How many of you went back to Windows 7 ?

[lilhasselhoffer]

I have a question, that I think encapsulates the whole debate.


If the most purchased application for your new operating system is one that disable all of the UI changes, then what are the consumers saying about your "improved" UI?


Face it, the power user is a minority. The people who get every operating system, and learn to adapt, are in such small supply that it isn't possible to cater to them. MS has tried to push things forward, but the techniques they used have been demonstrated to be consumer unfriendly. Whether you like or loathe the new UI, dollars are the only thing that speaks.

Hopefully MS learned, and 9 will be the backside improvements of 8, with the UI of 7. Better yet, release an optional update that incorporates the ability to disable Metro. I don't care to consider what that says about progress, but the consumers have spoken. I'm more than happy to have a different OS between my phone, tablet, and desktop. MS wanted to make the transition from device to device seamless, but they only succeeded in making the desktop less friendly (for basic consumers anyways).

[Frick]

Originally Posted by rickss69

It's all about scale. You do understand the concept of polls, right?

But .. didn't we talk about how much it has sold? The scale was all Win8 machines in the world.

Originally Posted by rickss69

Not hard to do when that is all that is available. Then once the consumer has it in hand and tries it out....well, you can see the numbers here yourself.

Wait, maybe you changed the scale in the middle of the sentence. I think you did.

You talk about numbers proving MS didn't do their homework. I assumed that meant it sold poorly, or did you refer to the number of people complaining on the UI? Even if you have a hundred people it's a drop in the ocean.

If the scale is this forum only.. I'd say it's pretty even. Not everyone has answered the poll, and Windows 8 have a fair share of fans, as do Windows 7.

Now of course anyone can use whatever they damn please, but I think it's wrong to say it's proven to be a failure and that all this doom and gloom.

BTW, I love the concept of Windows Everywhere. I think cadaveca talked about it somewhere, how different things would integrate more or less seamlessly with each other. Look at Apple and their AppleTV and iPhone/iTab and maybe an upcoming actual Apple TV, they just work together. I think it's a good thing to shoot for, and I also think the only realistic way to integrate technology in peoples lives is making them as easy as possible to use. You can do quite literally anything with Linux, but often there's a lot of work to do it.

All in all I think MS is on the right track. Nothing is certain though.

[repman244]

Finished installing Win 8 on my laptop along with a new SSD (840 Pro). While I'm not exactly happy about the lack of the old start menu, I still like the new look.
The text is much easier to read, I also like that they got rid of the transparent stuff, it's a bit more responsive than Win 7 (I tried both on same setup/same SSD).

However I'm not changing to 8 on my main PC, the only reason I installed win 8 on my laptop is because I got it for free.

[rickss69]

Originally Posted by Frick

But .. didn't we talk about how much it has sold? The scale was all Win8 machines in the world.

That scale is just fine...it still boils down to that is all that is being offered/provided.


Wait, maybe you changed the scale in the middle of the sentence. I think you did.

I think not.

You talk about numbers proving MS didn't do their homework. I assumed that meant it sold poorly, or did you refer to the number of people complaining on the UI? Even if you have a hundred people it's a drop in the ocean.

The numbers we are speaking of here are the parameters of this specific poll. You will find the same spread on any forum you visit concerning this topic.

If the scale is this forum only.. I'd say it's pretty even. Not everyone has answered the poll, and Windows 8 have a fair share of fans, as do Windows 7.

No, it is not even close to being even.

Now of course anyone can use whatever they damn please, but I think it's wrong to say it's proven to be a failure and that all this doom and gloom.

Never stated it as being a failure in of itself...the overall judgement of MS in the grande scheme of things is suspect tho.

BTW, I love the concept of Windows Everywhere. I think cadaveca talked about it somewhere, how different things would integrate more or less seamlessly with each other. Look at Apple and their AppleTV and iPhone/iTab and maybe an upcoming actual Apple TV, they just work together. I think it's a good thing to shoot for, and I also think the only realistic way to integrate technology in peoples lives is making them as easy as possible to use. You can do quite literally anything with Linux, but often there's a lot of work to do it.

All in all I think MS is on the right track. Nothing is certain though.

[rickss69]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Guys I have a laptop with only 2GB of RAM (max). Which is faster Win7 or Win8 to be installed on it? Thanks

Probably not much difference. I would put Tiny XP on it if the OS suited your purposes.

[syeef]

Originally Posted by rickss69

Probably not much difference. I would put Tiny XP on it if the OS suited your purposes.

I am running Vista SP2 on my old laptop with 2GB RAM, can't say it runs slow. So I guess Prima.Vera will be fine with either 7 or 8. But I keep hearing 8 is little bit more efficient.

[james888]

Originally Posted by syeef

I am running Vista SP2 on my old laptop with 2GB RAM, can't say it runs slow. So I guess Prima.Vera will be fine with either 7 or 8. But I keep hearing 8 is little bit more efficient.

Windows 7 would use about 1.2gb while 8 uses .80gb. That can make a big difference when you have 2gb to work with. Windows 8 boots faster too.

[syeef]

Originally Posted by james888

Windows 8 boots faster too.

Oh yeah, forgot about that.... my 8 boots in ~4.5 sec. Whereas 7 used to take ~30 sec and my Windows Server 2008 R2 used to take ~1.5 min.

[james888]

Originally Posted by syeef

Oh yeah, forgot about that.... my 8 boots in ~4.5 sec. Whereas 7 used to take ~30 sec and my Windows Server 2008 R2 used to take ~1.5 min.

That is without an ssd?

I went from about 30 seconds on my laptop to 15 seconds or so.

[syeef]

Originally Posted by james888

That is without an ssd?

Yes.

[ste2425]

I had 7 when it was at some form of beta release but i didnt impress me enough to spend the money and move from Vista. Found out i can download MS os's through my university and i now realize what ive been missing out on. Currently running 8 and extremely happy with it, much faster and more efficient on resources then Vista. Yea the whole start menu thing and difficulty getting it into safe mode, no power off button took a bit to get used to but over all i find my experience loading up various documents finding programs to be quite efficient ive just put everything i frequently need to access on the start menu simple.

Main thing i was im pressed was how well it handled swapping my mother board, just booted up and within 5 min it running as if nothing had happened and still is now, Vista would have cried like a baby till i re-installed it.

However like i said i only used the beta version of 7 the final release would have obviously been better and i may find if i do use it to be better than 8, but at the moment im happy enough not to want too.

[HammerON]

Didn't vote as I did not switch; hence I have not switched back to Win7