Upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for $39.99

The thing is,we shouldn't have to do anything to get the features we want in the os.They should already be in the package and shouldn't have to be tinkering with it.I shouldn't have to install classic shell just to get a feature that should of been included in the OS in the begining.Microsoft is just driving away people by taking away features and trying to force features like not having the start bar or forcing metro on the user(yes I know you can switch to desktop mode but that's not the point).Users shouldn't have to go through all that trouble just to get features that were in the previous OS and the OS before that on the new OS that is suppose to be a improved version but was cut down in features. Anyways win 8 overall isn't too bad but not worth the money just to get some changes in the ui and a couple performance tweaks along with features taken away that so many loved and used windows because of it in the first place.Also before someone says I didn't give it a chance,I used it for about 3 weeks before I gave my final judgement. I like some of the performance enhancements and the fast boot but I dislike the UI and that I have to tinker with it so much to get it to my liking which shouldn't be a issue in the first place.I thought Microsoft was making a OS to be of ease of use and not just to the casual user but to the more tech kind of guy(this is my idea not saying all) prefers to be able to use what he's a custom to work with to be more efficient. Though all they have done is complicate things more then they should be.Not like I can't use it but I shouldn't have to do so much.I felt like Microsoft took a step backwards instead of forward.Anyways this is my thoughts and oppion ,everyone is entitled to their opinion of the OS.I don't hate it I just don't feel it's worth the money since win 7 does a good job and doesn't need all this tweaking of the UI and is simple and easy to use.

It takes a bit longer to install like about a full hour by optical means over the 20min. average seen for 7 showing it's a newer and larger version. While the 3rd party apps are the easy workaround solutions as well as your own Powershell effort there's a bit more to look at either way as far as liking or disliking it.

I waited for the RP hoping to get further along in examing 8 before the RTM date but ended up finding the RP was buggier when compared to the CP. Forget any dual booting with 7 or Vista. I couldn't say on XP there however but the clash and resulting drive errors made their own announcement when both 8 and then 7 simply froze solid on start after booting into 7 from the 8 BCD.

8 took the worst hit however after both 7 seeing a full clean install later and the PC Refresh option in 8 saw everything packed into the Windows.old folder including all program folders 8 couldn't adjust to the next item being the change of drive modes from Native ide to AHCI. 8 then refused to load while 7 adjusted to the change seeing both OS drives installed.

Originally 7 had the problem however when first building the present case when the board was shipped in AHCI mode. With the initial install of 7 the change to the Native ide mode when first seeing booting problems then saw a normal startup.

Hardware detection is also to see some improvement over the previous. 8 is no where near as backward compatible as 7 is however. The number of older things that especially will run on the 32bit 7 far outweigh what has been seen so far with both Vista and 8 with Vista having more of an edge for older Legacy to XP games and apps.

8 will be kind of a spin the wheel of fortune or misfortune depending on each user's actual needs. Once the Windows VMs on the other OS are through an isolated reinstall of the RP will then be given a more extended look now that some software companies are starting to get their own acts together and releasing updated 8 compatible versions for things.

jimbo45 said:

It's not perfect but I'm definitely impressed with Hardware detection, ease of install and its performance in general.

This is a good point and I agree totally, besides usage and functinality, speed, boot times and overal performance and hardware handling and detection are great improvements... seems that ARM support is a benefit since they need to optimize code and functions, thus giving us speed improvements... I need to admit that, this is the first Windows I test after 7 that really improves speed with the same hardware instead of asking for more to run (like old iterations)

I really hope that they really work more on the UI... Metro just feels like a extra layer on top of desktop and looks friendly for touchscreens, but for other devices that are really used to work instead of chatting or using facebook, you still need the desktop and all of its benefits... They got time, it is only a RP...

See ya!!!

jimbo45 said:

Hi there

What on earth are you installing W8 on -- took me less than 15 mins -- and that was on an EXTERNAL USB drive (Windows to GO).

You can see my thread here:
https://www.sevenforums.com/chillout-...enchmarks.html

It took me 26 minutes to install Win 8 on an Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM and a 7200RPM spinner drive. This took nearly 10 minutes longer than Windows 7. Unsure of why, but that's the time it took.

jimbo45 said:

Hi there

What on earth are you installing W8 on -- took me less than 15 mins -- and that was on an EXTERNAL USB drive (Windows to GO).

On an SSD installation time is INSANELY fast ( less than 6 mins !!) as its boot up etc.
Even on a Spinner it shouldn't take more than around 15 mins --even with really modest hardware.

(OK -- installing your user applications for example MS OFFICE will have to be done after the W8 install and so will take longer -- but it's still an easy and fast process).

Cheers
jimbo

There wasn't any "Windows to GO" or mounting an iso on an external drive but just a plain old iso burn to a blank type and a 22x dvd burner booting from the 8 dvd burned. I've seen XP and Vista get to the Install Button screen in less time on older slower dvd drives!

Figure about the time it takes to install 7 by optical the Install Now screen arrived. The setting up devices would take a bit longer due to the number of drives in use as well as the dual display setup. Even the installs on VMs took a bit longer direct from iso when added as a new optical drive in the settings showing the next version is larger in size to an extent.

This was "real world time" used here without any shortcut methods used since this is how most will be installing 8.

gregrocker said:

About Classic Shell: Is this a theme mod that brings it back to a Win7-style desktop with Start button and menu? Sounds like it.

Any stability problems as are sometimes seen in third-party theme mods ? I've never used them and with Win7's elegant Aero think it's downright goofy to be forced to do so just to have a desktop experience.

The Classic Shell is an open source option originally made for 7. You see the standard shutdown button and normal Start>Programs menu returned rather then finding the Mystery spot to hover the cursor over to have the new side bar appear.

I preferred that option over the next Start Menu 7 which was far better then Start8. It goes right on but may not always auto load with Windows at startup where you then simply click on the program to get it going again. Light weight addon without any issues seen when used.

I'm sticking with 7. It'll be supported a while longer & I'm sure 9, or even 10 will be out by the time support ends.

At the moment, Microsoft is supporting four releases of desktop Windows. For reference, here are the end-of-support dates for all currently supported Windows versions:

• Windows XP SP3: April 8, 2014
• Windows Vista SP2: April 11, 2017
• Windows 7 SP1: January 14, 2020
• Windows 8: January 10, 2023