Microsoft: Windows 8 Can Boot Up Too Quickly

Page 5 - 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.
[citation][nom]NightLight[/nom]i remember when people didn't want to switch over to xp from 95 because it was gonna be such a sucky o/s. same people later complained about switching to 7 because is was gonna be such a sucky o/s. same people are gonna run win 8, there, i said it, someone had to.[/citation]

i don't recall that at all
 
[citation][nom]azz156[/nom]i like how you tried to make a pattern there but you missed alot of versions.1.02.03.03.1 good for the time (first windows i used)Win 95 fun at the time but buggy as hellWin 95 Plus huge inprovement in stability but more of the sameWin 98 complete rubbish Win98 SE perfect for the timeWin NT only used it at school but fineWin 2000 awsumly stable but not so good for gamesWin ME ok but had a bad habit of bsod when installing a unstable driverWin XP complete crap until after sp2 Win 2003 never used itWin Vista perfect if you have 2 gig + of ram, i personally didnt notice any of the bugs ppl were havingWin 2008 never used itWin 7 pretty much the same as vista but had a new task bar (project mojave anyone?)Win HS 2011 fracking awsum, dirt cheap and did i saw fracking awsum[/citation]

XP was not complete crap until SP2... nice try though
 
[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]

I stream music from my PC when I'm home, in the car, or at work. We also stream movies from my PC to several devices. This will have to work until I buy a NAS, so in the mean time, I leave mine on pretty much 24/7.
 
[citation][nom]thecolorblue[/nom]XP was not complete crap until SP2... nice try though[/citation]

it wasn't a try its fact, since everyone here bases operating systems on there own personal opinion i am there fore basing it on my own experience. when i used it none of my games worked properly so i quickly switched back to windows 2000 (mainly distorted text in games) and was insanely slow on my computer at the time (pIII 450, 128 sd ram, voodoo 3 32 sd Vram).

im not sure you were old enough to remember the early days of xp but i do, everyone hated it and called it bloatware complaining that 2gig is way too much space for a os and the endless hatred of windows activation. The choice of the day back then was 98se for gamers and win 2000 for everything else.

all i see that everytime a new os is released theres always the jaded tech savvy guru that hates it for some reason and recommends everyone stick with there favorite os .
 
I'm still trying to figure out the problem with win 8, the most common thing the FUD crowd say is no start button and the new start menu. im fairly sure stardock or microsoft will manage a patch or a work around to bring it back if you miss it that badly.

like with windows me & vista there were genuine concerns with stability and performance but with windows 8 i runs perfectly even in beta so as far as i can tell its just a aesthetic feel that has everyone predicting doom n gloom which all i can say is get over it.
 
This is sooo silly, If there talking about an OS "Booting" the boot doesn't start until after the BIOS... to be accurate, tech's cant say windows 8 boots in 10 seconds and include the BIOS flash... because Windows 8 is not the BIOS lol....

Bios flash - Operating system... to completely separate things,
 



You forgot Win 2000... Was a great OS and ran with very little memory.
 
[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]

XP prior to the second SP wasn't so good either. Also, Windows 8 with a simple freeware program to get the start menu back is easily better than Windows 7. Anyone who cares enough to build their own computers but doesn't care enough to spend the two minutes to download Classic Shell or ViSart/ViOrb (or some other such freeware program) is not a computer enthusiast. Metro is the only issue with the OS and it is an easy issue to work-around if you have any idea at all about what your doing and a five minute or less Google search can solve that. Doing anything less and still complaining like most people here is nothing more than subtle trolling and implied laziness.
 
[citation][nom]azz156[/nom]I get absolutely baffled with people when they complain about vista, I think it was because all the manufactures release new computers with only 1 gig of ram at the time n that's why vista ran like crap, try it again today n I think you'll find it works fine.Though I'm worried that the same FUD machine that crippled vista is now going after win8 for no other reason other then it is different, I'm using the rc on my laptop right now and the only problem I'm having is ati's drivers (cant switch between gfx cards) other then that I love it, nice crisp looking ui, the start menu is surprisingly similar to ubuntu's search menu which I liked, its a little bit faster then win7 & ran diablo 3 fine even with dodgy ati beta drivers.[/citation]

Vista had horrible driver support and I had a lot of crashing problems with it early on. True, the memory problem, especially with OEM computers, was bad, but it was not the only problem. Windows 7 is much more than jsut Vista with a slightly redesigned UI. It is much lighter on resources despite being a little faster in more or less every task. For example, 7 can easily be used on 1GB of RAM, but anything less than 2GB can be very frustrating with Vista.
 
Metro system seems O.K. I would like it if you can either switch to Aero or add boxes to Metro so you can access your games easily.


Also Windows 8 may seem like a flop, but costing $40 from upgrading from XP up, and $70 full version retail, it will sell hot regardless. I myself am glad that I don't have to blow a hundred something upgrading to 7 to stop dealing with the RAM sloth that Vista64 is.

I agree that there is no point to go to 7 to 8, hell I perfer 7 to 8. But if your a Vista user... doing the $40 deal to upgrade to Win8 is a no brainer.
 
[citation][nom]godfather666[/nom]I don't understand all the negative comments. Metro sucks, yes. But a 7 second boot time is awesome.[/citation]
I remember people talking about Windows 7 like this...hey I wouldn't mind having Windows 8...I'm not that ungrateful. :c
 
From the comments posted by some it's made to sound like the Metro interface is being made to seem similar to the "MS BOB" interface that was pushed many many years ago. Just like BOB you do not have to use it, you can use the "classic view".
 
here to help you,
if you don't like metro get one of this programs (your choice):
1. ViStart: http://lee-soft.com/vistart/
2. Start8: http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
3. Enjoy!
 
[citation][nom]HereToHelpYou[/nom]here to help you,if you don't like metro get one of this programs (your choice):1. ViStart: http://lee-soft.com/vistart/2. Start8: http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/3. Enjoy![/citation]

Don't forget Classic Shell.
 
[citation][nom]philmedell[/nom]I remember people talking about Windows 7 like this...hey I wouldn't mind having Windows 8...I'm not that ungrateful. :c[/citation]
Totally agree! i installed win8 yesterday (preview) and it's hundred times better then vista, 7, and other os's. waiting to come out it will be 50$, does anyone know about pro version (cost)? and if you dont like metro:
1. ViStart: http://lee-soft.com/vistart/
2. Start 8: http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom