19 ms·

Windows 8.1 now available

123 points by k-mcgrady 13y ago

burpee 13y ago
Very curious to see how much they've fixed. Last year I bought a brand-new laptop which came with Windows 7. The first two months the laptop was running completely perfectly, until Windows 8 came out and I decided to upgrade. Since then, the experience has been terrible; - randomly crashing apps without meaningful error-messages, mostly when one app would crash it would take down all other apps with it (this was fixed with an update about half a year ago), - the built-in mousepad was not recognized for about 2 months until an update magically fixed it, but to this day Windows won't accept tap-to-click properly and all attempts to fix it are reset with each Windows update, - the windows 8 installer damaged about 10% of my windows 7 restore partition from the harddisk, at the same time corrupting the MBR and making it impossible to either revert to Windows 7 or to switch OS in general without significantly reworking the entire harddrive, - and last but not least, just an incredibly confusing user interface which has truly weird functions like "drag mouse from bottom left corner to the right and a mystical menu will pop up.
brokenparser 13y ago
Once again Microsoft has learned a lesson from Linux: the upgrade comes free of charge to existing users. Not quite the same yet, but it's getting there.
- Alphasite_ 13y ago
  I'm not entirely sure i understand this comment, its essentially just a service pack.
  - CmonDev 13y ago
    It's a trollish post.
- publicfig 13y ago
  Hasn't every minor Windows version been free since 95? (I could be wrong on this)
  - mdip 13y ago
    Historically, it's been a lot more complicated than that, however, I can't recall an update like this being free from Microsoft since prior to Windows 95. They've added features and changed major parts of the user experience. They've also refrained from point versions for their operating system naming, but that's really just marketing/branding, since arguably some of the upgrades to Windows 95 and Windows 98 would have been point versions if they weren't sticking with the "year" branding. Prior to Windows 95, I believe all point upgrades were paid upgrades. Though there wasn't a universal medium to provide free updates like we have today... it was the "drive to CompUSA and get a box full of disks". Between Windows 95 and Windows 2000, there were many updates in between that didn't have a cost difference, but also didn't have a direct upgrade path. I worked for a company that supplied and supported small business networks, and I recall that many of the OEM upgrade versions didn't even provide a way for regular users to get their features. The initial version of Windows 95 was released without Internet Explorer. When OEM Service Release 1 (OSR1) was released, it included it. Regular users could install Service Pack 1 and Internet Explorer separately giving them the upgrade to OSR 1 for free. Windows 95 OSR2, OSR2+USB and OSR2.x did not have an upgrade path at all, nor was there a way to purchase the full version outside of the OEM program at full OEM pricing (regular users could do this by buying enough of the system components to qualify the purchase as a build, but I believe they only sold the licenses in quantities of 3). This was a big problem for regular users since the OSR2.x upgrades added FAT32, USB support, AGP and a few processor instructions.[1] The service packs released for Windows 95 didn't add many of the features that you could get via the OEM Service Releases, but they did provide service pack upgrades for free. Windows 98 had two versions, 98 original and SE (second edition). I wasn't building systems during the late 90s and a brief Wikipedia search yielded no answers, but I don't think SE was a free upgrade. The naming of this was annoying, since they started the trend of creating operating system editions like "Server" and "Advanced Server". Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE weren't different editions so much as SE was Windows 98 point 1. Windows 2000 through Windows 7 continued the trend of free service packs. The "Editions" mess turned from a couple to a litter. Edition upgrades came for a fee, but they were different than in the past in that they were released at the same time, but certain features were only available in more expensive editions. Microsoft also went back and forth on whether or not Service Packs would "add features" or just "fix bugs". I remember every time we had an MS rep in and this topic was brought up, they'd indicate that they didn't like the trend of adding major features in service packs, but invariably, they would add major features anyway. Windows Update and major other security features were added as part of service packs for Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Windows Vista Service Pack 2 made the operating system usable, with the addition of the bug fix (or feature) of being able to copy more than 65536 files using Explorer per reboot. Having used Windows 8.1 since it was released to MSDN, my feeling is that they've greatly improved the operating system. I didn't hate Windows 8, though I rarely use the Metro apps, however, there are many things about Windows 8.1 that work the way I would have wanted them to work in 8.0. One could argue that they "fixed bugs with the UI", but really, they overhauled the most fundamental component of the user experience of their OS, the Start Screen. Icon behavior and features are different, the search screen works wildly differently (a plus in some cases, a negative in others). Returning the Start Button to its original position, was a huge improvement despite my initial skepticism that it would make all that much of a difference. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 and from memory.
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  If I recall correctly service packs have always been free.
- Edvik 13y ago
  Service packs have always been free in Windows though. Except for maybe Win 98 SE?
  - tomflack 13y ago
    I had registered with Microsoft my copy of Windows 98, and they mailed me a CD with an upgrade to SE for free when it was released.
    - brokenparser 13y ago
      Ah, never mind then. This is notable because neither Windows 98 SE or Windows 8.1 really are updates or service packs (it's not like the usual "KBxyz restores the start button in Windows 8" and it won't appear in Windows Update), that's why they have distinct names and packaging to set them apart from the other Windows versions. The MS press release / blog post (and related press coverage), however, made it look like the free upgrade was a first. I stand corrected, but I don't loathe Windows any less because of it.
- ThePinion 13y ago
  Take note they released 8.1 on the same day as Ubuntu 13.10, which has had a planned release date for 6 months. Obvious move to negate Ubuntu news that day?
- JimmaDaRustla 13y ago
  I don't understand; Linux is always free regardless of an update or full blown overhaul. Windows updates are also always free, nothing has changed. Heck, Microsoft has even increased the support period for Windows XP to provide updates beyond the original guarantee...
SaulOfTheJungle 13y ago
Has anyone been able to download the update via the Windows Store? I'm on the 8.1 Preview and the Windows Store keeps throwing an error about not being able to connect.
- Achshar 13y ago
  IIRC you cannot upgrade from the preview of 8.1. You will have to do a clean install. So try getting an iso or some other file download from microsoft instead of the in-store one.
- ratscabies 13y ago
  They warned you about not being able to update when they released 8.1 preview.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  You can manually initiate an upgrade by opening Internet Explorer and entering into the address bar: ms-windows-store:WindowsUpgrade (Be warned: 8.1 Preview to 8.1 RTM is a fresh install. Your Metro apps will come back, but your Win32 apps will have to be reinstalled.)
hanifvirani 13y ago
What's new in Windows 8.1 can be found here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dn140266.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dn140266.aspx
- randlet 13y ago
  "Improvements have been made to better support users who prefer a mouse and keyboard experience to access applications." That's pretty strange wording and makes it sound like desktop users are an afterthought compared to mobile devices.
  - tonyedgecombe 13y ago
    They were.
  - evacuationdrill 13y ago
    Well, that was one of the chief complaints.
  - throwawaykf 13y ago
    I wouldn't agree. I haven't tried it recently, but I tried Windows 8 in a VM on a Mac Mini when it first came out as a preview release. I found it enjoyable even with just a keyboard and mouse. I could navigate the start screen extremely rapidly, not only via Win key-search, but using the arrow keys to traverse tiles. I came away thinking Metro struck the right balance between touch-only and traditional interfaces. I used it in a pretty limited and less typical fashion, however. I did some development to port an AIR/AS application written on OSX to Windows. (We needed a native installer and creating a Windows installer required the Windows SDK, and WORA is always a lie, so extra dev was required. So instead of requisitioning a Windows box, I thought I'd try out Microsoft's latest and greatest for free.) Edit: Also had to do some Java development, same setup, different command-line SDK. I used little more than TextPad and the command prompt (free version of SDK = no IDE), and didn't really use the Metro apps much. Except maybe IE to search for stuff. So I did spend more time in the desktop view. However, the time I spent on Metro was definitely enjoyable. Another thing that impressed me was that it was still pretty smooth despite running in a VM on a pretty underpowered Mac Mini. It was nowhere as smooth as the Ubuntu VM I also had, but I expected W8 to be significantly more bloated.
benferris 13y ago
I still have no use for the full screen (Metro) start menu and apps since I use Windows 8.1 on a desktop and laptop. Classic start shell and running everything in desktop windowed mode is still all I need. I often wonder if I will someday actually want a Windows tablet instead of Android that would make this full screen stuff necessary. Until then, the full screen stuff is just annoying and ignored.
- brudgers 13y ago
  I find the Metro start screen makes it very easy to find applications and [common] files. Hit the `Windows` key and start typing. I find it also useful for organizing the applications that I use occasionally in my workflow. Again, just hit the `Windows` key and there they are as big as grapefruits. Having used Windows Phone 7 for two years [though I switched to Android because I got vastly better hardware for the same price], what I miss is how well Metro keeps crap from piling up in the way it does with WIMP user interfaces. Android and the `Windows Classic` mode of Windows 8, just dump lots of little icons higgeldy-piggeldy onto the screen. The default Windows 8/Windows Phone behavior of adding new items to an alphabetized list follows the principle of least surprise - or rather most pleasant surprise since nothing else does it. The problem with Metro is that it often conflicts with my habits. Android and Windows 8 Classic mode conform to my expectations - though often my expectations are for behaviors which could stand improvement.
  - vetinari 13y ago
    The vanilla Android also adds new items into alphabetized grid. Samsung's Touchwiz does not, it will put new items at the end by default (you can change it though).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chrissmeuk 13y ago
Been using this for a few days already since it was released to MSDN. Definitely better than Windows 8.0 and even Windows 7. If you don't like Metro, it's pretty easy to get rid of now but not entirely (it occasionally pokes you in the eye). My setup guide: 1. Use group policy editor to get rid of lock screen. 2. Set IE to open tiles on desktop. 3. Set start menu to display apps only and turn off hot corners. Then set to boot to desktop. 4. Uninstall all the metro apps that come with it. You will still get the "start screen" but in apps view and the search stuff but to be honest it's pretty good. I rarely see it though as everything I use is pinned to the taskbar. Use Windows+X as your new start menu afterwards - it rocks. In fact I wish earlier versions of windows had that! Reasons to upgrade: faster boot, power management seems more stable, Hyper-V, explorer UI enhancements, nicer file copying, new task manager, better Powershell integration. PuTTY and Firefox still work which is the most important thing for me though... Edit: just to add I haven't installed a start menu replacement or metro killer. Edit 2: I haven't figured out backups yet. Windows 7 backup was trivial with an external disk. Edit 3: to bypass microsoft account login/creation on installation (I did this on Pro edition): 1. When it asks you to sign in, click "create a microsoft account". 2. There is a link at the bottom to "use a local account" on the page this sends you to.
- eertami 13y ago
  >Use Windows+X as your new start menu afterwards - it rocks. In fact I wish earlier versions of windows had that! If you mean launching apps with Winkey+number then it isn't new and is most definitely in Windows 7.
  - gnur 13y ago
    No, Windows+X shows a small "start menu" with some simple often used functions like cmd prompt / task manager / control panel / run.
  - chrissmeuk 13y ago
    No - winkey+X (the actual X key) throws up a new menu. See below: http://i.imgur.com/Tmq3iWp.png http://i.imgur.com/Tmq3iWp.png
- 13y ago
inversesquare 13y ago
Enjoy the fact that Bing gets sent everything you ever search for on a Windows 8.1 machine. Whether your intention was to search the web or merely the local machine, Microsoft knows.
NKCSS 13y ago
Update link ( ms-windows-store:WindowsUpgrade?ocid=GA8-1_O_WOL_Hero_Buy_81Update_Null_01 ) doesn't do anything for me here :-/
- luchs 13y ago
  Open the link in IE.
  - NKCSS 13y ago
    I ment in the Windows Store... it just launches it and does nothing.
createaccount0 13y ago
I tried it on a new computer (Haswell desktop with SSD). But Windows 8.1 is still slower than XP. Even though I disabled all animations I can feel some lag between clicks and response. Probably it's because of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-gqx18UTM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-gqx18UTM ("Windows 7 GUI slowness") I'm going back to XP, but I needed to buy a dedicated graphics card because Intel HD doesn't have drivers for XP. And there's also 3GB RAM limit.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  Does that fact that you prefer a 12 year old OS to the latest from Microsoft not make you consider switching to Mac or Linux? There's bound to be security issues using such an old OS (have they not dropped support for it yet?).
  - robin_reala 13y ago
    Support drops in April 2014.
    - createaccount0 13y ago
      I'll use XP until Chrome and Firefox drop support. At least until April 2015.
- rplnt 13y ago
  Connect the machine to Internet and let it install graphic drivers.
- ellisd 13y ago
  Are you actually installing the Intel driver or just using the Microsoft Windows 8.1 preloaded one?
  - createaccount0 13y ago
    Yes, of course I installed drivers.
krambs 13y ago
No in-place upgrade from 8.1 preview? Ugh.
- tericho 13y ago
  This is incredible, I'm running 8.1 preview and actually can't find a way to download the release. Just keep getting redirected around to dead links. Another Microsoft stereotype proven right. *Edit: Switched to IE from Chrome and one of the links opens the native Store app. lol
- joemccall86 13y ago
  I'm upgrading from 8.1 preview now. See http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/update-from-preview http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/update-from-pre...
cabbeer 13y ago
Is a clean install recommended or is an upgrade fine?
optimiz3 13y ago
Microsoft REALLY wants you use a Microsoft account over a Local account. The link to chose a Local account during install is gone. It only shows up if you get the Microsoft account login wrong, and there is no indication that a Local account is even possible until this happens.
- rplnt 13y ago
  It's there like it was in Windows 8 if you don't have Internet access during install time.
  - optimiz3 13y ago
    No, it was always there in Windows 8. It's not always there in 8.1.
    - rplnt 13y ago
      That's what I meant - when you are not connected, it appears in the place where it always been in Windows 8. Bad wording perhaps, sorry.
- ratscabies 13y ago
  Tinfoil hat here. Isn't using a Microsoft account just like giving the NSA your credentials to your machine?
  - CurtHagenlocher 13y ago
    We may never know for certain. But it would be weird if a backdoor in Windows could be disabled in such an easy fashion. It's not like the rest of the OS is fully transparent. I think a better analogy is probably using a Google account to log into a Chromebook. In both cases, you can look at the network traffic to see exactly the extent to which your computer is reporting on you. Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. Also, you can't imagine how confusing the term "Microsoft account" is for those of us who work here. That's why I still think of it as a "Windows Live account".
acqq 13y ago
So do you have to make a "Microsoft account" and log in to their app store just to download something that was for previous versions a Service Pack, reachable from the web? What happens with the existing local accounts then, anybody tried? I've found only this: http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2013/10/17/windows-8-1-now-available.aspx http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2... "Brandon LeBlanc: We're not releasing the ISO images to folks who don't have MSDN and TechNet subscriptions. Best way for everyone else is to update through the Windows Store."
Surio 13y ago
Relevant - Couldn't resist leaving this here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWyBkY_CUAASUq_.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWyBkY_CUAASUq_.jpg:large :)
jpalomaki 13y ago
After upgrading to 8.1 some weeks ago I decided to really give the new UI a change. And it is not actually that bad. The idea in modern UI is nice. I like the way you arrange windows and how you can easily split the screen for example 20-40-40 among three apps without having to manually resize the windows (just start dragging a modern UI app from top of the screen to arrange them). This also works smoothly with multiple screens. I also think the start menu is ok, I just had to get rid of the default apps. I don't really see point on those tiles that are showing photos or news feed. Start with empty screen and then add applications which you really need. In multim onitor configuration the start button is handy, since it allows you to open the Start screen in any monitor. The major problem is that Microsoft decided to split the world into two. You have the modern apps. And you have the desktop apps. IMHO this was a mistake. They should have definitely figured out a way to run existing apps as modern UI apps. Now my most important apps are destined to live inside the desktop view. Even Microsoft seems to have difficulties getting their apps to the modern side. Outlook is perfect example of app you would expect to exist on the modern side, but nope. Just on desktop. The Modern UI apps seem to usually simple apps. I'm wondering if they will ever manage to convert the complicated Office apps to modern UI.
Karunamon 13y ago
Why I won't be upgrading from 7 anytime soon: * I don't do anything important on 7 anyways since the company publishing the OS admits to giving vulnerabilities to the bad guys * Metro annoys me, gets in my way, and generally adds negative value. * GFWL doesn't work right on it (see posts elsewhere in this thread, steam forums, etc) * The last time I tried upgrading from 7 for the preview, my bootsector was nuked badly enough that I had to use Testdisk to get everything back. I wouldn't install it in its current state if it was given to me for free, let alone shell out $100 for the privilege. There is simply nothing compelling or even remotely interesting to me. *edit - Into the negatives for an opinion and giving reasons why? Really folks?
- thelettere 13y ago
  I never use metro, but I like it just for the speed improvements. The desktop experience is basically the same.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    That's just it, you can't "not use metro" unless you either jump through some GPO hoops (and hope that a future update doesn't break it) or install a paid third party app (and hope a future update doesn't break that, either). Still doesn't negate the other concerns, though. 7 is fast enough for my needs.
jasonkolb 13y ago
I'm using 8 on my primary desktop right now, haven't upgraded to 8.1 yet. Typing this comment on my Macbook Pro. After using 8 for a while, I honestly don't see why people hate it so much. I don't use the Metro stuff, and the traditional Windows desktop experience is much faster. As a development environment I quite like it, and prefer it mightily over OSX as Apple tries to shoehorn that OS into an iOS-like frankenstein's monster. I'll be upgrading to 8.1 as soon as I feel like it, but I just came here to chime in that I really don't get why people abhor 8 so much in the first place. It kind of feels like piling-on to me with no real substance behind. As a developer anyway--I can't speak to a non-technical user's experience with it.
- zobzu 13y ago
  Probably because it's the cool thing to do. I know quite a few people, even some Linux devs that use Windows as their workstation (and a VM for linux). Why? Because it works. its fast. and the UI ain't bad, in fact (of the classic desktop that is). Basically, the polar opposite of what the "cool comment against windows" says.
- kstrauser 13y ago
  We bought my junior high-aged son a laptop for Christmas last year, and it came with Windows 8. He hates it. I promise you I didn't say anything bad about it (because who wants to convince someone not to like the gift you just gave them?), but he came to me a few days later asking if I could "upgrade it to Mac OS". His words, not mine. I think the reason he doesn't like it is that it's different from any computer he'd ever used at home or school before, and without any real benefit. He loves the Windows 7 gaming desktop we have in the living room but sees 8 as "weird" without a good reason for being so. I personally didn't have an opinion on it until I tried to install a network printer and ended up bouncing between the Win 7-style control panel and the Win 8-style wizard thingy because neither one held all of the settings required to make it work. After a few minutes of that, I was about ready to pitch it out the living room window. TL;DR it radically changed the UI without offering any noticeable advantages for having done so. That's why we came to not like it.
  - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
moron4hire 13y ago
I didn't miss the start button when jumping to Windows 8, because I use the Windows 8 start screen in exactly the same way as I use the Windows 7 start menu: I hit the Windows key and start typing the name of the program I want and select the program as soon as it appears. Really, search is the only way to work application choosing now. There are just too many programs on a system now to make scrolling through a list of them an efficient use of time. It was fine back on Windows 95 when I only had an 8gb hard drive, it's awful today when I have two 500gb hard drives. The other OS' (or rather, their window managers) have the basic implementation of this feature, but the Windows 7/8 version seems to be better about context. It seems to know that, if I type in "cursor", I might want to "change how the mouse pointer looks."
qwerta 13y ago
Obligatory question: Is newline handling notepad in finally fixed? Can I maximize terminal window? Those bugs have been open for 28 years...
dereferenced 13y ago
I can't upgrade Windows 8 -> Windows 8.1 because I've moved my "C:\Users" folder to "E:\Users" (to move it off the SSD). The 8.1 installer tells me "it can't install because either the Users or Program Files directory has been moved to another partition". Somehow every other program on my machine manages to run thanks to environment variables like %USERPROFILE% and %APPDATA%. GG.

123 points by k-mcgrady 13y ago

Very curious to see how much they've fixed. Last year I bought a brand-new laptop which came with Windows 7. The first two months the laptop was running completely perfectly, until Windows 8 came out and I decided to upgrade. Since then, the experience has been terrible; - randomly crashing apps without meaningful error-messages, mostly when one app would crash it would take down all other apps with it (this was fixed with an update about half a year ago), - the built-in mousepad was not recognized for about 2 months until an update magically fixed it, but to this day Windows won't accept tap-to-click properly and all attempts to fix it are reset with each Windows update, - the windows 8 installer damaged about 10% of my windows 7 restore partition from the harddisk, at the same time corrupting the MBR and making it impossible to either revert to Windows 7 or to switch OS in general without significantly reworking the entire harddrive, - and last but not least, just an incredibly confusing user interface which has truly weird functions like "drag mouse from bottom left corner to the right and a mystical menu will pop up.

brokenparser 13y ago

Once again Microsoft has learned a lesson from Linux: the upgrade comes free of charge to existing users. Not quite the same yet, but it's getting there.

Alphasite_ 13y ago
I'm not entirely sure i understand this comment, its essentially just a service pack.
- CmonDev 13y ago
  It's a trollish post.
publicfig 13y ago
Hasn't every minor Windows version been free since 95? (I could be wrong on this)
- mdip 13y ago
  Historically, it's been a lot more complicated than that, however, I can't recall an update like this being free from Microsoft since prior to Windows 95. They've added features and changed major parts of the user experience. They've also refrained from point versions for their operating system naming, but that's really just marketing/branding, since arguably some of the upgrades to Windows 95 and Windows 98 would have been point versions if they weren't sticking with the "year" branding. Prior to Windows 95, I believe all point upgrades were paid upgrades. Though there wasn't a universal medium to provide free updates like we have today... it was the "drive to CompUSA and get a box full of disks". Between Windows 95 and Windows 2000, there were many updates in between that didn't have a cost difference, but also didn't have a direct upgrade path. I worked for a company that supplied and supported small business networks, and I recall that many of the OEM upgrade versions didn't even provide a way for regular users to get their features. The initial version of Windows 95 was released without Internet Explorer. When OEM Service Release 1 (OSR1) was released, it included it. Regular users could install Service Pack 1 and Internet Explorer separately giving them the upgrade to OSR 1 for free. Windows 95 OSR2, OSR2+USB and OSR2.x did not have an upgrade path at all, nor was there a way to purchase the full version outside of the OEM program at full OEM pricing (regular users could do this by buying enough of the system components to qualify the purchase as a build, but I believe they only sold the licenses in quantities of 3). This was a big problem for regular users since the OSR2.x upgrades added FAT32, USB support, AGP and a few processor instructions.[1] The service packs released for Windows 95 didn't add many of the features that you could get via the OEM Service Releases, but they did provide service pack upgrades for free. Windows 98 had two versions, 98 original and SE (second edition). I wasn't building systems during the late 90s and a brief Wikipedia search yielded no answers, but I don't think SE was a free upgrade. The naming of this was annoying, since they started the trend of creating operating system editions like "Server" and "Advanced Server". Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE weren't different editions so much as SE was Windows 98 point 1. Windows 2000 through Windows 7 continued the trend of free service packs. The "Editions" mess turned from a couple to a litter. Edition upgrades came for a fee, but they were different than in the past in that they were released at the same time, but certain features were only available in more expensive editions. Microsoft also went back and forth on whether or not Service Packs would "add features" or just "fix bugs". I remember every time we had an MS rep in and this topic was brought up, they'd indicate that they didn't like the trend of adding major features in service packs, but invariably, they would add major features anyway. Windows Update and major other security features were added as part of service packs for Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Windows Vista Service Pack 2 made the operating system usable, with the addition of the bug fix (or feature) of being able to copy more than 65536 files using Explorer per reboot. Having used Windows 8.1 since it was released to MSDN, my feeling is that they've greatly improved the operating system. I didn't hate Windows 8, though I rarely use the Metro apps, however, there are many things about Windows 8.1 that work the way I would have wanted them to work in 8.0. One could argue that they "fixed bugs with the UI", but really, they overhauled the most fundamental component of the user experience of their OS, the Start Screen. Icon behavior and features are different, the search screen works wildly differently (a plus in some cases, a negative in others). Returning the Start Button to its original position, was a huge improvement despite my initial skepticism that it would make all that much of a difference. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 and from memory.
throwawaykf 13y ago
If I recall correctly service packs have always been free.
Edvik 13y ago
Service packs have always been free in Windows though. Except for maybe Win 98 SE?
- tomflack 13y ago
  I had registered with Microsoft my copy of Windows 98, and they mailed me a CD with an upgrade to SE for free when it was released.
  - brokenparser 13y ago
    Ah, never mind then. This is notable because neither Windows 98 SE or Windows 8.1 really are updates or service packs (it's not like the usual "KBxyz restores the start button in Windows 8" and it won't appear in Windows Update), that's why they have distinct names and packaging to set them apart from the other Windows versions. The MS press release / blog post (and related press coverage), however, made it look like the free upgrade was a first. I stand corrected, but I don't loathe Windows any less because of it.
ThePinion 13y ago
Take note they released 8.1 on the same day as Ubuntu 13.10, which has had a planned release date for 6 months. Obvious move to negate Ubuntu news that day?
JimmaDaRustla 13y ago
I don't understand; Linux is always free regardless of an update or full blown overhaul. Windows updates are also always free, nothing has changed. Heck, Microsoft has even increased the support period for Windows XP to provide updates beyond the original guarantee...

SaulOfTheJungle 13y ago

Has anyone been able to download the update via the Windows Store? I'm on the 8.1 Preview and the Windows Store keeps throwing an error about not being able to connect.

Achshar 13y ago
IIRC you cannot upgrade from the preview of 8.1. You will have to do a clean install. So try getting an iso or some other file download from microsoft instead of the in-store one.
ratscabies 13y ago
They warned you about not being able to update when they released 8.1 preview.
tanzam75 13y ago
You can manually initiate an upgrade by opening Internet Explorer and entering into the address bar: ms-windows-store:WindowsUpgrade (Be warned: 8.1 Preview to 8.1 RTM is a fresh install. Your Metro apps will come back, but your Win32 apps will have to be reinstalled.)

hanifvirani 13y ago

What's new in Windows 8.1 can be found here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dn140266.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dn140266.aspx

randlet 13y ago
"Improvements have been made to better support users who prefer a mouse and keyboard experience to access applications." That's pretty strange wording and makes it sound like desktop users are an afterthought compared to mobile devices.
- tonyedgecombe 13y ago
  They were.
- evacuationdrill 13y ago
  Well, that was one of the chief complaints.
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  I wouldn't agree. I haven't tried it recently, but I tried Windows 8 in a VM on a Mac Mini when it first came out as a preview release. I found it enjoyable even with just a keyboard and mouse. I could navigate the start screen extremely rapidly, not only via Win key-search, but using the arrow keys to traverse tiles. I came away thinking Metro struck the right balance between touch-only and traditional interfaces. I used it in a pretty limited and less typical fashion, however. I did some development to port an AIR/AS application written on OSX to Windows. (We needed a native installer and creating a Windows installer required the Windows SDK, and WORA is always a lie, so extra dev was required. So instead of requisitioning a Windows box, I thought I'd try out Microsoft's latest and greatest for free.) Edit: Also had to do some Java development, same setup, different command-line SDK. I used little more than TextPad and the command prompt (free version of SDK = no IDE), and didn't really use the Metro apps much. Except maybe IE to search for stuff. So I did spend more time in the desktop view. However, the time I spent on Metro was definitely enjoyable. Another thing that impressed me was that it was still pretty smooth despite running in a VM on a pretty underpowered Mac Mini. It was nowhere as smooth as the Ubuntu VM I also had, but I expected W8 to be significantly more bloated.

benferris 13y ago

I still have no use for the full screen (Metro) start menu and apps since I use Windows 8.1 on a desktop and laptop. Classic start shell and running everything in desktop windowed mode is still all I need. I often wonder if I will someday actually want a Windows tablet instead of Android that would make this full screen stuff necessary. Until then, the full screen stuff is just annoying and ignored.

brudgers 13y ago
I find the Metro start screen makes it very easy to find applications and [common] files. Hit the `Windows` key and start typing. I find it also useful for organizing the applications that I use occasionally in my workflow. Again, just hit the `Windows` key and there they are as big as grapefruits. Having used Windows Phone 7 for two years [though I switched to Android because I got vastly better hardware for the same price], what I miss is how well Metro keeps crap from piling up in the way it does with WIMP user interfaces. Android and the `Windows Classic` mode of Windows 8, just dump lots of little icons higgeldy-piggeldy onto the screen. The default Windows 8/Windows Phone behavior of adding new items to an alphabetized list follows the principle of least surprise - or rather most pleasant surprise since nothing else does it. The problem with Metro is that it often conflicts with my habits. Android and Windows 8 Classic mode conform to my expectations - though often my expectations are for behaviors which could stand improvement.
- vetinari 13y ago
  The vanilla Android also adds new items into alphabetized grid. Samsung's Touchwiz does not, it will put new items at the end by default (you can change it though).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

chrissmeuk 13y ago

Been using this for a few days already since it was released to MSDN. Definitely better than Windows 8.0 and even Windows 7. If you don't like Metro, it's pretty easy to get rid of now but not entirely (it occasionally pokes you in the eye). My setup guide: 1. Use group policy editor to get rid of lock screen. 2. Set IE to open tiles on desktop. 3. Set start menu to display apps only and turn off hot corners. Then set to boot to desktop. 4. Uninstall all the metro apps that come with it. You will still get the "start screen" but in apps view and the search stuff but to be honest it's pretty good. I rarely see it though as everything I use is pinned to the taskbar. Use Windows+X as your new start menu afterwards - it rocks. In fact I wish earlier versions of windows had that! Reasons to upgrade: faster boot, power management seems more stable, Hyper-V, explorer UI enhancements, nicer file copying, new task manager, better Powershell integration. PuTTY and Firefox still work which is the most important thing for me though... Edit: just to add I haven't installed a start menu replacement or metro killer. Edit 2: I haven't figured out backups yet. Windows 7 backup was trivial with an external disk. Edit 3: to bypass microsoft account login/creation on installation (I did this on Pro edition): 1. When it asks you to sign in, click "create a microsoft account". 2. There is a link at the bottom to "use a local account" on the page this sends you to.

eertami 13y ago
>Use Windows+X as your new start menu afterwards - it rocks. In fact I wish earlier versions of windows had that! If you mean launching apps with Winkey+number then it isn't new and is most definitely in Windows 7.
- gnur 13y ago
  No, Windows+X shows a small "start menu" with some simple often used functions like cmd prompt / task manager / control panel / run.
- chrissmeuk 13y ago
  No - winkey+X (the actual X key) throws up a new menu. See below: http://i.imgur.com/Tmq3iWp.png http://i.imgur.com/Tmq3iWp.png
13y ago

inversesquare 13y ago

Enjoy the fact that Bing gets sent everything you ever search for on a Windows 8.1 machine. Whether your intention was to search the web or merely the local machine, Microsoft knows.

NKCSS 13y ago

Update link ( ms-windows-store:WindowsUpgrade?ocid=GA8-1_O_WOL_Hero_Buy_81Update_Null_01 ) doesn't do anything for me here :-/

luchs 13y ago
Open the link in IE.
- NKCSS 13y ago
  I ment in the Windows Store... it just launches it and does nothing.

createaccount0 13y ago

I tried it on a new computer (Haswell desktop with SSD). But Windows 8.1 is still slower than XP. Even though I disabled all animations I can feel some lag between clicks and response. Probably it's because of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-gqx18UTM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-gqx18UTM ("Windows 7 GUI slowness") I'm going back to XP, but I needed to buy a dedicated graphics card because Intel HD doesn't have drivers for XP. And there's also 3GB RAM limit.

k-mcgrady 13y ago
Does that fact that you prefer a 12 year old OS to the latest from Microsoft not make you consider switching to Mac or Linux? There's bound to be security issues using such an old OS (have they not dropped support for it yet?).
- robin_reala 13y ago
  Support drops in April 2014.
  - createaccount0 13y ago
    I'll use XP until Chrome and Firefox drop support. At least until April 2015.
rplnt 13y ago
Connect the machine to Internet and let it install graphic drivers.
ellisd 13y ago
Are you actually installing the Intel driver or just using the Microsoft Windows 8.1 preloaded one?
- createaccount0 13y ago
  Yes, of course I installed drivers.

krambs 13y ago

No in-place upgrade from 8.1 preview? Ugh.

tericho 13y ago
This is incredible, I'm running 8.1 preview and actually can't find a way to download the release. Just keep getting redirected around to dead links. Another Microsoft stereotype proven right. *Edit: Switched to IE from Chrome and one of the links opens the native Store app. lol
joemccall86 13y ago
I'm upgrading from 8.1 preview now. See http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/update-from-preview http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/update-from-pre...

cabbeer 13y ago

Is a clean install recommended or is an upgrade fine?

optimiz3 13y ago

Microsoft REALLY wants you use a Microsoft account over a Local account. The link to chose a Local account during install is gone. It only shows up if you get the Microsoft account login wrong, and there is no indication that a Local account is even possible until this happens.

rplnt 13y ago
It's there like it was in Windows 8 if you don't have Internet access during install time.
- optimiz3 13y ago
  No, it was always there in Windows 8. It's not always there in 8.1.
  - rplnt 13y ago
    That's what I meant - when you are not connected, it appears in the place where it always been in Windows 8. Bad wording perhaps, sorry.
ratscabies 13y ago
Tinfoil hat here. Isn't using a Microsoft account just like giving the NSA your credentials to your machine?
- CurtHagenlocher 13y ago
  We may never know for certain. But it would be weird if a backdoor in Windows could be disabled in such an easy fashion. It's not like the rest of the OS is fully transparent. I think a better analogy is probably using a Google account to log into a Chromebook. In both cases, you can look at the network traffic to see exactly the extent to which your computer is reporting on you. Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. Also, you can't imagine how confusing the term "Microsoft account" is for those of us who work here. That's why I still think of it as a "Windows Live account".

acqq 13y ago

So do you have to make a "Microsoft account" and log in to their app store just to download something that was for previous versions a Service Pack, reachable from the web? What happens with the existing local accounts then, anybody tried? I've found only this: http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2013/10/17/windows-8-1-now-available.aspx http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2... "Brandon LeBlanc: We're not releasing the ISO images to folks who don't have MSDN and TechNet subscriptions. Best way for everyone else is to update through the Windows Store."

Surio 13y ago

Relevant - Couldn't resist leaving this here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWyBkY_CUAASUq_.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWyBkY_CUAASUq_.jpg:large :)

jpalomaki 13y ago

After upgrading to 8.1 some weeks ago I decided to really give the new UI a change. And it is not actually that bad. The idea in modern UI is nice. I like the way you arrange windows and how you can easily split the screen for example 20-40-40 among three apps without having to manually resize the windows (just start dragging a modern UI app from top of the screen to arrange them). This also works smoothly with multiple screens. I also think the start menu is ok, I just had to get rid of the default apps. I don't really see point on those tiles that are showing photos or news feed. Start with empty screen and then add applications which you really need. In multim onitor configuration the start button is handy, since it allows you to open the Start screen in any monitor. The major problem is that Microsoft decided to split the world into two. You have the modern apps. And you have the desktop apps. IMHO this was a mistake. They should have definitely figured out a way to run existing apps as modern UI apps. Now my most important apps are destined to live inside the desktop view. Even Microsoft seems to have difficulties getting their apps to the modern side. Outlook is perfect example of app you would expect to exist on the modern side, but nope. Just on desktop. The Modern UI apps seem to usually simple apps. I'm wondering if they will ever manage to convert the complicated Office apps to modern UI.

Karunamon 13y ago

Why I won't be upgrading from 7 anytime soon: * I don't do anything important on 7 anyways since the company publishing the OS admits to giving vulnerabilities to the bad guys * Metro annoys me, gets in my way, and generally adds negative value. * GFWL doesn't work right on it (see posts elsewhere in this thread, steam forums, etc) * The last time I tried upgrading from 7 for the preview, my bootsector was nuked badly enough that I had to use Testdisk to get everything back. I wouldn't install it in its current state if it was given to me for free, let alone shell out $100 for the privilege. There is simply nothing compelling or even remotely interesting to me. *edit - Into the negatives for an opinion and giving reasons why? Really folks?

thelettere 13y ago
I never use metro, but I like it just for the speed improvements. The desktop experience is basically the same.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  That's just it, you can't "not use metro" unless you either jump through some GPO hoops (and hope that a future update doesn't break it) or install a paid third party app (and hope a future update doesn't break that, either). Still doesn't negate the other concerns, though. 7 is fast enough for my needs.

jasonkolb 13y ago

I'm using 8 on my primary desktop right now, haven't upgraded to 8.1 yet. Typing this comment on my Macbook Pro. After using 8 for a while, I honestly don't see why people hate it so much. I don't use the Metro stuff, and the traditional Windows desktop experience is much faster. As a development environment I quite like it, and prefer it mightily over OSX as Apple tries to shoehorn that OS into an iOS-like frankenstein's monster. I'll be upgrading to 8.1 as soon as I feel like it, but I just came here to chime in that I really don't get why people abhor 8 so much in the first place. It kind of feels like piling-on to me with no real substance behind. As a developer anyway--I can't speak to a non-technical user's experience with it.

zobzu 13y ago
Probably because it's the cool thing to do. I know quite a few people, even some Linux devs that use Windows as their workstation (and a VM for linux). Why? Because it works. its fast. and the UI ain't bad, in fact (of the classic desktop that is). Basically, the polar opposite of what the "cool comment against windows" says.
kstrauser 13y ago
We bought my junior high-aged son a laptop for Christmas last year, and it came with Windows 8. He hates it. I promise you I didn't say anything bad about it (because who wants to convince someone not to like the gift you just gave them?), but he came to me a few days later asking if I could "upgrade it to Mac OS". His words, not mine. I think the reason he doesn't like it is that it's different from any computer he'd ever used at home or school before, and without any real benefit. He loves the Windows 7 gaming desktop we have in the living room but sees 8 as "weird" without a good reason for being so. I personally didn't have an opinion on it until I tried to install a network printer and ended up bouncing between the Win 7-style control panel and the Win 8-style wizard thingy because neither one held all of the settings required to make it work. After a few minutes of that, I was about ready to pitch it out the living room window. TL;DR it radically changed the UI without offering any noticeable advantages for having done so. That's why we came to not like it.
- 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

moron4hire 13y ago

I didn't miss the start button when jumping to Windows 8, because I use the Windows 8 start screen in exactly the same way as I use the Windows 7 start menu: I hit the Windows key and start typing the name of the program I want and select the program as soon as it appears. Really, search is the only way to work application choosing now. There are just too many programs on a system now to make scrolling through a list of them an efficient use of time. It was fine back on Windows 95 when I only had an 8gb hard drive, it's awful today when I have two 500gb hard drives. The other OS' (or rather, their window managers) have the basic implementation of this feature, but the Windows 7/8 version seems to be better about context. It seems to know that, if I type in "cursor", I might want to "change how the mouse pointer looks."

qwerta 13y ago

Obligatory question: Is newline handling notepad in finally fixed? Can I maximize terminal window? Those bugs have been open for 28 years...

dereferenced 13y ago

I can't upgrade Windows 8 -> Windows 8.1 because I've moved my "C:\Users" folder to "E:\Users" (to move it off the SSD). The 8.1 installer tells me "it can't install because either the Users or Program Files directory has been moved to another partition". Somehow every other program on my machine manages to run thanks to environment variables like %USERPROFILE% and %APPDATA%. GG.