what do you guys think of windows 8?

I previously tried the beta version of windows 8 and hated the metro interface with a passion and right now im trying the preview release and though Microsoft fixed some bugs im still not very impressed with windows 8 and so far I don't plan on ever buying it

 

I'd only use it on older single core CPU, DDR laptops, and touchscreen devices.

 

im using it on a hp laptop from 2007 and it has a duo core intel Centrino cpu
it had vista on but I downgraded it to xp home edition (it ran good on it)

 

I've seen one or two 3rd party apps that bring back a start menu of sorts in win8 (metro interface sucks bigtime)!

 

That laptop would run W7 nicely. Dual core, Centrino mobiles have a nice L2 cache, and 4GB DDR2, it would be fine. Napa, or Santa Rosa CPU?

 

it's a yonah but its ram is maxxed out at two gigs

 

im trying start8 thanks for mentioning them.

 

Is there actually anything that improves W8 from W7? I mean any added functionality?

 

The start menu thing is a real annoyance initially, but if you kick all the tiles off the metro panel that you don't want, and add tiles for those you do want, you've basically got your start menu back - just looks different and requires a slightly more difficult pointer action to invoke it. The search function is another very easy way to start your apps or whatever just by typing the first few letters of whatever it is you want. It is also very fast, much faster than Win 7, and absolutely stable, for me anyway.

I'm rapidly overcoming my initial negative feelings about it but as I don't use a touchscreen device of any sort I suspect I won't actually be shelling out for it. Hope they don't disable the RC trial version though as I find I'm using it quite a lot.

 

<2¢>

I recall reading about Microsoft's philosophy shift these days regarding desktop OSes. IIRC, it went something like this: MS sees mobile computing and the cloud as the future, the place the real growth will be. This will be reflected in future desktop offerings along with a turn towards some type of thin client approach to apps.

This is not my vision, I want to keep control of what the computer does, not depend on/trust entities in the cloud to manage my computing experience.

The following is NOT to start a fanboi/gurl flame war, merely a logical extension of my opinion on this subject:

I am one of those crazed zealots who has been using less and less of MS products for some time now when a good open source alternative exists, i.e. Libre Office. Over 50% of my machines are either dual boot Linux or outright Linux boxes now. I'll grant this is nearly impossible for gamers, but from where the sun now sets, I will game no more...

</2¢>

 

Hadn't heard this,TY. Stumbled on this "explanation":
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx

If it turns out that MS is going to lockdown machines that load 8, I am confident some enterprising individuals will have a workaround posted inside a week. :-D IF TRUE, this is exactly the kind of behavior that feeds alternate OS growth...

 

I would rather install Vista, than that piece of garbage. At Least Vista brought change from what XP had, and gave us Aero in its preliminary form.

 

Wow! Now this is a stinging indictment if ever one was issued...

 

I've been using windows 8 for a few days on my laptop there is something's about win8 I like (speed etc) but I still hate the metro ui so im running start8.:-o

 

I have tried windows 8 and I don't like it myself so I think I will be sticking with windows 7.

 

The truth hurts about 8, doesn't it. Vista was not bad, for being the beta to 7.

 

I haven't tried 8 and am not likely to anytime soon. I read an article, can't find it now, where the author attributed XP's unprecendented longetivity to several things.

1. XP was REAL good. Much better than any consumer product Microsoft had ever put out. 2000 was a decent attempt, but XP was far superior.

2. The delay and abandonment of Longhorn added years to XP's life.

3. The nearly universal opinion that Vista was a rush job, poory implemented and sold poorly extended Xp's run a bit as well.

4. The economy being less than wonderful for some years now has many companies unwilling to spend to upgrade to 7 when they have a product that works fine, that they know well and can depend on. I know several businesses that could do what they do computer wise on Win 98. Not everyone is doing 3-D rendering for example.

Even today XP has a very large piece of the pie expressed as installed user base.

I am of the opinion that XP may have been the pinnacle of Microsoft's products in some respects. I recall, vaguely, when "My Computer" became "Computer" almost as a signal of what was to come in the way of MS's direction. Rumors of OS lockdowns and some engineer's dreams of the Cloud only add to my suspicions...

 

Regarding number 1.
2000 was just as good as XP. XP just dumbed down the interface some for consumers.

Regarding number 3.
Most of Vista's issues were a new driver model and lazy 3rd parties not bringing out proper drivers, despite having a 6+ month warning.

Microsoft has been preaching and playing with cloud only since the days of Windows 98. What they want, and what they can achieve are not always the same. Hard disk capacities are increasing, not decreasing. Cloud only is a pipe dream for now and the foreseeable future for mainstream computing.

 

Agreed. For me, 2000 saw the end of many BSODs that hit restricted users like crazy in NT. Mostly a BSOD after an install was pushed to their machine, easily corrected by reboot.

XP was wonderful from the perspective of supporting hundreds of machines. Vista not so much...

And it may be that consumers will love some iteration of a thin client with all the goodies in the cloud. Probably enough of them to make it a commercial success. Many folks just wanna connect to email, facebook, play a game, write a letter...

"Cloud like" environments exist today and prosper, I contend that a small business that uses a server to store working documents that employees access and save back to the server is in a way a form of the cloud. And universities that operated what were essentially thin clients connected to mainframes certainly were a version of that. There is pressure on IT staffs in large enterprise environments to come up with something to reduce time spent hunched over desktops. Pushing apps and running some from the server, with say Novell, may have come and gone to some extent, but something akin to that is coming for consumers most likely...

Anyway, the lockdown issue concerns me the most. Forget the argument of the OS being licensed not purchased, when an OS denies me the ability to dual boot or worse, I say goodbye to it.

 

There are far better ways than Microsoft's way of dual booting. There isn't any way they could get away with blocking those.

 

adrynalyne, I actually decreased the space on my netbook, from a 160gb drive, to a 64gb SSD. Everything I need, is either on a 1TB pocket drive, or up in the cloud at box.com.

 

Yeah but for typical consumers, hard disks are increasing in size. You can go with 1 TB on laptops now.

I too downsized, but only because I wanted the SSD speed.