Windows 8 Food for Thought... IRONY

[Drew]

Recently, I saw a fellow contributor, discussing visiting Windows7. He (Ted) had been spending a majority of time w/ Win8 for several wks. But, certainly visiting 7, periodically, @ least updating & maintenance.@ the latest of such an occasion, Ted had come to find 7 'slow' & clunky or 'chunky', were close to his 'feelings'. Win8 had a better snap or 'feel'.

Taking nothing away from noticing differences, there's a human quality here. We trend to have comfort be directly proportional to familiarity. Same as ppl balk @ changing from 1 OS to another. After spending a chunk of time on one... it gets to feel comfy. One is not in one's comfort zone YET and the other isn't in your comfort zone anymore... familiarity, amount of time spent, impacts on comfort zone which, impacts on 'feel'. Grow accustom, as a concept, plays heavily on things.

To put another take on it yet, same moral... I, too, have been non-stop Win8 since 29/2. I, too, visit 7 to tend to it. One, I realize a moment's thought go through my head, "Oh, right, this is different" & LOL. However, I do not find it slow or clunky or chunky BUT,, that's not to say I didn't, also, notice something; here's the irony...

After, all the discussion in forums regarding the lack of the old start button & menu, the dreadful Metro UI & APPs... Things can be found, accessed, used, opened quicker, more directly, more simply & easily, more readily & efficiently available w/ Windows8. It is, actually, in reality, a less cumbersome, less complex, more enjoyable & productive User Experience navigating Windows8

The punch line being... That includes NOT using or visiting Start, btw; 100% Desktop.

Cheers,
Drew

 

[shaneblack]

Some of the criticism thats been made about Windows 7 I feel is not true, I see no reason Win7 should be clunky or chunky (whatever chunky means, it dosent feel fat and bloated like vista was). But in fact for me it feels very fast still. I use Ultimate so I can only speak for that version though.
Everyone remembers how slow vista tended to be, people complained, and MS did alot of great performance fixes resulting in Win7. What I'm getting at is Windows 7 is still a rock solid OS. Even though win 8 probably can run on computers that Win7 struggles with. I think if you have a good system and maintain the OS then you should be okay and get great performance. On my laptop I tried win8 but sadly could not stay because Intel has not released a win8 graphics driver yet so I had issues. I thought both win7 and win8 ran at the same speed.
I could not tell any difference in speed. I have nothing bad to say about Win7 or Win8. I think they are both great improvements MS had made since XP and Vista. I would like to hear more good things about Win7, maybe we could be talking about the many failures of XP or Vista, and the time we all had to spend in hell using them for 5-10 years. Poor driver support and hunting done the right drivers usually spent a whole day to get everything working. Those tasks where tiring and annoying. I glad I'm out of that mess for good. Win7 deserves more credit and less bashing.

 

[Drew]

By the way, Shane, I wasn't meaning to suggest or imply anything negative towards 7. Agreed, it's damn good & better than, either, XP or Vista. Mostly, I was just rambling about the human psyche and how getting around in 8 is not the misery some ppl say.

Maybe, typing one doesn't always 'sound' as objective as they are coming from (pls, excuse the bad grammar)

Cheers,
Drew

 

[shaneblack]

Yeah, I know you said its good. I was mainly talking about Ted and what he said, slow and clunky. I feel thats a false perspective about win7, if you have the right hardware you should have plenty of speed and performance. Win8 isn't that big of a change in my opinion, once someone is used to Metro I would think it would be easy using both 8 and 7 because win8 is layed ontop of 7. What I mean is that the features like control panel are basically the same so in fact the user would know alot about where things still are and how things worked when using desktop. Ted, you could say win8 is more improved then 7, but to the majority of pc users I dont think that makes win7 slow. Your pc just might like win8 better, but everyones different, and you cant make that conclusion about all computers because results can vary. I have maxed out my RAM and have a Duo Core cpu so my performance is top notch.

 

[Adamsappleone]

I would think it would be easy using both 8 and 7 because win8 is layed on top of 7

Don't know how many times I've mentioned that.
I have not seen any real difference between the 2 other than the visual obvious.

Don

 

[MikeHawthorne]

Hi

I do see a real difference and I could measure it with a stopwatch.

Aside from booting which is all the world different seconds instead of minutes, a lot of things that I do, i.e. creating 3D images and video or editing video, working in Indesign or Photoshop I see a real difference in how long processing takes.

When I do things it just seems to take longer to respond, some times I click again because I don't think it got it and then open two copies of the same program.

This isn't on a order of magnitude compatible to the difference with the boot speed, but I find my self getting impatient in W7 and feeling like things I'm doing should be done by now.

I'm not seeing a big difference in gaming, I get a solid 60 fps in almost everything anyway.
But I think that level loading may be a little quicker.

Mike

 

[Medico]

I feel I have to discuss my statements, made in a different forum, to explain my feeling.

First, I have Win 7 Ultimate and Win 8 RP in a dual boot scenario on my laptop. Same H/W obviously!

I keep both my OS's optimized to the fullest, with all temp files deleted regularly, all TIF deleted when browsers are closed, and the OS defragged when ever I Images my OS's (At least once per month).

I use the same methods to optimize both OS's, have generally the same apps running in the background (real time) except I have Malwarebytes Pro on my Win 8 RP OS.

I have used Win 8 full time since the release of Win 8 CP. I now use Win 8 RP. I clean installed Win 8 RP into a deleted partition that was unallocated space on my HD (I had previously deleted Win 8 CP).

I consider Win 7 an excellent OS. I have stated in other forums that I would only move to Win 8 Pro if the price was right (Obviously the price announced is definitely right).

When I am on Win 7 Ultimate I find myself saying "come on do something". It seems things are not quite so responsive as Win 8 RP. This do not snap quite so nicely. Do I have documented times, NO, it just seems "clunky". That is my opinion. I will keep my Images of Win 7 on both our laptops, but Win 8 Pro will be installed on both using a Clean Install from DVD. Both our PC's have a separate Data Drive so the new OS will not affect our data in the least.

I did not mean to imply what so ever that Win 7 was not an excellent OS, or even that Win XP was not an excellent OS. It's just that on my laptop, Win 8 RP is more responsive.

 

[MikeHawthorne]

Hi Ted

That's exactly how I feel when I go back to Windows 7, "Come on do something", so while I haven't actually measured that difference I can really feel it.

Some things that are really demanding like generating a 3D image can be really noticeable, other things just feel slow.

My computer is very fast, I can generate an image in Poser in a few minutes or so where some users on older computer can actually take an hour or more to do the same thing.

Ten seconds (3,000 Frames) of HD 3D Video will take only about 20 minutes to generate in Windows 8, and about 25 minutes in Windows 7. I didn't actually go back and do the same video in both but I work in 10 second segments and it's pretty consistent as far as time goes.

We had a whole discussion of it with test renders etc. on the Poser forum a while back.

But Windows 8 is a real step up as far as my computer goes.
It just feels better then Widows 7.

My performance index measures higher in Windows 8 then in 7 as well.

Mike

 

[whs]

I fail to see any real performance difference between /7 and /8. Remind you that all my systems run from SSDs.

In regard to the operational characteristics, I prefer /7 by far. I find /8 clumsy and in terms of new functions and facilities there is really nothing that attracts me.

 

[MikeHawthorne]

I'm not running SSDs so it makes it hard to compare but I'm sure that it will vary from computer to computer.

I had no intent do update to Windows 8 when I started testing it, I thought that I'd wait until I got a new computer next year but after using it I will upgrade in October and remove Windows 7 from my PC.

Mike

 

[Mitchell_A]

There's a human quality here. We trend to have comfort be directly proportional to familiarity. Same as ppl balk @ changing from 1 OS to another. After spending a chunk of time on one... it gets to feel comfy. One is not in one's comfort zone YET and the other isn't in your comfort zone anymore... familiarity, amount of time spent, impacts on comfort zone which, impacts on 'feel'. Grow accustom, as a concept, plays heavily on things.

Ain't that the truth. Having used Windows Phone 7 since its release in October 2010, I have became quite accustomed to the metro interface and I love it. People hate change, older people especially. It's like Facebook - they have to change/add new features to make sure you keep coming back, and everytime they change something, the users bitch about it but become accustomed to/like it within a matter of weeks at the most. The same principle applies here.

 

[shaneblack]

I fail to see any real performance difference between /7 and /8. Remind you that all my systems run from SSDs.

In regard to the operational characteristics, I prefer /7 by far. I find /8 clumsy and in terms of new functions and facilities there is really nothing that attracts me.

I feel the same way, my laptop runs 7 and I game, play HD videos, browse websites, and do alot of multi-media work. I find anything and everything that I throw at it runs very fast, right down to a split second. nothing about my win7 is slow at all. Plus the layout is beautiful with slideshow wallpapers and stunning aero transparency (something win8 wont have when released), it allows me to blend colors and wallpapers together in such amazing detail which works great along with the desktop gadgets. My HDD is only 5400rpm but that doesn't slow 7 down one bit. All your features are in one place which saves time and now theres some programs on the web to change your start button to a different icon which is very nice. The whole system can be customized to your liking leaving nothing out of your reach. The level of detail put into windows 7 look and feel is something I've yet to see in windows 8. I do not like how flat and unappealing the colors are. I do not like running around to different places just to do one thing. And I also I'm not happy with the battery life either, when I used it I noticed my battery only lasted one hour on power saver, as apposed to 3 hours on 7. If they don't make changes and bring back at least some of the features like transparency and easier navigation, then I will no longer be interested in upgrading. Thats my final thought.

 

[Medico]

I have found there are 2 groups of people, those that really like Win 8, and those that really do not like Win 8.

Quite often the don't like folks are just having a problem adapting to the changes. I do not feel it's an age thing. Heck I'm 60 and I love Win 8. But then again I have heavily customized my Win 8 RP. But then again I heavily customized my Win 7 as well. Actually my Win 8 and my Win 7 look and feel very similar. My Win 8 RP just seems to have more features I can access a little easier. The Power Users Menu gives me access to many apps that have to be drilled down to on Win 7. That is just a quicker way to do things.

I really like the Picture Password option, and logging onto my Live account when I log onto my PC. The Win 8 sync feature works well to sync 2 Win 8 PC's.

The final factor that convinced me was the price.

 

[shaneblack]

I have found there are 2 groups of people, those that really like Win 8, and those that really do not like Win 8.

I would be in a third group that likes windows 8 but wants to see more done with it. I would like a Metro on/off switch, I would Aero transparency, I would like to switch off apps so the don't use resources, more battery life, no default sign-in has to be by E-mail address give us an option to use normal user and pass, and work on the colors so their not flat and plain add some effects.

Things I really like include, the lock screen which is just beautiful, the charms bar, Metro, new menus and features.

I like Metro but I don't want it running all the time, I would like be able to shut it down like you would a program. I like the Metro apps but don't want them running all the time.

In conclusion I think MS is on the right track with Windows 8, But for me to use the new OS I need these certain options because I like being in control of my OS. If I want to change it to my preferences then I must know I will have these options along with knowing I'm not losing any previous features that was in 7 like Aero. If they do that then I will support 8 completely.

 

[MikeHawthorne]

Ain't that the truth. Having used Windows Phone 7 since its release in October 2010, I have became quite accustomed to the metro interface and I love it. People hate change, older people especially. It's like Facebook - they have to change/add new features to make sure you keep coming back, and everytime they change something, the users bitch about it but become accustomed to/like it within a matter of weeks at the most. The same principle applies here.

Hey I'm the oldest person here and I like change, I'm the first person to try everything, I've beta tested dozens of games, one of the first to run Windows 7 and here I am getting ready to go with Windows 8, I may also be one of the first to have a Microsoft Pad if it lives up to the hype.

No slamming old people! LOL

Mike

 

[MikeHawthorne]

I like Metro but I don't want it running all the time, I would like be able to shut it down like you would a program.
I like the Metro apps but don't want them running all the time.

In conclusion I think MS is on the right track with Windows 8, But for me to use the new OS I need these certain options because I like being in control of my OS. If I want to change it to my preferences then I must know I will have these options along with knowing I'm not losing any previous features that was in 7 like Aero. If they do that then I will support 8 completely.

Well I'm copping out here a little but you can have exactly what you are asking for for the most part with a few tweaks.

I can switch back and forth to the Metro UI, and my computer boots to the desktop not the Metro UI.

This can all be done with out third party software with options built into W8.

I used only the Metro interface for a while to get used to it, but I never found it more convenient to use then working from the desktop.

I take it one step farther and install Classic Shell which lets me switch back and forth between the pure Windows 8 Metro interface and an interface that gives me menus etc, like Windows XP, with one click.

So far I don't see much point in the apps, my present software for watching video, and e-mailing works better.

But I also have an iPad, and I see the need to have the Metro UI.

You would be hard pressed to run Windows 7 on a pad.
When I get a Windows based pad I will fully embrace the Windows 8 UI and probably it's apps too.

Until then I will run Windows 8 on my large monitor PC exactly the way I ran Windows 7 and take advantage of the things it does do better.

Mike

 

[shaneblack]

Well I'm copping out here a little but you can have exactly what you are asking for for the most part with a few tweaks.

I can switch back and forth to the Metro UI, and my computer boots to the desktop not the Metro UI.

This can all be done with out third party software with options built into W8.

I used only the Metro interface for a while to get used to it, but I never found it more convenient to use then working from the desktop.

I take it one step farther and install Classic Shell which lets me switch back and forth between the pure Windows 8 Metro interface and an interface that gives me menus etc, like Windows XP, with one click.

So far I don't see much point in the apps, my present software for watching video, and e-mailing works better.

But I also have an iPad, and I see the need to have the Metro UI.

You would be hard pressed to run Windows 7 on a pad.
When I get a Windows based pad I will fully embrace the Windows 8 UI and probably it's apps too.

Until then I will run Windows 8 on my large monitor PC exactly the way I ran Windows 7 and take advantage of the things it does do better.

Mike

I understand where your coming from and for a minute I forgot about some useful websites that can give you Aero transparency, so for the most part I too like Windows 8. Of course its great for tablets, thats just a given. However I did have a chance to get ahold of a Windows 7 tablet from a friend and I must say its really not that bad, if you have a stylus pen. Having the pen is a must, but by far MS has been making progress ever since the aftermath of Vista. With all the right HW and service packs Vista is a pretty good OS.

" I'm sure many people have their own opinions about what they like best. If you want to give people common courtesy just say it didn't work good for me, or, I think it works best for me. Making general statements like, windows 7 is slow, will only make people upset because hey, it might not be slow for them. Older people try new things too, just like you said about someone else being general. Everyones different. "

 

[davehc]

Like Mitchell_A, I have tried hard to use Windows 8 in its original concept, and have now become more accustomed to the Metro "Interface"
I prefer that word "Interface". I am not, so far, regarding the metro "interface" as a desktop. I am aware that Microsoft are constantly referring to it as such, but, if it were so, then why, after using an app, are we returned to the more familiar legacy desktop, and not to the Metro screen?
For this reason only, I am using the latest release of "Classic", which in the familiar surroundings of the legacy desktop, could sometimes be more convenient. However, I find myself using that feature less, as time goes by, and usually just give the one click return to the Metro.
Very few users actually have a regular need for the mass of applications which were in the old menu, particularly when accompanied by the usual third party applications. I, so far, as I said previously, am regarding the metro screen as a graphical start menu. If you remove those items which are rarely used (they are still available, instantly, - "All Apps"). you have a reasonable, uncluttered, graphical start menu. You even have your start button, but now hidden, should you be returned to the desktop - swish, bottom left corner, or the Windows key.
Metro, I agree, in its present form, is not the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. But, hopefully, this is one of the areas of self customisation which MS will improve before the next release.
For reasons connected to my work mode, and multi tasking, I am not comfortable so far, using pure Metro applications which go full screen. This also, is not a problem. I have uninstalled the majority, and the "Store" items have plenty of suitable standard, non-metro alternatives.
I see a huge percentage of posters on forums, who offer up incredibly cluttered desktops, or taskbars. The OP himself will admit to this? Perhaps I have the wrong perspective on it, but how can this possible be an advantage to the straight and direct use of the Metro screen? (Except, of course, for those with that taste, it is no longer possible to have those beautiful picture desktops as a background?)
Operationally, now benchmarks are beginning to pop up, and on my own amateur tests, there is, without argument, a marginal performance improvement. imo, I do not see that improvement as anything to be too excited about. In fairness, it does seem to be more by rearrangement of background services or, for that matter, earlier items which were constant in the background. I felt at the time that these small changes could have been adjusted with a Windows 7 SP, but, as it would have needed major kernel alterations, perhaps not. Certainly, for those who are thinking of purchasing - in particular large company buyers, I would not see that it could warrant the expense, if, at present, they are comfortable with Windows 7.

P.S.
Quote "Hey I'm the oldest person here and I like change, I'm the first person to try everything, I've beta tested dozens of games, one of the first to run Windows 7 and here I am getting ready to go with Windows 8, I may also be one of the first to have a Microsoft Pad if it lives up to the hype.

No slamming old people

Right on!! But, maybe the second oldest? I am 78, still testing furiously. LOL

 

[Medico]

Damn, I feel like a pup at 60.

My feeling is that the Metro UI Notice I also call this a User Interface, not a desktop) is designed more for play, as are most tablets. Yes they can be used for minor work, displaying presentations, email, surfing, etc. The main heavy duty work will be done on the desktop.

I do not think we should have an on/off switch for Metro because it ain't gonna happen. With Classic Shell, my PC boots directly to desktop with a brief stop at the Metro UI. I do sometimes go back to Metro, through the Charms Bar to utilize the User customization options, and setup options. Otherwise I stay on the Desktop UI.

 

[davehc]

Diversion, perhaps, from the nature of the thread. But, if you examine the poster profiles in various forums.( Like yourself, I belong to seven such, as a regular visitor, and moderate on five) You will notice the majority of prolific and genuine helpers, are in the "no longer young" category. Maybe we have too much time on our hands!!!