Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 2, 2013 Report Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) If you don't like the full screen start menu just install classic shell and maintain all of the other improvements. It's not a matter of obtuse it's a matter of having a more up to date OS with more features. I don't see how I'm being intentionally obtuse. Do you think I like Windows 8 because it makes other people upset that someone else learned how to use it? Edited June 2, 2013 by Faiblesse Des Sens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted June 2, 2013 Report Share Posted June 2, 2013 I'm kind of with FDS on this one. I wasn't much into Windows 8 when I first tried it, but after tweaking it a bit I've actually grown to like it quite a bit more than 7. The lack of start button never bothered me as I just hit the Windows key anyway, and the performance boosts are well worth my money IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 2, 2013 Report Share Posted June 2, 2013 For any sticklers worried about the start button it's coming in SP1 8.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 2, 2013 Report Share Posted June 2, 2013 It's not that I think you like it as an attempt to be difficult, the obtuseness is in the way you write the comments. You know exactly why someone might choose Windows 7 over Windows 8, but you ask the question anyway phrased in a way to suggest that the very idea of not liking the changes is completely retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 2, 2013 Report Share Posted June 2, 2013 You know exactly why someone might choose Windows 7 over Windows Actually in this case I don't. I understand why someone wouldn't want to upgrade but an outright buy? Windows 8 easy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 There's no fundamental difference in performance between the two. The only major performance gain I'm aware of being it "boots up faster" but my understanding is it's because Windows 8 doesn't properly shut down in the first place*. (and iirc you're an advocate of just using Sleep mode anyway). Basically my viewpoint is why jump on the new just because it's new? Especially one so drastically different (and seemingly already changing again). The few millisecond of performance gains would be far outweighed by those lost in the new two tone windows paradigm. Windows 7 is Windows 7, instead of Windows 8 which the main positive folks seem to have is "it's like Windows 7 if you ignore all the Windows 8 bits", so why not just go with an OS that doesn't require you to do any ignoring? Preview versions of Windows 8.1 are coming at the end of the month, where Atomsk could grab n give it a spin himself (depending how soon the PC is being built), or likely Windows 8 preview ISOs will be floating around still. I know if I was spending $100 I wouldn't be going with the product that's getting slammed by all but a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 Well. Better multi-monitor support for one, faster boot ups, better task manager, better Windows Explorer, improved backend (system idle processes use less memory in Windows 8 than 7 for me), and equal/better gaming performance (before someone says Windows 8 performs worse in-game because of the Metro stuff) to name a few. Preview versions of Windows 8.1 are coming at the end of the month, where Atomsk could grab n give it a spin himself (depending how soon the PC is being built), or likely Windows 8 preview ISOs will be floating around still. I know if I was spending $100 I wouldn't be going with the product that's getting slammed by all but a few. Now that's simply not true. Since we're going on anecdotal evidence here, I only see Windows 8 getting slammed by people who have never used it and do the kneejerk "Metro bad" thing. If we're going off of actual reviews, Tom's Hardware loved it, Ars Technica was alright with it, Techspot liked it, you get the idea. I'll admit it's not as well-liked as 7 was, but calling it universally panned is a bit silly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 Now that's simply not true. Since we're going on anecdotal evidence here, I only see Windows 8 getting slammed by people who have never used it and do the kneejerk "Metro bad" thing. I'm slamming it (in case that hasn't been obvious). btw your "better gaming performance" link would be the exact same one I used in the "your games work fine too" link, due to the whole ^ this is Sleeping Dogs in Windows 8 benchmark (does work if you run it on the lower settings, but why buy a new rig for low settings?). And as I'm assuming Atomsk would be building this for gaming purposes, having an OS with established gaming support would be a neat idea. As noted, they both have DirectX 11. The "Improved backend" article is also largely focused on the metro apps using WinRT, which would be the part many Windows 8 evangelists say to avoid so you can use Win 8 to be more Win 7 like. The only general improvement is the memory one, and as it notes in the article is largely only useful to people using virtualization, which I can't see Atomsk running many virtualized instances of Win 8 on a desktop machine. The Toms Hardware come away was: What the Windows 8 Desktop has over its predecessor is the updated File Explorer, revamped Task Manager, and new File History feature. However, if you're using a traditional keyboard/mouse-controlled desktop and already own Windows 7, those few features aren't worth the $200 that Microsoft's Windows 8 Pro upgrade will eventually cost. I will, however, be upgrading at the $40 promotional price. If you like what you see, now's the time to jump. If you already have a Windows 7-based PC, I'll concede that there really are no killer reasons to upgrade to Windows 8 today. It's just not as efficient as Windows 7 for those of us slogging away with a keyboard and mouse. Which'd be pretty much on par with the point I'm getting at. Ars: f you're a desktop user, then yes: the new interface is not perfect. Despite what Microsoft says, the new interface is a compromise. The new interface makes some things worse. It also makes some things better. If you're a multimonitor user, I would think long and hard before upgrading; as welcome as the new taskbar is, the ease of use of the new interface is a severe problem with multiple monitors. Which was also my experience. The only time both are quite positive about it is if you're making use of a tablet PC/laptop, which is what Windows 8 is built for, and so far a thing Atomsk is failing to build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowKnow Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Are any of you familiar with buying laptops? Looking to buy one for my dad to replace an ageing desktop. Haven't had that much time for research but, I narrowed it down to these two: Asus Vivobook Specifications: Operating System: Windows 8 Home Premium (64-bit) Display: 11.6" HD (1366*768) Display Processor: 3rd Gen Intel Core i3-3217U (1.8GHz) processor Graphics: Intel GMA HD Wireless: 802.11 b/g/n Bluetooth: BT 4.0 LAN: 10/100Mbps Fast Ethernet Controller Memory: 4GB DDR3 1333 MHz SDRAM Storage: 500GB HDD Camera: 0.3MP Speakers: Built-in Stereo speakers with Bang & Olufsen ICEpower Card Reader: 3 in 1 card reader (SD, MMC & MS) Input/ Output: 1 x Combo Mic-in & Headphone-out 1 x VGA port 1 x RJ-45 LAN 2 x USB 2.0 ports 1 x USB 3.0 ports 1 x HDMI port Battery: 2-cell Dimensions: 11.9" x 7.9" x 0.8"~0.9 (W x D x H) Lenovo Ideapad Specifications: AMD A10-4600M Accelerated Processor Windows® 8 15.6” backlit LED HD display (1366x768), 16:9 widescreen Integrated AMD Radeon™ HD 7660G graphics 6GB DDR3 memory, 1TB HDD storage Bluetooth 4.0 & integrated high-speed 802.11 b/g/n Wi-Fi Integrated DVD reader/writer USB 2.0, USB 3.0 connectors & 5-in-1 card-reader Integrated 720p HD webcam Integrated stereo speakers supporting Dolby Home Theatre v4 audio enhancement HD graphics support & HDMI output I figured a laptop would be best since he doesn't really need the performance of a desktop and the portability couldn't hurt in case he's on vacation or something. All he does on the computer is browse/stream/watch movies etc. Both laptops are within my ~$600 budget. The main differences I've noticed between the two is that the Vivobook has an 11.6" touchscreen which kinda falls under the "cool technology" section that my dad enjoys and it has a 500gb hard drive. The IdeaPad has a 15.6" screen which would probably be better for streaming/movies and also has a 1 tb hard drive. Was also thinking about buying an ssd as well, although I'm not sure how whether or not he would notice/appreciate the difference in boot time and I'm not familiar with how you install them in laptops. Any input would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I'm thinking of going with a SSD for System and a 1TB HDD for Storage. What capacity would be sufficient for a System Drive? I was looking at either a 64GB or 120GB where the price difference is about $22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Choose whatever you like and is in your price range. Any extra space beyond for the OS is for programs and maybe some games. Your Steam folder will be in the HDD. With that said, get the better SSD in terms of performance and longevity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Then I might go for the Samsung 840 Series 120GB SSD. There is the Crucial M4 64GB SSD, which still seems popular with almost 1,800 customer reviews. Still, the difference isn't that much in price, and the extra space is good for "what if." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 You can install Steam games in selective locations now, so while bulk would be in "storage/HDD", you will be able to put some on SSD if you wish. As far as SSDs go, look up stress tests and such, the difference between some brands can be quite big, and especially stay away from older tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 (edited) Are any of you familiar with buying laptops? Looking to buy one for my dad to replace an ageing desktop. Haven't had that much time for research but, I narrowed it down to these two: I figured a laptop would be best since he doesn't really need the performance of a desktop and the portability couldn't hurt in case he's on vacation or something. All he does on the computer is browse/stream/watch movies etc. Both laptops are within my ~$600 budget. The main differences I've noticed between the two is that the Vivobook has an 11.6" touchscreen which kinda falls under the "cool technology" section that my dad enjoys and it has a 500gb hard drive. The IdeaPad has a 15.6" screen which would probably be better for streaming/movies and also has a 1 tb hard drive. Was also thinking about buying an ssd as well, although I'm not sure how whether or not he would notice/appreciate the difference in boot time and I'm not familiar with how you install them in laptops. Any input would be appreciated. Does he have a monitor or easily-accessible HDTV? If so, he may just be able to plug the little one in when he wants to watch movies. I love my 11 inch laptop. But I think many people would rather have 1TB and a 15.6 inch screen. Atomsk88: My advice is not to get an SSD. Most folks don't really need it. Edited June 10, 2013 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 15 inch screen is about ideal for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I can dig 15 inch screens. But 11 inches is goddamned portable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Yeah, that's why if I went with a laptop, I'd go with an Ultrabook. Portability is a bit more expensive but it's so much more convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Yeah, I'm not someone who likes to use my laptop on the train or in the car or anything, I just like the portability of being able to take it to another room of the house, or on vacation with me, so 15 inches is fine. My parents both have 19 inch laptops, which are absolute behemoths. That is too big for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowKnow Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I think I'm going to go with this one http://www.amazon.ca/ASUS-VivoBook-S550CA-DS31T-CA-Notebook-Processor/dp/B00BZSCE82/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1370562845&sr=1-3&keywords=VivoBook 15.6" touch screen and it's only $60 higher than my original budget. He's got a HDTV near his computer desk if he's watching movies in that room otherwise the screen should be decent for viewing on its own. He likely won't need any extra portability since it'll just be for vacations/around the house. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Sounds like a good choice. Let us know how he likes it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) So I've noticed web browsers have been freezing up on me lately (only for a few seconds). A few weeks ago I had my system freeze entirely. After restarting, it got stuck on the Windows loading screen. Tried repairing and all that: nothing. So I reformatted and it was fine. Happened again today. I've also ran three HDD diagnostic tools that say my drives are fine with the exception of Seatools: one drive did fail one of five short self tests. Anyone have any idea what could be the problem? Edited June 20, 2013 by Saturnine Tenshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Tried a RAM test? I would bet it's your HDD but perhaps it's not showing up frequently I guess? Also, open a command prompt as an administrator and run sfc /scannow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 I haven't ran Memtest because I haven't had a CD/DVD to burn it to. Stupid reason, I know. It's not something I think about when I go out. The scan didn't come up with anything. Guess I should also mention that I've also tried scanning with AVG, Avast, Malwarebytes and MSE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Can't you just do it from a flash drive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 I never bother with memtest anymore because on two separate occasions I've had RAM that I /know/ was bad (later verified it in other ways), but memtest never found a problem either time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.