Curious as to what apps/utilities the start screen doesn't have. Anything I was able to think of shows up. Do you have any examples?
There are definitely some hidden menus, such as Win+X, which brings up a bunch of system shortcuts, including the Run menu (which is still accessible by hitting Win+R). The idiosyncrasies in the OS aren't enough to diminish my enjoyment or productivity.
The desktop isn't crippled at all in my usage. The only difference is the lack of the start menu; however, the start screen duplicates all the functionality I ever used, and provides more space for search results.
The new task manager is very nice. Windows 8 is a lot better at loading the proper drivers out of the box (didn't have to download a thing on the two systems I've done clean installs on), I like the way search is separated wrt. files, applications, and settings (though some don't like it). It's a bit snappier than 7. Picture-based login is nice in some cases. Easy to create custom install images. I thought I would miss Aero, but I actually prefer the flat colors (though some more customization would be nice). Better multi-monitor support. Expanded keyboard shortcuts (mainly for new UI elements). You don't have to pay an arm and a leg for Bitlocker. And I actually like the Ribbon on the file explorer, but YMM-definitely-V on that one.
Basically, if you ignore Metro, Windows 8 is 7 with a full-screen start menu and some refinements. The only thing that's missing is jump list on start screen icons, though they're still around on the taskbar.
I actually like it more than Windows 7, to the point that I wonder if I'm using the same OS as other people. I will grant, though, that I don't use the Metro stuff. Doesn't seem to be much point. But the other features are nice to have.
Hey, wait, that's actually impressive. Last I used Bing Maps, the interface was terrible now it's actually good, and the link for getting your current location is much more obvious.
There are plenty of people who have created grand-scale epics of that type, which are newer than Star Wars. Just look at the fantasy scene--Goodkind, Erikson, Jordan, Martin, Butcher, etc. Many of them are better, or at least more complex, than Star Wars. The only difference I can see is that Lucas made his a series of movies first.
Out of curiosity, when was the last fresh install you did? Are you using obscure hardware?
I ask, because I've built two Windows boxes this year. Both of them auto-detected everything perfectly, including my printer. I was extra-surprised when the random, knock-off wireless dongle worked just fine in Windows 8--it didn't even bring up an "installing driver" popup, but simply worked. It even installed the most recent nVidia drivers without my doing anything. I was pleasantly surprised, even impressed.
I find building PCs to be an enjoyable, even cathartic experience. Regardless, the system I built on Saturday took only an hour to assemble. I watched some TV while doing it. Not every second of your waking life needs to be about 100% productivity.
Absolutely right about power supplies. Everything I've read suggests that you want your PSU to operate far below its maximum load. Beyond that, a larger PSU allows for a better upgrade path than a small one. Just don't get too caught up in the whole 80 Plus thing, as it's something of a scam.
However, I have to disagree with you on what constitutes a gaming PC. You don't need two 7990s to have an effective machine, and neither do you need an i7 over an i5. Even a lone 7950 is enough to munch through just about every game without issue, and you only need more than that if you want to run two or three monitors (not supported by every game) or use the drivers to override software rendering settings (can often cause stability problems). On the CPU front, the i7's hyperthreading is useless for games; just get a 3570k and overclock it (you can easily get it to 4GHz on stock air). Nor do you need 32GB of RAM: even something like Skyrim only eats up 1GB.
Just because you can make a better system doesn't mean it's necessary. Your monitor can't display those extra frames, and you couldn't perceive them if they could. Save that money and buy some games.
My only complaint with GOG is that I wish their distribution system was more like Steam's. It's minor, I'll admit, and probably frivolous, but there's a certain convenience about Steam that GOG just doesn't have. With that said, I have about 40 games in my GOG library, so I'm not too bothered by it.
I helped my brother pick out a new computer this weekend. After looking at the prices of PCs in his range ($350), I decided that building him a system would be far more cost effective. Note I didn't say cheaper--it wound up being $50 more--but it's a pretty decent system all the same, and with specs significantly better than the pre-built he was looking at.
When I compare my PC to similar pre-built models, I find that the pre-builts tend to cost $800 more, and with worse hardware.
I find this an odd comment. I definitely notice pages rendering faster, and I can see this effect simply by changing browsers. Some are genuinely faster than others all around, while others have different rules for when they begin to display content.
With that said, I'm getting kind of tired of all the Firefox posts. Why do we get a post for seemingly every Firefox release, including betas, and no mention at all of Chrome updates? (Note: I'm not advocating for more "stories" about Chrome.) Maybe everyone's still in the mindset of Firefox getting an update only twice a year (or maybe this site's Firefox usage justifies it). Yeah yeah, I know, "don't read it if you don't like it" and all, but it's still a bit perplexing.
Indeed. I saved $150 by buying my computer (parts) from Amazon instead of Newegg. Shipping + tax was the killer, even if Newegg had one or two components that were $3 less.
Multiplayer? Outside of MMOs, I can't think of any (popular) RPGs that support more than one player. The Tales series comes close, but you can only have more than one player during combat.
I've never understood why consoles don't simply have more RAM. Even in 2006, it was cheap enough to put in more than what the PS3 and 360 have. Right now, you can get 16GB of DDR3 RAM for $50 from Newegg, which is obviously higher than what manufacturers pay. Will it make the system cost a bit more to produce? Yes. Would it cost that much more to produce? Probably not.
I did the same thing, though mainly because I wanted out of the "search bubble" and was a bit worried about Google's tracking. In the end, I wound up going back to Google. Search results come up quicker, they tend to be of a little better quality, and one tool in particular is invaluable: the ability to specify a timeframe for the results.
The Wii U will, however, have a different play experience than the other consoles, simply because of its input method (and the fact that it is standard across all Wii Us). Also, Nintendo seems to be more invested in local multiplayer than the other two.
As someone who owns all of the consoles in question, I have to agree. I would recommend the Wii U over the plain Wii, because it just came out and the Wii won't be supported for much longer. Plus, the Wii U can play the old Wii games just fine, and will actually make use of that spare HDMI monitor.
With that said, the Wii U doesn't have a ton of great games right now. For kids, there's Mario, Epic Mickey 2 (available on other platforms as well), Scribblenauts Unlimited (actually supposed to be good this time, though I'd hesitate at $60), and a couple others that may or may not be good (I know a lot of kids like the Just Dance games). All things said, it's a pretty good launch selection, but the other systems will obviously have a lot more to offer for now.
NSMBU is great, though. It's very much a mix of SMB3 and Super Mario World.
It depends on your timeline. Tiger and Leopard were huge updates. Snow Leopard, while it didn't have much in the way of user-facing updates, did have significant changes under the hood, not least moving to a pure 64-bit OS (on supported hardware) and culling PPC support. Lion and Mountain Lion had less changes than Tiger/Leopard, yes, but there are still some significant differences. Auto-resume, system-wide dictation, versions, and iCloud are all pretty big.
Interestingly, there is no way to purchase multiple copies of Mountain Lion off the App Store using the same account. If Apple wants you to buy it multiple times, maybe they should make it actually feasible to do so.
Windows 8 Pro upgrade is $39 (digital) or $69 (physical). Windows 7 Pro was $199 for the upgrade (Home Premium was $119) at release. I would call an 80% (or 66%, depending on the version) reduction in price pretty significant.
Slashdot Mirror
Curious as to what apps/utilities the start screen doesn't have. Anything I was able to think of shows up. Do you have any examples?
There are definitely some hidden menus, such as Win+X, which brings up a bunch of system shortcuts, including the Run menu (which is still accessible by hitting Win+R). The idiosyncrasies in the OS aren't enough to diminish my enjoyment or productivity.
At $40 to upgrade, it's 1/3 the price of the Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade when it first came out.
The desktop isn't crippled at all in my usage. The only difference is the lack of the start menu; however, the start screen duplicates all the functionality I ever used, and provides more space for search results.
The new task manager is very nice. Windows 8 is a lot better at loading the proper drivers out of the box (didn't have to download a thing on the two systems I've done clean installs on), I like the way search is separated wrt. files, applications, and settings (though some don't like it). It's a bit snappier than 7. Picture-based login is nice in some cases. Easy to create custom install images. I thought I would miss Aero, but I actually prefer the flat colors (though some more customization would be nice). Better multi-monitor support. Expanded keyboard shortcuts (mainly for new UI elements). You don't have to pay an arm and a leg for Bitlocker. And I actually like the Ribbon on the file explorer, but YMM-definitely-V on that one.
Basically, if you ignore Metro, Windows 8 is 7 with a full-screen start menu and some refinements. The only thing that's missing is jump list on start screen icons, though they're still around on the taskbar.
I actually like it more than Windows 7, to the point that I wonder if I'm using the same OS as other people. I will grant, though, that I don't use the Metro stuff. Doesn't seem to be much point. But the other features are nice to have.
Hey, wait, that's actually impressive. Last I used Bing Maps, the interface was terrible now it's actually good, and the link for getting your current location is much more obvious.
There are plenty of people who have created grand-scale epics of that type, which are newer than Star Wars. Just look at the fantasy scene--Goodkind, Erikson, Jordan, Martin, Butcher, etc. Many of them are better, or at least more complex, than Star Wars. The only difference I can see is that Lucas made his a series of movies first.
Out of curiosity, when was the last fresh install you did? Are you using obscure hardware?
I ask, because I've built two Windows boxes this year. Both of them auto-detected everything perfectly, including my printer. I was extra-surprised when the random, knock-off wireless dongle worked just fine in Windows 8--it didn't even bring up an "installing driver" popup, but simply worked. It even installed the most recent nVidia drivers without my doing anything. I was pleasantly surprised, even impressed.
I find building PCs to be an enjoyable, even cathartic experience. Regardless, the system I built on Saturday took only an hour to assemble. I watched some TV while doing it. Not every second of your waking life needs to be about 100% productivity.
Absolutely right about power supplies. Everything I've read suggests that you want your PSU to operate far below its maximum load. Beyond that, a larger PSU allows for a better upgrade path than a small one. Just don't get too caught up in the whole 80 Plus thing, as it's something of a scam.
However, I have to disagree with you on what constitutes a gaming PC. You don't need two 7990s to have an effective machine, and neither do you need an i7 over an i5. Even a lone 7950 is enough to munch through just about every game without issue, and you only need more than that if you want to run two or three monitors (not supported by every game) or use the drivers to override software rendering settings (can often cause stability problems). On the CPU front, the i7's hyperthreading is useless for games; just get a 3570k and overclock it (you can easily get it to 4GHz on stock air). Nor do you need 32GB of RAM: even something like Skyrim only eats up 1GB.
Just because you can make a better system doesn't mean it's necessary. Your monitor can't display those extra frames, and you couldn't perceive them if they could. Save that money and buy some games.
My only complaint with GOG is that I wish their distribution system was more like Steam's. It's minor, I'll admit, and probably frivolous, but there's a certain convenience about Steam that GOG just doesn't have. With that said, I have about 40 games in my GOG library, so I'm not too bothered by it.
iOS works great on an iPhone 4, and respectably on the 3GS.
I helped my brother pick out a new computer this weekend. After looking at the prices of PCs in his range ($350), I decided that building him a system would be far more cost effective. Note I didn't say cheaper--it wound up being $50 more--but it's a pretty decent system all the same, and with specs significantly better than the pre-built he was looking at.
When I compare my PC to similar pre-built models, I find that the pre-builts tend to cost $800 more, and with worse hardware.
Then again, maybe my local stores just suck.
I find this an odd comment. I definitely notice pages rendering faster, and I can see this effect simply by changing browsers. Some are genuinely faster than others all around, while others have different rules for when they begin to display content.
With that said, I'm getting kind of tired of all the Firefox posts. Why do we get a post for seemingly every Firefox release, including betas, and no mention at all of Chrome updates? (Note: I'm not advocating for more "stories" about Chrome.) Maybe everyone's still in the mindset of Firefox getting an update only twice a year (or maybe this site's Firefox usage justifies it). Yeah yeah, I know, "don't read it if you don't like it" and all, but it's still a bit perplexing.
Indeed. I saved $150 by buying my computer (parts) from Amazon instead of Newegg. Shipping + tax was the killer, even if Newegg had one or two components that were $3 less.
Multiplayer? Outside of MMOs, I can't think of any (popular) RPGs that support more than one player. The Tales series comes close, but you can only have more than one player during combat.
I've never understood why consoles don't simply have more RAM. Even in 2006, it was cheap enough to put in more than what the PS3 and 360 have. Right now, you can get 16GB of DDR3 RAM for $50 from Newegg, which is obviously higher than what manufacturers pay. Will it make the system cost a bit more to produce? Yes. Would it cost that much more to produce? Probably not.
I did the same thing, though mainly because I wanted out of the "search bubble" and was a bit worried about Google's tracking. In the end, I wound up going back to Google. Search results come up quicker, they tend to be of a little better quality, and one tool in particular is invaluable: the ability to specify a timeframe for the results.
The Wii U will, however, have a different play experience than the other consoles, simply because of its input method (and the fact that it is standard across all Wii Us). Also, Nintendo seems to be more invested in local multiplayer than the other two.
As someone who owns all of the consoles in question, I have to agree. I would recommend the Wii U over the plain Wii, because it just came out and the Wii won't be supported for much longer. Plus, the Wii U can play the old Wii games just fine, and will actually make use of that spare HDMI monitor.
With that said, the Wii U doesn't have a ton of great games right now. For kids, there's Mario, Epic Mickey 2 (available on other platforms as well), Scribblenauts Unlimited (actually supposed to be good this time, though I'd hesitate at $60), and a couple others that may or may not be good (I know a lot of kids like the Just Dance games). All things said, it's a pretty good launch selection, but the other systems will obviously have a lot more to offer for now.
NSMBU is great, though. It's very much a mix of SMB3 and Super Mario World.
It depends on your timeline. Tiger and Leopard were huge updates. Snow Leopard, while it didn't have much in the way of user-facing updates, did have significant changes under the hood, not least moving to a pure 64-bit OS (on supported hardware) and culling PPC support. Lion and Mountain Lion had less changes than Tiger/Leopard, yes, but there are still some significant differences. Auto-resume, system-wide dictation, versions, and iCloud are all pretty big.
Interestingly, there is no way to purchase multiple copies of Mountain Lion off the App Store using the same account. If Apple wants you to buy it multiple times, maybe they should make it actually feasible to do so.
If an update made things worse, then you wouldn't buy it at any price point--including free.
Windows 8 Pro upgrade is $39 (digital) or $69 (physical). Windows 7 Pro was $199 for the upgrade (Home Premium was $119) at release. I would call an 80% (or 66%, depending on the version) reduction in price pretty significant.
Chrome is silent about its updates. Is Firefox? (Genuine question; haven't used it since 3.5.)