Windows 8.1 May Cause Mouse Lag in Some Games

[stevejnb]

Your defense of W8 is most reasonable yet. By all means, voice your likes and dislikes like anyone else. So with most of your reply, your points are good - mostly.

You get me wrong. I'm not so much defending Windows 8 as shooting down a stupid argument which betrays a blatant double standard which people hold against the product. Reality is, some of WIndows 8 features boggle the mind, and some of the ways in which MS uses their marketing muscle to push it on consumers it may not be ideal for are indefensible. Again, I'm shooting down an argument that betrays a double standard.

The fact that W8 is a touch interface isn't the issue. (When I say W8, I include 8.1 unless I'm being specific), its that its a badly done UI. Its an ugly UI. Its inconstant and just plain backwards. Really, I didn't think Metro would be an issue until I did start using it. For my people, such as myself - its jarring to go from a desktop to a menu-screen. The change of layout was done for the sake of change, not actual product improvement. Look at OS-X. It was released just before XP and is still pretty much the same today as it was then, just better looking. Meanwhile MS has gone from W98/2000 > XP > Vista > W7 > W8, 5 visually and operationally different ways of doing things (Vista has looks and works like a re-skinned XP, while Win7 actually added functionality).

You're using an argument of taste as if it were a position of fact. Do I really need to explain why this shouldn't be worth a serious response? I do not find Metro in any way ugly - and that settles that argument with a "to each their own."

You say " The change of layout was done for the sake of change, not actual product improvement." Really? Have you ever tried using a Windows 7 touchscreen tablet before? The classic Windows desktop is *far* from optimal with touch so, it is mind boggling that you're suggesting that you don't see any improvement in Metro and that it doesn't add functionality. The functionality is so blatant it smacks you in the face - you can use it with a touch device and it isn't *terrible*! How is that not added functionality?

The lack of visual clues, wasted space, lack of functionality within Metro is crap. But we keep getting the same thing from PRO W8 people "you rarely need to use Metro" "You can bypass Metro with XYZ add-on", etc, etc. So what is the WHOLE point of Metro is desktop users are avoiding it?! MS broke the standard of totally removing backwards functionality (Win7 can look as ugly as Windows2000 which is still better than W8).

Meh, Metro is about as functional as its competitors - heck, arguably more so than its competitors with far, far superior multitasking. The lack of visual cues is a win-some/lose some, leading to a steeper learning curve, but also less clutter and popups on the screen. Personally, I agree - I wish there were more visual cues. As for wasted space - once again, it's an issue of clutter. A full metro screen, as it stands, can fit dozens upon dozens of small sized tiles on it - my Android tablet can't do that. How many icons do you need on a mobile interface?

The simple fact with aesthetics is, it's a situation of can't please everyone. In your particular case, I somehow get the feeling that if they'd done the reverse of every thing you've just criticized, you'd take the opposite stance and switch from wasted space to "screen too cluttered," from not enough visual cues to "too many popups," and for lack of functionality... Meh, that's pretty much BS. Metro functionality stacks up pretty well when compared to iOS and Android, being better in some areas, and worse in others.

I use Android, iOS and Windows7 every day with some Linux. Win8 drove me to try Linux and yes... I found Linux to be more functional as an OS UI, easy to figure out... logical.

Great for you. Linux appeals to some people a lot. Hope you enjoy it, and you should be glad you've found the OS that worked for you - Windows 8 obviously wasn't it. For me, I think Windows 8 has become the first Windows version I've actually enjoyed using, rather than just seeing it as a means to an end.

Can't compare standard items to an OS. Windows only runs Windows software... Linux can run various emulations to play many games and run most apps (including MS-OFFICE). It doesn't matter what car you buy, a $500 Ford Escort or $500,000 Ferrari... they are fully compatible with the roads, stop lights and parking spaces.

I absolutely can. The terms of your skewed comparison is basically a straw man to support your case. The premise I was putting forward was that, Windows 8 was a sort of hybrid operating system designed to be good as a desktop OS but also as a mobile OS. The reality is, many people feel the mobile functionality gets in the way of the desktop functionality - a totally fair criticism, though one that I wouldn't make myself. The thing is, in cars, specialization, something you've conveniently ignored, is very real. All cars drive on the same roads, yes, but try taking that Ferrari off road or try racing against Ferraris in a jeep, and you'll quickly learn that sometimes functions that are sometimes beneficial are detriments in other situations. Windows 8? Same kind of deal.

That "Windows only runs Windows Software" thing is just plain bull poop. There are hundreds upon hundreds of ways to emulate software for all sorts of different platforms on Windows. I run non-Windows software on my Windows PC all the time, running from Android apps to old games. This statement of yours is outright disingenuous.

If Windows 7 was on the market for anyone to walk into a Walmart, Best Buy or other real store - then the sales of W8 hardware would plummet. This i not made up, its a fact. Many people will just use it, doesn't mean they LIKE it... just like the days of MS-DOS in the 80s~90s... it was already pure crap, didn't keep it from controlling the computer industry. I don't count on MS to keep making or supporting Win7 for long. Hence I'm migrating to Linux.

You know, this I largely agree with. If many people were given a choice, they would choose Windows 7 over 8. This may change when touch devices are more common and people are more used to mobile computing but, for now, MS is using their marketing muscle to force people to adopt Windows 8 whether they want it or not. For advanced users like most here at Tom's it isn't really a problem since we know how to get and install Windows 7 if we want it but for many that isn't really an option without spending gads of money. This is shady business by MS, like taking compacts off the market and replacing them with offroaders, forcing people to buy offroad vehicles even if all they want to do is city driving. It's a crappy business practice, and I'd really rather they didn't do it.

Because with MS, there is no choice. MS can stop shipping Win7OEM discs any day... and many many people would be screwed... and it will happen. When they need to buy a new computer... ugh, its that crappy Window8! I have people and clients concerned with this all the time.

Meh, while true, I think you're being a bit unrealistic. You can still get Windows XP OEM's for cripes' sake... The chance of MS stopping selling Windows 7 is right up there with Apple ceasing to make iPhones. This is "sky is falling" sensationalism on your part, nothing more.

Linux comes in many flavors (both good and bad points) I prefer LinuxMint over Ubuntu... cool thing is that it doesn't cost $150+ every 1~3 years. Yeah, I'm not a fan of Samsung phones... cheap plastic, etc. My business partner prefers the Samsung UI - I prefer Motorola. Again, Samsung doesn't effect my ability to use my Motorola.

You're missing the point. You choosing Motorola over Samsung shows that you're perfectly willing to admit that sales do not necessitate quality - unless you feel you chose the inferior phone, which does not seem to be the case. As such, that argument doesn't really fly. I get that you do not like Windows 8, but frankly, I don't like the Samsung Galaxy line of phones, but I wouldn't be self absorbed enough to suggest they are bad products. They do not suit my needs and tastes. Is it so hard for you to make the same leap for Windows 8?

Also, Windows 8 does NOT inhibit your ability to use Windows 7, Vista, XP, 98, whatever. They still work just dandy. Heck, you can even install Windows 7 on a machine if you really want it. Or Linux. Fill your boots. Windows 8 does not stop any of this.

It DOES make it harder to get other versions of Windows but, frankly, this has always been true to some degree. I mean, good luck finding a Windows XP computer at Best Buy over a year after the release of Windows 7. You could still get them, but you had to do some digging. Same deal now. This DOES suck for the common consumer as Windows 8 is really not necessary on a non-touchscreen device and them continuing to push Windows 7 on such devices wouldn't be a bad thing. They are not doing that and, again, I don't support this. On the other hand, oftentimes it's the OEM's making this push as well. If HP or Asus or whoever wants to put Windows 7 on machines they're selling, they very well can, but most don't. It's a pity.

There is... its called Windows 7.

This just drives home how biased you are. The suggestion that Windows 7 never had major bugs to work through is utterly ridiculous. Google "Windows 7 major bugs" and please stop talking. If I had a nickel for every major software release that had major bugs for the first while, I'd probably buy myself a Surface Pro 2 with my money.

 

[pyromanicadeluxe]

I am working on my rap skillz, so far all i have is; "Start8 makes windows 8 great". Pretty good eh?

 

[belardo]

I agree with 90% of what you say, including that there are better of examples tech trash that could be compared to touchscreens. But when it comes to the history of laserdisc you are a little off. Laserdisc vs VHS battle happened long before dvd's came to market. No, they were not making a comeback. Very few people ever owned them compared to VHS. Yes, there were laserdiscs being manufactured when DVD's arrived but they were in no way a serious competitor. This link should tell you everything you need to know.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=laserdisc+history

What part don't you understand?! Laser Discs *DID NOT* compete with VHS. It was a format that videophiles such as myself used in order to watch movies in the best possible format that technology had available at the time.

I nor anyone else said or desired LDs to make a comeback. What for? Until DVDs came to market, if you wanted to watch a movie in proper letterbox - that was it. LD was better than broadcast quality vs crappy 300 blurry lines of VHS. Nevermind direct access vs FF/RW of tape.

Yeah, again... most people didn't own an LD player. It wasn't a failed format, it became out-dated, nothing more. The old LPs were also NOT a failed format... but eventually audio cassette tapes are what sold the most because of their smaller size and they worked in cars. With the CD format, it had about the same quality of an LP, but without the hassle and size... and it replaced tape and LP.

The only way to say "LD competed against DVD" is if both formats came to the market at the same time. Laser Disc came to market in 1978 (2 years after VHS) and DVDs didn't start selling in the USA until 1997 and wouldn't become mainstream until 2000 (DVD players started hitting the sub $300 price - back when a typical Hifi VCR was $150)

DVD is a progression on LD tech, nothing more. By all means - every LD owner was looking forward to DVDs. The industry knew that DVD would replace LD. Pioneer didn't do well as a DVD brand, but then again - they promote themselves as an upper-end brand.

Again, LDs never competed with DVD. Again, same as the PS2 doesn't compete with the PS3.

 

[belardo]

Its late in the response game... Busy times.
Okay, its my opinion that Windows 8 is an ugly turd of an OS design with touch in mind which is not useful for a desktop or many notebook systems. While my opinion is just that, it is also the opinion of many others than Windows 8 is still a turd for various reasons. The sales of Desktop Win8 systems shows this to be TRUE. The number of VPs and THE CEO of Microsoft is proof their failures with Windows8 / XboxOne.

The problems with Windows 8 were solvable the first time around and still not addressed at this time.

I had tried to like Windows 8, but its a crappy UI for a desktop. Its fine for a tablet - not many people say otherwise... yet, SurfacePro really really needs a keyboard to get the most out of it... in which case, a slightly heavier $500 notebook would do better, the same thing.

And yes, MS can stop making Windows7 OEM at any time they care to do so. yeah, you are right - you can still get your hands on XP (why? other than some industrial specific systems) and maybe vista (Why?). Just as MS came up shoving the horrible desktop Win8 UI down peoples throats with NO options, they can kill Windows 7. It will happen, not this year, not next... but it will happen.

 

[stevejnb]

Not too concerned with how it took you to respond. Your post still shows a dogged bias against Windows 8 beyond the point of reason though.

To be clear, not liking Windows 8 makes perfect sense. Thinking it's a "turd of an OS" or however you want to describe it too also makes perfect sense. Where your bias does its work is in the whole "it sells poorly, therefore my position is validated" line of reasoning - because it is poor reasoning, I've shown it as such, and yet your persist on harping on about it.

As I've pointed out and you've admitted to, you support products that are not market leaders which you think are good products. Then, skip a beat, and you say "well, Windows 8 isn't selling as well as Windows 7, therefore it is a bad product." Equating bad sales - and, let's be clear, "bad" in this case is tens of millions, capturing about 10% of the entire PC OS market - with a bad product doesn't make sense in the case of things you've already admitted. It's like, you don't like Windows 8, so you're applying different reasoning than you apply to other non-market leader products in order to validate your position of "I don't like Windows 8." A double standard in reasoning is not good reasoning.

Here's the thing - your position needs no grand validation to be perfectly fine. The Metro interface is jarring, it's color scheme can be described as garish, it's styling blocky, metro apps being full screen/metro multitasking only questionable at best, taking away the start menu a business rather than functionality decision, etc etc. There are *tons* of legitimate criticisms of Windows 8 based on both taste and fact.

But there are also perfectly valid defenses of the OS based on both taste and fact. It IS as functional as Windows 7 but is also vastly more capable in a mobile touch environment. The start screen does far more than the start menu. It's much more integrated with Microsoft services at the ground level than Windows 7. The styling is love it or hate it.

What does it boil down to? It is a love it or hate it OS, and it changes things drastically, which is guaranteed to cause friction. If you're on the hate it side, that is totally fine. Pretending that there is no "love it" side to validate your position of "hate it" is where the problem lies, because a lot of people do quite like Windows 8 and they don't need to be particularly notable Microsoft fanboys - rare breed that they are - for that to be the case. Slower sales than the fastest selling OS ever doesn't make it a bad product any more than it makes the #2, 3, and 4 cel phones on the market bad phones.

As for the Pro... Well, simply put, I'll likely never buy another laptop again. Why? From a functionality standpoint, it's because I like the functionality of a laptop, but I work in a field where I am constantly reading .pdf and .epub books which I need to notate, and the tablet form factor is *far* superior to the laptop form factor for reading things like a book. From a fun standpoint, I like being able to sit in my chair, have it in my hand or on my lap or on the arm of the chair and using it to fiddle around playing MTG online or whatever. As I sit here with my girlfriend, I will be reading an article and hand my tablet over to her and she'll pick it up with one hand, swipe through it, and hand it back - I LIKE that, and even light ultrabooks are cumbersome as all hell to do that with because they are stuck to a keyboard. The ability to hook a keyboard up to it and have it replace my laptop is the deal sealer that makes me never want to go back to a laptop - because it means that one 2 pound device is literally all I need in a computer. That netbook may work for you, but my Iconia W700 is more or less the perfect machine for my needs. A notebook, netbook, ultrabook, MacBook, Chromebook, chequebook, paperback book, whatever, is not. I get that a notebook is what you may need, but it does NOT do the same thing as a full Windows 8 tablet - the shape alone gives them different functional possibilities.

As for your fear of Windows 7 suddenly being dropped, MS has a history of supporting OS's for about 10 years. Windows 7 WILL be dropped. All current evidence suggests this will not happen soon. Acting as if this is a real pressing concern just illustrates how much you let your bias steer you in your dislike of Windows 8 and your insistence that the whole world agree with you.

 

[belardo]

<quote> As I've pointed out and you've admitted to, you support products that are not market leaders which you think are good products. Then, skip a beat, and you say "well, Windows 8 isn't selling as well as Windows 7, therefore it is a bad product." Equating bad sales - and, let's be clear, "bad" in this case is tens of millions, capturing about 10% of the entire PC OS market </quote>

er... again, Win8 10% (Actually 9.25+%) market share is poor compared to Windows7 and that its the ONLY choice for most consumers who do not know or know how to get a Win7Pro computer. If Windows 7 PCs were on the shelves, I doubt that Win8 would be more than 2% today. Windows 7 sales also grew by around 7% since the release of Win8.

Okay, I maybe an ass calling Win8 OS a "turd", yeah - the hood, Windows8 is slightly better than Win7. The GOOD features that are noticeable are: task manager, UP button on Explorer, New detailed COPY/MOVE window. There are 3rd party add-ons which do the same thing or better available. So why blow $100~150 for... METRO which most people who like Windows 8, claim they rarely use? The tech becomes a turd, because it only comes with the Win8 duel-personality GUI. Come'on... a hint that MS knew that they had a crappy product is when they sold it for $50 to anyone with Win7, Vista or just beta-W8. MS NEVER does that... not even in the Windows 3.1 days.

I really don't give a crap about "capable mobile touch environment" of Windows 8. Most desktops and notebooks are NOT touch devices. Its a pain in the ass to go from keyboard to screen all day long, its inefficient. Ever watch the MS videos on how to use Windows8?! They talk constantly about press the Windows Key+fn or other letter to "easily" do a function... like... holy smokes, the "touch" function of the GUI is so badly done, MS resorts to keyboard shortcuts? Even more so, MS-branded keyboards have a new custom row of keys specifically for Windows8!

Not really seeing the "does far more" start screen vs start menu. Live tiles? whatever... if you are not living on the start-screen, then the "live" tiles are useless. A BETTER use of "live tiles" Metro would be a Start Bar along the left side... so no matter what (by default) you'd see your live tiles on a WP7 type layout. Your mouse wheel would WORK better scrolling it up or down. Metro-APPs should open into a WINDOW on top of the normal desktop. Press the Start button would be OLD-Reliable. That is all MS had to do to make Metro a functional UI... then for tablets, those same APPS would run full screen. simple.

But MS fracked up. Metro Apps for x86, RT and WP are all different. Developers love that.

You are exactly right about the tablet form factor vs notebook/netbook (Netbooks are dead, remember?) I've been using an iPad for years... its very handy for what I use it for. But there are also other tablets on the market that are cheaper, smaller, thinner, lighter and easier to use than a SurfacePro. The SP is not a consumer device, its too heavy and expensive... it does have a place thou. RT is dead... by 2015, MS will make WP take over cheap tablet systems.

My fear about Win7 is not something I pulled out of thin air. I don't think about it much, really. But its because of MS's radical and incredibly stupid management from Ballmer and down, their desire to shove Metro down peoples throats at all costs, their panic nature in dealing with the mobile market... they are unreliable.