Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 21:39 UTC
Windows The Windows 8 blog has a post about the improvements in Windows 8's installation process. "For Windows 8, our goal was to continue to improve reliability while also improving the installation experience and raw performance. Not only did we want it to be rock solid, but also faster and easier to use." Thankfully, the features us geeks like are still there.
Order by: Score:
MBR
by evert on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 21:55 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've asked them to stop overwriting the MBR without asking.

For me, THAT would be some improvement.

Reply Score: 7

RE: MBR
by stabbyjones on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 22:51 UTC in reply to "MBR"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

why? other operating systems don't exist according to windows

Reply Score: 3

RE: MBR
by lucas_maximus on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 10:13 UTC in reply to "MBR"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Seriously, how would they do this reliably?

There are at least 4 different types of bootloader software I can pick off the top of my head, with different versions distributed with different Operating systems.

Microsoft and Linux Distros can check for Windows OSes because there are only a few to choose from in comparison to Linux's, BSDs (and forks thereof).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: MBR
by dragossh on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: MBR"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Do you want us to rewrite your MBR?
[Rewrite] [No, GTFO]

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: MBR
by lucas_maximus on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MBR"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Oh Comon ...

Most people don't know what an MBR is.

This is the scenario,

1) "Do you want me to touch the MBR?"
2) they say "MBR ... WTF?"
3) Say no to be on the safe side
4) Windows doesn't boot after the install went OK
5) They are left with a computer that doesn't work, because some nerds got nerd raeg about running some alternative OS they neither care or know about.

Sorry, If you want to f--k about Dual Booting there is a minimum amount level of knowledge needed, and lets face it ... most of us know more about partitioning, cylinders, slices etc. that it is probably hindering our sex life.

If you are on this website you already know how to setup a dual boot system, you already knows that you need to install Windows first.

Edited 2011-11-23 15:02 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: MBR
by Vanders on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MBR"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

"Select Disc to install Windows on" -> "Advanced Options" -> "Install Windows boot loader on the Master Boot Record? [x]"

The first two options are already there (paraphrased). What's so hard about adding a check box that's checked by default? Most users wont ever care and leave it alone, those of us who do care can disable that particular bone-headed behaviour of the Windows installer and we can all go home happy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: MBR
by lucas_maximus on Thu 24th Nov 2011 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MBR"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because somebody at Microsoft has the job of making sure Windows boots after install ... he isn't going to put his job on the line for some idealist who might want to install Linux first instead of Windows ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: MBR
by Soulbender on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MBR"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Most people don't know what an MBR is.


Most people don't install an OS by themselves and to them pretty much anything in the installer is difficult to understand.
Seriously, this option can easily be implemented in a way that does not scare people, it's just a matter of wanting to do it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: MBR
by lucas_maximus on Thu 24th Nov 2011 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MBR"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So it is a non issue ... most people don't install the OS from scratch and those that are likely to want to do that and dual boot already know the options ... (clue train: install windows first like it has been since NT 4.0).

Why don't you guys have a bit more of a whine about an OS you apparently don't care about.

Seriously you bitch and whine about being the minority and have a little cry etc ... and everything is done to appease you ... If I was Microsoft I would do everything in my power to piss you off (more than now) ... just to see the butthurt raeg.

If you are the minority choice, guess f--king what?! You are the edge case that is poorly supported, at least they document stuff, if you guys raeg as hard as you do at me ... I would just make sure it was a surprise.

Edited 2011-11-24 00:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: MBR
by Soulbender on Thu 24th Nov 2011 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: MBR"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Who's whining?
I'm saying that your argument that that most people don't know what the MBR is is not a good reason for excluding that option in the installation.

Reply Score: 2

RE: MBR
by sandyman on Fri 25th Nov 2011 15:52 UTC in reply to "MBR"
sandyman Member since:
2011-11-25

That'll be like Ubuntu doing exactly the same thing then. OK not if you use the Alternative Install ISO. They said it was down to the Debian Installer. Funny Deb does not do the same thing

Reply Score: 1

v "us geeks?"
by celt on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 23:58 UTC
RE: "us geeks?"
by WorknMan on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 00:58 UTC in reply to ""us geeks?""
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

What "geek" uses Windows?


Geeks use Windows for gaming, *nix for everything else. Power users use Windows to get work done ;)

Oh, if you're wondering what the difference is:

Power user: 'What are the shortcut keys for this app? How do I customize the toolbar?'

Geek: 'What toolkit is this app written in? What software license does it use?'

Joe User: Where is the 'any key' ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: "us geeks?"
by BluenoseJake on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 02:17 UTC in reply to ""us geeks?""
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I use Windows, and Debian, and Ubuntu. Lots of geeks use Windows, and lots don't.

Please don't tell me what I should be using. I use what is best for the job at hand.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: "us geeks?"
by ngaio on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE: "us geeks?""
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

I love using Ubuntu. I also use Windows, but I do so with a sense of sadness.

The "best for the job at hand" argument is in certain senses appealing, but in the end not very dignified.

For instance, not that long ago in the United States a slave owner could offer a variety of reasons why buying people to work in cotton fields was perfectly legitimate. One of their arguments was that slaves were best for the job at hand, so to speak. Now most of us find those arguments morally repugnant.

I'm not suggesting that the moral arguments regarding Ubuntu versus Windows are black and white. But I am arguing that there is a moral dimension that is truly inescapable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by lucas_maximus on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You pretty much Godwin'd the thread, well done!

Also if you really cared that much about the freedomz ... you would be using gNewSense instead.

Edited 2011-11-23 08:04 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: "us geeks?"
by ngaio on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 08:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: "us geeks?""
RE[5]: "us geeks?"
by lucas_maximus on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: "us geeks?""
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And as I said, if you really cared you would use gNewSense, with one of those Chinese MIPS based laptops.

I hate how people have bought into the RMS bullshit, that somehow proprietary software is some sort of social disease ...

Comparing using software with a particular license to things like the civil rights movement et al. is actually pretty retarded and it makes you sound like you are some kind of nutjob.

Edited 2011-11-23 09:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: "us geeks?"
by ngaio on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: "us geeks?""
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Judging by your comment, in your moral universe it's perfectly good that using proprietary software produces these outcomes:

1. a handful of people become obscenely rich e.g. Gates, Ellison, Allen etc.

2. countries in which the poorest couple of billion people live spend precious resources funneling even more money to these characters, instead of having the chance to use software freely in all sense of the word free.

Maybe you don't care about these issues. Maybe they're totally foreign to you. Maybe you are incapable of seeing beyond your own limited situation in life.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by lucas_maximus on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Judging by your comment, in your moral universe it's perfectly good that using proprietary software produces these outcomes:

1. a handful of people become obscenely rich e.g. Gates, Ellison, Allen etc.


There are always winners and losers in life. These people were in the right places, with the right skills to exploit the opportunies that presented themselves.

When IBM approached gates ... he actually recommended CP/M and actually gave IBM the guys contact details, his wife blew the deal with IBM and they came back to gates and the rest is History.

Your problem is?

2. countries in which the poorest couple of billion people live spend precious resources funneling even more money to these characters, instead of having the chance to use software freely in all sense of the word free.


Lets work on the clean drinking water thing first ;-)

Seriously, there are complex political problems ... free software won't fix this ... Education will.

Maybe you don't care about these issues. Maybe they're totally foreign to you. Maybe you are incapable of seeing beyond your own limited situation in life.


Maybe you are talking out of your arse?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 25th Nov 2011 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Judging by your comment, in your moral universe it's perfectly good that using proprietary software produces these outcomes:

1. a handful of people become obscenely rich e.g. Gates, Ellison, Allen etc.


And the problem with that is...? Or are you one of those people who just blindly opposes all wealth or commerce out of some sense of vague, poorly-defined principle?

2. countries in which the poorest couple of billion people live spend precious resources funneling even more money to these characters, instead of having the chance to use software freely in all sense of the word free.


"Won't someone PLEASE think of The Children?!?! I mean... think of The Impoverished?!?!?!?"

Maybe you don't care about these issues. Maybe they're totally foreign to you. Maybe you are incapable of seeing beyond your own limited situation in life.


...or maybe you're just a self-righteous d-bag, indulging in some "subtle" morally-superior posturing.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be it. Let us bask in the light of your obvious moral superiority, oh Enlightened One!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by BluenoseJake on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Are you really comparing Operating Systems to Slavery? My God, has everyone lost their perspective? Please just stop.

Edited 2011-11-23 13:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: "us geeks?"
by ngaio on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: "us geeks?""
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

No, I'm focusing on the socioeconomic aspects of proprietary software. Maybe you simply don't care economic inequality? Maybe you don't care about other people just as long as you're ok? Keep your head in the sand if you like.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: "us geeks?"
by BluenoseJake on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: "us geeks?""
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I make money when I write software. It doesn't make me rich. Why don't u just go straight to hell. I do not ascribe to your twisted view of software, either Open or Closed. Is Red Hat immoral for making billions off of Free Software? Grow up.

I care about people deeply actually, I don't think Free software is even close to an answer for the worlds problems, there are many, many more issues that need to be dealt with, global warming, Women's rights, Cancer, AIDS, world hunger, oppression of minorities.

Like I said in my previous post. Your priorities are messed up, and your perspective is skewed, perhaps it's because you have it to good yourself?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: "us geeks?"
by ngaio on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: "us geeks?""
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Why are you ultra-defensive? Do you actually write a commercial OS for a living? Probably not. In that case try to broaden your perspective and understand the needs of others.

Let's go with the Red Hat vs. Microsoft example. Supposing a relatively impoverished state government in let's say India wants to run a bunch of servers. With Red Hat / Linux they can poke under the hood. They can modify the code. They can go with a Red Hat solution and pay for it, or they can go with another Linux solution and roll their own. They can educate their university students in how to run it and pull it apart and innovate. That's the value of freedom. It means they can spend money on stuff that matters instead of lining the pockets of Gates, Allen and other obscenely rich folks.

Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you understand how far $100,000 can go in a place like India, or most of the rest of the world for that matter? Have you seen the budget constraints facing small businesses and state and national governments that serve the vast majority of the world's population?

As a thought experiment, try to think what the world would be like if there was no free software, no GPL, and the only way anyone could legally use any software is to license it at terms grossly advantageous to some of the wealthiest people in the entire history of humanity.

That's what we're talking about.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by ilovebeer on Thu 24th Nov 2011 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

So basically ngaio, you don't believe in paying for an OS. You view it as only lining someones pockets. Ironic that you suggest people be open-minded when your view is very close-minded.

Do you have any clue what type of deal governments get from Microsoft? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how many copies of their software is given away at no charge to places and people in need? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how important Microsoft is to the American economy, and thus the world economy as well? Seemingly not. Did you know that Bill Gates and Paul Allen both have committed vast amounts of their wealth to help others via The Giving Pledge?

You really come off as one of those 'Microsoft is the Empire and Bill Gates is the Emporer from Star Wars' types. It's really unfortunate when a person is so horny for -fill in OS name here- that it blocks their view of reality for -fill in other OS name, or company here-.

I've said this before, ... I'm a daily user of both Windows and Linux. Each is great at certain things and not-great at others. Each caters to a different set of needs. The idea that a user _shouldn't_ select an OS based on their own personal needs, as you've suggested, is absurd at best. Windows isn't flawless and neither is Linux. Linux has it's own mess of problems like most other OS'es. The sooner you can come to terms with that fact, the sooner you'll realize you're trying to have an argument that can't be won by either side. And what's left? Just each users individual needs, ...exactly where it started and should have stayed in the first place.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by BluenoseJake on Thu 24th Nov 2011 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I am not ultra defensive, I am offended by your statements, you don't know me, but you feel free to judge me by the fact that I buy some of the software I use?

I am offended by the fact that you somehow believe that proprietary software can be compared to owning slaves.

I don't care what India uses to run it's servers, either way, it's their choice. I don't have a say, and don't pretend to.

I don't have a problem with OSS, I use OSS software. I also don't have a problem with Closed Software, people have the right to choose how they distribute their products.

As a thought experiment, try to think what the world would be like if everyone could eat 3 squares a day, and had a roof over their head, and everyone could read.

Perspective. Get some.

Edited 2011-11-24 13:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by arpan on Fri 25th Nov 2011 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Let's go with the Red Hat vs. Microsoft example. Supposing a relatively impoverished state government in let's say India wants to run a bunch of servers. With Red Hat / Linux they can poke under the hood. They can modify the code. They can go with a Red Hat solution and pay for it, or they can go with another Linux solution and roll their own. They can educate their university students in how to run it and pull it apart and innovate. That's the value of freedom. It means they can spend money on stuff that matters instead of lining the pockets of Gates, Allen and other obscenely rich folks.


See that's the thing, there is a choice. As an Indian and a computer user, I have the choice to purchase an OS from MS or Redhat, or of using the numerous freely available choices. I can purchase an iPhone, or an Android device, or I can get a cheap low-end device. I have that choice!

If someone tries to prevent you have having that choice, then that is wrong. In the same way, you saying that I should only use a free OS is also wrong. We both have the choice and based on the choices we make, companies will thrive or fail.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: "us geeks?"
by leech on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE: "us geeks?""
RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by blitze on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Yeah - funny about that with ntfs and Linux. Also sad that even this day and age, Windows 7 installs can become fubar'd over time if you do a lot of work on them and software updating/install-removal.

I just went back to putting a varient of linux on my laptop and found it interesting that of the distros I looked at, Ubuntu (to straight jacketed), kubuntu (nice but fail with partition tools), OpenSuse (similar as kubuntu and also didn't like Yast), and finally Xubuntu (which everone raves about here and now I know why). Xubuntu gave me a very easy install process not wating to destroy my existing Windows install and being friendly to user changes and snappy as hell. A nice alternative to Windows when I grow tired of using it during the day.

Now if Windows people could look at emulating the ease of setup and install of Xubuntu - I would be happier. As it is, I am now keeping an ISO backup of Windows in a fresh install state with important work related software, just incase.

With Ubuntu, I sort of like what they are trying but they need to make is a little easier to customise it. I like having the layout on the side of my screens though instead of at the bottom, works well with 16:9 aspect displays.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by MOS6510 on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I have no doubt Linux has more drivers for more hardware than Windows does.

Then again a lot of hardware is obsolete or exotic. For common hardware there are most likely drivers and this is what Windows users need and thus have.

Also to what extend does a driver support the hardware? Here at work Windows users can ask the printer to print on both sides, but my Linux PC doesn't offer this option.

So that's a bit misleading. When you use Windows and have printer A you could replace Windows with Linux that supports printer A, only to find out your full-featured multi functional can suddenly only be used as a simple desktjet.

For me what's more important than a raw number of drivers available/hardware supported is to have drivers for common hardware and have these drivers fully support all features of this hardware.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by Dave_K on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I had to tell him right off that Windows 7 supports less hardware than Linux does.


Overall Linux supports more hardware, but that's mainly because it retains support for older devices that are no longer supported in Windows 7. Linux can't match the compatibility of Windows when it's paired up with hardware that's designed for it. That may be an unfair comparison, but it's also a practical one when looking for an OS.

My main PC needs XP or later, and I'd be out of luck if I had a desperate need to install NT4, but I can install Windows 7 with confidence that it’ll run perfectly on my modern hardware. If I dug out my 10 year old laptop the lack of driver updates would rule out Windows 7, but of course XP would still install without an issue. In contrast Linux, despite its support for a significantly greater range of hardware, doesn't work properly on either system (or any other PC/laptop I own).

My point is that just having support for a large selection of components doesn't equate to problem free installation on a wide range of computers.

There's also the question of what constitutes "hardware support" in Linux. It often seems to me that people declare something "Linux compatible" as soon as the most basic features more-or-less work. My soundcard is meant to be supported, but even basic stereo sound is glitchy, and I can forget about inputs and special features working.

If 100% of features working as well as they do in Windows was the requirement then Linux's hardware compatibility list would be a lot shorter.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: "us geeks?"
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 25th Nov 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: "us geeks?""
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Overall Linux supports more hardware, but that's mainly because it retains support for older devices that are no longer supported in Windows 7. Linux can't match the compatibility of Windows when it's paired up with hardware that's designed for it. That may be an unfair comparison, but it's also a practical one when looking for an OS.


Exactly. In other words, the only time Linux hardware support is better than Windows is if you have some perverse need to use an ISA SoundBlaster card that hasn't been manufactured in 15 years, or a SCSI scanner from a company that went out of business a decade ago, or an ancient serial mouse.

Reply Score: 2

avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

IF this installer is capable enough to download "the latest" installation files from Microsoft this might mean that after an installation no more updates have to be installed.

I can only dream of an option where this installer would ask "Choose your installation point: RTM, SP1, SP2, Today"
and of course an enterprise option (also useful for us geeks) to use a local installation source that we can patch and change all we want

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 19:41 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

lol @ ngaio insisting that your choice of OS is an inescapable moral decision rather than simply satisfying your computing needs. And using Windows is apparently undignified.

I feel like I've been reading posts from one of those religious fruitcake preachers.

Reply Score: 1

Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

All this looks very nice. But if they really want to do consumers a favor, how about this:

-Get rid of the six editions and make it one or two
-Make upgrading from x86 to x64 editions possible
-Make all editions support all languages and make it possible to upgrade from any language version of Windows 7 to Windows 8

With Vista and 7 you couldn't just go out and buy an upgrade disc. Oh no, there were over a thousand permutations of Windows installation media/licenses, and if you chose the wrong one, it would force you to do a clean install, thereby losing all your applications and settings. In order to perform an actual upgrade, you had to make sure it was in the right language, the right architecture and the right edition for it to work. This is just BS. And it's a huge reason why, by comparison, Apple gets a lot more upgraders on board with new versions of OS X--because by and large, the upgrade process "just works".

Edited 2011-11-24 15:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

As for Windows 8 Installations...
by Construct1545 on Thu 24th Nov 2011 20:38 UTC
Construct1545
Member since:
2011-11-05

I find it best to start out from scratch when I install an operating system (whether it'd be Windows or Linux). I keep important files backed up and I make lists as to what programs I want (although anymore I have those in my head and I remember them as I go along). Having to upgrade from an older OS is a pain and has cost me a lot of important files in the past (Windows Vista to Windows 7 upgrade). Luckily this was just a free upgrade from college and not something I bought.

Windows 7 never was a pain to me in terms of installation except when upgrading, but I had the right version and architecture when I did try it. The second time I tried to upgrade to Windows 7, it succeeded.

Working on Mac installs and upgrades was easily the best experience I've had in terms of installs. There was little to worry about other than the usual requirements (time, user name, Wi-Fi access, etc.) I've yet to have a Linux distro upgrade work as well as it would when installed on a clean disk. Some of the Linux custom options would trip me up in how many options that they had, but I went through the installs with little hassle.

As long as these install on clean disks okay, that's fine by me, and I think that users should know of the option to do a full install (even though it costs more to buy a Windows full install disc, it is worth the extra money compared to upgrading). Besides, there are many applications that may not work with the last version of your operating system that you had (or a package that is either non-existent in the repository or too new may break your application.)

As for Windows 8. I think I'll skip this one this time round. I don't have a touch screen and I don't think there will be any reason to install it unless they don't allow new Directx versions on Windows 7.

Reply Score: 1