Windows 8, is it all that?

[Nothinman]

Even if MS increases their release schedule and significantly decreases the cost of a licence down to Windows 8 upgrade levels or lower, I think they're stupid to assume that people would upgrade every time they release a new version of Windows.

If Windows 7 had come directly after XP (ie. Vista didn't happen), apart from hardware requirements and XP's end of support life in the near-ish distance, there wasn't a great deal to attract the average person to upgrade from XP to 7 (and even if Win7 was priced the same as Win8 Upgrade).

I like both operating systems, I'm using Win7 currently, but I certainly wouldn't try to encourage a customer to upgrade from XP to Win7 unless there was something very specific they were looking for that Win7 has. When April 2014 comes along, that's a different story, but upgrading the whole machine is likely to be a better idea.

It's a different mindset, but it's worked for Apple and could work for MS if done properly. I love the fact that running Debian sid always gets me the latest available software with no whole version upgrades needed. I don't know how much I would be willing to give MS per-year if a similar rolling release was made available, but Windows is also a secondary OS for me so I would probably lean towards just deleting that VM if it was too much. Maybe they could roll it into the XBox Live Gold membership or something.

 

[poohbear]

Even if MS increases their release schedule and significantly decreases the cost of a licence down to Windows 8 upgrade levels or lower, I think they're stupid to assume that people would upgrade every time they release a new version of Windows.

If Windows 7 had come directly after XP (ie. Vista didn't happen), apart from hardware requirements and XP's end of support life in the near-ish distance, there wasn't a great deal to attract the average person to upgrade from XP to 7 (and even if Win7 was priced the same as Win8 Upgrade).

I like both operating systems, I'm using Win7 currently, but I certainly wouldn't try to encourage a customer to upgrade from XP to Win7 unless there was something very specific they were looking for that Win7 has. When April 2014 comes along, that's a different story, but upgrading the whole machine is likely to be a better idea.

But its a completely different PC landscape compared to when Win XP was released 11 years ago, i cant imagine anyone wanting to use win xp over win7, i sure as hell couldn't! The same can't be said for win7 & win8 for the desktop market. Desktops PCs haven't changed that much in the past 3 years (when win7 was released) aside from video cards & SSDs. Sandy bridge is already 2 years old & its still a killer CPU that burns through everything u'd need it to....so why upgrade to win8 unless u have a tablet or smartphone, which is what the OS was targeted for. It was'nt designed for laptops or desktops & the UI is a dead giveaway, so not sure why MS is surprised desktop/laptop ppl haven't been upgrading. We have Win7 & it works great, if ure on Vista or especially XP then i dont know what the hell is wrong with u, but win7 is good for me until the next desktop friendly version of windows comes out (& its not Win8)

 

[mikeymikec]

Is it premature to say that Microsoft without Bill Gates is beginning to resemble Apple without Steve Jobs?

Beginning?

That's awfully generous of you

I think perhaps it is too early to judge the state of Apple post-Jobs, but I think Microsoft has suffered with Ballmer at the helm.

 

[Tom]

windows xp could be considered more stable, in that it worked the way it was supposed to and did not create a lot of extra work for an individual user.

Vista with uac, file ownership, other junk, may have made it more secure, but lots of people didn't need all that and that junk made tasks that were easy in XP into a nightmare in Vista. homegroups I consider unecessary crap.

Windows 7, doesnt seem any better than Vista to me, but I didn't have stability problems with Vista either. Has stuff I consider crap, libraries, because I want to know where my files physically are, not grouped by what they are. And even though I have sharing turned on only for the shared folder, W7 shares everything in my user account.

Windows 8. haven't used it yet but sounds like it adds more unnecessary crap that makes managing computers more difficult for old school people like me who like hard drives with files and folders, not a bunch of pointers and shortcuts and grouping stuff the way MS is convenient and giving me folder views they think are better than just a list of the files in a folder. Like the photo termplate if a location is mostly photos..that makes it easy to not realize there's other kinds of files in there.

or not showing file extensions..what the hell is the idea of doing that ? (pet peeve)

 

[Nothinman]

windows xp could be considered more stable, in that it worked the way it was supposed to and did not create a lot of extra work for an individual user.

Vista with uac, file ownership, other junk, may have made it more secure, but lots of people didn't need all that and that junk made tasks that were easy in XP into a nightmare in Vista. homegroups I consider unecessary crap.

Windows 7, doesnt seem any better than Vista to me, but I didn't have stability problems with Vista either. Has stuff I consider crap, libraries, because I want to know where my files physically are, not grouped by what they are. And even though I have sharing turned on only for the shared folder, W7 shares everything in my user account.

Windows 8. haven't used it yet but sounds like it adds more unnecessary crap that makes managing computers more difficult for old school people like me who like hard drives with files and folders, not a bunch of pointers and shortcuts and grouping stuff the way MS is convenient and giving me folder views they think are better than just a list of the files in a folder. Like the photo termplate if a location is mostly photos..that makes it easy to not realize there's other kinds of files in there.

or not showing file extensions..what the hell is the idea of doing that ? (pet peeve)

Home users very much need that additional security from UAC and other changes that came with Vista and up, anyone who's spend time cleaning up someone's PC from malware can attest to that. But it's not like XP doesn't have file permissions and ownership, it just had shittier defaults for those permissions. Each version of Windows has tightened up the default permissions, that wasn't something new with Vista.

Homegroups are an attempt to fix file sharing because Windows network browsing has been severely broken since it's inception. Another thing that home users will directly benefit from if they use it.

 

[Tom]

Home users very much need that additional security from UAC and other changes that came with Vista and up, anyone who's spend time cleaning up someone's PC from malware can attest to that. But it's not like XP doesn't have file permissions and ownership, it just had shittier defaults for those permissions. Each version of Windows has tightened up the default permissions, that wasn't something new with Vista.

Homegroups are an attempt to fix file sharing because Windows network browsing has been severely broken since it's inception. Another thing that home users will directly benefit from if they use it.

Homegroups- the way to fix windows broken network sharing isn't to add another layer of broken network sharing on top of it.

uac- I agree there needs to be some UAC but MS does a horrible job of it. For example if the first dialogue box that requires an admin password is successfully answered, there's no reason for the same thing to pop up again in the same session.

but its really file ownership that is way overdone for home users. Transfer a ms paint pic from one computer to another and let my granddaughter keep working on her drawing requires an insane amount of knowledge and dealing with menu after menu.

 

[Nothinman]

Homegroups- the way to fix windows broken network sharing isn't to add another layer of broken network sharing on top of it.

uac- I agree there needs to be some UAC but MS does a horrible job of it. For example if the first dialogue box that requires an admin password is successfully answered, there's no reason for the same thing to pop up again in the same session.

but its really file ownership that is way overdone for home users. Transfer a ms paint pic from one computer to another and let my granddaughter keep working on her drawing requires an insane amount of knowledge and dealing with menu after menu.

I'm not sure how homegroups are implemented below the UI but how do you figure it's just another broken layer?

UAC - It very much needs to happen within the same session. It's a per-process thing and if I tell X.msi it's allowed to install that doesn't mean I want Y.msi to do the same thing.

If you transfer the picture via any method besides copying between internal NTFS drives it will lose all of the NTFS ACLs and ownership information. USB drive using FAT, email, Dropbox, etc all lose those attributes and thus require no knowledge to actually use the file on the destination.

 

[Elixer]

windows xp could be considered more stable, in that it worked the way it was supposed to and did not create a lot of extra work for an individual user.

That is also why it is such a insecure OS.

Vista with uac, file ownership, other junk, may have made it more secure, but lots of people didn't need all that and that junk made tasks that were easy in XP into a nightmare in Vista. homegroups I consider unecessary crap.

Most people with computers are just too dumb, that is the issue, and that is why there are millions of computers that someone else controls.
MS tried to secure more things via what they saw going on with XP.

Windows 7, doesnt seem any better than Vista to me, but I didn't have stability problems with Vista either. Has stuff I consider crap, libraries, because I want to know where my files physically are, not grouped by what they are. And even though I have sharing turned on only for the shared folder, W7 shares everything in my user account.

True enough, there isn't any real major difference between the two.

Windows 8. haven't used it yet but sounds like it adds more unnecessary crap that makes managing computers more difficult for old school people like me who like hard drives with files and folders, not a bunch of pointers and shortcuts and grouping stuff the way MS is convenient and giving me folder views they think are better than just a list of the files in a folder. Like the photo termplate if a location is mostly photos..that makes it easy to not realize there's other kinds of files in there.

The main issue with win 8 is, if you don't have a touch screen, then it is really useless to always start with the "metro" interface, instead of the desktop.
It should never have been coupled, but I guess it was a (poor) attempt to make some things easier for touch screen users.

or not showing file extensions..what the hell is the idea of doing that ? (pet peeve)

That has been in windows for a very long time, the same with hide system files. I have no idea why they think that is better to be enabled by default. Both of those are rather dumb to have.

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure how homegroups are implemented below the UI but how do you figure it's just another broken layer?

UAC - It very much needs to happen within the same session. It's a per-process thing and if I tell X.msi it's allowed to install that doesn't mean I want Y.msi to do the same thing.

If you transfer the picture via any method besides copying between internal NTFS drives it will lose all of the NTFS ACLs and ownership information. USB drive using FAT, email, Dropbox, etc all lose those attributes and thus require no knowledge to actually use the file on the destination.

I guess I'm the one person that has computers with ntfs drives in the computers on my home network.

a solution would be to make it easy for an admin to change file ownership, or let programs not assign ownership in the first place. but thanks for the tip.

 

[Nothinman]

I guess I'm the one person that has computers with ntfs drives in the computers on my home network.

a solution would be to make it easy for an admin to change file ownership, or let programs not assign ownership in the first place. but thanks for the tip.

You're obviously not the only one, but I don't really think it's that difficult to go to the security tab and take ownership/reset permissions. If you don't have AD setup so that the users/groups are the same across all hosts you could simply set Everyone to Full Control to the shared directory and files and when she copies the file it should retain those rights and work as expected. There are multiple ways around the permissions issues you're seeing that only take a little bit of thought to setup.

 

[Tom]

You're obviously not the only one, but I don't really think it's that difficult to go to the security tab and take ownership/reset permissions. If you don't have AD setup so that the users/groups are the same across all hosts you could simply set Everyone to Full Control to the shared directory and files and when she copies the file it should retain those rights and work as expected. There are multiple ways around the permissions issues you're seeing that only take a little bit of thought to setup.

It isn't simple at all. I just took a look and I had to open dialogue boxes 6 levels deep and on more than one occasion I wouldn't have a clue what to do next if I didn't read several paragraphs about what option to slect.

And if she isn't a user on the computer I'm using I can't assign ownership to her of a file she created on my computer. I have to create a user account for her to do that. Or figure out a way around it.

When there's no reason for her drawing to not be editted by anyone on any of our machines. It doesn't require this level of security.

And even though there are pages and pages of options for permissions, ownership, sharing, etc, there's no setting to just turn off file ownership when there's no need for it.

 

[Nothinman]

It isn't simple at all. I just took a look and I had to open dialogue boxes 6 levels deep and on more than one occasion I wouldn't have a clue what to do next if I didn't read several paragraphs about what option to slect.

And if she isn't a user on the computer I'm using I can't assign ownership to her of a file she created on my computer. I have to create a user account for her to do that. Or figure out a way around it.

When there's no reason for her drawing to not be editted by anyone on any of our machines. It doesn't require this level of security.

And even though there are pages and pages of options for permissions, ownership, sharing, etc, there's no setting to just turn off file ownership when there's no need for it.

As I said, if you give Everyone:Full Control that should come over when the file is copied as well which should work around your issue. Setting that on a root, shared directory will allow it to be inherited so it's something you only need setup once.

Permissions are a basic tenet of a multi-user system which despite its issues with multiple users, Windows falls within that group. Even if you only define one user there are others for services and such and as a basic security principal those services have the minimal amount of rights necessary, especially to your files. Because if they had full reign on the system a single exploit of any of them would give the attacker full access to your stuff.

 

[Tom]

As I said, if you give Everyone:Full Control that should come over when the file is copied as well which should work around your issue. Setting that on a root, shared directory will allow it to be inherited so it's something you only need setup once.

Permissions are a basic tenet of a multi-user system which despite its issues with multiple users, Windows falls within that group. Even if you only define one user there are others for services and such and as a basic security principal those services have the minimal amount of rights necessary, especially to your files. Because if they had full reign on the system a single exploit of any of them would give the attacker full access to your stuff.

What's the difference between giving everyone:full control and not having file ownership ?

 

[coloumb]

Just upgraded today from Win 7 [64 bit pro] to Win 8 [64 bit pro] and really like it.

Upgrade was flawless.
Programs seem to load a lot faster.

The only thing I don't like is having to use scroll bar to "swipe".

I really like that I still have access to my desktop as well as a "portable device" UI [iphone, windows phone, etc]. The real danger to Metro UI - instant access to windows live/apps store - too convenient to click/install apps/games...

 

[Nothinman]

What's the difference between giving everyone:full control and not having file ownership ?

Technically owning a file lets you do a little more with rights management, but in day to day usage effectively nothing.

 

[KentState]

Upgraded about a month ago from 7 to 8. I hate Metro and if there wasn't an option like Start8, I would have moved back.

 

[Red Squirrel]

From what I've gathered from reading articles about the OS.

Win8 has definite under the hood improvements over Win7 it's just that the interface isn't that great for a lot of Windows users.

Unless you install a 3rd party program I don't think there is a way to boot Win8 directly into the Desktop

from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235059/Windows_8_s_uptake_falls_behind_Vista_s_pace?

Interesting to see win7 that high. The media is making it seem like 8 is overtaking everything by storm.

 

[poohbear]

not the media, MS was doing that until the media corrected them and showed the real numbers! (measly 1.7% market share!)

 

[Kingbee13]

I'm sorry but you lost me at XP being the last stable OS.

On the other hand I understand why some people loathe windows 8, my niece bought her husband a new cheap HP laptop for Christmas, the trackpad refused to accept multitouch input, or any scrolling for that matter. The driver toggles option had no effect. I had to download a new driver directly from synaptics (something they'd never do on their own) it was like night and day for them. Navigating Windows 8 without the ability to scroll is like wading through wet concrete.

I can't believe OEMS are shipping new pcs with windows 8 and multitouch not working. After uninstalling some bloatware and disabling the abundant startup tasks the laptop sings and they like it. Although the trackpad is still horrible.

I'm not saying OEMs poor quality is the only reason people don't like windows but its certainly a contributing factor.

 

[poohbear]

I can't believe OEMS are shipping new pcs with windows 8 and multitouch not working. After uninstalling some bloatware and disabling the abundant startup tasks the laptop sings and they like it. Although the trackpad is still horrible.

I'm not saying OEMs poor quality is the only reason people don't like windows but its certainly a contributing factor.

Wouldn't that qualify for a class action lawsuit in the US? I can see quite a few lawyers getting excited over this.....

 

[Nothinman]

Wouldn't that qualify for a class action lawsuit in the US? I can see quite a few lawyers getting excited over this.....

Why would that qualify when OEM PCs being shipped with complete and utter shit performance didn't qualify before Win8? It's not like this is a new thing.

 

[poohbear]

btw nobody mentioned how Win8 compares to Win7 visually? All the fancy effects are removed? so Win8 is more "basic" looking than Win8? like WinXP?

 

[lxskllr]

btw nobody mentioned how Win8 compares to Win7 visually? All the fancy effects are removed? so Win8 is more "basic" looking than Win8? like WinXP?

It's just different. Looks are a matter of preference, but I rather like the visual style. There's usability issues imo, but based purely on appearance, I prefer Win8 to Win7.

 

[KentState]

btw nobody mentioned how Win8 compares to Win7 visually? All the fancy effects are removed? so Win8 is more "basic" looking than Win8? like WinXP?

Just looks toned down. Simplistic but not in a bad way.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Two points about Win XP:
Schools in my part of the state (VA) are still using network XP.
We are still using XP (dual boot system with XP and Win 7) for older games and older software/hardware. Also, years ago when the hard drive died and we thought we'd lost a lot of our family pictures (yes, I know back up, back up which we do now), Runz was able to retrieve them all in DOS.

Wife of Runz