Windows 8 Falls Behind Even the Maligned Vista


Recommended Posts

Please be aware that my post was aimed at you as well.

Never doubted it for a second... and I agree. I shouldn't have to get drawn into a debate over metro, just for having made a post about win8 sales figures.

Pin Powershell ISE or create a shortcut for it anywhere. the difference is that win7 actually had a shortcut for it nested somewhere. The search engine won't show all the random commands/arguments that can be sent to a program.

I would like to see Microsoft just acknowledge its failure. It's painfully obvious to everyone how horrible it is.

I thought nothing could be worse then Vista and ME, but 8 proves us all wrong.

If you truly want to make an impact, you have to think with your wallet - and support your family/friends doing the same. If you buy it and then hate it, they've already won.

you never heard of fujitsu or fujitsu-siemens?

Nope. They're not a popular brand where I live. Hell, it's the first I'm hearing of their AMD tablet too.

In the States where I live, the popular brands are HP, Dell, Lenovo, and Acer.

Pin Powershell ISE or create a shortcut for it anywhere. the difference is that win7 actually had a shortcut for it nested somewhere. The search engine won't show all the random commands/arguments that can be sent to a program.

%windir%\system32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\PowerShell_ISE.exe , so not a shortcut.

%windir%\system32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\PowerShell_ISE.exe , so not a shortcut.

The ISE is an administrative tool so it doesn't show up in search if you have that option turned off.

1. Either turn on "Show Administrative Tools" in the Start Page settings then unpin what you don't want or

2. copy/move the shortcuts for the ISE from "\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Administrative Tools" to "\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\System Tools" and you're all set.

  • Like 1

Nope. They're not a popular brand where I live. Hell, it's the first I'm hearing of their AMD tablet too.

In the States where I live, the popular brands are HP, Dell, Lenovo, and Acer.

There is more to the world than the US, Fujitsu-Siemens is very popular in Europe, especially for businesses.

If you truly want to make an impact, you have to think with your wallet - and support your family/friends doing the same. If you buy it and then hate it, they've already won.

That's the problem for Windows 8. No one is buying it. And most of those who have are cursing themselves over it. When your at a computer shop and customers are demanding that the employees wipe Windows 8 and put Windows 7 on computers and brand new laptops, that speaks volumes.

Family and friends have already made the wise decision to not buy it, and I for one can't blame them.

Personally, I hit WinKey, type what I want and get what I want.

E.g.

WinKey, type DNS, hit enter, I get a DNS console.

WinKey, type powershell ise, hit enter, I get a Powershell ISE.

WinKey, type steam, hit enter and I get my games.

It's fantastic.

Never before has Windows listened to me.

How people cannot want this? I don't know.

I know what you mean, I wish you could do that with Windows 7.

Despite all the drama over how true this article was, noone can deny Win 8 is not doing that good. Solid proof is a thread like this one, split kinda like 50/50, unlike the general positive word on Windows 7.

I tried Win 8, it wasn't faster or that much slower, it worked like Win 7 after getting rid of the new Start and replacing it with the old. There is no reason to upgrade yet, it's just a pain in the rear to set it up for getting what? The same stuff from Win 7? Aside from a true faster boot time it only wastes time. Perhaps with updates and when it has a solid line-up of must have apps stuff will change. But as many believed (I was against the thought at first), it pretty much feels like what Vista was for 7... a growing slow pain. Windows 7 is so much usable at the moment.

Despite all the drama over how true this article was, noone can deny Win 8 is not doing that good. Solid proof is a thread like this one, split kinda like 50/50, unlike the general positive word on Windows 7.

I tried Win 8, it wasn't faster or that much slower, it worked like Win 7 after getting rid of the new Start and replacing it with the old. There is no reason to upgrade yet, it's just a pain in the rear to set it up for getting what? The same stuff from Win 7? Aside from a true faster boot time it only wastes time. Perhaps with updates and when it has a solid line-up of must have apps stuff will change. But as many believed (I was against the thought at first), it pretty much feels like what Vista was for 7... a growing slow pain. Windows 7 is so much usable at the moment.

I had pretty much the same experience. I'll admit the new hybrid boot mode is pretty impressive but once I got it set up the way I liked it, by replacing the horrible RTM theme with the one from the RP, and by installing StartIsBack it was basically Windows 7 with a slight facelift. And then I got bad_pool_header bluescreens whilst trying to use vlite to slipstream some updates into a Vista deployment source for the charity I do volunteer work at. In the end I just decided it wasn't worth the hassle and went back to 7. I will probably buy a licence before the end of January and use 8 in the future but right now apart from the horrible choices made by the GUI team it just hasn't felt as stable for me for general usage.

That's the problem for Windows 8. No one is buying it. And most of those who have are cursing themselves over it. When your at a computer shop and customers are demanding that the employees wipe Windows 8 and put Windows 7 on computers and brand new laptops, that speaks volumes.

Family and friends have already made the wise decision to not buy it, and I for one can't blame them.

You keep saying no one is buying it and those that do hate it.

you're still wrong and you're still not providing any proof.

Despite all the drama over how true this article was, noone can deny Win 8 is not doing that good. Solid proof is a thread like this one, split kinda like 50/50, unlike the general positive word on Windows 7.

I tried Win 8, it wasn't faster or that much slower, it worked like Win 7 after getting rid of the new Start and replacing it with the old. There is no reason to upgrade yet, it's just a pain in the rear to set it up for getting what? The same stuff from Win 7? Aside from a true faster boot time it only wastes time. Perhaps with updates and when it has a solid line-up of must have apps stuff will change. But as many believed (I was against the thought at first), it pretty much feels like what Vista was for 7... a growing slow pain. Windows 7 is so much usable at the moment.

Well it actually is faster, but besides that, maybe if you had actually tried the new start screen and bothered to learn it (takes a whole of 5 minutes if you're a slow learner, the regular dumb users get it right away when I demonstrate it) you would have seen the advantage in a faster and more effective and better organize launcher.

Subjective opinion not objective fact. In my case it's nothing to do with being a slow learner I simply dislike it, and the same goes for a lot of people that don't like the way the start screen works. It's getting old now, there's nothing about liking the start screen that makes you smarter or superior ;)

I bought it because it was cheap 15? but i didnt install. Didnt like using it when i tested in other computers, many stupid changes that will be corrected in the next version. MS always skips 1 version like a test version. Windows 9 will be adopted just like Win7 was with Vista before.

Rightly so, it's a horrible frankenstein mish-mash of a load of ideas, a fair few ripped right from a tablet experience. Upper management must of been pushing everything through to Windows 8, I simply cannot believe the design teams (or anyone related to usability experience) were happy with it.

Removing the start button in such a hacky way was simply not the way forward and such a terrible idea for a desktop experience. You use a program (I use Startisback) and suddenly the OS becomes usable, but the unpolished tearing out of Aero, slapping in a bulky ribbon based system (yes I know it can be hidden) and then throwing in a Start Screen which feels like an app, not part of the system, says of the rest.

  • Like 2

Subjective opinion not objective fact. In my case it's nothing to do with being a slow learner I simply dislike it, and the same goes for a lot of people that don't like the way the start screen works. It's getting old now, there's nothing about liking the start screen that makes you smarter or superior ;)

one is a fact, the other... not so much. anecdotal evidence at best, to support why you think it sucks/win8 is failure.

I never said Windows 8 was a failure so quit putting words in my mouth, I was simply correcting a misconception about the views of some of the resident Microsoft shills of those of us that don't like it.

Windows 8, IMO, is a failure on so many levels. It could have been a great experience but mixing the old with the new really places it at the bottom of the OS heap.

This video is still, again, IMO, is one of the best reasons of why Windows 8 is so horrible.

http://www.cultofmac.com/207632/why-windows-8-is-one-of-the-worst-operating-systems-ever-video/

  • Like 2

Windows 8, IMO, is a failure on so many levels. It could have been a great experience but mixing the old with the new really places it at the bottom of the OS heap.

This video is still, again, IMO, is one of the best reasons of why Windows 8 is so horrible.

http://www.cultofmac...ems-ever-video/

While his presentation is horrible, he does have good points.

Honestly, everybody in the real world that I know wants the Start Menu back. Why couldn't Microsoft keep it? It was removed for a reason you say? Then how come there are so many third party start menus out there? Why couldn't Microsoft build their own INTO the OS?

Personally, I do not care about the start menu, but geez it is so irritating getting questions about it to where MS should have included it.

They also should have had the option to boot directly to the desktop. I never stick in the start screen or use the full screen apps, so it is irritating.

Yes, there are actually people that do shut their computers down, and I am constantly reminding people that their shut down button is not in the start menu / start screen anymore. They should have kept it in the Start Screen. And no you cannot just make a statement like "just press the power button or close the lid" because it is not a 100% guarantee that it will shut down. For example, my power button is still on Sleep instead of Shut Down.

MS NEEDS to have an option to disable these hot corners while in the desktop environment. I constantly hear people complain about accidentally activating them, and I did the same thing until I got Start8.

My ONLY complaint with Windows 8 is the hot corners on the desktop and not being able to boot directly to it. Why couldn't MS made a couple of check boxes in the Control Panel for us?

Look I love Windows 8. I had to reinstall my Windows partition on my Mac, and I decided to go back to Windows 7. I actually missed Windows 8 so I upgraded to it again.

However, the attitude here and in other places is very annoying. Even though I love the OS, as soon as I make my complaint about the hot corners people immediately jump down my throat saying "Oh looks like another person who never used Windows 8" or "Learn how to use your mouse" or "you suck at computers".

So we are in a age now where, even if we like a product, we cannot even say ONE BAD THING about it? Why not just get rid of movie, games, and every other review possible then?

Hey lets let NVIDIA release 100% faulty graphics cards. It is their product right, and they can do what they want. We have no right to complain about it now right?

We are consumers, yes MS can do whatever they want to an OS, but as consumers, we have the power. If nobody buys Windows 8 and the number one reason why is the start menu, I bet you MS would add it back. I do not know how else to word it but when you create a product, yes you can do whatever you want. But if people do not buy it because of things you changed, you better change back if you want to keep the business.

Subjective opinion not objective fact. In my case it's nothing to do with being a slow learner I simply dislike it, and the same goes for a lot of people that don't like the way the start screen works. It's getting old now, there's nothing about liking the start screen that makes you smarter or superior ;)

Well I wasn't replying to you, disliking it is one thing. however, the start screen is not slower or less effective than the start menu, it is in fact faster, and more efficient and far more organized.

They also should have had the option to boot directly to the desktop.

Why should they boot directly to the desktop ? when you start your computer, you're not going to have it sit on the desktop, you're going to use it for something.

for the regular and power user the start screen is the launcher, and it's far better launcher, so you click whatever app you want to start using and voila you're back on the desktop.

For some desktop users the start screen is also used as an information panel in addition to the launcher, in which case you have all the information right there on boot, and can then start into whatever app you're going to use, desktop or not.

starting to an empty passive desktop makes no sense. you'll have to open the start screen to launch most of your applications anyway. whining because it takes you a fraction of a second to click the desktop tile to get to the desktop on startup is such a ridiculous notion to start with.

  • Like 3

Why should they boot directly to the desktop ? when you start your computer, you're not going to have it sit on the desktop, you're going to use it for something.

for the regular and power user the start screen is the launcher, and it's far better launcher, so you click whatever app you want to start using and voila you're back on the desktop.

For some desktop users the start screen is also used as an information panel in addition to the launcher, in which case you have all the information right there on boot, and can then start into whatever app you're going to use, desktop or not.

starting to an empty passive desktop makes no sense. you'll have to open the start screen to launch most of your applications anyway. whining because it takes you a fraction of a second to click the desktop tile to get to the desktop on startup is such a ridiculous notion to start with.

What? When windows 7 boots, what happens then? Even the Start Menu is not activated by default.

starting to an empty passive desktop makes no sense

So Windows 7 makes NO SENSE at all?

whining because it takes you a fraction of a second to click the desktop tile to get to the desktop on startup is such a ridiculous notion to start with.

Right so ANYTHING we say about the OS is now whining? I am not stomping my feet crying that I have to click the desktop tile. If I NEVER do ANYTHING on the start screen (once I create my desktop shortcuts), why can't I simply check a box in the Control Panel to take me to the desktop mode by default? I have NO NEED of the start screen. ME....so why not make an option? If you do, then do not check that option.

starting to an empty passive desktop makes no sense. you'll have to open the start screen to launch most of your applications anyway. whining because it takes you a fraction of a second to click the desktop tile to get to the desktop on startup is such a ridiculous notion to start with.

It need not be empty. I have shortcuts to all of my "programs" on the desktop. I have no need for little kiddie "apps". Oh boy, you can display 2 at a time! Big deal. I often display several windows on the desktop at once. I guess it depends on what you use you system for, but after a few weeks, I am going to revert to Windows 7 for the new year. It's like Microsoft built an OS for 2 types of users, the desktop/laptop folks and the tablet folks. I am simply tired of switching between the 2 environments.

I love Microsoft as a company, but for me, Windows 8 is a dud. If you are happy with it, more power to ya. To all the overly-defensive Windows 8 fans, we are all entitled to our own opinion. Try not to get your undies in a bunch. :)

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!