8.1 Start Button, MS still pouting

I think that applies to most PC's and laptops today. I have a 2007 ThinkPad T60 that handles both Windows 7 just fine. In fact Windows 7 runs faster than Vista. I find Windows 8 runs better on older gear probably because of the non-aero UI.

This IMO has caused PC sales to decline over the last several years. But the most significant impact on the PC sales slide is that gaming has shifted to gaming consoles and now mobile devices. PC gaming was the BIGGEST driver of PC hardware and component sales since the 1990's.

 

Sure but it's also about efficiency and I/O, screens, etc technology. I have many old desktops going back to an old single core Sempron. I wouldn't dream of using them because they consume 200W for what can be done with 20W with current tech. Faster wireless, faster drives, faster and more compact everything.

Beamed from my G2 Tricorder now Free

 

Yeah, but you're a tech enthusiast, we all drool over new hardware, want to get more performance/efficiency. Joe Schmoe on the other hand might use the same computer as long as it gets the job done and as Rodster said now that a core 2 can still do the basic stuff alright, Joe Schmoe may want to spend his money on a tablet or a shiny new smartphone instead of a computer.

 

This is the points I have been trying to drive.......................

 

Not only can the T60 handle W7, I find it runs it better than Vista. I also find Windows 8 runs even better on the same equipment. I've been around PC's since the early 80's. When PC's began their push into peoples homes back in the early 90's there was one trend you dealt with. It was that software especially the OS pushed the hardware so that it required an upgrade or a new PC. It's almost a reverse scenario today.

 

Yeah, I noticed that too, especially about the latest versions of Windows, they do run better on weaker hardware and I do agree that it is one cause of the decline of the PC market. Performance Junkies like me will always upgrade often, but most people I talk to buy a notebook and plan to keep it for a good 4 to 5 years at least.

 

I'm always contemplating my next device (hell, I'd get a new PC every year if finances allowed), but my wife sees no reason to upgrade her 2008 MBP, since it still works and shows no signs of impending failure (knock on wood). I think she's a lot more typical than I am on this front, particularly in a weak economy.

 

My daughter has BB U81a that has a CPU, Ram and Vista to win7 upgrade. Her husband has a HP 17" with an i7 and Win7. Neither is looking to upgrade any time soon. So it is possible this house may not upgrade any PC until 2020. Phones and tablets by that date are a different story all together...........

 

If it works, why fix it? I don't upgrade unless there is something I can't do. If I could though, I would upgrade my video card everytime I couldn't do ultra settings. Alas, I can't afford that.

 

A lot of folks can't afford upgrading their current gear, although they would like to, for bragging rights if nothing else.

The other side of that coin is that one can pick up a solid used laptop for $200-300 that will run any OS currently in use, and perform almost any task normally required, including light gaming...scary.

 

Some surprising news. While worldwide PC shipments have continued to decline over the past year, US PC shipments are up from a year ago.

Gartner: Worldwide PC shipments continue their year-over-year tumble | Ars Technica

 

Got auto-signed out, so no more rant about how un-intuitive (and somewhat maddening) Windows 8.1 is for people who aren't used to 8, as I found out via personal experience tonight. But yes, I agree, the Start Button is a waste of time, and not at all what desktop users wanted. Give me a Start menu, or give me Windows 5.2/6.1!

With regards to the question about the Start menu being foisted on users in Windows 95, no, it wasn't. Though it was the default, all it took was a simple registry change to use Program Manager instead and ignore the Start menu and Windows Explorer completely. You could do this up through XP SP1, too, so you had a good 6 years to adjust, not even counting the time XP SP1 was supported after its release. And by the time 98 came around, let alone 2K/XP, the Start menu had been refined quite a bit from 95 (and Explorer even more so).

I do see now why Valve is so interested in Linux. As a power-user and PC gamer, if the games I wanted were available on Linux, I could quite feasibly play new games just on Linux, and keep using XP for older, Windows-only games. And as one of my favorite developers is already releasing all their new games for Linux, that doesn't look so far-fetched anymore. Of course, there are still question marks, like whether it could run on Mint with Cinnamon/MATE (not really digging Unity, and would rather run a real Linux than SteamOS). But if Valve can push the gaming industry towards Linux in an effective fashion... that could be a very good thing.

 

Unity is just the GUI. Linux usually can run multiple GUI's such as Gnome or KDE as examples. Just a matter of having them installed and on user login selecting the preferred GUI.

 

Windows 8.1 won't save Windows 8- The Inquirer

"Initially dismissive of Apple's iPad but then panicked by its undeniable market success, Microsoft was in denial and dithered for years before finally reacting with all the agility and speed of a wounded mastodon. However, it was blind to the media consumer paradigm shift represented by the iPad and tried to force tablet punters to buy into its Windows cash cow.

In making that design choice, Microsoft not only ignored the market segmentation created by the iPad and competing touchscreen tablets, it failed to recognise that tablets are aimed at and bought by people who primarily use them to consume internet content and media, rather than create documents, spreadsheets and presentations, which was Windows' strength and made it easy for many ordinary people to use.

Thus, Microsoft developed and released a regurgitation of Windows 7 in Windows 8 that was both insulting to longtime Windows users, because it broke the operating systems's most basic user interface metaphors and means of interaction, and unattractive to tablet users due to its awkwardness, as shown by the $900m hit the firm took on its Surface RT tablet. Tweaking Windows 8 here and there with Windows 8.1 won't fix those basic blunders.......

Even though it brings back the familiar Start button and lets users choose to boot to the desktop again, Windows 8.1 won't be able to turn around the market's perception that Windows 8 isn't worth buying. Instead, we could see Microsoft's historical stranglehold on the PC operating system market start to slip, as alternatives like Linux, Google's Chrome and Android, and others start to gain some traction."

 

I've been saying my fear is the last paragraph for about a year. Again the only save grace would be if like Linux MinWin could have other GUI's ported to it. The again there would need to be some type of monetary incentive, read that market, for them..................

 

There are rumors floating around that MS is gonna release a Windows 9 beta in January 2014.

 

Probably pulling another ME to XP, Vista to Windows 7.

Taking the underbelly of what makes Windows 8 and turning it into something that everyone, again I have no problem with it but I won't ignore the fact that a lot of people do, wants to use. Seems to be their mantra. So I'm expecting Windows 9 to be an overwhelming success.

 

I'd tend to agree but for one issue. With Win8 this is the first time M$ has intentionally taken the consumer on. They have said that this is what it is and what it will be!. Although I would love it if they changed course I don't see this happening. The biggest problem is convincing all those old hands that were burnt from Windows 8 beta's to come on board for Windows 9 beta. That old saying of "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!". Then again with the heads that rolled, and may yet be cut off, it may be enough to give them another chance.

 

I agree. At this point I'm not getting my hopes up, yet. Matter of fact, I pretty much expect to stay with Win7 for a few more years, and then drop Windows altogether. But, hey, you never know. If there's a good surprise waiting for us, then my plans as outlined above may yet change. At the end of the day, the one thing that the disaster of Windows 8 has accomplished for me is to make me seriously consider switching to a different OS. I guess I should thank Microsoft for that...

 

The problem with this analogy is that Windows 8 is the biggest change in UI and UX since Windows 95. Vista to 7 was a very evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. In fact, I'm of the opinion that Vista was never as bad as everybody made it out to be. After a few Service Packs and as people's computers got faster it was no worse than 7. In fact, all Windows 7 really was was a refinement of Windows Vista with some relatively minor changes and optimizations to remove bloat and increase speed. With the right tweaks I can make a Vista installation perform just as fast and stable as a 7 one. But Windows 8 haters like me would still hate Windows 9 if all Microsoft did was refine Windows 8 because a polished turd is still a turd.

 

you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks though, right? i think that pretty neatly sums up "the disaster of W8" to begin with, let alone choosing a new OS altogether...

 

Sigh. Not this again. Yet another false adage that the user is too stupid to learn the OS, not the actual fact that it's less productive and streamlined than its predecessor.

 

Hmmm...what is that sound I hear...

 

Yeah it absolutely irks me to no end when the Windows 8 apologists blame the user for not adapting to the OS. It's a completely fallacious argument and couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Yep. Not worth commenting on.

 

I like using metro. I got used to it the first day I bought my vaio.

 

No problem at all. For many PC users, the severely limited environment provided by Metro is all they need.

 

You gave very little info to be of help and it sounds like a Metro talking points again???? And the same can be said of Windows 7 so your own words are a double edge sword.......I bought Windows 7 installed and never looked back....

Couldn't agree more I want a clean Desktop and start right up to my productiving uses not having to go Metro and Metro just to do what I want to do. Time is money and frustration doesn't improve or help.

 

Indeed. Ironically enough, the start menu/button provides almost everything I need. I can find all my programs, get to all my settings, and generally just do what I want without having to spend inordinate amounts of time tweaking things. But I guess I'm just an old dog who refuses to learn new tricks.

 

but don't count on Pirx (or HT or octiceps or StormJumper or whoever else) defining "severely limited environment" or "less productive and streamlined" or " productiving [sic] uses" etc. etc. etc.

 

We don't need to, because this topic has been beaten to death already by the user-interface experts and end-users alike.

Plus there are a million YouTube videos explaining the numerous shortcomings of Windows 8 in case you haven't experienced them or used the OS yourself. Chris Pirillo AKA The LockerGnome has a few videos on this IIRC.

 

This thread has more dead horses than a glue factory. Metro apps have more limited functionality than desktop programs, but cleaner layout for small screens and touchscreens. Certain people don't like the program launcher UI in Windows 8; others don't mind it and work at least as effectively with 8 as with 7; neither camp has ever proved to the other that they're wrong. Some of us already happily own Win8 machines; certain other people are announcing for the hundredth thread straight that they don't like Windows 8 and won't buy a Win8 machine (and might switch to Linux, etc).

We've already killed ALL the horses, folks.

 

You forgot to mention the numerous ways in which Windows 8 disrupts user workflow and how oftentimes it takes much longer to get the same things done compared to Windows 7. All those extra mouse clicks and swipes and scrolling, buried/hidden/removed features and settings, jarring UI switches, and counterintuitive design decisions just waste time and decrease productivity. Time equals money and that's a big no-no.

 

As I said, "Certain people don't like the program launcher UI in Windows 8; others don't mind it and work at least as effectively with 8 as with 7." I use a Windows 7 desktop at work, a Windows 7 DTR at home, and a Windows 8 convertible tablet, and I don't find my workflow on the desktop interrupted in the least. My productivity is not any lower. My workflow is based around the start menu search and the taskbar, not navigating through start menu folders; your mileage may vary.

So yes, I did mention it; I just didn't agree that everyone's feelings about the UI match your own. Imagine that.

 

Wow, proponents of Windows 8 touting how they "don't mind it" etc. are apparently right because according to them complaining about windows 8 is beating a dead horse but talking about how it is ok is not beating a dead horse! The topic itself of being either good or bad is beating a dead horse, you propenents should look into the mirror before stating we are wrong in beating a dead horse or making other comments as such.

In the end the consumers have spoken. Everyone has their preferences and the present state of market share makes its own statement from where the consumer places its money. This despite with most new machines from most OEMs on the consumer front being forced to buy into Windows 8...............

 

PC sales were falling before Windows 8 was even available.
Windows PC Sales Hit a Low as Tablet Sales Soar in Q2, Canalys Says | PCWorld

I don't think your average consumer with an outdated PC is avoiding Windows 8. I think they just got an iPad. Before Windows 8 came out.

 

I didn't say that my side was right and your side was wrong. There's nothing remotely like that in my post. I said that we'd passed the point of discussing new things in this thread and we're back to the same old dance of "it broke my workflow!" "well it didn't break mine! Works fine for me!" "Well I don't like it and I'm not going to buy it!" that we've been doing over and over for darned near a year now.

 

Whoa, come-on TANWare. I remember you being extremely helpful in the Gateway forum and you seem like a great guy, but that just seems to be a sly ad hominem attack. What's with the resentment to people who like Windows 8? I like Windows 8 & I haven't said anything negative about anyone that hates it. Yet, you just grouped all the ''propenents''--which if we're the minority we'd actually be the opponents to the majority view--into one pot. I don't think he meant that Windows 8 dislikers were the only ones that beat the house until it bleed. He said that both parties could never prove each other wrong and that the bickering between them is what has killed this topic. Afterwards he was called out on his post by another member and reiterated.

And as you stated formerly people have computers and that means they won't be buying computers. Instead they are going to be buying iPads and other tablets. Most regularly consumers are not even going to take the time out of their day to upgrade a computer to a new OS if the old one still works. My father for example is a non-techie and didn't even know he could by a Windows 7 disc at Walmart when it came out. I also don't know if it's changed, but I remember an article from last year about a lot of business computers still using Windows XP.

At the end of the day Microsoft truly doesn't care what I think, what you think, or what anyone else thinks. If you're using Windows 7 then you're still using Microsoft. Windows 8 still has more market share than OS X. So They own the three biggest pools of OS usage. Windows 7, XP, & 8.

By the way I mean no disrespect if anything I say comes off as disrespectful.

 

I'd argue that:

a) There are really not too many "average consumers" with outdated PCs anymore. Anything that runs Vista will be fine with W7 or W8.

b) They have most definitely bought an iPad.

c) They are avoiding Windows 8 because they are not compelled to replace their current OS and/or hardware.

My $0.02 only...

 

Just a thought, but I've seen this same story repeated time-and-time again where a prospective new PC buyer walks into the Windows PC section of a Best Buy or a Microsoft Store and walks out empty-handed because of Windows 8. These people obviously need a new computer as most of them are running some ancient Pentium 4 box with XP or Vista, but they just get lost in the maze of convertible Ultrabooks, touchscreen laptops, and all-in-ones. Even the sight of a traditional desktop tower and monitor setup isn't comforting because of how different the OS is. I really feel empathy for these people as well as for the poor salesperson that tries his/her best to explain and show Windows 8 to the customer for a half-hour to no avail. And more often than not the customer eventually wanders into the Mac section of the store.

So my point is, PC shipments may have already began declining even before the release of Windows 8, but many analysts and PC makers agree that it was Windows 8 which was responsible for sending the already-struggling industry into free fall. Which is why so many companies are now trying to distance themselves from Microsoft and Windows 8. Companies like Acer and Samsung, with their Chromebooks and investment in Android. And HP, whose CEO recently called out Microsoft as a "direct competitor." And of course there is Valve with their whole living room initiative that is completely devoid of Windows.

 

In the US, in the past twelve months, Windows PC sales are up and Mac sales are down (one of the first increases in PC sales since the iPad came out and PC sales went into free-fall in the first place). Worldwide, PC sales are being eroded by low-price Android tablets...a dynamic that has more to do with price than UI. source

 

The only time I see this sort of thing is someone who has NEVER seen or used Windows 8 in person, and really just needed an excuse not to spend money, and oh, Tech Site dot com says it sucks therefore it must suck, GATESSS!!!!!!!! oohh look at those tablets...

Steam's own survey says: Windows 8 64 bit 15.00% +0.99%

15% of Steam users, 15% of people who are *gamers* and may have moderately decent rigs (maybe homebuilt) and are probably not swayed by what you say, and instead go by what they experience themselves. Windows 8 x64 is currently the #2 OS in use on Steam.

 

The most popular Windows OS vs the latest Windows OS. So why is that surprising that Windows 8 is #2?

I built a Steam box and it has both Windows 7 and Windows 8 installed and I find myself booting into Windows 7 99% of the time when using Steam.

 

Actually, I would argue that the Steam Hardware and Software Survey results are not very representative. Because how many people install Steam on multiple computers but only play games on one of them? I personally do this and so do a lot of my friends. We've got our secondary laptops or ultraportables for school and such that are too weak to play games with but on which we installed Steam anyway to chat with people and manage our inventory. We only play games on our more powerful desktop or gaming notebook. And the Steam Survey is easy to complete, just a couple of mouse-clicks and you're done with it. Most people don't give it a second thought when they first load up a new Steam installation.

Just because Windows 8 is in second place on Steam doesn't necessarily mean there is a rapid uptake of the new OS by PC gamers. All OEM systems sold in the big box retailers and e-trailers for the last year have come preinstalled with Windows 8 and the truth is for most people this is still how they buy computers. Furthermore, three of the top five video cards for the month of September are Intel HD Graphics. How many hardcore PC gamers use integrated graphics? My point exactly, and this goes back to what I said previously about people installing Steam on multiple machines.

 

For me this took 10 seconds. The salesman said:
"A lot of people don't like W8, but if you don't like it push the windows button and you're at the desktop".
He pushed the button and we were at the desktop. That was enough to convince me

Now, subsequent to buying the laptop I found out that there were heaps of additional differences, so I watched the 5 min how to and shortcuts guide. Using a new OS I expected to have to learn a few things, but this was nowhere near as frustrating as having to learn to use a Mac at work. I am 8 months into my new job and I still cannot stand the Mac OS.

I still have some minor gripes, but the actual OS seems to be faster than W7 and I have heard that it is better at utilising the hardware upgrades such as the Haswell chips and GPUs. I don't know to what extent this is true, but I'm finding it quite fast.

I haven't upgraded to 8.1 yet but I hope to see some of the minor gripes erased. We'll see.

 

What did you expect they are totally different O/S interfacing in their own ways. And to the salesman was that a custom O/S setup or was the the default? You didn't elborate on that if that was so true I would've heard about that already so at this point in time doesn't sound the case.

Ugh...again...would we stop using the quote "Seems to be faster" that is a dead horse already and you will never really perceive the difference to be of any meaningful differentiation.

 

I LOVE the new start screen. You really need to think of it as REPLACING the start menu, with way more features.

I used to clutter my desktop with dozens of shortcuts, now they're all on my start screen.

Just the other day, I wanted to run Photoshop. Instead of going to the desktop or taskbar like in Windows 7, I just hit the windows key, and touched the tile for Photoshop. Way cool. And it keeps me from storing all my documents on the desktop, like I used to do.

I had a 30 day trial of Start8, but I got rid of it after realizing I really didn't need it. I don't even need a start button, as the keyboard start button takes you there.

 

Well on my laptop it was standard. From the metro screen, push the windows key and it takes you to the desktop. From the desktop, push the windows key and it takes you to the metro. I can't speak for anyone else though. Maybe someone altered something?

Even if it is a custom button, all you would have to do is at metro, click on desktop. Alternatively, bring the mouse to the top left corner and drag it down to desktop.

It's quick and not a hassle to me.

I realise that I'm not comparing it to the same machine specs running W7, but is it not true that the W8 coding is better optimised to the hardware upgrades?

 

I have LR etc. docked on Rocket doc, just click the icon and it is there. If I am running another app full screen at the time I also use VirtuaWin so that I have four virtual screens. Jus move the mouse to one side or use a hot key for another empty screen and launch it to that screen. Although with 1920x1080 I usually do not run full screen.

We Win 8 opponents are just that. We are usually the vocal minority and also proponents of many or varied other OS's so the terminology is correct. Then again from where you are sitting the coin can be reversed.

None of this for the purpose of this thread, Win 8.1 being a supposed new horse, is really old hat. It is just that some of the old arguments are not really valid as there supposedly were no real enhancements in the area. One such would be boot or shutdown speed. The new iteration is just as fast as it was before.

As far as market share, while new pc sales would contribute people migrating to Win 8 from Win7, just as they had before from Vista to Win7, would have made for quite an impact. But they did not make this move in the same force as from the prior OS upgrade. Like myself even with the $15 USD offer for Win8 Pro. Agreed again if new PC sales were up the maybe Win8 sales would be too but then again maybe Win7 sales would have been up further depleting Win8 market share, either in actuality or comparatively.

Agreed M$ has a strong hold on the OS market. Most of our concern is by, with the awkward UI, abandoning the traditional PC user could it eventually loose this? While there are no signs that this is happening right now there are other options out there. Some are now considering these options. This becomes especially true of users now more familiar with Android and thereby may not be as leery as they once were towards Chrome, Android or even Linux on a more expanded platform.

 

So clicking on the Start button and clicking Photoshop from the Start Menu or your Documents folder from the start menu isn't cool enough for you then. I get it.