Printable View
Extra clicks? It's exactly the same amount of clicks as before, maybe even less.
And your "What if"-questions remind me of those guys who desperately want to find something to grumble about even when there is nothing to grumble about. Yeah, what if, man! What if!
Geeze. Then you invoke the Search menu. With half a brain and maybe a modicum of intelligence you'd have figured that out by yourself, given the fact that I already said that.
Yeah, who knew that someone that's been using a program for months would have a clearer understanding of how it works than someone who hasn't. :noob:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Learning to read might help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If you really like doing it old-school windows explorer is still there :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I haven't got to play with Windows 8 yet and I so far recall the answers to the questions you and rand are thinking up. Cause you know, google and shit. The annoying part is that you and rand both attempt to correct your ignorance by presenting your questions with a dash of opinion and negativity. If you're curious, more power to you for trying to figure it out, but thats no reason to slam the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's my usage pattern with the start menu anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
The desktop is still there, and works like it used to. The start menu is bigger, but that should actually require less mousework on average to get what you want running, not more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I do not see any reason to switch to this over windows 7, most of my friends have not even switched to 7 and are sticking with xp as it runs faster. I am sticking to 7 as it is better at repairing itself when it breaks. The news that the mouse is dead is greatly exaggerated, mouse will die together with PC gaming or when people actually start enjoying being totally destroyed by someone who has kept his antique input device.
Businesses aren't going to be moving onto Windows 8 for a goodly while, if at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Most of those businesses are probably only now moving onto 7, after all. Usually takes quite a while for the larger businesses to make that sort of a switch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Are we assuming Windows 9 will go back to being business-friendly? Why release a Windows product that isn't going to be bought by a huge portion of your customer base...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Again, the desktop and explorer you're used to is still there.
I don't know why Khen is making out that Start then typing keys is a new improvement ... I already do that on 7. In fact I'm pretty sure you could do that on Vista if not XP.
Why not have the desktop as the default view and make people waste time to get to the tablet screen? :noob: After all, tablet viewers are probably more computer-savvy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
So, you want to start Excel directly after booting the computer.
Which means that:
1) You enter your credentials (just like in all other Windows versions before)
2) you type "Exc", Enter and you're done.
No time wasted, at all. Maybe certain people should try stuff before talking about things they obviously don't know jack-shit about?
Maybe you could point out to me where I said that this is a new improvement? Don't expect me to hold my breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I said that I don't miss the Start Menu and stated why. I stated nowhere that this wasn't possible before. Work on your reading skills please.
Or I could click on the shiny Excel icon on the screen, requiring exactly 0 seconds. Better yet, I can click on the exact Excel file I want to open in 0 seconds. :noob: And I can do that for a dozen other programs that I deem important enough to be on the desktop. Meanwhile, I don't have to go blind from looking at all kinds of crap at the main screen that I have no intention of ever clicking on.
you can put whatever shortcuts you like on the start menu and you can remove the ones you don't like
Aha. So, after typing your credentials, typing another three letters afterwards is slower than having to take your hands away from the keyboard, take your mouse, find the icon and click on it? And that's zero seconds? And please don't tell me that you're storing important Excel files (or any documents at all) on the desktop. You're making SysAdmins all over the world cry.
You probably invented time-travelling while you were at it. Hyperbole, thy name is Loki.
(Protip: This precious Excel icon of yours you're so anally fixated on? It's available on the Metro screen as well. So, if you absolutely have to click on something, why don't you click on that?)
Well, that's what you get when people try to complain about something they don't have a clue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That's the opposite of true. Tablet users are mass-market. Desktop users are now the more savvy ones. But it doesn't matter. You can do everything you can with windows 7 with windows 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Everything you're talking about can be done on Windows 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How does it handle multi-monitor programs like After Effects, Maya, etc.?
The device I've got it installed on only has a single monitor, so I haven't tried it myself, but I can't think of any reason why it would be different/worse than 7.
So existing functionality being removed doesn't matter because existing functionality replaces it? You're going on about it makes it seem like its new, something that's been there for years. I'm struggling to understand what's NEW that's good about it?
One of the new functions of 7 that I liked as an improvement is that program's on the start menu would expand to have their own sub-menus. Eg I click Start, however over Excel's icon and it expands to show the most recently opened Excel spreadsheets and pinned spreadsheets too. That way you can launch not just Excel but the specific spreadsheet. I also use that function (and pinning of favourites) regularly for Word and Steam. Is that still there?
I was thinking because of the supposedly maximized windows only issue that's been mentioned elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
That's for windows store apps. If it worked in Windows 7, it's a desktop app, and not under the same restrictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
So whats the main benefit to upgrading for a person like me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I don't see one. Don't bother. If you find yourself needing a new OS, grab Windows 8, but if you already have an OS, there's no big reason to make the jump yet. That might change down the road - MS is putting a lot of effort into synergy with all their various devices, and it's possible that new apps coming out will make the upgrade worthwhile - but at least in the near term, there's no reason to run out and buy a copy.
It handles that just like Windows 7 did. I didn't look in Windows 7, but Windows 8 has definitely separated taskbars if you wish. Which means that programs you run on the second monitor only appear in the taskbar of that second monitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Windows 7 doesn't have this feature, however its useful to me, which is in part why I have DisplayFusion Pro installed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Read a cnet review of the soon 2 b released Surface and I like. The high end version will have Windows 8, probably will be my first experience with it. I think its a good strategy for MS to have the same OS on all these platforms - if its good it will get people using windows phones, tablets and pcs just because they fit together so well.... If its good...
I just don't think you get how the market works. People for the most part don't go out an upgrade their OS because Microsoft brought out something new and shiny, people - and I'm talking about home users here - change their OS for the following reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
1) Their current OS is so hopelessly out of date that it's affecting their ability to do stuff
2) They got a new computer and the new Windows came pre-installed
Businesses upgrade even less frequently, because when they've found a setup that works for them they tend to just stick with it rather than upgrading every technology advances, because even a smooth upgrade that goes really well can be massively disruptive to their day to day operations and people hate change, so if they find that *button they press alot* is now over here instead of over there, they get upset even if the new way is actually more intuitive and faster.
So basically, even if Windows 8 was the most biz-friendly OS of all time most businesses will not upgrade from what they have for at least another decade. By which time, there will probably have been another couple of Windows releases. And I suspect that the usage paradigms Windows 8 is now experimenting with will have become much more accepted by then, trying to emulate as it is touchscreen/tablet usage patterns which are becoming more and more ubiquitous.
However any business that is currently entertaining the idea of giving its employees iPads may be eyeing windows 8 with some interest
I upgraded from Vista to 7 because I got a 'free' upgrade with my laptop and Vista sucked hard. 7 was way smoother, on my laptop!
Never underestimate the power of inertia and "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Until a few weeks ago I was working for a company whose main day to day software was still a DOS-based program. They're in the process of upgrading at last but the main software has been patched and used for over 20 years because it works - and there's no point changing if what you're using works. The old software has been patched and updated so many times but kept in its original DOS format. The cost and rollout of trying to update the software is massive and is a process that will take them 3 years from start to finish (its already nearly 2 years since rollout started and we weren't reached yet by the end).
I'm now working in a different industry but have one similar bit of software - though its new, ultra modern, cloud based, works seamlessly on iOS apps and the front end is very pretty indeed ... And the backend makes me want to hit my head against a brick wall. Functionality I took for granted from before just isn't there.
I contest the point "there's no point in changing what works".
By that reasoning, we'd still be using spears and flintstones. Maybe.
Except what we're using is undeniably better than that.
Change for the sake of change in business is generally a bad thing. IT is a tool that lets you do your job, unless you're in the rare situation that it IS your job rather than a mere tool. In order for a business to switch there has to be a REASON to, an improvement over the costs of change. The costs of change are not just the cost of new software, but primarily the disruption to your business.
As an individual at home I can go a week without my IT if need be, while changing over/adapting etc ... For businesses to do so would grind many to a halt and wipe billions from them.
The downside there, though, Randy, is that the longer a company puts off upgrading, the more costly and disruptive it will be when they finally do upgrade. Remember the computer problems NatWest et al had earlier this year? Good example of what happens when a firm puts off upgrading for too long.
I do hear what you're saying, but there is a trade off to be had.
Support is another issue. Refusing to upgrade adds its own costs due to the increasing costs of maintaining a legacy program and or hardware. Which is why we will be seeing a move to at least windows 7 within the next year since xp's end of life is in early 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Was it an example of an upgrade put off too long, or an upgrade badly managed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I didn't mean the update that broke the system, but the general age of the system they use. Think of a business that hasn't moved off Windows 3.1 and keeps it up to speed by constant patches instead of upgrading to 7 or XP.
It depends on how easy the old system is to use versus a potential new one. An old system might "work", but require twice the time to put in information and be more prone to errors. Over time, that would more than eat up any savings from not changing a system.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And that why you need to add qualifiers to statements. There are solutions which "work" but are incredibly fragile solutions which will topple over when you look at them the wrong way. And then there are robust, upgradable and reliable solutions.
Both would be the same in Rand's world.