ReactOS And IObit Winmetro

[EmuandCo]

If you just test Windows 8/8.1 open minded, you will se its quite nice. I use it for weeks now and am quite happy with it.

[DOSGuy]

I'm a programmer and I'm required to learn new languages on a regular basis. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when an operating system that I've been using for 20 years suddenly seems so foreign to me that I can't figure out how to do basic things like close applications or turn off my computer. I tried the Windows 8 demo and I felt as lost as I did the first time I used the Mac OS and Linux. Then I thought to myself, if I'm going to have to learn how to use Windows all over again, why not just switch to the Mac OS or Linux? People have stayed with Windows because they already know how to use it. Struggling through Windows 8 could be the jolt that people need to finally go to Linux or buy a Mac. If I had continued using Windows 8, I'm sure that I would have learned how to use it. But you know what? I'm tired. I have to maintain database driven websites in three different SQL dialects using multiple server-side languages, client-side languages, and markup languages. I spend all day learning how to do new things, or re-learning how to do something I've been doing for years in a new language or dialect. Everything is always changing. When I get home, I expect to know how to use my computer. I made the minor transitions through every version of Windows from 3.1 to 7 with minimal effort. Windows 8 baffled me, so I gave up on it. That's not a lack of intellectual curiosity or being a Luddite. I just want my f-ing computer to work without too much effort, and Windows 8 crossed my give-a-crap line. I'll learn it when I have to. I don't have time for that crap right now.

[Z98]

As someone who uses Windows 8 purely via the desktop, I don't quite understand all the complaining about Metro. It's trivially easy to avoid having to do anything in Metro and when you're on the desktop, it behaves just like Windows 7. So why exactly is avoiding Metro hard to do?

[hbelusca]

As someone who uses Windows 8 purely via the desktop, I don't quite understand all the complaining about Metro. It's trivially easy to avoid having to do anything in Metro and when you're on the desktop, it behaves just like Windows 7. So why exactly is avoiding Metro hard to do?

I'm a programmer and I'm required to learn new languages on a regular basis. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when an operating system that I've been using for 20 years suddenly seems so foreign to me that I can't figure out how to do basic things like close applications or turn off my computer.

So, in case you still didn't know how to shut-down a computer running Windows (all versions), press: Alt-F4 when being on the desktop. You'll see what happens (hint: http://media.askvg.com/articles/images3 ... s_8_PC.png ) (Note: I always did and still do that to shutdown the computer, it works since ages and still works on Windows 7 and 8). I still don't know why people want to search buttons on whatever in the interface to do such a thing.

[mrugiero]

So, in case you still didn't know how to shut-down a computer running Windows (all versions), press: Alt-F4 when being on the desktop. You'll see what happens (hint: http://media.askvg.com/articles/images3 ... s_8_PC.png ) (Note: I always did and still do that to shutdown the computer, it works since ages and still works on Windows 7 and 8). I still don't know why people want to search buttons on whatever in the interface to do such a thing.

I don't know how, but I actually forgot about good old Alt+F4. This fixes pretty much the only thing on Metro I still find REALLY annoying. Even though I prefer the start menu (and I know there are replacements), I don't find that annoying the start screen itself.

[DOSGuy]

As someone who uses Windows 8 purely via the desktop, I don't quite understand all the complaining about Metro. It's trivially easy to avoid having to do anything in Metro and when you're on the desktop, it behaves just like Windows 7. So why exactly is avoiding Metro hard to do?

To me, that's like saying "why should we fix the potholes when you can just drive on a different street?". I could learn to avoid the parts of Windows 8 that I don't like, but I'd rather wait until Microsoft fixes the potholes, or just continue using an operating system that doesn't have potholes.

[Dave3434]

i tired using windows 8, when i had to remove an anti virus that expired i wasn't able to i couldn't to the control panel, and windows 8 doesn't support older hardware.

[mrugiero]

windows 8 doesn't support older hardware.

That argument is pretty silly, actually. I don't see a need to use the most up to date OS in an older machine, and is not good to expect to cripple other users to keep support for older hardware (and is also very naive, as no company will work for free). Even Linux distributions are dropping support for older hardware. Also, hardware support should be up to hardware manufacturers, IMO, so you shouldn't blame Windows 8 for not supporting older hardware, but their makers for not writing a driver for it. And I say that as a user of hardware which support was dropped both from mesa and from Windows 7.

As someone who uses Windows 8 purely via the desktop, I don't quite understand all the complaining about Metro. It's trivially easy to avoid having to do anything in Metro and when you're on the desktop, it behaves just like Windows 7. So why exactly is avoiding Metro hard to do?

To me, that's like saying "why should we fix the potholes when you can just drive on a different street?". I could learn to avoid the parts of Windows 8 that I don't like, but I'd rather wait until Microsoft fixes the potholes, or just continue using an operating system that doesn't have potholes.

But not using Windows 8 only because of the interface is like not using your last model car because of the potholes. You can walk, but you do not have all the features of your last model car. The point is, it's a trade off. It can have good cost/benefit ratio to you or not, and you should decide based on it (at least if you want it to be a rational choice). If your only downside is the Metro interface and it's easily avoided, and whichever benefits Windows 8 has are good enough for you, you should use it.

[PurpleGurl]

I don't see a need to use the most up to date OS in an older machine, and is not good to expect to cripple other users to keep support for older hardware (and is also very naive, as no company will work for free). Even Linux distributions are dropping support for older hardware. Also, hardware support should be up to hardware manufacturers, IMO, so you shouldn't blame Windows 8 for not supporting older hardware, but their makers for not writing a driver for it. And I say that as a user of hardware which support was dropped both from mesa and from Windows 7.
...
But not using Windows 8 only because of the interface is like not using your last model car because of the potholes. You can walk, but you do not have all the features of your last model car. The point is, it's a trade off. It can have good cost/benefit ratio to you or not, and you should decide based on it (at least if you want it to be a rational choice). If your only downside is the Metro interface and it's easily avoided, and whichever benefits Windows 8 has are good enough for you, you should use it.

Ah, but you should be able to use your older machine and still use newer software. It would not be too hard for Microsoft to provide multiple code paths for different hardware. The only reason people with older equipment want to upgrade the OS is so the newer software will run. If it would run on what they have, there would be no need to upgrade the OS.

I see part of that is Microsoft's fault. They write a good portion of the software development tools. When they write a new OS, they usually upgrade their compilers and compiler libraries to require the new APIs, even for things that could be written without depending on them. So it forces end users to upgrade the OS and even their hardware to run things they could easily run on the older hardware and OS if compatible compiler libraries were used.

As for the rest of what you said, well, it is sort of like being prevented from driving your older car on the streets because the streets were modified to prevent your car from working on them. And it is more like not wanting to buy a new car because the seats are not comfortable and the dashboard is too confusing to use, it requires fuel and/or streets that is not compatible with your old car, and the steering wheel and fuel pedal was replaced by a joystick.

[betaluva]

not wanting to inflame things but "I HATE THE STUPID BUTTONLESS WINDOWS IN WINDOWS 8", they are step backwards! ewhy cant the user just click a button and close the window? ( even if its a "finger" sized button)

[Z98]

What exactly is the point in trying to offer full support for antiquated hardware? I personally can't think of any benefit that would outweigh the cost in resources. And by antiquated I'm pretty much including anything from the Pentium 4 era and before.

[Dave3434]

i can't agree, i don't why older hardware can't be supported and it would also run faster on newer machines too i just don't understand why we can't have it both ways.

[PurpleGurl]

This is for the previous two posts. Why should someone be forced to upgrade their hardware when their OS and hardware is working good enough for their applications? A lot of new software can be coded without requiring newer OSs, but they use compiler libraries that force the use of APIs which require an OS that artificially requires newer hardware. The holdup is the OS, not the machine. Now, I believe BOTH sides can be accommodated.

It seems there are two "political" mindsets at work here. There is the "liberal" notion of supporting everything out there from maybe the 486 or maybe the P1 or other socket 7 CPUs. There is the "conservative" notion of earning the right to the advantage gained by newer hardware. I actually am more of the performance minded here, and I don't think it is fair to be handicapped to support the older stuff. If I have decent equipment, I would expect an OS that can use a good balance between the most efficient logic and the best-performing opcodes. It was I who threw out the notion of a performance fork with more critical parts written in pure assembly and saying to hell with older machines. Hell, even try to harness CUDA as a co-processor on machines with the nVidia Fermi, at least when the CPU is getting bottle-necked. Take advantage of any trick or edge, and maybe even sacrifice a tiny bit of Windows compatibility.

But I don't see why the other approach cannot be applied. If parts can be recompiled to avoid certain newer instructions or features to run on older stuff, then why not? There are several ways to do this. One possibility is to release 3+ different versions. Have a "mainstream" release, a "performance" release, and a "legacy" release. Or, a single release could contain all 3, and the installer could determine what is the most appropriate. The only problem I see with an installer approach would be if someone were to put the drive in another machine that is not compatible with the exact file-set installed. Then another approach would be to use multiple code paths (more complex code and the last thing we need right now) or have all the files (bloat) and let HAL determine which set to run at any given time. Or, maybe that could be the job of a 3rd party distribution, and it could come with its own installer and upgrader that gets ROS-specific files from ROS and their own files from their own servers, with them doing the syncs and all that.

Right now, I believe the approach is stick to the middle, and if others want more choice, they could code it. They could code for older CPUs and/or code for performance just for specific chipsets.

[Angelus]

¿e-volution?

"I don't know why I have to learn another way to work with my computer using graphical desktops... I prefer to still work with my nice command prompt."

Current graphical desktops are the final step in OS evolution? There will be nothing else in the future? Will be the human kind condemned to work ever using current designs?

Or maybe it's necessary to try another ways to work with computers? Maybe Microsoft has been too radical using ModernUI in desktops... or maybe it could be a new point of view we all have to try and test... and then to judge.

[PurpleGurl]

Nobody should be "condemned" to use the current type. Then create a GUI only for those who feel condemned by the current technology. But they have no right to force their preference on the rest of us. I should have the right to use the current GUI for the rest of my life, and to have an OS that accommodates that. And if the rest want some newer way to do it, they should have that option, but not at my expense or the expense of my preferences, freedom, and rights.