Windows 8

I take it you don't like change.

Oh, I like change all right! That's why I changed out of windows even on most desktop use for Linux. The only reason to keep using Windows with its licensing strings attached was compatibility...

This may sound dumb, but what's a Surface?

The next big Microsoft "me too" failure.
 
Haven't bought it, but used it a fair bit.
Technologically, it seems solid. Same weight class as Vista and Seven, and seemed to run quite smoothly - no miraculous cure to the typical Windows kinks, but no worse than a well-maintained Seven from my experience. No nasty surprises either with the OS itself or drivers.
Performance seems to have improved a smidgeon, the noticably faster boot process however is mostly due to shutdown being a "mini-hibernate".

User experience is... different. The Interface Formerly Known As Metro makes considerable concessions to touchscreens and is of questionable usefulness for desktop users, some parts can't be avoided. Integration with the regular desktop is clumsy and feels disjointed. Windows now has even more confusing (near-)duplication in its administration screens. The aesthetic will seem bare to people who like bling.

All of that is more than made up by much improved search integration. Digging through Windows settings was always a huge annoyance to me because they were laid out illogically and often incorrectly, this reduces the pain considerably.

*

It's an obvious compromise - some tablet, some desktop centric features. Much more integrated with Microsoft's own services and store but still an open platform. That the "legacy" desktop is supposedly on its way out is worrying given the tight control they retain over "proper" Windows 8 apps, but that won't concern users for a while (it's making some software vendors nervous though).
 
The Interface Formerly Known As Metro makes considerable concessions to touchscreens and is of questionable usefulness for desktop users, some parts can't be avoided.

See, I don't really get this.

The only time I ever see Metro on my desktop is when I hit the windows key and type part of a program name to launch it... which is exactly the same user experience as the start menu.
 
It doesn't really offer anything making it worth the price tag to upgrade from Windows 7 and the metro UI doesn't offer any real improvements on the PC either. Plus I think Metro just looks ugly, I prefer my desktop and the random background it has chosen for that hour our of the 100s I have. I launch my most used programs from the taskbar and Steam anyway. I am glad that forcing a tablet UI screen is the worst thing they did though.
 
See, I don't really get this.

The only time I ever see Metro on my desktop is when I hit the windows key and type part of a program name to launch it... which is exactly the same user experience as the start menu.

We've talked about ths in chat. It's a GUI. You shouldn't have to be mashing keys to launch anything. The start menu had a nice mouse oriented all programs list and I really do regret the start menu going away. But as I said, I'll adjust and move in with this inferior app interface. that's about the only bad thing about the OS I can think of right now is lack of start button, so really not bad overall.
 
See, I don't really get this.

The only time I ever see Metro on my desktop is when I hit the windows key and type part of a program name to launch it... which is exactly the same user experience as the start menu.

Depending on your screen size, a full-screen start menu may be unergonomically big. With or without animation, I find the transition distracting even after months. The shutdown sequence through the charms bar is fiddly with the mouse, the blocky clock/connection overlay popping up seems entirely out of place.
The wide spacing is another concession - big sweeping gestures make sense on a small screen with (comparatively) sloppy touch input, it's wasteful if you have a big screen and a precise pointing device.

The functionality of the desktop isn't really impaired. But it's apparent that it's a second-class citizen.
 
Depending on your screen size, a full-screen start menu may be unergonomically big. With or without animation, I find the transition distracting even after months. The shutdown sequence through the charms bar is fiddly with the mouse, the blocky clock/connection overlay popping up seems entirely out of place.
The wide spacing is another concession - big sweeping gestures make sense on a small screen with (comparatively) sloppy touch input, it's wasteful if you have a big screen and a precise pointing device.

The functionality of the desktop isn't really impaired. But it's apparent that it's a second-class citizen.

I've got a 30" monitor and like I said, I never click on anything on the start screen, I just type, so it works exactly the same as the start menu.

Desktop (or start screen) shortcuts to shutdown/sleep/hibernate are fairly easy to create.
 
How radically different is it from Windows 7? When I saw the metro start screen thing, I threw up a little in my mouth.
 
The only time I ever see Metro on my desktop is when I hit the windows key and type part of a program name to launch it... which is exactly the same user experience as the start menu.

No it's not. Cease being such a Microsoft fanboy, you applaud anything and everything they try to shove down their user's throat!

The Metro thing is an absolute disaster. People do not expect to have to write a program's name in order to launch it. Not even have to know the name. On Windows at least. Having to know all the names of the programs is a command line logic, something Windows distinguished itself for not requiring. Worse, it's a command logic without any of the command line's benefits, for Windows always (and still) promoted stand-alone programs and despised the idea of shell pipes or command parameters (doable, but not really often used).

Microsoft is in full suicidal mode. And no amount of fanboyism will save this OS. It's a disaster worse than Windows ME. Right at a time when between visualization and the rise of new architectures and systems Windows is losing its necessity status. Windows at home and windows on schools is going the way of the dodo. Windows at the enterprise, Microsoft's big cash cow, may follow in a few year's time if some company can put together a good management system for a linux distro. Chef and Puppet don't quite cut it yet, too difficult for the "mouse engineers". But they're getting traction.

Windows 8 is exclusively about Microsoft leveraging on the still extant ubiquity of the Windows system to cash in on the "app shop" rent model that has proved so profitable for Apple and Google. The problem is that Windows cannot be turned into a walled garden like iOS and Android. Microsoft's enterprise customers won't consent to that and Microsoft's software developer partners will fell betrayed and migrate to other plantforms. En masse. Even the ex-miscrosoftie Gabe Newell is already arranging the migration of the vast Valve game system for Linux. Windows phone has been a repeated, massive failure. Windows RT will be another failure, it has nothing compelling about it: no installed base to leverage on, no price advantage, and a confusing brand (it's Windows but it's not Windows). The Windows brand itself is becoming a liability.
By trying to keep its traditional base and at the same time enter the "app"/"walled garden" thing Microsoft will make enemies of both kinds of target public.
 
I picked up a Surface, and can answer pretty much any actual questions people have, I'm not good at unsolicited useful posts though.

Which is overall better, iPad or Surface?
 
No it's not. Cease being such a Microsoft fanboy, you applaud anything and everything they try to shove down their user's throat!

The Metro thing is an absolute disaster. People do not expect to have to write a program's name in order to launch it. Not even have to know the name. On Windows at least. Having to know all the names of the programs is a command line logic, something Windows distinguished itself for not requiring. Worse, it's a command logic without any of the command line's benefits, for Windows always (and still) promoted stand-alone programs and despised the idea of shell pipes or command parameters (doable, but not really often used).

Microsoft is in full suicidal mode. And no amount of fanboyism will save this OS. It's a disaster worse than Windows ME. Right at a time when between visualization and the rise of new architectures and systems Windows is losing its necessity status. Windows at home and windows on schools is going the way of the dodo. Windows at the enterprise, Microsoft's big cash cow, may follow in a few year's time if some company can put together a good management system for a linux distro. Chef and Puppet don't quite cut it yet, too difficult for the "mouse engineers". But they're getting traction.

Well since that's mostly ad hominem ranting, there isn't a whole lot for me to respond to.

I'm a fan of a bunch of Microsoft products, because they're objectively good products. I still call them out on plenty of mistakes that they make, anybody who pays much attention to me in #fiftychat can back me up on that.

If you want to cater to users who don't know the names of any of the programs on their computer, the start screen is probably much better for that, simply by virtue of having big visible icons. I'm not particularly interested in using an OS designed for people who don't know the names of programs on their PC.

It's been the Year of Linux every year for the past decade. :lol:

Which is overall better, iPad or Surface?

iPad, but that's not a very interesting question.
 
I've got a 30" monitor and like I said, I never click on anything on the start screen, I just type, so it works exactly the same as the start menu.

Desktop (or start screen) shortcuts to shutdown/sleep/hibernate are fairly easy to create.

It'd be a pretty sad state of affairs if they weren't. And if you never click anything on the start screen, of course you wouldn't care about appropriate clicking distance or the utter ridculosity of keeping the start screen organised and mouse-friendly.

Acessing things by keyboard became a whole lot better (although I'd prefer everything searched by default, with "apps/settings/files"filtering being an option). About time.
Mouse access however is worse than it was in Windows 95. Goodbye configurable menu, hello cluttered desktop number 2 (with less and clumsier ways to keep things uncluttered or organised at all).

Windows 8 is a rather compromised product. It has to be, in order to present a familiar face across different form factors. Is it worth it? That's for each person to decide.
I think the interface is more annoying but overall slightly better (because of better search) for desktop use. It's of course much better for touch use.
Under the hood it also seems strictly better.
 
Do you think a MacBook or a Windows 8 laptop is better?

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

The 15" retina MBP is overall the best laptop available, regardless of OS.

At 17", or for gaming, there aren't any Mac options available.

At 11" or 13" it's a tossup, depending on your OS and hardware preferences.
 
Hard to keep hardware and software separate here.
Macbooks are well put together and are good on soft factors - design, build quality, reliability, battery life, input devices, screen audio. Not necessarily best in all though: if you have slightly lopsided needs (indestructible mobile workstation, high-end gaming laptop...) there will be offers that better match your needs.
If you want a decent-sized screen or have a limited budget, Apple doesn't have anything for you.

If everything you need runs under OSX, if you don't want a touchscreen, if you want a premium (not necessarily performance) laptop, if you don't mind buying into a fairly closed ecosystem run by a rather controlling company... Macbooks have many advantages.
Apple controls everything and needs to support a limited selection of hardware, so you can generally expect less hiccups, and they try to make everything pleasant for recent customers.
 
The difference to comparable Windows laptops isn't all that big these days, and sometimes in favour of Macs.
Apple just chooses to compete in a fairly small part of the market.

There are no low-end, performance-on-a-budget or large macbooks.
 
Back
Top Bottom