If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
Drew wrote:
On 9/14/2014 9:00 PM, . . .winston wrote: A wrote: Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music I would get 7 while you still can. You can always upgrade later if 9 proves to be worth it. If you really want high end, get an Intel i7. While Windows 7 has very loyal following and is a good o/s, imo, if planning on moving to a new and other o/s in the future then Windows 8.1 Pro would be my choice for a new system. Why? Upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1 is a clean install (programs need to be reinstalled). Later o/s will most likely follow suit for moving from Win7. Windows 8.1 is only available in full version software not upgrade-ware. Likewise, Win9 will also be full version software. Moving to a later o/s (e.g. Win9 or later) is likely to provide (even though its full version software) the ability to upgrade with user settings and programs intact. If your system is being built...it would be extremely beneficial if your system builder/OEM manufacturer also provides your software on installable media. - i.e. if your route to reinstall the software is by restoring to the as-shipped PC condition then consider the points noted above and how much effort and time you are willing to buy-in to. Good luck. I have decided upon further review (LOL) to go with the i7 and higher graphics and possibly win8.1 (not sure whether I will go with the pro or not) My question to Winston would be "How do you know that win 9 will not be available as a upgrade?" Microsoft announced at the time of 8.1 that full version software (not upgrade ware) was the current direction. qp One shift to note in Windows 8.1 is that we will be offering “full version software” at retail and online for download that does not require a previous version of Windows in order to be installed. The copy of Windows 8 that is currently available for sale at retail and online is an “upgrade version.” This shift allows more flexibility for customers in specific technical scenarios and is in response to feedback we’ve received. It will be easier for those consumers who want to build PCs from scratch, run Windows 8.1 in Virtual Machine (VM) environments, or run Windows 8.1 on a second hard drive partition. qp Since 8.1 release, future o/s will be "full version software" that can be installed on any computer, whether it has an earlier version of Windows installed or not effectively eliminating any need to find a present or insert a prior qualifying o/s media. Bottom line...if you desire Win8.1 or later it will be full version only. -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On 15/09/2014 23:51, Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:56:36 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote: On 15/09/2014 19:11, Ken Blake wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:13:01 -0400, Charlie wrote: Win 8.1 is, with a fair amount of change, more or less win 7. The user interface (GUI, etc) of win 8 is (obviously) the major complaint. Windows 8 does not have *a* user interface. Unlike previous versions of Windows, Windows 8 has two interfaces; the Modern/Metro Interface (which may be all you've looked at) and the traditional Desktop Interface. You can use either one or both. And here we get the point: Without a clear user interface it's crap. There's not even a Start button :-( There wasn't in 8.0, but there *is* in 8.1. True, it doesn't do everything the old start button did, but it's very easy to get that all back, with a third party program, either free (such as Classic Shell) or very inexpensive (such as the $4.99 Start8, my personal favorite). Classic Shell is the way to go, indeed. For both 8 and 8.1. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:27:50 +0200, Fokke Nauta
wrote: On 15/09/2014 23:51, Ken Blake wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:56:36 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote: On 15/09/2014 19:11, Ken Blake wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:13:01 -0400, Charlie wrote: Win 8.1 is, with a fair amount of change, more or less win 7. The user interface (GUI, etc) of win 8 is (obviously) the major complaint. Windows 8 does not have *a* user interface. Unlike previous versions of Windows, Windows 8 has two interfaces; the Modern/Metro Interface (which may be all you've looked at) and the traditional Desktop Interface. You can use either one or both. And here we get the point: Without a clear user interface it's crap. There's not even a Start button :-( There wasn't in 8.0, but there *is* in 8.1. True, it doesn't do everything the old start button did, but it's very easy to get that all back, with a third party program, either free (such as Classic Shell) or very inexpensive (such as the $4.99 Start8, my personal favorite). Classic Shell is the way to go, indeed. For both 8 and 8.1. You say "indeed," as if you are agreeing with me. But I disagree; I think the very inexpensive Start8 is better, and if you haven't tried it, I recommend that you do. It comes with a free 30-day trial. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:15:14 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:54:52 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:13:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: A bad choice Microsoft made here, as far as I'm concerned. The default should have been the choice of the person who install it. but (a) it has a tendency to revert to it if you _do_ manage to get to the desktop one, Manage? That's a very strong word. It's extremely easy to get to it. And in my experience it *never* reverts to the Modern interface. The mileage of others may vary. ;-) Mine used to revert to the Modern UI quite frequently, but over the past year I've just about beaten it into submission. Its episodes are much less frequent now, but it still manages to surprise me from time to time. Yes, I know you've said that before. But I still don't understand how it does that itself on your machine or any other one. It doesn't do that on either machine here. In fact, if it were to happen on my wife's machine, she'd probably scream to me for help "WHAT HAPPENED?" |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:09:59 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: I think that for most people, the enjoyment of using a computer is related to the user interface much more than the strength of the OS underneath. I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. IMO, the Win 8 Metro is a big PITA unless on a small laptop, tablet, or smart phone. Too much wasted effort to swipe, touch, etc. on the screen, leaving fingerprints all over the place. I'm probably not quite as strong about that as you are, but I largely agree. But bear in mind that you *can* use a mouse with the Metro/Modern interface; no touch screen is required. I'm trying to "merge" the two, making 8.1 more visually like 7 using 3rd party apps. I use Start 8, and use the desktop interface almost exclusively. To me, Windows 8 is almost exactly like Windows 7. Even a bit of XP with a Quick Launch Bar. But I greatly prefer the merging of the task bar with the quick launch bar. It keeps each icon in the same single place and I can simply click on it without having to remember whether the application is already open or not. I think you should use whatever gives you the best experience with the computer, and not what others say you should use. I *strongly* agree. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On 9/16/2014 11:37 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:09:59 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: I think that for most people, the enjoyment of using a computer is related to the user interface much more than the strength of the OS underneath. I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. IMO, the Win 8 Metro is a big PITA unless on a small laptop, tablet, or smart phone. Too much wasted effort to swipe, touch, etc. on the screen, leaving fingerprints all over the place. I'm probably not quite as strong about that as you are, but I largely agree. But bear in mind that you *can* use a mouse with the Metro/Modern interface; no touch screen is required. I'm trying to "merge" the two, making 8.1 more visually like 7 using 3rd party apps. I use Start 8, and use the desktop interface almost exclusively. To me, Windows 8 is almost exactly like Windows 7. Even a bit of XP with a Quick Launch Bar. But I greatly prefer the merging of the task bar with the quick launch bar. It keeps each icon in the same single place and I can simply click on it without having to remember whether the application is already open or not. I think you should use whatever gives you the best experience with the computer, and not what others say you should use. I *strongly* agree. I agree that Windows 8.1 set to start to the desktop makes Windows 8.1 a very usable machine with an interface that is basically an Evolved Windows XP. However, while I first missed the old Start Button, I find that right clicking on the MS Icon in the lower left on the Desktop screen, (the left end of the Desktop tool bar), gives me all of the flexibility of the old Start menu. The System option, from the right click on the MS Icon, provides access to the most frequently OS things I need. If I had to rate my OS accesses, I believe the most frequent would be the Task Manager. This is generally access with a right click on the Desk top toolbar. (Or from a right click on the MS Icon) The next most frequently access items is the System above. I never used the old Documents from the old Start Menu, but find that I use the Jumplist all of the time. In my opinion, the combination of the right click MS Icon plus the jumplist is much better than the old Start button. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
.. . .winston wrote:
A wrote: . . .winston wrote: A wrote: Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music I would get 7 while you still can. You can always upgrade later if 9 proves to be worth it. If you really want high end, get an Intel i7. While Windows 7 has very loyal following and is a good o/s, imo, if planning on moving to a new and other o/s in the future then Windows 8.1 Pro would be my choice for a new system. Why? Upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1 is a clean install (programs need to be reinstalled). Later o/s will most likely follow suit for moving from Win7. Windows 8.1 is only available in full version software not upgrade-ware. Likewise, Win9 will also be full version software. Moving to a later o/s (e.g. Win9 or later) is likely to provide (even though its full version software) the ability to upgrade with user settings and programs intact. If your system is being built...it would be extremely beneficial if your system builder/OEM manufacturer also provides your software on installable media. - i.e. if your route to reinstall the software is by restoring to the as-shipped PC condition then consider the points noted above and how much effort and time you are willing to buy-in to. Good luck. I don't do upgrades. I clean install. Most of a clean install and reinstalling programs involves waiting. While waiting, I do other things. If only had one computer, it would be different but I have several. Personally, after seeing the sneak peeks to Windows 9, I will be skipping 8.1 just like I skipped Vista. If not doing upgrades (yourself) then it really doesn't make sense to suggest "You can always upgrade later if 9 proves to be worth it" and upgrade path from Win7. - There's no upgrade path from Win7 to 8.1 (and with MSFT discontinuing upgrade ware in lieu of full version ware) there's won't be upgrade ware for 9 either. Thus the correct advice would be - You can always **clean install** Windows 9 later if it proves to be worth it. That's what I meant. If you upgrade to a new computer you don't need the old one to do it :-) Granted 'upgrade' is term that is interchangeably used when moving from one o/s to a later o/s...but in the case of MSFT the only upgrade path from Win7 is to Win8.0 since 8.0 is the last 'upgrade' wear. The same occurs in Office - no upgrade wear, all full version and priced accordingly. -- A |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:37:41 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. I'm not sure why you (seem to) conflate enjoying a computer with playing games on one. I enjoy using the computer, and I don't play games on it. To me: Writing even a very simple program to run on my Android phone, for instance, is fun. Learning enough Java to write a small program that I originally wrote in C is enjoyable. I had a good time figuring out how to get a useful display of my fuel consumption in Excel. These are just a few items off the top of my head... -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On 9/16/14 9:37 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:09:59 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: I think that for most people, the enjoyment of using a computer is related to the user interface much more than the strength of the OS underneath. I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. Maybe I should define "enjoyment". LOL I wasn't specifically meaning listening to music, watching movies, videos, etc. I was more generally meaning "how it works". For example, the keyboard that came with this Mac, and AFAIK with all current Macs, is the aluminum, almost chicklet type keyboard. I can't type worth feces on that dumba$$ keyboard. So I'm on my 3rd of the older Apple Pro keyboards. In this pic, http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...b/IMG_0334.jpg, the bottom two keyboards are the chicklet style. The bottom one is wireless, the middle one is what came with this computer, & I use the upper one. Unfortunately, the middle and upper keyboards are not 100% compatible, so some of the multimedia keys do not work. But I don't watch movies and such, and like you, I don't play games. IMO, the Win 8 Metro is a big PITA unless on a small laptop, tablet, or smart phone. Too much wasted effort to swipe, touch, etc. on the screen, leaving fingerprints all over the place. I'm probably not quite as strong about that as you are, but I largely agree. But bear in mind that you *can* use a mouse with the Metro/Modern interface; no touch screen is required. But that Metro/Modern interface wastes so much screen real estate. The All Apps screen in 8.0 wasn't too bad. I'm not going to play with the Metro interface in 8.1 at this time to see what it offers for the all apps screen. I'm trying to "merge" the two, making 8.1 more visually like 7 using 3rd party apps. I use Start 8, and use the desktop interface almost exclusively. To me, Windows 8 is almost exactly like Windows 7. I chose Start Menu8 Plus. http://sur.ly/o/winok-msixray.com/AA001290 Haven't yet gotten into it, so no opinion yet other than I like the look and feel. Even a bit of XP with a Quick Launch Bar. But I greatly prefer the merging of the task bar with the quick launch bar. It keeps each icon in the same single place and I can simply click on it without having to remember whether the application is already open or not. I like small icons, and in XP the small icons are smaller than the small icons in 7. (Somehow, that sounds weird! LOL) So, in a given physical space, I have twice as many icons in XP as I can have in 7. This may not be as big a deal for my 7 machine, since I've got a widescreen monitor there, and the XP machine has a 19" CRT. Plus, in XP, I've pulled my XP Quick Launch bar on to the desktop so it's in a window. I don't know if I'll be able to do that with the quick launch bar I plan on installing. Since I'll also be using virtual/alternative desktops, it may not matter in any way, shape, or form. LOL I think you should use whatever gives you the best experience with the computer, and not what others say you should use. I *strongly* agree. I find I'll sometimes have more than one 3rd party utility installed that do ostensibly the same thing, and I'll use the features in each that suit me the best. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:41:53 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:37:41 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. I'm not sure why you (seem to) conflate enjoying a computer with playing games on one. No, no, I meant playing games as only one example as a way some people enjoy it. See below. I enjoy using the computer, and I don't play games on it. To me: Writing even a very simple program to run on my Android phone, for instance, is fun. Learning enough Java to write a small program that I originally wrote in C is enjoyable. I had a good time figuring out how to get a useful display of my fuel consumption in Excel. These are just a few items off the top of my head... I guess I didn't make myself clear. It's not that I never enjoy using it. It's that I don't use it for the purpose of having a good time. Many people who do little on a computer but play games on it see it as a machine solely for the purpose of enjoyment. I don't. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:38:23 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:41:53 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch" wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:37:41 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. I'm not sure why you (seem to) conflate enjoying a computer with playing games on one. No, no, I meant playing games as only one example as a way some people enjoy it. See below. Thanks - I'm glad I was wrong. I enjoy using the computer, and I don't play games on it. To me: Writing even a very simple program to run on my Android phone, for instance, is fun. Learning enough Java to write a small program that I originally wrote in C is enjoyable. I had a good time figuring out how to get a useful display of my fuel consumption in Excel. These are just a few items off the top of my head... I guess I didn't make myself clear. It's not that I never enjoy using it. It's that I don't use it for the purpose of having a good time. Many people who do little on a computer but play games on it see it as a machine solely for the purpose of enjoyment. I don't. OK, understood :-) -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On 9/14/2014 9:14 AM, Drew wrote:
On 9/14/2014 8:50 AM, Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music Oops! major typo's here. win 8.1, win 8.1 pro or win7 all 64 and start8 or classic shell on win 8.1 (not win7) Just a follow up. decided to tweak the parts list by going with a core i7 and faster ram and then went with windows 8.1 with which I will definitely install either classic shell or start8. I figure since win 9 will be out semi soon I can be somewhat prepared if I so choose. I use this or will use this for work mostly as well as the odd simulator. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:27:37 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:15:14 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:54:52 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:13:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: A bad choice Microsoft made here, as far as I'm concerned. The default should have been the choice of the person who install it. but (a) it has a tendency to revert to it if you _do_ manage to get to the desktop one, Manage? That's a very strong word. It's extremely easy to get to it. And in my experience it *never* reverts to the Modern interface. The mileage of others may vary. ;-) Mine used to revert to the Modern UI quite frequently, but over the past year I've just about beaten it into submission. Its episodes are much less frequent now, but it still manages to surprise me from time to time. Yes, I know you've said that before. But I still don't understand how it does that itself on your machine or any other one. It doesn't do that on either machine here. In fact, if it were to happen on my wife's machine, she'd probably scream to me for help "WHAT HAPPENED?" It just happened now. I purchased a Bluetooth-capable device today and it very easily paired up with my phone, so I wanted to see if it would also pair with my laptop. I enabled the Bluetooth 'adapter' and a BT icon appeared in the System Tray, or Notification Area, whatever it's called. I right-clicked on it and selected the default menu item, Show Bluetooth Devices. *Poof* The entire screen turned blue, with a garishly large Bluetooth or gear icon in the center. Way off to the left were a couple of text items, almost unnoticeable in the giant sea of blue. To get back to normal, I pressed the Windows key, which took me to the Modern UI, then I clicked on the Desktop tile. This example came along at the perfect time. Not only are we currently discussing this very issue, but I also happened to NOT be in front of a crowded room giving one of my presentations. I very, very strongly suspect that your machine, and everyone else's, would do exactly the same thing under the same circumstances. It's quite jarring and completely unwanted. -- Char Jackson |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:41:53 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:37:41 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. I'm not sure why you (seem to) conflate enjoying a computer with playing games on one. I enjoy using the computer, and I don't play games on it. To me: Writing even a very simple program to run on my Android phone, for instance, is fun. Learning enough Java to write a small program that I originally wrote in C is enjoyable. I had a good time figuring out how to get a useful display of my fuel consumption in Excel. These are just a few items off the top of my head... +1 I had the same reaction to Ken's post, and I also enjoy each of the three examples you provided above. We're all different, I guess, except when we're not. -- Char Jackson |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:17:05 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:41:53 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch" wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:37:41 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I suppose there are some people to whom using a computer is a matter of enjoyment, but it isn't to me. I use a computer primarily because of the tools it provides me. I don't play any games on it. I'm not sure why you (seem to) conflate enjoying a computer with playing games on one. I enjoy using the computer, and I don't play games on it. To me: Writing even a very simple program to run on my Android phone, for instance, is fun. Learning enough Java to write a small program that I originally wrote in C is enjoyable. I had a good time figuring out how to get a useful display of my fuel consumption in Excel. These are just a few items off the top of my head... +1 I had the same reaction to Ken's post, and I also enjoy each of the three examples you provided above. We're all different, I guess, except when we're not. Note that Ken replied to indicate that he didn't mean it the way I took it, just that "It's not that I never enjoy using it. It's that I don't use it for the purpose of having a good time" and other clarifications. So, as you said, "We're all different, I guess, except when we're not". -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|