Upgrading Win 7 to Win 8

[James Deuce]

You poor bastard. You will probably go mad and kill your family trying to use Windows 8 for anything vaguely productive. There's a reason Microsoft's head of Windows resigned two days ago.

[wharekura]

with Visual Studio 2012, certain things (whatever they call Metro now) can't be done unless 8 is the OS).maybe Metro skills will be rare and worth something! I hear IRD will pay big $$$ for Cobol programmers right now...

Cobol was my first programming language on pdp11 - hell, in some cases I was using ticker tape to send instructions to a metal cutting machine. Putting the past aside, what has remain fairly stable is HTML with Javascript and this still applies with the latest Win8 touchy feely focus.

[pzkpfw]

Cobol was my first programming language on pdp11 - hell, in some cases I was using ticker tape to send instructions to a metal cutting machine. Putting the past aside, what has remain fairly stable is HTML with Javascript and this still applies with the latest Win8 touchy feely focus.

Indeed. (I did a paper on Cobol at Uni in 1989 (never used it in anger). The lecturer was widely described as "half Man, half Cobol".)

Seems Silverlight is perhaps "dead", and HTML5+J(ava)Script is the new thing. That's probably a good thing, as it's more universal. Presumably why MS went/is going that way.

(And makes me happy I never put effort into learning Silverlight. I get sick of the churn, the constant learning, so try to skip a generation now and then, as so many fade away anyway.)

As I started reading up on VS2012 I was happy to see LightSwitch is now included. I quite liked the look of it for quick and simple U.I. development. Then I read that what it makes under the hood is Silverlight. Sigh. (Though apparently an HTML5 converter or something for it is coming.)

[pzkpfw]

Well, the upgrade went pretty smoothly.

The worst bit was when it did its first self-restart. Power light on, but black screens. No idea if it was actually doing something (so I'd "brick" it if I interrupted it), or just stuck. Eventually forced power-off, and on re-start it continued with the process fine.

Windows 8 itself? So far finding the user interface VERY off putting. On a desktop PC, with mouse and no touch (which I don't want on my desktop) some of the actions required to do things are clumsy; and totally invisible. If you don't know what to do, you don't know. Queue much googling. Luckily they have kept keyboard shortcuts for things; but the mouse seems second class, because it's largely reduced to emulating touch, as opposed to mouse having it's own optimised actions.

I don't like the screen changing all the time due to context. I like options and menus and stuff to just stay put. I hate the way things pop on and off the screen (a bit like context sensitive menus). e.g. In I.E. the screen is nice and clear, mostly just showing the page you are viewing. That's fine. But I hate the way the address bar and such then pop (fade, whatever) onto the screen when you right click. I'd rather they just stayed there.

And I don't read icon. That little picture of a wrench may mean "tools", but my brain works better if there's just the word "tools" on screen. It's like my brain has to interpret the icon into a word, then I can "understand" the word. That's adding a step.

These are first impressions. I'll probably get used to it, and learn how to do stuff "properly" the Win 8 way. Sigh.

(Again: I'm only doing this now for work reasons.)

[pzkpfw]

So I'm trying to figure out how to get two I.E. windows open in Metro (twin 24" FHD screens for flips sake, I want to use them...) and it seems Metro is one-screen-only. (As far as I can tell, and by googling).

But I can go to the Desktop, and open multiple I.E. windows and do stuff there, fine.

And it hits me that Metro really is the cut-down simple interface, while in it options really are limited; and that it can and probably should be ignored for most work.

Which makes it clear: Windows 8 is the new Microsoft Bob.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob )

[Gremlin]

So in summary:

I threw the review version on a spare laptop for my boss and I to have a play around. Within seconds all we wanted was the Win7 interface back (which I actually do like, and now use the Start menu more than ever... so Microsoft removed it )

Therefore, that's a fail in my books.

[jonbuoy]

I dont know why MS do this, Windows 7 is excellent all they had to do was tweak it for a touch interface.

[Buyasta]

So in summary:

I threw the review version on a spare laptop for my boss and I to have a play around. Within seconds all we wanted was the Win7 interface back (which I actually do like, and now use the Start menu more than ever... so Microsoft removed it )

Therefore, that's a fail in my books.

What really gets me is that in early developer previews, it was possible to re-enable the start menu with a few registry hacks. Microsoft saw that people were doing this, and rather than reconsider their choice to force people to use the stupid new interface, just made absolutely sure it was no longer possible to re-enable the old one.

I am kinda curious to see how long it takes for Microsoft to finally admit that Metro doesn't work on PC's, that the vast majority of people trying it hate it and end up having to downgrade, and finally make it optional... My money is on at least 6+ months of a stubborn "We know best, you'll use our product how *we* want you to!" before they finally cave and fix it, and I suspect that like Vista, the reputation of Windows 8 will be permanently ruined, even after they fix it.

[James Deuce]

I TOLD you. It's pointless, and will just cause grief. You shoulda created a VM and changed your approach to using VMs. Less hassle than running 8.

[pzkpfw]

I TOLD you. It's pointless, and will just cause grief. You shoulda created a VM and changed your approach to using VMs. Less hassle than running 8.

Not so sure. My approach for now will be to stick in Desktop "mode" (they say it's an app, not a mode, but anyway...) and do most of my work there. It even happens automatically. I have no interest in getting weather reports and financial news and facebook updates on "tiles" on my start screen (even back in XP, I never ever had one of those desktop widget things active), so have already un-pinned all that crap. What I have left, are tiles that are essentially shortcuts to my traditional apps; things like mspaint, Outlook 2010, Word, calculator etc. Clicking one of them, starts the app - in desktop mode. Metro goes away. So in a way, I think I can treat the Metro U.I. itself as an app - that I don't use much. As long as MS don't eventually kill the "desktop apps" (e.g. I'm using the "metro IE" right now, but I expect I'll often go to desktop and use IE there) I'll be fine.

What really gets me is that in early developer previews, it was possible to re-enable the start menu with a few registry hacks. Microsoft saw that people were doing this, and rather than reconsider their choice to force people to use the stupid new interface, just made absolutely sure it was no longer possible to re-enable the old one.

I read an interview way back with the lady in charge of Office 2010. It was a deliberate decision to NOT have a "traditional menu" mode for Office, as they knew everyone would just use that instead of the new ribbon thing. It's deliberate policy of MS to force people into new interfaces. Bastards.

I am kinda curious to see how long it takes for Microsoft to finally admit that Metro doesn't work on PC's, that the vast majority of people trying it hate it and end up having to downgrade, and finally make it optional... My money is on at least 6+ months of a stubborn "We know best, you'll use our product how *we* want you to!" before they finally cave and fix it, and I suspect that like Vista, the reputation of Windows 8 will be permanently ruined, even after they fix it.

Take this: the simplest way I can find, with a mouse, to close an application is a gesture that simulates swiping the app down from the top of the window, to the bottom. (Simulates dragging a finger down a touch screen, I suppose). But I like my monitors vertically stacked, so the top of the Metro window goes to the bottom of the desktop window - so it's hard to target the top of the Metro window for this gesture. So I'm forced, if I'm in a mousing mode (like clicking away at news web sites) to go to my keyboard to Alt-F4 the window, or use a more arcane mouse movement. Sucks.

I dont know why MS do this, Windows 7 is excellent all they had to do was tweak it for a touch interface.

Knee-jerk reaction to tablets.

I thought they learned from WinCE (where they tried to make a Windows desktop look-alike work on small screen devices like PDA's and phones) that one interface for all devices wasn't a good idea. That's why the newer windows phone stuff got the tiles and things and dumped the desktop. That was good.

Then they go and repeat history, by thinking the new phone stuff is good and putting it back over on the desktop. Idiots.

[pzkpfw]

Damn! That might be a deal-breaker... Civ II runs like my CPU is an 8088, not an i7!

[Gremlin]

I dont know why MS do this, Windows 7 is excellent all they had to do was tweak it for a touch interface.

Outside of the tech, Microsoft has committed itself to launching a new OS every 3 years due to the Software Assurance program. You sign up, pay a fee per year and always get the new stuff (no upfront costs). When you pay year 3, you've paid slightly more than buying the software upfront, therefore, if you go into year 4 (lets assume you replace on a 3 year cycle) software assurance is costing you more than just buying it. Windows XP must have killed them a bit, as people held onto their computers, so Microsoft wasn't getting as many sales.

To keep people seeing a value in Assurance you have to keep launching new versions...

However (experience at least amongst our clients) with the GFC, there is far less motivation to just replace things every 3 years regardless, even amongst the clients not quite so hamstrung by budget. For those more constrained, most are still on XP with no replacement plan other than when it starts causing issues, fine, we'll replace (or they need an extra PC). For our large clients, they're on support contracts, so we don't charge by the hour. Some IT does, so you could leverage that by insisting your client upgrades, ergo getting work.

From my view, MS is well out of touch with the public. The OS exists to give people functionality and get things done (Office productivity, specific programs related to business etc). It is not a play thing that people want to love and play with. Nor do they want to learn to do the same things over, in a different way, just because MS told them to. Changing the layout (windows, office etc) actually loses productivity.

Anyway, I just got a nice new laptop as mine was due for retirement (4+ years old). Deliberately bought the Win7 version as it was a bit cheaper and we have no plans to use Win8 at all. I honestly expect 8 to be the next Vista.

[bogan]

And the trend continues, every second version of windows is shit or otherwise not worth having.

Thanks for being the test subject though!

[jonbuoy]

Outside of the tech, Microsoft has committed itself to launching a new OS every 3 years due to the Software Assurance program. You sign up, pay a fee per year and always get the new stuff (no upfront costs). When you pay year 3, you've paid slightly more than buying the software upfront, therefore, if you go into year 4 (lets assume you replace on a 3 year cycle) software assurance is costing you more than just buying it. Windows XP must have killed them a bit, as people held onto their computers, so Microsoft wasn't getting as many sales.

To keep people seeing a value in Assurance you have to keep launching new versions...

However (experience at least amongst our clients) with the GFC, there is far less motivation to just replace things every 3 years regardless, even amongst the clients not quite so hamstrung by budget. For those more constrained, most are still on XP with no replacement plan other than when it starts causing issues, fine, we'll replace (or they need an extra PC). For our large clients, they're on support contracts, so we don't charge by the hour. Some IT does, so you could leverage that by insisting your client upgrades, ergo getting work.

From my view, MS is well out of touch with the public. The OS exists to give people functionality and get things done (Office productivity, specific programs related to business etc). It is not a play thing that people want to love and play with. Nor do they want to learn to do the same things over, in a different way, just because MS told them to. Changing the layout (windows, office etc) actually loses productivity.



Anyway, I just got a nice new laptop as mine was due for retirement (4+ years old). Deliberately bought the Win7 version as it was a bit cheaper and we have no plans to use Win8 at all. I honestly expect 8 to be the next Vista.

Madness, it can take a couple of years for manufacturers of commercial hardware to release firmware flashing/configuring/diagnostics tools for the latest O/S versions they will be forever playing catchup. Who wants to risk bricking thousands of dollars of control hardware by flashing in a virtual environment or the hassel of dual booting. There is bags of room in Win7 for improvements/upgrades/desktop bling that they could have released as options packages that a lot of people would have paid for.

[Gremlin]

There is bags of room in Win7 for improvements/upgrades/desktop bling that they could have released as options packages that a lot of people would have paid for.

But there has to be a new one every 3 years... well, for those in the program

For the rest of us, a happy client is a productive client... we use Windows as the servers are exchange, Active Directory, remote access is Windows based in most cases etc and so on. We tried a Linux flavour for an end user and it just doesn't work. Mac... haha, never mind. However... I'm still waiting for a valid alternative, can't see how (anything taking such a hold software is made for it), but thinking we're upgrading every 3 years... well, Microsoft is failing to predict their own market... business 101

Even a big ERP package we're in the midst of a multi-year deployment "supported" Red Hat, so we went for it. A few months down the track it's clear the software techs can't use Red Hat, and vital functionality isn't available... so back to W2K8 R2... Come to think of it... Server 2003 was ok. Lacked mobile device support but the rest was sufficient for client needs. I haven't even played with Server 2012 yet