PDA

View Full Version : Is Win8 worth the change ?



cowboy stu
12-11-2012, 08:41 PM
For a desktop/office setup happy with win7 but enjoy tech upgrade, challenges is it worth it ?
Have read more negatives than positives so any experiences and advice for non touch screen users
appreciated.
cheers.

Nick G
12-11-2012, 08:47 PM
If you enjoy windows 7 then I see no reason to upgrade.

pcuser42
12-11-2012, 09:17 PM
There's no harm in trying something new :)

CYaBro
12-11-2012, 09:32 PM
Already running Windows 7 then I would say "No."
You won't really gain much except the App store and perhaps annoyances more than anything.

If you were running Vista then I would say "Yes."
Vista was just a total disaster and moving to Win8 make your machine run so much better without needing a hardware upgrade.

cowboy stu
12-11-2012, 09:36 PM
ok so not being convinced so far except for change for change's sake with no real advantage ... correct interpretation ?

The Error Guy
12-11-2012, 09:55 PM
Pretty much, you could grap a trial version or something and dual boot (like what I have done) to get a feel and see how things work.

IMO, GREAT for portables/touch based. OK for desktop and rather poor for laptops. I found using the trackpad involved too much mouse movement to get things done. Sure I have only spent a few hours on it. Adaptation will come!

wainuitech
12-11-2012, 10:06 PM
Some people like W8, some don't. Its really personal choice.

Got a spare HDD ??

Download the 90 Day Trial Enterprise Version - One set of links are: Download/Windows-8-Download (http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Windows-8-Download-196339.html) or if you have a MS live Account, sign in and download it directly from MS :http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/jj554510.aspx

Install it on a spare drive and try it for yourself. If you want to purchase it, then at least you'll know what you are getting, if you don't like it, then all its cost is a bit of bandwidth and time.
The links are only a Trial so if you decided to buy it you would need to uninstall it as install from fresh.

The enterprise version has one feature all the others don't - Its called Windows to Go - meaning you can install it on a USB drive and plug it into other PC's and boot from the USB drive.

cowboy stu
12-11-2012, 10:06 PM
thanks for your thoughts. I have an upgrade for $20 to use but not sure if worth the effort !

cowboy stu
12-11-2012, 10:09 PM
thanks Waitech may give that a go ... so if i install to a diff partition or external drive ?

bk T
12-11-2012, 10:12 PM
NO. Stay with your Win7.

I am about to go back to Win7. Problems one after another. no driver for this, no driver for that., not compatible with this, not compatible with that!
Personally, it's worse than Vista.

Only it loads faster than Win 7.

WarNox
12-11-2012, 10:21 PM
If you were running Vista then I would say "Yes."
Vista was just a total disaster and moving to Win8 make your machine run so much better without needing a hardware upgrade.

Yea, don't think Vista had quite finished 'cooking' when it was released but XP was so outdated that it was necessary. So everyone upgraded to Vista, realised it was utter crap so had to upgrade to Windows 7 which is actually pretty good. Now comes Windows 8 but everyone is still happy with Win 7 :) hmm

wainuitech
12-11-2012, 10:35 PM
thanks Waitech may give that a go ... so if i install to a diff partition or external drive ?
Personally I have always installed and suggest on another HDD for testing (Unplug original first), so you don't have to worry about partitioning, then if you don't like it simply plug back in the original HDD. It always pays to back up / image the original drive first if on a different partition, just in case something goes wrong.

I have installed to a USB drive, but its Via the "Windows to go" feature from within the actual install, never tried it directly to a USB drive.


As you can see by BK T's post, some have a few problems, some don't.

So far I have installed W8 on over 20 various PC's, only had problems with two, and both of those are older workshop PC's which the hardware is to old to run it.

No idea why some have problems with drivers, never had any problems, mind you there's countless numbers of hardware/drivers

Even my OLD Media Center PC runs it fine, and that all Wireless controls ( kB/Mouse) & as soon as I find it, I'll Try the Actual Media Center Remote functions -( its somewhere here in the lounge) :D

jcr1
13-11-2012, 07:57 AM
thanks for your thoughts. I have an upgrade for $20 to use but not sure if worth the effort !

I did that with my new laptop; took advantage of the $20 upgrade that is. I thought, "well it's a new world, so better get used to it sooner rather than later" and I quite like the challenge of something new - it's interesting.
I'm quite happy with it. It took a bit of getting used to. The install went brilliantly, everything I had with win7 was there and worked. I have installed ClassicShell and it's pretty much like working with win7 now.
I still have win7 on my pc though - just to cover the field; at this stage.

1101
13-11-2012, 09:15 AM
Ive put the Win8 trial on a PC I think is too slow for Vista, runs really well with 8

Is the 'upgrade' from vista & win7 a true upgrade, ie will it keep all the settings & installed programs ??
or is the upgrade more of a clean install ??

dugimodo
13-11-2012, 09:45 AM
First the original question - no not really, win 8 has some improvements and some annoyances but it offers nothing compelling over win 7 for a home desktp user. that may change in future who knows.

Second this (and CyaBro's post it refers to);

Yea, don't think Vista had quite finished 'cooking' when it was released but XP was so outdated that it was necessary. So everyone upgraded to Vista, realised it was utter crap so had to upgrade to Windows 7 which is actually pretty good. Now comes Windows 8 but everyone is still happy with Win 7 :) hmm

Why do people persist in perpetuating this myth, Vista is fine. On release it had numerous problems which gave it a deservedly bad reputation. Compare Vista NOW with windows 7 - it's very hard to tell the difference. It is a little more resource hungry and it's version of UAC is irritating - neither of which qualify it as "Crap". On a modern PC with 4GB of RAM and a dual core processor the extra resources it uses make no noticable difference, and if UAC bugs you that much you can disable it. Like everyone else I abandoned Vista when windows 7 came out because I was fed up with the hassles and windows 7 is better, but having used Vista more recently I find very little wrong with it. It's certainly not another millenium the way some people portray it to be.

1101
13-11-2012, 10:51 AM
Why do people persist in perpetuating this myth, Vista is fine.

SP1 pretty much fixed Vista. I agree that vista & 7 are pretty much the same under the hood.
7 is pretty much Vista with a new coat of paint :)
Does anyone really believe that MS re-wrote the OS when they kept saying nothing wrong with it. ????

The real issue with Vista was they grossly underpowered laptops & PC's the manufactures stuck it on
1.6Ghz & 512M (or 1G) RAM : of course Vista will then run like a dog. :badpc: :badpc:
This is MS's fault for making the min spec for Vista so ridiculously low, just to try sell more upgrades

PENTIUM
13-11-2012, 05:17 PM
This is the time to buy a copy of Windows 8 before the full price locks in after Christmas.
It is a bit of a learning curve, but so was Windows 95!

cowboy stu
13-11-2012, 06:01 PM
thanks for all the input... will prob have a test drive soon and see where we go !

wainuitech
13-11-2012, 06:34 PM
If anyone thinks windows 8 is a radical move, WAIT for Windows 9 --- Yes W9.

The brown smelly stuff will really hit the round whirly thing :eek:

Strong rumors, no more x86 (32bit), everything will be x64, so MANY older current programs wont work, things like older versions of Office etc.


Windows 9 only have support for 64bit. In fact, Microsoft warned developers that they have only six years to ensure that all software, plug-ins and extensions are compatible with Windows 64 bits.

There is the possibility of this happening with Windows 8, but the change to a complete x64 operating system means that there is absolutely no need for compatibility with existing programs in the operating system. No applications, drivers or plug-ins that exist today with 32-bit architecture, will run in this unique 64-bit platform.

Full article windows-9-details-revealed-successor-of-windows-8 (http://lenzfire.com/2011/07/windows-9-details-revealed-successor-of-windows-8-90356/) Thats just one of several places claiming the same thing.

cowboy stu
13-11-2012, 07:42 PM
just when I thought I was sorted !!!!!!

pcuser42
13-11-2012, 07:44 PM
I can understand the switch to a 64-bit only OS, but removal of the 32-bit libraries (as exists in 64-bit Windows today: WoW64) would be a bit too much...

gary67
13-11-2012, 07:58 PM
I'm not bothering with Win 8 as none of my comps need rebuilding and by the time they do win9 will be out or I'll be on Linux

dugimodo
14-11-2012, 07:49 AM
I can understand the switch to a 64-bit only OS, but removal of the 32-bit libraries (as exists in 64-bit Windows today: WoW64) would be a bit too much...

I think you are contradicting yourself, if you don't remove the 32 bit libraries you are not switching to a 64-bit only OS surely ?

There comes a point as hardware evolves where it becomes necessary to drop backwards compatibility for the sake of moving forward. Maintaining all the old while creating new causes a lot of issues such as; more work for the programmers, more potential issues, a lot of extra code in the OS (already people complain about windows "bloat") more resources needed can hamper performance, the necessity to develop multiple versions of software for all the possible users.

They ditched 16 bit a while back (with XP I think?), I still have games with 16 bit installers that wont install because of that (total annihlation for e.g.) but that's the price of progress. Backwards compatibilty is part of what helped windows stay on top all these years, but it's also something that eventually starts to hold it back and has to be dropped.

wainuitech
14-11-2012, 08:04 AM
I think you are contradicting yourself, if you don't remove the 32 bit libraries you are not switching to a 64-bit only OS surely ?

There comes a point as hardware evolves where it becomes necessary to drop backwards compatibility for the sake of moving forward. Maintaining all the old while creating new causes a lot of issues such as; more work for the programmers, more potential issues, a lot of extra code in the OS (already people complain about windows "bloat") more resources needed can hamper performance, the necessity to develop multiple versions of software for all the possible users.

They ditched 16 bit a while back (with XP I think?), I still have games with 16 bit installers that wont install because of that (total annihlation for e.g.) but that's the price of progress. Backwards compatibilty is part of what helped windows stay on top all these years, but it's also something that eventually starts to hold it back and has to be dropped. +1

Very Nicely put / Explained.

pcuser42
14-11-2012, 08:41 AM
I think you are contradicting yourself, if you don't remove the 32 bit libraries you are not switching to a 64-bit only OS surely ?

64-bit only, as in no 32-bit version. :)


They ditched 16 bit a while back (with XP I think?)

16-bit compatibility is dropped in 64-bit versions of Windows - 32-bit versions can still run them.

1101
14-11-2012, 09:58 AM
There are many, many companies that will still need ongoing backwards compatibility for the app's they need
to run their business.
For a number of reasons, these apps wont be re-written just to work on 64bit Win8, or the latest Version of that app may be
prohibitively expensive or no longer updated available.

Im still having to sell 32bit Win7 or downgrade to XP just so the customer can actually use the PC to
run the app's needed to run their business
There are still many smaller companies running DOS based apps (as do where I work)

That is the real world...
:rolleyes:

dugimodo
14-11-2012, 11:26 AM
There are many, many companies that will still need ongoing backwards compatibility for the app's they need
to run their business.
For a number of reasons, these apps wont be re-written just to work on 64bit Win8, or the latest Version of that app may be
prohibitively expensive or no longer updated available.

Im still having to sell 32bit Win7 or downgrade to XP just so the customer can actually use the PC to
run the app's needed to run their business
There are still many smaller companies running DOS based apps (as do where I work)

That is the real world...
:rolleyes:

This is all true, but you can't keep supporting all that with every new release. People with those requirements can keep the OS they are currently using or find another solution. It's conceivable that you could run a virtual 32 bit OS within a 64bit only one if you really needed 32 bit. Never will a new OS please every possible user, but it doesn't have to. My work might eventually consider windows 7 but at this stage they remove it from all our new PCs and install XP, that's the choice of our IT support guys and nothing to do with the design of Windows 7. Windows 8 will not even get a look in for several years if past experience is anything to go on. Companies do not adopt new Os's the way home users do.