No Booting Straight to Desktop in Windows 8

Page 7 - 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.
Oh, you WILL run 8, all right- because M$ is going to strong-arm the OEM's into allowing them to appropriate YOUR hardware:

http://betanews.com/2012/08/07/if-you-dont-like-the-direction-microsoft-is-taking-windows-8-tough-luck-team-sinofsky-knows-they-have-you/

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/why-is-microsoft-locking-out-all-other-oses-from-windows-8-arm-pcs-and-devices/17736

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-to-lock-out-other-operating-systems-from-windows-8-arm-pcs-and-devices/10132

Microsoft wants to pretend they have no ulterior motive- like locking out Linux or other MS versions...They would never lie now, would they?


 
Is this Vista 2.0? Overly ambitious and trying to do too much? I would hold out on purchasing windows 8 for a while to see how bad or good it turns out. Although I heard the digital (no disc or packaging) upgrade from windows 7 is fairly cheap.
 
i can see both sides here but literally the only complaint i hear is the metro menu (ms had to change the name because of a german company called metro), i sorta agree its not for everyone and ms could have saved alot of bother having 2 options in setup that you could choose (like metro & a mini metro menu or sumthin) but for me its not a bother since win8 is technically superior to win7 so i will buy a copy for my laptop on launch, i just hope amd pulls there finger out n fix there dodgy drivers and add duel gfx card support.

also i think this time the anti vista crowd is in the minority with win 8 since the problem with win8 isnt related to performance or reliability its just purely the cosmetic look.
 
[citation][nom]alxianthelast[/nom]Me, Vista.. 8.. the trend continues.Its ok.. there's always Linux, iOS and sooner than later likely Android for desktop..[/citation]

you do know there is no pattern, just something trolls repost over and over hoping it becomes true.

it goes like this
98
98se
me
win 2000
win xp (crap edition)
win xp sp2 (good edition)
ws 2003
xp mce
xp 64bit
vista
ws 2008
win7
whs 2011
win8
win8 rt
ws 2012
whs 2012

and if you manage to find some old articles about xp's launch they all say its crap and to stick with ether 98 se or win 2000 since its a resource hog & takes up too much hdd space which is correct when u look at the computers at the time, 98 to ME only used like 400 meg of hdd space and can run nicely on 64 mb ram while xp needed 2 gig of hdd space and 256 + of ram.

to give u a hint at what most ppl had back then my pc which cost $2800 (1999) at the time was a p3 450mhz, 64mb sdram, 8 gig hdd, voodoo 3 16mb vram & one of those fancy new 6x dvd drives to watch the matrix on my massive 17 inch crt.
 
[citation][nom]sabarjp[/nom]My applications do not load or run any faster in Windows 8. Where are you getting this info from? The only performance difference for me is a slight change in idle memory usage and a slightly faster boot time (core i5-2500k with SSD). It isn't any snappier with crap hardware either. It is exactly the same experience as vista/7 on this machine (amd athlon dual core). Honestly, Windows 8 doesn't offer anything over Windows 7. Even Mac OSX and Ubuntu will be more user-friendly than 8, soley because of how the desktop is presented. That is kind of sad since both of those OSes made some major mis-steps recently (full-screen support, global menu, Unity, app integration). Why did MS not jump on the opportunity? They made the exact same mistake.[/citation]

actually i thought microsoft got the idea from ubuntu, haven't u seen the new ubuntu full screen start menu
 
[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]a history on Windows, ignoring server editions:Windows 3.1 (Success)Windows 95 (Fail)Windows 98 (Success)Windows ME (Fail)Windows XP (Success)Windows Vista (Fail)Windows 7 (Success)Any bets on Windows 8 based on Microsoft History?Also if you base on history, Windows 7 and Vista are very similiar. What's the difference? The removed all the annoying new shit from Vista or fixed the things that don't work, and called it 7.Prediction for Windows 8 and 9? Windows 9 will be a fixed windows 8 which returns the desktop and kills Metro or makes it like an overlay you can bring up with a button or some such.[/citation]

i should really read all the comments be4 i post but anyway time to kill this myth once n for all

win98 = crap
win98 se = good
win me = apparently crap but i used it and didn't mind it
win 2000 = good but not as fast as 98se/me for gaming.
win xp pre sp = crap from experience, it was months be4 i could play black and white without glitches or lag
win xp sp2 = ok but had a nightmare getting 50+ computers at a lan party working with the new firewall but with time it grew to be good
vista = i personally had no dramas but from what i noticed at the computer store i worked at was the manufacturers only installing 1gb of ram on 80% of their computers when really they needed 2.
7 = great but is just proving microsofts point with the Mojave experiment, change the name, add a few minor changes and the people will buy.
 


My take:
-Win95... bad OS design, decent GUI design. Really got the ball rolling for PC GUI's so other than saying that Apple had a better GUI, you can't really rag on it too much.
-Win98 wasn't really crap... it was OK but definitely SE was better. Neither were what I would call 'good' as OS design goes, but they worked for gaming.
-Win ME was the worst OS Microsoft ever produced, but having said that... lots of people used it with minimum fuss.
-NT... I transitioned to NT as soon as it was released, from an OS design perspective it was far superior to the consumer offerings (95/98/ME), but I didn't generally install it on Gaming machines.
-Win 2000... after release became my standard OS for everything, though gaming machines would have a dual boot for 98SE.
-XP... Solid OS on all fronts.
-Vista... 99% of the problems with Vista were due to people trying to run it on old hardware... a combination of insufficient hardware and lack of drivers. I ran Vista on new machines from the time it came out to release of Win7 with no problems (other than 64bit driver availability problems that continued for several years)... but I continued to run XP on older machines. Microsoft made a bunch of stupid marketing mistakes (like giving crap sub-$1k hardware 'Vista ready' ratings) and they screwed Vista's image permanently.
-7... Rebadged Vista but now that the hardware is capable everyone can see that 'hey... this is a pretty damned good OS'.
-8... we'll see, I think it's a bit of an experiment in forcing a "grand unified theory" of OS design on MS part. They've had this theory for a long time (Win CE, Embedded windows, Windows Phone, etc...) but they've not really pushed it and it's not really taken off. Now they're going to force the issue and it will probably blow up on them. An OS GUI designed for touch interfaces is NOT optimal for KB/Mouse interfaces (and vice-versa). IMO some gui flexibility is called for, but what they're apparently hoping is that if they force the touch experience with 8, everyone will have touch interfaces for 9 and it will be successful.

There's almost ZERO chance that 8 will be widely successful (except on Tablets where it could become a player), and I suspect Microsoft knows and accepts that.
 
Microsoft is riddiculous. The block everything there is to get rid of metro... Isntead of giving people a choice if they want to use start menu or metro when sintallign the block everything. Whatta dumb direction they are going... Well - they are killing windows 8 themselves.
 
I'am totally going to install win8 as a joke on a coworkers PC one of these days.

A:"Jeff look at your shiny new desktop!"

B:"NOOOOOOOOOO GET IT OFF NAO!!!"

 
[citation][nom]HotRoderx[/nom]I wonder who has the bigger smile right now Apple or major Linux Distro's. Its painfully obvious Microsoft no longer wants to stay in business. A 10 year old could tell you trying to force something on people cause you like it is a bad idea. I wonder what Microsoft was thinking when it comes to business users. I could see metro maybe being useful on a POS but thats it. With this latest change not even sure if it would be then.[/citation]

What's actually happened here is that MS wants to catch up in phones and tablets, and they have calculated that having a unified OS experience across all devices would help accomplish that. They know that this OS is worse for desktop use, and they don't care. They are telling their traditional desktop customers to deal with the fact that this new OS is terrible for their use, so they can try to break into other markets.

No, MS, I don't think so, and I think a lot less of your company now as a result of this.
 
Hmm! Touch screen. Let's see - what will I touch it with? I know - one of my fingers! But wait, my 27 inch screen is 24 inches from the ede of my desk - I actually have to hold my arm out straight and lean forward a bit. Holding my arm out straight for one minute causes stress and pain in my arm, shoulder, neck and back. But I work at my computer for a large portion of my regular 12 hour shift. I can't imagine having to be continually lifting my arm to touch the screen however many hundred times a day. We tried touch screen monitors in the early 1980s - nobody liked them and they all went into storage.

But, I will have to replace my monitor! A half-hour of searching on Google and I cannot find a single 27" touch screen monitor to replace the perfectly good one on my desk. Dell can sell me a 15" one for $700. Seems like an expensive downgrade from 27". The corporation I work with as at least 60,000 Windows users world wide. I'll bet management will be all over replacing 60,000 monitors and dealing with thousands of complaints about work-related injuries.

I wonder how many hours Windows 8 training per employee will be required. Yup, that is going to be fun to organize.

Oh yeah. Touch screens - great idea.
 
"Previous test builds allowed Windows 8 users to..."

PROVING it can be done. It should be pretty apparent that there will be a way. Also this article's stupidity seems to make me think it was written by a windows hating mac tard that likes to stir trouble. EVERY single article I have ever read, prior to a windows release, where they state something horrible will happen, etc, has NEVER, EVER come true. This is an article designed to make people hate windows. And what do apple and it's fan's typically try to do? .... I rest my case. Even if that were not the case, it's still a silly article.
 
This stupid notion that every other version of windows is crap, then good etc, is about as silly as the theory for those that watched American Idol, that the winners would be girl, boy, girl, boy. That didn't last long. There is NO pattern. Even if several copies fell into that pattern there is still no predicting the future. Unless for some reason people are so stupid that they brainwash themselves into thinking version 8 will be bad, so by the time it comes out they believe it.
 
@hp-150- "I'll bet management will be all over replacing 60,000 monitors and dealing with thousands of complaints about work-related injuries." - Yet had this been released from apple, all the apple fans would have saliva oozing out of their mouths because of any mention of touch screen. This proves it's all in the advertising, because when other companies, microsoft included, had touch screen setups many years ago, they were liked, but no dripping saliva. -- However if you think a little deeper, say you are running a recording studio application, and the scren is tilted like a mixer. Then it would be more comfortable. Besides, whatever there is with touch will likely apply more to tablets anyway. But I never really cared for them. To me they are stupid. They are simply laptops without a keyboard and touch added. Sometimes they are nice if I am taking a dump and I want to look at some porn (just kidding), but seriously!
 
windows 8 sucks and i will not be pay for it because i am going to ubuntu-12 i think ans we need to let microsoft we are sick in this mess they make we buy it because of what we hear and when we got it SUCKS
 
Listen.

I don't work and play with computers much these days.

I started in DOS and worked in the computer industry for many years and I have a lot of respect for all of your opinions and understand why you feel negatively towards the new interface.

I also work in an office environment with many older less computer savvy people, some who can't even figure out how to zoom in on a Powerpoint presentation.

The bottom line is, these touch style interfaces are the future.

One thing I've learned from working in a large corporation is, sometimes, a good solution now is better than a perfect solution later.

This is why MS does some of these things.

Think about what's important here.

To me, if the new interface is intuitive, it will be adequate. To me, where MS fails in these progressions is to create "smooth" environments. A pretty interface that isn't too complex and has plenty of functionality will eventually succeed if it's not slow/clunky and doesn't require a quad core with tons of RAM and dual 3D cards to run.

Many of you are gamers and computer gurus.

In the end, I feel, most would trade off the old interfaces for performance.

If Windows 8 will not "feel" bloated, slow and clunky... who cares?

Apple wins most often because it "feels" smooth and fast.

The point of the metro UI is to unite a common "feel" across MS platforms.

Consider Xbox 360 alone:
January 2012 CES: MS claims 66 million Xbox 360's sold worldwide (18 million Kinects)

The world's population is around 7 billion.
If you divided that by 5 (assuming 5 per household) That's 1.4 billion households. Xbox 360 is in 5% of the worlds' homes.

If you've used one lately, the dashboard is much closer to the look and feel of this metro style UI.

If they get Xbox, Windows PCs, tablets and phones all using a similar style interface.. it becomes united across platforms.

Even as successful as Apple is, and while their iPads,iPods,and iPhones are unified... they still offer a different experience on their PCs and Apple TVs... both of which do not even come close to holding a candle of market penetration versus Windows.. even if you're looking at people still running XP..

I work for one of the largest companies in the world.. we're currently upgrading to windows 7.. many, including myself have already been running Windows 7 for months.

Consider that, this is a smart move for Microsoft.. it's bold, but smart.

Trust me, when Windows 3.1 was king and MS was about to release Windows 95... SO MANY people complained and said it was unnecessary to switch to 32-bit, and the interface would never work... blah blah blah..

Touch screens are the future..
Motion input and voice input are the future..
You're denying the inevitable and restricting innovation by b1tching about it..
If you have ideas for improvements, become a MS developer/tester, submit your ideas, etc.

This is a huge time for MS because the landscape of computing is changing..

They gave you the ability to switch to a classic UI, take that as good enough and stop b1tching about the Metro UI..

I'm sure 99% of you never shut your PC off and likely reboot once every 6 months-1 year.. so, you boot up once, press "Windows key-" and you're there if that's where ya want to be...

Microsoft is attempting to innovate again because the competition finally offers competitive products once again, so, let them do their thing.

People like you, and me, are the ones average Joe's come to for computer advice and this is a necessary evil.. Our opinions will make or break OS's and these people NEED dumbed down UI's... not because they are stupid people, because they are convenient. Don't worry... as soon as they get spywared up, they'll call you and throw you some ca$he to clean up their box, then you can drop back to the classic UI and hook them up..

In the interim, as your attorney, I advise you to go talk to girls.. they're mad at you right now for playing games instead of noticing that amazing work they did to get prettied up knowing they want you to undo all that work in the backseat of her Dad's pickup truck while he's sleeping.
 
I understand the purpose of a "Metro" styled interface, I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but it is designed to be used with a touch screen. So for the rest of us (most of us) that still have a standard screen, keyboard and mouse, it would be nice to have the option to choose which interface our computer boots up with. Just a tick box somewhere in Settings...
Also, I still see no reason to have gotten rid of the Start Menu.
 
Why is so hard to do a <language please> version for tablets with the stupid Metro interface, and a normal, human, natural, terrestrial, and whatever you wanna call it, version without that stupid thing.
I wonder if their employees would use this piece of crap as an everyday OS.
Yeah, start Visual Studio from Metro.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This all doesn't bother me. If I'm going to stick with start menu, I'll stick with Windows 7. How often do I use the start menu? I look at it sometimes but generally everything is in my tray or on my desktop that I need.

Is Windows 8 a bad os? No, it does some things internally better and more efficiently than Windows 7. All of you guys should know this by now from all the articles that have been posted throughout the year.

Why should I care? I don't see why. I'm not going to buy it. Every time a new OS comes out, there's always a way to get a genuine key for free somehow so complaining about it doesn't really serve any purpose.

If you don't like it, just don't buy it. Everyone these days likes to complain about everything but realistically you guys are harping about something that nobody even needs. You have a computer, you type on it right now. Nobody really cares if a new os comes out or not. If you're going to wait for Windows 9, I'm sure a lot of businesses and consumers will as well.

Windows XP still has a huge market share because people don't like Windows Vista and they also don't like Windows 7. How long are you going to stay on an old os? That depends on if it does the job or not. Windows XP still works fine. I can dual boot to it. Did I buy any of these os? no. are they legit? yes. What was the last os I ever bought? MS-DOS 6.0 Upgrade.
 
You all could at least try it first. The metro interface has been on the XBox for awhile. Its fine. No touchscreens or keyboard
 
[citation][nom]Hold up[/nom]You all could at least try it first. The metro interface has been on the XBox for awhile. Its fine. No touchscreens or keyboard[/citation]

Using a two handed controller will be very cumbersome method to be used in a pc.
By nature the xbox and tablets are limited environments where metro may work fine, but in a cluttered, multipurpose pc like mine, it actually slow me down.
 
I still don't think tablets(or say pads) are another type of PC. they are totally different devices.
People love tablets, but they still need PCs.
Ballmer surely be misled by journalists. They always publish articles like "ipad now has more sales then PCs", "PC will die", but they still use a PC/Laptop to write those articles - not iPad.
 
Very scary times we are living in.

I don't like the idea of Google patenting not just an open source operating system, but taking what seems to be anti-trust level control over a technology that is not new, not theirs and not in the interests of humanity. If you peek behind the curtains you will find computers are not run on electricity, In reality they are running off Money, Politics and Religion.

You would be surprised to found out where your money goes when you buy a computer, parts / accessories and software.
 
well I for one will not be torrenting this piece of crap. which is a first for new windows OS and me.

it makes sense for the windows phone but on a PC.. really msoft? come on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom