Windows 8... worth an upgrade from 7? - Page 3

if there was a better way id love to hear about it. from what research ive done, vista specifically is "broke" in regards to bitstreaming hd codecs, and it cannot be resolved.

You can bitstream HD audio in Vista with ffdshow or (AFAIK) LAV filters. We did this when bitstreaming HD audio support was first added to ffdshow. Here is one thread regarding it: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1247326/bitstream-audio-using-mpc-hc-ffdshow-in-vista-32-bit

ffd will not work (neither will LAV), the op in the previous thread used reclocker which i at that point had quit trying (had way too many hours tied up).

regardless the win8 upgrade has been purchased, and will be installed. and hopefully i will be bitstreaming without having to run 4 different processes to make it happen

Here's what you'd get with Windows 8 that's worthwhile for an HTPC;

Faster boot times (but who reboots their HTPC continuously though!).

Here's what's not worthwhile;

A tripe of an interface in Metro that you will never truly be able to get away from, and looks like it was designed by AND FOR a 6 year old

A hugely dumbed down O/S of immense scale that removes further huge amounts of configuration options unless you want to revert to hacking the registry

A backup/restore system that doesn't actually backup what you want or what you'd expect

A 'flattened' desktop interface that wouldn't look out of place in Windows 3.1

A search system that is so particular about what it indexes it makes it almost useless

A constant wrench as your thrown from the classic desktop (designed for productivity) to a touch interface (designed for consumption)

An interface like Metro that only runs apps full screen, makes a mockery of multi-tasking and causes everything to be so much harder than it needs to be

A version of MC that will no longer auto-start from boot, now costs money to actually own (but has had zero effort put into it) and is only included to appease the same people who would slate MS to the hills if they dropped it (as they surely will in Win9)

Multi-monitor support that doesn't work properly with the Metro/Desktop cludge

A modern, 21st centry O/S that forces people back into the necessity of using hot-keys to actually navigate the damn interface!


Windows 8 will make the Vista failure look like a success. 'nuff said.

You're being ridiculous. When are you going to be multitasking on an HTPC anyway? And an interface like Metro works great on the TV, just as well as on touch; I mean, the whole idea of Metro was first utilized in Windows Media Center anyway. Moreover, you're wrong about multi-monitor support.

On top of that, what else makes it worthwhile for an HTPC? What about Xbox Music, Slacker Radio, TuneIn Radio, Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant Video, some of the channel specific streaming services (there's an ABC app, and a Fox app that I know of off the top of my head), and others that are already in the store or might come later?

Opinion noted, but I just don't like it. I mean, I really, really don't like it, and there are a huge number of others who don't either.

Nothing I've said there hasn't been echoed in many reviews of 8RTM. If you want to use it fine, but in my opinion this is a huge step backwards for Windows, and a kick in the teeth for HTPC users who've put so much time and effort into Media Center. It could have been so much more. It's half baked and was released too early. Where were Microsoft's usability testers for the desktop? On holiday, head in a bucket somewhere? Did they actually listen to feedback? Christ, they've even put the same interface on Windows 2012 Server. Holy cr*p!

All they had to do was give people the OPTION of having the start menu. That's pretty much it, but MS didn't want to. They know best of course!

For a tablet/phone yeah for an HTPC no.

You don't have to like it. But at the same time, you're making points about it being horrible for HTPCs that are inconsistent with what you would use an HTPC for. If you don't like it on a desktop, that's fine. I disagree with you (and think you're completely overreacting), but it's fine. However, to claim your post is factually correct about the use of it on an HTPC is completely disingenuous.

An interface like Metro yes, but not Metro. Small text regardless of DPI settings, lack of ability to scroll with a remote...

Metro is almost there for a 10ft UI, so close yet so far. I also never like the Media Center UI, but that's a different issue.

Windows 7 is more stable than XP by a long shot. They completely overhauled the network, audio, video, security and driver stacks (most of that work done in Vista). So if you have hardware that is supported (even if only by class drivers), then your system should be more robust as instabilities are handled much better. e.g. XP video driver problems could bring a system down - not so in 7.

Let's face it - your single experience is not in any way reflective of the general experience. My M-Audio Revo 5.1 worked great in XP, was passable in Vista (x86 only) but not supported at all in 7. For all the benefits of Windows 7, I found it simpler to just get another soundcard than to wait around for a lazy company to support it. Windows 7 is not a reskin + feature pack sitting on top of XP. Just because there are lazy hardware manufacturers out there does not make your problems Microsofts fault.

I actually "use" windows server 2012... no problems from me. Maybe you are doing something wrong if you are constantly using the start screen?

"Under the hood" is where Windows 7 differs the most from XP. It's no surprise that there was trouble with hardware designed for a program whose last release was 2008 (with last update/patch in 2009).

You are presented with it every time you log in. Some admins log off every time they step away from the keyboard (which can be quite often).

Thats what I keep saying why do I want a tablet/phone GUI on my PC and for my phone/tablet I'm already happy with android. This doesn't look good to me any way you slice it, I just want a good desktop/laptop OS from Microsoft.

- Rubbish. The Modern UI is intuitive - type to search, Win + Q to view all installed apps. Win key to enter the Desktop. I have Chrome pinned to the Start menu as the first tile. PC boots in 5 sec (I kid you not), click the tile, ready to go.
- Try it. All the config options are still there.
- Again, try again.
- ? The rejigged Aero is fine
- ? Searches are filtered automatically on the Start menu. Look carefully
- Rubbish. Pin your installed app to the taskbar in the desktop and you won't even see Metro
- Apps full screen I understand. Its to maximize a tablet's limited screen size.
- MC is free until January if you get Pro
- Haven't tried multi monitors
- Rubbish
- More rubbish

Win 8 is an excellent OS. I upgraded for $15 and have 4 $15 licences left - one will go on my gaming system and one on my HTPC. Stop hating and actually use it for a day, and try to use it instead of bitching about it. Its very fast and very slick. By all means stay with a legacy OS, if you are on XP you shouldn't be using a PC. If you are on 7, you should give 8 a shot.

Here is one reason not to upgrade to windows 8 at least if you use InfiniTV according to the newest Ceton email

Network Tuner Support: The InfiniTV network tuner bridging feature will not be available in Windows 8. If you use network tuners you should not upgrade.

I'd say you're wrong here. I have a 3 core AMD 3600 for my upgraded HTPC with a 60GB SATA 3 SSD. In truth the SSD is faster than the 7200rpm drive it replaced, especially with opening of programs (apps) and opening files (recordings), It also runs Hulu and XBMC much faster than before. I would say W8 would even a larger speed boost, most of the delay would be the BIOS screen actually.

Cold boot to up and running on the internet is about 45 seconds, I could likely get it to run faster especially if I did some MSCONFIG tweaks, disabled the Bios flash screen and had a hardwire (Ethernet) connection.

I likely will not upgrade however (I do have the preview on a flash drive) as my HTPC is fast enough for me and its loafing, never sees more than 2GB of RAM being used and all three cores at 20-30% CPU usage with 1088i or BR Rips 1080p. I don't use Netflix so no Silverlight to deal with though it would only increase CPU usage a tiny bit.

I don't understand all the ranting about Windows 8 either, next laptop is likely to have it. I would switch my HTPC to run it maybe only if to run a RAM drive since 64-bit will go up to 512GB with Pro and 128GB with Home Premium.

Finally I am not done tweaking my HTPC, since I can't seem to get Launcher or ROM Collector to run right or the way I want it (running files from the server, Samba is not supported by either) I am going to run GameEX instead for games where it supports the standard Windows network and file structure so I can keep the files on my server and run the games over the network instead of locally.

I was never able to get network tuner to work right anyway. Constantly had to reset up the cablecard in each machine.

I agree with the points made against Windows 8. As someone who is entrenched in everything related to computing I just don't see Windows 8 as a step forward for desktop productivity or Media Center use. It appears to me that the design of Windows 8 was 99% influenced by the growing tablet and cellphone market. No previous version of Windows (including 7) is comparable to Android or iOS. The only thing they have in that genre of OS would be Windows Phone. Windows Phone was not designed at it's core to be simply run on tablets or home/office PC's (where we will be seeing a push in "touch" based devices). So what we get is Windows 8 which is based around the design of Windows Phone. This is reminiscent of Android before version 4.0 ICS (Ice Cream Sandwich) when you had two similar but different versions, 3.x.x Honeycomb for tablets and 2.3.x Gingerbread for phones. Apple's iOS never appeared as segregated but still saw different versions of iOS for the iPhone and iPad early on. The iPad was released with version 3.2 specifically designed for the iPad, while the iPhone was on version 3.1.3. Around iOS version 4.2.1 you saw a consolidation of the iPad into the same version of the OS as the iPhone and iTouch. Currently all newer devices (iPhone, iTouch, iPad) run on the same version of iOS.

What this all means to me is that Windows 8 is more of a parallel OS offering along side Windows 7, and not a sequential upgrade path. I'm not sure how Microsoft is positioning their marketing of Windows 8, although it would seem with the "upgrade" offers that they are trying to leverage it as an actual upgrade. However I have a feeling that this position will change over time to one which offers Windows 7 as the defacto desktop/productivity OS and Windows 8 as the tablet/smartphone offering. This would be inline with what Apple has with the Mac OS X (desktops and servers) and iOS (portable devices).

I think the major issue that is coming up here in this "discussion" is people are comparing Windows 8 to Windows 7 which, beyond the fact that Windows 8 doesn't come with Media Center (must be purchased and must have Win8 Pro), doesn't provide DVD/Blu-Ray playback without the Media Center purchase (to cut down on licensing costs), and that Windows 8 is suppose to offer a bit better codec support out of the box, doesn't really have much baring on the Media Center experience. The difference between Windows 7 and 8 are greatly noticeable in desktop and tablet use. The fact is Media Center itself hasn't changed (at least not drastically) from Windows 7 to 8 and therefore the experience once you are in Media Center should be relatively similar. At this time Windows 7 is what many are running, it comes with Media Center, and is supported by the available tuners. It would be silly to move to Windows 8 for the same Media Center experience and less support. In 6 months or so I'd see where the tuner companies are (Ceton, Silicon Dust, etc.) and at that time see if there are any features lost or gained by moving to Windows 8.


EDIT: I should also note that reports have been that the option to "run Media Center on startup" and to run "always on top" have been removed. Although I don't know the truth of this first hand, it has been mentioned/reported along with some other features mysteriously missing.
Edited by JayG30 - 10/26/12 at 6:57am

I'm a bit on the wait on see. Curious what the early adopters experiences will be like. I do find the cheap upgrade option tempting if nothing else as to have the license for later.

I tried it on the HTPC when MS releases the first beta. My display didn't do a true 720p, so a lot apps and titles didn't work. I did not find Metro mouse friendly. I also found just getting to control panel and so forth to do setting changes really frustrating. At the point, I did like the titles because it did make it easy to find those few apps I use and have on my wallpaper. WMC wasn't working at all that point

I wish there was option to opt out of the Metro like Windows did with being able to use the "classic" look for the start menu. I would also like to away out of the having to unlock since on HTPC, there is only one user setup and not concerned about other people using it.

My issues are really just navigation with the input device I have. The rest of the stuff, I'll learn how to move around with time.

But the OS was designed to give more similar experience across multiplatforms. Would be cool if I had a Windows phone or tablet. But alas, I currently support the green side (Android).

I upgraded a Windows 7 box to Windows 8 weeks ago and blogged about it here: Windows 7 to Windows 8 Upgrade experience.

Haven't picked up the mobile version yet but for the desktop my favorite aspect of the system so far is it does work like an upgrade to Windows 7 while still offering you a new Windows 8 system under the Metro UI.

It feels very much like an upgrade to Windows 7 that includes a new Windows 8 Metro-UI option/feature.

In other words you essentially have 2 operating systems in one with the ability to switch between seamlessly between the 2. The addition of the 'legacy' desktop feature allows to swap between a updated Windows 7 desktop interface and environment and pop right back into the Windows 8 Metro UI and environment.

I'm working on it now and even more fun is that by using a Dual Monitor setup I can run both the Metro UI with Windows 8 apps on one screen with traditional Windows 7 UI and apps on the other screen. Very much like having both Windows 7 and Windows 8.

MS would be really dropping the ball if they do not move quickly to fully support WMC and every other aspect of Windows 7 IMO.
If desktop users can get comfortable with the idea that they don't lose anything from their Windows 7 installations but simply gain Windows 8 in the same box, then Windows 8 could gain a strong appeal among the large Windows 7 user base.
Edited by Dahlsim - 10/26/12 at 8:13am

This is one of the funniest things I've seen on the internet for a while. I do a lot of programming along with IT management and I can say I was definitely in the room on the right when I tried out 8.

You nailed it tman247. I don't know what you're smoking Tiddles, but I want some. I'd need to be heavily medicated to enjoy using Win 8.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416563&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL102612&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL102612-_-EMC-102612-Index-_-OperatingSystems-_-32416563-L0C

Nope, Newegg is selling the "Pro Pack" that includes WMC for $70.

I'm sticking with Windows 7, thanks.

Just install Classic Shell if you don't like Metro. It's start menu is very close to the one in windows 7 and has far more options for customization.
I have got it on 3 computers right now and am happy with it. I can now treat Metro as something I can use if I want instead of something I am forced to use.

I already have those "new" features with new hardware. And I got to choose my own! Anyone who has a Win 7 HTPC doesn't need to upgrade. Win 8 Media Center has the exact same features that Win 7 Media Center except it doesn't have 100% driver compatibility. Of course, you can go ahead and upgrade if you want. But please don't cry about new problems. There is absolutely no reason to upgrade an os if what you have does everything you want and does it well. It's best to wait until all of the bugs get fixed (i.e. SP1) before you upgrade.

And dude, why the rage on XP? You're not one of those guys who think computing was being held back because of people hanging on to XP are you? People held on to XP because it worked great and Vista was crap. Anybody who's serious about a gaming rig or HTPC gave up using XP years ago.
Edited by mhufnagel - 10/26/12 at 10:23am

Good tip although that's how I treat Win 8 desktop out of the box anyway.

If you learn to use a few key Windows 8 hot key menus (see Windows 7 to Windows 8 Upgrade experience.) and dialog along with the "Hot Corners" (ala MACs) I don't think you miss the start menu much.

Right clicking the start page ( lower left) also is helpful in getting over the loss of the start menu.

you're never forced to use metro unless you need to search or want to use an app. The search is very easy and I don't see why it would be an impediment.

The file copy system is the thing I've been wanting for years. Nothing like win7 copy tons of files from one machine to another then going out to mow the law and comming back to discover that NOTHING copied because of collisions with duplicates and such.
Now Windows 8 is supposed to bring up the collisions at the start of the file transfer and continue to transfer what it can while you work on the collisions.
Other than that I don't see any improvement over Windows 7.

a lot of WIN 8 is for big corporations who have constant issues with Micosoft Apps playing well with Smart Phones and Tablets. Expect hardware designed for Win 8 corporate user to be releasing over the next several months. Here's one Tablet/Notebook hybrid