|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:I don't think I could actually fit everything I need on the taskbar. If you can still make toolbars from folders that solves the issue. Make a folder with shortcuts in it and make a new toolbar on the taskbar. You can make folders within that folder for categories like games, the toolbar will allow you to easily navigate through them. I'm not sure how I used windows before taskbar toolbars.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Isn't it way faster and easier just to mash the start key and type the name of the thing you want to run?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
You can. You can also make an icon link to a folder by making a dummy .exe from a blank text file and changing the Target to the folder.homeless snail posted:Isn't it way faster and easier just to mash the start key and type the name of the thing you want to run? Not if you have few enough commonly used programs you can just fit them in the taskbar. Most people aren't going to have enough that they need to make taskbars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
So I would have to make folders with shortcuts to everything I want to use? That sounds like kind of a pain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
My wife was trying out a Win8 laptop for work a couple months ago using the consumer preview build. After 2 days of working with it, we both decided that all our home PCs will be remaining on Win7. Microsoft would have to pay ME $15 to make me consider moving to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:So I would have to make folders with shortcuts to everything I want to use? That sounds like kind of a pain. If only those folders already existed... That's how the Start Menu works, with folders of shortcuts 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
I'm still having a hard time understanding why that would be more convenient than the start menu because you would have to move all of those folders or shortcuts onto the taskbar(or onto a new folder on the taskbar). And I have like a zillion of them that I actually use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
The only problem I have with the start menu, and it's nothing about Windows, but the default installation folders for programs put them into folders by name of the developer or publisher. I almost always forget who the publisher or dev of the game is if I haven't played it in a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 05:12
|
|
YouTuber posted:I'd buy Windows 8 if it had the ability to disable the metro screen. I toyed around with it during the Beta and I outright despise it so much, it's a step backwards because it assumes as a desktop user you know all the Windows+Key shortcuts to do stuff. Once the modification scene gets more developed around "fixing" Windows 8 by removing the metro screen and putting the start menu back in I'll upgrade. You can disable the Start screen, but (unless it's a setting in control panel somewhere) you have to download a tweak to do so. When you install anything new it automatically gets added to Start. You can unpin whatever you want and uninstall almost all of the stupid Apps it comes preloaded with. Clicking the Steam icon just opens Steam so adding separate game launchers isn't really necessary. It's still Windows. You can customize a fair amount though you'd probably have to fiddle with some registry settings or really go through every menu to see all of the new crap they've added. Personally, I had to change the stupid Libraries folder back to My Computer because why the gently caress can't you add a separate icon to your taskbar for that? If you open My Computer and Pin it, it redirects to Libraries. So stupid.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
The main draw for Windows 8 for me is the loss of Aero Glass. I like the return to the standard of sharp corners and colours. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:It kind of concerns me because I use the start menu pretty much constantly. I think on Windows 8 I'd have to laboriously add every game I own to Steam just to have a convenient launcher for all of them; right now I have tons of stuff from gog and gamersgate and stuff that I launch by hitting the windows key and typing the first three letters. You can still do this in Windows 8, typing while in the metro UI has the same search feature as the Windows 7 start menu. Press windows key -> type some letters just like always. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 11:46
|
|
|
El Mido posted:The main draw for Windows 8 for me is the loss of Aero Glass. I like the return to the standard of sharp corners and colours. Same here, it's really clean. Those fake streaks in Aero bothered me after a while. Windows 8 is actually super nice. The only thing I don't like is Metro apps since they're full screen and walled off from desktop stuff, but once you uninstall/unpin them you never have to think about them. The Start screen really is just a big Start menu that presents everything at a glance instead of tucked away in folders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
HicRic posted:You can still do this in Windows 8, typing while in the metro UI has the same search feature as the Windows 7 start menu. Press windows key -> type some letters just like always. It also functions as a file search and does a significantly better job of it than anything I've tried besides Search Anything. I love the Metro UI as a replacement for the start menu.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
I just feel that it's such a step backwards UI-wise. It replaces something that takes up 10-20% of your screen real estate (the start menu) with something that takes up 100% (the start screen.) It replaces an elegant and functional UI skin (Aero Glass) with something that looks like it spawned from Win3.1. It hides critical commands and elements behind non-intuitive menus. (You have to hover over the right side to bring up the "charms bar", and then "Shut Down" is under "Settings->Power". What? How is shutting down a "Setting"?) Not to mention the complete schizophrenia introduced by essentially having 2 different UIs (Metro and desktop) competing side-by-side. Each Windows 8 install has 2 different versions of IE for example. I think if Microsoft wanted to combine a desktop and tablet OS that there were far more elegant means of doing it than what they've done here. It felt kind of FrankenOS to me when I tried it. I might be more open to it if I felt that it created benefits for desktop users as well as tablet users, but this is a blatantly transparent attempt to push more on the tablet side and really gives nothing to the desktop crowd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
I thought that was the whole point. The convenience of a tablet and the utility of a laptop when you need to do more than watch cat videos on Youtube.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
notZaar posted:I thought that was the whole point. The convenience of a tablet and the utility of a laptop when you need to do more than watch cat videos on Youtube. Except it went the "jack of all trades master of none" approach. The Metro interface is clearly built for touchscreens with mouse functionality feeling sort of tacked on. Meanwhile the desktop mode is still geared to the mouse and keyboard set with touchscreen functionality tacked on. In other words: regardless of whether you use it on a tablet or a laptop, half your UI is going to be halfassed for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 16:24
|
|
macnbc posted:It replaces something that takes up 10-20% of your screen real estate (the start menu) with something that takes up 100% (the start screen.) I don't agree with your first point entirely. The start menu had so many folders and icons that you just never used. It was cluttered and old. The new Start screen gets rid of most of the junk that you couldn't care less about. I think this upset, for most people, is just a product of change than anything else. People hate change. But, I know this is subjective so I'm not saying any of this as fact; just how I see it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
nickhimself posted:I don't agree with your first point entirely. The start menu had so many folders and icons that you just never used. It was cluttered and old. The new Start screen gets rid of most of the junk that you couldn't care less about. I think this upset, for most people, is just a product of change than anything else. People hate change. But, I know this is subjective so I'm not saying any of this as fact; just how I see it. No, it's not that. The Windows 8 metro screen is just outright bad. I get why Microsoft is trying to do it; But the execution is just awful. I tend to agree that both laptops and desktops are likely going to be losing a large portion of their userbase to tablets. However you don't half rear end your launch product trying to sway that market. Windows 8 currently feels like two halves of an operating system bolted together and yields the benefits of neither. The Metro screen is still just an even more ugly desktop. The "tiles" are just loving oversized icons that run fullscreen programs. Windows 3.1 had a more coherent design philosophy than Windows 8 does currently. As is, I would not use the Windows 8 in a tablet, phone or desktop. It's not ready for release to the general public. Maybe Windows 9 will finally realize the full potential of what they're attempting. I tell everyone to do the same thing they did with Vista. Avoid it at all costs until the next product release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Maybe it is made up of two parts that don't gel, but people are REALLY stretching how much of an impact the Metro stuff has on Windows 8. When you're in Windows, it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect. Things like file transfers are actually much nicer and present more information. The only difference is the start menu and the Charms. It's definitely weird realizing that you have to go to Settings->Power to shut the system off, but after you do it once it's pretty much the same as clicking a Start Menu and shutting down from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Corin Tucker's Stalker posted:Maybe it is made up of two parts that don't gel, but people are REALLY stretching how much of an impact the Metro stuff has on Windows 8. When you're in Windows, it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect. Things like file transfers are actually much nicer and present more information. Then, really, you have to wonder how much of Windows 8 is just change for its own sake. It's probably not power users that are going to have the most problems with Win8 either, but rather people not as computer savvy, baffled by Microsoft's reinventing of the wheel. For ex: the separate version of core windows apps like IE in modern and desktop modes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Bathtub Cheese posted:Then, really, you have to wonder how much of Windows 8 is just change for its own sake. It's probably not power users that are going to have the most problems with Win8 either, but rather people not as computer savvy, baffled by Microsoft's reinventing of the wheel. For ex: the separate version of core windows apps like IE in modern and desktop modes. I think this hits the nail on the head. Microsoft has embraced the "Every other windows version is crap" mentality and decided to just throw every potentially interesting idea they have into Windows 8. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, most users aren't going to upgrade anyway. When it comes time for Windows 9, they'll take the stuff people liked about 8 and actually build a decent OS around it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
The metro interface looks and feels pretty good but in actuality is absolutely useless for the only tasks my PC gets used for (games, watching stuff). It's a little disappointing that I don't have any legitimate uses for the interface when Steam and VLC have my bases covered almost entirely. More disappointingly the upgrade to Windows 8 has removed the driver for my 3rd-party 360 wireless gamepad adapter and given the vague naming on the driver disc (PC Gaming Wireless Connectivity) I'm having a hard time finding anything that might let it work. At this point in time I feel like I should have stuck with 7. At least the upgrade was free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
RandomCheese posted:The metro interface looks and feels pretty good but in actuality is absolutely useless for the only tasks my PC gets used for (games, watching stuff). It's a little disappointing that I don't have any legitimate uses for the interface when Steam and VLC have my bases covered almost entirely. If you're only using one controller, use x360wc. It's a custom driver floating around from Japan. Another thing I'm liking is that Win8 64 seems a lot less bitchy about custom drivers, which helps a lot with PSP homebrew. edit: The Metro UI should actually help with games/videos, since you can use its sweet search feature to find EXEs/videos. Doctor Goat fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong thread entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Bathtub Cheese posted:Then, really, you have to wonder how much of Windows 8 is just change for its own sake. Well, MS are looking at some pretty nasty figures for Apple take-up and the steady erosion of cash cows like the Office suite, but $40 for a yearly subscription for windows is beyond the pale. MS looked at making their tools subscription-based around Windows 95, but it played extremely badly, so we have new versions every year with minor incremental updates that they attempt to build a campaign around. I'll avoid 8 until it becomes apparent that 7 isn't fit for purpose and screw the idea of artificial scarcity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Does the Modern interface seem useful so far? As a gamer, is there anything I'd want to do with it? Ignoring the larger overall debate for a moment, there is nothing in Windows 8 that is desirable to a gamer or worth upgrading from Windows 7 for. I only did it because I have to support friends and family who will buy this on a PC in a store and I'll be saddled with explaining it. After using Metro for awhile I just disabled it entirely with Start 8 and it's basically Windows 7 without transparency (Why did they remove this?). I've noticed literally no difference in performance and despite claims to the contrary my install actually boots up 3 seconds slower than 7 on the same SSD. On the flipside if you get stuck with it then compatibility is fine in terms of Win32 games so at least you don't have to worry much either way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Hav posted:Well, MS are looking at some pretty nasty figures for Apple take-up and the steady erosion of cash cows like the Office suite, but $40 for a yearly subscription for windows is beyond the pale. $40 is a one time fee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
kri kri posted:$40 is a one time fee. And really quite reasonable to boot. Also Xbox Music sort of owns, though I'm having a pain in the rear end actually getting it to work on my PC. Works great on the Xbox but I keep getting error messages on my computer version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:31
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Ignoring the larger overall debate for a moment, there is nothing in Windows 8 that is desirable to a gamer or worth upgrading from Windows 7 for. This is true. I upgraded because my buddy is in a computer science program and got a win8 pro upgrade as part of his tuition and such. He didn't want it, I like new things, so here we are. That said, if I didn't get it for free I would have stayed on 7 and been very happy.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:And really quite reasonable to boot. Also Xbox Music sort of owns, though I'm having a pain in the rear end actually getting it to work on my PC. Works great on the Xbox but I keep getting error messages on my computer version. There are some driver issues related to official 360 wireless controller adapters in some games, and a few other little problems. Overall, it's not something that you should run out and upgrade to if you already have 7, but it's also not scary and terrible. It's just sort of there if you're dying for a slightly different interface. If you do upgrade, please don't give Brad Wardell any money by buying that start menu mod, TIA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
MacGyvers_Mullet posted:If you do upgrade, please don't give Brad Wardell any money by buying that start menu mod, TIA. I felt the same way but it really is the best one 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
DerekSmartymans posted:Same here. I haven't read anything about Win8 just because Win7 was great and I firmly believe in MicroSoft's good/lovely/good/lovely upgrade history. Maybe I'll upgrade for Win9. That said, I am also scared of Windows 8, despite not believing it. But mostly because it looks like a smart phone to me, and I hate everything about smart phones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Quarex posted:You know you have to selectively ignore some iterations of Windows for this to be true, right? It is one thing to use it as a joke as to why some versions of Windows suck, but another to actually avoid Windows 8 because you believe it. As long as you count 98 and 98 se as separate versions of windows (which technically they are, I think you had to buy an upgrade), then it holds water from '95 to present day. Not that it's not really loving stupid to blindly follow it instead of actually doing research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Ignoring the larger overall debate for a moment, there is nothing in Windows 8 that is desirable to a gamer or worth upgrading from Windows 7 for. Bu-bu-but DirectX 11.1 Though considering just how scattered DirectX implementation is right now, that probably isn't a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
YourAverageJoe posted:Bu-bu-but DirectX 11.1 What, exactly, does 11.1 do for gamers? DX10 introduced water and smoke effects. DX11 introduced tessellation. What does 11.1 offer? To the Wikipedia! quote:DirectX 11.1 is included in Windows 8. It supports WDDM 1.2 for increased performance, features improved integration of Direct2D, Direct3D, and DirectCompute, and includes DirectXMath, XAudio2, and XInput libraries from the XNA framework. It also features stereoscopic 3D support for gaming and video. So, 95% of it is under the hood stuff that developers can take advantage of for performance enhancements. Great. Except they likely never will because they still have to support DX11, DX10, and still to a limited extent DX9. Oh, and stereoscopic 3D support. Which already is supported by 3rd parties like nVidia. Awesome. I'm still not seeing any tangible benefit for gamers to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 14:16
|
|
|
Quarex posted:I hate everything about smart phones. You're missing out on being able to read and post on the forums while on the shitter at work, like I'm doing right now 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
kri kri posted:$40 is a one time fee. And will be offered with each incremental update from this point onwards, much in the same way that Windows 7 updates were offered for Vista at $99 (Which didn't cause the spike in sales they were hoping for because people didn't like Vista). The $40 is as much a marketing ploy as day one DLC because _they know_ that the biggest thing about this Windows release is sodding Metro, which is pretty universally disliked. macnbc posted:What, exactly, does 11.1 do for gamers? We're not seeing a huge and sustained uptake of everything that DX11 has to offer, but isn't anyone bothered that DirectX is now being used as the leverage point for a new OS? Actually, where did they start coupling it? I seem to recall that there were increments outside of the OS upgrade channel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
Hav posted:Actually, where did they start coupling it? I seem to recall that there were increments outside of the OS upgrade channel. If you want to be technical then DX5.2 with Win98, but the modern use of it really starts with Vista and DX10.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Hav posted:And will be offered with each incremental update from this point onwards, much in the That's not a new thing. I'm pretty sure DirectX 10 was Vista-only when it came out. efb
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
macnbc posted:What, exactly, does 11.1 do for gamers? You'll see the benefits later, that's the catch. We didn't see most DX10 benefits when it hit because most people were still on 9c hardware. Just as we didn't see the full use of 9c when it came out because people were still on older hardware. Once the actual hardware base consists of hardware capable of it, read a generation or a few after it comes out, we'll see it. DX11 still isn't fully used for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 16:02
|
|