Author Topic: XP to 7 migration tomorrow - OMG - heart attack or bliss? (Read 11568 times)

fohat.digs · « **on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 22:10:29 »

Always the scariest day of the half-decade or so, for me - the day I cut the lifeline and make a fresh start.

I don't like to change computers and operating systems very often, and I did not give up DOS until Windows 98 came along, but was not too reluctant to make the leap to XP about 2003. However, as my silicone valley friend says, I think it's time to "nuke and pave" to start over once more.

Hey, my favorite keyboards were built when Reagan was president, so how crusty am I? I built a monster tower about 5 years ago, and stuck with XP, for a second 5 year hitch, never even considered Vista for a nanosecond. I crack her open a couple of times a year and upgrade a piece at a time, so it is still pretty robust. Hardware inadequacy is not my issue.

I would be willing to stay with XP for another couple of years, but the writing is on the wall, and I got a copy of 7 Professional for a good price. So here we go. Everything is backed up, and tomorrow is the big day. I figure something like this is an all-day affair, and considerable cursing and sweating will be involved, along with helpless boredom.

To begin with, the case will be opened, and some minor pieces will be upgraded, such as the card reader and some fans. Biggest item is a new 600W power supply. No issues with the old one, but it can't hurt, and there are enough people/computers in my family that I know I will probably find a use for the old one eventually.

I plan to unplug all the drives except for C: (don't ask how many are in there, it is almost embarrassing) just for safety's sake. When 7 is operational, I will pack everything back into its corner behind the desk in the maze of miles of wires.

So, if you don't hear from me for a while, that's why.

PS - did I mention that I am a glutton for punishment, and that I dual-boot to Ubuntu and will upgrade from 10.04 to 12.04 at the same time? I really must be crazy. I am not looking forward to the 12.04 thing, that "Unity" desktop seems like garbage from what I have used of it, but no use trying to swim against the current. Even though I am old and stubborn, I have finally learned to go all the way when I finally take the plunge.

PPS - by far my biggest gripe with 7 is that they emasculated Windows Explorer, the center of my computing universe, and my pathway to everything. WTF are "libraries" and "collections" anyway? Who ever said that there was ANYTHING WRONG with directory trees?

fohat.digs · « **Reply #1 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 22:17:45 »

Receiving my PC World magazine a week or so ago, and reading about Windows 8, was what made me decide to move up to 7 "for the duration"

Windows 8 looks like all my worst nightmares rolled into one.

retsteel · « **Reply #2 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 22:57:35 »

windows 8 is what made me decide to install linux on a few machines.

The_Beast · « **Reply #3 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 23:41:29 »

Every other windows usually sucks, I predict Window 8 will be a flop

Anyways for the topic, backup your data and install Window 7. You won't regret it

rknize · « **Reply #4 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 23:50:23 »

I finally bit the bullet recently as well, same as you. I mostly use the machine for gaming, so it just has to stay sane enough for that. The "upgrade" (really a reinstall) went OK. So far, Win7 seems decent.

silat · « **Reply #5 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 00:21:53 »

7 is best MS OS ever.
I would skip 8 and wait for the 2nd version....

Malphas · « **Reply #6 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 05:40:40 »

Quote from: The_Beast;602504

Every other windows usually sucks

Trite nonsense, repeated enough times that people believe it. XP is heralded as some sort of saint of Windows OSes, when it was actually frickin' terrible upon release, and had the exact same driver, comparability and performance issues that Vista had when it came out. Except everyone forgot that after running it for years on massively overpowered hardware and two service packs. Windows 7 is essentially near identical to Vista, yet everyone likes it, and that's mainly just due to the hardware and drivers catching up again, rather than improvements in the OS itself.

Also, Windows 7 is fine, OP. Just replace your Explorer usage with a third party alternative if you need directory trees. I find the breadcrumbs thing provides pretty much the exact same function though, while being a lot less messy, and libraries are optional of course. The Taskbar overhaul is great, don't be one of those awful people that configures it to work as closely to XP as possible, just get used to the new system and you'll fine it's about a hundred times better than XP's.

GeorgeStorm · « **Reply #7 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 06:05:18 »

I made the move earlier this year since getting an SSD.

Took me a while to get used to it, now fine, wouldn't say it's miles better than XP, but it's not worse either (atleast for my uses) once you work out where the options are now etc

I wouldn't got Windows8, as ripster said, it's a tablet OS, and in my opinion horrific.

Malphas · « **Reply #8 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 06:19:13 »

Have you used it? It's just a further refinement of Windows 7, the way 7 was of Vista. Yes, Metro UI is clearly for tablets and will probably work pretty well on them, and for desktop it's stupid, but it takes literally one click after booting Windows 8 to get into the traditional (well, Windows 7) desktop, so it's hardly a big deal.

Thing is, I don't think it would take a huge amount of tweaking to have made Metro desktop PC friendly, with better keyboard and mouse controls. Nobody sane still uses the "all programs" part of the Start Menu anymore, so essentially it's just become a search field with a few application/directory shortcut icons - there's no reason that functionality can't be incorporated better into a fullscreen GUI instead of restricted to the bottom-right corner.

The biggest problem with Windows 8 is that it's going to be a disjointed mess from an ecosystem perspective, with some people (desktop/desktop replacement users) permanently using it in desktop mode with desktop software, and then tablet/ultraportables using the Metro UI and Metro apps, which defeats the purpose of having one operating system across all devices in the first place.

Lanx · « **Reply #9 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 06:56:48 »

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)

win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)

keyboardlover · « **Reply #10 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:13:02 »

Win 8 = Win 7 + Metro - start button

Maarten · « **Reply #11 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:16:00 »

For stupid simple machines id like to keep fast i still prefer XP.... For the fancy full on media experience its hard to beat 7 tho, havent tried 8 yet.

GeorgeStorm · « **Reply #12 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:16:40 »

Yeah I have used it.
Just didn't like it, you say it only takes one click to get to a W7 like desktop.
Well, with W7, it doesn't take any

I may try it again in the future, see if they've improved it (in my eyes) otherwise I've no desire to 'upgrade'.

N8N · « **Reply #13 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:17:23 »

So have you done it yet? IMHO hold off on updating ubuntu to 12.04 because it's a buggy mess on my system which was fine under 10.04. I'm not even sure if auto updates are offered for 10.04 yet I think LTS users don't get prompted until later. But I thought to myself, "what could possibly go wrong?"

Malphas · « **Reply #14 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:24:35 »

Quote from: Lanx;602648

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good

Again, absolute crap.

nmd · « **Reply #15 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 19:38:10 »

I REALLY like Win7, the only thing I needed to make it perfect would be Expose, which thankfully Switcher accomplishes well enough.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #16 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 22:16:59 »

Worked pretty well, took all day. Haven't tackled the 10.04 - 12.04 beast yet.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 51800[/ATTACH]

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 51801[/ATTACH]

Thanks for the words of encouragement!

HolidaySHRIMP · « **Reply #17 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 23:42:11 »

Windows 8 can be used without ever going into metro ui.

alaricljs · « **Reply #18 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 23:55:46 »

Quote from: HolidaySHRIMP;603588

Windows 8 can be used without ever going into metro ui.

beta perhaps... MS has plans to change that.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #19 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 00:11:18 »

Quote from: Lanx;602648

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)

win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)

Quote from: Malphas;602662

Again, absolute crap.

Too simplistic maybe. Millenium did suck IMHO, Vista is pretty good by this point although I hated it at first. As much as I love XP, it like most version of Windows, wasn't great till getting a service pack or two.

quickcrx702 · « **Reply #20 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 01:43:18 »

Quote from: Lanx;602648

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)

win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)

I mostly agree that every other Windows version pretty much sucks, and that Millenium was garbage. However, I noticed that you omitted Windows 2000, which was the business alternative to Windows ME, and was one of the most stable and best performing operating systems Microsoft ever put out.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #21 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 02:00:55 »

Quote from: quickcrx702;603640

I mostly agree that every other Windows version pretty much sucks, and that Millenium was garbage. However, I noticed that you omitted Windows 2000, which was the business alternative to Windows ME, and was one of the most stable and best performing operating systems Microsoft ever put out.

As I understand it, Windows ME was based on Windows 98 while XP was based on the same kernel as Windows 2000 which was a great & stable OS.

Malphas · « **Reply #22 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 03:51:07 »

Actually Lanx' list was perfectly consistent with regard to what versions he included, those all follow a lineage of being consumer oriented releases from 3.1 onwards. If you were to include Windows 2000 then it makes no sense, because it then becomes a list of consumer oriented versions with one corporate version included (another reason this good/bad thing is nonsense is that everyone seems to just include whatever random versions of Windows they like to shoehorn it into fitting their false pattern). If you include 2000 then why aren't you also including the various NT versions that 2000 was derived from as well? Or why aren't you just including everything, including CE versions?

Also, did you guys actually use 2000 for any length of time or are you just repeating the same tired cliches said by uninformed people all over the web? Sure, 2000 (and NT in general) is technically superior to 9x, but at the time 2000 was obviously completely useless if you wanted to use a graphics card, or play Half-Life or something. I don't think people can tell the difference between user experience quality - which is dependant on a number of factors, and technical quality. Vista was technically sound, much moreso than XP was upon release, but the general ecosystem at the time made it less compelling, due to the steeper hardware requirements, incompatible software, driver issues, etc. - i.e the exact same things people complained about when XP was released. Am I really the only person on the Internet that has a functioning memory?

Malphas · « **Reply #23 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 04:04:54 »

Here's what I'd say a fair summing up of the Windows versions was, without the rose-tinted glasses and trying to fit a silly cliche:

Windows 1.0-3.1 (not even a real OS, just a frontend and application suite for MS-DOS essentially) > Windows 95 (awful), Windows 98 (awful), Windows 98SE (slightly less awful), Windows Me (awful)

Windows NT (irrelevant) > Windows 2000 (sound), Windows XP (rubbish) > Windows XP SP1 (OK), Windows XP SP2 (good), Windows XP SP3 (good) > Windows Vista (rubbish) > Windows Vista SP1 (OK), Windows Vista SP2 (good) > Windows 7 (good)

TheProfosist · « **Reply #24 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 04:26:29 »

There are some tweaks you going to want to do so that explorer let you navigate as you used to i believe their all in the files part of the control panel. I can post some screenshots of the settings i use for that and other thing if intertested but it makes win 7 a much happier environment for me.

I am alod looking forward to win8 not metro but just about everything else their doing will only improve how the os runs on the hardware.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #25 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 06:36:44 »

My experience is that once you start using Win 7, you WON'T want to go to XP.

It is significantly better.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #26 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 08:39:40 »

Quote from: Malphas;603691

Actually Lanx' list was perfectly consistent with regard to what versions he included, those all follow a lineage of being consumer oriented releases from 3.1 onwards. If you were to include Windows 2000 then it makes no sense, because it then becomes a list of consumer oriented versions with one corporate version included (another reason this good/bad thing is nonsense is that everyone seems to just include whatever random versions of Windows they like to shoehorn it into fitting their false pattern). If you include 2000 then why aren't you also including the various NT versions that 2000 was derived from as well? Or why aren't you just including everything, including CE versions?

Also, did you guys actually use 2000 for any length of time or are you just repeating the same tired cliches said by uninformed people all over the web? Sure, 2000 (and NT in general) is technically superior to 9x, but at the time 2000 was obviously completely useless if you wanted to use a graphics card, or play Half-Life or something. I don't think people can tell the difference between user experience quality - which is dependant on a number of factors, and technical quality. Vista was technically sound, much moreso than XP was upon release, but the general ecosystem at the time made it less compelling, due to the steeper hardware requirements, incompatible software, driver issues, etc. - i.e the exact same things people complained about when XP was released. Am I really the only person on the Internet that has a functioning memory?

Windows 2000 was a good server and workstation OS which is what it was. I used it in both of those capacities and in fact still have a handful of servers running it although it's obsolete and needs to be updated. Hell I still have a box here at home with 2000 on it although it's powered off at the moment.

Quote from: Malphas;603698

Here's what I'd say a fair summing up of the Windows versions was, without the rose-tinted glasses and trying to fit a silly cliche:

Windows 1.0-3.1 (not even a real OS, just a frontend and application suite for MS-DOS essentially) > Windows 95 (awful), Windows 98 (awful), Windows 98SE (slightly less awful), Windows Me (awful)

Windows NT (irrelevant) > Windows 2000 (sound), Windows XP (rubbish) > Windows XP SP1 (OK), Windows XP SP2 (good), Windows XP SP3 (good) > Windows Vista (rubbish) > Windows Vista SP1 (OK), Windows Vista SP2 (good) > Windows 7 (good)

That's a pretty good list. Windows for workgroups 3.11 was quite stable and useful. Windows 95 might have been awful but was pretty huge for Microsoft Windows based consumer products. Windows NT might be irrelevant for most home users but then so is Windows 2000, and both were great workstation & server products. And NT an essential link in the chain. And nobody mentioned OS/2 which was technically quite good in some ways but unfortunately snuffed out by Gates' anti-competitive vendor bundling practices before it became fashionable to call Micro$oft on those practices. By the time IBM tried to do anything about this, it was all over.

Wildcard · « **Reply #27 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 09:56:27 »

Windows 7 will be a nice migration from XP, assuming your hardware works well with Win7. No more Aero on Windows 8. I've been testing the Windows 8 consumer preview for about a month now and it has yet to grow on me. Very weird/awkward. But hey, they include a multi-monitor taskbar now.

I think the reccomended migration is XP --> Win 7 --> OS X

keyboardlover · « **Reply #28 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 09:58:10 »

Quote from: RiffRaff;603865

I think the reccomended migration is XP --> Win 7 --> OS X

OS X?

Ewwwwwww.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #29 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 10:15:40 »

Profosist - thanks!

There was some tweaking in there that was very helpful.

Why do they have to keep moving and changing everything? Like the "ribbon" in Office a few years ago, they seemed to take the really important stuff like "Tools" and "Options" and "View" and scattered the pieces willy-nilly throughout the (greatly bloated) new menu system.

As much as I would like to switch everything back to "Classic" setup, I know that will just prolong my agony. Time to start learning where everything is, all over again.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #30 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 12:49:08 »

Quote from: fohat.digs;603878

Profosist - thanks!

There was some tweaking in there that was very helpful.

Why do they have to keep moving and changing everything? Like the "ribbon" in Office a few years ago, they seemed to take the really important stuff like "Tools" and "Options" and "View" and scattered the pieces willy-nilly throughout the (greatly bloated) new menu system.

As much as I would like to switch everything back to "Classic" setup, I know that will just prolong my agony. Time to start learning where everything is, all over again.

Well, progress can be painful. I hated the ribbon interface in office but found a good crutch with ubitmenu which essentially added all the classic options on a new menu tab. Then I would try to figure it out with the ribbon and go to the classic menu if I couldn't. Allowed me to learn but not get stuck if I couldn't figure it out.

longweight · « **Reply #31 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 13:37:57 »

I love the Win7 Ribbons, so easy to find the page you need with the scroll wheel!

keyboardlover · « **Reply #32 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 13:40:18 »

You'll love Windows 8 then.

LOTS of ribbons!

emptyk · « **Reply #33 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 14:14:46 »

Quote from: longweight;604026

I love the Win7 Ribbons, so easy to find the page you need with the scroll wheel!

can you elaborate? I am not familiar with this feature.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #34 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 17:26:54 »

Quote from: emptyk;604051

can you elaborate? I am not familiar with this feature.

Nice avatar, haven't seen that one in years.

Internetlad · « **Reply #35 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 17:29:31 »

Quote

wtf are Libraries and Collections

Glossing over the actual question as I assume it was rhetorical, some people who don't understand the intricacies of computer folder hierarchy (IE 95% of computer users) appreciate having all their pictures consolidated in one place, and I often use it as a selling point when pushing 7 based machines.

As much of a PITA learning a new OS from "scratch" can be, as far as i'm concerned, go with the flow, in a month you'll be used to the new OS and in 6 months you can complain about windows 8.

(IMHO XP and 7 are very similar, I use both regularly and it's mostly stuff getting moved or renamed.)

1391401 · « **Reply #36 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:11:14 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;603749

My experience is that once you start using Win 7, you WON'T want to go to XP.
It is significantly better.

I agree and I am typically resistant to upgrading operating systems as well.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #37 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:12:36 »

No, the question was not rhetorical at all.

Although I understand that the actual points upon the disk where the data dots are ACTUALLY burned down is not a contiguous "map" as it were, I am a very "visual" person and I need to be able to "see" what I am attempting to conceptualize.

A single, straightforward, unambiguous directory tree is the clearest and easiest way for me to "get my head around" what I am looking for, and how to get to there.

Telling me that, hey, "here are 5 different ways to get to the same place" is like handing me a plate of spaghetti when I have asked for a map.

I do a lot of driving, and I go nuts when somebody gives me directions via landmarks. I have to have a map in my mind, so that I can understand what my route "looks like" on the ground, or I cannot function.

How can I comprehend that what might look like a root-level directory called "Pictures" is actually a subdirectory called "My Pictures" to another subdirectory called "My Documents" to another subdirectory called "harry" in a directory called "Documents and Settings" in a root-level directory called "Users"?

What is the purpose of these layers of obfuscation besides making logical people insane?

Shortcuts are great, and I use them all the time, but there needs to be SOME place where you can cut through the crap and see with clarity.

Philosophers and linguists devote a lot of thought to "symbols" and I agree that symbols are supremely dangerous because they replace and displace reality, taking on an artificial importance of their own, when they should be totally subservient to whatever it is that they are representing.

IMO, that is.

So, I reiterate, WTF are libraries and collections and playlists and all these other ways of artificially "tagging" things, if they prevent you from going straight to the source?

"Mostly stuff getting moved or renamed" Holy Sh*t! who moved my cheese! Why move or rename stuff?

alaricljs · « **Reply #38 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:15:47 »

The pain with libraries/collections is I haven't found a way to obliterate them. I don't like the 'logical' folder with all my crap in it from various locations. There are reasons I save data to particular folders/partitions/drives and I don't want to jump through hoops to accomplish it.

sth · « **Reply #39 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:22:50 »

I've done an all right job of just ignoring Libraries and Collections altogether. Has no effect on my Windows Explorer usage other than some superfluous visual cruft in the sidebar.

IvanIvanovich · « **Reply #40 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:47:13 »

Libraries is just like symlinks, or well an xml database of symlinks to be more specific. If you don't want to use it, ignore it. I like it for sharing on network. I can keep my things organized in however manner I want, but to make it easy for others I can dump all my carefully categorized directory structure into MUSIC as an example for everyone else. Other people seem to be more happy to wade through my music collection viewing files in alphabetical order than drilling through my BPM / genre / sub genre / artist / album structure. Hey I'm a DJ... BPM is most important. I don't expect other people to want organized like that, and it's better if they don't even see it.
Learning new gui can take time, but I usually hardly care what is done with it asides form personal taste as long as they don't screw around with short cut keys. There are several new ones, and changes in 7 by the way. I recommend to start there as many of them are quite handy.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #41 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 20:39:47 »

My music collection is an excellent example. I have owned too many thousands of LPs and CDs in my lifetime, and now it is also all pretty much stored digitally on my 2TB hard drive, which is great, because I can listen to anything I want without even standing up! 30K+ "songs" in my MP3 collection, as it were

If I want to listen to a CD or LP, I pull it off the shelf and cue it up. Afterwards, I return it to its physical location. 90% is "Jazz" or "Rock" with half a dozen small categories occupying a lesser niche. So, mentally, I do have to know what "style" it is, I grant you that. It is actually very straightforward, and I have very little trouble, except that that intersection of Rock/Folk/Blues where it gets seriously blurred. Once Folk and Blues get electrified, they really sound like Rock, to me, but I digress.

The basic question, as I see it, is:

Top - Down

Bottom - Up

or

Inside - Out

For example, if I want to listen to "Conference of the Birds" by Dave Holland, I go, , to the D: drive, to the "Jazz" directory, to the "Dave Holland" directory, to the "1972 Conference of the Birds" folder, and select either the entire album or the individual track, and "play" it. I cannot conceive of a simpler or more direct method to accomplish this.

What is a "playlist" but some sort of virtual mix-CD? I always go along, song-by-song, or album-by-album, depending on my mood. I have little desire to decide now, what I will be listening to in 2 hours! Otherwise I would just make a mix-CD for the car!

All this "Library" business just seems like turning everything inside-out, to me. I have spent an awful lot of time ripping and burning and carefully placing things where I want them. Just dumping them into a big pot with "tags" on them sounds a lot like the old Vietnam-era saying: "Just nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out"

But that's just me, a hopeless old fart. I guess I just never thought about what a "symlink" is supposed to be, but it sounds twisted. And how do you "ignore" the OS directory (or non-directory, as it were) structure when it refuses to get out of your face?

IvanIvanovich · « **Reply #42 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 21:14:03 »

Well while I don't like everything about the way it was implemented, libraries can be handy. They were even planning on making the whole 'filesystem' based on this idea at a point (see WinFS)... things are there but not really. It's a relational database of pointers to something. So it's a database masquerading as a directory. Why would you want that? It can be nice when something spans across several terabytes of multiple drives, but should be presented as one 'thing' like people that rip their bd discs to their drives. You want to browse your collection, you can do it uninterrupted instead of going a-g on one drive then having to navigate around explorer to continue with h-n and so on. It has it's uses.

emptyk · « **Reply #43 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 22:24:03 »

^^ Well, I have my music organized like that in Win 7; the only difference is that the "root" folder is the default "Music" Library. But once I open that, I have all of my folders according to Artist. Then subfolders under each Artist folder for the individual albums. Then of course the FLAC files themselves, along with cover art and other documentation in each album subfolder. Maybe I'm not understanding the issue here and/or I'm not using the Library the way it is intended to be used, but it seems to work OK for me (at least for music organization).

alaricljs · « **Reply #44 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 22:43:04 »

Well, libraries are not compatible with network drives so that leaves out all my media and all my docs and... well basically it leaves out everything. So they are useless.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #45 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 22:47:02 »

Whatever works for you, the individual, is best.

I don't mind having a straightforward, unambiguous directory tree for whatever I want to organize, and am willing to "make it so" as I go along.

"Music" is together in one place, it even rates its own hard drive.

Likewise "Photos" and "Customers" and "Family History" and "Computer Info" and whatever else.

All this other stuff seems like Rube Goldberg ways to work-around illogical and disorganized file storage.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #46 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 23:01:08 »

I don't really get what you're complaining about - Explorer looks pretty similar to me.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 51895[/ATTACH]

IMO the file structure changes made the OS MUCH more intuitive. "Documents and Settings" was a nightmare and never made any sense - so they got rid of it and replaced it with user directories which make MUCH more sense.

TheProfosist · « **Reply #47 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 23:28:17 »

Quote from: sth;604233

I've done an all right job of just ignoring Libraries and Collections altogether. Has no effect on my Windows Explorer usage other than some superfluous visual cruft in the sidebar.

same here, I actualy had to think about what was being talked about.

TheProfosist · « **Reply #48 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 23:31:31 »

O i also recommended turning indexing off completely if you dont mind searching taking a while. I especially recommended this if you have a ssd.

REVENGE · « **Reply #49 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 05:35:40 »

Win7 will become the newXP.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #50 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 06:56:24 »

Yes if Windows 8 becomes the next Vista and is greatly delayed & has many serious issues upon arrival. One would think Microsoft would has learned that lesson, we will see.

Lanx · « **Reply #51 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 14:56:41 »

lol Microsoft has made OS's for so long, i think if they were smart, they'd know "wow's our trackrecord says that windows 8 is gonna suck (and it does, i put it on my HTPC), lets put the B team on windows 8 and put the A team making windows 9, now).

I mean, i'm literally amazed at how good win7 is, 2 years ago i raided 2 ssd's and put my win7 install disc on a thumb drive and installed the os in 10mins, yea libraries are stupid, networking is stupid, homegroup is stupid... just have to live with it. (i've actually found a use for favorites tho).

TheProfosist · « **Reply #52 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:06:12 »

I dont see why all of think you think that win 8 is going to suck so much if you dont want metro dont use it.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #53 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:08:21 »

I, for one, can't WAIT to get Windows 8.

I hear Metro is going to be especially good for kids. Very intuitive GUI and lots of good kid apps in the app store. You hear that parents?

TexasFlood · « **Reply #54 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:19:11 »

Quote from: TheProfosist;604969

I dont see why all of think you think that win 8 is going to suck so much if you dont want metro dont use it.

I've got nothing against it, yet, really. But also have no burning desire for it, yet, really. Hell I just went to Windows 7!

TheProfosist · « **Reply #55 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:21:30 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;604993

I've got nothing against it, yet, really. But also have no burning desire for it, yet, really. Hell I just went to Windows 7!

well if you have the newer hardware there are going to be a ton of improvements as to how the OS deals with it. I wish they would just puiblish a huge list of all the major things they changed between OSs because to show you all the improvements i would have to dig through a years worth of news.

Internetlad · « **Reply #56 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:40:39 »

win8 will be awesome on tablets and tepid on desktops. There is nothing earth shattering about it other than metro, and it certainly won't perform worse, as it is made for ****ty tablet components.

Vista SP1 and later on decent specs is not that bad. The problem with Vista was that everybody was slapping it on machines that ran XP fine and it ran like crap.

Acer, Dell, ETC would throw it as a "free upgrade" at the user who didn't know better, running it on a single core celeron 512 MB that would have run XP decently and it was a total hog.

The icing on the cake was the Mac vs PC ads and suddenly vista had this stigma around it.

If you run a clean (not loaded with HP/Dell/Toshiba laptop garbage) install of Vista SP2 on a modern PC, it's very similar to 7.

EDIT: Also, I don't remember win95 being that bad, Then again I was 7 at the time.

IvanIvanovich · « **Reply #57 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:44:09 »

Yes there is a lot of core OS optimization on 8 especially in resource management. I am sure option to disable metro will be in release verison. If there was no way to turn it off they would severely cripple corporate sales. I'm not sold on metro for desktop use. I see what they were trying to do with it, but maybe it will be good after the customizer scene is done with it.

Internetlad · « **Reply #58 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:45:24 »

Quote from: lysol;605021

I am sure option to disable metro will be in release verison.

And use what? They're giving the start menu the axe.

Metro is the new start menu.

From what i've heard there are "apps" (ugh, stupid) that mimic the start menu, but they are aftermarket third party.

I heard a leaked version of the RC was out on PB, but as the actual RC is out next week i'm just going to wait..

alaricljs · « **Reply #59 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:45:59 »

If you can skip metro completely and still have all the standard Win7 features, and if they fixed the audio output switching stupidity I might think about it. The audio thing irritates me enough to switch from Win7 if I'm not losing anything I currently use and don't have to put up with Metro.

I don't use the start menu anyway, Launchy does me fine there.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #60 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:46:27 »

You don't need to enable/disable metro. You don't even need to use it EVER in Windows 8.

It's a completely separate operating environment. They just happen to both boot at the same time.

You can basically think of connecting to Metro like connecting to a VM.

Internetlad · « **Reply #61 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 17:51:08 »

Quote from: alaricljs;605024

If you can skip metro completely and still have all the standard Win7 features, and if they fixed the audio output switching stupidity I might think about it. The audio thing irritates me enough to switch from Win7 if I'm not losing anything I currently use and don't have to put up with Metro.

I don't use the start menu anyway, Launchy does me fine there.

you'll have to elaborate on the "audio output thing" as i've not heard anybody gripe about that yet.

Either way, it sounds like you want windows 7 all over again. m$ can't win either way. if they made it the way everybody wants it, there would be people moaning about how they didn't change anything.

Quote from: keyboardlover;605025

It's a completely separate operating environment. They just happen to both boot at the same time.

When i was playing with the devo prerelease it booted in to metro and you would choose to go to the desktop from there. Unless you have everything layed out on your desktop how are you going to get to your programs?

Again, I haven't played with it since maybe the first or second week after the Dev pre-release so maybe stuff has changed, but it seemed much more linear than that to me.

As far as i'm concerned, it will be good on tablets, but it doesn't seem suitable, from what i've seen, for your average joe desktop to move from Win7. Too many fancy touch controls and nothing earth shattering that makes me need it.

alaricljs · « **Reply #62 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 20:59:34 »

Have 2 sound cards of some form (I have on-board and 1 USB) change the current default output device. Tell me how annoying it would be to do that regularly.

I don't want Win7 all over again, but I definitely don't want a tablet paradigm shoved onto the desktop. I think the point I was trying to make was that if I could get a desktop env that betters what's in Win7 I'd go for it.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #63 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 21:05:27 »

Quote from: Internetlad

When i was playing with the devo prerelease it booted in to metro and you would choose to go to the desktop from there. Unless you have everything layed out on your desktop how are you going to get to your programs?

Again, I haven't played with it since maybe the first or second week after the Dev pre-release so maybe stuff has changed, but it seemed much more linear than that to me.

If that was the case then, it isn't now. I attended a dev conference at Microsoft a few weeks ago that was all about Windows 8 and it was the complete opposite - it booted into the desktop environment by default. You then could choose whether or not to fire up Metro.

alaricljs · « **Reply #64 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 21:12:54 »

Here, install VirtualBox and find out all about Win8.

Internetlad · « **Reply #65 on:** Fri, 01 June 2012, 13:09:11 »

Well, I'll have to play with the RC when it's out, if it isn't already.

EDIT: Reading fail, previous comment had the article.

I'll have to pick this up and check it out sometime in the near future. always good to keep abreast of current situations.

IvanIvanovich · « **Reply #66 on:** Fri, 01 June 2012, 13:55:41 »

I knew they forced metro interface in the CP release for testing purpose. Businesses don't like a bunch of flashy eye candy in the work environment, must always be way to turn it all off via group policies at the least.

Internetlad · « **Reply #67 on:** Fri, 01 June 2012, 14:09:39 »

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Microsoft-Windows-Windows-8-Metro-Start-Button-hack,15831.html

Third paragraph

Quote

Apparently Microsoft is also removing the ability for businesses to boot to the desktop.

"And those with hopes that Microsoft would allow businesses, at least, to boot directly to the desktop should prepare for disappointment," he added. "That feature not only isn't happening, it's being removed from Windows Server 12 (Windows 8's stable mate) as well."

I know a link to Tomshardware isn't definitive, but it's written by one of their more legitimate writers (IE not kevin parrish)

IvanIvanovich · « **Reply #68 on:** Fri, 01 June 2012, 14:35:30 »

Desktop of the future! :loco:

TexasFlood · « **Reply #69 on:** Fri, 01 June 2012, 14:42:59 »

There are so many rumors right now I'm not sure any conclusions can be drawn.

IIRC starting with Windows server 2008 the core OS hasn't included the GUI so more like unix in that respect. Will M$ abandon the desktop GUI for home & business desktop users? No way I would say.

But all these rumors are free press for Micro$oft and selling magazines, getting web hits for somebody.

The most likely end result is the core OS will have no GUI and you can pick either a desktop pretty close to classic or metro. The overwhelming majority of desktop users will likely pick the former, tablet users the former, and a lot of servers neither.

Internetlad · « **Reply #70 on:** Fri, 01 June 2012, 14:44:42 »

large buttons to choose what you want to run, no start menu, all programs on/in folders on desktop

hmm, [ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 52055[/ATTACH]

seems familiar

All joking aside if they can optimize Win8 well, and keep it stable, people won't have a reason to complain, and will, I daresay, put up with metro.

I personally don't think it will be the huge public blunder Vista was. IMO the reason vista failed was that it was too resource intensive for the average (IE 500 dollar laptop) PC it was being run on. Combine that with 3 security popups to make a new folder (for example) and the fact that XP was stable, I can see how people were understandably put off.

Win8 doesn't really meet the same criteria, it's apparently less resource intensive than it's older brother, they're trimming a lot of the fat. I'm looking forward to seeing how apple so delicately dissects win8 with their inevitable new commercials. If Apple is good at one thing, it's their advertising team. I'm pretty sure they breed them especially to work for apple.

Tim Cook is already getting nitpicky
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227627/Apple_CEO_Tim_Cooks_knocks_Windows_8_baggage_

TexasFlood · « **Reply #71 on:** Fri, 01 June 2012, 14:47:56 »

Good one, the young'uns might not get it.

TheProfosist · « **Reply #72 on:** Sat, 02 June 2012, 03:38:31 »

Was just going to post about them removing the ability for 3rd pary start menu and not letting you boot to the desktop but someone bebat me to it, the same article even.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #73 on:** Sun, 03 June 2012, 20:58:39 »

It has been nearly a week now, and, all-in-all, I am pretty satisfied. Although it has been dreadfully tedious and as frustrating as these things always are, it has not been any worse than I was expecting.

As I suspected, 90%+ of my remaining frustration is the result of the brain-death of Windows Explorer.

2 components in particular are making me want to scream and pull my hair out.

When I hover over a thumbnail or icon, I need to see the details, file size in particular.

I also need to see the full path of whatever I am looking at, somewhere, preferably at the top.

Although I have been into "Tools" and "View" numerous times, and ticked the settings that seemed to be what I needed to make these things happen, they don't.

Paths never seem to go up more than a level or 2, most of my files look like they top out at "harry" although I know that it is actually "C:\users\harry" so why is it so stubborn about not saying so?

I have 5 hard drives internal and several more loose ones that I hook up externally from time to time, so these things are important to me.

I am still struggling to keep "libraries" from ever seeing or acknowledging that any drive but C: exists. Those things are truly nasty and evil!

How do I get my thumbnails to give up information when I hover over them? In "View" it looks like I specified that, but it never happens.

Thanks!

alaricljs · « **Reply #74 on:** Sun, 03 June 2012, 21:06:06 »

Organize->Folder and Search Options->View tab
check:
display file size info in folder tips
show pop-up description for folder and desktop items

The issue with full paths is that Explorer considers certain 'special' folders to be a ROOT folder. This includes any root user profile folder (harry for you). There's really nothing you can do about this. What makes this more interesting is when you use a domain and roaming profiles. My user folder resides on the network and c:\users\ is an empty directory. Within my user folder are folders that reside in my profile and folders that have been relocated to another network share, this fact also is hidden.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #75 on:** Sun, 03 June 2012, 21:30:48 »

Thank you!

I had checked the first one, but not the second.

My brain must be wired differently from the people in Redmond. I am a "visual" person and basically "picture myself" moving around my system as if I were driving my car to destinations via roads.

Having arcane and convoluted methodologies for navigation to "common" places is like taking a helicopter to "hop around" from place to place without touching down in between. That may work well for some people, but it makes me insane.

Why can't they even provide for an option for simple, clean, direct, accurate, unambiguous linear navigation? And if something is not physically on your box, then jump tracks like transferring to another bus line, but make it available in some manner!

Another example is Google Mail/Docs which I am deeply grateful for, but a year or so ago they changed the way all your documents are organized: now they are in reverse chronological order - newest to oldest.

So if I want to find my "Miller" documents, I don't go to the "M" section, I have to try to remember how long ago it might have been when I opened them! Is that bizarre and absurd, or what? Sure, they provide "Search" but why force you to do that? And what if you remember that it starts with "M" but not the exact spelling?

But I digress.

sth · « **Reply #76 on:** Sun, 03 June 2012, 23:30:30 »

Quote from: fohat.digs;606951

Paths never seem to go up more than a level or 2, most of my files look like they top out at "harry" although I know that it is actually "C:\users\harry" so why is it so stubborn about not saying so?

Another fantastic holdover from microsoft's pre-multi-user days...

Malphas · « **Reply #77 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 01:47:27 »

The whole multi-user thing was a blip anyway, and not really worth bothering with, everyone in the developed world surely has their own computer(s) by now rather than sharing some beige family desktop. Sharing computers feels as bad as sharing toothbrushes to me. I've never actually used the whole "My Documents" and user specific folder things, but then I have a completely convoluted setup with multiple drives and a Drobo, etc.

JaccoW · « **Reply #78 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 03:45:47 »

I often use it for my little netbook while traveling. With both my parents and my sister using it I want to keep things separated.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #79 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 13:42:51 »

Quote from: Malphas;607078

The whole multi-user thing was a blip anyway, and not really worth bothering with, everyone in the developed world surely has their own computer(s) by now rather than sharing some beige family desktop. Sharing computers feels as bad as sharing toothbrushes to me. I've never actually used the whole "My Documents" and user specific folder things, but then I have a completely convoluted setup with multiple drives and a Drobo, etc.

For our home computer and my mom's home computer, the accounts are there but basically hidden from the users, they just boot into the shared account without being prompted for a password. I have separate logins to them for administrative purposes and I most often log in over the network. My mom's PC is slightly hacked to allow me to login via RDP without logging her off. I can get on & off without disrupting her. Can also shadow her session if needed which can be extremely helpful for an issue that she can't describe in a way I can understand. I can't think of a major OS that isn't multi-user and don't understand calling it a "blip".

fohat.digs · « **Reply #80 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 15:33:50 »

Where can I find Power Toys for Windows 7?

I have used them for years, but whenever I google it I get non-Microsoft utilities that I am less interested in.

For right now, I need the picture re-sizer.

thanks

PS - I help out my computer-illiterate friend/boss with Team Viewer and it works like a charm. I highly recommend it for bailing out your friends/family/etc who can't figure out how to open a file, without having to leave your desk.

retsteel · « **Reply #81 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 16:22:58 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;607327

I can't think of a major OS that isn't multi-user and don't understand calling it a "blip".

There was a time when Windows was not multi-user... it is a blip in that it is something left over from those times.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #82 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 16:59:53 »

Doesn't look like it's been released. I google and saw some some are included in Windows 7, some non-Microsoft alternatives as well as some ways to get the XP versions working on 7 (like the calculator). With regard to the picture re-sizer, a clone is all I found.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #83 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 17:07:11 »

Quote from: retsteel;607409

There was a time when Windows was not multi-user... it is a blip in that it is something left over from those times.

Back when it was basically GUI for MS-DOS yes, but Windows has long since progressed in moving towards Unix, :wink:

Malphas · « **Reply #84 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 22:06:14 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;607327

I can't think of a major OS that isn't multi-user and don't understand calling it a "blip".

What about Android? And it's a blip in terms of the way people actually use their computers. Computers are cheap and ubiquitous enough now that everyone I know has their own computer, if not several. No-one shares a single PC like they did in the 90's.

sth · « **Reply #85 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 22:13:24 »

You're confusing multi-user OS with multi-user machine. Multi-user OSes are built around user-based permissions. Microsoft tacked a lot of that on as an afterthought when they introduced multiple user accounts and as a result there are some interface weirdlies like the desktop being the root folder.

Malphas · « **Reply #86 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 22:16:25 »

Yes. I'm not confusing anything though, I said "multi-user thing". I just think it's a generally pointless area these days. I'm not actually trying to make any kind of point about it.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #87 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 22:23:19 »

Quote from: Malphas;607585

Yes. I'm not confusing anything though, I said "multi-user thing". I just think it's a generally pointless area these days. I'm not actually trying to make any kind of point about it.

For home Windows users maybe, in a corporate environment it's integral to both servers and most workstations. As the home products are essentially the same as corporate workstations versions, the features are there if needed but don't have to use them. Many home Unix/Linux users do leverage this IMHO.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #88 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 22:55:53 »

Quote from: Malphas;607585

Yes. I'm not confusing anything though, I said "multi-user thing". I just think it's a generally pointless area these days. I'm not actually trying to make any kind of point about it.

For home Windows users maybe, in a corporate environment it's integral to both servers and most workstations. As the home products are essentially the same as corporate workstations versions, the features are there if needed but don't have to use them. Many home Unix/Linux users do leverage this IMHO, because it's more likely to be used AS a server, a file server, media server, proxy server etc.

sth · « **Reply #89 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 23:04:16 »

It matters for home users too. Open up task manager, check 'show processes from all users' and look at all the threads running under other usernames.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #90 on:** Mon, 04 June 2012, 23:16:32 »

Excellent point, even if you're not using additional accounts for users, accounts like, what are the, local, network, system, are valuable from a security perspective if nothing else.

\|\|\|The Original	\|Home	\|Work	\|Numpad	\|Play	\|Endgame	\|Keycaps
	x
\|Déck Legend Frost	\|Keycool 87 LE	\|Leopold FC660M	\|FC 210TP	\|Raptor K1 Gaming	\|Duck Orion TKL	\|My keycaps & sets
\|Pics	\|Pics	\|Pics		\|Pics	\|Pics	\|Pics

News:

Author Topic: XP to 7 migration tomorrow - OMG - heart attack or bliss? (Read 11568 times)