Well I may just bite the bullet and do it.
My biggest issue is re-installing all my steam games. I can reconnect to my existing installations though, can't i?
Yes, it will just have to download a small download for each game to reset the DRM.
I just upgraded myself, from an installation at least a year old, and almost everything came over perfectly, even program installs. That's not saying I'd recommend Windows 8, because man is it a learning hump, but figured I'd give my experience.
And 1000 thank yous to those who brought up win+x. What a time saver.
Did anyone just do an upgrade from a well-used Win7 installation? I don't want to have to re-install everything but I would like to throw up the new OS. I have a lot installed and would loathe having to re-install my apps.
I updated on a machine I've had Windows 7 on since I bought it in April 2010. Zero issues apart from stuff that may be related to the GPU drivers under Windows 8, and faulty RAM that I foolishly put in at the same time.
awesome, thanks all. i am doing it now.
And done.
Now to check the thread for all the shortcuts. My son has had it on hos machine since launch. I haven't played with it much and end up Googling for a lot of info when I need it.
Did anyone just do an upgrade from a well-used Win7 installation? I don't want to have to re-install everything but I would like to throw up the new OS. I have a lot installed and would loathe having to re-install my apps.
I did, and ran into a few problems. Reboots of my PC started to hang after upgrading, and I had to update my BIOS for that to stop. I'm not sure what Windows 8 changed that would have affected how my PC reboots, but it definitely did. Most of my programs made the transition with no problems, although, iTunes thought it was a new installation, so I've now got an authorization wasted in the now overwritten Windows 7 installation. Everything in Steam made the transition well.
Also, I do not see the speed increase in start ups and shut downs. I suspect this is a result of Win7 leftover crud. I'd say that Win8 is considerably slower booting up than even Win7 was, and shutting it down takes about the same amount of time.
Shutting down has been better for me, but I'd say the same, in that the legacy Win7 is causing my boot a similar slowdown.
It must be something from Win 7. 8 boots for me in about 15 seconds, and that's without an SSD.
Anyone used a touchpad with Windows 8?
I think I should have done a little research on this before upgrading my laptop. There is no mobile switchable graphics driver from ATI for windows 8 for my 5650. In fact they just point you towards the laptop vendor and we all know how much vendors update their drivers. I found a hacked driver that semi works but I can't control brightness when using the ATI card and HDMI out doesn't work at all. If you use the Windows 7 driver, Windows 8 keeps reporting in incompatibility errors and it causes failures for certain windows updates.
I'm glad I chose to go with Nvidia for my latest desktop purchase. This is making a good case for never buying ATI again.
Another perspective.
Windows 8 sales woes: are netbooks to blame?
"Many of [Microsoft's] 20 million Windows 7 licenses each month," Thurrott writes, "went to machines that are basically throwaway, plastic crap." Blaming netbooks particularly, he says that cheap notebook sales conditioned customers to "expect to pay next to nothing" for Windows machines, a strategy that backfired when Microsoft started optimizing Windows 8 for more expensive touch-based displays. His sentiment echoes that of NPD, which concluded in a private report that netbooks did "an incalculable amount of damage" to the PC market.
Considering that there are just as many cheapo netbooks on sale as there ever were, that's weak spin from partisans, not the truth.
Considering that there are just as many cheapo netbooks on sale as there ever were, that's weak spin from partisans, not the truth.
Not really, considering Acer and Asus (who pioneered the netbook) both recently announced they're ending production of them. I agree though that blaming netbooks for Windows 8's poor reception is dumb though. Aside from the FUD (of which there is plenty) and the legit concerns about it (of which there also are many), it's just a different market than it used to be. The Grandma wanting to simply to e-mail and the web doesn't need a PC anymore. The casual end of the computing spectrum is eroding and that low margin, high volume segment drove more than a little bit of the PC industry's sales. Their model is going to have to adapt now but I think it's about time they got a kick in the pants.
both recently announced they're ending production of them
They're GOING to end production, they haven't yet. IN other words, that has nothing to do with causing the weak sales that have happened already. The same cheap sh*t computers are on sale, and have been, but Windows 8 is doing so poorly that whole lines of computers are going away.
both recently announced they're ending production of themThey're GOING to end production, they haven't yet. IN other words, that has nothing to do with causing the weak sales that have happened already. The same cheap sh*t computers are on sale, and have been, but Windows 8 is doing so poorly that whole lines of computers are going away.
The reason they're ending production is they aren't selling. That class of hardware has been tailing off for quite awhile, and most manufacturers have already left it (Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc).
Back at Win 7 launch, HP was actually a pretty big seller of netbooks, and I know three people who had HP netbooks in my family alone.
Yep, I knew lots of people with them too. But anyone who was buying those is spending similar amounts of money on tablets.
both recently announced they're ending production of themThey're GOING to end production, they haven't yet. IN other words, that has nothing to do with causing the weak sales that have happened already. The same cheap sh*t computers are on sale, and have been, but Windows 8 is doing so poorly that whole lines of computers are going away.
According to this, Asus has already stopped making netbooks and Acer's basically running out their current stock and has no plans for new models. And they're the last two netbook makers. When they were popular, there was almost no money in them and with demand as soft as its gotten, I imagine they're barely breaking even. I know you're determined to call Windows 8 a failure because you personally don't like parts of it but it's too early to tell and it's not why netbooks are dead. They've been dying rapidly since tablets became popular because tablets filled the need they once did. I think if we were still on Windows 7 or if Windows 8 had none of the elements you dislike, the category would still be dead.
Yep, I knew lots of people with them too. But anyone who was buying those is spending similar amounts of money on tablets.
Bingo.
I have a netbook that i bought about 4 or 5 years ago.
the screen is smaller than my tablets and I would never consider getting another netbook. It's jsut too small and windows 8 wont install on it due to the screen resolution (among other things)
-Add a touchscreen to use the OS 'properly' - This would be the added expense bit
Today Intel just announced that all next gen "ultrabooks" will require touchscreens to use the name ultrabook. I assume that will trickle down to even low end stuff over time. Maybe not fully impacting Win 8, but definitely whatever's next.
Hmmm, I guess within a few years screen manufacturers will be sharing production lines between tablets and laptops then.
Kind of has me wondering WTF to do in desktop land where my arm isn't long enough to reach my screen. Would the way to go be a ~15" touch screen kept above the keyboard for touch shenanigans be the way you use a non-antiquated OS.
Touchscreen's make sense in laptops.. but still make zero sense in desktop land.. but again despite all the hand wringing and doom and gloom you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard.
Touchscreen's make sense in laptops.. but still make zero sense in desktop land.. but again despite all the hand wringing and doom and gloom you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard.
Aren't sales figures also moving toward laptops and away from desktops? Just because you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard, doesn't mean it's that well suited to it. You can use OSX without a mouse, but it's infuriatingly inefficient.
TheGameguru wrote:Touchscreen's make sense in laptops.. but still make zero sense in desktop land.. but again despite all the hand wringing and doom and gloom you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard.
Aren't sales figures also moving toward laptops and away from desktops? Just because you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard, doesn't mean it's that well suited to it. You can use OSX without a mouse, but it's infuriatingly inefficient.
Awesome...someone else telling me I'm doing something wrong... I use Windows 8 at work...I have 3 monitors and a keyboard and mouse. No touchscreen..if anything I'm slightly more productive these days...yet apparently I'm doing something wrong because Windows 8 is a inefficient mouse and keyboard OS.
Kurrelgyre wrote:TheGameguru wrote:Touchscreen's make sense in laptops.. but still make zero sense in desktop land.. but again despite all the hand wringing and doom and gloom you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard.
Aren't sales figures also moving toward laptops and away from desktops? Just because you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard, doesn't mean it's that well suited to it. You can use OSX without a mouse, but it's infuriatingly inefficient.
Awesome...someone else telling me I'm doing something wrong... I use Windows 8 at work...I have 3 monitors and a keyboard and mouse. No touchscreen..if anything I'm slightly more productive these days...yet apparently I'm doing something wrong because Windows 8 is a inefficient mouse and keyboard OS.
I'd argue that it's the Metro parts of Windows 8 that is inefficient with mouse and keyboard. (The desktop part is quite good - if not a little better than Windows 7.) For example, commands that are quite nice with touch, are wildly confounding using the mouse and keyboard. You have to learn/re-learn how/where to click and either learn new keyboard shortcuts or force yourself to use keyboard commands more than ever. (I'd be willing to bet most "normal" users never use keyboard commands. They don't in my experience.)
Also, Metro apps require far more mouse movement for pointing/clicking than ever. I remember reading back in the day that Microsoft would heavily research and test how to be most efficient in Windows - which led to right-click context menus, smart-tags, and jump lists. That's now all out the window (ha!) with Metro.
I'm holding off until the mystical Windows 9 or Windows Blue fixes everything.
TheGameguru wrote:Kurrelgyre wrote:TheGameguru wrote:Touchscreen's make sense in laptops.. but still make zero sense in desktop land.. but again despite all the hand wringing and doom and gloom you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard.
Aren't sales figures also moving toward laptops and away from desktops? Just because you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard, doesn't mean it's that well suited to it. You can use OSX without a mouse, but it's infuriatingly inefficient.
Awesome...someone else telling me I'm doing something wrong... I use Windows 8 at work...I have 3 monitors and a keyboard and mouse. No touchscreen..if anything I'm slightly more productive these days...yet apparently I'm doing something wrong because Windows 8 is a inefficient mouse and keyboard OS.
I'd argue that it's the Metro parts of Windows 8 that is inefficient with mouse and keyboard. (The desktop part is quite good - if not a little better than Windows 7.) For example, commands that are quite nice with touch, are wildly confounding using the mouse and keyboard. You have to learn/re-learn how/where to click and either learn new keyboard shortcuts or force yourself to use keyboard commands more than ever. (I'd be willing to bet most "normal" users never use keyboard commands. They don't in my experience.)
Also, Metro apps require far more mouse movement for pointing/clicking than ever. I remember reading back in the day that Microsoft would heavily research and test how to be most efficient in Windows - which led to right-click context menus, smart-tags, and jump lists. That's now all out the window (ha!) with Metro.
I'm holding off until the mystical Windows 9 or Windows Blue fixes everything. ;-)
But where are Metro apps mandatory?? I configured Windows 8 to boot to the desktop.. I never see the Metro Start screen ever... I also use zero keyboard shortcuts..
But where are Metro apps mandatory?? I configured Windows 8 to boot to the desktop.. I never see the Metro Start screen ever... I also use zero keyboard shortcuts..
You are probably missing the mandatory Metro apps that are hidden behind all the advertising you are forced to stare at.
PaladinTom wrote:TheGameguru wrote:Kurrelgyre wrote:TheGameguru wrote:Touchscreen's make sense in laptops.. but still make zero sense in desktop land.. but again despite all the hand wringing and doom and gloom you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard.
Aren't sales figures also moving toward laptops and away from desktops? Just because you can use Windows 8 100% with a mouse and keyboard, doesn't mean it's that well suited to it. You can use OSX without a mouse, but it's infuriatingly inefficient.
Awesome...someone else telling me I'm doing something wrong... I use Windows 8 at work...I have 3 monitors and a keyboard and mouse. No touchscreen..if anything I'm slightly more productive these days...yet apparently I'm doing something wrong because Windows 8 is a inefficient mouse and keyboard OS.
I'd argue that it's the Metro parts of Windows 8 that is inefficient with mouse and keyboard. (The desktop part is quite good - if not a little better than Windows 7.) For example, commands that are quite nice with touch, are wildly confounding using the mouse and keyboard. You have to learn/re-learn how/where to click and either learn new keyboard shortcuts or force yourself to use keyboard commands more than ever. (I'd be willing to bet most "normal" users never use keyboard commands. They don't in my experience.)
Also, Metro apps require far more mouse movement for pointing/clicking than ever. I remember reading back in the day that Microsoft would heavily research and test how to be most efficient in Windows - which led to right-click context menus, smart-tags, and jump lists. That's now all out the window (ha!) with Metro.
I'm holding off until the mystical Windows 9 or Windows Blue fixes everything. ;-)
But where are Metro apps mandatory?? I configured Windows 8 to boot to the desktop.. I never see the Metro Start screen ever... I also use zero keyboard shortcuts..
If you boot to desktop and live there most of the time you can mostly avoid Metro. It's those occasional instances where you pop into a settings applet that's been Metrofied that throws me for a loop. For me at least, on my desktop pc with a 24" non-touch screen monitor, Windows 8 is a step down from Windows 7. I even rolled back to 7 on my older laptop, but I'm looking at convertibles/touch-screen ultrabooks with 8 where the touch input really shines.
For all of it's snark, the video posted above nailed the distinction between a touch-screen swipe and a touch-pad cursor sweep. Microsoft followed Apple down the wrong road this time. The only gesture on a touch-pad I find useful is two-fingered scroll.
Also, I just read that Intel is going to mandate touch screens for all ultrabooks (or rather pc's that want to use the official moniker). I think that's a good idea. Having more input options isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Pages