Windows 8 uptake slower than Vista

[goose90proof]

Big surprise! I'm gonna mimic everyone else by saying it's a great design for tablets and other mobile devices. I felt like they 'got it right' in Windows 7. I use it at work for testing, but I won't be upgrading to 8 on my personal computers.

 

[theELVISCERATOR]

On 8 I hesitate.

 

[petteyg359]

Then given a choice, why would you start with 8?

For example, it is not worth it to give up Windows 7 so you can boot 2 or 3 seconds faster but you would be shooting yourself in the foot if, all things being equal, you choose to boot 2 seconds slower. Improvements are minor but they are by and large of that nature.

You just pretty much skipped the question. For what you did provide, that's rather system dependent. I have an SSD; there is no boot time to speak of. When I tried Windows 8 in VirtualBox (less than a month ago), it was no faster than Windows 7 in VirtualBox.

Because out of the box, it is actively inhibiting my use of the system.

But this is overclockers, so since it takes us a few seconds to permanently be booting into Windows 7-looking Windows 8, this is not an issue.

Crappy light bulbs burn out after only a week, but I know how to get new ones and screw them in, so that's obviously not an issue, and I should continue buying crappy bulbs.

I have a question for you: What DRM problem is present on Windows 8 that is not on Windows 7? and What Blu-ray problem is present on Windows 8 that is not present on Windows 7?

These are not Windows-specific. They are examples of so-called "extras" that are detrimental, used to invalidate your implication that extras should always be desired:

shooting ourselves in the foot if we give up extras, regardless of what they are

 

[c627627]

There is no advantage Windows 8 would give that would be considered a "must have" for most people, we've established that. I posted some Windows 8 advantages I can think of and simply used one of them, the two or three second boot speed advantage to illustrate that point. I also have an SSD, it's not a big deal, but it is a an advantage of a few seconds. Given an equal choice, what reason is there to give it up. Identical installs of Win7 & Win8 on different partitions of THE SAME SSD give Win8 a slight boot advantage, nothing big, but slight.

Look at this Windows 8 file copy progress window, petteyg35, with its PAUSE button:




Should we give up Windows 7 over that? No, but it sure is nice to have, given an equal choice, where no money or time is spent to install Windows 8, if you have a choice.


As for your last, point, I am with you 100%. Examples are numerous of how a newer model of various things is not better. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

I would like to see why Windows 8 is a step back. You shouldn't go out and get it to upgrade Windows 7, but the point I am making is that Windows 8 IS WINDOWS 7.

I found issues associated with Windows 8 to be user specific, I could not test anything on Windows 7 that couldn't run on Windows 8. Therefore, given an equal choice, Windows 8 + Classic Shell has no downsides: http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/

 

[EarthDog]

If W8 = W7 but you have to take time out to make W8 look like W7, remind me why I would want to move to it again?

Well, I havent heard one example so I guess I will stick with W7. If you decide to offer up something... ANYTHING in fact, I'm all ears and open arms and all that.

Thanks again!

 

[goose90proof]

Windows 8 my start menu.

 

[c627627]

wut? What about Windows 8 Start menu?


EarthDog, the price for having an option of using Windows 8 Extras is a Classic Shell install. You would have to give up few seconds of your life to install it.

And in return you will get Extras that may or may not be worth those few seconds.

I understand some of you are saying it is not worth it to spend those few seconds because the Extras are useless. If you want to get technical, you may make up those seconds after a few reboots, but oh that's right, you never reboot .

Then you'll have to figure out if having the option to pause a copy process is worth those few seconds. I just noticed the pause button in that screen shot I just took. How many other little things like that are on Windows 8? Not enough to give up 7 but, enough to choose it over 7 next time I say.

 

[EarthDog]

Those extras... would love to hear what they are... been waiting all thread in fact...

So tell me again why I would take the time to install W8 and have to adjust it to make it work for me? Shoot, my bad, I forgot, for the extras that remain steadfastly unamed for unknown reasons.

Pausing a file transfer isnt worth it to me, no. Since I "rarely" reboot the PC, the second or so it MAY cut down on boot times isnt worth it either, no.

So, back at square one....

If you offer up something... ANYTHING in fact, I'm all ears and open arms and all that.

 

[theELVISCERATOR]

There is no advantage Windows 8 would give that would be considered a "must have" for most people, we've established that. I posted some Windows 8 advantages I can think of and simply used one of them, the two or three second boot speed advantage to illustrate that point. I also have an SSD, it's not a big deal, but it is a an advantage of a few seconds. Given an equal choice, what reason is there to give it up. Identical installs of Win7 & Win8 on different partitions of THE SAME SSD give Win8 a slight boot advantage, nothing big, but slight.

Look at this Windows 8 file copy progress window, petteyg359:

View attachment 125863


Should we give up Windows 7 over that? No, but it sure is nice to have, given an equal choice, where no money or time is spent to install Windows 8, if you have a choice.


As for your last, point, I am with you 100%. Examples are numerous of how a newer model of various things is not better. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

I would like to see why Windows 8 is a step back. You shouldn't go out and get it to upgrade Windows 7, but the point I am making is that Windows 8 IS WINDOWS 7.

I found issues associated with Windows 8 to be user specific, I could not test anything on Windows 7 that couldn't run on Windows 8. Therefore, given an equal choice, Windows 8 + Classic Shell has no downsides: http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/

I dont get that pic exactly what does it prove? Win7 file transfer...

 

[Janus67]

the speed history/graph and the pause button can be nice when necessary (never needed it yet - using server2012 as my office machine at work)

 

[c627627]

EarthDog, perhaps a bad example but does someone who never ever drinks in their car need a cup holder to hold drink cups in their car?

If they could equally choose, you are saying they should select a car without a it (let's pretend cup holders are for holding drink cups only for a moment).

I have given some examples, none of which I myself thought were worthy of ditching a current OS for, but why not have that nice copy progress graph. Maybe you are transferring a 50 GB iso file and need to pause it for a moment while you complete a quicker file transfer. Why not not have that quick extended Desktop Task Bar right onto your Plasma TV? Having no TV is not a reason. Maybe you will get one and then you have an option. Maybe you even get a touch screen and then you have an option?

Who's to say Microsoft store will never have a Metro app you will ever be interested in personally or professionally?


There are couple of other minor things that are nice like that graph and the pause transfer button in Windows 8 GUI. Again, nothing worth investing in, but why would you refuse having them if offered an equal choice b/w 7 & 8.

Everyone should feel free to think that every extra is useless (if Win8 is faster by one single second to boot, who cares, right?)


I need to see why Windows 8 is worse, because with Classic Shell, in less than ten seconds Windows 8 = Windows 7 plus more.

 

[EarthDog]

EarthDog, perhaps a bad example but does someone who never ever drinks in their car need a cup holder to hold drink cups in their car?

If they could equally choose, you are saying they should select a car without a it (let's pretend cup holders are for holding drink cups only for a moment).

If it costs more money or time, yes.

I guess it boils down to taking the time to install the OS and the 30 seconds to tweak it arent worth it for items unnamed that I may/may not use. I used the beta, hated the navigation (Metro). Outside of that, Im looking (read: begging) for a tangible reason to give it a go again.

I see your angle, I just need something more tangible to hold on to for the effort, as minimal as it may be.

 

[c627627]

After a very quick install of Classic Shell, I don't think people realize that when they press the power button next time, they will actually boot into something that is just like Windows 7. All metro features are not there, but can be accessed with a single click.

 

[petteyg359]

EarthDog, perhaps a bad example but does someone who never ever drinks in their car need a cup holder to hold drink cups in their car?

If they could equally choose, you are saying they should select a car without a it (let's pretend cup holders are for holding drink cups only for a moment).

I have given some examples, none of which I myself thought were worthy of ditching a current OS for, but why not have that nice copy progress graph. Maybe you are transferring a 50 GB iso file and need to pause it for a moment while you complete a quicker file transfer. Why not not have that quick extended Desktop Task Bar right onto your Plasma TV? Having no TV is not a reason. Maybe you will get one and then you have an option. Maybe you even get a touch screen and then you have an option?

Who's to say Microsoft store will never have a Metro app you will ever be interested in personally or professionally?

A lot of people have to have periodic garage sales because "Hey, I might use that some day!".

As shown already 7 has progress and speed display, too. The only difference there is a pause button (which I would like to note has been in most Linux DEs for years). That is a potentially useful feature, though I don't think I would ever actually use it.

You want a disadvantage of a brand new 8 system? I've already given one: "Secure boot". I don't trust MS to be a fair bouncer anymore than I would trust Oracle or Apple.

 

[c627627]

I don't even have UEFI BIOS on my Windows 8 computer so there is no Secure Boot as far as I know on my Windows 8.

I did get a Windows 8 laptop with UEFI BIOS and I did simply switch it off in BIOS on that Windows 8 laptop.


My entire approach to Microsoft new features is "are there any benefits?" and "can I turn it off?"


So Secure Boot has its pros & cons. But if I did turn Secure Boot off in that Windows 8 laptop, then is that OK? If Windows 8 asked if you wanted to Disable Metro and boot straight into Desktop, would we even be having this conversation, which is ridiculous since EarthDog over there has the ability to turn Windows 8 into Windows 7 faster than it takes him to compose posts in this thread.


But yeah the garage sale analogy is flawed because in a few seconds Windows 8 BECOMES Windows 7 from then on permanently.

Sure we shouldn't have to waste those few seconds and this is absolutely not for our computer illiterate friends & cousins, but for us? Just turn Secure Boot off in BIOS.

 

[petteyg359]

If I wanted to try an ARM system, and the OEM for whatever reason placed Windows 8 on it, "secure boot" is not an option. As none of the ARM Windows 8 hardware I've seen is being heavily subsidized by Microsoft, I don't see why they should get to choose what I do with the hardware.

 

[briansun1]

um how dose any of this have to do with "Windows 8 uptake slower than Vista"

 

[c627627]

As a general rule, if you cannot disable [INSERT NAME OF NEW FEATURE], then the moment an alternative becomes available from another company which allows you to customize, switch to it.

We switched away from Internet Explorer to Firefox when it became available not just because of security but because we were able to turn on/off pretty much whatever we wanted. We could customize our personal browser however we want.


In my case and in case of a lot of people, we can switch Secure Boot off. If you can't and the cons outweigh the pros for you, most definitely stay away, but would you not recommend that I should spend more time on my Windows 8 partition than on my Windows 7 partition on my 2008 machine without Secure Boot?

_____________________
Intel i7 950 [206] BCLK x 20 = 4.12 GHz @ [1.4000] CPU Voltage & [1.35000] QPI/DRAM Uncore Voltage, Batch 3029A40
2 x 4GB Kingston HyperX T1 DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) [DDR3-1651MHz] 9-9-9-27 @ 1.66 DRAM Bus Voltage
ASUS P6T Deluxe v.1 [LGA 1366 Intel X58] BIOS 2209
Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme 1366 RT with 120mm Scythe S-Flex F fan
ATi Radeon HD 7870 XFX Black 2GB HDMI 2XDVI GDDR5 1050MHz Core Clock
OCZ Agility 3 180GB SSD
Asus Xonar DX sound card
Antec nine hundred case, two front 120mm fans, one back 120mm Fan, one top 200mm fan
Corsair CMPSU-750TX 750W

 

[c627627]

um how dose any of this have to do with "Windows 8 uptake slower than Vista"

No, we're on topic. The reason Windows uptake is slow is Metro. Companies ARE losing millions because people are returning Windows 8 machines and trying to replace them with Windows 7 machines because they do not know how or are not computer literate enough to install Classic Shell.


Even though we are, we are also joining the abnormally high number of people who hate Windows 8 because of Metro, contributing to the slow "uptake".

Metro should not be a reason not to choose Windows 8.
If Metro and other things that bother us can be turned off (quickly) then what is the reason to stay away from 8, given an equal choice where no extra $ is spent when choosing between 7 and 8?

 

[briansun1]

but i like metro...