Windows 8

[RandBlade]

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?

[Illusions]

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.

I was thinking because of the supposedly maximized windows only issue that's been mentioned elsewhere.

[Wraith]

I was thinking because of the supposedly maximized windows only issue that's been mentioned elsewhere.

That's for windows store apps. If it worked in Windows 7, it's a desktop app, and not under the same restrictions.

[Illusions]

That's for windows store apps. If it worked in Windows 7, it's a desktop app, and not under the same restrictions.

So whats the main benefit to upgrading for a person like me?

[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.

[Khendraja'aro]

How does it handle multi-monitor programs like After Effects, Maya, etc.?

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.

[Illusions]

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.

Windows 7 doesn't have this feature, however its useful to me, which is in part why I have DisplayFusion Pro installed.

[EyeKhan]

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...

[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...

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:

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.

[Aimless]

However any business that is currently entertaining the idea of giving its employees iPads may be eyeing windows 8 with some interest

[Flixy]

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!

[RandBlade]

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.

[Khendraja'aro]

I contest the point "there's no point in changing what works".

By that reasoning, we'd still be using spears and flintstones. Maybe.

[RandBlade]

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.

[Steely Glint]

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[RandBlade]

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.

Was it an example of an upgrade put off too long, or an upgrade badly managed?

[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.

[Loki]

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.

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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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.

[RandBlade]

No they wouldn't. Reliability is critical to a working system. The problem with bleeding edge over older patched systems is that the former CAN be unreliable. It takes time to find and patch the flaws.

[Ominous Gamer]

No they wouldn't. Reliability is critical to a working system. The problem with bleeding edge over older patched systems is that the former CAN be unreliable. It takes time to find and patch the flaws.

patches are more likely to break older systems, especially ones with dozens of patches already, then you are to find a new system that doesn't work out of the box.
Microsoft has done that a few times, corrupting older XP installs because patch 24542 didn't play well with the way patch 25 was installed several years prior.

[RandBlade]

It depends upon the system. Plus MS isn't concentrating solely on XP.

For my previous company the IT system being down for 10 minutes could cause hundreds of pounds of damage - tens of thousands probably nationally. When you want a system that's flawless then you're in no hurry to rush a change. And those that changed first took the hits.

[Ominous Gamer]

It depends upon the system. Plus MS isn't concentrating solely on XP.

no system from beginning to end can concentrate on one OS.

For my previous company the IT system being down for 10 minutes could cause hundreds of pounds of damage - tens of thousands probably nationally. When you want a system that's flawless then you're in no hurry to rush a change. And those that changed first took the hits.

testing is always important and even then sometimes things happen. Didn't Visa go down earlier this year cause of a bad patch?
but there is a huge difference between rushing into the latest and greatest and using that as an excuse to stick to something like DOS when its 2012.

[Khendraja'aro]

No they wouldn't. Reliability is critical to a working system. The problem with bleeding edge over older patched systems is that the former CAN be unreliable. It takes time to find and patch the flaws.

But both work. And what do you mean exactly with "reliability"? There are several different viewpoints to that. Reliability for the end user? For the sys admins? For the CEOs/CIOs? The list goes on and can even be sub-divided for each and every group. Is it data consistency? Backups? Speed of requests? Amount of features? Speed of the UI? ...

You're just waking up to the fact that your statement was over-simplistic and a nonsensical talking point without any true meaning. That's why you have to backpedal so furiously right now.

By the way: Who exactly was speaking of "bleeding edge"? Oh, wait, you were.

[RandBlade]

I'm not backpedalling.

But you know what, I give up.

There is absolutely zero reason to want to keep a tried and stress tested system.
Reliability is not part of measuring whether a system works as designed or not.
Nobody would reasonably consider downtime to be not working properly.
The sole reason to keep a working system maintained rather than change is stubbornness.

FYI if you're using in-house software then any new system will by definition be bleeding edge.

EDIT: I guess I'm just totally insane to be considering whether a system is 100% reliable to be part of whether a system works or not. A system not working when you look at it sideways still is a working system according to Khen so I must just be bonkers.

[Aimless]

As another illustrative example I might add that every single update to our county's much-maligned and ancient electronic health record system potentially puts lives at risk

[RandBlade]

A more serious concern than "just" losing hundreds of pounds for every minute you're offline and an excellent point well worth making Aimless

[Aimless]

A more serious concern than "just" losing hundreds of pounds for every minute you're offline and an excellent point well worth making Aimless

To be fair there are a number of problems that put lives at risk if you DON'T update, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, even though the enemy you know is better than the one you don't. The risk may be worth taking if the upgrade is intended to make the system more resilient and less likely to fail catastrophically, or promises great long-term productivity gains. It just has to be rolled out in a decently planned way, with support from and preparation of users. We have contingency plans for when the systems get borked. I imagine it's actually a little harder for businesses to make these ultimately worthwhile leaps of faith than it is for us.

[RandBlade]

Absolutely I agree.

Our system was so robust that I would put the software at virtually 100% reliable under the most stressful of circumstances - and reliability under stress is one of the primary measures of whether a system works or not. Virtually every failure we ever had (and they could do some major financial damage even though we're not talking safety/loss of life) was due to hardware-issues or issues outside our control (internet being lost due to a gas leak down the road being the most memorable in nearly 8 years with the company). The other advantage of having an older tried-and-tested method is that when faults occur the contingency plans are in place and people know instinctively what to do to put it right.

So stressful dealing with a "new" crisis.