Windows 8.1: Everything You Need to Know

78

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

someuid

Nothing, cause I'm staying on Windows 7. Have a fun time in BalmerLoveLand with your Etch-A-Sketch OS.

avatar

The Unshaven One

No Start Menu? No way to disable Metro entirely without having to resort to third party tweaks? Not interested. I'll still be sticking with Windows 7. Sorry Microsoft, this is a poor effort. Stop trying to fix things that aren't broken to begin with, and stop trying to force a tablet OS onto a desktop environment. Even with the new tweaks, Metro is still a massive waste of space and effort for anyone who recognizes that reaching up and leaning across the desk is an ergonomic nightmare and only a good idea if you like finger smudges all over your screen.

avatar

davelray

More like your entire comment is a waste of space. And by the way, Microsoft isn't trying to force you to use it. Since you obviously can and are using Windows 7 and will continue to be able to use it for many years to come. And since you don't have to have a touch screen monitor to use Windows 8 why are you so hung up on finger smudges?

avatar

hornfire3

well obviously no win7-style start menu in WinBlue,and there's no way you can disable metro entirely since that's hardcoded into windows 8. but you can somewhat disable metro by converting the start screen to the All Apps Menu and even shift the metro background to your desktop background so that when you accidentally/purposely press the Start Button, the desktop will seamlessly shift into the menu. By doing this, you can avoid metro easily, while keeping the Search function. the Win+X Menu [right click] is useful for system tools and even power down. In my opinion, in terms of disabling metro, Windows Blue has a lot of advantage over Windows 8, with the Taskbar Properties being the biggest secret weapon. Seriously man, go there and check it out yourself. it includes tons of options pretty much the same as what you expect from ClassicShell or Start8. By emphasizing the Desktop/Metro usability WinBlue is seriously about 85-90% proof that M$ had listened to us. (the last 10% is the metro and the missing start menu. thank Ballmer for that one.) Again, Microsoft this time listened and made a lot of effort to fix what was a broken OS.

avatar

Granite

If you don't have a touch screen monitor, why would you reach up and put fingerprints on the one you have? And, if you have a touch screen monitor, why can't you position it so you CAN touch it easily?

Sounds like some stupid objections to me. LOL!!

avatar

CyberCam

Wow! Condescending much?

avatar

warptek2010

Your snide condescensions here and in a previous post of yours above doesn't seem to cover up the fact that you're a really good tool, you take whatever is offered to you. Attaboy.

avatar

hornfire3

+1

avatar

CyberCam

+2

This fellow seems to want users not to have any right to choices and is willing to take anything that is shoved at him.

avatar

Granite

Actually, I am all about choices and Win8 gives me plenty of choices. I get nice, easy to use apps in the Start screen when I want to use them (and I do use them) and I have a more robust, full-featured desktop mode than Win7 offers for when I use more fun (games) or productive (video/audio creation) programs. Also, since I have two monitors, I can do both at the same time.

I have many more choices than anyone who runs that old Win7 OS.

avatar

danwat1234

Picture#4, 909GB total size... I bet that is really 909GiB and Explorer.exe is lying about it still? I wish Microsoft would show the true units of storage.

For instance with a 1TB drive, it'll say that the total capacity is only 931GB when really it is 931GiB. Explorer should stop lying.

Also it should fully support file paths longer than 255 characters, which NTFS does but explorer.exe does not. I am using TotalCommander often because of this.

avatar

davelray

Yeah uhm, this has what exactly to do with Windows 8.1 or the article you are commenting one? This is well known and well documented. Microsoft, as well as other operating systems, use the traditional method of calculating storage, hard drive manufacturers use a different method. This hasn't changed for many, many years and I doubt it will ever change.

avatar

danwat1234

But you see the hard drive companies are telling the truth when it comes to storage units, Windows lies, it is deceptive.
They could change it anytime they want to. I don't get why they use base 2 numbers and then paste in base 10 notation. I know it is because they've been doing it since the beginning but they could correct their mistake any time they want to. Oh well

avatar

davelray

....... No one is lying or being deceptive though. The math comes out the same either way.

avatar

Granite

LOL!!! This is TOOOO Funny!!!

MS corrects the problems with Win8 that has caused oodles of MS haters to go off the rails about the OS...and what happens?

They got to dig up this old cannard to complain about!

Give me a break!

avatar

pastorbob

+1 -> Granite

avatar

severnia

Its not explorer or even windows for that matter causing this. You can blame drive manufacturers. a "1TB" hard drive is (nearly always) 1000GB (not 1024GB to make a full 1TB) and that is raw space. formatting takes an additional chunk away.

The OS you use makes no difference to the size of the drive, the only difference you will see will be a negligible amount of change between file system types (how you format your drive) such as NTFS for Microsoft and EXT for Linux. there are a great many different file systems out there, some have less of a foot print (used drive space) but usually at the cost of advanced features that you may or may not use.

Windows DOES support file paths longer than 255 characters, but because of backwards compatibility quirks, will only do so if the appropriate unicode type path name is used. please see:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247.aspx

avatar

danwat1234

A full 1 TB is 1000GB, a full 1TiB is 1000GiB?

The way I understand it, the drive does hold a full 1TB (1000GB) but of course only about 931GiB. The problem is that Explorer uses the base 2 unit system but doesn't indicate that. So it would show that 1000GB drive has only 931GB of total space when really the total space is 931GiB. If they state "GiB" instead of "GB" then Explorer would be telling the truth.

I think the hard drive manufactures are in the clear because a full 1000GB is available on a 1000GB hard drive after NTFS formatting. It's just that Microsoft uses base 2 but doesn't show the proper units.

Yep, 255+ character file paths work fine if I use TotalCommander.

avatar

jbitzer

It's bar drive manufacturers that are lying, not windows. A byte is 8 bits, a kb is 1024 bits etc. hdd manufacturers decided in the 90s as soon as we got to gigabyte sizes to count a GB as 1000 MB instead of the true 1024 it should be. That is why windows shows a smaller drive size, it is using true size in B, KB, MB, GB size, while your drive manufacturer is ripping you off of 24 MB per GB, and 24 GB per TB.

Would you rather be lied to about the sizes so your numbers match up?

avatar

Mikey109105

I won't touch Windows 8 with a 5 foot pole until they release a Desktop Only edition that removes the Start Screen in its entirety. I despise the Start Screen, and yes I have tried Windows 8, and I absolutely hated it. Bringing back the start button only to force people to revert to the start screen is a big mistake. yes, they added an all apps option, but it's all the same to me. I'd rather have my Start Menu, which Microsoft claims no one uses (I'm still waiting to see their physical proof of that statement). Sorry, but all this update makes me want to do is kneel down and kiss Windows 7's feet.

avatar

LatiosXT

Then you can leave Windows behind and use Linux or Mac OS X, or you can find a third party start menu to install. Because Microsoft is not going back from the Start Screen.

And in all honesty, the Start Menu needed replacing/improvement anyway. It was designed around old 1995 UI principles when everyone had at best a 640x480 screen on a 17" CRT monitor.

avatar

fung0

It is amazing how much of the Windows 8 discussion is about the Start Screen... as if the absence of detriments was the same as the presence of compelling reasons to upgrade.

Yes, it's true: if I don't like the Start Screen, installing Classic Desktop is a great option. But not nearly as great as JUST STICKING WITH WINDOWS 7. Why would I buy a new OS and spend hours getting everything updated, just to go on doing exactly what I'm doing already?

The opposite argument is even more powerful. Why would I install a new OS just to get a new program launcher? Why shouldn't I be able to just install 'Metro Desktop' on Windows 7, and have great big colorful tiles to stare at? (If there isn't such a product already, there will be by the time you finish reading this.)

Oy, yeah... I know someone will gleefully point out all the fantastic tweaks Microsoft has made in Windows 8. It's true, I AM awestruck by the new copy dialog, the lack of transparency effects on window borders, the imperceptibly-faster performance and the ability to run de-featured, touch-based apps on my immensely powerful mouse-based desktop PC. But somehow, none of these fabulous extras is quite enough to distract me from the fact that Windows 8 doesn't do anything that Windows 7 didn't do perfectly well. Mostly, what this "upgrade" brings is just hours of re-installing and re-learning. And when Microsoft rolls out triangular tiles two years from now, I'll just have to do it all over again.

Call me crazy, but I really don't care what program launcher comes with Windows 8. What I do care about is paying for it. I'll eagerly spend my time and money for genuine innovation, for gains in productivity, for access to powerful new technologies. But I won't pay Microsoft to rearrange the furniture in order to conceal its lack of meaningful ideas.

avatar

tferrill

Completely agree. Personally I don't have a problem with the Start Screen. In Windows 7 I primarily use the search fuction anyway, even when launching apps. The Start Screen doesn't change the way I use Windows.

In regards to people not using the Start Menu anyway I can confirm that's true for a lot of users. I support around 400 users in my workplace, and the majority of them don't even know something is installed unless it's sitting on the desktop.

avatar

severnia

or he can stay with windows 7 as he apparently plans to. XP hung around for a VERY long time and can still be found out in the wild for similar reasons. I would put money on that Win7 will be around for at least another decade.

avatar

jimmthang

I initially had my hesitations with Windows 8 as well, but I think it's been great with the free classic shell app which allows the OS to sport a traditional Start button.

Have you tried classic shell on Windows 8? It's like getting the best of Windows 7 and 8 in one package.

avatar

rchris

Nice summary, but a couple of errors: In your first screen you say that the Start button "still launches the Start Screen rather than a menu." Wrong. You now have the choice of the button bringing up the Start Screen or the All Apps menu (see the 4th option under "Start screen" in the image in your Slide #3).

In Slide #4 you report "Gone from the navigation pane are the Libraries." Yes, they are off by default, but still available (good news for the 7 or 8 of us Windows users who use Libraries).

avatar

tferrill

Updated those slides for clarity. Thanks for the feedback!

avatar

tferrill

All apps "menu" is still full screen not really a menu. But true, that is an option.

The libraries are still there they just aren't broken out in their own category in the navigation pane. They can be found under "This PC."

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.