locked
Good-Bye, Windows 8 Developer Preview

    General discussion

  • I, WindowsVista567, created this post under an account that has since been deleted. If you have any questions about this post, I will respond to them from the "WindowsVista567" account, as I no longer have access to this one. Visit the "WindowsVista567 - old account" profile page for more information.

    After using the Windows Developer Preview, all I can think is "I want my Windows Vista back."

    To that end, I am uninstalling the Windows Developer Preview. I may install it on my Vista computer as a secondary OS, but Vista is better than both Windows 7 and the Windows Developer Preview. I have said everything I can think of about the problems in the developer preview, and I see no reason to continue using it while the OS is still unfinished and split in two. Let's hope Metro is better in the beta.



    Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:25 PM

All replies

  • After using the Windows Developer Preview, all I can think is "I want my Windows Vista back."

    To that end, I am uninstalling the Windows Developer Preview. I may install it on my Vista computer as a secondary OS, but Vista is better than both Windows 7 and the Windows Developer Preview. I have said everything I can think of about the problems in the developer preview, and I see no reason to continue using it while the OS is still unfinished and split in two. Let's hope Metro is better in the beta.


    I don't understand how you can compare Vista RTM and Windows 7 RTM with a Windows 8 preview targeted for developers. This release has been clearly defined as a beta version and its only goal is to prepare Windows developer to new Windows APIs and have a first sight to what is coming next for them. This release is not intended to be tested by end users.
    Saturday, September 17, 2011 10:03 PM
  • The idea wasn't to compare the Developer Preview to Windows 7 RTM and Vista RTM. I was merely pointing out that the Developer Preview is, as others have stated, nowhere close to being ready for prime time. My biggest fear is that from now until General Availability, the only changes Microsoft will make will be to fix bugs. Even some of the basic ideas behind the Metro UI need to be adjusted. I was also trying to point out the flaws in Windows 7 when compared with Windows Vista. Vista is still my all-time favorite Windows OS, and I have a post on this forum about why that is and how changes can be made to Windows 8 to make it more Vista-like in a good way. That's why I said "I want my Windows Vista back," and not "I want my Windows 7 back." I used phrases like "Let's hope Metro is better in the beta," to indicate what the problems are, and I commented that the Developer Preview is "split in two." In retrospect, it probably wasn't by best post, but I wanted to explain that I was uninstalling the Developer Preview and why. The idea is not to rant and rave about Windows 8's current problems, or just complain, but to explain how many issues the current version has. There is even an article online called "5 Deal-Breaking Flaws in Windows 8" online, and almost all of them are problems that I have noticed.
    Saturday, September 17, 2011 10:15 PM
  • The purpose of Windows 8 Developer Preview is to allow us developers to ready our apps for Windows 8. There's really no other use for the OS in its current form, so you're absolutely right not to use it as a general purpose OS. The Developer Preview absolutely does what it intended to do though, and its really great to have such early access to be able to get my apps ready.
    Developer. Windows, Mac OS X, iOS, WP7, Silverlight.
    Saturday, September 17, 2011 11:23 PM
  • My biggest fear is that from now until General Availability, the only changes Microsoft will make will be to fix bugs. Even some of the basic ideas behind the Metro UI need to be adjusted.

    By the time Windows 7 Beta was launched to the public, Microsoft had already decided that no major features would be added or removed.

    In my opinion Microsoft did not listen to its customers concerns about the problems with Windows 7.

    For example, there is no horizontal scroll bar in the navigation pane of an explorer window, and clicking in front of a folder name will highlight the folder but not switch to it.

    The final windows 7 release is almost identical to the Beta. My fear Is the same thing will happen with Windows 8

    Sunday, September 18, 2011 8:27 AM
  • If that happens, I can't see Windows 8 succeeding. Enterprises won't want to use it like this, and it will probably feel broken to many customers who get Windows 8 with a new computer. The Developer Preview feels broken to me, not because of bugs, but because of crazy UI design decisions. I can't picture using Windows 8 in its current state as a primary OS.
    Sunday, September 18, 2011 3:48 PM
  • I think the fact that vista is your favourite OS says a lot really.
    Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:00 PM
  • Remember this: Fiasco of the Century. Unless they completely forget the idea, which I'd bet won't happen when they have come this far. Long life to Windows 7 we can foresee. 
    Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:16 PM
  • To the user who said that the fact that I like Vista "says a lot:"

    Did you read my topic about Vista? I explained how Vista is better than Windows 7 and what features should be added back into Windows 8 in another thread. You can't assume things about people just because they like Windows Vista. To me, parts of Windows 7 feel broken compared to Vista, such as the removal of the Sidebar for gadgets, Windows Media Player 12, resizable panes in Windows Explorer, and the removal of Windows Movie Maker and Windows Photo Gallery. Movie Maker, in particular, was better in Windows Vista than in Windows Live Essentials. If you're just going along with the "I hate Vista" crowd, then try it for yourself and see how it really is. If you had a bad experience with Vista, don't judge everyone who liked it based on the experience. The only problems I had with Vista were related to bad video drivers and cheap integarted graphics, neither of which is Microsoft's fault. Programs, not Vista, caused problems with my computer's GPU. The point of this thread was to point out that the Developer Preview, if left in its current state, cannot work for me. The emphasis was more on Windows 8's failure than it was on Vista.


    Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:17 PM
  • The main problem I had with vista was how amazing it's performance was, as was publically acknowledged by microsoft. It was just so fast, I couldn't keep up with it :(
    Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:20 PM
  • Did you read my post about Windows Vista? You can't assume things about people just because they like Windows Vista. To me, parts of Windows 7 feel broken compared to Vista, such as the removal of the Sidebar for gadgets, Windows Media Player 12, resizable panes in Windows Explorer, and the removal of Windows Movie Maker and Windows Photo Gallery. Movie Maker, in particular, was better in Windows Vista than in Windows Live Essentials. If you're just going along with the "I hate Vista" crowd, then try it for yourself and see how it really is. If you had a bad experience with Vista, don't judge everyone who liked it based on the experience. The only problems I had with Vista were related to bad video drivers and cheap integarted graphics, neither of which is Microsoft's fault. Programs, not Vista, caused problems with my computer's GPU.

    Well, the main reason of the Vista disaster was that it required a powerful computer to run it. It just didn't run in the laptop I had by then, while Windows 7 did pretty well.

    The rest of the differences is more a matter of taste. I don't think that the differences were very big, although I personally prefer W7 a hundred times for many small details.

    Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:23 PM
  • In some ways, I wonder if Windows 8 will end up like Windows Millennium. It was so bad that PCWorld said "Forget Y2K. This was the real millennium bug." In its current state, I can't justify using Windows 8, nor will I be able to justify using it after it launches unless the UI is redesigned (again), or returned to the old format. If Microsoft can justify Metro on the desktop when tablets are removed from the picture, I haven't heard it. All I've heard is "It still works, even though it wasn't designed for desktops. We're making it backward compatible for 'legacy' users, so your old-style PC will still work." That's not what I wanted to hear, nor do I expect people to replace their PC's with tablets just because Windows 8 doesn't work properly on regular computers.
    Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:24 PM
  • After using the Windows Developer Preview, all I can think is "I want my Windows Vista back."

    To that end, I am uninstalling the Windows Developer Preview. I may install it on my Vista computer as a secondary OS, but Vista is better than both Windows 7 and the Windows Developer Preview. I have said everything I can think of about the problems in the developer preview, and I see no reason to continue using it while the OS is still unfinished and split in two. Let's hope Metro is better in the beta.


    well im using windows 8 developer preview and i really like the metro feel. it also seems a lot smoother and faster. i love the new internet 10. but here is what i don't like. where is windows 7. when you go to desktop its is just the desktop its not like my old windows. also i dual booted it with windows 7 now i get blue screen of death with windows 7. but developer is really fast and responsive
    Monday, September 19, 2011 2:18 AM
  • well im using windows 8 developer preview and i really like the metro feel. it also seems a lot smoother and faster. i love the new internet 10. but here is what i don't like. where is windows 7. when you go to desktop its is just the desktop its not like my old windows. also i dual booted it with windows 7 now i get blue screen of death with windows 7. but developer is really fast and responsive

    I have dual boot x64 WindOS7 and x64 WindOS8DevPreview. I am running both OSes with no problem at all. The difference between my method and the one posted on lifehacker is they used single hdd and installed win8 on different partition. Whereas, I installed win8 on an entirely different hdd. Initially there was no bootloader coming up with win8. Later, I used win7 repair disk to fix the boot issues and finally I get win8, win7 and GUI based bootloader up and running. My experience with win8 is pretty cool. Lot of new stuff to learn for an average user. But I can bet win8 is sort of an OS which lot people will learn and get accustomed to willingly.

    One thing I don’t understand though (besides lacking the ability to close the metro app explicitly), in add-remove programs the metro apps are not listed. Neither do they exist in either of the program-files folder. But it’s time to learn and adapt the change; after all we are subjected to a cutting-edge, adaptive OS -- Windows8!

    Personally I feel like, metro UI would be a great paradigm shift to the 3d desktop environment (which was once mentioned by Bill Gates).

    Monday, September 19, 2011 3:45 AM
  • In some ways, I wonder if Windows 8 will end up like Windows Millennium. It was so bad that PCWorld said "Forget Y2K. This was the real millennium bug." In its current state, I can't justify using Windows 8, nor will I be able to justify using it after it launches unless the UI is redesigned (again), or returned to the old format. If Microsoft can justify Metro on the desktop when tablets are removed from the picture, I haven't heard it. All I've heard is "It still works, even though it wasn't designed for desktops. We're making it backward compatible for 'legacy' users, so your old-style PC will still work." That's not what I wanted to hear, nor do I expect people to replace their PC's with tablets just because Windows 8 doesn't work properly on regular computers.

    I am running a Dell OptiPlex GX 280 With an upgraded ATI Radeon HD 4550 video card,  a 22" Elo 2200L Touch Screen monitor, and I am LOVING Windows 8 Developer Preview!  In fact,  I am using it as my main and only OS on this PC!  It is fast, smooth, I like the intuitive Metro UI with all the neat features, and I like the fact that I can still access the old Desktop very easily.  It works with all of my hardware and I have been able to install EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM I was running in Windows 7 with NO PROBLEMS.  In it's very early stages the OS is awesome!  You are judging an OS which is not even in beta phase yet, it is still a milestone release!  If a pre-beta OS is this good,   I can hardly wait for the final product!  Are you serious when you say that Vista is better than 7 and it's your favorite OS???  Vista is the second WORST Windows of all time!  The only worse one was ME!  I know because I work in IT and Vista system requirements are too high, it is too buggy, it has poor driver support and third party support and it was basically Windows 7 rushed and released too early!  Don't worry, if you don't like Windows 8, don't use a PC, from the sound of it you really shouldn't be anyway.  Better yet, keep your Windows Vista while the rest of the world is enjoying a beautiful, next-gen OS!
    Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:15 PM
  • I think the fact that vista is your favourite OS says a lot really.


    What is it you're trying to say here, WillHo01?  That you couldn't make Vista work for you?  I think that says a lot, really, about your computer prowess as compared to that of mt325000, who apparently was smart enough to get good results from Vista.

    Some of us had Vista systems that worked great and did just what we needed - better than all prior versions of Windows.  It was a time of a lot of new tech - a bunch of new demands on the GPU for example - and I for one am VERY glad Microsoft braved that territory.  Think about how far our video cards (and thus visual experiences) have come since Vista's release!

    I personally think Windows 7, with a fair number of tweaks and 3rd party apps, can be made to provide an even better desktop environment than Vista - but not without some work!

    Microsoft seems to be moving squarely away from supporting serious computing right out of the box and more into glitz and games with Windows 8.  We can only hope that someone at Microsoft with some sense realizes that not everyone with computer hardware wants to play games under Metro.  They need to do two things before release:

    • Better integrate the Metro/Desktop experience.
    • Provide enough configurability that folks whose work centers on the Desktop can put Metro aside.

     

    -Noel

    • Edited by Noel Carboni Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:13 PM
    Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:07 PM
  •  If a pre-beta OS is this good,   I can hardly wait for the final product!  

    So am I. I wasn't expecting my test apps will work on it. All of them work flawlessly! I did even think about adding sound on it, it's a test OS, what for? But when I managed to install the lousy VIA drivers, I thought, "heck Microsoft guys rock, their product is very stable even on this stage"!

    Personally I don't think Metro would hamper performance any bit. I see it ADDs to peformance. I don't see how it could limit would you could do in Windows 7. Quite the contrary: you can do everything you could in Windows 7 PLUS you can do a lot more.

    Last but not least: creating a WPF app for Metro is a snap, it's that easy! Although I am missing support for VS in Expression Blend, I see it only supports JS in its current build.


    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...
    Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:10 PM
  • I'll admit Vista was slower than newer operating systems, but that is expected, or it was expected until the release of Windows 7. As for the fact that you like about Windows Developer Preview, I disagree. Metro gets in the way of trying to use the computer. If the final product is just the Developer Preview with newer apps, the App Store, and bug fixes, I will not be using it. As for your comments like "don't use a PC," that's crazy. Avoid comments like that. Sadly, I deleted my regular account, so I can't make changes to my earlier posts yet.. As for whether or not Windows 8 is a beautiful, next-generation OS, I'd have to disagree. It feels broken in its current implementation. I do use Windows 7 on my main computer, and it does have advantages over Vista, but Vista has better features. Yes, it is slower, and was released early, but that is the price I paid for one of the most well-developed Windows versions ever made. If you want me to, I can make a list of ways Vista is better than Windows 7 and a list of everything in the Developer Preview that needs to be changed in the final release. Why do you say Vista is the second-worst Windows of all time? Is it based on personal experience, or just what you heard people say? If you really want to know what Vista is like, you should try running it on a modern PC. When you say Vista is buggy, what bugs are you talking about? I haven't encountered any of them, other than a driver-related problem that was fixed with an update. As for Metro, I can't figure out a reason for using it.
    Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:12 PM
  • It's possible the opinions of Vista polarize based on one factor above all others:  Computer performance.

    • Folks who had marginal computers tended to think Vista was bad, when it was their own systems at fault.
    • Folks who had powerful, good quality computers tended to feel Vista was excellent.

    I have been using top of the line Dell Precision Workstations since the 1990s.  My Vista x64 machine initially was a dual 3.6 GHz Xeon Dell Precision system with a good ATI video card.  It's no surprise that Vista gave me what I needed in a solid, productive desktop.

    Though I've moved on to even bigger and faster workstations, my Vista system is still humming along, now performing flawlessly as a server.  "Works fine, lasts a long time", as they say.  In the past several years the only reboots it's gotten are for Windows Updates or other software installs.  Buggy?  Hell no!  Near zero ongoing cost of ownership?  Yes!

     

    -Noel

    Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:27 PM
  • If you want to know how Metro limits performance, I'm not saying it slows the computer down in terms of processing power, but that it limits my own usage of the computer. This isn't a "figuring it out" kind of thing, but a fundamental flaw in the software. I didn't post this to debate the merits of Vista and Metro. I have other posts for that. I just wanted to let Microsoft know that the Developer Preview will not work for me, and neither will Windows 8, if it turns out like this.

    Moderators, please lock this thread. I don't want anyone else to be able to respond to my post.

    Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:41 PM
  • I wouldn't say that, I feel an Operating System needs to do what it says on the tin. It's the layer between actions I carry out on my computer and the BIOS screen.

    The issue with vista was that I had to buy a top of the line PC to run it, this was purely to run the operating system, the point of this was?

    W7 proved this did not need to be the case, in fact, Windows XP proved this did not need to be the case. Vista was a large step backwards imo. I understand that MS fanboy's find it hard to admit MS has ever set a foot wrong. Also, I find it entirely plausable that those who think their wallet has something to do with how wonderful a person they are would like vista, because they can show off their amazing system that can run it.

    However, it really wasn't necessary.

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:27 AM
  • I like Vista for its advanced feature set. I know Vista tends to be somewhat slower than other operating systems, but Windows 7 feels broken in places where Vista did not.
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:56 AM
  • hey : ) i couldn't agree with you more, after i experienced the so-called windows 8, which made me sick. i wanna uninstall it. too. but there's a problem, i couldn't find a better way to uninstall it, so i just formatted my disk H, which i plotted it to install windows 8. then i restart my computer over and over again, there always be a windows boot manager menu on the screen, ask me to choose the operating system between vista and W8, i am sick of it. do you have any idea how to avoid that? or delete them completely, your help would be great appreciated, thank you: ) my email is    machree007@hotmail.com
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:17 AM
  • then you must be a developer, right? could you please do me a favor?  i from china : ) could you tell me how to uninstall it form my laptop? i formatted my disk H, which plotted to install windows 8 preview, but it seems i didn't remove them all, cause whenever i turn on my laptop, there always be a windows boot manager to choose the operating system, can you tell me how to avoid that? thank you : ) or you just tell me how to remove W8 completely : (  thank you.
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:30 AM
  • *Removed* IAM INSTALL WINDOWS DEVELOPER PREVIEW THAT IS NOT SUPPORT ALL SOFTWARES THEN I UNINSTALL IT  TODAY MY IAM USING WINDOWS XP SP3 IAM EASLY UNINSTALL WINDOWS DEVELOPER PREVIEW JUST USE THE WINDOWS XP CD 1.BOOT THE CD 2.FORMAT C(I THINK YOU ARE INSTALL WINDOWS DEVELOPER PREVIEW IN LOCAL DISK C)CREATE NEW PARTION IN C  AND INSTAL IT THAT'S IT

     


    Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:02 AM
  • I've been using Win 8 Developer Preview as my primary OS on my lap for 4 days. Though it isn't the most intuitive interface in the world IMO (it took me 30mins to work out where the on/off switch was) I've sussed it out pretty well by now and am really beginning to like some of the features associated with the new Start menu. Most of my programs have installed just fine though Win 7 was particularly good at installing some older programs I didn't think it would (like the ancient webcam I installed on my older lap) and I have yet to try W8D with real vintage.

    I certainly find W8D faster and smoother than even Win 7 Ultimate. I've used every Windows OS since and including 3.1. Millennium was the disaster of all time. I had a quick flirtation with Vista but went back to Trusty XP! Found Vista slow, buggy, liable to crash. Horses for courses perhaps?

    My problem now though is I want to run XP-Mode I have a program that simply balks at 64bit (same problem in Win 7)--and the activation detective won't recognise W8D as a supported system. I'd rather go to MS than a 3rd party like Virtual Box. Anyone got any ideas?



    • Edited by Elborath Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:05 PM
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:03 PM
  • >My problem now though is I want to run XP-Mode I have a program that simply balks at 64bit (same problem in Win 7)--and the activation detective won't recognise W8D as a supported system. I'd rather go to MS than >a 3rd party like Virtual Box. Anyone got any ideas?
     
    Hyper-V is built into Windows 8, you can use that if your hardware is
    up to spec, but XP Mode isn't licensed for it, so you have to install
    your own copy of XP.
     
    There's no mention of running Windows VPC under Windows 8 yet, or of
    XP Mode..
     
     

    Bob Comer - Microsoft MVP Virtual Machine
    Monday, September 26, 2011 1:42 PM
  • When you say Vista is buggy, what bugs are you talking about? I haven't encountered any of them,

    I used Vista for over 3 years, I liked it, but it was slow and buggy.

    The worst bug was: Whenever I opened a folder, the window size and icon view settings would regularly change to another setting. I would have to change the "Computer" folder back to the way I wanted it about every second time I opened it.

    Another bug was the way Vista calculated the remaining time of a copy. It would be blank for about half a minute, then show that a ridiculously long amout of time is remaining. The time would slowly decrease untill it stoped at about the right amount of time. It once estimated 22 years to copy about 8GB, before slowly recalculating. This was improved with Service Pack 1, but it was not fixed properly until Windows 7.

    Monday, September 26, 2011 9:57 PM
  • I don't remember seeing any bugs like this in Vista before. I don't remember having any troulbes with folder view or copy size, but I didn't change these very much. Windows 7 brings in other Explorer annoyances that Vista didn't have. To see one example, open the Preview Pane at the side of the screen. Now, maximize that window. Notice what happened? If your Explorer window was restored like mine, your preview pane now covers over half the screen. If you resize the preview pane to fit this window and restore it down again, the preview pane will be shrunk to its minimum size. Windows Vista did not have this resizing-pane problem, and thankfullly, it has been fixed in Windows 8. Here's an interesting Library design problem I just discovered. Libraries are a good idea in Windows 7 if you have files all over the place, but for me, I keep all of my files in the proper folders, so libraries are pointless. I tried to sort my Documents library by type, and it just created stacks with each file type. Next, I tried to arrange the library by name, and I got a huge alphabetical list of all of my files in those folders, with no subfolders listed of any kind. I never liked libraries in Windows 7, and I hope Microsoft will make them optional in Windows 8. This feature does not need to be integrated into Windows Explorer with an "always on, never disable" setup. This Libraries "feature" is one of my least favorite things about Windows 7.
    Monday, September 26, 2011 10:25 PM
  • What harm do the libraries do tho? I too, dislike this feature but I have never had issues navigating windows 7 without ever going near a library.
    Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:03 AM
  • Since you asked what harm the libraries do, I will tell you. By default, the Start Menu buttons for the Documents, Pictures, Music, and Videos folders now link to libraries instead of the regular folder. Also, many buttons that linked to these folders in Windows Vista now link to their respective libraries. This works well when using multiple hard drives, or an SSD+HDD configuration, but is not helpful when all documents are in their regular folders.
    Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:28 AM
  • What harm do the libraries do tho?
     

    1.  People have been reporting failures to update the display with Windows Explorer windows opened into Libraries since Windows 7 was released.  Basically, if you try to actually use a library, and you're working with the files within, you might find that you have to manually refresh the window to see changes.  This is no way for a modern system to behave.

     

    2. For a person who does not USE Libraries, and does not know the secret tweak to disable their display, their presence in the Explorer Navigation Pane just gets in the way of finding one's files on the hard drive, as now one has to scroll past Libraries and Favorites and Homegroup. Microsoft forgets that there are people who don't WANT a dumbed-down system, and their implementation of the "nontechnical user" features just make it MORE difficult for smart, organized computer users to get their work done.

     

    3.  Since Libraries normally appears in the Windows Explorer Navigation Pane, the expansion of the subtree under libraries well after Explorer is started will contribute to the problem where things jump out from under your cursor in the Navigation Pane.  This is not so much a problem with Libraries themselves, but with Explorer, but the presence of Libraries just makes it worse.

     

    The good news is that Libraries can be all but hidden, which can make Windows 7 more reliable and usable.  But there are still "Libraries" views presented from time to time - for example with search results.  It's just a broken implementation of a bad idea.  Who really thinks that something like Libraries simplifies things for even the non-technical people?  What, does Microsoft think that people just throw things into their computer somewhere and hope that they can find them again in some "master collection" of junk?  Wouldn't it be better just to provide straightforward, reliable ways for people to keep their systems organized instead?  There's NOTHING IN THE WORLD wrong with using actual folders on the hard drive.

     

    -Noel


    • Edited by Noel Carboni Tuesday, September 27, 2011 3:34 PM
    Tuesday, September 27, 2011 3:34 PM
  • What, does Microsoft think that people just throw things into their computer somewhere and hope that they can find them again in some "master collection" of junk?

    Actually, this is exactly what some people do. Admittedly, I don't do this, but there are some people who just save files in the folder that pops up when they click the "Save" button. Believe it or not, I've seen people who don't know the difference between a folder and a file. I assume these are the kind of people Metro on the desktop is designed for, but for the people who actually understand Windows (most users), Metro only gets in the way. There are people who just save everything to the C: drive because that's where they know where to find it; a single letter to click on that gives them instant access to all their files. For the people who do save files like this, Libraries don't help because they won't understand them any better than folders, and will be confused as to why there is a copy of everything in the user folder, when the copies really don't exist. Libraries are only good for users with an SSD+HDD configuratio or for users with multiple or external hard drives. For people outside this group, and people who save everything in the designated folder and know where everything is, Libraries only make Windows needlessly complicated. I would enjoy the Library feature if I had an SSD, but I don't, so I don't see a reason to use them, and I might prefer the option to turn them off.
    Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:59 PM
  • What harm do the libraries do tho? I too, dislike this feature but I have never had issues navigating windows 7 without ever going near a library.

    Before Windows 7, I had a "Photos" folder to store my photos (ones taken using my camera) and I used the "Pictures" folder to store other pictures that were not my photos (wallpapers, screenshots, etc.).

    Windows Live Photo Gallery in Vista used the "Pictures" folder by default, but I could change this to the "Photos" folder.

    In Windows 7 Windows Live Photo Gallery uses the "Pictures Library" and it cannot be changed.

    I have had to change the way I store my files, because we are forced to use libraries. This has made it harder to use my computer, not easier.

     

    Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:51 PM
  • Thanks Bob. Didn't see your reply before I installed VMware Player--supposed to get email notifications but hey can't have everything. Very happy with VMware Player--cool easy to use piece of kit--all free from those nice VMware people! Works brilliantly with WD8! Had my old XP and it runs like a dream :) 
    Elborath
    Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:16 PM
  • Are you crazy? Windows 8 is more perfect than vista!!
    Friday, December 9, 2011 10:22 AM
  • Are you crazy? Windows 8 is more perfect than vista!!

    No, I'm not crazy. Am I the only one who had a good experience with Vista? Maybe it's because my PC didn't come with a lot of OEM bloatware (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/fixing-windows-vista-one-machine-at-a-time/429). The worst I had to deal with was Google Desktop. Windows 8's big problem is the fact that it replaces perfectly good mouse-first paradigms with touch-first ones that don't work as well. No matter how you look at it, touch-first design on the desktop is just not a good idea. I predict that Windows 8 will have trouble on desktops for the same reason that Windows 7 has trouble on tablets - it's the wrong UI for the device it's being used on. The desktop is wrong for tablets, and Metro is wrong for desktops.
    Saturday, December 10, 2011 2:07 PM
  • No, you were not the only one who had a good Vista experience.  I ran Vista x64 for years on my main development workstation.  It was stable, and overall pleasing to use - a better experience on every front than XP ever gave me, though as with any system there were some quirks I had to work around.  When I moved on to a new Windows 7 workstation I turned the old Vista machine into a server and it's still running flawlessly to this day.

    Windows 7 definitely improved on some things over Vista - for example, the ability to schedule regular System Image backups, improvements in efficiency, better disk caching...

    While some say Windows 8 is even more efficient, I haven't sensed it (possibly because I've tuned up Windows 7 pretty well, or possibly because I don't have a purpose-built Windows 8 system yet). 

    Frankly, in my opinion, Windows 8 hasn't really improved in any substantive way on either of its predecessors...  I don't consider being dumbed-down to be useful to less technical people an improvement - though I'm sure Microsoft does.  And it seems to still have all of Windows 7's quirks.

    -Noel

    Saturday, December 10, 2011 2:30 PM
  • @Noel Carboni
    IDC agrees with you about Windows 8. Have you read the reports online that indicate that Windows 8 will not be relevant to users of regular computers? So far, I mostly agree with them - if Microsoft removes the Metro UI from the desktop version and lets us run Metro apps and the Windows Store in the desktop, Windows 8 will be an improvement, but otherwise, I see very few reasons to upgrade and many reasons to avoid an upgrade. That's surprising, because I'm a big fan of Microsoft and always look forward to the next Windows version, but Windows 8 is a huge disappointment.
    Saturday, December 10, 2011 2:46 PM
  • Relevant...  Computer users vs. device users...

    Yes, I've seen the predictions that Windows 8 will be a bust for "traditional" computer users unless Microsoft unexpectedly does something different regarding Metro (e.g., offers the ability to run Metro apps inside Windows on systems where the Desktop is still the cornerstone).

    But we've also seen people here (some in this very thread) who like the new direction.  Perhaps they don't need to do the kinds of things we do with computers - that's not hard to imagine.  In fact, I'd say MOST folks don't need nor want to do a heavy workload on their computers; perhaps they don't use computers for work at all, but just for entertainment / diversion.  How many?  I'd wager Microsoft knows, and the number is probably huge.  Maybe a grand majority.

    Once upon a time, a technical man named Bill had a vision to build a serious operating system for personal computers.

    Today, the business men of his company have a vision to build wealth based on the market penetration built by Bill and the social directions pioneered by others.

    These goals are not one and the same.

    How else could you explain a new major OS version that's got almost no substance, but just a change of window dressing?

    Microsoft grew an impressive cash cow; it's time to milk her.

    -Noel

    Monday, December 12, 2011 1:11 PM

  • No, I'm not crazy. Am I the only one who had a good experience with Vista? Maybe it's because my PC didn't come with a lot of OEM bloatware (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/fixing-windows-vista-one-machine-at-a-time/429).
    me, too. Vista is the best Windows ever. Windows 7 removed so much features.

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:50 PM
  • Vista is the best Windows ever. Windows 7 removed so much features.

     

    You noticed! I always wondered why Windows 7 was such a big deal. It's basically Windows Vista R2, or Vista with a few minor changes. I'm actually surprised at the number of small things Vista does better than Windows 7 (a better Windows Media Player, a preview pane that doesn't change its size, no gadgets that move around every time I change the screen, etc).
    Friday, December 16, 2011 1:20 AM
  • Open a CMD window...  What major and minor version numbers do XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 put out?

    Yes, I know there are implications in the version numbering for apps, but it sure looks like whomever numbers such things wasn't convinced anything past Vista was a major version change, doesn't it?  ;)

    If you test the theory that Microsoft has been running under a "simpler is better" mantra for some time, you don't find too many holes in it...

    -Noel

    Friday, December 16, 2011 1:26 PM
  • Still doesn't mean that vista doesn't suck :P
    Friday, December 16, 2011 4:59 PM
  • @WillHo01

    Actually, I think Vista was one of the best operating systems ever created. No, I don't think Vista is bad at all - I had a highly positive experience using it.

    Friday, December 16, 2011 8:11 PM
  • @Noel Carboni

    Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0, which replaced Windows NT 4.0. Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1. Windows Vista is Windows NT 6.0. Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. Windows 8 is Windows NT 6.2. This should reveal which upgrades are major and which ones are minor. Microsoft claims that Windows 7 is 6.1 and not 7.0 for compatibility reasons, but I'm not convinced. As for Windows 8, it might make more sense that it would be a 7.0 release that was rebranded as 6.2 for compatiblity reasons, but when Metro is removed, Windows 8 really does feel like Windows NT 6.2, another update to the Vista code base.

    In some ways, I'm surprised that Windows 7 was another version of Windows altogether. Except for a few changes such as the removal of the Windows Sidebar and Windows Live programs, Windows 7 feels like it could have been Vista SP3.

    I'm sorry to say this, but I have no clue what that taxi picture is supposed to mean.

    Friday, December 16, 2011 8:18 PM
  • @Noel

    Brilliant photo, made me laugh. I could never understand that campaign by MS... 'I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea' was the tag line if I remember it correctly, spoken by various people who probably couldn't tell you what the letters O &S stand for in OS.

    Taxi experience a plus - i'm still smirking at that :)


    Acer W500 tablet & dock, New 'works' Lenovo laptop Too much apple stuff. Remember: A Developer Preview is just that, a preview for developers - not everything will work 'just right' on day 1.
    Saturday, December 17, 2011 2:10 AM
  • Windows 8 really does feel like Windows NT 6.2, another update to the Vista code base.

    Exactly my point.

     

    I'm sorry to say this, but I have no clue what that taxi picture is supposed to mean.

    Surely you saw at least some of the "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was My Idea" series of commercials?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLAO9YnlJSU

    Microsoft has been trying to appeal to the, shall we say, "less geeky" population by advertising that their system is being made simpler to use.  Some might use the terms "dumbed down".  Perhaps after watching Crystal at the link above you'll understand.

     

    Some of us, who have been hoping for a MORE sophisticated and MORE serious operating system, are rather miffed that Microsoft is turning a system that was heading in the right direction into something we might not even want to upgrade to!  New window dressing this time without even fixing the old bugs!

     

    The implication being pushed is that a "simpler" system (e.g., the flat, boxy Metro with just a few finger-operated functions) just MUST be less sophisticated than a "serious" system, but we've already seen a rich, polished user interface.  Perhaps Microsoft is waiting for all us old geezers who see the merit in Aero to just die off.

     

    -Noel

    Saturday, December 17, 2011 5:33 PM
  • I see. You're thinking of "It's just miles simpler. I told them what to do, and they did it." You're referring to the idea of a dumbed-down Windows, and the idea that people who need simpler computers are the reason that Windows 8 exists.

    I recently thought of something:

    Smartphones are called "smart" because they're considered smart for what they are - cell phones. However, if a laptop has the exact same abilities that a smartphone does (no more, no less), it would essentially be a "dumbbook."  Smartphones have full-screen interfaces because that's what's best for a smartphone form factor. A PC with a mouse and keyboard shouldn't have everything be full-screen. In fact, I believe that the Motorola Droid Razr uses a windowed interface when connected to its laptop dock, not a full-screen one. There's a reason why the tech industry left full-screen apps for PCs in the 1980's.




    Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:31 PM
  • A PC with a mouse and keyboard shouldn't have everything be full-screen. 


    I hate to state the obvious, but one could easily imagine the ability to run a Metro app in (gasp) a window! 

    It could Maximize to full-screen.  It could just resize (courtesy fast GPU operations) to whatever dimensions you make it - it could even be resized to be reeeeally small if you wanted it to not take up too much screen space.  Consider the hypothetical look of this in the image below...

    And the best part is that no part of that would require anything different regarding the programming or security models for the bizillions of applications Microsoft expects to show up in their App Store.

     

     

    Regarding the Metro start screen...  I just think there needs to be two different ways to start apps.  1.  A desktop-centric version complete with Start menu, which runs on mouse devices, and 2. a Metro version, which runs on touch screen devices.

     

    I really hope this isn't a radically new idea that Microsoft couldn't think of on their own.  And I shudder to think that they might think that it's too hard to implement or maintain...

     

    -Noel

    Sunday, December 18, 2011 6:30 PM
  • I had an idea like the "Metro in a window" suggestion myself, but I also think that it makes sense to use WinRT to create Aero-style apps that look like Win32 apps.
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 9:37 PM
  • I'm a mouse and keyboard guy but does this work on your touch screen? I can see this being really cool with a touch screen. I might even have to build an all in one with a touch screen for the wife.
    Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:23 PM
  • I wish to say the exact opposite, I found vista to be extremely buggy and quite unstable as it has given me so many errors that I prefer 7 over that, and 8 over that. I love the new windows 8 because of its performance related and stability related compatibility features. Vista has had unreliable hardware issues from day 1 and I think you are one of the few that still support it, which I think that if it works for you, great, but this is a windows 8 developer preview forum, and to bash it without giving a reason seems a little more than unrelated to what we are here for. If you could explain why you have an issue with it, it can only get better from here mate. We cannot do anything about it if we do not understand what your issue is, of course, not all hardware is supported as stated in the windows 8 support center, however, having said that, over all, this is the best bet as far as I am concerned. I am sorry you had such a terrible experience with it, sincerely, Elshara.
    Be free, love well and live the way you wish to. Wishing you and your over all well being, a healthy and independent, self productive life from the creator of Creative Minds Society in all do respect.
    Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:47 PM
  • Windows 8 really does feel like Windows NT 6.2, another update to the Vista code base.

    Exactly my point.

     

    I'm sorry to say this, but I have no clue what that taxi picture is supposed to mean.

    Surely you saw at least some of the "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was My Idea" series of commercials?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLAO9YnlJSU

    Microsoft has been trying to appeal to the, shall we say, "less geeky" population by advertising that their system is being made simpler to use.  Some might use the terms "dumbed down".  Perhaps after watching Crystal at the link above you'll understand.

    *snip* 

    -Noel


    I don't know about you, but I could really get used to Crystal.
    Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:20 PM
  • @Elshara

    Look up "A List of Problems with Metro, and Redesign Recommendations - Part 2" on this forum (or a search engine if you want to) and you'll see why I don't like Windows 8. Make sure that you are reading Part 2 and not the original thread because Part 2 contains my most up-to-date opinion.

    Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:51 PM
  • Never in my Life, have those wising to test the thing in its fullness. AVCHD is commonly used among those with HD cameras. Eliminating the MPEG-2 as well as other supports is basically a slap in the face. It Also was a wake up call on How software like Sony's PMB Uses the codecs in MS Windows to create, view and edit HD video. Sony's Software "Broke" when I loaded it on to Windows Developer Preview. Developers need full access to all Codecs to make an assessment of what needs to be improved up on. I Only once got to a link that some how activated the AVCHD in windows 8 Also, what peeves me is that it is getting difficult to Google issues with Windows Developer Preview using Bing and Google. Both Google and Bing redirect to sites that and that really irks me off. when I want to see something to see if others are having issues with something, I want to see it straight way not redirected to down load and or other things. I used an alternative search engine just to find this Posting. and Microsoft I know you are reading these comments. If you want to make the consumers happy, you need to include all the good things that windows 7 has like the hidden DVD Maker Program as well as the AVCHD codecs and improve on your windows Live Movie maker and better yet re-do the whole blasted thing so we can have better ways of expressing your selves as artists should be allowed to do..And you can speed up the process for rendering as well with out degrading quality. My Point being is, consumers don't want a pretty wrap job. They want Form and Funtction. You have a chance ..and your blowing it on a "Pretty Wrapper" I won't pay for a Pretty wrap job.
    Saturday, January 14, 2012 8:26 PM
  • Did they mention it is a developer preview? r u a fool to use windows vista in 2011-2012? Every windows products are better and better and better than older versions

    http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare?T1=tab20

    windows 8 developer preview  problems  in my computer is 0(zero).


    please

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:13 PM
  • Did they mention it is a developer preview? r u a fool to use windows vista in 2011-2012? Every windows products are better and better and better than older versions

    http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare?T1=tab20

    windows 8 developer preview  problems  in my computer is 0(zero).


    please

    Am I a fool to want to have a video editor that works how I want it it to?

    and one should not call one a fool unless they themselves would to be branded as a fool.

    and you are not running AVCHD and trying to view.MTS video format now are ya?

    What I am trying to say is that I am thinking that this is more geared to those that do any of this.

    Windows Vista gives me a lot more use of my drivers as well where as windows 7 nixes the divces I have.

    So befor calling me a fool like the desire to run a portable scanner, I sugest you take a step back and re-think it is that some of us are using.

    I will not sacrifice perfectly functioning device, jsut because windows "Dissallows it". that is  a waste of money and creats aditional undo stress on the enviroment by producing needless waste.

    The media might be heralding Windows 7 as the Windows release which will erase all the bad Vista memories, but there's still this nagging security flaw in Windows 7's User Account Control which Microsoft refuses to fix, stating that it is not a security flaw at all. Well, Microsoft, if this is not a security flaw - then why does your security software block the tool that demonstrates the flaw?

    • Edited by ASUSTUV4x Tuesday, February 7, 2012 7:30 PM
    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 7:18 PM
  • ASUSTUV4x

    I do not think you are a fool for wanting what you do but the fact is that the Developer Preview was meant for testing the creation of Metro apps and is not a complete version of Windows 8.

    Frankly, I have not spent that much time with DP and have preferred to continue with W7. The only possible wow factor is the Task Manager while Metro is far too intrusive. Basicaly I am now waiting for W8 in the form of the beta. I will give it a fair test but unless there are significant changes it looks possible that I will return to W7.

    Ihave installed Pinnacle Studio 15 and Avid Studio with no apparent problems so far and this includes .mts files. I use Media Player Classic and that plays .mts files OK. Windows Media Player plays the video but without sound. No codecs have been installed other than the ones used by these programs.

    I have had a couple of issues but am prepared to wait for the beta and start again from there.

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:20 PM
  • Frankly, I have not spent that much time with DP and have preferred to continue with W7. The only possible wow factor is the Task Manager while Metro is far too intrusive. Basicaly I am now waiting for W8 in the form of the beta. I will give it a fair test but unless there are significant changes it looks possible that I will return to W7.

    It sounds like you had the same response as me.

    While "I want my Windows Vista back," sounds unprofessional and ignores the fact that my main PC uses Windows 7, I cannot edit the opening post of this thread because that I deleted that account (too many online accounts can be a bad thing).

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:29 PM
  • I have neither touchphone or pad so am only looking to see whether W8 would be a better alternative to W7 for the desktop. However, since the OS is (supposedly) common to all 3, it would be assumed that there would be some interchangeability with programs.

    Avid have just released the 'Avid Studio' app for use with the ipad. While having the same name as it's big brother, it is a different program and limited by the hardware constraints of the ipad. Now I am not saying it is a bad app (good for editing phone video and uploading to u-tube) but it does illustrate to me the vast difference between the desktop and a pad.

    Maybe in about 5 years or so a hex core pad will come along which can outperform my desktop.

    Wednesday, February 8, 2012 12:32 AM
  • If they make it efficient enough to run on a low power tablet, just think how lean and quick it will be on a desktop!

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options

    Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:52 AM
  • If they make it efficient enough to run on a low power tablet, just think how lean and quick it will be on a desktop!

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options

    I jest not (where are the smilies on this dismal forum).

    In 1975 I was using an HP 1000 for real time data aquisition and analasys and that had 16 kb of ram. At that time there were no computers in the public domain.

    In 1983 I was using a PDP 11/23 (discs like dinner plates). In the public domain, enthusiasts had been building the first PC,s and now computing became more widespread with the introduction of the BBC Micro, Apple, Amstrad etc. The games era had begun. My BBC Micro was the most interesting computer I ever had. I could make and control all sorts of electronic gismos attached to the ports and program in Basic.

    About 1999 and I had my first notebook. (500Mhz and 128Mb ram) running Windows 98. Somewhere along this route the enthusiast part (and DIY mags) died with the introduction of Windows and computers no longer came with basic information such as port addresses. I did start to edit SD video on this machine quite successfully. I suppose by now computers were becoming widespread.

    2004 and it's a new computer (XP) with 2.2Ghz processor, 1Gb ram, DVD writable drive and I can do anything I want. It must be almost a computer in every home by now but goodness knows what they are used for. In the main probably nothing that requires any power. Everything is fine until the release of W7 and a new NLE version when the increase in resources required by these programs causes problems. Staying with the older OS does not work in the long term since newer programs are not compatible so ....

    ... a rebuild to the current system (see profile). With this at least I am comfortable with AVCHD etc.

    I suppose you could say I was a 20th century dynasaur and my time is over. My daughter is 3 years old and will be growing up in a world where the desktop will return to being a specialist device and the masses will be communicating by pad and phone. Already the desktop has been largely replaced by the laptop and this trend will continue down to the touchpad. Microsoft have seen this coming and hence the W8 commonality between the 3. Now, looking back over the years it can be seen that the resourses rquired for a particular task are not that great. It is the ever increasing spiral of background tasks and UI which are the problem. With W8 it seems Microsoft are making an attempt to contain this with better memory management (and more I hope). Part of this is only allowing certified software to operate with W8 but this may have repercussions regarding open source material.

    In general I have no issue with what Microsoft are trying to do. My beef is with the interaction between the desktop and Metro.

    Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:55 PM
  • You make good points (I share your history by the way - to the very same year, 1975, when I started building my first 8080-based S-100 system).

    My wife, who was once a nuclear engineer but shunned all things technical about 20 years ago, has been telling me that no one in the general public really needs a computer.  I'm so close to computers, being a career software engineer and running my own software company, that I don't see that - of course *I* want bigger, more powerful, more geeky computer workstations that do all the things I do. 

    Up to now we've enjoyed the benefits of computer companies making these things bigger, faster, and cheaper, because they've been building computers for the masses.  Even the high-end systems have tagged-along - the power we have been able to get for a few thousand dollars is staggering!

    But now here it is 2012, handheld computing devices are ubiquitous, and a few have even reached the stage of being quite useful (e.g., iPad 2, which overdelivers), and alas, we may have seen the last of the strong development of cheap desktop computer systems.  Here we are, all lamenting the fact that Microsoft is making Windows less and less a good desktop system for serious users and more a toy for the masses, and yet it's really no wonder they're doing so.

    What I want to know, though, is what Microsoft will be developing Windows with?  I have trouble envisioning the Microsoft engineers - whom I know very well, because they do what I do - using Metro to code Windows OS software.  Will there be ultimately a separate product line for serious engineering and business users?  Surely that market, while it may be far smaller than the market for handheld devices, must still be seriously huge, and possibly more importantly the serious users have more money

    Sure, the device market may be gargantuan in numbers, but Microsoft may be missing the fact that nobody's going to be willing to pay $200 for an OS upgrade on their tablet.

    Is Windows heading toward just being a facilitator for purchases of other peoples' software through the App Store?  It doesn't really have to do very much to manage that, does it?  In fact, all it has to provide is a super simple programming interface (sound familiar?)...  That makes it both more profitable and easier to engineer/maintain.

    It's really not hard to see that there's a need for two totally different systems here.  Steven Sinofsky may be trying to oversimplify things by taking Windows away from the serious, business realm.

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options

    Wednesday, February 8, 2012 4:37 PM
  • Noel

    You have an advantage in knowing what businesses require these days. I imagine a small company with 1/2 dozen computers running windows and maybe a server, varying up to a very large institution running dedicated software. What their power rquirements are I have no idea. For some reason I still get the Springboard Series Insider which seems full of specialised programs for multiple installations, problem solving etc that I will never need. No doubt the same programming systems will be used no matter what the final product. In fact a Metro OS is always likely to be far more complex than the apps it supports.

    With personal computers the most power demanding application (from my experience) is video editing. Any reasonable computer can edit 720x576 SD video but 1920x1080 HD video really demands the top end processors of today. Fortunately that resolution is more than the eye can discriminate (depending on screen size). The problem with these processors is of course the heat generated. Future research will (I think) be aimed at more efficient processors rather than more power. A laptop processor for instance uses a quarter of the power but has half the output of a desktop. How a pad works I have no idea but the power must increase in the next few years. In fact I see a range of pads of various sizes replacing laptops and desktop monitors. There may be a case for more powerful processors for industry but, as you say, they have the money.

    I don't think anyone will have to pay for an OS upgrade. Most people buy a computer with the OS installed and that is where it stays until the next computer is bought. The price of the pad is another matter.

    "It's really not hard to see that there's a need for two totally different systems here."

    But on the surface that is exactly what you do have. The desktop OS using mouse and keyboard has not essentially changed.  As a bonus (if you want to call it that) the Metro OS has been added which uses mainly touch and can access the type of apps that run on the pad. Now, this is the problem, the great majority of desktops are only configured to use mouse and keyboard and can only run some apps rudimentery or not at all. This situation is not going to get any better due to the high cost of touch screens. Most people will thus only want to work in desktop mode. Unfortunately this is where Microsoft have gone bananas. Instead of letting a desktop computer boot to a desktop screen and allowing the user to select Metro, it has forced the user to a Metro start screen where he/she does not want to go and is thereafter plagued with the *removed* thing.

    I shall install the beta and use it as the main OS for a while but may return to W7. 


    Saturday, February 11, 2012 1:44 AM
  • With personal computers the most power demanding application (from my experience) is video editing. Any reasonable computer can edit 720x576 SD video but 1920x1080 HD video really demands the top end processors of today. Fortunately that resolution is more than the eye can discriminate (depending on screen size). The problem with these processors is of course the heat generated. Future research will (I think) be aimed at more efficient processors rather than more power. A laptop processor for instance uses a quarter of the power but has half the output of a desktop. How a pad works I have no idea but the power must increase in the next few years. In fact I see a range of pads of various sizes replacing laptops and desktop monitors. There may be a case for more powerful processors for industry but, as you say, they have the money.

    But on the surface that is exactly what you do have. The desktop OS using mouse and keyboard has not essentially changed.  As a bonus (if you want to call it that) the Metro OS has been added which uses mainly touch and can access the type of apps that run on the pad. Now, this is the problem, the great majority of desktops are only configured to use mouse and keyboard and can only run some apps rudimentery or not at all. This situation is not going to get any better due to the high cost of touch screens. Most people will thus only want to work in desktop mode. Unfortunately this is where Microsoft have gone bananas. Instead of letting a desktop computer boot to a desktop screen and allowing the user to select Metro, it has forced the user to a Metro start screen where he/she does not want to go <Removed by WindowsVista567>.

    You bring up some interesting points about Metro in that post. Metro is primarily designed for the tablet form factor, but the desktop form factor remains unchanged and does not need a new UI.

    I have not found any issues with editing video on my computer (though I have to use Sony Vegas Movie Studio; Adobe Premiere Elements mysteriously runs slowly on a 2.8 GHz quad-core CPU). Vegas Movie Studio performs well and I have never thought that my comptuer has had any difficulty editing video. As for more advanced work with special effects, it's been a while since I've tried that, but I have found that such software can run acceptably on a dual-core processor.

    Also, heat dissipation is not an issue for my computer. It can run Intel's Linpack CPU test without any trouble. While this may be an issue for laptops, I wouldn't recommend a laptop for someone who does a ton of work with video.





    • Edited by WindowsVista567 Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:07 AM Adjusted formatting (the editor isn't working well for some reason)
    Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:02 AM
  • Video editing can be intensive, yes, but that's just one activity.  The kinds of things I find important are:

    • Ability to seriously multi-task. 
    • High disk throughput
    • Good networking throughput.
    • RELIABLE operation while doing any amount of work; NO glitches and the ability to run for days without need for reboot.
    • Still some reserve capacity to do more, even after all the above.

    On a big 8 core, multi-monitor workstation an engineer here will have easily 20 or more applications open, including several sessions of Visual Studio, a number of web browsers being used to look up and display reference information (not to mention web testing with multiple different web browsers), local Help facilities, Adobe Reader and one or more eBook readers, debugging tools such as ProcMon or others, multiple Windows Explorer instances, Subversion code management, Skype audio and video conferencing, graphics design tools like Photoshop, Outlook eMail, Word, WebDrive for FTP access to servers, and miscellaneous stuff like Windows Media Player playing music, messaging tools...  The list goes on.  And we have servers that must be able to provide multiple engineers data in real time over gigabit Ethernet, while keeping their information safe and never going offline.

    We do this all the time, every day, with Windows 7.  If something goes wrong, a LOT of work is stopped or can be lost.  Fortunately, now that Windows 7 is mature, and we've figured out how to configure it and use it for maximal productivity, things are going along pretty good.  We're as productive as ever.

    It's important that we have operating systems that provide more capability for the even more powerful systems we'll be using into the future.

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options


    • Edited by Noel Carboni Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:26 PM Added more activities we often do
    Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:24 PM
  • I half agree and half disagree. While Vista had many cool features (like Dreamscene) it also had many bugs, and normally required powerful hardware. At home I have a Compaq from about 2006 which is "compatible" with Vista, but it would run 7 much better. Windows 8 really does feel like an NT 7.0, but is a redesigned 7.
    Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:59 PM
  • I had no issues with Vista. Win7 has more bugs for me.

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:13 PM
  • " Good-Bye, Windows 8 Developer Preview "

    Welcome, Windows 8 Consumer Preview!


    Thanks,
    Bobby Cannon
    BobbyCannon.com


    Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:46 PM
  • " Good-Bye, Windows 8 Developer Preview "

    Welcome, Windows 8 Consumer Preview!


    Dang it!  :)  For a moment you had me thinking it had been released and that it was going to be a fun afternoon.  But I don't see it in the obvious place: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/preview

    Ah well, waiting is...

     

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options

    Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:54 PM
  • If the desktop is Windows

    Is Metro a pane

    Oh well .....

    Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:00 PM
  • " Good-Bye, Windows 8 Developer Preview "

    Welcome, Windows 8 Consumer Preview!


    I also plan on installing the Consumer Preview, and I hope it will work like it should this time.
    Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:00 PM
  • Good bye Vista, I changed it to Win 7 half a year ago and I'm very pleased. And welcome Win 8. I have tried in my oldest (XP) computer and almost cannot believe my eyes. The old computer runs faster than many of my newer one. Unfortunately I have only one computer so far where I can use the screen as it should be used with Win 8.

    Nikorios

    Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:09 PM