wiping 8 and installing win 7

teddyteddy

having had so much hastle with 8 i decided to uninstall...
ive got an origanal windows 7 it boots loads the files but sticks on the windows 7logo....
its 64 bit but not sp1 would that be an issue?
xxxxxxxxxx carmel.

yoyo

teddyteddy wrote: »

having had so much hastle with 8 i decided to uninstall...
ive got an origanal windows 7 it boots loads the files but sticks on the windows 7logo....
its 64 bit but not sp1 would that be an issue?
xxxxxxxxxx carmel.

You do know only the professional Windows 8 version comes with downgrade rights? Make sure to turn off secure boot in the Windows 8 advanced startup, see here on how to do that. Failing that the install media may be faulty if you continue to have issues.
Windows 8.1 aims to address the issues users have with Windows 8 and it will be a free update

Nick

teddyteddy

may have to re think.

PropJoe10

There really is no benefit to going back to Windows 7. If you dont like the metro interface on Windows 8, try Classic Shell. Gives you a Start menu just like Windows 7.

200motels

PropJoe10 wrote: »

There really is no benefit to going back to Windows 7. If you dont like the metro interface on Windows 8, try Classic Shell. Gives you a Start menu just like Windows 7.

No benefit, you must be joking, 7 is in a different league to the awfull 8, XP is better than 8, and before any asks did I use it? I used it for 3 months and it has to be the worst O/S I've ever used, it gives Vista a good name.

PropJoe10

200motels wrote: »

No benefit, you must be joking, 7 is in a different league to the awfull 8, XP is better than 8, and before any asks did I use it? I used it for 3 months and it has to be the worst O/S I've ever used, it gives Vista a good name.

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion, if you forget about the awful metro interface, Windows 8 is much faster and more responsive than 7 for pretty much anything I've used it for. Each to their own though, I guess.

yoyo

200motels wrote: »

No benefit, you must be joking, 7 is in a different league to the awfull 8, XP is better than 8, and before any asks did I use it? I used it for 3 months and it has to be the worst O/S I've ever used, it gives Vista a good name.

XP is dead in a few months time, loosing driver support and all that. To say XP is better than 8 is fairly silly in fairness nowadays. The free upgrade to windows 8 should sort the "issues" people have with the new start menu supposedly. I actually find the visual start menu in 8 easier to navigate than clicking out several popout folders just to access the application launcher but each to their own I suppose. I don't use a touch screen display.
There should have been a legacy mode option in Windows 8 though, but like with the forcing the ribbon interface for Office on people, I presume the plan was to get people used to the modern interface, except it was possibly a bit too much for people to get used to

Nick

mcw92

200motels wrote: »

No benefit, you must be joking, 7 is in a different league to the awfull 8, XP is better than 8, and before any asks did I use it? I used it for 3 months and it has to be the worst O/S I've ever used, it gives Vista a good name.

Any particular reasons as to why you think 8 is the worst?
I actually quite liked the new apps page. Once you remove all the crap thats there, and just show what you want, its very efficient imo.

ejohnl

yoyo wrote: »

XP is dead in a few months time, loosing driver support and all that. To say XP is better than 8 is fairly silly in fairness nowadays. The free upgrade to windows 8 should sort the "issues" people have with the new start menu supposedly. I actually find the visual start menu in 8 easier to navigate than clicking out several popout folders just to access the application launcher but each to their own I suppose. I don't use a touch screen display.
There should have been a legacy mode option in Windows 8 though, but like with the forcing the ribbon interface for Office on people, I presume the plan was to get people used to the modern interface, except it was possibly a bit too much for people to get used to

Nick

You're right @ yoyo
Your explanations are clear than the one I stumbled upon from another forum site.

teddyteddy

all down to the person him or her as in me self lol............i guess i was used to 7 ill look in to the 7 shell. interface for start ups etc and see how i get on from there. x carmel.
ps thanks for all the replys . you all know how to make a gal feel wanted .

_Kaiser_

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion, if you forget about the awful metro interface, Windows 8 is much faster and more responsive than 7 for pretty much anything I've used it for. Each to their own though, I guess.

Have to disagree I'm afraid..

I've been using Windows 8 here since it went RTM on a DELL Latitude E6220 with a Core i5 and 8GB RAM.

It is a LOT slower to actually finish setting up than 7 is on the same machine (though that may in part be due to Office 13 whih is definitely heavier on resources).

Sure it boots faster to the login prompt but that's meaningless really and my personal laptop with 7 and a SSD is faster again in that regard.
Once you actually get in and start working there's very little real world improvement IMO.

200motels

mcw92 wrote: »

Any particular reasons as to why you think 8 is the worst?
I actually quite liked the new apps page. Once you remove all the crap thats there, and just show what you want, its very efficient imo.

I think it's all down to personal taste, Windows 8 does indeed boot faster than all the other windows O/S, but a few seconds here and there is not a good reason to change, I bought 8 back in October and gave it every chance, but I missed the start button big time, even though I installed a 3rd party start button, it just wasn't the same, I hated the log in screen where you had to have an e-mail address to log in and as for the tiles it looked like someone from the 80's had put it together. I have XP, Vista and 7 on three different computers and I still use XP the most and come next April I'll have to ditch XP but in all honesty 7 is the complete O/S unless the new update changes 8 and if it does I'll install it again.

zom

yoyo wrote: »

XP is dead in a few months time, loosing driver support and all that. To say XP is better than 8 is fairly silly in fairness nowadays.

XP is brilliant system, great follower of best Microsoft system ever - Windows 2000. I am sic a tired working with few Win7 I have under my management because (for some sadistic reasons???) Microsoft hide and dig deeper lot of administration tools in that system. "Why-oh-why!!!" is most common expression when I work with any Ms system younger than XP. I suspect they want new Windows to be more tweak-proof (less crash-prone) discouraging people to play with it the same way as Apple do with their systems. They want user just to pay and pay: you cant fix something - pay for service, your machine is too slow - pay for new one, you cant install free software - pay for our software.

yoyo wrote: »

The free upgrade to windows 8 should sort the "issues" people have with the new start menu supposedly.

I would never expect them to improve anything "just for users". These are people who earn monthly more than we earn through all our life so they don't really mind plain people as us. All improvement will focus on giving them more money.

yoyo

zom wrote: »

XP is brilliant system, great follower of best Microsoft system ever - Windows 2000. I am sic a tired working with few Win7 I have under my management because (for some sadistic reasons???) Microsoft hide and dig deeper lot of administration tools in that system. "Why-oh-why!!!" is most common expression when I work with any Ms system younger than XP. I suspect they want new Windows to be more tweak-proof (less crash-prone) discouraging people to play with it the same way as Apple do with their systems. They want user just to pay and pay: you cant fix something - pay for service, your machine is too slow - pay for new one, you cant install free software - pay for our software.



I would never expect them to improve anything "just for users". These are people who earn monthly more than we earn through all our life so they don't really mind plain people as us. All improvement will focus on giving them more money.

XP was awful when it came out, many people probably don't remember the viruses, worms and issues that plagued it. It was also severely bloated, Vistaesque on early '00s hardware. Over 10 years XP was patched up and over time became a bit more secure, after SP2 I might add. That was around '05 I think.
I used XP for years including the early stages, hence I cannot understand people stating it's the best OS Microsoft built or the least problematic. Windows 7 was a huge leap, and 8 was a bit too much change for the average user. Leaving 8 aside suggesting XP nowadays over 7 or 8 is very stupid (not directed at you but some people still suggest this), given the fact that many won't heed the EOL warning and I do forsee security "issues" late next year for people who have not changed.
Regarding the admin tools, most of them still reside in the control panel like in XP, you just click "Large Icons" (Like Classic View in XPs control panel) then admin tools. This is the same in 8, as well. I don't find the CP has changed much since Win '00 but I suppose it depends what admin tools you use.
UAC was also an excellent introduction, maybe it annoys people but it also keeps machines more secure. Proper "Viruses" or Worms nowadays are fewer and fewer with the fake alert malware type crap that infects all types of machines nowadays (Mac included). This is partly due to UAC and securer OSes I reckon. Running an OS with root privileges by default which is essentially what XP and previous did was daft, and most Linux users I'm sure wouldn't dream of doing it

Nick

zom

yoyo wrote: »

XP was awful when it came out, many people probably don't remember the viruses, worms and issues that plagued it.

Can't you see what nonsense you are saying? So XP was wrong because lot of viruses and worms created to break into it? Following your way of thinking riding on the horse is much better than car - see how many cars are stolen, broken into etc. Try to break into horse! Try to steal a radio from the horse! Or alloys!

mcw92

zom wrote: »

Can't you see what nonsense you are saying? So XP was wrong because lot of viruses and worms created to break into it? Following your way of thinking riding on the horse is much better than car - see how many cars are stolen, broken into etc. Try to break into horse! Try to steal a radio from the horse! Or alloys!

Think he means XP was very vulnerable to attacks when released compared to when 7 was released.

yoyo

zom wrote: »

Can't you see what nonsense you are saying? So XP was wrong because lot of viruses and worms created to break into it? Following your way of thinking riding on the horse is much better than car - see how many cars are stolen, broken into etc. Try to break into horse! Try to steal a radio from the horse! Or alloys!

XP was not the perfect OS people like to dress it up as being, that is what I'm saying. compared to Vista, 7 and 8, XP had a massive issue with viruses and worms at launch, the same as 2000 had. It did take a fair while for many of these issues to be "rectified" (SP1/SP1a->SP2). I really don't see (ignoring Windows 8) how 7 is much different to XP, and why people would suggest XP over Windows 7 or even 8. You have people even now suggesting they should downgrade to win XP (from 7, 8 or even Vista machines), which is not only stupid (as support for XP by most software and hardware manufacturers will be significantly reduced in less than a years time) but also will likely open them up to security issues soon after support for it ends. And yes running your OS with admin level privileges at default isn't really a wise move..
Windows 8 was a major change from the previous, and without any type of legacy mode settings I agree was a strange choice. Having said that, getting used to windows 8, I have learned to appreciate the start menu with modern UI and integrated search is actually more efficient (I don't use the apps) and easier to find stuff than having to click through a few folders to access what you like.
For e.g:
windows 7 to access Photoshop:
Click Start>All Programs>Adobe>Photoshop
Windows 8 to access Photoshop:
Modern Start UI>Locate Photoshop icon, and launch the program - Like it's a scrolling desktop

It is easier, if you bother getting used to the new OS, but this is an issue many people have (fair enough) and is why there should have probably been a legacy mode built in to Windows 8

Nick

Overheal

200motels wrote: »

No benefit, you must be joking, 7 is in a different league to the awfull 8, XP is better than 8, and before any asks did I use it? I used it for 3 months and it has to be the worst O/S I've ever used, it gives Vista a good name.

Take that back. Lol. As much as I defend vista over XP, vista in retrospect is by no means an improvement on 8. And I just sat there last night and did work on a vista computer. 49% disk fragmentation even with the native defragger scheduled to run and the installation had been active for several months. Not to mention that the search functionality was severely limited (essentially to program names) and there is no window Snap which you don't realize how often you use it until you don't have it.

Even if you want to argue vista vs 8 on a UI basis, this is no contest IMO

dloob

Strange, so you were able to install Windows 7 ok, but it hangs during the boot.
Could be a dodgy driver?
Try booting in safe mode and see if that works

On the Win 8 debate.
I remember when XP came out.
It was all ohh this is rubbish win2K is the best MS operating system ever.
This fisher price thing has a stupid shiny interface and it's worse than win98 etc.
Good times.

Most of the complainers did move over eventually, but stubbornly insisted on using the classic theme for a long time.

Bring back program manager I say, I was vocally opposed to the start menu when forced to use Win NT 4.0 for the first time instead of Win 3.11.
I've become more chilled about my choice of UI since then.

zom

I don't know why I bother to discuss this... But may I ask if you are connected to Microsoft any way? Just in case?

You telling me that horse is safer than car, because when you drunk, horse can take you home, car not. "By default" that's how it works. Why people bother to do driving licence when they can use taxi or bus?
But I am smart enough to drive car and manage my PC. If someone can't handle this and want someone else to do this - it's his problem. My first tweek I always do to my new "personal" machines is replacing "windows" keabord button with "delete" button because I hate position where it originally is (and I use delete a lot in my work). It is simple registry change.
Try do this on Apple. Without "apps".

I can list tens of examples where XP is easier to manage than Win7/8. I started to use command line in those new systems because it's faster than diving into tons of additional setting Ms ad to them (example? - finding MAC address?).

I can't say much about Win8 because I used it only on virtual machine, but I remember I was terrified by it's mess and disconsistency. It's ok when you change everything - no more scroll menu, just tiles - but WHY OH WHY there's no "shut down" tile?? And you complain about hierarchical organization of your programs in XP/7? I think hierarchical organization is one of best thinks in modern data developing (all ways). I know there are people who tend to have all their programs and files as icons on their desktops. But not me. I have 10-12 icons on the desktop for fast run, and I still have 30-40 links in my menu start. Win8 is taking them off me!!

Capt'n Midnight

mcw92 wrote: »

Think he means XP was very vulnerable to attacks when released compared to when 7 was released.

That's not exactly saying a lot as it's all relative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4423733.stm

We set up a poor Windows XP machine with no firewall or anti-virus software.

Connecting it to the internet would be like throwing it into a lion pen with raw meat strapped to its hard drive.

How long would it be before we were hit by something nasty on the net? Hours, minutes?

As it turned out - eight seconds!

Overheal

zom wrote: »

I don't know why I bother to discuss this... But may I ask if you are connected to Microsoft any way? Just in case?

You telling me that horse is safer than car, because when you drunk, horse can take you home, car not. "By default" that's how it works. Why people bother to do driving licence when they can use taxi or bus?
But I am smart enough to drive car and manage my PC. If someone can't handle this and want someone else to do this - it's his problem. My first tweek I always do to my new "personal" machines is replacing "windows" keabord button with "delete" button because I hate position where it originally is (and I use delete a lot in my work). It is simple registry change.
Try do this on Apple. Without "apps".

I read this and all I can think is

I can list tens of examples where XP is easier to manage than Win7/8. I started to use command line in those new systems because it's faster than diving into tons of additional setting Ms ad to them (example? - finding MAC address?).

The command line still exists. ipconfig still exists. etc.

Dont pretend the networking support in XP is very friendly. If I recall it barely has native OS support for Wifi.

I can't say much about Win8 because I used it only on virtual machine, but I remember I was terrified by it's mess and disconsistency. It's ok when you change everything - no more scroll menu, just tiles - but WHY OH WHY there's no "shut down" tile??

Make one? Pretty simple really.

And you complain about hierarchical organization of your programs in XP/7? I think hierarchical organization is one of best thinks in modern data developing (all ways). I know there are people who tend to have all their programs and files as icons on their desktops. But not me. I have 10-12 icons on the desktop for fast run, and I still have 30-40 links in my menu start. Win8 is taking them off me!!

Again I go back to the workflow comic. As far back as XP I could probably be suggesting to you all myriad of Stardock utilities that would make your life simpler. Everyone by now knows about Start8 but what about Windowblinds?

You seem to be a real minority here; as far back as Vista I remember feeling pretty ****ing uplifted at the inclusion (though infantile inclusion) of Libraries. I need to spend time organizing my house. Sorting my laundry. My computer on the other hand should be smart enough to do that kind of **** for me. I shouldn't have to devote a weekend every few months to reorganizing my files. The newer Start/Search methods lend to a much more productive "random access" approach to computing, which now extends from the hardware up through the UI. Search indexing which got a decent upgrade in 8 now means I can have a few folders where I can plop all my work files into them and use search to access the correct files, rather then try to reinvent some sh*t-hot file naming standard (and those rarely work out). My work is ever changing which means if I needed to constantly reorganize my file structure to accomodate that kind of change, I'd be doing that kind of crap 3-4 times a year and its really not worth the hassle. Not worth it at all. And why, when now I can just do a keyword search and pull up every relevant document I have dealing with whatever I have to research rather than double click through a tree of meaningless subfolders. Is that really still an appealing existence?

yoyo

zom wrote: »

You telling me that horse is safer than car, because when you drunk, horse can take you home, car not. "By default" that's how it works. Why people bother to do driving licence when they can use taxi or bus?
But I am smart enough to drive car and manage my PC.

Maybe you are good with using computers, a lot of people are not, so I can see a massive benefit of having a secure OS "out of the box".

If someone can't handle this and want someone else to do this - it's his problem. My first tweek I always do to my new "personal" machines is replacing "windows" keabord button with "delete" button because I hate position where it originally is (and I use delete a lot in my work). It is simple registry change.
Try do this on Apple. Without "apps".

Does a similar registry change not exist for newer versions of Windows? Not something I'm aware of as I never re-map my keyboard.

I can list tens of examples where XP is easier to manage than Win7/8. I started to use command line in those new systems because it's faster than diving into tons of additional setting Ms ad to them (example? - finding MAC address?).

Like which? If you mean the Network and Sharing centre is more difficult to use than the XP network connections? I would rate both quite the same, open "Network Connections" in XP then change adaptor settings, in Vista onwards it's open Network & Sharing Centre, and "Change Advanced Adaptor Settings" or similar. I havn't found this to be overly difficult to work with, in fact the connection dialogs are similar to XPs one.

I can't say much about Win8 because I used it only on virtual machine, but I remember I was terrified by it's mess and disconsistency.

How long did you use it for, did you give it much of a chance? In fairness this used it on a VM didn't like it doesn't sound as though you had much interest in getting used to it.

It's ok when you change everything - no more scroll menu, just tiles - but WHY OH WHY there's no "shut down" tile?? And you complain about hierarchical organization of your programs in XP/7? I think hierarchical organization is one of best thinks in modern data developing (all ways). I know there are people who tend to have all their programs and files as icons on their desktops. But not me. I have 10-12 icons on the desktop for fast run, and I still have 30-40 links in my menu start. Win8 is taking them off me!!

I agree, Microsoft screwed up by not including a legacy mode, I mentioned it above. Idiotic things I've found with Windows 8:
* Having to right click and click "All Apps" to view all your applications and not just pinned tiles. This took me a while to figure out, and I agree is a usability issue. It's fixed in 8.1
* Shutdown/power toggles are in a "weird" location, you would expect them to be at the top where your account picture is, or somewhere in the tiles. A power tile can be added though (according to Overheal).

I found at times using the hierarchical system hard to find stuff (vista onwards instant search helped massively) as some programs installed multiple folders. I remember some games going: Electronic Arts>Game Company>Some Other Affiliated Company>Game>Launcher>Shortcut to exe. This to me isn't as intuitive as a standard icon to the program. This is part fault of the publisher, yes, but still it shows the disadvantages to using the hierarchical system.
I used all Microsoft OSes, XP was one I never understood the fuss with, I used it for years, and saw the problems with it. As bad as Vista is (and believe me I have just after battling a Vista machine and spending hours Windows updating it) I also had the same experience with rubbish Celeron XP machines I worked on a while back.. XP had it's day, it's EOL soon so people should either use 7 or 8, and if you buy a Laptop without Windows 8 Professional, you need to purchase a license for 7 to downgrade, or else get used to the changes.

Nick

Overheal

Well yeah you create a regular shutdown command shortcut on the desktop, then pin that shortcut to start. Voilà

I had completely forgotten about how software makes its own file structures. Any given piece of software finds some more obscure place to hide its cache/save/screenshot files than the last one you installed. Have a lot of games installed? Look at your hierarchy. A handful are pooping around in your documents folder, many more in your steam folder. Microsoft tried to provide standardized file locations for these (My Games, Save Files etc) but they never caught on as a standard because there was no big push on them.

Not to mention program installation. Now unless I want a program off the C:\ (which is frankly almost never) I don't have to give much thought to programs installation path and can just click through its typical install, safe in the knowledge I know how to find the exe later - via start/search.

zom

I think I am just too old to switch to new way of use of electronics. It's like automatic vs manual gearbox discussion. I used to know how the things work and have as much control over that, as possible. But it's probably dead end - modern technology is just too complex to try to understand.
And rather than thinking about this terrifying deprivation, we should go and deal with it. As I said - if we need some program we should go to "market" and pay /download it instead of search software on internet as we did old days. And if our computer is too slow we should go to shop and buy new one instead of trying clean-up system or upgrade hardware as we used to do years ago. Instead of getting familiar with technology, we should focus on earning money to pay THEM for taking care of everything. I think THEY finally got us...:(

Overheal

Not necessarily, when World War Z starts the Cubans will become an economic superpower because of their prowess in re-purposing and repairing old technology until its mechanically impossible to do so. To this day they still have cars over there that are up and running from before the start of the cold war.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Dont pretend the networking support in XP is very friendly. If I recall it barely has native OS support for Wifi.

XP RTM and SP1 had crappy Wi-Fi support (WEP only I believe) but it was much improved in SP2. I never bothered using bloated manufacturer-provided Wi-Fi managers in XP.

The biggest security issue with XP at the time was that the firewall was disabled by default, at a time when many more people had direct internet connections with public IP addresses fed directly to them; such as with dial-up modems. This allowed worms such as Blaster and Sasser to wreak havoc. The change in firewall policy plus the now widespread adoption of NAT routers has severely reduced the risk.

yoyo

Karsini wrote: »

XP RTM and SP1 had crappy Wi-Fi support (WEP only I believe) but it was much improved in SP2. I never bothered using bloated manufacturer-provided Wi-Fi managers in XP.

The biggest security issue with XP at the time was that the firewall was disabled by default, at a time when many more people had direct internet connections with public IP addresses fed directly to them; such as with dial-up modems. This allowed worms such as Blaster and Sasser to wreak havoc. The change in firewall policy plus the now widespread adoption of NAT routers has severely reduced the risk.

XP pre-SP2 was rubbish being honest! SP2 was like a completely new OS

Nick

zom

Overheal wrote: »

Not necessarily, when World War Z starts the Cubans will become an economic superpower because of their prowess in re-purposing and repairing old technology until its mechanically impossible to do so. To this day they still have cars over there that are up and running from before the start of the cold war.

You think it's funny, but I'm still terrified (Microsoft Is Going To Run Bing Ads On Millions Of PCs When Windows 8.1 Arrives):

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-puts-bing-ads-in-windows-81-2013-7

As I said - we soon will turn into puppets on their strings. If already not are...