about resource leakage. But unlike Windows Vista Windows 7 has none of those types of problems and yes even through Windows 8 is a little faster in some areas then Windows 7 is which it should given the progression of software, are those small perfomance gains that are mostly realitive to system operations worth your 200 dollars? No. especially when MS is going to start rolling out new operating systems at the end of every 2 years now. So your money is better spent upgrading your current system every 2 years then to go out and buy a new OS every two years unless it prompts for a must to do so.[/citation]

I plan to upgrade because I want to. What does it add? Well, for one thing, Metro. While some on this site bash it, I think the live tiles providing frequent updates is nice. I suppose you can have a bunch of widgets on your desktop that do some of this, but I think the tiles interface is cleaner. You also have easy sharing capability built into charms. Also, the fact that signing in with your MS account syncs your stuff is nice, too. Also, new Metro apps could be cool, too.
 
Win8 will be destined for the Vista niche line up for one very big reason:
It won't make it in business for a very long time.
Why?
Cost, for starters. Not necessarily the cost of the software, but the cost of TRAINING people to run this.
You basically need to hold several classes to undo years, even decades worth, of start menu software based training. This takes away from production, adding even more cost... then the cost of whomever is doing the training... The cost of servers being down. Making the current software work in win 8.... I could go on and on.
The only thing Win8 has going for it in the business world is the cost of the OS and hardware requirements are presumably the same as win7....

No, win8 is meant for tablets..... It may penetrate a little into the business world. It may penetrate even more into the home desktop world(if the OEM's go at it in a big way).... But this thing obviousley doesn't have the "likeability" factor to make it go in the home in a big way. See: Vista to XP downgrade coupons...
 
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]people need to learn how to relax...so what if a computer takes 7 or 45 seconds to boot...slow down and drink a cup of tea...you will feel better[/citation]

.. and startmenu button is the most important.
 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]It may penetrate even more into the home desktop world(if the OEM's go at it in a big way).... But this thing obviousley doesn't have the "likeability" factor to make it go in the home in a big way. See: Vista to XP downgrade coupons...[/citation]

And you base this on what...your opinion?
 
In a couple years we'll all be saying how much Windows 9 will suck and "I'll just stick with 8." Then when Windows 10 comes out we'll be mad at Microsoft for getting rid of Metro. And then there won't be a Windows 11 because by then we'll all realize that Windows 98 was the best OS of all time and we should have never made any OSes after that.
 
@killerclick

i'll ced you on that point never really had the need to have two fully interactive metro app side by side, i'll usually switch to desktop if i need to be doing something like that, but for copy paste 80/20 works just fine for me , and again as i said it's a personal thing. Metro is not so bad as to prevent me from getting stuff done (including dropping back to desktop, the only real thing that's gone is the start menu which I never used all that much anyways)

I'm not an ardent MS fan, and there are areas where win 8 is still wanting but I'm not going to write it off solely on the metro UI alone, i can tell you though, going back to win 7 copy and delete manager from Win 8 is painful and that's only one example, win 8 does get somethings right, if you can learn to live with metro than it might just have enough features to be called a step forward but if you don't use those features then you won't miss them (much like how so few people utilize quicklist in win 7)

I'm just sick and tired of the win 8 bashing based upon metro alone without realizing win 8 does bring more to the table than metro alone, you have to admit saying fast booting SUX because metro sux is a little retarded
 
[citation][nom]godfather666[/nom]I don't understand all the negative comments. Metro sucks, yes. But a 7 second boot time is awesome.[/citation]Sorry but Win7 on SSD boots in the same time and yet it's able to detect any key stroke along the way.
 
i got asrock converted 2gig ram to disk space all cache and most windows files are on the ram the rest on ssd. from deep sleep to fully on takes 2,5 sec cuss my screen needs the 2.5 sec time to display the picture dont know the actual start time. from shut down to fully up is around 7 sec if you plugg it to the 3.0 sata/quick start port for ssd.
 
[citation][nom]kaisellgren[/nom]I do wonder why most people do not turn their computers off. It seriously degrades the lifespan of your computer (especially the PSU). It also uses some power, unless we are using sleep/hibernate. I understand if we talk about servers though.[/citation]

There is minimal impact on the lifespan of the machine if you leave it on. I've had a PC running for years as a Media Center, almost non-stop, with no issues. I also have a server built on old desktop parts that's running 4 virtual servers and never goes to sleep.
I remotely access files on my desktop on a regular basis and have tasks scheduled that run while the systems are idle so they don't impact me while actually using the system.
There is no right or wrong, it's preference, but I prefer to let run for convenience.
 
I've been saying what a lot of people here are saying. Windows 8 will either take some time to adopt, or will completely bomb. Windows 9 will probably be the awesome one.

I also could see where Windows 8 would work well on a tablet.
 
[citation][nom]dauntekong[/nom]Windows 3.1 = ehhh it's a startWindows 95 = getting betterWindows 98 = GoodWindows ME = BadWindows XP = GoodWindows Vista = BadWindows 7 = GoodWindows 8 = BadWait for the next Windows = Good I hopeThat's Microsoft's line of product.[/citation]
I agree with you, but you forgot Windows 2000, which isn't bad. :)
 
[citation][nom]rb420[/nom]Don't let that make you feel like a dinosaur. I'm under 30 and feel the same way![/citation]
Agreed, I'm under 15 (14) and feel the same way... screw tablets xD
 
[citation][nom]dauntekong[/nom]Windows 3.1 = ehhh it's a startWindows 95 = getting betterWindows 98 = GoodWindows ME = BadWindows XP = GoodWindows Vista = BadWindows 7 = GoodWindows 8 = BadWait for the next Windows = Good I hopeThat's Microsoft's line of product.[/citation]
You got a lot of missing stuff.

MS DOS 1~6 = pure substandard crap.
Windows 1.x = bad Shit
Windows 2.x = bad joke, but still bad.
Windows 3.0 = Functional, not an OS, but crap. Still bad.
Windows 3.1 = okay. ehhh it's a start
Windows 3.5 = BAD - (NT)
Windows 95 = bad - But its MS's first consumer OS.
Windows 4.0 = BAD - Modern OS that is SP nightmare (I think 7+)
Windows 95 OSR2 = Good
Windows 98 = Good, slight improvements.
Windows 98se = Best Win9X OS
Windows ME = Bad
Windows 2000 = Good
Windows XP = Good
Windows XP-MCE = Good (Most of the features of XP-PRO without the price /improved visuals)
Windows Vista = Bad
Windows 7 = Good
Windows 8 = TBA

BAD = 8 (Not including MS-DOS)
Good = 7 +1 okay of Win3.1
 
[citation][nom]dauntekong[/nom]Windows 3.1 = ehhh it's a startWindows 95 = getting betterWindows 98 = GoodWindows ME = BadWindows XP = GoodWindows Vista = BadWindows 7 = GoodWindows 8 = BadWait for the next Windows = Good I hopeThat's Microsoft's line of product.[/citation]

You forgot Windows 2000

Also, I'm curious as to what the Windows experience will be like without the 10+ year old start button.
 
[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]You forgot Windows 2000Also, I'm curious as to what the Windows experience will be like without the 10+ year old start button.[/citation]
It will be a learning curve (and therefore frustration) for many who will not understand the benefit of removing it. ...which is...? To change things for the sake of changing them...one could easily and reasonably think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom