Creston wrote on Nov 2, 2012, 11:01:

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 18:41:

Creston wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 17:32:
I like how everyone ignores that MS's wonderful installer gives him the exact same option twice. So either the installer is fucking stupid, or it somehow is reading two of his drives as identical volumes and assigning them the same volume number.

If it's the latter, he's going to have all kinds of fun data loss in the not-so-terribly-far future.

Creston

You must have me blocked, because I've repeatedly said that this is the point of the guy's comment, and said that Microsoft very severely dropped the ball here.

My bad, missed that.

Creston

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 18:41:

Creston wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 17:32:
I like how everyone ignores that MS's wonderful installer gives him the exact same option twice. So either the installer is fucking stupid, or it somehow is reading two of his drives as identical volumes and assigning them the same volume number.

If it's the latter, he's going to have all kinds of fun data loss in the not-so-terribly-far future.

Creston

You must have me blocked, because I've repeatedly said that this is the point of the guy's comment, and said that Microsoft very severely dropped the ball here.

InBlack wrote on Nov 2, 2012, 06:58:
I have only one question:

Are there any benchmarks (dualboot on the same machine) of Win7 compared to Win8 side by side???

Things that interest me in particular, boot up time, performance in various programs (when did apps become the 'new' in-thing anyway?) and load times.

The only possible reason why I would upgrade to Win8 is if it were faster then Win7 AND I could be certain that there were no restrictions on which programs (apps if you like) I could run on my machine.

InBlack wrote on Nov 2, 2012, 06:58:
I have only one question:

Are there any benchmarks (dualboot on the same machine) of Win7 compared to Win8 side by side???

Things that interest me in particular, boot up time, performance in various programs (when did apps become the 'new' in-thing anyway?) and load times.

The only possible reason why I would upgrade to Win8 is if it were faster then Win7 AND I could be certain that there were no restrictions on which programs (apps if you like) I could run on my machine.

Enahs wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 19:17:
Actually, there are some other things besides the new interface.

On the background, Windows now has Kernal timing clock cycle savings ability linux had like 10 years ago (or something) and Mac has since 2007.

It also has some memory saving features, that again, Linux had for a while now.

So it is significantly more efficient on memory and power.
For a super computer, you will not notice it; and yes it does benefit tablets more then anything; but it does help out regular laptops as well. And in general, making anything more efficient is good!

There are a lot of other behind the scene features upgraded, that other OSs have had for a while now. Again, they do not make a major different on powerful PCs; but, again, efficiency is better!

It is a substantial improvement in the OS, that will not actually have any tangible benefits for a lot of people.

Windows 8 is really pointless - it is basically Windows 7 with a neat, quirky start screen that plays like a massive Bing desktop

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 2, 2012, 06:24:

NegaDeath wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 22:54:

Suuuuuuuure you did.

Believe what you want. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean that others don't.

NegaDeath wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 22:54:

Suuuuuuuure you did.

Cutter wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 22:59:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 20:43:
Snobby c|net author:
"Volume" how very 1980's, I prefer...digital storage device! How could anyone deal with such low brow technology.

Hipster:
I was using volumes before they were cool.

Q: How many hipsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Oh it's a pretty obscure number. You've probably never heard of it.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 20:43:
Snobby c|net author:
"Volume" how very 1980's, I prefer...digital storage device! How could anyone deal with such low brow technology.

Hipster:
I was using volumes before they were cool.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 19:16:
Easily done:

S0,SDA1,P1,Volume 0 - System Reserved
S0,SDA1,P2,Volume 1, - Windows
S1,SDA2,P1,Volume 2, - Apps and Games
S2,SDA3,P1,Volume 3, - Media

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 15:40:
This was an incredibly stupid article. The author needs to stick with mobile devices if something as fundamental as a "volume" blows his mind.

NegaDeath wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 17:16:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 16:32:
Volume location and identification is one of the most fundamental things blah blah

List out the volume numbers of your drives and partitions but only do it off the top of your head. If we're to replicate his experience then you can't use control panel to look it up.

Ray Marden wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 18:28:
I've been running Windows 8 since the official release day without a single issue. I never tried any of the beta versions, having only watched a few preview videos, and I got lazy - I just popped in the DVD and had it do an install over my existing Windows 7 keeping all Windows and personal files.

One hour later, I was running Windows 8 and haven't looked back. This was the single easiest install of any operating system that I have ever done. And it did not just give me a barren OS; it actually kept everything - all my documents, all my programs, I didn't have to reinstall a single game, I have all my bookmarks, it remembered my user and computer name, etc.
The writer of the "article" seems like a moron with an axe to grind.
Windows 8 is really pointless - it is basically Windows 7 with a neat, quirky start screen that plays like a massive Bing desktop or a massive representation of a cell phone's simplified interface. I will say it is actually fun to have something new to explore or play around with as part of a Windows OS, but it really does feel like something running atop Windows 7 instead of a brand new OS (which, I know, is the opposite of what it really is...) More than anything, I wish the Metro desktop did more - many things can only be done in the Windows 7 app (Metro will kick you back to it) or the Metro version is inferior to the Windows 7 app version (customization, ease of access, handling multiple windows, etc.)

All that aside, it was $40 for the physical product, it is working without any issues, seems to be slightly more responsive, and I was blown away by how simple the installation was. If you want the latest and greatest and want to have a little fun within Windows, give it a shot. You can readily work from whichever desktop you want.

But make no doubt - nobody needs this install. It is not a fully fledged OS. From a functional perspective, it acts like Windows 7 with a quirky GUI/splash screen that can readily be bypassed.

That aside, I am glad I spent the $40.00 to have even one moment of "fun" with the OS. I can't remember the last time I said that about Windows itself...

Noting that Windows 7 (app) is missing the Start button and transparencies,
Ray

Creston wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 17:32:
I like how everyone ignores that MS's wonderful installer gives him the exact same option twice. So either the installer is fucking stupid, or it somehow is reading two of his drives as identical volumes and assigning them the same volume number.

If it's the latter, he's going to have all kinds of fun data loss in the not-so-terribly-far future.

Creston

Creston wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 17:32:
I like how everyone ignores that MS's wonderful installer gives him the exact same option twice. So either the installer is fucking stupid, or it somehow is reading two of his drives as identical volumes and assigning them the same volume number.

If it's the latter, he's going to have all kinds of fun data loss in the not-so-terribly-far future.

Creston