or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Windows 8 - my verdict.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Windows 8 - my verdict. - Page 21

post #601 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

Desktop users should upgrade to a touch screen.

I tried my mother-in-law's new Samsung all in one Windows 8 desktop machine with touch screen, and no one in the room seemed to want to reach up and touch a vertical screen that's perpendicular to the desk. It's not comfortable. Microsoft is off the mark with this.

Tablets as computers on the other hand? Wonderful! Give us a connectable keyboard too like the Surface Pro? Awesome! This is where Windows 8 works.
post #602 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

the w8 is because, the desktop is a dieing breed, and as the tablet gets even better it'll overtake the laptop, much like the laptop took over the desktop..
Desktop users should upgrade to a touch screen. as that's what it's made for.. people use there smart phones and app's. and want the same format in the p/c . I haven't added it to my computers yet. but I love my wife's smartphone.. Remember, kids are walking around at the ages of 8 with a cell phone and are raised with learning how to use that layout.. MICROSOFT was smart to go this route, as the people that be coming into the market will be 10-12 years of "app style" os from phones . I'm sure if I had not bought an android phone 18 months ago I'd totally dislike the new layout.. we'll see how much I like it on a laptop without touch screen.. w8 also forced pc makers to upgrade the crap they where selling..
I can see you've never used a computer to do actual work. Not only are they very uncomfortable to use for 8 hours/day as the previous poster said, touchscreen cuts my productivity by about 90%. I need a keyboard and mouse for navigating and entering data. Touchscreens are great for reading ebooks or finger painting. But try writing a document or manipulating a spreadsheet on one. Without a mouse (or a pen), you can't do anything with great precision, and without a keyboard, you can't enter data with great speed. Kids today would also fail at those tasks using a touchscreen. Each has a place, but one cannot replace the other.
post #603 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Kids today would also fail at those tasks using a touchscreen. Each has a place, but one cannot replace the other.
+1
Kids really don't do those tasks. It's not until you start hitting real life that you begin entering data on a daily basis
post #604 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

I can see you've never used a computer to do actual work. Not only are they very uncomfortable to use for 8 hours/day as the previous poster said, touchscreen cuts my productivity by about 90%. I need a keyboard and mouse for navigating and entering data. Touchscreens are great for reading ebooks or finger painting. But try writing a document or manipulating a spreadsheet on one. Without a mouse (or a pen), you can't do anything with great precision, and without a keyboard, you can't enter data with great speed. Kids today would also fail at those tasks using a touchscreen. Each has a place, but one cannot replace the other.


Well, reread my post.. the DESKTOP is D-E-A-D.. all touch screen computers have a keyboard/mouse avail to use. just like a typewriter. so that point is all but moot. look at most desktops in cubical hives.. they are laptops that the vendor separated.. you'll be hard pressed to find a desktop in a hive that's a full sized, they are a case with a motherboard with everything on it.. I don't call that a desktop.. to me a desktop is a motherboard with a vid card/soundcard/networkcard/etc.. the desktops in your "you must not work with a computer for 8 hours a day" are laptops in a desktop package.. IT will go the same way the true desktop went.. and the next ones will be tablets.. wait, they are already out.. darn.. These will take over because the companies won't have to pony up for that desktop(sic) and a laptop/tablet so you can work at home or in the field.. so ,sorry I guess we'll agree to not agree
post #605 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

Well, reread my post.. the DESKTOP is D-E-A-D.. all touch screen computers have a keyboard/mouse avail to use. just like a typewriter. so that point is all but moot. look at most desktops in cubical hives.. they are laptops that the vendor separated.. you'll be hard pressed to find a desktop in a hive that's a full sized, they are a case with a motherboard with everything on it.. I don't call that a desktop.. to me a desktop is a motherboard with a vid card/soundcard/networkcard/etc.. the desktops in your "you must not work with a computer for 8 hours a day" are laptops in a desktop package.. IT will go the same way the true desktop went.. and the next ones will be tablets.. wait, they are already out.. darn.. These will take over because the companies won't have to pony up for that desktop(sic) and a laptop/tablet so you can work at home or in the field.. so ,sorry I guess we'll agree to not agree
Actually, I can agree with the part about desktops being dead. The part I don't agree with is your comment that desktop users should get a touchscreen. It's a huge expense with no added value for your average desktop user. My HTPC (the subject of this forum) is a desktop. My 55" TV is my screen. Adding a touchscreen or replacing it with a touchscreen device would be pointless as it would never be touched.

And I don't see my company ever spending any extra money on a tablet. They're going to continue buying the cheapest laptops they can. I imagine most other companies are the same. And the last time I checked, Win 8 tablet sales were still in the toilet, just like desktops. In the words of one journalist, Surface sales recently doubled, going from "horrendous" to "pretty bad". So nobody wants these overpriced, unnecessary devices, running a god-awful OS. Most people want iPads, which have no keyboard or mouse, hence are totally ill-equipped for real work as you claim tablets are. Unless prices drop dramatically, I see Surface eventually going away, leaving us with the current status quo of iPads and Android tablets for entertainment and a few business applications (doctors and UPS drivers) and laptops for most other work.
post #606 of 622
A laptop still costs more than an equivalent performance desktop. An all in one tablet has lower repairability and costs more than it's equivalent performing laptop. (High performance tablets aren't really even a category in all honesty, it's a very short list)

Until repairability and cost are underneath the desktop platform what you are saying will not come to pass

We have over 3k employees all with PCs in our company. Only 20% have any justification for having a laptop, and only 80% of those with the justification for having one actually have one. I don't really care what you call it, but we can open our desktops and change the PSU, RAM, HDD, GPU so it's for sure a desktop to me
post #607 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

Well, reread my post.. the DESKTOP is D-E-A-D.. all touch screen computers have a keyboard/mouse avail to use. just like a typewriter. so that point is all but moot. look at most desktops in cubical hives.. they are laptops that the vendor separated.. you'll be hard pressed to find a desktop in a hive that's a full sized, they are a case with a motherboard with everything on it.. I don't call that a desktop.. to me a desktop is a motherboard with a vid card/soundcard/networkcard/etc.. the desktops in your "you must not work with a computer for 8 hours a day" are laptops in a desktop package.. IT will go the same way the true desktop went.. and the next ones will be tablets.. wait, they are already out.. darn.. These will take over because the companies won't have to pony up for that desktop(sic) and a laptop/tablet so you can work at home or in the field.. so ,sorry I guess we'll agree to not agree

I'm an accountant. Desktops are very alive and well for the bean counters.
post #608 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

Well, reread my post.. the DESKTOP is D-E-A-D..

Completely, utterly false in MegaCorp America. In fact most MegaCorps are avoiding Win8 like the plague and settling on 7 because they still have large fleets of desktops.
post #609 of 622
Rumor has it in the first update of 8.1 they are going to straight to the start button by default. If true wouldn't that alleviate the fears of everyone that can't get used to it?
post #610 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackDiesel14 View Post

Rumor has it in the first update of 8.1 they are going to straight to the start button by default. If true wouldn't that alleviate the fears of everyone that can't get used to it?

It says that it will boot to the desktop by default, which means the current setting is checked instead of unchecked. The Start button will still pull up the tile interface.
post #611 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryansj View Post

It says that it will boot to the desktop by default, which means the current setting is checked instead of unchecked. The Start button will still pull up the tile interface.
Exactly. They ruin windows with their Fisher Price interface, then every few months move one tiny step back toward what the public actually wants without ever actually getting there.The market has spoken, and they still refuse to listen. I wounder how many millions these start menu replacement folks have made and continue to make because of Microsoft's cluelessness and stupidity. All they're going to do with this next move is piss off everybody that wants Metro because they go straight to the desktop and piss off everybody that hates Metro because there is STILL no start menu.

Here's the solution. On the first boot after an install, ask the question, "classic or modern interface?". And if you select classic, you get desktop AND an actual start menu. If you select modern, you get your Fisher Price tiles and touchscreen interface. Simple. Everybody is happy.
post #612 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Exactly. They ruin windows with their Fisher Price interface, then every few months move one tiny step back toward what the public actually wants without ever actually getting there.The market has spoken, and they still refuse to listen. I wounder how many millions these start menu replacement folks have made and continue to make because of Microsoft's cluelessness and stupidity. All they're going to do with this next move is piss off everybody that wants Metro because they go straight to the desktop and piss off everybody that hates Metro because there is STILL no start menu.

Here's the solution. On the first boot after an install, ask the question, "classic or modern interface?". And if you select classic, you get desktop AND an actual start menu. If you select modern, you get your Fisher Price tiles and touchscreen interface. Simple. Everybody is happy.


This actually makes too much sense.

What is the best solution to get back the traditional desktop windows 7 feel to windows 8 ?
post #613 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

This actually makes too much sense.

What is the best solution to get back the traditional desktop windows 7 feel to windows 8 ?

Startisback
post #614 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Actually, I can agree with the part about desktops being dead. The part I don't agree with is your comment that desktop users should get a touchscreen. It's a huge expense with no added value for your average desktop user. My HTPC (the subject of this forum) is a desktop. My 55" TV is my screen. Adding a touchscreen or replacing it with a touchscreen device would be pointless as it would never be touched.

And I don't see my company ever spending any extra money on a tablet. They're going to continue buying the cheapest laptops they can. I imagine most other companies are the same. And the last time I checked, Win 8 tablet sales were still in the toilet, just like desktops. In the words of one journalist, Surface sales recently doubled, going from "horrendous" to "pretty bad". So nobody wants these overpriced, unnecessary devices, running a god-awful OS. Most people want iPads, which have no keyboard or mouse, hence are totally ill-equipped for real work as you claim tablets are. Unless prices drop dramatically, I see Surface eventually going away, leaving us with the current status quo of iPads and Android tablets for entertainment and a few business applications (doctors and UPS drivers) and laptops for most other work.

Well, you answered it, as the tablets get cheaper, and they will, and because of volume of scale will become cheaper than a laptop.. what do you see your thifty perchanting dept. ordering when it's time to replace units..
post #615 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Exactly. They ruin windows with their Fisher Price interface, then every few months move one tiny step back toward what the public actually wants without ever actually getting there.The market has spoken, and they still refuse to listen. I wounder how many millions these start menu replacement folks have made and continue to make because of Microsoft's cluelessness and stupidity. All they're going to do with this next move is piss off everybody that wants Metro because they go straight to the desktop and piss off everybody that hates Metro because there is STILL no start menu.

Here's the solution. On the first boot after an install, ask the question, "classic or modern interface?". And if you select classic, you get desktop AND an actual start menu. If you select modern, you get your Fisher Price tiles and touchscreen interface. Simple. Everybody is happy.


you can do this in "xp" and 7, so why wouldn't this already be in the "control panel" like it has since they moved past windows 3.1
Have you even bothered to look?
post #616 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Exactly. They ruin windows with their Fisher Price interface, then every few months move one tiny step back toward what the public actually wants without ever actually getting there.The market has spoken, and they still refuse to listen. I wounder how many millions these start menu replacement folks have made and continue to make because of Microsoft's cluelessness and stupidity. All they're going to do with this next move is piss off everybody that wants Metro because they go straight to the desktop and piss off everybody that hates Metro because there is STILL no start menu.

Here's the solution. On the first boot after an install, ask the question, "classic or modern interface?". And if you select classic, you get desktop AND an actual start menu. If you select modern, you get your Fisher Price tiles and touchscreen interface. Simple. Everybody is happy.

Totally agree. All MS had to do was give users a CHOICE. One simple thing, and something they did with previous versions of Windows. But no, MS were so far off the mark with Windows 8 and their vision of 'one Windows' that it's embarrassing. The desktop isn't dead, far from it, but sales are being canabalised by people suckered into believing that the tablet is the holy grail of computing. Sure, for the average consumer who does nothing more than check facebook, send the odd tweet and watch youtube (ie, consume!), it's fine, but there's a lot who really USE a PC for work (commercial and personal). No tablet would ever cut it when real work is needed.

MS have now painted themselves into a corner they're going to struggle to get out of. They bet the company on everyone loving touch and buying into Windows 8, but it's been a total disaster for them. It's widely reported that MS will now try and distance themselves from anything '8' and concentrate on building up Windows 9, which, and there's no other way of saying it, they HAVE to get right to stand any chance of re-gaining credibility. There's too many other options nowadays, and people don't need MS like they used to, or when there was no other choices. All the big players have now launched Chromebooks for example, and they are eating into the space left by Windows 8. I really think MS are literally going to have to give away Windows 9 as well just to get people to use it. Who, these days, are prepared to pay a couple of hundred dollars just for an O/S. Not many I think.
post #617 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

you can do this in "xp" and 7, so why wouldn't this already be in the "control panel" like it has since they moved past windows 3.1
Have you even bothered to look?
.
Windows XP and 7 dosn't have a Metro interface so why would it it have an option to remove it in the control panel.

Have you even used Windows 8?
post #618 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

you can do this in "xp" and 7, so why wouldn't this already be in the "control panel" like it has since they moved past windows 3.1
Have you even bothered to look?

What...are...you...talking...about.

Windows Xp nor Windows 7 had a Metro interface, and Windows 8 certainly doesnt have any way in Control Panel to choose to turn Metro on or off.
post #619 of 622
He's clearly talking about how XP and Windows 7 both had the option to choose the "Classic" theme which sent you back to the squared off NT style menus. But yeah that's definitely not applicable to 8.
post #620 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Steb View Post

.
Windows XP and 7 dosn't have a Metro interface so why would it it have an option to remove it in the control panel.

Have you even used Windows 8?
no it has the option to have the desktop/etc in the formate of the last windows os.. 95 had the 3.1, 98 had 95, xp has 98/2000, 7 has xp..
post #621 of 622
Thge only reason that the poster writing "the desktop is dead" is in any way correct is that laptops and tablets are experiencing growth at the expense of the laptop - and the only reason this is happening is because where it is happening is when people do not need a real computer. As a consumer product, a tablet is as good as a desktop because most consumers aren;t doing much except browsing, emailing, social media junk and lightweight apps. The intermediate step up from that is the laptop, for people who need more but still need to be mobile.

Once you leave out being mobile or go beyond anything other than the lightest and most undemanding tasks then a desktop is still the obvious and logical choice. If you are doing almost anything for business then your choice is a laptop of a desktop - and if you have no need to be mobile then buying a laptop that sits on a desk just means you are paying extra for nothing. Thus, the device of choice is a desktop machine.

And once you move into the arena of anything that requires serious computing - then the only choice is a desktop. Tablets are little more than toys and you will get twice the machine in a desktop than in a laptop for the same money... and for high end desktops there is no equivalent in a laptop.

I also have regular amusing sessions when people enthuse about "cloud computing". So I ask

"So what you're saying is, the ultramodern future is really where the user just has a little processor and a display, but most of the actual processing and data storage is in a specialised centre, with huge servers, which is run by an expert technical staff?"

They invariably reply "Yes"

To which I respond

"Oh, just like thirty years ago, except we called them mainframes and terminals"

The logic of the mainframe model is inexorably exerting itself, now that the only problem it ever had - that mainframes weren't powerful enough to run the pretty graphical front ends which users wanted to have - has been overcome. The concept of taking the running of computers out of the hands of end users is just too attractive.The only reason they call it "clouds" and the rest is that no-one dares to use the word "mainframe"
post #622 of 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

no it has the option to have the desktop/etc in the formate of the last windows os.. 95 had the 3.1, 98 had 95, xp has 98/2000, 7 has xp..

That's because those systems had the same basic front end, but it had refinements with each iteration of Windows. To put it another way, an end user would find little difference in the look and operation of Windows 7 over XP or 95 - or even 3.1, although obviously 7 was much more refined in look and feel.

I remember when the large college I worked in did switchovers between a load of old Windows machines that had been kicking around - there were all sorts of variants of Windows running, and the jolly task of the long summer vacation was for me to go around and move them all to Windows NT 3.51 - including quite a lot of Windows XP machines. The idea was to unify everything and make it all work much better with the NT based servers.

What was notable was how little change this involved at the user end. All I had to do was to leave some notes about a few things that changed, like having to logon to the network and how great roaming profiles were.

This in no way applies to Windows 8. There is simply no way to make it work like it's predessor, Windows 7.

Microsoft made the big (and completely wrong) decision that it would force everyone to go over exclusively to Metro. Now I can see why. They wanted to have a single front end for everything, whether it was a Windows phone, a Surface or a laptop or a PC, it would look and feel the same. Metro. And they didn;t want to effectively double the support load for Windows 8 by having to go on supporting a Windows 7 and Metro front end.

But the real world doesn;t work like that.

People resented Microsoft acting in a high-handed fashion. They didn;t want to be forced to use Metro, which is designed for a touch environment, mostly because the bulk of Microsoft's users are using desktops and stuff like Office - they don;t have touch screens, which are expensive and mostly pointless for such users. They felt that Microsoft was acting in a "we know best" mode and was essentially telling it;s core user base it didn't care about them.

Metro is too big a change and certainly too big a one to be imposed.

Users felt they had a limited cxhoice - either Windows 8 and Metro, or Windows 7. And many of them chose 7 (or even earlier versions) because Metro is 8's biggest and most obvious selling point (even though it has plenty or worthy improvements underneath)

In a corporate or large user base of any kind moving from 7 to 8 would have filled any IT department with dread. Can you imagine the retraining involved and all those phone calls for days? "Where's the Start button?" "Why have you forced me to use this thing which is a pain in the ass with a mouse and keyboard?"

Loads of corporates still stick with XP because Windows 7 doesn;t offer any incentive to move. With Windows 8 that "incentive" is for the most part Metro.

It's all like the disaster that was New Cola. You can't make your consumer like something no matter how much you think they should because it's technically clever. The more you keep trying the more they will resist, or more likely, vote with their wallets.

And no, there's no way to tell Metro to look and feel like Windows 7. Even with the latest patches, in which Microsoft is being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards what t's users actually want.
Edited by Nebiroth - 2/2/14 at 2:46am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Windows 8 - my verdict.