dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3175
share rss forum feed


jaa
Premium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
reply to Alcohol

Re: [WIN8] Windows 8 Adoption at Standstill

said by Alcohol:

I don't think OEMs are selling anything non windows 8, so it's just that people aren't buying computers. Maybe it's cause their computers are lasting longer or they're just using tablets.

Or maybe they are holding off on a purchase because they don't want Windows 8 - waiting for it to be fixed.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists.


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
said by jaa:

said by Alcohol:

I don't think OEMs are selling anything non windows 8, so it's just that people aren't buying computers. Maybe it's cause their computers are lasting longer or they're just using tablets.

Or maybe they are holding off on a purchase because they don't want Windows 8 - waiting for it to be fixed.

You give the average person too much credit.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.


Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to goalieskates
Why is MS releasing different versions in such a short time?

If I recall, Windows vista cost me about 80 to 100 bucks to get [It was an OEM version], 5 years ago when I built my last computer.

How long was the cycle between releases between Vista and 7? 2, 3 years?

Then what was the cost to upgrade/purchase win 7?
Then the time frame between 7 and 8?
A couple of years?

And we are talking at least 100 bucks?
That's a lot of money to spend in such a short time, when Microsoft had longer cycles between OS upgrades.
Now if they had priced it below 50 bucks, it might have flown off the shelves.

The only reason why I have Win8 was because it came with the pc I recently purchased.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Lunwineight
said by Lunwineight :

Minimum of 16gig of ram to run a single virtual machine? Man i cannot believe the lies people say just because of their aversion to Windows 8.

Obviously, it depends on what OS you plan to put on the virtual machine and then whether you intend to run it with the minimum recommended amount of RAM or a lot more.

I already use 25 to 30% RAM with no virtual machines, a LOT of services disabled (so I could regain RAM), etc. I add a couple of virtual machines using VMWare Workstation or Virtualbox, etc and one will be Vista Ultimate 64bit and give it plenty of RAM and probably Windows 8 Pro with plenty of RAM...well, Dell was correct. 24GB RAM is the sweet spot on Windows 8 not 16GB. Of course, Dell filled all four slots instead of using 2 8GB sticks so to add RAM now I would have to sell two sticks to make room for new sticks...that is a hassle.

I don't hate Windows 8 since I got Start8. I like Desktop Win 8 (it is not as good as XP Pro but ok). It is just Metro I hate and I probably would think it was ok IF I had a tablet with touch screen. But Metro is terrible for desktops and who would get a touch screen for a desktop? (I'm drooling over Dell's brand new 24" UltraSharp monitor...but $600 is too much even though I have not the slightest doubt it would be fabulous. I will be purchasing a new monitor this year but certainly not a touch screen one and Microsoft was crazy to force Metro on desktop users).
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


cypherstream
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to goalieskates
I agree that Metro is terrible for the desktop.

Installing Classic Shell fixes that problem. Best part is, classic shell is FREE. Sure Start8 isn't bad, but doesn't that cost you $5? Classic shell does the same thing for FREE.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
Classic Shell is different in subtle ways from Start8 and it is more invasive. Classic Shell was great on Windows 7 beta to get Win 7 to look like XP but I tried it and Start8 on Windows 8 Pro and I prefer Start8 even though I had to pay $5 for it. If I had gotten Start8 sooner (Nov, Dec) it would have been free or at least a dollar less but I spent two months trying to get used to Windows 8 just as it came and I hated Win 8 then. Now it is ok and looks better than Win 7 after I got Start8 (I don't like fat bloated looking stuff and that is the deliberate look of Win 7) so I like Win 8 going back to classic sleek look.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO
reply to cypherstream
said by cypherstream:

I agree that Metro is terrible for the desktop.

Better budget 9.98... you want Start8 AND ModernMix to get it back to normal

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
I watched the video on that Modern Mix. Neat! Also very sad that a third party had to come in and make Microsoft's latest Windows version work properly for computers other than tablets.

I can't currently use any of the apps on Metro page because (1) I uninstalled most of them shortly after getting Win 8 and (2) I did the registry fix to get UAC out of my hair as Win 8 does not understand what an Admin is and still makes you elevate everything even when you are running as an Admin. But I would like to be able to play Solitare, etc so maybe I will undo the registry fix and try the beta of Modern Mix.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


cypherstream
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to dib22
Wow modern mix is a great idea! A shame Microsoft didn't think about it!

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to TampaVoIP
said by TampaVoIP:

FI've always wondered what the people in charge of OS development actually think. Who the hell thought a talking paperclip was a good idea?

Side comment, but of course "OS development" is not one big monolithic thing. For example, the people that do kernel and file system code are a million miles away from talking paperclips.

(Wasn't the paperclip an Office thing rather than an OS thing? I forget. The Office team is apps, not OS).

The talking paperclip no doubt emerged from usability studies that indicated the UI was too complicated to use. And I bet it was focus-group-tested and people loved it. No doubt the UI group could produce lots of data showing it was a good idea. All slanted towards the casual user.

I bet the internal people divided into 2 camps: (1) "love it" (2) "I don't give a crap as long as I can turn the stupid thing off". Had I worked at MS, I would have been in the second camp. But note that there's probably not many people actually against it.

Meanwhile, the "people in charge" have little choice but to rely on their UI managers - because the thing was so huge.

As for "ribbons" in Office apps - I like 'em. Sure, it was a usability speedbump for a while, but now I am used to them, I don't see what all the fuss is about.


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to dib22
said by dib22:

said by cypherstream:

I agree that Metro is terrible for the desktop.

Better budget 9.98... you want Start8 AND ModernMix to get it back to normal

RetroUI does the same as Start8 and ModernMix with respect to start menu and sizable Metro / new UI programs:

»retroui.com/


Msradell
P.E.
Premium
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY
reply to dave
said by dave:

As for "ribbons" in Office apps - I like 'em. Sure, it was a usability speedbump for a while, but now I am used to them, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Yes, it was a usability speedbump that most users eventually overcame and put up with. My biggest problem with it, especially on my laptop is how much screen space it takes up. All of the new laptops have gone to the widescreen layout (good for movies, but not much else), so vertical space is already at a premium. Even doing everything possible, such as moving the taskbar to the right still leaves limited space vertically. This is especially bothersome when working on Word documents.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by Msradell:

All of the new laptops have gone to the widescreen layout (good for movies, but not much else), so vertical space is already at a premium.

Well, that's a profound difference in our usage. I like widescreen so much I use a double-wide: approximate useful screen space, 12" high x 36" wide (1050 x 3360 pixels).

And I can't say I feel especially constrained vertically in Word, either.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
It means you're not working with source code anymore... Right? Otherwise you'd appreciate vertical space as any developer does.

Or perhaps you use Notepad to read UNIX-formatted text files. Notepad shows them as one long string, which could be convenient to watch in 2:1 monitors...

And BTW, I agree with Msradell See Profile. Widescreen layout may be good for some movies, but not much for anything else, computer related.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Kramer
Premium,Mod
join:2000-08-03
Richmond, VA
kudos:2

1 edit
It has nothing to do with the layout or the width of the screen. It has everything to do with the number of pixels and their density. A decade ago almost all of us were using CRTs with 768 vertical pixels, some with 600. The typical non-widescreen LCD has 1024 vertical pixels. Dave's monitor is no different vertically than any other non-widescreen monitor, but he has almost 3 of them across.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
My old laptop (more then 10 year old), I'm typing this post on, has 1200x1600. And I'm hesitant to buy a well needed new one (presumably Dell M6700) because they offer only IMO inferior for my work 1080x1920 monitor. I hope they will consider wide spread user opinion (expressed on many forums), that returning back to WUXGA (1200x1920) is what users of that powerful (and expensive) workstation need. Loosing vertical space for me is way more important, than watching some movies...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
The only laptop I can think of offhand with a non-16:9 ratio is the Google ChromeBook Pixel with 2560x1700 resolution,....for ~$1300 to ~$1450.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
And that is sad. The workstation, I've mentioned, is high-end, made for professionals (not movie watchers) and is very expensive (from $2K+ and up)... Vertical space is very important in many kinds of professions, including software developers.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Kramer
Premium,Mod
join:2000-08-03
Richmond, VA
kudos:2
Getting really off-topic here but if vertical space is critical for you, why don't you just buy a rotating monitor? I have a 20 inch Dell (1600*1200) that I will often rotate vertically when I am editing a lot of vertical shots.
I also have a 1080p 23 inch, but if I need vertical space, 1600 pixels over 18 or so inches is plenty.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to OZO
said by OZO:

It means you're not working with source code anymore... Right? Otherwise you'd appreciate vertical space as any developer does.

Wrong. I write code daily, and when testing I have 4 or 5 xterms open plus a couple of emacs windows.

(If you can test code in one window, it's not real programming

If a kilopixel isn't enough vertical space to write code in, you ought to do something to control your sprawling programming style.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Kramer
said by Kramer:

why don't you just buy a rotating monitor?

You have to take care with some fonts. They're tuned for 'right way up' monitors, particularly if using subpixel rendition, like Cleartype.

(I have an old Dell monitor at home on which text looks ok when the right way around, but is awful the other way)

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Kramer
That's a good idea and I'll do it this way when I buy next laptop. It makes it very convenient to read documentation, analyze code, read books or even web pages, like e.g. in this forum... But it's going to happen with the new purchase only. Current NVIDIA GeForce2Go video card, while it's supporting 2 monitors, doesn't offer rotation option...

Anyway, it's weird to see that manufacturers think (or rather want us to think) that computers are made only for watching widescreen movies. And BTW, many of movies I may watch time to time, have big verity of AR's, and majority are wider than that 16x9 AR... So, what's the point to move everyone to that inferior (compared to offered earlier 1920x1200) screen now and why every computer has to have it??? Strange...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
This new Dell Ultrasharp 24" monitor has 16x9, HDMI port (last year's model was missing this) and full tilt/swivel.

At the moment, one should not buy it as evidently it has a poorly designed base (customer comments) which really surprises me as Dell Ultrasharps have always been outstanding monitors. Only a few customer comments so far and they may have all gotten bad ones. Dell had to send me FOUR 19" Ultrasharps (non wide screen) back in Nov 2003 before I got one that didn't have a problem of some kind - one had the power connector so loose that it fell off of the connection on the bottom of the monitor constantly. The wobbly base reported may just be an anomaly only on the early ones). The fourth 19" one is still working with close to 29,000 hours on it. Anyhow, if you will be in the market for a new monitor around Christmas time, Dell should have the kinks out of this one and it should then rate as high as the 2010 and 2012 models. (and the price should be good by then).

Someone who has the new Dell monitor said that there are font issues (when you swivel) with certain fonts (cleartype). They claim that is the case with any recent monitor that swivels. I used to swivel this 19" one and didn't see font problems.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Kramer
Premium,Mod
join:2000-08-03
Richmond, VA
kudos:2

2 edits
reply to dave
said by dave:

said by Kramer:

why don't you just buy a rotating monitor?

You have to take care with some fonts. They're tuned for 'right way up' monitors, particularly if using subpixel rendition, like Cleartype.

(I have an old Dell monitor at home on which text looks ok when the right way around, but is awful the other way)

Thanks, Interesting, I've never consciously noticed anything different, but given a lot (if not all) LCD monitors have a different pixel horizontal dimension than they do a vertical dimension, one could see why there would be a major problem. I just flipped my 20 and darned if I can any major difference. My eyes aren't what they used to be. I've graduated from $10 reading glasses to $500 progressives and I still wonder if the cheaper solution isn't better all around.

Anyone reading your post that wants to know a little more about sub-pixel rendition... »alienryderflex.com/sub_pixel/

Edit: l just looked into my 20 inch monitor and it uses an S-IPS panel which has a unique pixel pattern. Maybe that's why I can't see a difference. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_dell_lcd.jpg


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

said by Alcohol:

Computers are lasting a long time. There is no reason for people that have windows 7 PCs to buy another computer. Atleast not for the next few years.

Yea, but go back in time a bit and you'll see that people used to upgrade their OS when a new one came out, assuming their PC could handle it.

Back in the day, I'd completed same-PC upgrades from 95 OSR2 to 98 SE (skipped first 98 since 95 SR2 was working great), Windows 2000 to XP and Windows Vista to 7...

... but Windows 7 to 8? That's a downgrade on my PC.

They did?

Upgrades on PCs were not that commonplace among regular users. I know many who just stuck with the same OS when they bought their computers. It would be nice to find some data on this though.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to OZO
I would have suggested rotating the monitor when I mentioned the Google ChromeBook Pixel but didn't because I thought you were only interested in laptops. Naturally it's impractical to rotate the display of most laptops, although, most tablets will auto rotate their screen quickly and easily

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
Thank you, Octavean See Profile