Windows 8 - who's tried it?

[PTRACER]

I'm going to have to offer a tuition service for my customers, this thing absolutely sucks. Once it's set up and it's on your PC, I'm sure it's alright for simple tasks, but all of the buttons that we were familiar with like the Start menu, even Minimize and Close are now gone.

In some ways, I feel like I'm using a child's toy and the way the computer seems to jump backwards and forwards between the new Tiles Start screen and the old style desktop is confusing and feels unfinished.

I seriously hope they don't force this OS on us. The only GOOD thing I've found so far is it takes less than 30 seconds for my PC to be fully booted while it takes over 2 minutes with Windows XP.

[Everso Biggyballies]

I felt the same when I went to W7 'Ultimate' from XP..... everything from layout to email / outlook was all different and it took me a while to learn the new system. I hated it, and could not find things. I often used to lose the plot and pray for XP to suddenly reappear and put me out of my misery After a couple of days I was on the verge of formatting and reverting to XP, but due to re-assurance from others who said I would be better to persevere a bit longer, and would soon see the benefits. I hung in there.

I did that and it certainly all fell into place before very long..... not only did I now have a computer which booted up in a fraction of the time, I soon saw the benefits and it certainly aided me with getting my 'home network' wireless and adding peripherals even easier than before. I wont deny I have had a couple of glitches, but in reality they turned out to be more related to my ISP than the computer, and an outdated modem, now replaced and updated to an ADSL2+. My internet speed overnight improved literally tenfold, going from a paltry 1mbs to 10mbs with the same ISP and same speed contract. I dont put that down to W7 but it certainly set my new modem up wirelessly. Telstra gave me a new home phone last week, complete with an Ipad/tablet sort of thingy, for home ( Telstra T-Hub 2. W7 picked it all up and set it up for me.

The main dislike (other than basic layout of everything from Start Menu to browser layout and appearance) I had was that things such as my printer / scanner (a cheapo multifunction HP thing) would not function fully (it would print but not scan)..... that was I think more an HP attitude than Windows itself.... the XP drivers/software would not gel with W7 and no W7 update was available from HP whose suggestion was simply to get a new W7 compatible ptinter...... (Built in obsolescence and generate sales anyway they can) When I needed to replace the printer cartridges I took the cheaper option of buying a new multifunction thing from Lexmark, W7 compatible and wireless. Reduced from $199 to $49.00 by mistake. (I noticed the next day the special price had jumped from the $49.00 to $99.00 ) It all set it self up wirelessly with me clicking a few things. The only other issue I had was with the mouse and keyboard, (Logitech cordless ) which via Logitech offered no W7 software and suggested I buy a new mouse and keyboard.... Bollocks I thought, and then discovered it all works, fully functional with all the buttons doing what they should and could including reassigning buttons to other functions. W7 applied its own drivers to the mouse / kb and they worked better than the Logitech ones.... Sweet.

To my surprise a month or so ago I was at a friends place and using their computer, which was running on XP. I found I had the same hate of XP and the different ways, quirks and layout that I had for W7 when I first went to use it. I ended up preferring to wait until I got home to my W7! I could not revert to XP now I an used to the ways of W7. It makes it very easy for someone who is barely IT compatible myself.

Obviously that is only with W7.... I dont know what is different again with W7 to W8, so all this could be totally irrelevant to your issues PT, and of course I probably look at things with a different eye than someone more IT clued than I, but after an initial hate of W7 I could not now go back to XP. A bit of perseverance and patience from me is all it took.

Good Luck.

[Ian-S]

I'll be sticking to XP until something better comes along (mine takes about 40 seconds to boot and out performs everything that has come since in back to back tests). Tried the RC of 8 and couldn't find anything good about it, the only improvement was the boot time which is of no use to me, overall it felt like I was using one of those kids toys that we used to have when we were kids to make pictures with, very clumsy interface.

I'm sure it will be great - for people not old enough to know what Windows 2000 was.

[theracer120]

I'll be sticking to XP until something better comes along (mine takes about 40 seconds to boot and out performs everything that has come since in back to back tests). Tried the RC of 8 and couldn't find anything good about it, the only improvement was the boot time which is of no use to me, overall it felt like I was using one of those kids toys that we used to have when we were kids to make pictures with, very clumsy interface.

I'm sure it will be great - for people not old enough to know what Windows 2000 was.

Even a lot of those people would probably not understand it the first time they tried it, because a lot of those people have probably been in school for several years and know how to use the older (Windows XP/Vista/7) type of computers to some extent. Looking at pictures of it, I can understand it, but I don't know why they had to change it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Sam]

I'll be sticking to XP until something better comes along (mine takes about 40 seconds to boot and out performs everything that has come since in back to back tests). Tried the RC of 8 and couldn't find anything good about it, the only improvement was the boot time which is of no use to me, overall it felt like I was using one of those kids toys that we used to have when we were kids to make pictures with, very clumsy interface.

I'm sure it will be great - for people not old enough to know what Windows 2000 was.

Even a lot of those people would probably not understand it the first time they tried it, because a lot of those people have probably been in school for several years and know how to use the older (Windows XP/Vista/7) type of computers to some extent. Looking at pictures of it, I can understand it, but I don't know why they had to change it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If Microsoft went by 'if it works don't fix it' we probably still wouldn't have the 'start' button in Windows. Windows 95 was completely different from 3.x and people survived that, so I don't see this causing issues.

Regardless of whether it's for the better or for the worse, most people always resist change.

[Antonov]

is it possible to still fit a computer with Windows XP today? I'd sign up immediately

[PTRACER]

I sat my granddad down at the computer and asked him to work it out. He thought it was ridiculous. Even when I told him that you hover the mouse over the corners of the screen he was thinking "WTF is the point of that?"

[SBan83]

Microsoft have always released one crap OS followed by a good one since Win 98 (98 > Me > XP > Vista > 7 > 8 > 9 ?). It's like their modus operandi is to put out the crap one as a paid beta test for the real deal to follow after it.

I left out NT and 2000 since they are niche products.

[PTRACER]

2000 and XP were practically the same OS.

[SBan83]

I always thought NT and 2000 were most similar since 2000 was the first one based on NT core and was catered towards the same type of users as NT whereas XP was the 'normal' OS meant for a broader audience. I couldn't even run any games on W2000 save for NFS5 at the time.

[PTRACER]

Was Windows NT an actual standalone OS? I always thought it was just the name given to the core part of 2000 up to W7.

[Sam]

There were bunch of them in the nineties. Effectively Windows NT4 was the 'professional' counterpart of Windows 95, and before that NT 3.51 was the same for Windows 3.x systems. They were not meant for home use, and most games would not run on them.

From my understanding Windows 2000 was essentially the next version of the NT series (NT5, if you will) and from XP onwards the branches were merged into a single system with home and pro versions.

[Alonsomania]

Was Windows NT an actual standalone OS? I always thought it was just the name given to the core part of 2000 up to W7.

It was ment for business only, I believe. Ran much better than 2000. Probably NT used NTFS and 2000 used FAT32?

[erwin greven]

Win2k was capable of using NTFS. I think Win ME still used the FAT32.

[PTRACER]

I think ME was still DOS-based wasn't it?

Those were the days....Clicking the Start Menu and restarting in DOS mode to play certain games.