Can't believe Win 8 does not support low res screens

Discussion in 'Windows 8 Installation' started by Paul Preston, Nov 26, 2012.

  1. Paul Preston

    Paul Preston New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    I upgraded wife's Netbook to Windows 8, verdict don't upgrade a Laptop with screen resolution of 1024 x 600 or less, the New Apps style interface will not work.

    Disappointed as the lay out and speed and ease of use is quite good, a little different from XP and Win 7 but usable. Basically they have made an operating system that will run on older machines and for there new Surface Tablet / touch screen Laptops but there software will not support small screens (it will run on Netbooks but you will not get the full experience that Win 8 has to offer).

    Microsoft assume everybody in the world will have the latest Hi Res screens, big mistake not supporting small Netbooks considering there popularity.

    I will be keeping Win 7 on my Laptop even though mine will support the full Win 8 software not really worth the upgrade for an existing machine.

    Save your money and wait until you upgrade you laptop and you will have Win 8 installed anyway.
     
  2. Drew

    Drew Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    146
    It IS worth upgrading to Windows 8. And certainly, if the machine will support a resolution of 1366x768 or higher. Upgrading to Windows 8 while it can be done for only $40 + WMC for FREE ('til 31/1/13) is nothing but, smart or a 'no-brainer'; $40 is a lot less than the cost of a new laptop when the existing machine will run 8 very nicely. 8 is better than 7 both for its Features and for its technologies. Here are some links that discuss enabling Snap on low res machines,
    screen resolution for Snap - Bing

    Cheers,
    Drew
     
  3. VegasGuy

    VegasGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    2
    Eh Drew, been using Win 8 since like the second day Pro was available. I honestly can't see what you mean by this " 8 is better than 7 both for its Features and for its technologies." So far Win 8 has largely been a disappointment. It's not just that the UI is awkward and ugly. I'd used the Consumer Preview so I knew that already. I've already had to waste time, moving stuff I use a lot so I do not have to see that fugly Start Screen. I only bought it for this " 8 is better than 7 both for its Features and for its technologies." that I keep reading about. And I bought it because it's cheap. So far performance wise I've seen so little improvement over Win 7 that it really isn't worth mentioning. In fact, some things I do on 8, the main things I do, that I did on 7 actually perform less well on 8. That whole screen hogging App thing is a waste of space on my hard drive. Wouldn't be so bad if the apps could be custom sized or at least do a 50/50 split. So I do not even bother with the apps. When people ask me what I think of Win 8, I tell them I wouldn't do it again knowing what I know now. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but Win 8 just isn't living up to this " 8 is better than 7 both for its Features and for its technologies." for me. The only improvement is that the anti virus is built in. But seriously nothing I've seen in Win 8 says "upgrade" to me. It says "whew buddy, thank goodness you only flushed 40 bucks on this mistake." Here's hoping that MSFT does some work and actually puts some "Wow" into Win 8.

     
  4. Drew

    Drew Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    146
    I will help people w/ IT issues, give out info & offer tips about various Operating Systems but, I will not argue.

    I started w/ the DP, then the CP, followed by the RP; plus through out the duration I was beta testing for Microsoft and ultimately potential End Users of the OS. I did the same work on Vista & Windows 7.

    I will stay a couple things & then move on to assisting others.

    Store APPs:
    1. They are optional. If a person doesn't care for them, they do not have to be used.
    2. Use of the Start screen is, also, optional.
    3. I struggle to know or image what you mean by "moving stuff" to avoid Start.
    4. You are welcome to think Start is ugly. But, that has little importance or significance since there is no obligation to use it.

    I don't find it ugly. I don't use the Start screen or Tiles much, at all, simply because I prefer staying on Desktop & accessing everything from there.

    5. APPS, if used, do not need to be used Full Screen, certainly not all the time. They can be viewed at the same time as Desktop.

    Awkwardness:
    In actuality, navigating Windows 8, especially depending on how it is used, is easier, faster, more convenient, fewer steps, fewer clicks than prior Windows OSs.

    After studying about Win8 from the kernel up, substantial other research & reading and my own A/B comparisons whilst dual-booting Win7 & 8, I am left knowing there are definitely improvements, additions, enhancements for both End Users & Enterprise in both Features & technologies. Whether one sees any of this or not does not negate its existence.

    I am ain the business of IT consulting & support so I tend to view the $40 as a bargain rather than a waste. But, indeed, everyone is entitled to their thoughts & feelings. Personally, I really enjoy how easy Windows 8 is to use & how well it does things.

    If you would be interested in some tips that may make your own use & experience w/ Windows 8 more pleasant & enjoyable, you just need to ask & I will provide them.

    Cheers,
    Drew
    new_windows_logo1.

    2.
     
  5. AceInfinity

    AceInfinity Senior Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    11
    Which things don't work as well on Windows 8 for you?

    You can, move your mouse to the top left, and in the items that appear, drag one to center screen and you'll see. :)

    I think the frustration about Windows 8, is not because it's bad, but people don't have a full understanding of what it is capable of doing. You're forgetting many of the features that aren't part of the UI. In my opinion people get too distracted about the UI itself, that they forget to really take in the bigger picture of how the OS works on a core level.

    And believe me, I was never a fan of Windows 8 either for quite some time, before I really went to learn more about it, and that's all it really takes in my opinion to understand it. I've had everything from the Windows 8 dev preview, and all the builds up to Windows 8 and Windows 8 pro, and i've even tested the RT versions on tablets as well. My MSDN subscription allowed me to download Windows 8 Pro on August 15, 2012, so that's when I first started playing with it :)

    I just don't think people give Windows 8 enough of a chance. They might say they do, like I did, but really you've already made up your mind to hate it... Which won't help you. I didn't even know that the tileview had a search function in a period of 2 weeks time that I first had Windows 8, until I accidentally hit a letter key on my keyboard while it was open, and it automatically took me to the search bar which opened up on the right hand side.

    -Hyper-V
    -Microsoft account integration
    -New detailed TaskManager
    -Windows To Go
    -Windows Live Syncing
    -Improved and faster search performances
    -DirectX Desktop
    -Native USB 3.0 Support
    -Better multi-monitor support
    -Storage Spaces
    -More...
     
  6. Drew

    Drew Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    146
    'AI',

    There's an echo in here... how often I have written previously echoing what you have said. Interesting ironic, that people whom I have shown them Win8 & guided them in its use, love it, are impressed by it and they voice none & have none of the gripes we hear from some (other) folks about the UI or a lack of anything, like Features or performance.

    Cheers,
    Drew
    201672.
     
  7. AceInfinity

    AceInfinity Senior Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    11
    It's interesting that you can confirm this, because I believe this whole idea is true. As with anything that seems to be somewhat new, we always assume the question "Why do we need it?" because we don't really understand what all it can do, and it's human nature to assume things. (Usually negative assumptions, which is why we get ourselves into trouble with miscommunication and depression; unknown is questioned, and we always assume the worst over the best.)

    That evidence behind that concept has been recurring throughout experiences in my life lol, and I can't say that i'm a perfect person that doesn't follow that same trend, because I thought the worst about Windows 8 before I even really knew much about it. All because I lost my start orb, and start menu...

    Thanks for that :)

    ~Ace
     
  8. Drew

    Drew Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    146
    "All because I lost my start orb, and start menu..."

    Which turns out to be no loss @ all, eh, Ace? LOL

    Cheers,
    Drew
    201672.
     
  9. AceInfinity

    AceInfinity Senior Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    11
    Haha no... :02.47-tranquillity:

    I actually like the way the tileview search works even moreso than my start menu. It's also faster, and the way it returns the results is also more organized in my opinion. They did their work on the search function for Windows that's for sure.

    I've always wanted to develop an application or a class at least that would be able to effectively enumerate the files through the $MFT. Realistically, against most traditional search methods, it would be in theory 10 times faster, especially in .NET conventions, it would be the fastest i'd be able to search the filesystem.

    As for resolution with Windows 8, I wasn't aware that Microsoft didn't allow support for lower res screens. My current monitor is at 1920x1080 I believe.
     
  10. Andrea Borman

    Andrea Borman Honorable Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    7
    I have Windows 8 Pro on my MSI Wind netbook that used to run Windows 7. Before that I was using Windows 8 RP the Beta version of Windows 8. Metro apps have never worked on netboks but I don't want to use those anyway. If you want to run all of your software you use on Windows 7,that's fine you can.

    If you have the 32 bit version as I have you can run all of the old 16 bit apps on Windows 8. Such as Windows 3.1 software and Windows 95 games. As for the Metro theme,well I never see that, because I have got Classic Shell installed.
     
  11. nmsuk

    nmsuk Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    194
    I use metro and have no problem with it. I do think it about time Microsoft killed 32bit off and went full 64bit..
     
  12. Andrea Borman

    Andrea Borman Honorable Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    7
    Well I have read that 64 bit Windows is slow but I think they are talking about 64 bit Windows XP and Windows Vista not Windows 7 or 8. Because I have a netbook with only 1 gig of ram I can only install 32 bit Windows. As 64 bit is not compatible with a netbook, as you need at least 2 gigs of ram. 32 bit Windows is better because you can run old software which does not work on 64 bit.

    As for the Metro theme, most people are ignoring it, and using a start menu software like Classic Shell. Which gives you both the start button and Windows XP or Windows 7 start menu.
     
  13. nmsuk

    nmsuk Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    194
    Firstly 64 bit isn't slow it's faster if anything. Secondly judging any OS on a netbook thats underpowered isn't fair. As for it not being compatible well thats your fault for not buying a machine thats future proof. If it was upto me 32bit would go the way of the Dodo. Is long over due..
     
  14. Andrea Borman

    Andrea Borman Honorable Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    7
    The reason I buy netbooks is because they are the only PCs that have 32 bit Windows. In England all of the shops are only selling big laptops with 64 bit. Except for netbooks.

    Okay I suppose I could by a full laptop that has 64 bit Windows and uninstall it and install 32 bit. Problem is that the laptop might only have 64 bit drivers. And I wouldn't know where to find the 32 bit ones that matched the computer. As any 32 bit drivers would have to be compatible for that model.

    Anyway in offices and Internet cafes the computers still have Windows XP 32 bit and that's on a big computer. So why not have 32 bit Windows 7 and Windows 8 on a big desktop or laptop? 32 bit Windows is more compatible with older software than 64 bit is. You can also run 16 bit apps on 32 bit Windows 8, but you can't with 64 bit.
     
    #14 Andrea Borman, Jul 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2013
  15. nmsuk

    nmsuk Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    194
    They all have 64 bit as they're better. I really never get the buying of anything outdated. Drivers now come packaged for 32 and 64 bit from the same place. And why for the love of god would I want to run 16bit software. It's 2013 not 1995.
     
  16. bassfisher6522

    bassfisher6522 Essential Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    317
    The biggest reason; is because of the limitations that the 32 bit OS has. You can ony upgrade to a totall of 3.5 GB of RAM, or 4 GB and only 3.5 is usable. So if you have a laptop, netbook, tablet or PC installing more then 4 GB of RAM is just useless. With a 64 bit OS you can install the maximum amount of RAM your MOBO will allow which will give you better overall PC performance.


    32-bit and 64-bit Windows: frequently asked questions
     
    #16 bassfisher6522, Jul 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2013
  17. Andrea Borman

    Andrea Borman Honorable Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yes when I buy my Windows 7 and Windows 8 installation DVDs they come with both a 32 bit and a 64 bit install CD.

    I am sure it's the same thing with Windows XP and Windows Vista.Though I have never bought a Windows XP installation DVD,as they don't sell them anymore. But my Windows XP netbooks and Windows Vista laptop come with the OS pre-installed.

    I did a video and wrote a post on My Digital Life Forums about installing Windows Mail from Windows Vista on Windows 8. A lot of people tell me it does not work on 64 bit Windows 8 but it is working on mine because I have 32 bit.

    So it seems that a lot of software from Windows XP won't work on 64 bit but works on 32 bit Windows 8. Also you cannot run Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 games on 64 bit. Because they are 16 bit software. Another reason for not running 64 bit.

    They say 64 bit Windows XP and Windows Vista is slow. So I don't know anybody who rums 64 bit in Windows XP or Vista as most people have 32 bit in those versions of Windows. Yes I could buy a big laptop but it would have 64 bit Windows 7 or Windows 8 and I would want to uninstall that and put 32 bit Windows 7 or 8 on it. Though I don't know if a 64 bit laptop would have 32 bit drivers. Where as netbooks do as they are for 32 bit Windows.

    Oh and another problem is secure boot on Windows 8 laptops. Which may not let you clean install or install Windows 7 or 32 bit. I would rather install Windows 8 on one of my Windows 7 laptops.Then I have to option of dual booting with or re-installing Windows 7.
     
  18. nmsuk

    nmsuk Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    194
    1. If a laptop has 64 bit drivers it'll have 32 bit drivers too
    2. XP and Vista 64 bit were not slower than 32 bit. On the contrary
    3. Secure boot can be disabled in the bios.
    4 If 32 bit soft works on 32 bit windows 7/8 it'll work on 64 bit windows.

    Also why would you want to use windows 3.11 soft on windows 7/8 makes no sense as there are updated games. Once again we're going in circles with your inability to comprehend how things move on.
     
    #18 nmsuk, Jul 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  19. Andrea Borman

    Andrea Borman Honorable Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    7
    So what you are saying is if I were to buy a big laptop with 64 bit Windows 7 or 8 as they now sell in the shops,it would also have 32 bit drivers? Meaning I could install 32 bit Windows and the drivers would be compatible with 32 bit?

    I have read that secure boot can be disabled in the Bios settings so you can then install Windows 7. Though I don't see the point in buying a Windows 8 laptop if what you really want is Windows 7. Although chances are because Windows 8 is similar to Windows 7,the drivers might be compatible with Windows 7.

    I did install Windows 3.1 games when I had Windows 8 RP. Which are 16 bit software. See in this video, as proof they work.
    Windows XP and Windows 95 games on Windows 8. - YouTube

    Though they only work on 32 bit Windows 8 and as I have 32 bit Windows,they also work on Windows 8 Pro. They don't work on 64 bit Windows though as you need 32 bit to run 16 bit software.
     
  20. bassfisher6522

    bassfisher6522 Essential Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    317
    Have you ever gotten the ID10T error!
     
    Josephur and Joe S like this.

Share This Page

Loading...