Windows 8 Install Process Streamlined to 11 Clicks

Page 2 - 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]amuffin[/nom]windows 98=failwindows xp=winwindows vista=failwindows 7=winwindow 8=.....?[/citation]
[citation][nom]Gucio[/nom]win1=gui on dos... wooooow GUUUUI , win2.1=meeeehhhh still dos..., win3.11=yaaaay 16 bits, win95=FAIL, win4=winnt... still FAIL nothing runs on this..., win98=meeeh somehow better, win2k=no games so it's servers basically...., winME=biggest FAIL EVER, winXP=finally something working happiest men ever , winVista=FAAAAAAIIIILLLL WTF is this shit..., win7=hmmm where the heck is my classic start?? meh geets over it..., win8=hmmmm WHERE THE F*CK is my Desktop!?[/citation]
[citation][nom]ern88[/nom]windows 98=WINWindows ME=BIG FAILwindows xp=WINwindows vista=FAILwindows 7=WINwindow 8=TBD[/citation]is this a new trend? because it's really fucking annoying.

i have high hopes for windows 8. and i should be eligible for a nice student discount as well
 
[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]I rather use Windows than Apple's OS.[/citation]

I like both. Apple can be a little complicated at times, but if you take the time to learn it, its just as easy. I use a Macbook Pro and love it! The one thing I wish Microsoft would do that Apple does is make their OS size smaler. I believe OS X Lion is only like 4-6GB big, which makes it super fast to boot and ready to go.


But as for Win. 8, I wouldn't think it would be a flop at all. They've nailed Win. 7 pretty darn good, why should they screw up Win. 8? Vista was a new type of OS that was built from scratch I believe, so they of course were going to be experience problems with it. That's why Win. 7 was made. I think Win. 8 would just be as good as Win. 7 if not better. For one thing, there are articles already that shows that system performance does better with Win. 8 than Win. 7. All in all, I think it would be a fine upgrade. :)
 
Windows 8 must come out as classic mode and new ui mode.
Like two dvd in one box like windows 7.
One dvd for classic and another dvd for new ui. lol
However new ui having a lots problems for install and display the game what users have.
And i heard that windows 7 must stay in online or most of all icon will show up as broken link (big X mark on icons)
They will fix this but til then Windows 8.... i don't know...
And if there price... again start from 299.99 ~ 699.99.... i really don't know....-,.-;;
 
I see they're taking marketing cues from Intel, by creating a lot of hype comparing a worst-case scenario of a previous product to a best-case scenario of a new product.

I'm pretty sure that the "up to 60 screens" is grossly inflated, and probably includes screens that are in the Visual Studio project, but not in the actual wizard . In fact, I'd be willing to wager that the current process's best case scenario is close to 11 clicks, maybe 15 tops, and that's why they didn't come out and say it. That's like saying:

"Our new Ferrari has a top speed of 180mph, the old one only has 600hp."

What they don't say is that the new one has 605hp, and the old one has a top speed of 178mph.
 
[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]win98 didn't fail, it was great upgrade from win95 and it was awesome for games for its time.now Windows Me..... and Vista those were the biggest failures in M$ history.Still I will probably skip Windows 8.[/citation]

No, Bob was the biggest failure in MS history. MS has a server that is accessible by anyone in the company that has every piece of software Microsoft has ever created...except Bob...

That should give you an idea of how bad it failed.
 
[citation][nom]amuffin[/nom]windows 98=failwindows xp=winwindows vista=failwindows 7=winwindow 8=.....?[/citation]
so wrong (and short sighted).
Win pre3.1, useless or fail
Win3.1 Amazing for it's day (first useful visual OS for PC)
Win95 Fail (Great concept, but a resource hog, and not well thought out)
Win98 Win (Made win95 useful and 'stable')
Win98SE amazing for it's day! (Very stable, and less resource hungry than WinME)
WinME Fail (OK, many liked it, but Win98SE and Win2K were way better!)
Win2K Win (First 'Professional' grade OS to the mass market. Very stable... unless running a Creative Sound Card lol)
WinXP Win (While considered 'bloatware' for the first 2 years, this was the uncontested 'Best OS' for years!)
Vista Fail (again, like Win95, neat idea, great to see something 'different', but it just didnt work right at first)
Win7 Win (like win98, it takes all the neat ideas from Vista, and makes them work right)
Win8 ??

Branching off from the previous interface has always been a rough transition, (as seen from win95 and Vista) but as this is largely a hybrid of Win7 and Phone7 it is not really trying anything 'new', just 'new to the desktop'. From what I have seen of 8 so far (Have used it on my netbook sense the release) it has been a simple and good experience for being in 'pre beta'. Sure it does not feel like a finished product yet, but it feels much further along in the process than other versions of Windows at this stage (even Win7 Milestone 1 was more buggy than this). I'm not saying it will be a big win or fail, but we cannot use some simplistic and nearsighted vision of previous releases to make a judgement.
 
[citation][nom]balister[/nom]No, Bob was the biggest failure in MS history. MS has a server that is accessible by anyone in the company that has every piece of software Microsoft has ever created...except Bob...That should give you an idea of how bad it failed.[/citation]
LOL, I forgot about bob! But that wasnt an OS, it was a sad attempt at a search add-on.
I think they should bring Bob back and do him some justice. It would at least give us something to laugh about :)
 
[citation][nom]Destroysall[/nom]I like both. Apple can be a little complicated at times, but if you take the time to learn it, its just as easy. I use a Macbook Pro and love it! The one thing I wish Microsoft would do that Apple does is make their OS size smaler. I believe OS X Lion is only like 4-6GB big, which makes it super fast to boot and ready to go.[/citation]Install size has little to do with boot time, you know. There's plenty of documentation showing a proper Win7 installation booting quite quickly, and Win8 will only improve on this - especially when you're not doing a cold boot. Anyway, last I heard the base install for the Win8 preview was only like 11GB. I don't want them to cut anything out just to make a smaller install size. If you want to do that yourself, there are always ways. Even relatively inexpensive entry-level SSDs are plenty big to install Win8 on now.
 
Cool you can "create a usb flash drive using a windows 8 download"! 😀
 
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]Web installs are greener than buying the box.[/citation]
that is crap. how many servers do they need to run for this? how much power is consumed??????. its a lot faster and less power consuming to just wack in the install cd . The modern world still lacks fast broadband in too many areas to make web installs viable across the board, its more of an annoyance than anything, just like steam ( unreliable piece of crap )
 
Ubuntu can be installed with less clicks than that. Could have been in 2006 for all I care lol

Also, what idiot said that Win2K was bad for games? It had DX9, and any game XP ran I did prior to nuking the entire partition
 
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]so wrong (and short sighted).Win pre3.1, useless or failWin3.1 Amazing for it's day (first useful visual OS for PC)Win95 Fail (Great concept, but a resource hog, and not well thought out)Win98 Win (Made win95 useful and 'stable')Win98SE amazing for it's day! (Very stable, and less resource hungry than WinME)WinME Fail (OK, many liked it, but Win98SE and Win2K were way better!)Win2K Win (First 'Professional' grade OS to the mass market. Very stable... unless running a Creative Sound Card lol)WinXP Win (While considered 'bloatware' for the first 2 years, this was the uncontested 'Best OS' for years!)Vista Fail (again, like Win95, neat idea, great to see something 'different', but it just didnt work right at first)Win7 Win (like win98, it takes all the neat ideas from Vista, and makes them work right)Win8 ??Branching off from the previous interface has always been a rough transition, (as seen from win95 and Vista) but as this is largely a hybrid of Win7 and Phone7 it is not really trying anything 'new', just 'new to the desktop'. From what I have seen of 8 so far (Have used it on my netbook sense the release) it has been a simple and good experience for being in 'pre beta'. Sure it does not feel like a finished product yet, but it feels much further along in the process than other versions of Windows at this stage (even Win7 Milestone 1 was more buggy than this). I'm not saying it will be a big win or fail, but we cannot use some simplistic and nearsighted vision of previous releases to make a judgement.[/citation]

I agree with you mostly.

Especially on Windows 95, that was supposed to be the greatest realease ever of windows and in many ways it was revolutionary.
But it was also the buggiest operating system ever that microsoft has produced.

It is really funny to read this post from back in march 1998 when windows 98 still was in beta but was stabler than the normal (release) version of windows 95:

http://www.technofileonline.com/texts/tec032998.html

I'm not sure about the win 3.1 being the first useful visual OS for the pc. When 3.0 was released in 1990 it was a huge success and it sold extremely well the following two years.
Yes, it lacked some multimedia extensions, but that could be added on in 1991.
And yes it was buggy, but not nearly as bad as in win 95.
Windows 3.0 was the first GUI OS that normal people (not just the geeks) really wanted to use.

So I would actually call the whole 3.X a win.
 
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]LOL, I forgot about bob! But that wasnt an OS, it was a sad attempt at a search add-on.I think they should bring Bob back and do him some justice. It would at least give us something to laugh about[/citation]
If we are talking about actuall parts of the OS (And not add-ons), the biggest failure was the original Explorer in windows 95.
Besides it being buggy as hell crashing allt the time, it lacked so many features that we take for granted today.

For example, you couldn't open folders in the same window. Opening folders meant a new window was created, leading to a big mess of countless of windows on the screen.

And there were no back or forward buttons. And, I suppose, no up either since folders always stayed in their own windows.

Yes, some of these things was added later in an OEM-release of windows, but not for the normal version that you bought "over the counter".

How extremely crappy Windows 95 was!
 
[citation][nom]Destroysall[/nom]I like both. Apple can be a little complicated at times, but if you take the time to learn it, its just as easy. I use a Macbook Pro and love it! The one thing I wish Microsoft would do that Apple does is make their OS size smaler. I believe OS X Lion is only like 4-6GB big, which makes it super fast to boot and ready to go.[/citation]

They're complicated and annoying...our macbook pro still has snow leopard...all it's used for is net browsing...it took the life of me to get it talking to the other stuff in the network...bluetooth seems useless for non-apple devices....heck it was simpler with a 7 year old IBM thinkpad...that still works...
Their devices are too closed. It's annoying as hell TBA. Only seems to be good for people who want to surf the web, use garage band or FCP. At least, i couldn't find any more use for it so far. Dad wanted it for work, but hasn't really used it for over a year, hasn't found the time to learn the damn thing.

Oh and the file system! IT'S NUTS! It can read from NTFS but cant write to it, FAT64 (exFAT) doesn't really work, so to transfer files using an ext. HDD you've got to either use FAT32 or the apple sh*t system or something. Or copy from NTFS then format the HDD to FAT32 to transfer stuff back (what about 4GB+ files???). Drove me mad, had to format stuff a few times before i found middle ground between Windows and Mac.
 
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]Web installs are greener than buying the box.[/citation]
sometimes is good to have and feel the product in your hand....
 
[citation][nom]J3d1M1nD7r1cKs[/nom]I'm so sick reading about 'boosting' for windows 8. This is ridiculous. When a product is hyped this badly, it's generally garbage or worse for the public.LONG live windows 7![/citation]

You apparently haven't tried Windows 8 then. I have, in fact I am typing this comment on Windows 8, and I have to say that Microsoft has hit all the high points.
 
[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]You will same a few seconds from the whole 20-60 mins the installation takes to complete.[/citation]
not true...if you use a fast flash drive it will save minutes....flash drives (the fast ones) are faster when compared to top of the line DVD drives
 
I installed Vista on a home built PC about 4 months after its release. I never had any problems with it at all. Now my PC was didn't and doesn't have the latest CPU or video card and only 2 gig of ram. But for me it worked flawlessly. In fact the only reason I upgraded to Win 7 was because I got the student price of $29. If I can get Win 8 for $29 count me in for an upgrade. (Or maybe I will finally build a new PC with some upgraded hardware. Frankly I am amazed at all the Vista horror stories. You would think if it worked so well on my generic build home PC that the HP's and Dells would have worked perfectly with it.
 
Why don't people check out the FACTS before saying that they cannot revert to the classic desktop in Win 8!

Microsoft has repeatedly stated that you can easily switch to the classic desktop and it will look almost exactly like Win 7.
 
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]They're complicated and annoying...our macbook pro still has snow leopard...all it's used for is net browsing...it took the life of me to get it talking to the other stuff in the network...bluetooth seems useless for non-apple devices....heck it was simpler with a 7 year old IBM thinkpad...that still works...Their devices are too closed. It's annoying as hell TBA. Only seems to be good for people who want to surf the web, use garage band or FCP. At least, i couldn't find any more use for it so far. Dad wanted it for work, but hasn't really used it for over a year, hasn't found the time to learn the damn thing.Oh and the file system! IT'S NUTS! It can read from NTFS but cant write to it, FAT64 (exFAT) doesn't really work, so to transfer files using an ext. HDD you've got to either use FAT32 or the apple sh*t system or something. Or copy from NTFS then format the HDD to FAT32 to transfer stuff back (what about 4GB+ files???). Drove me mad, had to format stuff a few times before i found middle ground between Windows and Mac.[/citation]
You're complaining that the Mac doesn't have write support for another OS file system? Does windows support reading or writing HFS+ partitions? Also exFAT does work on Mac OS X as long you have 10. 6 fully updated or 10.7, at least it does work on mine. If you really need read and write on a NTFS partition then you can install install macfuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom