Q: between 7 and 8?

[SMOKEU]

Windows 8 + Classic Shell is the way to go. Some people keep whining about Windows 8, but there are many reasons why 8 is better than 7, and there's no point in choosing 7 over 8 unless you have software that doesn't play nicely with 8.

Hyper V comes with Windows 8 so just run a Windows 7 VM on it, or use VMWare.

 

[woboy]

Windows 8.1 is supposed to fix start button and boot to desktop.
For most ordinary uses W8 is normally fine.
Some older hardware or software does not always play nice.
Using multiple computers I find one or the other better, back and forth not so good.

New computer should be fine, "features" vary like any other system, from fine to annoying.
For a release coinciding with end of support for XP, incomplete. But I help people with old hardware/software.

 

[SMOKEU]

Windows 8.1 is supposed to fix start button and boot to desktop.
For most ordinary uses W8 is normally fine.

I still don't understand why people think it's such a difficult task to install Classic Shell, or another 3rd party shell to avoid that horrid start screen.

 

[manu2b]

I am with c627627, RebelWarlock and SMOKEU on this one: w8+classic shell.

And nope, if you already have w7 64bits, no need of upgrading to w8.

BTW, I like the idea of a homogeneous and consistent environment between tablets and PC's. And maybe soon smartphones...

 

[ilovecats]

I only chose Windows 8 because of its much faster boot time. Otherwise it has little advantage over Windows 7 other than a few minor features such as native .ISO mount.

 

[Culbrelai]

BTW, I like the idea of a homogeneous and consistent environment between tablets and PC's. And maybe soon smartphones...

So you like using a clearly touchscreen-oriented OS on a desktop, with a mouse and keyboard? Yet you dont..?

I am with c627627, RebelWarlock and SMOKEU on this one: w8+classic shell.

lol

I still don't understand why people think it's such a difficult task to install Classic Shell, or another 3rd party shell to avoid that horrid start screen.

That is not the only problem. As I said earlier, compatibility issues with legacy programs that really shouldn't exist considering all work on W7, I even heard of driver issues with simple things like mice and gaming keyboards.

 

[c627627]

Well, as we said earlier, we agree with you that IF... IF somebody uses a program that works under Windows 7 but does not work under Windows 8 then that would be a valid reason to go with Windows 7.


The problem is, you said a specific game didn't work. Then I did a basic search and linked proof showing then it did and then even in this very thread someone actually posted that they had first hand experience of the very program you said did not work under Windows 8 - and they said it actually did work under Windows 8 for them and said that problems you cite are user-specific not OS-specific.

 

[ilovecats]

The start button is not that big of a deal to me personally because Windows 8 does have a "start menu" via right click instead of left click on the same spot as the old start button (or by pressing "Win+X"), and this menu can be customized via Win+X Menu Editor to include any shortcut you want. I personally like it this way actually because I usually only use the start menu to access things like control panel and admin tools etc. The only thing I had to adapt was to right click, and that really takes like 1 day to get used to.

I use the desktop and taskbar to store shortcuts to programs I frequently use. Browser/email/music player etc all pinned to task bar.

Now the minor annoyance is that when I install some programs that don't automatically create a desktop shortcut for me to access and I have to find it and arrange it manually.

 

[c627627]

Can you test to see if those shortcuts would be available on the Windows 8 Start Menu created by http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/

All programs I ever installed under Windows 8 had shortcuts on Windows 8 Start Menu just like they did under Windows 7. Everything is the same except I now have the option of doing the reverse of what you are doing:

SHIFT + Start Menu Button gets me into Windows 8 Metro. I switch to Metro when I want, rather then switching to Desktop when I want. And if someone doesn't like Metro - then they don't even have to *ever* switch and their usage of Windows 8 is identical to Windows 7 - same Start Button, same Start Menu... PLUS the option (just the option) to switch to everything Windows 8 has to offer with a single click.

 

[neo668]

For a new computer user Win 8 is just fine, and very modern in fact. But for a user who has been relying on his/her computer for some time now should stick with Win 7 to avoid transitional (even if rare) problems. I don't see the point in using "classic shell" just so you can go back to a quasi-Win 7. Of course, unless what's under the hood in Win 8 is a dramatic improvement over Win 7. But I wonder who are astute enough to notice this small difference. Especially not normal users.

This does not take into account Win 8.1.

 

[SMOKEU]

Of course, unless what's under the hood in Win 8 is a dramatic improvement over Win 7.

That's the thing, Windows 8 is a huge improvement over 7 in many respects. Improved Hyper-V, SMB3 support, storage spaces, ability to encrypt a drive with Bitlocker without having an Ultimate or Enterprise version, faster boot times etc.

 

[ilovecats]

That's the thing, Windows 8 is a huge improvement over 7 in many respects. Improved Hyper-V, SMB3 support, storage spaces, ability to encrypt a drive with Bitlocker without having an Ultimate or Enterprise version, faster boot times etc.

Isn't pretty much everything you just mentioned more or less of a "niche" except maybe "faster boot times"?

Hyper-V and SMB 3: how many Windows 8 users will ever touch them? Of those who really need them, they'd probably want something more professional like Windows Server 2012.

Bitlocker? Same thing. What do you really want to hide if you were just an everyday citizen? If you really are someone who needs encryption so badly, again there're probably much stronger solutions out there.

Faster boot times is definitely nice. It's the main reason I use Windows 8 because 10 second boot for me is lot better than 18 second even though it really doesn't matter. But this is the overclockers.

Various benchmarks have shown that Windows 8's true performance hasn't improved over Windows 7's at all. This to me, an enthusiast, is very disappointing. They didn't really make the system any more efficient after this many years. But again Intel hasn't really been able to make much progress on CPU's either so those guys are probably just stuck.