Windows 8

Maura74

I maybe purchasing a laptop soon and am looking at windows 8 OS, dose anyone have experience of this system and how does it compare to windows 7.

Thanks:)

Bad Panda

It won't be on general release until October.

It's designed with to work with a standard laptop/PC or touch screen enabled.#

I don't really like the the look of it myself.

You can get a laptop in the meantime and 'upgrade' to WIN8 for 40e, just make sure the one you get can be supported on it, but you shouldn't have any problems.

yellowlabrador

I tend to wait a while after a release to see how it gets received and to allow bugs to be ironed out. In any case, Microsoft is offering a 40$ upgrade from any older operating system. I also think that it might be more suited to a touch screen computer, so I'd go with windows 7 for a while.

yellowlabrador

hoe funny we posted within seconds:D

chin_grin

My only opinion of it thus far is that it has a horrible GUI! I know it was a leap from xp to 7, but they're getting quite rediculous expecting one standard UI across the board to appease tablet and mobile users.

uncle_sam_ie

Don't you get a free upgrade to win 8 if you buy a new PC though?

yoyo

Moved to Windows

Bad Panda

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Don't you get a free upgrade to win 8 if you buy a new PC though?

I don't think so (unless PC World or whoever is offering it); you'll get WIN7 on your new machine, but if you then want WIN8 it's just 40e.

They're trying to compete with Apple (which I'm moving to) by offering low cost upgrades to new OS's. For as long as I can remember, it's only been about 30e to update OS X to the next version.

JustAddWater

chin_grin wrote: »

My only opinion of it thus far is that it has a horrible GUI! I know it was a leap from xp to 7, but they're getting quite rediculous expecting one standard UI across the board to appease tablet and mobile users.

The GUI in particular the metro UI is horrible on laptops and prob desktops too! The startbar removal from the UI is not being very well received at all

That said, the ability to pause copy/paste, merging multiple copy/paste jobs to 1 window, as well as the revamped task manager are all excellent but really UI comes first and it's quite hard to find basic things

Try shutting down without the start bar. It's OK if you remember the shortcuts but if you don't...

OP if you're buying a laptop now, check first, you should get an upgrade voucher

Capt'n Midnight

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Don't you get a free upgrade to win 8 if you buy a new PC though?

some places are offering it as an add on for €15 when you buy a new machine - check before you buy
it would be €40 later

nearer the time it may be a free option - who knows ?

Microsoft are not a charity.

and as far as the license is concerned it's a one way upgrade, if you don't like it you aren't supposed to go back

stevenmu

JustAddWater wrote: »

Try shutting down without the start bar. It's OK if you remember the shortcuts but if you don't...

It's in the Charm Bar, no need to remember short cuts or anything like that, it has just moved from one place to another.

Maura74

Thanks guys for help, I have to get a new laptop as my Sony Vaio is a pig now, it has a line running all the down the screen and it would be very expensive to get it fixed. I have looked in shops and have seen ASCAE laptops selling for £479 with a 17" screen and with windows 8 as well as a large memory.

After reading your answers, I think it is a good idea to wait until all the gremlins are ironed out

stevenmu

Maura74 wrote: »

I have looked in shops and have seen ASCAE laptops selling for £479 with a 17" screen and with windows 8 as well as a large memory.

Are you sure it wasn't Windows 7? Windows 8 hasn't been released yet, it hasn't even been finalised and given a fixed release date yet, so it shouldn't be on sale anywhere.

Firblog

With the last 2 releases, xp to vista, and vista to win 7, you could upgrade for free when buying a new computer within a couple of months of the release of the new o/s, depending on the make you purchased; ie tosh charged nothing, but hp charged 20 when 'upgrading' from xp to vista.

calex71

Put it this way OP i would not buy a new laptop or desktop that came with Windows 8 unless a) I had a copy of windows 7 to install on it or b) it came with a downgrade option.

The new UI is just not for devices without a touch screen, from the last build I tried it was just horrible on a desk top with mouse and keyboard, the new apps can't be X'd out of or scrolled in a way that is natural even... you have you use the bar, left /right arrow keys didn't work, and closing them while they do look nice was a pain having to mouse top left screen, right click close.

Once you get back to windows proper, the new additions to explorer are nice , but having to mouse over different corners of the screen to get to various places is a chore and not worth even the rock bottom $15 "upgrade" fee. I would be very surprised at any business who adopt it in its out of the box form.

In short it's a touch screen os , whoever thought it was a good idea to implement it as it is for desktops and laptops should be fired quite frankly.

It's not as if they were short of inspiration either , all they had to do was look at the unity desktop or what apple have done and come up with something usable

Odaise Gaelach

calex71 wrote: »

...and closing them while they do look nice was a pain having to mouse top left screen, right click close.

Move your mouse to the top of the screen until it turns into a hand. Then click and drag the app down, until it "falls" to the bottom of the screen, then release.

calex71

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

Move your mouse to the top of the screen until it turns into a hand. Then click and drag the app down, until it "falls" to the bottom of the screen, then release.

Having a red x that appears when you mouse over top right that you click to close the app must have been ruled a no no by the developers, why would they want to make it easy for us sure

Truly baffling some of the stuff that has been implemented, even on a tablet a long click on a red x would have been better than what they came up with.

Sonics2k

I was having major issues with the Metro tiles not opening properly. They'd pop up and close, but it seems to be sorted now after I changed the Screen Resolution once or twice.

IE10 metro is still not working properly, which I admit isn't exactly a great loss, but it's annoying as I was starting to get used to the new version.

Applebhoy

Have been using the full final release since August 15th (I am a technet subscriber) ,and really impressed with Microsoft this time.
The Operating system really flows easily, and boot in approx 5-10 seconds.
It takes a few hours to get use to the changes, but its looks and feels really good.
I also have installed office 2013 preview and both work well together.
I am not a big Microsoft fan, as i use Mac's 90% of the time, but fell they deserve alot of praise on this one.

_Kaiser_

I genuinely don't get this obsession with boot time.

I mean, my Win 7 laptop (and desktop) both get to the login screen in about 10 seconds from cold - is maybe 2 seconds THAT much of a saving?

Surely the true test is to see how long it takes to be READY after you log on, let all your tray apps, toolbars, side widgets, preload bloat, whatever finish setting up? Personally I like a clean desktop, tray so I only have the essentials running on startup.

But for the average user, I'm sure once you take all that into account there'll be virtually no difference myself... except one has a usable, efficent, refined and proven desktop interface and the other... wellll...

testicle

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I genuinely don't get this obsession with boot time.

I mean, my Win 7 laptop (and desktop) both get to the login screen in about 10 seconds from cold - is maybe 2 seconds THAT much of a saving?

Surely the true test is to see how long it takes to be READY after you log on, let all your tray apps, toolbars, side widgets, preload bloat, whatever finish setting up? Personally I like a clean desktop, tray so I only have the essentials running on startup.

But for the average user, I'm sure once you take all that into account there'll be virtually no difference myself... except one has a usable, efficent, refined and proven desktop interface and the other... wellll...

Win 8 is ready in that time, not just booted.

Capt'n Midnight

testicle wrote: »

Win 8 is ready in that time, not just booted.

Gone are the days when you had to reboot windows on a daily basis.

Resume is much faster.

Fysh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Gone are the days when you had to reboot windows on a daily basis.

Resume is much faster.

+1

It's been about 5 years since I made the switch to using hibernation rather than cold start, and I haven't seen any of the changes in Vista or 7 make anywhere near as big a change in this regard as I'd like, especially if you're talking about untinkered systems (ie those where nobody has spent a few minutes with msconfig ensuring that unwanted crapware doesn't launch on startup/login).

I would expect, from what I saw of the Release Preview, that switching to an SSD would make a much bigger change to Realistic Startup Time (ie time from hitting power button to being able to get work done in Application X, rather than time from hitting power button to seeing login screen) than any improvement in Windows 8 over 7. I'd be delighted to be wrong, but I've gotten used to treating MS' claims about "faster boot times" the same way I treat their claims about "minimum supported specifications" - they're at best aspirational goals, but achieving them requires some fairly specialised conditions....

CSU

...it boggles my mind why MS didn't try to make W8 an all in one solution, they're saying it was designed around the touch screen...but only that, just the ruddy screen.

How flucking awesome would it have been if W8 could run on anything from old arm tablets and laptops to the higher end PC's of gamers? W8 requires too much of the hardware resources (something I feel all MS OS's have done).

I just don't see the point of W8 TBH, tis not for me I'm afraid...all them square boxes wasting space and charm bars and ****e - get the boat:pac:

unkel

Fysh wrote: »

I would expect, from what I saw of the Release Preview, that switching to an SSD would make a much bigger change to Realistic Startup Time (ie time from hitting power button to being able to get work done in Application X, rather than time from hitting power button to seeing login screen) than any improvement in Windows 8 over 7. I'd be delighted to be wrong

You will be delighted so

SSD makes much less of a difference than the move from W7 to W8. Last of BIOS to windows logo is really only a few seconds - login is possible another few seconds later and realistic work can be done another few seconds later

Did you install Release Preview yourself (or even RTM) and have a go?

BostonB

CSU wrote: »

...i... W8 requires too much of the hardware resources (...

How so? it runs fine on my lower end hardware. I think its better than W7 for speed myself.

Fysh

unkel wrote: »

You will be delighted so

SSD makes much less of a difference than the move from W7 to W8. Last of BIOS to windows logo is really only a few seconds - login is possible another few seconds later and realistic work can be done another few seconds later

Did you install Release Preview yourself (or even RTM) and have a go?

Installed it, fought with the UI for a while, hated it, fought with it some more (figuring that there might be some things I'd grow to like about it), still hated it, decided I was sick of this nonsense when attempting to use the App store required me to log in with a Live account, set up Windows To Go on a USB 2.0 drive, tried that out, discovered that it's a lovely idea in principle but you need USB 3.0 for it to be worth a damn, decided I'd leave it alone until the RTM version was out. I didn't notice boot times or login times to be appreciably faster than Win 7 on the same machine, though that may be coloured by the extremely negative experience I had of NotMetro - ie fighting with stupid bloody tiles and trying to figure out where everything was because MS have had an attack of the Galloping Appleitis and decided that it's all so intuitive that they don't need to explain where things are.

RTM version is now out for Volume Licence customers. I'll probably stick it on a separate drive on my workstation and try it out, but I'm exceptionally skeptical about this "honestly, you're up and running in seconds" business - MS have been promising this for years, and every time a new version of Windows has rolled around I've found I'm sitting there after logging on waiting for profile to load and services to start. Resuming from hibernation to an in-progress session on a local profile remains the fastest power-button-to-useful-work transition I've ever seen (Win7 + SSD).

unkel

Fysh wrote: »

I'm exceptionally skeptical about this "honestly, you're up and running in seconds" business - MS have been promising this for years

This time they weren't lying

I've done several fresh installs in all the public releases of W8 and also a few upgrades from W7 to W8, both X86 and X64 and in all cases everything just worked (no issues with drivers whatsoever)

Fysh wrote: »

Installed it, fought with the UI for a while, hated it

LOL, me too

Fysh wrote: »

fought with it some more (figuring that there might be some things I'd grow to like about it), still hated it, decided I was sick of this nonsense

That's where I took a different approach. I was afraid of hating it, so in W8 dev preview, I switched off Metro at that stage

In W8 cons preview I just installed Vistart and used W8 like W7 (just quicker, more stable and of course free )

In recent times I have started fighting a bit more with the UI, taking it slow

I have no idea how the masses (or the corporate market) will react to Metro though. I think it is crazy MS haven't included a simple on/off switch (for either metro and no startbutton or normal desktop plus startbutton). Why take the big risk? :eek:

BostonB

Because if they make it like W7 much fewer pepople will see any reason to buy it.

Forcing people to Metro/Live will bring them to their app store and other cloud offerings.

The question is, does it have anything you need, or want, and for most people that will be no.

For others who want a cheap OS, that can be made to run like W7 its a no brainer. Cheaper and faster than Vista/W7 and you can turn off Metro.

Fysh

BostonB wrote: »

Because if they make it like W7 much fewer pepople will see any reason to buy it.

Forcing people to Metro/Live will bring them to their app store and other cloud offerings.

The question is, does it have anything you need, or want, and for most people that will be no.

For others who want a cheap OS, that can be made to run like W7 its a no brainer. Cheaper and faster than Vista/W7 and you can turn off Metro.

I agree on the motivation stated in bold above, though there are 2 problems:

1) MS are smoking something amazing if they think gamers are going to bail on Steam and start using the MS Store; if anything gamers will likely just avoid Win8 for the time being.

2) The smart thing for them to do, which they don't appear to have done, would have been to position the MS Store as a repository type system that could vastly simplify package management for corporate customers. I'm betting they opted not to do this because it might annoy the various enterprise-scale vendors who sell products to do this (the likes of Kace, Secunia, etc) but frankly every day that passes without Windows having a package manager worth a damn is a continuing indictment of Microsoft's architecture.

BostonB

Underneath it works like Windows 7 so you can use the regular Steam app?

Fysh

BostonB wrote: »

Underneath it works like Windows 7 so you can use the regular Steam app?

I would hope so

I was trying to highlight that gamers who are already using Steam already have the app store functionality (in fact, a better version of it than Win 8 offers, since Steam is cross-platform), so they don't need to move to Win 8 to get it. So as sales pitches go, it's not a particularly compelling one.

Overheal

BostonB wrote: »

Underneath it works like Windows 7 so you can use the regular Steam app?

Absolutely. 8 will have it's own "App store" which will contain software that plays nice with the new "Start" menu/Tile interface and work in fullscreen. But it will still have Desktop view and run all standard PC software. I've run into no compatibility issues myself.

The only real difference I have found in the desktop from 8 to 7 is the traditional start menu is gone, and replaced with the tile menu, which is a bit jarring. Fortunately though the powerful search functionality of the existing start menu still seems present.

BostonB

I'm using Classic Shell myself.

I mentioned about the regular Steam app because some people in this forum seem obsessed with the idea that you can only run W8 with Metro apps and the interface. They don't seem to realise that Windows 7 Win32 API and desktop are still there if you want them.

For want of a better word you can run Windows 8 as Windows 8 Metro, or Windows 8 Classic. (7.5 ?)

Fysh

BostonB wrote: »

I'm using Classic Shell myself.

I mentioned about the regular Steam app because some people in this forum seem obsessed with the idea that you can only run W8 with Metro apps and the interface. They don't seem to realise that Windows 7 Win32 API and desktop are still there if you want them.

For want of a better word you can run Windows 8 as Windows 8 Metro, or Windows 8 Classic. (7.5 ?)

If you have to install a sourceforge project like Classic Shell to get the OS to do what you want it to do, your requirements and its design are at odds.

Don't get me wrong, it's nifty that Classic Shell exists, and I will most likely make use of it when I get win8 installed on my test box at work. But it's also undeniably f'in stupid that this is what you have to do if you find that NotMetro is not suited to your working habits.

You've mentioned some notional improvement in boot time, which is fair enough - but what other specific advantages do you get from Win 8 that make it worth switching from Win 7? In the context of my organisation, I'm just not seeing anything that's going to make it a compelling move - even the tablet support won't sway most folk, because by now those who want tablets specifically want iPads. Windows To Go has some appeal, but thus far that's about it...

BostonB

I prefer the Classic Shell Windows 7 too because they left out stuff in W7 thats in XP if you're being picky

The whole system feels faster (than7) in use, interface and just generally doing things. I read that a lot more of the OS is multi threaded and perhaps thats why. I don't know tbh. On a clean install it found more hardware and installed the right drivers for it than W7 does. Well on the low end laptop I tried. 2GB/1.5 C2D.

While W7 gives you more RAM, 64 etc, and better drivers and a bit more robust for stability. In terms of interface or OS features, theres almost nothing nothing in W7 I need over XP. In fact it removed some useful things from the GUI. Hence Classic Shell above.

I think MS is making a mistake with Metro. But W8 isn't as bad as some would have you believe.

Overheal

BostonB wrote: »

I'm using Classic Shell myself.

I mentioned about the regular Steam app because some people in this forum seem obsessed with the idea that you can only run W8 with Metro apps and the interface. They don't seem to realise that Windows 7 Win32 API and desktop are still there if you want them.

For want of a better word you can run Windows 8 as Windows 8 Metro, or Windows 8 Classic. (7.5 ?)

My understanding is some lower end tablets (the surface) will ship as Metro-Only versions of windows 8, while the "Pro" will still have desktop mode, but I could be wrong about that.

BostonB

That's my understanding. But I don't think anyone's that bothered about those other versions

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

My understanding is some lower end tablets (the surface) will ship as Metro-Only versions of windows 8, while the "Pro" will still have desktop mode, but I could be wrong about that.

ARM devices with Windows RT will still have a desktop but it's quite limited as you can't exactly run anything on it. It's only there for IE10 and Office (in desktop mode) and Windows Explorer.

BostonB

I think people get confused if you talk about desktop mode. Windows 8 x86 will have Metro and also the legacy/desktop mode (Win32 API) side, the latter Win32 can run legacy apps, desktop apps.

Windows 8 ARM - WOA (or Windows on ARM) - will have a desktop but ( I'm guessing) it has (under the hood) nothing to do with Win32 desktop mode on x86. The version of IE and Office will be ARM versions, and not have all the features of x86 (Win32) versions of IE10 and Office.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/07/office_for_arm_stripped/

Overheal

goodie. from a retail standpoint and the ignorance of the general public i can see this being a headache

BostonB

The add to the mix the Windows Phone 7 and 8 ...

Of course considering the way MS has killed Windows phone 7 would you gamble on a MS tablet being supported for long? I wouldn't.

Overheal

BostonB wrote: »

The add to the mix the Windows Phone 7 and 8 ...

Of course considering the way MS has killed Windows phone 7 would you gamble on a MS tablet being supported for long? I wouldn't.

Actually I would. about 1 in 4 people I sell tablets to will inquire about microsoft applications (to which there are none noteworthy on iOS or Android; there is Skydrive, and Onenote. Basically). When these things hit the shelf, with a keyboard and trackpad built into an included "smartcover", and the ability to use office applications, people will flip their ****. Assuming the price is right. For many though just having their native office applications will be all the push they require to buy a tablet. The only thing that can stop MS, really, is the existing market: people that caved in, and already own droid tabs or the iPad and won't be quick to switch. Their shoe-in though will be returning laptop customers that will see it as an alternative to buying another piece of **** laptop for under $400 and hoping it lasts more than 2 years. People who are heavily invested in iTunes or Android markets though will be hard pressed to change teams. For me though the only thing I was heavily invested in was Comixology's app, but they're there, so I'm good

BostonB

MS record with supporting mobile devices is quite poor. Ask Nokia.

Fysh

Hmm. Win 8 x64 Enterprise eval is installed on my home desktop (would've been x86 version but for unknown reasons I can't be arsed investigating, that wouldn't install).

So far, my experience is about the same as with the Consumer/Release Previews - ie it's fast and nice in much the same way that I find Win7 to be, but the UI continues to gently tickle a donkey's balls with its tongue.

After 20 minutes, I gave in and stuck Classic Shell on there to see what it was like, and I suspect that me getting on with Win8 at all is going to depend on whether Microsoft try to nobble it.

I notice as well that Microsoft STILL haven't copped the feck on about account security worth a damn. During setup, you can create a local account (and they can feck off if they think I'm using anything other than a local account) - but you can't create a local user account. The account creation screen tells you that they recommend creating a local user account, but doesn't appear to offer any way of creating one there - so you have to create the first account as an administrator, then cock about in the Users section of the control panel to create a new account as a local user. Which is frankly bloody silly.

The Windows Store seems to be somewhat pointless as well. I created a new Live account to use with it, and noticed that they had incorporated the likes of Adobe Reader there. Except you can't actually install it from there - you have to go through to the Adobe site to get the reader installation package. Hopefully this at least means that updates to Reader will be cascaded out through the Store, but given the lack of talk about using the store as a repository and the fact that Adobe haven't put Reader on there so far, I won't be holding my breath.

I installed the Office 2013 preview to see what it looked like too, and so far it's like someone decided the 2010 UI was too interesting - so they've not changed very much except to make the menu less visually distinctive. I'll keep playing, but I don't see anything that would make me switch from Libre Office for home use...

200motels

I've been running Windows 8 for the past few weeks and I don't like it, I know you can switch to desktop mode but I prefer the way it is in 7, TBH I prefer Windows XP to any other O/S, it was Microsoft's best O/S, I have it running on an old PC and I prefer it to any other O/S.

Torqay

200motels wrote: »

I prefer Windows XP to any other O/S, it was Microsoft's best O/S

Close but not quite...

Win2k3 is still my absolute favourite. Of course, spending $999 on an operating system might be a bit of an overkill (official retail price, OEM or "subscriber" is a lot cheaper though).

It is significantly more stable, faster and more responsive than XP... even with all the goodies and eye candy enabled (by default it comes across as a vamped up version of Windows 2000, it is a server OS after all). There are a few drawbacks, hardware support is not as universal as with XP (if a piece of hardware ware is not officially supported, the XP driver can wreak havoc). But in general, I'd say it is the best OS MS have officially released, ever.

200motels

Torqay wrote: »

Close but not quite...

Win2k3 is still my absolute favourite. Of course, spending $999 on an operating system might be a bit of an overkill (official retail price, OEM or "subscriber" is a lot cheaper though).

It is significantly more stable, faster and more responsive than XP... even with all the goodies and eye candy enabled (by default it comes across as a vamped up version of Windows 2000, it is a server OS after all). There are a few drawbacks, hardware support is not as universal as with XP (if a piece of hardware ware is not officially supported, the XP driver can wreak havoc). But in general, I'd say it is the best OS MS have officially released, ever.

I never used Win2k3 but if it's as good as you say I'll do a search on the net to see what people say about it.

200motels

Torqay wrote: »

Close but not quite...

Win2k3 is still my absolute favourite. Of course, spending $999 on an operating system might be a bit of an overkill (official retail price, OEM or "subscriber" is a lot cheaper though).

It is significantly more stable, faster and more responsive than XP... even with all the goodies and eye candy enabled (by default it comes across as a vamped up version of Windows 2000, it is a server OS after all). There are a few drawbacks, hardware support is not as universal as with XP (if a piece of hardware ware is not officially supported, the XP driver can wreak havoc). But in general, I'd say it is the best OS MS have officially released, ever.

I did a bit of digging and Win2k3 was in fact a server and a business server at that, I was referring to O/S that are for home use.

_Kaiser_

200motels wrote: »

I never used Win2k3 but if it's as good as you say I'll do a search on the net to see what people say about it.

200motels wrote: »

I did a bit of digging and Win2k3 was in fact a server and a business server at that, I was referring to O/S that are for home use.

You might also want to have a look at this: http://www.win2008r2workstation.com/

Torqay

200motels wrote: »

I did a bit of digging and Win2k3 was in fact a server and a business server at that, I was referring to O/S that are for home use.

I know what you mean but just because something isn't marketed for "home use" doesn't mean it's not suitable. Windows 2000 was never marketed for "home use" either but what a great relief it turned out to be for those who suffered from Windows ME.

@ Kaiser2000: I have tried to "abuse" 2008 as a workstation and wasn't too impressed, Windows 7 worked better on the same machine.