LeaflameSD

Why you should avoid buying Windows 8

150 posts in this topic

problem with linux is its not user friendly nor does it run games ment for windows :P

I'm also annoyed by the size of it, 5 months ago I wanted to give Kubuntu a try

that monster became bigger than Win7 installation, going over 5.5 GB on disk

isn't linux supposed to be LIGHTWEIGHT ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem with linux is its not user friendly nor does it run games ment for windows

Nah. That's not quite it IMO. Some distros have a WinXP-like desktop (which IMO isn't exactly great) while others have this Unity garbage that's really no better than Win8. Still, this is just a relatively minor point when you look at the big picture.

The real problem is that it doesn't run any of the important software Windows runs. I can totally forego Windows games and buy a console or something, but Linux just doesn't have the kind of software library Windows has (not even 1% of it). If Linux can meet someone's needs then his needs are extremely minimal, and chances are any OS would do in the first place (including Android and iOS). Businesses can't just stop using MS Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, Solidworks, AutoCAD, Inventor, Visual Studio, SQL Server and so on (WAY too much software to list). Having a XP-lookalike is one thing (I could live with that, even if it's a big step back from Win7) but losing virtually every single tool that makes a computer useful to me (besides of a web browser) totally kills it, without even considering all the Linux-related problems (it's no better than Windows, it merely has *different* problems)

Sadly, I'd pick the absolutely horrible win8 over it with no hesitation (and with something like Start8 it's a complete no-brainer). Sure, it's really awful, gets in your way, is less productive and all, but at least it still runs useful software (and tons of games too, if that's your thing) which is the entire point of even having a computer in the first place. Having a good OS but without the software library never works. Just look at the repeated failures like OS/2 or BeOS (both a good OS, with very little software to run, very much like Linux). OS X, which is the only real contender, just happens to run lots more software, including MS Office, all the Adobe apps and much more. It's not a coincidence. The OS is just there to run the software. If the software doesn't even exist then the OS is pointless.

By the way, if you guys think that Win8 is horrible, just wait for Windows Blue:

Windows Blue: Microsoft’s plan to release a new version of Windows every year

Windows Blue is Microsoft's future low-cost OS with yearly updates

It's even worse! :thumbup Just when you thought they couldn't possibly screw things further, Ballmer makes it happen once more! An awful phone OS on your desktop, but with forced yearly updates. They're already planning to make Windows 8 apps obsolete, and apps will also have to work with WP8. Windows apps (not traditional software) already suck hard, developing for them sucks too and makes no sense, and now they'll make it even worse. They just don't want us to bother I guess. I'm sure they'll still manage to make it even worse for people who still have a use for Windows (i.e. running desktop apps).

It's really hilarious to see them want to copy Apple so badly, getting everything wrong in the process and somehow destroying their main product, without creating anything that even rivals Apple's mobile offerings (and without gaining any traction in that market). They're just forcing something awful on everyone who are stuck with Windows (a great way to make everyone hate it)

TL;DR: Win7 is the new XP. Win8/Blue is the new MS Bob. They can't fire Ballmer soon enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm slightly more hopeful than you. I think that there will always be a market for regular desktop PCs and the more-serious applications (not "apps"!) that they offer. The kind of PCs that you and I use may eventually be redesignated as "high-end devices," but as long as there are enough people out there who want to buy them, there'll be somebody willing to sell them.

But what form will they take? I can easily see this whole thing reverting back to the pre-clone era when there were PC's, XT's and AT's as your main choices. It took radical courage for the clones to stand up, knock off the BIOS copyright issue and penetrate and then overwhelm the relatively "closed" market. Differentiation is what is at risk here. Right now we are extremely lucky to be able to construct PC's of almost infinite variation, but if the big one, Intel, goes socketless ( like in the early days ), the other smaller fish like AMD are sure to follow and the motherboard revolution we are enjoying will definitely end. There is wicked competition currently between them to add all kinds of amazing onboard features, and I can't see this continuing if they must eat the cost of CPU replacement on failures and buggy chips. It will kill them dead. Each mobo company will fail one by one and the few remaining will just offer a few safe motherboard selections. Corporate big buyers will have no problem with this arrangement, they prefer simple ( Dell, etc ). The only losers are us. We must remember that Intel is great with CPU's but terrible with everything else. Their graphics still suck and their motherboards are a joke. Earlier this year Intel already took a baby step when they cheaped out on unlocked "K" Ivy Bridge processors using thermal paste instead of fitted spreaders. This rumor if it is true is a perfect parallel to the cynical Metro offering from Microsoft. Cut costs, jack up profit margins, aim for the sheeple. This is what they are teaching in business school now I guess.

It's really hilarious to see them want to copy Apple so badly, getting everything wrong in the process and somehow destroying their main product, without creating anything that even rivals Apple's mobile offerings (and without gaining any traction in that market). They're just forcing something awful on everyone who are stuck with Windows (a great way to make everyone hate it)

TL;DR: Win7 is the new XP. Win8/Blue is the new MS Bob. They can't fire Ballmer soon enough.

You got that right. I just saw a story somewhere that Foxcon is making the Surface. Welcome to MicroApple. They are so incredibly overwhelmed by Apple-envy. It is a mental illness. I have lost count of the amount of direct copies of Apple strategy. When we heard the rumors of Ballmer throwing fits ( and chairs ) and cursing out Google, and the memos about destroying Netscape ( a decade ago ), we were tipped off that there is unstable thinking going on in management. Even though they have a near-monopoly and highly profitable business they feel they must press further and squeeze more money out of the marketplace. They see us as cows ready to be milked, to the last drop. In a perfect world, there would be some way to pry the Windows XP source code out of their grubby hands and hand it off to the community to evolve, while they work on their silly Metro mobile dreams. Or they could be wise and give it away, an act of great benevolence like Ben Franklin with the Lightning Rod. Hey, I'm allowed to dream. :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem with linux is its not user friendly nor does it run games ment for windows :P

I'm also annoyed by the size of it, 5 months ago I wanted to give Kubuntu a try

that monster became bigger than Win7 installation, going over 5.5 GB on disk

isn't linux supposed to be LIGHTWEIGHT ?

Light weight would depend on just what you need .Can start at 691mb or on up .The more you add the more it grows just like window's . I went to Linux and had no problem what so ever with the learning curve . And I had been and windows user from windows 3.0 era . Gameing I am not into never have been But it can be done. I do a lot of pod casting and research with my computer. And maybe watch a netflix (yes) with the grand .So what I am saying You have Linux for Beginners -intermediate and novice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got that right. I just saw a story somewhere that Foxcon is making the Surface.

That recent article about Foxconn was to make a Microsoft Windows 8 Phone. Its speculation that it might be called Surface Phone... It would be a bad move calling both the tablet and a phone Surface. Samsung gets away with it with their Galaxy products, but each one has a suffix like Tab or S or whatever. Microsoft has already caused confusion among consumers by have Windows 8 be the name of the OS for Phone, RT and desktop, and further confusion by having no suffix on the "Core" version of Windows 8.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is that it doesn't run any of the important software Windows runs. I can totally forego Windows games and buy a console or something, but Linux just doesn't have the kind of software library Windows has (not even 1% of it). If Linux can meet someone's needs then his needs are extremely minimal, and chances are any OS would do in the first place (including Android and iOS). Businesses can't just stop using MS Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, Solidworks, AutoCAD, Inventor, Visual Studio, SQL Server and so on (WAY too much software to list). Having a XP-lookalike is one thing (I could live with that, even if it's a big step back from Win7) but losing virtually every single tool that makes a computer useful to me (besides of a web browser) totally kills it, without even considering all the Linux-related problems (it's no better than Windows, it merely has *different* problems)

Sadly, I'd pick the absolutely horrible win8 over it with no hesitation (and with something like Start8 it's a complete no-brainer). Sure, it's really awful, gets in your way, is less productive and all, but at least it still runs useful software (and tons of games too, if that's your thing) which is the entire point of even having a computer in the first place. Having a good OS but without the software library never works. Just look at the repeated failures like OS/2 or BeOS (both a good OS, with very little software to run, very much like Linux). OS X, which is the only real contender, just happens to run lots more software, including MS Office, all the Adobe apps and much more. It's not a coincidence. The OS is just there to run the software. If the software doesn't even exist then the OS is pointless.

I hear what you're saying. It's a chicken-and-egg type of situation: if there's no OS, there's nothing to develop applications for, but if there are no applications for it, then there's no point in running the OS.

The way I see this developing (so to speak) is that as the Windows user base becomes increasingly frustrated with the annoyances of Windows 8, and with the trend that Windows 8 represents, there will be a considerable element that will be ripe for the plucking (some of us here could be called the "leading edge" of that element). That will present an opportunity for enterprising developers or software companies to create versions of their programs that will work on (say) Linux. I could see Windows increasingly becoming an OS for those with simple needs, and Linux an OS for professionals and others who need or want more sophisticated applications. With the epileptic fit-inducing Metro Start Screen in mind, their slogan could become, "No distractions!" :)

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could see Windows increasingly becoming an OS for those with simple needs, and Linux an OS for professionals and others who need or want more sophisticated applications.
+1 from me.

Unfortunately, I just get disappointed with the direction that Ubuntu went with Unity. I mean, so many years providing a rock star style of OS with things that were just great out of the box and now this awful window manager. So, not much better things are going on the other side of the fence. At least with OSX you know what to count and works solid as a unix alternative. Can't believe I'm writing a post to support Apple.

Edited by Nuno Brito
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll avoid buying Windows 8... just like I avoided buying Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and 7.

I'm still using my Windows ME computers that I've been stockpiling backup parts and hardware for. I have a growing surplus of Windows ME compatible things like SD card readers, bubble jet printers, monitors, CD-RW drives, and more.

As long as Google keeps offering their basic HTML email (still works with Netscape 9.6 or K-Meleon 1.5.4), I'll be satisfied.

My sister needed me to print something for her college class today. She emailed me a paper in PDF format. I opened the PDF document using Foxit Reader 2.3, and printed it using my 20 year old Canon bubble jet printer (BJ-200e).

I can still burn/rip audio CD's, I can still take pictures use my card readers to transfer my pictures. I can still use PhotoFiltre to batch convert them.

Why would I need Windows 7,8 or whatever? I can still do what I want.

As far as I'm concerned, the Windows interface, and basically operating system, reached it's zenith with Windows ME and 2000 Professional (take your pic, NTFS or FAT). It was all downhill from then.

I've avoided all the dumbed down versions that Windows has plagued the world with. It's funny, because now the Windows XP people are going to know how I felt, seeing that the future of computers was changing for the worse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I'd miss watching HD videos :P

also you could give a win 2000 a chance, its not that bad, in fact its lightweight almoust as winME but much stable

I personally loved winME more than any 9x version, but when switched to 2000 (just to try it for few months) it was indeed welcomed change

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could see Windows increasingly becoming an OS for those with simple needs, and Linux an OS for professionals and others who need or want more sophisticated applications.
+1 from me.

I think that once MS finally takes away the DOS prompt, that will be the last straw for many of us. Let's hope that day never happens.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows 2000 is nice... I had it installed on another computer for a while. The fact that it doesn't require activation is good!!

The only drawback to Windows 2000 is the lack of web browser support it. It's only slightly better than Windows ME in that regard, especially if you have Kernel-Ex installed on Windows ME, then they're practically the same.

I'm not a Linux fan... so I won't be ditching my Windows ME computer for awhile... I'm waiting to see what Microsoft does about XP activation after April 2014, when support officially ends. If they release a patch for it, sure, I'll "upgrade" to XP. (I'm trying to put off cloud computing, tablets, smart phones, and Windows 8 as long as possible)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you get yourself XP Pro VL iso (aka Corporation version) you don't need to worry about activation even after 2014 :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only drawback to Windows 2000 is the lack of web browser support it. It's only slightly better than Windows ME in that regard, especially if you have Kernel-Ex installed on Windows ME, then they're practically the same.

You are very, very lucky that you live in the 21st century and that there is democracy, saying that in the first decades of first century would have likely caused your crucifiixion! :w00t::ph34r:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes?qt=qt0471984

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows ME -- last supported version of Internet Explorer = 6

Windows 2000 -- last supported version of Internet Explorer = 6

Windows ME -- last supported version of Opera = 10.63 (12.0x using Kernel Ex)

Windows 2000 -- last supported version of Opera = 12.10 ***

Windows ME -- last supported version of Firefox = 2.0.0.20 (Firefox 8* using KernelEx) *This number could be higher, since I haven't test it myself... only going by the KernelEx homepage

Windows 2000 -- last supported version of Firefox = 12

Windows ME -- last supported verison of K-Meleon = 1.5.4 (1.7.0 alpha 2 using KernelEx)

Windows 2000 -- last supported version of K-Meleon = 1.7.0 alpha 2

***according to here:

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2012/07/19/12-50-marlin-html5-dnd-hwa-improvements

Distribution note: Starting with this snapshot we are ending support for Windows 2000.

So, I'm getting crucified for saying what?

P.S.. I can't tell if your post is supposed to be "joking", "sarcastic" or whatnot. ??

Are you agreeing with me, that WinMe and 2000 browser support is "practically the same" or not agreeing with me?

Edited by LostInSpace2012
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm getting crucified for saying what?

P.S.. I can't tell if your post is supposed to be "joking", "sarcastic" or whatnot. ??

Of course I was joking :), you compared the (IMHO) most stable NT based system ever made with the least stable DOS based one.

Though - strangely enough - I am one of the very few people on Earth that considers Me as a largely misunderstood/underrated Operating System (i.e. in my opinion it is much better than most people think) you simply cannot compare it with 2K.

A heavily modified (KernelEx) Me can actually run almost the same "last" version of some web browsers as an "untouched" 2K can, you are perfectly right on this :thumbup .

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.