Upgraded laptop to Windows 8. WOW

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hermann

Site Donor 2023
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
5,512
Location
Kansas City
A week or so ago I did the $15 upgrade from Windows 7 to 8. I am impressed. It is super fast from screen to screen and waking up from hibernation or rebooting is also impressivly fast. This is on a HP 17" laptop w/ a so-so AMD processor, that I paid $379 for. I cannot imagine how fast a Intel Core 7 would be. The learning curve was about 2 evenings to feel comfortable. How do others who have used Windows 8 feel about it. My old desktop with XP is slowly dying and really have not liked newer computers with the OS's between XP and Windows 8. In the process now of transfering music, photos and the like. my
49.gif
 
Upgraded both laptops ... should have done a clean install, but upgraded over Win7 .. both start-up faster and seem more responsive. But, I did have to install start8 to get the start menu back.
 
Sorry no, I believe it is from June 2012 till Jan 2013, But IIRC you can get it for $40
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Wow... They got from 3 to 2000... And now they reverted back to 8?!?


Technically I think 2000 is actually Windows 5, it is "2000" because of the release year.
 
cchase is right, and JHZR2 is forgetting marketing.

The 2000/2003/2007/etc are marketing names for MS Windows and MS Office, the real version numbers are much lower.

My Windows XP reports [Version 5.1.2600] so it is the same core version as Windows 2000 (which succeeded Windows NT 4), just like Windows 7 is the same core version as Windows Vista.

Similarly, MS Office 2003 is version 11, Office 2007 is version 12, etc.
 
Yes, this is the first time (in a long time?) that we've had a point-two release. History tells us that point-zero is always a bad time and to wait for the point-one release.

Win95 = 4.0
Win98 = 4.1
WinME = 4.9

W2000 = 5.0
WinXP = 5.1

Vista = 6.0
Win 7 = 6.1
Win 8 = 6.2

Now, when Windows 7.0 is released it'll cause some techy mind-hurt.
 
Originally Posted By: martinq
Yes, this is the first time (in a long time?) that we've had a point-two release. History tells us that point-zero is always a bad time and to wait for the point-one release.

Win95 = 4.0
Win98 = 4.1
WinME = 4.9

W2000 = 5.0
WinXP = 5.1

Vista = 6.0
Win 7 = 6.1
Win 8 = 6.2

Now, when Windows 7.0 is released it'll cause some techy mind-hurt.


Interesting. Vista was so lousy and 7 works well enough that I thought surely they were two different OSes.
 
I am still trying to make up my mind about Windows 8. Without question there is some good new technology, and there is plenty of evidence that Windows 8 is faster.

I think that Microsoft should have allowed desktop computer users to focus more on the classic desktop and still be able to use the Metro stuff.

I might go with Windows 8 however. It is faster, more secure, you can do a recovery if necessary, and Windows still beats everybody when it comes to software and hardware compatibility.

Not to mention the fact that with virtualization you can run Windows 7 and other operating systems.
 
Get the classic shell, as mentioned above. It makes Windows feel like Windows once again.

Yes, it's fast. I installed Win7x64 on a home build Intel Q9400 CPU, 8GB RAM, 128GB Samsung SSD a couple weeks ago. Wiped it for Win8x64. While Win7 was quick, Win8 definitely feels faster on this same hardware all around. I'm pleasantly surprised at this release.

Enjoy!
 
I am almost definitely going to skip on windows 8 for my desktop and laptops. May possibly be interested in a tablet with Windows 8, because that's what Metro seems like it's really designed for.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I am still trying to make up my mind about Windows 8. Without question there is some good new technology, and there is plenty of evidence that Windows 8 is faster.

I think that Microsoft should have allowed desktop computer users to focus more on the classic desktop and still be able to use the Metro stuff.

Exactly this. I'd recommend waiting a few months and see how it pans out.
 
Originally Posted By: martinq
Yes, this is the first time (in a long time?) that we've had a point-two release. History tells us that point-zero is always a bad time and to wait for the point-one release.

Win95 = 4.0
Win98 = 4.1
WinME = 4.9

W2000 = 5.0
WinXP = 5.1

Vista = 6.0
Win 7 = 6.1
Win 8 = 6.2

Now, when Windows 7.0 is released it'll cause some techy mind-hurt.


Can't really compare Win 95 and its progeny with Win 2000 and its progeny. Win 95 was based on the old 3.0 kernel, was not 32 bit, and still had elements of DOS running in it. Win 2000 was based on the NT kernel of Win NT 3.1 and was a true 32 bit OS. Consumers didn't get the NT architecture until Win XP.
 
What is so off-putting about the start screen? Alt tab out of it into the desktop mode at start up. It works identically to the old start menu, just hit the Windows key and start typing to search... that's all I used the start menu for anyway.
 
As I said in another post, the new Metro desktop seems to harken back to the Program Manager of the Windows 3.x days. Obviously, there are visual and technological differences, but you have everything laid out for you on the desktop. No more dreaded Start Menu. I never liked that Start Menu...it forced you to use one button for too many different things. You had to think about the flowchart on how to do something rather than simply DOING it. That's what was great, in the UI sense, about Windows 3.x.

To me, W8 marks a return to the task-oriented nature of Windows 3.x, which is the change that folks bemoaned over 15 years ago with Windows 95. It took Microsoft that long to get it right again, but they did, and I applaud them for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top