Common Windows 7 Problems and How to Fix Them

daglesj said:
So you might want to write to HP as to why they haven't come up with support for a Vista era laptop to run Windows 8.

Not really Microsoft's fault.
Click to expand...

Or you could just, y'know, stick with an OS that actually supports the hardware platform instead of wasting money on new hardware just to run the new OS...
 
jtm55 said:
Hi All
What I find troubling though is the fact that some folk have forgotten what "Personal Computer" stands for. The operative word here being "Personal". To me that says what I as a individual choose to put in it is up to me the individual. To suggest that ones personal preference to a specific operating system somehow makes them inferior is at best suspect to be examined. Again, it's personal choice, nothing more.
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation, and that's fine.

"Personal computer" actually came about because they were some of the first instances of non-timeshared centralized computer systems. Not that they were particularly user configurable.
 
There's a + thing next to the quote button that you can use to not make a ton of consecutive posts. It'll add all the stuff together into one bunch of quotes for you.
 
Wrecked Em said:
Or you could just never seem to have these problems.
Click to expand...

The only time I had problems with Windows 7 (or even Vista, but I was lucky) was when I caused it. Mucking around in the registry, changing dll's or whatever. Just screwing around to get things different or more efficient. Then, I would get a BSOD or whatever. Other than that - never a problem.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
There's a + thing next to the quote button that you can use to not make a ton of consecutive posts. It'll add all the stuff together into one bunch of quotes for you.
Click to expand...

I've always wanted the functionality. I never knew that. Thank you for that! :D (you learn something new every day, even stuff that's right in front of you!).
 
Ur_Mom said:
I've always wanted the functionality. I never knew that. Thank you for that! :D (you learn something new every day, even stuff that's right in front of you!).
Click to expand...

Oh, no problem! It's just like poke the plus thing over and over and then hit quote on the last thing you want in your post and you're all set to make huge walls of rants that respond to multiple people all at once. :p
 
Chas said:
That's your interpretation, and that's fine.

"Personal computer" actually came about because they were some of the first instances of non-timeshared centralized computer systems. Not that they were particularly user configurable.
Click to expand...

Hi All

Thanks for the info Chas, I didn't know that's how the term "Personal Computer" came into being
 
Windows 8 is every bit as usable (if not moreso) than Windows 7. How did I come to that conclusion? On my most recent reformat, instead of opting to dual boot and just "try" Windows 8, I finally dusted off the disc and installed W8 exclusively, forcing myself to "learn" the OS. A day later I was completely satisfied. Some of you might try the same method.
 
Well, ymmv, but I have been running a lean, clean install of W7 on my laptop for over 2 years now without a SINGLE BSOD ever........even though it came with HP-64, 4GB ram & a HDD, which I promptly upgraded to Ultimate x64, 8GB & an SSD.....
 
There is one strange issue with joining home groups that wasn't addressed in the article.
If the date/time is not set right on one machine, you won't be able to join the home group, you'll get an error saying unable to join the home group, making it seem like a password error.
Found this out when I built one of my htpc's and the its clock was 12 hours ahead.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
There's a + thing next to the quote button that you can use to not make a ton of consecutive posts. It'll add all the stuff together into one bunch of quotes for you.
Click to expand...

And I don't use is, because it can become confusing as to who and what I'm replying to.
 
Chas said:
That's not what he said and you know it.

Here's what was said.



Nowhere did he say Win8 brought nothing else to the table.



Buying newer versions of software that are Win8 compatible (as some programs that worked fine with Win7 didn't like the change). Time and productivity lost (as both are money). As possible hardware changes necessary to actually make use of the touch interface in a semi-sane manner.
Click to expand...

Read that shit again. "Nothing but a ui change" is exactly what he said...

And I didn't buy a single new program every one I used has been updated.

So enough with the FUD and gameplay with words.
 
qb4ever said:
I've used it enough to know I don't like it. Bought in it at release and tried to live with it for a while, the workflow is horrible. Just couldn't deal with it.




Really buddy? I'm "filth" for having a different opinion? Who the fuck are you to say any different?
Click to expand...

No you're wrong becasue your statement is 100% false. W8 has everything you just said you wished it had.

ICOM said:
I've concluded that W8 is an insignificant and inferior desktop operating system in comparison to W7.
Click to expand...

That is cool because that is your opinion, qb4ever's wasn't an opinion it was 100% false statement. 2 completely different things. I won't try and change your opinion, I will point out when your statement is demonstrably false.
 
hdgamer said:
Does your computer sleep on it's own?
Click to expand...

No, none of my Windows 8 computers go to sleep on their own.

Chas said:
The people who're resisting this change are doing so with more reason than "herd mentality" you insufferable douchebag.

The fact is, with Windows 7, I can take two seconds on an alphabetized menu system to pull down the exact application I need.

Or I can play around with "magic corners" and hunt around through multiple screens worth of Lego Duplo blocks for the program launcher (which I wouldn't do since I'd install a 3rd party Start Menu immediately). Unlike some people, I use my computers to actually, y'know, GET WORK DONE.

The simple fact is, the Windows 8 interface slows me down and stops me from doing my work in a timely fashion. If that makes me "change resistant", SO FUCKING BE IT!

If you're happy with your little "I am an expensive game/toy" interface, that's on you. But don't deign to look down on others who dislike it for very real, valid reasons.
Click to expand...

You do know you can customize the interface to your exact liking and no, you don't need to mess around with "magic corners". I realize your two seconds is being facetious but on Windows 8 it takes less clicks to get to my programs than it does on Windows 7. Windows 8 has sped up my workflow but not by much so no reason to upgrade if that is all it would be for. However, know what I do now I prefer Windows 8 over Windows 7 just due to the customization it allows me to do for my home and small business needs. For gaming and HTPC use I would highly recommend Windows 8 or 8.1 over Windows 7, especially if you were building a new rig and needed to get a new OS license.
 
Windows 7 on 5200 workstations, no complaints. Windows 8.1 on a handful of laptops... boy howdy...

And who uses home-groups? That's just gross.
 
I've never experienced any of those issues with win7 period, be it at home or in a 30k user environment... I tried win8 on my machine once, it took 3 times as long to configure and get updated then win7 and was more"complex" to get to a basic work environment. Startup/Shutdown times were no different. The main issue I had was win8 updates always wanted to change it back to the original metro environment, and having to download 3rd party applications for things Win7 handles just fine. Went back to Win7 in less then 24hours

Win7 is the replacement for XP = for people that want to get work done
Win8 is the replacement for Vista = "Here's you're pretty entertainment interface"

I will look at upgrading OS when the next "work" platform (ie the replacement for the NT>XP>Win7) comes out... I will pass on the "entertainment" OS's Vista>Win8
 
I really haven't had much problem with windows 7.

I have my copy of windows 8 as a VM as I don't really need it on my main machine.
It works, but I don't need the metro crap, app stuff, etc. I don't use any of that nor need it now or in the future. If they can get rid of metro and add back start menu, it will work as good as 7 to me, and It will go on my main machine. I don't need tiles, I have icons that I can click. I am not a programmer, but I guess it must be way too hard to have that option programming wise.
 
Ive never had these problems.

but, i would like to be able to drag icons around and not have them line up on a grid, and remember folder positions, and never use customized folders, and match the windows to the wallpaper, and remember folder layouts, and meh,
 
Hagrid said:
I really haven't had much problem with windows 7.

I have my copy of windows 8 as a VM as I don't really need it on my main machine.
It works, but I don't need the metro crap, app stuff, etc. I don't use any of that nor need it now or in the future. If they can get rid of metro and add back start menu, it will work as good as 7 to me, and It will go on my main machine. I don't need tiles, I have icons that I can click. I am not a programmer, but I guess it must be way too hard to have that option programming wise.
Click to expand...

One thing I find ironic when the discussion of tiles versus icons come up, aren't they both geometrically the same thing, just squares and rectangles? Icons are just static bitmap squares, titles can be that as well as display text and images and can be dynamic. Tiles can also scale much better to screen size and resolution than a bitmap. Titles can even implement transparency though that isn't don't on the Start Screen.

Icons are simply constructs that could be built using the capabilities of hardware and software of a generation ago. Tiles have the ability to utilize hardware and software capabilities that weren't even dreamed of when bitmapped icons came to be.
 
heatlesssun said:
One thing I find ironic when the discussion of tiles versus icons come up, aren't they both geometrically the same thing, just squares and rectangles? Icons are just static bitmap squares, titles can be that as well as display text and images and can be dynamic. Tiles can also scale much better to screen size and resolution than a bitmap. Titles can even implement transparency though that isn't don't on the Start Screen.

Icons are simply constructs that could be built using the capabilities of hardware and software of a generation ago. Tiles have the ability to utilize hardware and software capabilities that weren't even dreamed of when bitmapped icons came to be.
Click to expand...

I just like little icons on my desktop, I am not that blind and uncoordinated that I need big tiles.(Not for a few years anyways) When I click it, it launched my program, done.
I don't even have many as it is really.
 
Tiny static icons have the place, there's nothing that would prevent the modern UI from supporting something like the Start Menu. But at the same time when dealing with PCs with different kinds of screen sizes, resolutions and pixel densities, static fixed sized bitmapped icons aren't exactly all that great, and there are certainly limits that we see today even on desktops with these high density displays.
 
The funniest part about all the stubborn windows 8 hate is all it takes is a small download and 8 will function just like 7 with all the added features of 8 now being optional.

But by all means continue the hate parade.
 
Disposed said:
Read that shit again. "Nothing but a ui change" is exactly what he said...
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Learn to read already. Reread it again.

Some people aren't lemming enough to pay for interface changes that add nothing to a touchless setup.
Click to expand...

And I didn't buy a single new program every one I used has been updated.
Click to expand...

Well good for you! So, with your sample size of "ONE", you can state, unequivocally, that nobody has had to spend out large amounts of money for 8.1 and full compatibility?

Try again...

So enough with the FUD and gameplay with words.
Click to expand...

Funny, I was just about to ask this of you...

No, it isn't.
 
Climber said:
You do know you can customize the interface to your exact liking and no, you don't need to mess around with "magic corners". I realize your two seconds is being facetious but on Windows 8 it takes less clicks to get to my programs than it does on Windows 7. Windows 8 has sped up my workflow but not by much so no reason to upgrade if that is all it would be for. However, know what I do now I prefer Windows 8 over Windows 7 just due to the customization it allows me to do for my home and small business needs. For gaming and HTPC use I would highly recommend Windows 8 or 8.1 over Windows 7, especially if you were building a new rig and needed to get a new OS license.
Click to expand...

Okay, show me a solution that:
  • Completely bypasses the start screen.
  • Doesn't require 3rd party software.
  • Doesn't involve cluttering my desktop with shortcuts.
  • Doesn't involve cluttering my taskbar with shortcuts.
 
heatlesssun said:
One thing I find ironic when the discussion of tiles versus icons come up, aren't they both geometrically the same thing, just squares and rectangles? Icons are just static bitmap squares, titles can be that as well as display text and images and can be dynamic. Tiles can also scale much better to screen size and resolution than a bitmap. Titles can even implement transparency though that isn't don't on the Start Screen.

Icons are simply constructs that could be built using the capabilities of hardware and software of a generation ago. Tiles have the ability to utilize hardware and software capabilities that weren't even dreamed of when bitmapped icons came to be.
Click to expand...
I honestly haven't spent much time using Windows 8, but I didn't get the backlash against tiles--I agree, tiles are just bigger (and IMHO more useful) icons. I still think MS should have done a better job of bridging the 'gap' between 8 and 7. There wasn't much 'easing in' or even any initial built-in instruction or tutorials to using Windows 8 (and it's not as intuitive as they imply for people who had been using 7 and older, and don't use touchscreens).
 
Disposed said:
The funniest part about all the stubborn windows 8 hate is all it takes is a small download and 8 will function just like 7 with all the added features of 8 now being optional.

But by all means continue the hate parade.
Click to expand...

Christ, will you crawl back under your bridge already? Seriously, I don't understand why people like you get off on trolling people.

What's the point of upgrading to an OS which requires you to download/buy 3rd party software just to restore UI functionality that the OS vendor stripped out for no good reason?

As soon as you can actually answer this, and not just shovel more crap our way, then maybe there'll be a reason to start listening to you.
 
Chas said:
Christ, will you crawl back under your bridge already? Seriously, I don't understand why people like you get off on trolling people.

What's the point of upgrading to an OS which requires you to download/buy 3rd party software just to restore UI functionality that the OS vendor stripped out for no good reason?

As soon as you can actually answer this, and not just shovel more crap our way, then maybe there'll be a reason to start listening to you.
Click to expand...

It also gives the developers a false perception that people actually like the OS because it would be selling. If it's not default or a built in optional feature, then it's not acceptable.
 
Chas said:
Christ, will you crawl back under your bridge already? Seriously, I don't understand why people like you get off on trolling people.

What's the point of upgrading to an OS which requires you to download/buy 3rd party software just to restore UI functionality that the OS vendor stripped out for no good reason?

As soon as you can actually answer this, and not just shovel more crap our way, then maybe there'll be a reason to start listening to you.
Click to expand...

Buying third party software to change things is how windows has ALWAYS worked.

I'm no troll... Take a look at your own schizo posts...
 
Disposed said:
Buying third party software to change things is how windows has ALWAYS worked.

I'm no troll... Take a look at your own schizo posts...
Click to expand...

And someone ignores "to restore UI functionality" and tries to answer a question which wasn't asked.

I'd say "try again" but you didn't even try in the first place.
 
Chas said:
Okay, show me a solution that:
  • Completely bypasses the start screen.
  • Doesn't require 3rd party software.
  • Doesn't involve cluttering my desktop with shortcuts.
  • Doesn't involve cluttering my taskbar with shortcuts.
Click to expand...

There's no built in way to bypass the full screen Start Screen or Apps Screen but you can default to the Apps Screen. You can also place shortcuts anywhere you like, they don't have to go on the taskbar or desktop, but anything that you always run, it really doesn't make sense not add it to the taskbar as it's going to be in the taskbar anyway if you're always using it.
 
heatlesssun said:
There's no built in way to bypass the full screen Start Screen or Apps Screen but you can default to the Apps Screen. You can also place shortcuts anywhere you like, they don't have to go on the taskbar or desktop, but anything that you always run, it really doesn't make sense not add it to the taskbar as it's going to be in the taskbar anyway if you're always using it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point for me.

As to why I don't attach shortcuts to the taskbar.
Becuase I, frankly, have too many regularly used applications (several of which grab and hold focus, keeping the taskbar from retracting) and doubling up the taskbar is a waste of space.
 
Chas said:
Thank you for making my point for me.

As to why I don't attach shortcuts to the taskbar.
Becuase I, frankly, have too many regularly used applications (several of which grab and hold focus, keeping the taskbar from retracting) and doubling up the taskbar is a waste of space.
Click to expand...

I customized my metro screen to hold all of my applications. I prefer my desktop and taskbar clean so I keep nothing on them. With the customizable metro screen I just click the Win key then select my program. On windows xp and 7 I used to use rocket dock to keep my desktop clean but it wasn't able to hold all of my programs and games. With windows 8 I can place an unlimited amount of programs on a separate screen and acess that screen with a simple single click.
 
Bah hit enter too soon. The customization of the icons, placement, and grouping allows me far greater customization than any prwvious versions of windows. This allows me a cleaner workflow, a more efficent workflow, and a more intelligent workplace than any previous versions of windows. But this is just my opinion amd it isn't going to work for everyone I understand this but for me it has improved my personal computing experience and I'm excited to see what more they can bring to it.
 
One's taskbar is only as clean as the number of applications that are simultaneously running. I pin everything that's constantly running, really no reason not to since it's constantly running. An interesting thing I observe is that there a lot of people worried about keeping the desktop and taskbar clean but have so much issue with the Start Screen that keeps all of that clean and can store an unlimited number of shortcuts.
 
Climber said:
I customized my metro screen to hold all of my applications. I prefer my desktop and taskbar clean so I keep nothing on them. With the customizable metro screen I just click the Win key then select my program. On windows xp and 7 I used to use rocket dock to keep my desktop clean but it wasn't able to hold all of my programs and games. With windows 8 I can place an unlimited amount of programs on a separate screen and acess that screen with a simple single click.
Click to expand...

But then your metro screen is all cramped! ;)

I don't know about some people but I only have 2 rows of Icons on my desktop.
Its all of matter of the user to make the OS suited to their needs.
I can click an icon or a metro button, so for me, the desktop is just fine as it suits my needs.
 
i dont like using win 8. I use classic shell but sometimes a program will lock this damn win 8 tutorial that takes up an 1/8th of my screen in the corner and I have to reboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top