More bad news surfaces

[psxphill]

but Microsoft has got it into their heads that they can just forcibly transmogrify their customer base into entirely different people with different requirements out of a computer by sheer force of will.

No, they offered a product that was like one of their previous products but also like a product that was selling well in the market.
 
I'm sick of the anti Windows 8 FUD. I've been using Windows for years, it used to be terrible but Windows 2000 onwards is fine. I prefer Windows 8 on my laptop that came with Vista than any previous OS & I haven't been brainwashed.
 
Word on the street is this is a sham suit.
 
 

Nobody wanted desktop Windows to be a tablet OS. Very few people even wanted a Microsoft-branded tablet.

a. Windows 8 works fine as a desktop os, I don't even know what a tablet OS is. You seem to be talking about the change from the Start Menu to the Start Screen. I rarely used the Start Menu, I never use the Start Screen as all the prior Start Menu functionality is available without using it.
 
b. When did you get back from asking everybody what they wanted from desktop Windows?
 
c. Giving people what they want is stupid, because people are stupid (which is why democracy never works). A good example of this was I recently found someone complaining that Microsoft were using standard AA batteries for the Xbox one controller, like they want to have to buy a proprietary battery from Microsoft or something. There are people vocal about taking the Start Menu away, but there was an even bigger backlash against Microsoft when they introduced the Start Menu in 1995 (according to the reports, everybody wanted it to look like Windows 3.1).
 
I wouldn't buy an Android tablet because I don't want to throw away a perfectly good tablet because the manufacturer doesn't want to provide security updates. Apple and Microsoft are going to become the only real options in the tablet and phone market. Apple won't compete at the low end of the market, which leaves Microsoft as the only one worth buying.

[psxphill]

huge numbers of people repeatedly told them so very publicly during development.

Every time a few idiots start a hate campaign against Microsoft it makes the news. Once you ignore them and just get on with using it then you will have a much happier life.
 
Having a separate tablet OS doesn't work, they already did that with Windows XP Tablet PC edition. The only way to make the market move is to include it in the standard OS, which they did for Windows 7. Windows 8 is just a slight upgrade of that, because Windows 7 didn't persuade enough people to use a tablet.
 
The idea of Metro is good, maybe not the execution. However it doesn't harm you if you don't use it, I don't ever use it. Although in the long term desktop apps will disappear, so hopefully they'll have got it sorted by then. I'm not sure how all software will work being installed from an app store, but to solve the install/uninstall problem in Windows it needs to change (you get the same problems in Linux/MacOS, it just doesn't show up because of the lack of apps and the users).
 
I was hoping that we'd see Windows 8 laptops with Kinect bundled, so you could use hand waving gestures to control it. But then I'm not a luddite.

[psxphill]

Why do you run Windows 8?
 
What was so bad about Windows 7 that you had to throw it away and run out and buy Windows 8?

Windows 8 is better than Windows 7, it's quicker & has more functionality.
 
There are some machines that can run Windows 7 but not Windows 8, from around the Pentium 3 timeframe. Unless you a really old machine then the only reason I can think of to stick with Windows 7 is an attachment to the Start Menu, Aero or XP Mode.
 
I don't have an emotional attachment to any of the "contentious" changes, so I don't have any reason to deprive myself of Windows 8's benefits.
FWIW I quite liked Vista as well, it was the first viable version of 64 bit windows. I couldn't see why I should deprive myself of that and stick to XP either.
 
I do tend to upgrade early and I'm not saying you all have to upgrade, I wouldn't actually persuade anyone to upgrade any software at all unless they could easily embrace change, even if the software they were used to and happy with was a steaming pile of excrement.
 
People who hate change will always hate change, whether the change is good or not. Hating on Windows 8 when you don't like change is dumb, it's only purpose is to legitimise their feelings by influencing less informed people (it's like starting your own religion).

[psxphill]

Yes, once you discount all the people who object to a thing, there cannot be any dissent! Clearly! (And the fact that nobody has any objection to Windows 8 fits perfectly with the way its rate of adoption has only just recently surpassed that of Vista.)

You're a hypocrite, you discount all the people who don't object to it all the time.
 
Windows sales figures are generally tied in with new PC sales, which we know aren't selling because everybody is currently buying tablets instead. Which is why Microsoft are trying to enter the tablet market again. Your argument shows that Microsoft should have made Windows 8 more like an ipad or android tablet.
 
 

Second, I'm curious as to how you think Windows 7, with its megalithic GPU-intensive Aero UI, was in any way intended as a tablet OS...

You could get Windows 7 tablets, which were controllable with pens and gestures. Microsoft rolled the Windows XP tablet features rolled into Windows 7, so you can enable them on Windows 7. How is that not intended as a tablet OS?
 
I was tempted by a Windows 7 tablet.
 
http://szinnovation588.en.made-in-china.com/product/RoXEajAdLKWO/China-10-2-Touch-LCD-160G-Hardware-With-Windows-7-Tablet-PC-M-01-.html
 

"This new product totally isn't a failure if you simply avoid exactly the thing that most differentiates it from its own predecessor!"

The thing that most differentiates Windows 8 from Windows 7 for me is the performance enhancements and the extra functionality. I don't see how something that is optional and can be ignored can be seen as the major differentiation.
 

Right, because everybody's developing all that great new Metro software that will totally fill all the gaps left by 17+ years of quality Win32 software. No worries there!

The problem is that most Win32 software is written by idiots, so Microsoft needs to push managed apps that have a standard structure so the idiots can stop messing up peoples computers.
 

I fail to see how "developers give Microsoft 30% of their revenue" is a necessary part of a solution to wonky installation issues.

Those are two different issues, an app store doesn't require developers to give Microsoft 30% of revenue. There are benefits to having the apps tested by Microsoft before being unleashed on PC's. Having to clean up friends and family's computers for years when they installed software they got tricked into installing on some web page, I actually quite like the idea of only allowing them to install software that has been verified by Microsoft.
 

You know, some people don't object to Kinect because they're Luddites. Some people object to Kinect because A. controlling things by waving your arms around is a hell of a lot more work than controlling them with a mouse and keyboard, B. it makes you look like a total spaz, and C. it will likely cause the person sitting next to you on the plane to bash your head in with your own laptop.

People mainly don't like Kinect because they are scared the camera is being used to spy on them. I was hoping for Microsoft to actually push Kinect and makes something better than a keyboard and mouse, assuming that it's impossible for it to be done better than a keyboard or mouse is proof you are a luddite. For instance the Kinect could track your hand, duplicating the functionality of a mouse without having to hold something or have a flat surface. The camera doesn't necessarily have to be pointing at your face.

[psxphill]

But I've also used 8.1, and it is leaps and bounds better.

I disagree that it's leaps and bounds better. The amount that Windows 8.1 is better than Windows 8 by, isn't as big as the amount that Windows 8 is better than Windows 7 by.
 
I've got 8.1 on my netbook, but haven't gotten round to install it on my main laptop yet. While the benefits of Windows 8 persuaded me to install it immediately.
 

Nope. Has it become not a catastrophically stupid idea while I wasn't looking?

Who told you it ever was? Why did you believe them? I wouldn't let people manipulate you like that, their motives are unlikely to be good. Some people would get a kick out of winding you up like this.

[psxphill]

Ok eventually you can set it up to be very much like Win7 and have just the desktop like experiences but until you do, expect productivity and easy of use to be cut down in half.

Can you explain what halved your productivity? And what you did to increase your productivity to Windows 7 levels.
 
When I first installed Windows 8 beta I missed the Start Menu & did all the hacks that brought it back. As I reinstalled each time I realised I was spending more time putting the hacks back to make myself comfortable than I actually ever did using them. Especially when I bothered to learn where everything had moved to.
 
Forcing people to accept change is not a bad thing. Even if it makes them temporarily uncomfortable.
 
About the only thing I ever change in the UI, which I've been doing for years now, is to enable single click in explorer. It really messes people up if they aren't used to it, but it's so much more productive. I think Microsoft toyed with making it the default and it's unfortunate they didn't have the balls to go through with it.
 

I also have ubuntu on my PC and I'm finding myself booting into that more often because of the issue and of course my AmigaONE x1000 so in a way I'm glad it so bad as I might now give up on Microsoft and literally only use for the odd exclusive game.

I don't get how you can say you can easily cope with the differences between Windows 7, Ubuntu and AmigaOS4, but say that the Windows 7 to Windows 8 changes halve your productivity. It makes it sound like you found an excuse to bash Microsoft than you have an actual problem.
 
For example I left my mum's computer on Vista because she has the clock and calendar on the sidebar and Windows 7 doesn't come with that & I really don't need the hassle of trying to make her comfortable with the change. She wouldn't be able to cope with switching to Ubuntu or AmigaOS though, but you can. Seems kinda odd that.

[psxphill]

And again, we come to this notion that you can't say something which plainly makes no sense (sticking a tablet UI on a desktop OS, positioning tablet UI as the future of desktop PCs) is stupid unless you've actually used it, because there's some kind of mystical property incommunicable in mortal tongues that makes it totally brilliant, and also the emperor isn't naked, you're just not refined enough to see his magnificent threads.

The "emperor isn't naked" is a perfect argument against your logic.
 
These people who communicated to you that Windows 8 deserves your anger are also saying that the emperor isn't naked.
 
You chose to believe them without looking for yourself & repeat it to anyone who will listen.
 
All I'm saying is that anyone who tries Windows 8 with an open mind actually likes it. You can tell anyone who hasn't tried it or goes in with a closed mind, the reasons they come up for hating it are laughable.
 

I can give you a perfect example that just god dam happen today, my pc had a windows update last night and now my mouse scroll wheel is no longer working

I've had driver updates that have been buggy on all operating systems. Including Linux. Revert each update until it starts working and then report it, or tell Windows to not install that update. Windows 7 & 8 generally use the same drivers, so it might have affected Windows 7 as well.
 

Also one thing I hate is the full screen apps, why!, certain programs is fine but things like just playing music should not need the full screen, it easy to tell it to use another program on the desktop and that is what you have to do for many of the defult apps, becuase the defult one are rubbish and so unproductive!

Wasn't Media Centre the default in Windows 7 Ultimate? That was pretty crappy, but after you told Windows 7 not to use it then you didn't have to worry about it anymore.
 
I don't use any full screen apps, but the existence of full screen apps doesn't make me upset. What if they put out a Windows 7 SP2 that allowed the new full screen apps to run, would you hate that too?
 

I disagree with you. Faster speeds don't mean it stable. Microsoft and their security leaks. How long does it take windows to fix a security leak? A long time. Windows slows down over time. Back doors in windows. Don't get me started. All one needs to know is Command prompt.
 
I will never own a Mac system. I hate the User-interface. You rent the software on Mac. You don't own it. That info can be found on the User agreement.
 
Linux is more of being stable and secure verse being the fast operation system out there. Linux when there is security leak. The Linux programmers go and fix it in couple days. Linux saves the environment. It gives old laptops and desktops new life.

MacOS is the least secure, because Apple spent so long saying they were more secure because nobody was targeting them that they weren't prepared for being targeted and it would also look bad on them if they made a big deal out of it.
 
Linux isn't inherently secure, even when there is a fix then each distribution has to push out the update. You could run a bleeding edge kernel, but you're more likely to have down time due to untested code than an exploit. Linux dominates the web server market, whenever you hear about sites being compromised and user details stolen it's another insecure Linux site. I wouldn't trust a volunteer to write secure code, what are you going to do if they mess up - sack them?
 
Microsoft are better at fixing security holes than anyone because they have the most practise. They do a lot of testing before putting out updates, so they don't usually rush them out. But there are times when they have.
 
I know you have to love Linux and bash Microsoft when you're indoctrinated as a tech geek, but it doesn't make sense. I wonder how many people actually believe it and how many are putting on a front to be accepted. I find Windows 7 & 8 run really well on old hardware too, the latest Linux distros have similar hardware requirements.
 
Google throws up some interesting reading on Linux security
 
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/critical-linux-vulnerability-imperils-users-even-after-silent-fix/
 
The only reason for choosing Linux as a desktop operating system is that it's market share is so low you aren't likely to be attacked as people looking for Linux exploits are going after servers. I'd rather go for an operating system that is regularly attacked, because you at least know it's likely to get noticed and fixed (I always install the latest version of software first for the same reason).