How to get rid of Metro in Windows 8.1

[Thuleman]

First, you totally avoid what he said which is clear from your post. Then you proceed to make a blanket statement about people you do not even know. Fine, you do not like 8, cry up a river, but please do not claim you know what is best for everyone else.

Let me recap the conversation for you:

He: No one is forcing you to use 8, just use 7.
Me: I am using 7, but MS wants me to use 8.
He: No one is forcing you to use 8, just use 7.
Me: True, but if MS didn't want me to give them more money for a new OS they woudn't have made 8.

I am not avoiding what he said at all. What I am saying is that a company wouldn't develop a new product if it didn't want customers to use it. Windows 8 doesn't work for business users and business users are the bread and butter of Microsoft. How do I know that it doesn't work for business (other than countless blog posts etc about it)? The organization I work for decided to not transition roughly 10k of our desktops to 8 because there's no tangible benefit in doing so.

 

[heatlesssun]

How do I know that it doesn't work for business (other than countless blog posts etc about it)? The organization I work for decided to not transition roughly 10k of our desktops to 8 because there's no tangible benefit in doing so.

If you just moved to 7 like a lot of businesses even if there were some tangible benefit why would you migrate to Windows 8 unless there was enormous cost benefit? Because of the long period between XP and Vista, Vista's poor reception, 7's solid reception and the quickly approaching death of XP, how 8 turned out was of little consequence to many businesses.

Historically business is always slow to adopt the latest version of Windows, 7 was something of an exception but actually XP wasn't ironically, XP took some time to gain business traction.

 

[Dogs]

They have created Windows 8, that's what they have done.

And how does that serve as a barrier to you using Windows 7? How did your Windows 7 experience change once Windows 8 came out?

Simply because Windows 8 exists doesn't mean you can no longer use Windows 7, so I don't see how Windows 8 being released is a problem for you.

Me: I am using 7, but MS wants me to use 8.

How does the part I underlined affect you at all? What effect does it have on your Windows 7 experience? Why is it a problem?

The organization I work for decided to not transition roughly 10k of our desktops to 8 because there's no tangible benefit in doing so.

Who told you that that was the reasoning? A PC tech? A senior VP? Someone in between? Or did they simply not move to it, and you assumed that was why?

Additionally, do you really believe that the needs of your organization reflect the entire needs of all other organizations in existence as well? Please recall from primary school that proof by example is not proof. On the other hand, disproof by counter example is disproof, and I have worked for an organization which has successfully moved to Windows 8, and it is working for them. So it clearly cannot be that Windows 8 will not work for all businesses anywhere.

 

[XOR != OR]

Additionally, do you really believe that the needs of your organization reflect the entire needs of all other organizations in existence as well? Please recall from primary school that proof by example is not proof. On the other hand, disproof by counter example is disproof, and I have worked for an organization which has successfully moved to Windows 8, and it is working for them. So it clearly cannot be that Windows 8 will not work for all businesses anywhere.

Oh, which one?

 

[heatlesssun]

If your business has no need for tablets, touch or mobility then 8 probably isn't worth a migration if you're already on 7. However if any of these things do have relevance in your business and you have existing Windows infrastructure 8 might be worth a look.

 

[Ur_Mom]

If your business has no need for tablets, touch or mobility then 8 probably isn't worth a migration if you're already on 7. However if any of these things do have relevance in your business and you have existing Windows infrastructure 8 might be worth a look.

Which isn't a very good business move by Microsoft. It would be in their best interest to target all users, not just the mobile ones. I definitely see your point, but for a software company trying to get their software on every desk (and now - lap) in the world, it doesn't seem like that's the best idea. You're fairly hardcore with Windows 8, and even if you say what you've said (no mobility in the business, don't migrate to Win8) it means quite a bit. Most IT staff aren't as positive with Windows 8 from what I've seen and read.

 

[Thuleman]

And how does that serve as a barrier to you using Windows 7? How did your Windows 7 experience change once Windows 8 came out?

I think what we have here is that you simply don't want to understand my line of reasoning. I have previously stated numerous times that my Windows 7 experience is not affected by Windows 8. Why you insist on asking me yet again I cannot understand.

I will try, one last time, to explain to you why Microsoft failed to capture me, and many others, as users for their new OS.

Businesses are in business to make a profit.
Businesses make profit if they provide goods or services that consumers want to use.
As consumer, I want goods and services that provide me with a benefit.
As consumer, I willingly spend money on goods and services that provide me with a benefit.
When a business spends considerable time and resources to create a product that doesn't provide me with any benefit, then that business failed in achieving one of its core goals.

Windows 8 provides no tangible benefit to business users. If you disagree, then please go ahead and name the tangible benefits that would make it worth for a business to pay for new licensing and for time to retrain all their employees.

Who told you that that was the reasoning? A PC tech? A senior VP? Someone in between? Or did they simply not move to it, and you assumed that was why?

Not sure why you are so angry.
I am the IT manager of a major unit within our organization. The CITO made the announcement that we are not moving to 8 after a committee which included participants from every major unit within our organization considered whether there is any benefit to move to 8.

Additionally, do you really believe that the needs of your organization reflect the entire needs of all other organizations in existence as well?

In fact, I do.
Show me a blog entry or a press release from any business that has more than a handful computers (other than Microsoft perhaps, even though I bet most their machines run 7 as well) that says that they have adopted 8. Heck, I'd even settle for anecdotal references of any business with hundreds of computers moving to 8.

The reason they don't move to 8, and the reason why large scale PC manufacturers keep offering 7 to the business clients is that 8 is not for business. You keep insisting that it is, which I find strange at best (unless you work for MS, which is OK).

heatlesssun mentioned tablets, which major business deployed Windows tablets? Windows RT was a complete failure. Windows RT Pro is doing a bit better but the battery life of those tablets makes them noncompetitive with Android or iOS tablets.

OS switches require resources. Compatibility needs to be ensured, users need to be retrained, etc. From XP to 7 was a no-brainer for many when the time came due to 32 vs 64 bit, significantly better security, NTFS file system, to name just a few big ones. (XP 64 wasn't really widely deployed).

Why would a business decide to move from 7 to 8 when 8 doesn't offer any benefits, requires additional licensing fees, and user training (nevermind lost productivity due to end-user frustration). Since you are convinced that 8 is good for business I am looking forward to read which benefits of 8 I must have failed to notice all these months.

 

[heatlesssun]

Which isn't a very good business move by Microsoft. It would be in their best interest to target all users, not just the mobile ones. I definitely see your point, but for a software company trying to get their software on every desk (and now - lap) in the world, it doesn't seem like that's the best idea. You're fairly hardcore with Windows 8, and even if you say what you've said (no mobility in the business, don't migrate to Win8) it means quite a bit. Most IT staff aren't as positive with Windows 8 from what I've seen and read.

The strength of Windows 8 is that is does target both desktops and laptops, it runs better than any single OS I can think across a variety of form factors and input methods. If one can adapt to the interface it just isn't that different from using Windows 7 on the desktop for the vast majority of work and even play that's done on the desktop.

And as far as no mobility don't migrate to 8 if you're on 7, sure. Even if Windows 8 were considered the greatest desktop in the history of mankind most businesses would probably still think that had just moved to 7, why bother going to 8? Same basic desktop and the OS isn't changing the apps. Now if you're on XP and haven't worked on any migration, you probably should consider 8 at this point because starting a migration to a 4 year old OS at this point means a much shorter support period.

 

[Dogs]

I think what we have here is that you simply don't want to understand my line of reasoning. I have previously stated numerous times that my Windows 7 experience is not affected by Windows 8. Why you insist on asking me yet again I cannot understand.

You said Microsoft wanting you to upgrade to Windows 8 is a problem for you. A problem for you to stay with Windows 7. Why or how is it a problem for you?

In fact, I do.

...Then you are clearly too closed-minded for your own good. Take for example, the simple and blindingly obvious case of a small software company (Around 600 employees wordwide). The needs of a software company include being able to develop software for all of the target platforms of the software. If said software company wishes to develop software which takes advantage of new Windows 8 features, the developers will need access to Windows 8 environments. It was cheaper, of course, to move the developer's primary workstations to Windows 8 than it was to buy more hardware for the virtualization clusters so that developers would have readily available Windows 8 VMs. We did this because it made the most sense for our needs.

In other words, it seems to me as though the business needs of that company were different from the business needs of your company. I would like to think an IT manager would understand that IT needs vary from industry to industry and from business to business quite greatly, and that there is no standard brush that paints everybody thoroughly.

The reason they don't move to 8, and the reason why large scale PC manufacturers keep offering 7 to the business clients is that 8 is not for business. You keep insisting that it is, which I find strange at best (unless you work for MS, which is OK).

If Windows 8 is not for business, then Windows 7 is also not for business, because there are no business features provided in Windows 7 which aren't provided in Windows 8.

heatlesssun mentioned tablets, which major business deployed Windows tablets?

...We have Windows tablets where I currently work....As well as at the previous job. (The one that had deployed Windows 8)

OS switches require resources. Compatibility needs to be ensured, users need to be retrained, etc. From XP to 7 was a no-brainer for many when the time came due to 32 vs 64 bit, significantly better security, NTFS file system, to name just a few big ones. (XP 64 wasn't really widely deployed).

It's all about budget and timing. If there isn't funding to upgrade, they're not going to upgrade regardless of how good the new OS. An IT manager should know that. I have worked for financial services companies which are still using several different kinds of policy management software written in COBOL. Despite the newest systems in place being astronomically better than the old ones, the old ones are still being used, and we hadn't bothered to move the policies forward to the new systems because there simply isn't the budget. It doesn't matter that the new systems would allow us to offer popular features on those types of policies...we can't move the policies over, because we don't have the funding to do it.

Why would a business decide to move from 7 to 8 when 8 doesn't offer any benefits, requires additional licensing fees, and user training (nevermind lost productivity due to end-user frustration). Since you are convinced that 8 is good for business I am looking forward to read which benefits of 8 I must have failed to notice all these months.

....Some companies are in different lines of business than others. That should be readily apparent to you.

 

[DPI]

How did this thread turn into multi-quote hell

 

[heatlesssun]

You.

 

[Wrench00]

You said Microsoft wanting you to upgrade to Windows 8 is a problem for you. A problem for you to stay with Windows 7. Why or how is it a problem for you?



...Then you are clearly too closed-minded for your own good. Take for example, the simple and blindingly obvious case of a small software company (Around 600 employees wordwide). The needs of a software company include being able to develop software for all of the target platforms of the software. If said software company wishes to develop software which takes advantage of new Windows 8 features, the developers will need access to Windows 8 environments. It was cheaper, of course, to move the developer's primary workstations to Windows 8 than it was to buy more hardware for the virtualization clusters so that developers would have readily available Windows 8 VMs. We did this because it made the most sense for our needs.

In other words, it seems to me as though the business needs of that company were different from the business needs of your company. I would like to think an IT manager would understand that IT needs vary from industry to industry and from business to business quite greatly, and that there is no standard brush that paints everybody thoroughly.



If Windows 8 is not for business, then Windows 7 is also not for business, because there are no business features provided in Windows 7 which aren't provided in Windows 8.



...We have Windows tablets where I currently work....As well as at the previous job. (The one that had deployed Windows 8)



It's all about budget and timing. If there isn't funding to upgrade, they're not going to upgrade regardless of how good the new OS. An IT manager should know that. I have worked for financial services companies which are still using several different kinds of policy management software written in COBOL. Despite the newest systems in place being astronomically better than the old ones, the old ones are still being used, and we hadn't bothered to move the policies forward to the new systems because there simply isn't the budget. It doesn't matter that the new systems would allow us to offer popular features on those types of policies...we can't move the policies over, because we don't have the funding to do it.



....Some companies are in different lines of business than others. That should be readily apparent to you.

Wow you didn't manage to put forth a single shred of evidence to counter thulman. You just threw out some accusations and anecdotals. Your are far worse then Heatlessun at least that user admitted that 8 is never going to adopted by business.
You also fail to realize that majority of business are NOT software developers that try to sell stupid metro apps. If its any one who is close minded its you. Software development firms are the minority of businesses most companies lack highly computer trained users.

Your argument is borderline idiotic and retarded (no offence to retarted people). Your logic is so terrible that you can't be possibly a high level manager because factors as training, costs, loss of productivity, never make it into your argument. This leads me to believe you are at best a Junior at your company and a low level ranked one as well.

And yes windows 7 has had some business benefits over xp(granted some companies never needed more then xp even now) if you don't know what they are then its really your own ignorance that's the problem. 8 has some benefits as well, sadly the massive GUI change negate the benefits for most companies.

 

[XOR != OR]

Your logic is so terrible that you can't be possibly a high level manager because factors as training, costs, loss of productivity, never make it into your argument. This leads me to believe you are at best a Junior at your company and a low level ranked one as well.

Actually, to me, that's what suggests he IS a high level manager.

 

[InternationalHat]

Why is this dogs guy raging that people want to change or don't like windows 8?

Trolling? Doesn't seem like anyone actually cares that much about how other people want to use their UI.

 

[heatlesssun]

Wow you didn't manage to put forth a single shred of evidence to counter thulman. You just threw out some accusations and anecdotals. Your are far worse then Heatlessun at least that user admitted that 8 is never going to adopted by business.

Companies already on Windows 7 or working on a migration to 7 were NEVER going to go to 8. It almost never works like that in business. 7 was something of an exception because of the poor reception to Vista and the long period between XP and Vista and there being some urgency in getting off of XP ASAP.

That said if your company has done nothing up to this point to get off XP then you have to at least look at 8.1 now. Going to 7 from scratch at this point is getting late in the game and you have a much shorter support time line now for 7. Many in this situation will still go to 7 but I do see some going to 8.1 for the reason I stated.

 

[Dogs]

Your argument is borderline idiotic and retarded (no offence to retarted people). Your logic is so terrible that you can't be possibly a high level manager because factors as training, costs, loss of productivity, never make it into your argument.

No, they are factored in where appropriate. They are also weighed against other factors in order to make thorough, informed decisions. I have the ability to do this correctly, which is why I am in the position I wish to be in, and at a company (one which continuously post sustainable growth and large profits) that I wish to be at. On the other hand, you appear to lack the ability or willingness to read, understand and be appropriately involved in the discussion we were having, which is why you have resorted to name-calling rather than constructive, civil discussion.

P.S. Ad-hominem is generally frowned upon in professional circles.

Why is this dogs guy raging that people want to change or don't like windows 8?

Why don't you read the thread for yourself and find out? If you're not going to bother reading the thread, you're negatively contributing to the discussion and actively making this forum worse.

 

[blade52x]

Seems like a petty thing to get upset about, and black ball the OS over. If you get a start menu, what do you care how you got it? Any way, MS does not want to support multiple UIs, that requires all sorts of testing, and coding and what not, might as well let 3rd party apps do that if users want it. Also it would be used as evidence that MS "knows metro sucks" because they left in the old UI, I'm surprised people still don't see how this routine works with the haters by now.

Absolutely not. As a paying customer, I expect better. Maybe if I was one of just a few, but it seems like many favor the old start menu. How can you ignore customer demand like that? No matter which way you put it, there's no excuse for not at least giving the user the option to use the 7 start menu, Metro, or even both. That's what irritates me so much about all of this.

 

[Dogs]

Absolutely not. As a paying customer, I expect better. Maybe if I was one of just a few, but it seems like many favor the old start menu. How can you ignore customer demand like that? No matter which way you put it, there's no excuse for not at least giving the user the option to use the 7 start menu, Metro, or even both. That's what irritates me so much about all of this.

Microsoft has already been through this. You guys are displeased no matter what. People were pissed when Microsoft changed the UI in Windows 7 and were coming up with all sorts of stupid ways to make it look more like Vista or XP. People were pissed when Microsoft came out with Windows XPs UI, too. And people were pissed when Microsoft changed the UI in Windows 95 as well.

History tells us that in 3 years nobody will be looking back.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Absolutely not. As a paying customer, I expect better. Maybe if I was one of just a few, but it seems like many favor the old start menu. How can you ignore customer demand like that? No matter which way you put it, there's no excuse for not at least giving the user the option to use the 7 start menu, Metro, or even both. That's what irritates me so much about all of this.

This is what I've been saying. Although I really like Windows 8, there are more than just a 'few' people that do not like the new Metro UI. There are a LOT of people that don't. Third party replacements for the start menu are extremely popular and are raking in the cash.

 

[blade52x]

Microsoft has already been through this. You guys are displeased no matter what. People were pissed when Microsoft changed the UI in Windows 7 and were coming up with all sorts of stupid ways to make it look more like Vista or XP. People were pissed when Microsoft came out with Windows XPs UI, too. And people were pissed when Microsoft changed the UI in Windows 95 as well.

History tells us that in 3 years nobody will be looking back.

I supported Vista. Just saying.

 

[DPI]

Microsoft has already been through this. You guys are displeased no matter what. People were pissed when Microsoft changed the UI in Windows 7 and were coming up with all sorts of stupid ways to make it look more like Vista or XP. People were pissed when Microsoft came out with Windows XPs UI, too. And people were pissed when Microsoft changed the UI in Windows 95 as well.

History tells us that in 3 years nobody will be looking back.

Trying to draw a parallel between the minor gripes of past versions of Windows and the outright disruption that Windows 8 has caused is dishonest at best. I've experienced each release both from the consumer and corporate I.T. Management side as they happened and there is simply no comparison to the disillusionment caused by Windows 8 and forced Metro. This is the first time Microsoft has truly floated a turd in the Windows pool. Vista came close, but for different and slightly more noble, less arrogant reasons.

And on the contrary, history tells us people will not only still be looking back at Windows 8's launch with a mix of fascination and disgust in 3 years, they'll still ll be doing it in 5 - 10.

 

[Dogs]

And on the contrary, history tells us people will not only still be looking back at Windows 8's launch with a mix of fascination and disgust in 3 years, they'll still ll be doing it in 5 - 10.

Microsoft has spent a lot of time dealing with consumer backlash, negative press, and negative word of mouth...But they're quite good at getting away from that. Take, for example Windows Vista. There wasn't a terrible amount wrong with Vista. It was mostly poor 3rd party drivers and the retro-fitting to slow, old systems that hurt Vista. Everybody thinks it was terrible...But slap a new UI on it and call it Windows 7 and it will sell like hot cakes. The amount of internals borrowed from Windows Vista SP1 in Windows 7 is pretty overwhelming. By this day and age, they're nearly identical platforms. Yet the majority of people will tell you that Windows Vista is terrible and Windows 7 rules.

So while Windows 8 will likely never have a strong reputation under that name, it will in all likelihood move into our homes as a newer product, and people will most likely think it's a great success.

 

[heatlesssun]

This is the first time Microsoft has truly floated a turd in the Windows pool. Vista came close, but for different and slightly more noble, less arrogant reasons.

Some call what Microsoft did with Windows 8 arrogant. To some extent that is true in that they are leveraging their dominance on the desktop to push the Modern ecosystem. But the decline of the desktop market due to mobile devices is hard to ignore and there are many questions about the future of the desktop. For productivity purposes I imagine the desktop will always be around, but even then there will more and more mobile devices also serving in productive capacities as those platforms evolve. The desktop market is shrinking for a variety of reasons and I think it's naïve to think that a 20 year old UI would do much in preventing the desktops market decline. A Metro off switch would be good for some customers but it would undermine Windows' ability to move beyond the desktop, which if it cannot means that it has little future as broad consumer technology.

And on the contrary, history tells us people will not only still be looking back at Windows 8's launch with a mix of fascination and disgust in 3 years, they'll still ll be doing it in 5 - 10.

I agree. Just look at how the ribbon is perceived today six years after its introduction. Many still hate it and yet Office does continue to do well. Perhaps that was in spite of the ribbon, nonetheless it didn't lead to everyone moving to other office suites. At this point one thing Microsoft can take some comfort in with Windows 8 is that there is little evidence of a mass migration to other desktop OSes.

 

[Dogs]

At this point one thing Microsoft can take some comfort in with Windows 8 is that there is little evidence of a mass migration to other desktop OSes.

....Especially among Steam users.
http://www.neowin.net/news/gabe-new...rophe-is-now-the-second-most-used-os-on-steam

 

[heatlesssun]

So while Windows 8 will likely never have a strong reputation under that name, it will in all likelihood move into our homes as a newer product, and people will most likely think it's a great success.

This too has also been the history of Windows. It is amazing that people love to call Ballmer and crew idiots but then talk about how wonderful Windows 7 is when it's the same people that delivered 7 and 8. Microsoft gets a lot of things wrong, goes through a lot of this and that and then, at least with Windows, has a propensity of getting it quite right.

Something that's a big of a change as Windows 8 with a focus on touch and tablets was never going to get a lot of love from techy desktop folks. Even with a Metro off switch, there would have been tons of rumblings about Microsoft putting so much effort into the new UI instead of improving the desktop. Of course it would have been a much more muted response from that group but the rumblings would have still be there. On the other side of the Metro off switch camp would have been those that would have said, well that's just brilliant, put in the box a switch to turn off all of the touch and tablet capabilities. That's going no where. Why in the hell do you spend a zillion dollars on something that can be turned off?

 

[heatlesssun]

....Especially among Steam users.
http://www.neowin.net/news/gabe-new...rophe-is-now-the-second-most-used-os-on-steam

It is a bit ironic that gaming does seem to be one bright spot for Windows 8, the topic of gaming seems to be an area where there is a good deal of opinion that Windows 8 is faster and more stable than 7. So far from what I've seen of the 9471 build, 8.1 has a bit more performance in it than Windows 7. I will be very interested to see the gaming benchmark reviews when 8.1 goes live.

 

[Wrench00]

How the fuck does a thread about getting removing metro from 8 devolve into this bullshit of white knighting of Microsoft. Some people acknowledge that there are benefits of 8 (or they have no choice cause they are stuck with 8) but they don't want to use a single part of it because it sucks donkey dicks. Yet the white knights of teh int3rwebs to the rescue of Microsoft. Why can't these people except just except that some people hate the fuck out of windows 8 and respect their opinions and stop being douchbags and derailing their threads with a broken records and straw arguments that have NOTHING to do with OP post. If you want an argument of the Merits of Windows 8 Metro interface go and start a thread about it rather then derail an argument a thread about "I have to use windows 8 I just don't want use metro" If you don't have something to contribute to Getting rid of Minimizing Metro can you just simply fuck off cause your are just starting a flame war and then go onto "reporting" posts and posters for being offensive because their sensibilities and fragile douchebag egos are hurt.

 

[Dogs]

Why can't these people except just except that some people hate the fuck out of windows 8 and respect their opinions and stop being douchbags and derailing their threads with a broken records and straw arguments that have NOTHING to do with OP post.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040074949&postcount=7
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040083936&postcount=13
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040084910&postcount=18
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040085056&postcount=20

No, I think you're confused about who derailed the thread. Heatlesssun makes a relevant post that highlights content from an article which solves the thread starter's problem, and you guys were the ones who started shifting everything into the "Windows 8 sucks" discussion. Pointing fingers is not something I would normally do, but in this case I feel as though it is entirely necessary to underline your hypocrisy.

As far as respecting other people's opinions go, you're the ones who should probably start following that advice. Nothing ends up in a flame war until you guys walk into a thread and start shouting aimlessly about how Windows 8 "sucks donkey dicks".

then derail an argument a thread about "I have to use windows 8 I just don't want use metro"

I'm sorry, but that issue was solved after post #3.

If you don't have something to contribute to Getting rid of Minimizing Metro can you just simply fuck off cause your are just starting a flame war and then go onto "reporting" posts and posters for being offensive because their sensibilities and fragile douchebag egos are hurt.

Tell that to the guys on page 1, then.

 

[Wrench00]

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040074949&postcount=7
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040083936&postcount=13
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040084910&postcount=18
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040085056&postcount=20

No, I think you're confused about who derailed the thread. Heatlesssun makes a relevant post that highlights content from an article which solves the thread starter's problem, and you guys were the ones who started shifting everything into the "Windows 8 sucks" discussion. Pointing fingers is not something I would normally do, but in this case I feel as though it is entirely necessary to underline your hypocrisy.

As far as respecting other people's opinions go, you're the ones who should probably start following that advice. Nothing ends up in a flame war until you guys walk into a thread and start shouting aimlessly about how Windows 8 "sucks donkey dicks".



I'm sorry, but that issue was solved after post #3.



Tell that to the guys on page 1, then.

No where in my Post did I mention any names of Posters this is something you are assuming.


"sucks donkey dicks" was directed to a part of the OS that the users deemed was useless. You again are assuming I said windows 8 sucks donkey dicks no where is that said.

All the the posts you posted actually had counter arguments to to Windows 8 UI functionality brings nothing new to the table except for the useless apps.

Any where I rather not see any more stupid windows 8 threads polluting the Operating system sub forum. People to fucking lazy to use a search or google is just appalling. Statistics and number so far speak for them selves especially from Microsoft and even Ballmers own pie hole.

 

[Dogs]

No where in my Post did I mention any names of Posters this is something you are assuming.

You indeed did not mention any names. However, you did mention the following things, which I have underlined.

Some people acknowledge that there are benefits of 8 (or they have no choice cause they are stuck with 8) but they don't want to use a single part of it because it sucks donkey dicks. Yet the white knights of teh int3rwebs to the rescue of Microsoft. Why can't these people except just except that some people hate the fuck out of windows 8 and respect their opinions and stop being douchbags and derailing their threads with a broken records and straw arguments that have NOTHING to do with OP post.

Lexically, 'these people' must be referring to 'the white knights of the int3rwebs', and since you mentioned that 'the white knights of the int3rwebs' are 'to the rescue of Microsoft', these 'white knights of the int3rwebs' couldn't possibly be the people saying negative things about Microsoft/their product.

So no, I'm not making any assumptions about who you're referring to; You already made that clear. It's 'the white knights of the int3rwebs' who you claim are derailing the threads, and the 'the white knights of the int3rwebs' are clearly the people who are 'to the rescue of Microsoft'. Either you did not say what you mean, or I am right about who you are referring to.

All the the posts you posted actually had counter arguments to to Windows 8 UI functionality brings nothing new to the table except for the useless apps.

For the most part, they actually don't. The main point of all of those posts is that Windows 8 is bad (be it direct or through subtext), which was not the topic of discussion when those posts were made. So while you're complaining that the people who favor Windows 8 are the ones derailing threads, this actually isn't the case.

 

[heatlesssun]

How the fuck does a thread about getting removing metro from 8 devolve into this bullshit of white knighting of Microsoft. Some people acknowledge that there are benefits of 8 (or they have no choice cause they are stuck with 8) but they don't want to use a single part of it because it sucks donkey dicks. Yet the white knights of teh int3rwebs to the rescue of Microsoft. Why can't these people except just except that some people hate the fuck out of windows 8 and respect their opinions and stop being douchbags and derailing their threads with a broken records and straw arguments that have NOTHING to do with OP post. If you want an argument of the Merits of Windows 8 Metro interface go and start a thread about it rather then derail an argument a thread about "I have to use windows 8 I just don't want use metro" If you don't have something to contribute to Getting rid of Minimizing Metro can you just simply fuck off cause your are just starting a flame war and then go onto "reporting" posts and posters for being offensive because their sensibilities and fragile douchebag egos are hurt.

Like Dogs indicated, the first post I made in this thread was directly based on the article and pointing out the actual details of the functionality used in sorting by category in the Apps Screen to bring Modern apps to the front of the list therefore making it easy to remove all Modern apps for a system in seconds. Then you went on some spiel about the new App sorting views in 8.1 and apparently you haven't even used that feature.

If someone doesn't like Windows 8 that's their business. But a lot of people talking about Windows 8 in these threads obviously aren't using and are spreading some bad information. It's one thing not to like Windows 8, it's another to not know what one is talking about and just spouting nonsense.

 

[DPI]

So no, I'm not making any assumptions about who you're referring to; You already made that clear. It's 'the white knights of the int3rwebs' who you claim are derailing the threads, and the 'the white knights of the int3rwebs' are clearly the people who are 'to the rescue of Microsoft'. Either you did not say what you mean, or I am right about who you are referring to.

SMH. I had a strong feeling you were just here to argue, going on and on with multi-quote minutiae about nothing to do with the topic. Welcome to ignore filter.

 

[heatlesssun]

It seems like a lot of Windows 8 opponents are just here to argue. From many of the posts here it's clear that many here are talking about 8.1 and haven't even touched it.

 

[InternationalHat]

If someone doesn't like Windows 8 that's their business. But a lot of people talking about Windows 8 in these threads obviously aren't using and are spreading some bad information. It's one thing not to like Windows 8, it's another to not know what one is talking about and just spouting nonsense.

That's a goofy way to defend something. Who are these lot of people? "A lot of people" also use it and don't like it very much.

Bottom right of my screen right now says
"Windows 8.1 Pro Preview
Evaluation copy. Build 9431"
It's a pain in the ass, even with classicshell which is a bit buggy. The default behavior of the start menu just sucks though.

The UI in the 2013 Visual Studio preview is pretty bad too. They've gotten rid of all visual distinction. It's a weird day when Netbeans is more usable than VS.

 

[Dogs]

That's a goofy way to defend something.

It certainly is a goofy way to defend something. But I don't know why you're mentioning that, since if you had even attempted to read the thread, you'd know that Heatlesssun's post is not a defense of Windows 8.

Feel free to come back and have an actual discussion...after you actually know what we're discussing. I don't understand why people on Hardforum make literally no attempt to understand the discussion they're about to jump into.

 

[Zuul]

haha fantastic...every single thread about Win 8 turns out this way...unbelievable.

If you like Win 7, use Win 7.
If you like Win 8, use Win 8.

there, I fixed all your problems.