Tuesday, August 27th 2013

Microsoft Windows 8.1 Goes RTM

Today, via a Blogging Windows post, Microsoft has confirmed that both Windows 8.1 and Windows RT 8.1 have reached the RTM (release to manufacturing) milestone. This Windows version brings back the Start button and also features Internet Explorer 11, SkyDrive integration, an updated Windows Store experience, DPI scaling improvements (enabling better readability on high-DPI displays), 3D printing support, more customization options, tweaked mouse and keyboard navigation, and a boot-to-desktop option.

Windows 8.1 will become available (to business customers, consumers, as well as MSDN and TechNet subscribers) on October 18th.
Add your own comment

83 Comments on Microsoft Windows 8.1 Goes RTM

#1
Cheeseball
by: Wile E
Start screen is terrible for mouse users that can't touch type. (me)

...

Now, on a touch screen, the Start Screen is amazing, and 8 really comes into it's own. I choose 8 every time on anything with touch capability. It's leagues ahead of 7 in that respect.
QFT. I have nothing against the Start Screen, but it's annoying as hell for me as a mouse user. I can see how well it would work for tablet and touch screen users though, and I applaud them for that.

What they should have done is kept the Start button and menu by default when a PS2/USB mouse is plugged in and have the Start Screen set by default when a digitizer/touch screen/tablet PC is detected. That would've made a lot more sense and lessened the initial reaction from the PC users.
Posted on Reply
#2
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: Cheeseball
QFT. I have nothing against the Start Screen, but it's annoying as hell for me as a mouse user. I can see how well it would work for tablet and touch screen users though, and I applaud them for that.

What they should have done is kept the Start button and menu by default when a PS2/USB mouse is plugged in and have the Start Screen set by default when a digitizer/touch screen/tablet PC is detected. That would've made a lot more sense and lessened the initial reaction from the PC users.
Or just gave us an option to enable or disable the start metro screen on the desktop versions. But I actually like the start screen so I could careless now.
Posted on Reply
#3
RejZoR
by: Cheeseball
QFT. I have nothing against the Start Screen, but it's annoying as hell for me as a mouse user. I can see how well it would work for tablet and touch screen users though, and I applaud them for that.

What they should have done is kept the Start button and menu by default when a PS2/USB mouse is plugged in and have the Start Screen set by default when a digitizer/touch screen/tablet PC is detected. That would've made a lot more sense and lessened the initial reaction from the PC users.
Apparently this is some super complicated rocket science for them to do... but it would realyl solve all the problems with silly Start menu...
Posted on Reply
#4
AphexDreamer
Windows start is no more annoying to use with a mouse than it is to use with touch... If you can point and click with your finger, you can point and click with a mouse.
Posted on Reply
#5
Wile E
Power User
by: AphexDreamer
Windows start is no more annoying to use with a mouse than it is to use with touch... If you can point and click with your finger, you can point and click with a mouse.
And have to cover more area and take longer to do it.
Posted on Reply
#6
AphexDreamer
by: Wile E
And have to cover more area and take longer to do it.
Care to elaborate?
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
by: AphexDreamer
Windows start is no more annoying to use with a mouse than it is to use with touch... If you can point and click with your finger, you can point and click with a mouse.
You need big tiles that cover entire screen for butter fingered youth. You don't need it for accurate pointing device such as mice. New start is fine for me by itself, what i've always disliked was the fact it covers everything you had opened till that point. Old start menu never did that, it always covered just what, 1/3 of the screen or even less on higher res big screens.
Posted on Reply
#9
ste2425
18th October, that's my 23rd birthday. Don't thinking this'll be something I'm bothered about though. Got a proper start button on my win 8 and removed all that metro rubbish. Changed default programmes to open real desktop programmes not the pretend app counter parts. Don't know if there's anything under the skin that's different from win 7, despite the faster boots, but on the top it's now identical.
Posted on Reply
#10
Fx
Personally, I don't know of anyone, whether an end user or working in IT, that likes Windows 8 in its current state and are more than happy with Windows 7.

Screw the NSA.
Posted on Reply
#12
1c3d0g
by: Fx
Personally, I don't know of anyone, whether an end user or working in IT, that likes Windows 8 in its current state and are more than happy with Windows 7.

Screw the NSA.
LMAO...and you believe 7 doesn't have a backdoor? ROFL! :roll: That's a good one. I hate 8 as much as anyone, but using 7 to "screw the NSA" is certainly NOT a valid reason! :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#13
PLSG08
Hmm now I'm more intrigued to get Win8... All I need is a working Start Menu much like 7's and this damn thing might get me into it..
Posted on Reply
#14
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
Is 8.1 a free upgrade if you already own 8 ?
Posted on Reply
#15
AphexDreamer
by: RejZoR
You need big tiles that cover entire screen for butter fingered youth. You don't need it for accurate pointing device such as mice. New start is fine for me by itself, what i've always disliked was the fact it covers everything you had opened till that point. Old start menu never did that, it always covered just what, 1/3 of the screen or even less on higher res big screens.
And how is the fact that it takes up the whole screen mean that it is in any way detrimental to what one is doing? You open start to search/open something, at which point you click on that something and start goes away. The same exact same thing happens no matter what the size of start is, except now in win 8, you have more room to view what your are looking for.

And besides in windows 8.1, the start can open up on top of the desktop, so you can still see your desktop (perhaps even more of it) in the background while you navigate through start.

by: Easy Rhino
Is 8.1 a free upgrade if you already own 8 ?
Yes.
Posted on Reply
#16
Fx
by: 1c3d0g
LMAO...and you believe 7 doesn't have a backdoor? ROFL! :roll: That's a good one. I hate 8 as much as anyone, but using 7 to "screw the NSA" is certainly NOT a valid reason! :laugh:
You assume a valid point that applies to many people, but not me. Actually, I am aware that 7 has a back door built in, and Windows 8 is what prompted me to look into this. Upon a little investigation, I found out that this crap has been going on at least as far back as Windows 2000.

Shady bitches working out shady collaborations...
Posted on Reply
#17
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
windows 8.1 should be looked at as a service pack. it will come free if you have win8 already and through Windows Update.
Posted on Reply
#18
phanbuey
All they needed was an option for a start menu... and everything would have been fine.
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
by: AphexDreamer
And how is the fact that it takes up the whole screen mean that it is in any way detrimental to what one is doing? You open start to search/open something, at which point you click on that something and start goes away. The same exact same thing happens no matter what the size of start is, except now in win 8, you have more room to view what your are looking for.

And besides in windows 8.1, the start can open up on top of the desktop, so you can still see your desktop (perhaps even more of it) in the background while you navigate through start.
Because you have to move further to click things on the Start screen. I don't have to rifle through folders in my Start Menu. Everything I use the most is there as soon as I click the button, and the Start menu only takes up about 1/8 of my screen. That's much less area to cover, and I am faster for it. I don't need more room to view things, I need more things in less room.
Posted on Reply
#20
AphexDreamer
by: Wile E
Because you have to move further to click things on the Start screen. I don't have to rifle through folders in my Start Menu. , and the Start menu only takes up about 1/8 of my screen. That's much less area to cover, and I am faster for it. I don't need more room to view things, I need more things in less room.
I'm sorry but I still don't understand the "faster for it".

"Because you have to move further to click things on the Start screen."

You have a scroll on your mouse right? You can scroll right to any app you want.

"I don't have to rifle through folders in my Start Menu."

Who does?

"Everything I use the most is there as soon as I click the button"

In windows 8 everything I use is there as soon as I go to start too and IDK about you but since vista I've just been using the search bar to get to absolutely anything I want by usually typing the first three letters of it.

"takes up about 1/8 of my screen. That's much less area to cover, and I am faster for it."
Using up 100% of the screen and scrolling through things covers more things using more space to show you your things and is probably as fast if not faster.

"I don't need more room to view things, I need more things in less room."
This is just preference with no inherit merit. Sounds like an argument just for the sake of arguing.

I don't' care what OS anyone uses and I find criticism is good, but I just don't understand some of the dislikes people are tossing at Win 8. Some comments seem to just stem from people being stubborn rather than some actual issue with Win 8 (no offense to anyone in regards to this comment).
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
by: AphexDreamer
I'm sorry but I still don't understand the "faster for it".

"Because you have to move further to click things on the Start screen."

You have a scroll on your mouse right? You can scroll right to any app you want.

"I don't have to rifle through folders in my Start Menu."

Who does?

"Everything I use the most is there as soon as I click the button"

In windows 8 everything I use is there as soon as I go to start too and IDK about you but since vista I've just been using the search bar to get to absolutely anything I want by usually typing the first three letters of it.

"takes up about 1/8 of my screen. That's much less area to cover, and I am faster for it."
Using up 100% of the screen and scrolling through things covers more things using more space to show you your things and is probably as fast if not faster.

"I don't need more room to view things, I need more things in less room."
This is just preference with no inherit merit. Sounds like an argument just for the sake of arguing.

I don't' care what OS anyone uses and I find criticism is good, but I just don't understand some of the dislikes people are tossing at Win 8. Some comments seem to just stem from people being stubborn rather than some actual issue with Win 8 (no offense to anyone in regards to this comment).
Oh ffs I get tired of this argument. Read my first comment. I used 8 for 3 months. I am slower with it. This is not me speaking of what it would be like for me, it is me speaking of what it is like for me.

I am not a touch typist. Typing the letters of programs is not faster for me.

Moving my mouse in a tiny little corner of my screen is much faster than scrolling through my programs or moving across the entire screen to get what I am after. For me, this is a fact. There is no disputing it. It just does not work as well for me. I am far more accurate and use less movement with the start menu, period.

And preference for something that works better with your working style is it's own merit. Because it doesn't work well with yours does not mean that mine lacks merit.

I am not the only one that works best this way, otherwise the outcry for the start menu would have died down by now. It hasn't. People still want it, and they want it because they work better with it.

This is not a matter of adjustment or resistance to change for me, it's a matter of inefficiency in relation to my working style. I have happily adopted every previous change to the start menu before this. Once I adjusted to it, I found it worked just as well, if not better for me, than the previous versions. But, no amount of adjustment made start screen match or better the menu for me. I don't mind alternative UIs, as long as they work well with me. I even adjusted to, and work well in OS X and like it. That just isn't the case here.

I am glad it works for you, but Win 8's UI does not work well with me (and many, many others), period.
Posted on Reply
#22
johnspack
Just one question, why can't we have disk space free/used on the dam windows explorer status bar? Why? Just for that I'll stubbornly stick to win7 to the end.... or until I need win 8.1 for a new app.... sigh.....
Posted on Reply
#23
AphexDreamer
by: Wile E
Oh ffs I get tired of this argument. Read my first comment. I used 8 for 3 months. I am slower with it. This is not me speaking of what it would be like for me, it is me speaking of what it is like for me.

I am not a touch typist. Typing the letters of programs is not faster for me.

Moving my mouse in a tiny little corner of my screen is much faster than scrolling through my programs or moving across the entire screen to get what I am after. For me, this is a fact. There is no disputing it. It just does not work as well for me. I am far more accurate and use less movement with the start menu, period.

And preference for something that works better with your working style is it's own merit. Because it doesn't work well with yours does not mean that mine lacks merit.

I am not the only one that works best this way, otherwise the outcry for the start menu would have died down by now. It hasn't. People still want it, and they want it because they work better with it.

This is not a matter of adjustment or resistance to change for me, it's a matter of inefficiency in relation to my working style. I have happily adopted every previous change to the start menu before this. Once I adjusted to it, I found it worked just as well, if not better for me, than the previous versions. But, no amount of adjustment made start screen match or better the menu for me. I don't mind alternative UIs, as long as they work well with me. I even adjusted to, and work well in OS X and like it. That just isn't the case here.

I am glad it works for you, but Win 8's UI does not work well with me (and many, many others), period.
Well I'm by no means a genius or some Windows guru, so how it works well with me and not with others is an anomaly that I may never get sorted out.

I could go on endlessly against the claims of decreased functionality by lack of a button and increased start menu size but I'm not a Microsoft PR so before I strike any more chords, I'll leave this one to you.
Posted on Reply
#24
erocker
by: AphexDreamer
Well I'm by no means a genius or some Windows guru, so how it works well with me and not with others is an anomaly that I may never get sorted out.

I could go on endlessly against the claims of decreased functionality by lack of a button and increased start menu size but I'm not a Microsoft PR so before I strike any more chords, I'll leave this one to you.
You can't grasp the idea that people are different internally and externally? Really, this is a good thing.
Posted on Reply
#25
johnspack
The stupid start button is easily fixed, it's called Classicshell. Works perfect. What I want is free disk space ect in the status bar in windows explorer, I have a dozen partitions, I need to see space free at all times. Why gone in Win8?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment