Discussion on:

Get the true story behind Windows 8

Tell that to Oscar Pistorius.

I quite like W7. It's familiar to users and the cost of going from XP to 7 in user training is minimal. Have you tried using a touchscreen for normal "Office" work?

So maybe the option I have (regrading my netbook resolution problem) is to downgrade to W7 Pro. Why can I now see a frustrating quest for media and keys via an unhelpful MS Support desk in front of me?

Reference previous comments; Yes, I prefer a clean install too. However, in this instance I didn't want to lose the dual boot into Express Gate (cutdown Linux), nor the more useful bloatware. Life's too short to be reinstalling all the time! Did I mention that the Upgrade itself was excellent?

Regarding the future of Windows 8. I love Windows - and loathe with a passion any OS which requires me to use a command line. And yet... For giggles I installed OpenELEC ( a free linux media centre) on a 25 Raspberry Pi. Ten minutes to do this or thereabouts. And this plays all my media, can download via torrents and I can control it via the TV remote control. Consider that this experiment was so successful that the Acer Nettop + W7 Ultra it replaced is now going on eBay, and you can see just how much MS has to do to catch up. Imposing unnecessary conditions on your users is never going to win friends - nor repeat business.

you should be able to, but you may need to check if Win 7 has the drivers for the Internal hardware of the system you just got. Very few vendor systems come with Win 8 and a Win 7 backgrade option.

:o)

not all those that do have Win 8 Pro the Win 7 Pro option available on them.

The main reason why Microsoft launched Windows 8 shortly after the launch of the very famous Windows 7 was that Windows was not making a great progress in the Mobile or Tablet Editions (except Windows ME and Windows CE). All they were making progress was in PC versions. So they tried making better versions for mobile to enhance their popularity in mobile versions. And as a result their PC versions got many defects. So they are hoping to launch a new OS that will be popular in both PC and mobile/tablet versions.

nt

It works equally well on a desktop.

aren't the same and it requires more keystrokes / mouse movements to get from turned on to useable. If you want to use it with a touch screen you need a whole new desk so you can set it up as work area flat on the desk to avoid getting serious arm and shoulder strains from reaching up and forward.

The mouse movements on Windows 8 desktop and Windows 7 are exactly the same.
The touchscreen inputs are optional.
Navigating on the Start Screen with a mouse is simple. There is no need to use mouse gestures. The mouse buttons and the scroll wheel work fine.
There is absolutely no need to rearrange your desktop unless you want to take advantage of a touchscreen in a new way
Did you know that when the mouse was introduced, people had the same repetitive stress injury concerns?

by changing how they worked, after they were recognised. Using touch-screens on larger monitors in the work place is VERY different to using a small hand held one.

still - Windows 8 does not require a touchscreen.
I'm using it right now on a traditional desktop.

Additionally, if using a large touchscreen monitor in a 30 degree or so orientation causes RSI, don't you think we should have seen this already with engineers, graphic artists, and architects who have been using drafting tables in this very same orientation for more than 60 years?

confirm they're very easy to work on at a 30/45/60 angle, whichever you want as you LEAN on the damn thing while working on it - try that with a large touch screen.

All of which just emphasises my point, if you want to use a large touchscreen, you'll need to mount it IN the desk and not ON the desk to avoid rsi type issues.

However, all these discussion could have been easily avoided if MS had given the easy option of classic style desktop and operation as a 'settings option' or 'property setting' of some sort you can choose - the way they did with XP.

I think you are assuming that the touchscreen monitor would be exactly like a drafting table. That would be interesting and very expensive.
I did not mean that. I was just using the table as an example of a comfortable angle for using a touchscreen.
I wouldn't expect the touchscreen to become my desk - like a drafting table. I was thinking more of a 24" touchscreen monitor on my desk.
No, the desktop configuration I was suggesting would include a traditional L-shaped desk with a traditional keyboard in front of an angled touchscreen monitor.
For my type of work - (writing, computer support, network monitoring and campus security) I would add two additional non-touchscreen monitors perpendicular to the table on adjustable swing arms above the touchscreen monitor.
That's almost the set up I have now - minus the touchscreen. All three non-touch monitors are currently perpendicular to the desk surface. The other part of my L-shaped desk holds the docked convertible tablet, phone and a portable document scanner.
I would love to get rid of one of the non-touch monitors and replace it with a touchscreen and stylus.
I'm sorry for the confusion.

angles of approach. Current process with a large computer monitor is to have it set up at the correct ergonomic position on your desk where the screen is vertical at about an arm's length away, with the middle of it at your eye level while seated. To use a touchscreen like this would soon give you major aches and problems with your shoulder and arm muscles due to holding the arm up and straight out from the shoulder for so long.

You could get around this issue by having the monitor where you looked down at it from above. Doing so would mean you have to bring the screen in closer, say the top of the screen is arm's length. This would result in the screen being only a little above the desk or part of the desk. I see little point in having it above the desk as you couldn't make much use of the desk space under it. To have it inlaid in the desk would give some advantages in things could lay on it without trouble when you want to read a printed report etc instead of using the monitor. In this situation I can see more care would be needed to address things like the visual space etc so you don't get an eye ache from too large an image at too close a range.

Thinking about it, if I was doing a work space with inlaid touch screens, I suspect I'd end up going for something like 20 to 22 inch screen as the main one and a number of 12 to 15 inch screens on the side for auxiliary displays, with a little space between each screen so they don't give the appearance of one huge image that draws the eye out.

"JJ, I suspect we may be head close to the same direction, but with slightly (different) angles of approach." - nice one.

It just occured to me that I am sitting here typing this on my laptop and I am using the monitor at the exact angle I am describing for the desktop touchscreen monitor. The keyboard would be in the exact same location - only it would not be as deep as the laptop because it does not have a trackpad.
My laptop's 15.6" monitor is within easy arms reach. It's 13 inches away from the edge of the desk. A 24 " touchscreen monitor would still be 13" away and only 4 inches taller - well within reach without my arms fully extended.

The other thing I notice as I type this out is that my hands are mostly on the keyboard with only brief moments on the touchpad.
That means for this particular task, if I didn't have a touchpad or mouse I would not be lifting my arms up to the screen very often. So my arms and shoulders would not get sore.
One other thing to note (which I have been saying over and over again) is that the mouse, trackball, and touchpad still work in Windows 8. I would still be using one even if I had a touchscreen.
I would only use the touchscreen for gross motor movements such as sliding the tiles or selecting them on the start screen and moving windows on the desktop. Perhaps I would use a stylus more but as we established, the drafting table configuration has been in use for over 60 years without any major complaints of back or shoulder problems.
Yes, this would be a perfect set up for me.
This little exercise opened my eyes as to how I am already using my laptop and how easy a transition to a touchscreen would be.

screen BELOW chest height and well within arm's length, which is what I was saying you'd have to do if you want to use a touch screen with safety. While most current desktop set ups have the monitor ABOVE chest height and at arm's length or a bit more, and that will give people significant arm and trouble shoulders.

and that's why I said that you should position a touchscreen in a different way from a traditional non-touch monitor.

I'm also saying that it really isn't a strange orientation if you are used to using a laptop.

but how do you get a monitor below chest level and angled? Wouldn't this require a new desk with an adjustable slanted shelf down in a well? That strikes me as a pain in the neck (literally), and a potential pain in the knees from banging them on the recessed monitor. Maybe I'm not envisioning how a monitor below chest level would be supported.

And how do you get far enough from a larger monitor to see all of it? It's not that a 24" monitor would only be 4" taller, but that it would be 10" wider, and more users are getting second monitors. One reason my two conventional monitors are positioned as far away from me as they are is so I can see all of the content. Pulling them in close enough to touch, regardless of the vertical orientation, would require me to turn my neck significantly more to view the entire panorama.

take it off the stand, router out the spot, and install flat with the desktop is how I see it, so you get something like they use in Star Trek.

The laptop screen is not perpendicular to the table because the you wouldn't be able to see the screen well. It's at a 30 degree or so angle depending on your height. I am 6' 2". I wouldn't say the top of my laptop is chest height as Deadly said but it is lower than a typical desktop monitor.
All I was saying is if a laptop screen is comfortable at a 30 degree angle, then why wouldn't a touchscreen at that same angle?

About screen measurements; I took a ruler out for this one.
As you know, screens are measured on the diagonal. It's a sales gimmick to make you think you have a bigger screen.
For example,
My 24" (diagonal) desktop screen is only 20.25" wide and my 15.6" (diagonal) laptop screen is only 13.5" wide so the difference is only about 7" in width or 3.5" to the left and right. It's really not that much of a difference.
In fact, my son's 17" (diagonal) laptop screen is even closer in size so there is even less of a difference. I have never felt uncomfortable using his laptop.
Also, I guess I sit closer to my monitor than you do. My desktop monitor is 13" from the front edge of my desk as is my laptop. Even with my desktop monitor at 13" and perpendicular to the table surface, I can comfortably reach it. That may be too close for you but it works for me.
Ideally, I would put a touchscreen monitor on an adjustable arm to determine the best height, angle and distance for me.

I don't use a laptop. I usually interact with one only long enough to configure it for its intended user. That interaction is with the laptop in a docking station, which saves me having to connect mouse, monitor, keyboard, power, and network cable to each laptop I work on. No, I don't -have- to connect those peripherals, but your question leads me to the realization that I am not comfortable using a laptop. I dislike the cramped feeling and unsatisfactory touch of a laptop keyboard, not to mention the various non-standard arrangements of cursor control and editing keys. I absotively, posilutely -hate- touchpads and ALWAYS connect an external mouse; I have lousy control with a touchpad and often wind up inadvertently tap-clicking when I don't want to. (This may account for why I'm not enthused about touch interfaces.) I also realize I rarely get a laptop monitor at an angle I'm happy with. So even without a dock, I'd hook up the peripherals anyway.

But I see I didn't make myself clear above. I was asking how you would arrange monitors for desktops, not a laptop's onboard display. I'm 5'6" (167 cm); I suspect the eight inch difference between us explains how you can get a monitor below chest height. My keyboard is on a dropped shelf about level with my lower ribs. The main desk surface is about two inches above that. The monitor stands add another couple of inches. Even if I could tilt them back to the desired angle, the bottom edge of the monitor is only a couple of inches below my armpits. Regardless of the distance from me, I can't get a monitor below chest level without raising my chair to uncomfortable heights or hacking a hole in the desktop.

Yeah, 13" is too bloody close for me. My single home monitor is at least 18", and the dual monitors at work are probably closer to 24".

My wife does not like using a touchpad either. She always attaches a mouse to the laptop and the mouse has to be wired because she doesn't want to be bothered syncing up the receiver with the mouse on the rare occassion that it has to be done. It's only two buttons but I don't ask. I would rather keep the peace.
It's pretty entertaining to hear her when she has tried to use the touchpad. "Ah! Oh! What did I do?! Darn! What the...? How do I get out of this?! I don't like this!"
So she always plugs in a mouse.
Unlike you, she doesn't mind the laptop keyboard. It's a large one with the separate number pad so that might have something to do with it.
She does appreciate the portability of the laptop though. She's a neat-nik and likes to be able to put the laptop away and out of sight when not in use.
To each his (or her) own, I guess.

"I absotively, posilutely -hate- touchpads ..."
Agreed.
I hate having to repeatedly swipe the wretched things to make the pointer move from one side of the screen to the other (or from the top to bottom).

I used to cringe, when I watched my friend using the touchpad on his Vista laptop.
He used to highlight items and then force the cursor to the Edit menu to select Copy and then repeat the process in a new window to Paste the selected item.

I eventually convinced him to use the keyboard shortcuts ("Ctrl + C" and "Ctrl + V").

the learning curve is steeper than the transition from V to W7, or from XP to V.

nt

I don't see any benefits from continuing to climb that curve, and have set it aside. I work with it if I have to, but I don't see any payback for replacing W7 as my standard OS. I'll have plenty of warning to become proficient with it should we deploy it.

Just one user's opinion.

You can stick with it (with extended support) until 2020.
I'm already using and enjoying Windows 8 as my primary desktop and convertible tablet / laptop.
We are both satisfied.

Try three years. It only seem short because of the abnormally long delay between XP and Vista, and it's less time than that between Vista and 7.

That at the 2 year mark they would release a Major Upgrade which they call a Service Pack and at the 4 year mark there would be a New OS Release which was a Development of the Existing OS. So Vista had a Service Pack Released when it was about 2 years old and 7 was released when Vista was approaching 4 years of age.

This Service Pack/OS roll over was to continue for the next 10 years before it was to be replaced with the next iteration of the Microsoft Development system. To me at least it seems that Microsoft has more or less kept their word and has been releasing Service Packs around 2 years after they release a OS and a new OS around 4 years after they release a new OS.

Of course what they do next is anyones guess as as yet they have not told us what they are planning on doing but as the existing system has worked well I can see no reason for them not to continue with it.

At the Vista Release Microsoft very clearly said that they would never repeat the mess that they made with XP selling 2 OS in parallel at the same time like they did with 98SE and XP as most people clung to 98 and didn't want a bar of XP so they where holding OS Development back and they also very clearly said that they would never again have a OS life as long as XP was as it hurt them way too much.

They where right on both counts when XP was first released most people wanted 98 as there where issues with XP that where not really solved till SP1 became available and it was considered more like ME by a lot of people and XP was around for too long as there where many people who where using computers that had never used any OS but XP in their entire lives.

Col

You speak in the past tense? We have clients still running Windows 2000, 2000 Server and XP Pro, they would upgrade except for the "Domino effect".

If you upgrade from any of the above you then get caught up in a full site upgrade of OS, server OS, Hardware, and business applications, not to mention network hardware, security and backup systems, printers and firewalls.
What starts as a single machine upgrade often turns into a big site upgrade project with substantial consultancy and support costs.

Don't get me wrong, this is how we make a living so we should love it, the problem is that since the recession buzz words like ROI may be dead but common sense has returned, our clients rightly ask Why they actually need to upgrade? and in a lot of cases if systems are performing well they don't.

Windows 8 will take root in the retail market because of OEM licensing deals with Microsoft but I can't see any honest IT consultants recommending it to businesses in it's current buggy state!

If you can efficiently run your business while remaining on old operating systems without compromising security, then power to you.

I run into the same issues at my job. "If it isn't broken, then why fix it?" or worse, "So what if it is out of support. What could go wrong?"

My advice to you is if your clients decide to stick with and old system, make sure they understand the risks so that if (when?) something goes wrong they can't say they weren't informed by you.

I don't see Windows 8 as being in a "buggy state". Can you identify some bugs? I would like to know what they are as I have not run across them. It's different but I wouldn't call it "buggy".

I just see Windows 8 as too unfamiliar for most business users. Unless you have a good training program, you might as well let them buy Windows 8 for home so they learn to use it on their own time. Alternatively, you could deploy it to "early adopters" and maybe it will catch on with the rest. - that's if it works for you.

old Win XP software perfectly. And that's the MAIN reason for most people I know who aren't going to move over to Win 8 - core software that Win 8 won't run because it was designed for an earlier version of Windows and MS have changed the core command codes to stop it working on Win 8.

The fact that Windows 8 doesn't run an old program that can run on Windows XP is like a steam locomotive that won't run on a monorail. Incompatibility - not a bug.

had a lot big meetings to come up with sets of standards so all the hardware and software would talk nice; kind of like the IT equivalent of the mechanical engineering standards to allow things to work together. Some of those standards are TCP/IP, Ethernet, ISA, IDE, etc. Another was the command sets for the software to talk to the hardware.

For a little while Microsoft did work within those standards, then they turned their back on them and walked away from the standards. On a number of occasions MS have changed their proprietary commands a few times simply to FORCE incompatibility between programs and versions of Windows so people have to buy new hardware and software to work with the latest version of Windows. Good for MS profits, but bad for the world and the industry overall.

Maybe a government can afford to buy new hardware and software every few years, but most medium to small businesses can't. This is a special issue when they've forked out big money for special software critical to their business operations, and then find that software does NOT work with the new version of Windows and another HUGE expense is needed for a new copy, IF there is one - there isn't always a a new one available. So the company is faced with running an older OS simply because MS choose to screw them over by making changes to the command set that need not have been made; it's kind of like everyone training horses to slow by saying 'whoa' and pulling back on the reins and MS have trained theirs to slow when you call out 'muckluck' and whipping their back, and then the next year teach the new horses to slow by yelling 'shloop' and whipping their heads. A change that does nothing new at all, but makes them not able to be worked with the current set of trained ones.

I think the discussing the roots of Windows 8 is academic, the bottom line is Does it do the job? and does it do it well? (it should do it better!), well the answer is a resounding NO! The tiles screen is a new interface concept, work with it learn it and it isn't that bad as you can always go back to the desktop interface when it doesn't suit, so in my opinion all the experts telling us how the Tile Interface is the problem are way off.
We are Microsoft Partners and resellers for many years, We skipped ME altogether, tested and ignored Vista but decided to give Windows 8 a good trial because Microsoft assured us it was ready for market, after two months of living with it I have spent more time resolving problems on my laptop than using it, we also have it on two training room PCs but aborted the upgrade from Vista Business on another 10 because Vista was more stable!!!!!!, yes the same Vista Business which is raising twice the issues on 10 PC's than the other 20 Win 7 Pro machines on the same network, I have had to go back to my old 12" Win 7 Pro small profile laptop with a faulty keyboard as my 8GB i7 CPU laptop went from 0% to 80% downtime since upgrading to Windows 8 Pro in late October, I can live with the driver issues, 32 bit software support problems and continuous updates, but the failure of network connectivity, failure of DHCP client on IP V4 networks, failure to shut down properly in 75% of shutdowns, continuous system recoveries drive me insane, there are also problems using MS Office 2010, connecting to MS 2008 server and Skydrive, basically NOTHING important is working anymore!!! Unfortunately I can't do a system restore to Windows 7 anymore so I am now biting the bullet and doing a data backup and full bare system restore of Windows 7 on my laptop. after TWO MONTHS OF WINDOWS 8 HELL I intend to give it a complete miss and advise all our business customers to do the same, Windows 7 Pro is a good stable OS, Windows 8 is just rubbish as bad as Millenium and worse than Vista, roll on Windows 9, Maybe....

Thank you. You have neatly articulated my feelings on Windows 8! I was excited to upgrade to the latest OS - especially for 25GBP. It turns out you get what you pay for. Disappointed.

Intel didn't deny rumours that their CEO reported Windows 8 to have been released in Beta version, he was being generous to Microsoft.

I guess what really upset me is the push from Microsoft to it's partners to push a buggy product on end users, I feel betrayed, we didn't give XP or 7 half as much leeway but neither were a quarter as bad from the start.

If we had taken Microsoft's word for it we probably would have been out of business by the end of 2013 (just shows the importance of keeping the client's interests in mind and proper testing), at this stage Windows 8 is still so bad after two months of trial that I can't see MS. ever getting it fixed, so Windows 8 is OK for home users but businesses should keep well clear.

By the way we get to install Windows 8 for no additional charge on 11 computers as part of the partnership agreement, so far we have used none of these licenses, so we have paid for 11 licenses (10 X Pro and 1 X Ultimate)which we are not using.

That in itself should speak volumes about Windows 8!

I generally do not advise people to upgrade the operating system on an old machine. Your experience with Windows 8 seems to support that decision.

That being said, I have installed Windows 8 on several older machines and have not had the same nightmare as you. The worse thing that has happened is that the Windows 8 evaluation tool indicated that my 6 year old laptop would not support Windows 8. Ubuntu worked on it. The best thing that happened is that my three year old tablet convertible took a Windows 8 upgrade perfectly. It has breathed new life into my tablet. Boot times are very quick - 30 to 40 seconds. It does a much better job taking advantage of touch input (finger and stylus) than Windows 7 ever did. Upgrades happen in the background when the system is rebooted. It has never crashed and I have never had a problem with it staying on the network.
Installing Windows 8 Pro with Media Center on my 5 month old gaming desktop went flawlessly. Performance is superb. It boots up in 20 seconds. - a major performance improvement over Windows 7.

It's too bad your experience has been so poor.

Just to clarify, we didn't upgrade old hardware, the two training room PC's are brand new machines with 8 GB Ram and high end i3 CPUs on Intel boards, the laptop is a 6 month old Samsung with 8 GB, i7 CPU dual video cards and hybrid TB HD. We availed of the 30 Windows Pro upgrade because they came with 7 home premium licenses.

The video does not have subtitled, and I am deaf. Can't even hear a word as they believe that deaf people should not be in the IT world and should be discriminated.

How many videos do you see that are subtitled by default? Failing to provide subtitles doesn't mean the content provider thinks a deaf viewer has no value. The provider is guilty of ignoring a potential market / audience but at worst it's thoughtless or inconsiderate behavior, not intentional discrimination.

This seems to be the common pattern with all Windows releases. Windows 98 was great at its time, followed by the consumer insult called Windows ME. Windows XP was a truely mature OS, only to be replaced by the inane Vista. We had to wait for Windows 7 before there was a business case for upgrading from XP.

Windows 7 now should last us a few years until Microsoft has figured out what the nex step should be. We won't move to Windows 8 any time soon, I'm done paying for beta releases or market trials.

Looks like an interesting project.
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html