Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Finally WINDOWS 8.2 going back to classic desktop we know sinds win95!

ClassicstarClassicstar rotjeknorPosts: 2,690Member

This maybe for me the catalyst to switch from win7 to 8.2.

Imust say MS listend to critics and dare change it. Prolly has to do with bad sells win8 but still...

http://www.geek.com/microsoft/start-menu-to-return-in-windows-8-2-codenamed-threshold-1579294/

MB:MSI Z97XPOWER AC
CPU:Intell Icore7 4790k
GPU:MSI 2x AMD 290X
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 8.1 64bit)not yet sure i upgrade to windows 10 need to know alot more with integrated cloud and other maybe spy stuff)

«1

Comments

  • MukeMuke BredaPosts: 2,172Member Uncommon

    Microsoft: "PC's are being phased out; their time is gone; tablets are the future now, no more PC's."

    How the heck do you play thos egames and MMO's on a tablet? Those flash games perhaps, but not the good ones.

    Boy did they fall flat on their face with this tablet OS for PC's.

     

     

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    About bloody time. Did no one ever explain to them why control interfaces are platform specific? It's like putting a brake pedal on a helicopter.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • CaldrinCaldrin CwmbranPosts: 4,533Member Uncommon

    about time.. that was the biggest mistake they made with windows 8..

     

    Desktop computers did not need an interface overhall.. they way the windows UI has worked since 95 has been basically perfect.. sure make it look better and streamline it.. but force all desktop users to use a tablet OS.. bad move..

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Muke
    Microsoft: "PC's are being phased out; their time is gone; tablets are the future now, no more PC's."How the heck do you play thos egames and MMO's on a tablet? Those flash games perhaps, but not the good ones.Boy did they fall flat on their face with this tablet OS for PC's.  

    I really wonder about that decision. I would love to see an insider's view on why they did that. Was it a disconnect between the marketing, design and development teams? Did somebody high up in the organization just push the tablet interface?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • curacura WarsawPosts: 950Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Muke

    Microsoft: "PC's are being phased out; their time is gone; tablets are the future now, no more PC's."

    How the heck do you play thos egames and MMO's on a tablet? Those flash games perhaps, but not the good ones.

    Boy did they fall flat on their face with this tablet OS for PC's.

     

     

    They want you to move to their console so they can milk you more.

  • BeastnBeastn Orlando, FLPosts: 110Member
    I just bought a new gaming rig and un selected Windows 8.1 and " down graded" my os to Windows 7.... best choice ever.. Windows 8 blows
  • CalmOceansCalmOceans BergenPosts: 2,273Member
    I'm not going to upgrade just for a start menu I already have in Windows 7.
  • zevianzevian toledo, OHPosts: 401Member Uncommon

    Meh,   at this point i could care less about the start menu,  ive been using windows 8 since it came out and have adjusted to typing for things I want,   or having a folder on my desktop for games/apps.

     

    I dont use the metro interface for anything.

     

     

    I guess this will be good for all the troglodytes who cant be bothered to learn something new though.

  • LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,053Member Uncommon

    I got new PC year ago. Acidentally it was in same time Win8 was launching and I got the deal for 15$ so i installed it.

    So yes, the Metro interface sucked. But it took me 1 minute to install Start8 , app that basically removes Win8 interface and turns it into Win7 interface.

     

    So how is Win8 (but with normal interface)

    Basically its much faster version of win8 with many improved functions. Better file explorer , file indexing , built in firewall , better task manager , better memory indexing , and freeze protection.

    And it boots in (i measured it) 6 seconds!

    Can win7 do that ?

     

     

    So yes sad decision for interface (metro) but it was 1 minute fix. Otherwise much better and faster system.

    image

  • thunderCthunderC miami flPosts: 470Member Uncommon
    I love windows 8 and the tile app setup, at first it was horrible but now that i am use to it i would never go back to desktop. In my opinion once you actually adjust everything is just smoother and faster working from the start /app screen/
  • MukeMuke BredaPosts: 2,172Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by cura
    Originally posted by Muke

    Microsoft: "PC's are being phased out; their time is gone; tablets are the future now, no more PC's."

    How the heck do you play thos egames and MMO's on a tablet? Those flash games perhaps, but not the good ones.

    Boy did they fall flat on their face with this tablet OS for PC's.

     

     

    They want you to move to their console so they can milk you more.

    I play games like EVE Online; don't see that playing myself on a tablet, wonder if it is even possible/playable. Consoles are a big NO for me anyways so they will never earn $$$ from me for that lol.

    That said; all the IT ppl at my company downgraded the new W8 OS on the new machines to a W7 and in some cases: Linux for business use.

    Personally I like the old feel of WIndows, if they can make it much mroe stable and much faster; that would be enough.

    Curious how this version will do. Classic Desktop is a big plus, wonder if they implement everything else that is not ported to W8 from 7.

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • collektcollekt Meridian, MSPosts: 273Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by thunderC
    I love windows 8 and the tile app setup, at first it was horrible but now that i am use to it i would never go back to desktop. In my opinion once you actually adjust everything is just smoother and faster working from the start /app screen/

    I'd have to disagree. Maybe for a light user or the common PC user, but I have given win8 enough time to get fully used to the interface and I still can't stand it. For people who are power users and/or know what they're doing, the old desktop interface is SO much better and faster. I loathe that retarded app-like interface more than anything.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by thunderCI love windows 8 and the tile app setup, at first it was horrible but now that i am use to it i would never go back to desktop. In my opinion once you actually adjust everything is just smoother and faster working from the start /app screen/

    If you are not using your PC for office work, I guess you are right. For any office purposes tho, it is a nightmare and without specialized app that brings your desktop back, unusable.


    The intentions with Win8 are logical, pulling it off tho, is entirely different matter. Win8 were released too much ahead of time, the world is not ready yet for the concept.

  • MukeMuke BredaPosts: 2,172Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    I'm not going to upgrade just for a start menu I already have in Windows 7.

    Windows 7 (and Linux as 2nd) is running perfectly atm, but W8, would be a legal option when they phase out W7 support.

    But by then MAYBE they have learned their lesson and made W8 viable or maybe a W9.

     

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • syntax42syntax42 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,305Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    About bloody time. Did no one ever explain to them why control interfaces are platform specific? It's like putting a brake pedal on a helicopter.

    Helicopters have pedals for yaw control.  I think a more accurate analogy would be like putting helicopter yaw control pedals on a car and moving the throttle and brake to hand controls.  

     

    Analogies aside, I think the 2015 projected release for a start menu is ridiculous.  Programs like Classic Shell provide a start menu for free right now.  Why does it take over a year for one of the largest companies in the world to make some computer code that already exists?  Personally, I don't care if or when they release it.  I am happy with Windows 8 and my third-party start menu.

  • UhwopUhwop Wilm, DEPosts: 1,663Member Uncommon

    Little misleading for anyone who doesn't actually read the article.

     

    Windows ISN'T going back to classic desktop, they're giving you the ability to boot directly to standard desktop instead of having to load the windows 8 desktop first, and possibly the ability to load apps from the standard desktop. 

     

    The ability to run windows in the standard desktop was always there, you just had to do it after booting into the windows 8 version first. 

    People seem to be confused by this. 

  • tasburathtasburath Owings, MDPosts: 35Member
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    I'm not going to upgrade just for a start menu I already have in Windows 7.

    You might want to look at the technical improvements in the OS under the hood before decide that.

     

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAPosts: 4,178Member Uncommon

    The Start menu is a lie.

    Wasn't that supposed to be the big selling point of Windows 8.1?

    Anyway - it doesn't really matter. If you couldn't get used to Metro, or you couldn't be bothered to download Start8/ClassicShell, the fact that Windows is re-enabling the old start menu won't be enough to get you to switch -- because it's always been an option the entire time.

    People are avoiding Windows 8 and it gets all this bad press not because it's a bad OS, it's because they fear change. There are good reasons to dislike change, particularly when it is a change for the worse or when it's just change for the sake of change and severely impacts productivity - and while you could make good cases for either of those, I won't make that arguement because there are equally valid counterarguments that have been hashed out thousands of times by now.

    That, and if Windows XP/Vista/7/95/3.11 still does what you need it to do, really then, why should you pay to upgrade? That's the real and practical reason for most people.

    Windows 8 already has a stigma - must like Vista, and ME. No patch will be able to overcome that now. If they want to move more Windows SKUs, they need to go ahead and call it Windows 9 -- which is exactly what they did with Windows 7.

  • GroovyFlowerGroovyFlower RdamPosts: 1,245Member

    Ok so win8 was perfect OS for desktop pc and all who did not switch where dumb (me included it seems) not to go win 8 which it seems go in(first time i hear this) 6 sec desktop is in 1 min win7 with third party shell and is completely build around desktop not tablets/phones and touchscreens. Damn i could have had a superior OS win8 a year ago damn why oh why i did not switch.

     

    No win8.1 was never a selling point for start comeback. but the TASKBAR was MS always said for win8.1 start won't comeback.

     

    As soon games demand dx11.2 and my win7 perform poorly(which do not) ill maybe concider switching. But i prolly wait for win9 not sure yet im already on dx11.2 videocard amd 290x

  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAPosts: 925Member Uncommon

    To me, the saddest thing about the whole Win 8 touchscreen-tablet-OS-for-your-PC fiasco was that there was no competitor ready to pounce on this corporate blunder with a competitive product.  There was money to be made, vast amounts of it, and a opportunity to be grasped.  But there's no real vendor competing for the OS market, and the customers are at the mercy of Microsoft.

    Such are the dangers of an OS monopoly.

    Edit:  For the record, I was happy with XP.  The only advance Win 7 gave me was DirectX10 and DirectX 11.  Those could have been fitted to XP just as easily.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAPosts: 4,178Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Mendel
    To me, the saddest thing about the whole Win 8 touchscreen-tablet-OS-for-your-PC fiasco was that there was no competitor ready to pounce on this corporate blunder with a competitive product.  There was money to be made, vast amounts of it, and a opportunity to be grasped.  But there's no real vendor competing for the OS market, and the customers are at the mercy of Microsoft.

    Such are the dangers of an OS monopoly.


    That's largely because Microsoft is right - the desktop PC isn't dead, but it's been relegated to old hardware and the workplace where you can't get away from Word/Excel/Photoshop/Visual Studio/etc.

    All the new consumer computing is mobile and/or touchscreen. Go to Best Buy, or Costco, or Wal-Mart, and 75%+ of all computers there will either be laptops (many with touchscreens), hybrids (most with touchscreens) or tablets (almost all with touchscreens). And even that market is rapidly shifting - most of those tablets and many of those hybrids and laptops aren't running x86 - they are running ARM, and a lightweight OS (Android/iOS) and leveraging connectivity (i.e. "The Cloud") to make up the difference - and while there will always be some segment that this can't work for, for many many people, it does works, and it works very well.

    Apple realized this back in 2008 - and that's why we haven't seen much movement in their desktop hardware or software -- it's still there, they know people will always have a need for it, but that isn't a growing segment. Desktop use is on the decline to some baseline level -- you support what you already have, you make incremental low-effort improvements so you don't drop off the map, but you don't throw a lot of money in after it thinking it'll be huge.

    Windows already has two major competitors (although I hesitate to call them competition, that really isn't the right word, because your right, they have a near monopoly on the desktop OS) - OS X is popular, but it's hardware restricted, you can't run it on any desktop, so that's a big setback to OS X. And there's Linux, but it's fragmented into hundreds of different distributions, all hoping to be the next breakout -- but not many of them have much in the way of financial backing, and the fragmentation (which they love to bill as "choice") is actually a detractor, particularly when it introduces problems with software distribution and compatibility. Maybe SteamOS will help solidify that camp, but that remains to be seen.

    So why would something new jump in there? They'd be jumping after a sinking ship, and I think most companies that are in a position to develop or release a desktop OS realize that.

    The problem Microsoft has is that they realized this about 4 years too late. They needed to start shifting with this after Vista. They have a good strategy with Windows 8 - provide a common interface across phone/tablet/touch/desktop - that makes sense, on paper. And if your coming into computers fresh - it works ok because you don't have any preconceived notion of what should be where. But pretty much everyone is comfortable with the desktop metaphor - it's been around since before 1984 where the original Macintosh made it the de facto standard (iirc they ripped it off of Xerox Parc to be fair). Windows 8, in all it's incarnations, makes a push away from that. Compound that by the fact that there's a lot of inoperability between the different Windows 8 versions (aside from Office, what else can you do on RT?), and you end up with 3 different versions of Windows 8 that, while they look the same on the outside, really aren't the same at all and are extremely segregated in terms of what they have available.

    The Windows 8 plan sounded good in theory, but it failed in execution of the little details. If you could run Phone/RT apps on an x86 (via an emulator, which probably exists for developers), and one purchase works on all devices (Phone/RT/x86), and x86 didn't treat every computer as a handheld touchscreen (try having a forced full screen email client on a 32" monitor - it's ridiculous - and that's the real problem with Metro, not the Live Tiles Start screen), and a handful of other minor details that got glossed over in the touch-inspired mania, the Windows 8 ecosystem would have been a juggernaut.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,611Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lobotomist

    I got new PC year ago. Acidentally it was in same time Win8 was launching and I got the deal for 15$ so i installed it.

    So yes, the Metro interface sucked. But it took me 1 minute to install Start8 , app that basically removes Win8 interface and turns it into Win7 interface.

     

    So how is Win8 (but with normal interface)

    Basically its much faster version of win8 with many improved functions. Better file explorer , file indexing , built in firewall , better task manager , better memory indexing , and freeze protection.

    And it boots in (i measured it) 6 seconds!

    Can win7 do that ?

     

     

    So yes sad decision for interface (metro) but it was 1 minute fix. Otherwise much better and faster system.

    Did the same with Start8 and I agree: it really is a better OS. All the knocks against metro are justified but that spills over into knocks against the OS itself that are not.

  • TamanousTamanous Edmonton, ABPosts: 2,125Member Uncommon

    First of all Microsoft doesn't give a flying %#$& about pc gamers. The reason win 8 exists is for the new platforms out there and for enterprise environments. 99% of you won't even use the advanced enterprise options included within win 8 or know about how it works even if using it at work.

     

    Gamers are not the driving force behind these changes. I deal with clients every day that still use the old win 98 interface and if you move one icon on their desktop they become completely lost. It is the business user driving change not pc gamers.

     

    Gamers can move to win 8 for whatever reason but it certainly isn't one MS really cares about.

    You stay sassy!

  • Nhoj1983Nhoj1983 Mount Vernon, WAPosts: 185Member
    Well that's good news.  I like 8.  While I too pretty much am tired of hearing "I hate it because it's different" this would be a welcome change.   I'm not sure I'll run pure "classic mode" if there's a place in between.  I like having my mail front and center.  I like my apps.  I really like the idea of running those apps windowed.  Windows 8 has been better for performance gaming wise especially since 8.1.  it brought a lot when introducing the windows app store even for desktops.  I won't go back to 7.  Not because it's not a perfectly solid os but because there are things in 8 I've learned to not want to live without.  The main reason 8 isn't just simply "great" is that you have two kinds of programs.  The new apps and the legacy desktop programs.  Get rid of that divide and there goes the last legitimate reason not to run the OS as a consumer. 
  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,209Member Uncommon

    Meh, I like Start Screen. I'm a control freak and like being able to create program groups.

    I have to use Win7 at work. I would love to use Mint or Win8, but it's just too much to ask my boss to fork over for additional Windows licenses just so I can have a more comfy work environment. I do use Win8 at home when I'm working remotely and I love it. I'm also a huge fan of Linux Mint and honestly would use that as my main OS if I could easily get my games to work on it.

    What I would like to see out of future iterations of Windows:

    - Top Priority: Merge explorer and modern. Having two separate and essentially disparate systems try and control one piece of hardware is ludicrous in my opinion. They need to merge them and have different modes of operation by default on different types of hardware.

    - Windowed Modern Apps: In a desktop environment modern apps need to have a windowed mode. Actually they just need to revamp how windows programs work. If they merged explorer.exe and modern interface this could be addressed.

    - Ditch native backwards compatibility: This is subjective, but Microsoft needs to find a point and stop supporting old programs directly. They could virtualize the runtime sort of like Win7 pro does with xp mode apps. I haven't research too far into this, but backwards compatibility is a serious problem.

    When you look deeply at how things work and some of their implementations there is sort of a mess under the hood of Windows. It's not huge, but it is significant. For example, try moving the User directory from the standard C: drive to another drive. It's a nightmare. The defaults, limitations, and folder structure requirements of the modern interface seriously inhibit and interfere with user control of the OS. The two systems (explorer and modern) don't respect each other. What I mean is what you can do in one, permissibly can break the other. I find the modern interface to be the more restrictive and less polished of the two. Modern was bolted on and that is a problem.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.