Even without the +'s and extremes...I certainly believe in the 2 statements above. I watched that animated video a week or 2 ago...that guy tries to claim why he's intelligent based on his history and whatnot. The guy is a moron. Some of his claims have some legitimacy to them, but for the most part, he's an idiot I bet he didn't know that in order to close apps on an iPhone or iPad, you had to double-click on the button and then hold down one of the app icons in the lowe rbar until it shivered (which was typically used to uninstall or move) and then close it. But guess what? He couldn't figure it out, guessed a bunch or looked it up online, and then it became 2nd nature immediately. There are a ton of things like that with everything that's new and different. For some reason he and others choose to forget those learnings that occur with Apple products and say they're intuitive, and then pretend they have to relearn the same thing over and over with other products (not just Microsoft)--when it's really the same process for both
I'm thinking about upgrading on my laptop, but I might have to wait until my Spring Break... I have a super busy schedule, and I rely on my computer for part of my schedule. I don't know if I could get the hang of it without time to explore. Questions: Is it worth the upgrade on a laptop with no touchscreen? Could I potentially get the hang of it in a few hours?
Yeah, but if I took your advice the first time I would actually believe that Gay and Gasol would have been a fair trade for Durant and Perkins. Spoiler Relax, I'm kidding
The thing about Windows 8, and why some people hate it so much, is because most of them do not want to give up their mouse. It really doesn't have anything at all to do with the metro ui. Because, with a traditional mouse, navigating Windows 8 is far less intuitive. With a touchpad, it makes navigating Windows 8 a breeze. What I would say is look for a laptop that is optimized for windows 8 (most are going to be anyway), and you'll be fine. And yes, it is well worth an upgrade in my opinion.
I don't think it's worth the $ investment without a touchscreen. The only reason I would do it in that case is to get used to it as more devices move in that direction. It's not a BAD decision by any means. It just doesn't give you *huge* advantages until you have it on a touch interface **note: my opinion on that could change as more apps get built. It integrates well with new things.. if you get on Office 2013 also, there are more advantages. etc. You could get the hang of it in a few hours. It might take 2-3 weeks to get some of the nuances down, but you'd be functional very quickly. The desktop mode operates almost exactly like Win7. You just need to know 1 or 2 new things to be able to do your daily use type stuff. I used it on a non-touchscreen for a couple of months. when I got it on a touchscreen after that, I realized what I was missing out on--a lot
I've spent a few weeks with Windows 8 now, and there are some things I like, and some I don't. UI cues for the user are sparse, and the 'swipe from here!' mini video when you install is nowhere near enough to carry over for a lot of new users. Several times I just had to fall back on old standy keyboard shortcuts. The 'Start Screen' is also more intrusive than the start menu, and I shouldn't have to leave my desktop/workflow to access a search for something. Of course, eventually there are ways to adjust. But I work with computers, and as such have no problem with exploring and figuring out the details. I have no doubt, though, that casual, every day users are going to be frustrated as hell with it, beyond the usual 'this is new' learning curve. The 'it needs a touchscreen' to shine angle is 100% true, but that's a real problem when it comes to the desktop (or really laptop) environment out there. Many, many people will upgrade their OS before buying all new hardware and making an OS that almost hinges on that requirement changing is not a good idea. And then you get to the mix of 'metro' apps and traditional desktop applications and it's going to be a mess for a lot of regular users. The touch/tablet OS and desktop OS merging is just too sloppy and disjointed and most people would have to have hardware that helps to alleviate the gap. Unfortunately most do not.
I think it would be ok for a tablet, but why fix something that isn't broke? Why not keep windows desktop and taskbar as is?
why'd they fix dos and go to windows? They kept the dos shell in windows...then the dos shell became a command prompt that was much less functional. Of course all of that makes a ton of sense in hindsight. But I think you could have said 'why fix something that isn't broken' about DOS back then. You could do everything you thought you wanted to do I'd argue that it's not readily apparent yet, but in a year or 2 we'll see that this change was intelligent long-term
Why innovate? Exactly, if people actually wanted innovation then the iPhone might have actually been a succes... oh wait... Like it, love it, or hate it Microsoft is trying something new. I have to give it up to them for that. What I've noticed is that most idiots complain about the interface, the ones who aren't saavy enough to hack it to look like traditional windows get used to it and love it. The idiots who hack it, do not notice how the experience is 100x faster, better streamlined and much much more intuitive. You want to be part of that group? Go to town, there are hundreds of idiots online who have hacked Windows 8 to look like 7. If these idiots actually had their way we might still be on Windows 98... Ugh...
I don't know if you ever used windows mobile, but it sucked. I don't think it was designed to be touch friendly. There was an actual need for a better mobile OS. In the case of windows its pretty much been pretty consistent since windows95. You had the the desktop and start button for the apps. When they added ribbon to office no and liked it and I still don't think anyone really likes it. Sometimes if it works well what is the point of changing it.
Sign me up as one of the idiots who installed a start menu program (is this what you call a hack?) so I don't have to deal with full screen applications on a non-touch desktop with a 24inch screen. Let me know how you like opening pictures not in your library, one by one in the default metro app. Some people realize that their desktop has more processing power than an iPad. MS should have just automated the enabling of Metro if it detected a touch screen or device. The allure of monetizing an app store was probably too big to pass up though.
Umm, wouldn't the obvious solution be put them in your library? Also, the photo app allows you to view all of your photos in multiple platforms. It pulls them all into one place. Explain again, how this app sucks?
A friend sends a small set of pics. I don't want to store in a library or upload them to the cloud. I would have to click on each one, exit full screen photo app, open next pic. The desktop picture viewer app would let me scroll to the next picture automatically. Thanks to arbitrary sand boxing of Metro apps, the Metro photo app doesn't have permissions to view the next picture if it isn't in the library. Or what if I'm just browsing a set of icon images. Not everything I want to mix in my library.
No, I'm talking about using the start menu hack, it actually creates a start menu on your taskbar. I'm not saying I use metro for everything, and metro was not even what I was talking about. I use the Windows 7 like photoviewer for photos most of the time, or just photoshop. My advocacy is not that we completely do away with legacy and only use metro, far from it. My argument is against people who can't even the default start screen. It's also comical to me that you talk to me like I don't know how to use (or even own) a desktop with some power. I do computation chemistry using Spartan on my machine, I live off the photoshop CS6, and in my spare time I video edit using premiere. Power users like Windows 8 too. Oh, and I use a nice 22" screen at work. Does that extra 2" do that much more for you? The way I see it, it's all in how you use it.
It sounds to me a very minuet point, but if it is that big a deal to make the photo app work exactly the way you want it to work: uninstall it. It is not an mandatory app in windows. But my two cents is that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This doesn't work exactly how I wished it would work, the whole system is trash. And also, you do realize that apps aren't stagnate pieces of software, that they are updating them every couple of weeks.
My issue is that Metro (including the Start Screen) does not make sense on desktops. Obviously since MS has made them default viewers of all files (pdf, images, videos, music) they intended all users running Windows 8 to use those apps. If you've seen my first post in this thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7265753&postcount=198 I'm far from trashing the OS. I'm trashing your assumption that those who opted to replace the start screen are idiots or can't handle change. Again, my assertion is that Metro is cumbersome for desktops and should have been taken out, but they want to monetize the app store like Apple. No better way than using the area they have a monopoly in, desktops.
I upgraded a while back on my laptop...honestly, its not worth it without the touchscreen, u end up just using the desktop aspect of it, which is basically windows 7 without the start button....u get a cool little interface, but its really useless without touch. Its easy to figure out, but again, i figure the complexity is really only with touch gestures.
Do you not use a mouse with a desktop? Using a mouse or a touchscreen has no bearing on apps that force you to a full screen or 5/6th screen. Unless your asserting that mice will go away in the near future and we will all run photoshop and play FPS's with touchscreens.
