Windows 8 preview now available...

[Belfaborac]

OK, since we're plugging stuff.... I've tried Total Commander and a heap of other Explorer (+++) replacements, most of which are long, long gone. Some have been crap, some OK and some, like TC, quite good, but every one has completely paled in comparison with Directory Opus from GP Software. It's been around since my Commodore Amiga days (not sure if I came across it while using the 500 or 1200 though), has steadily improved, and the current iteration is simply astounding in its awesome versatility. It has also always been 100% stable (for me anyway) for as long as I can remember, which is no mean feat in itself given the amount of functions it has.

It's priced at AU$85 for first-time purchasers, but upgrades are free within major versions (e.g. V.9.00>V.9.99) and upgrades between major versions (e.g. V.9.99>V.10.00) are heavily reduced for current owners.

I really can't recommend it highly enough.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

OK, since we're plugging stuff.... I've tried Total Commander and a heap of other Explorer (+++) replacements, most of which are long, long gone. Some have been crap, some OK and some, like TC, quite good, but every one has completely paled in comparison with Directory Opus from GP Software. It's been around since my Commodore Amiga days (not sure if I came across it while using the 500 or 1200 though), has steadily improved, and the current iteration is simply astounding in its awesome versatility. It has also always been 100% stable (for me anyway) for as long as I can remember, which is no mean feat in itself given the amount of functions it has.

It's priced at AU$85 for first-time purchasers, but upgrades are free within major versions (e.g. V.9.00>V.9.99) and upgrades between major versions (e.g. V.9.99>V.10.00) are heavily reduced for current owners.

I really can't recommend it highly enough.

They're both very similar. I've read good things about Directory Opus, but I bought TC many years ago, it does everything I need it to, and upgrades are still free to registered users. Directory Opus could be a good option for someone newly looking for a file manager but I can't really justify shelling out three times as much as TC cost me plus version upgrades, although I do agree it's got excellent reviews.

To each his own I guess. Either one of them still knocks the socks off Explorer.

[CWatkinsNash]

I've had Win 8 RP installed on my Dell Duo since two days after release. For anyone not familiar, the Duo is a convertible netbook / tablet thingie. Mine is red. I did a clean reinstall of Win 7 at the same time I did the Win 8 DB install so I could compare.

I used to hate using the touchscreen on the Duo. With 8, it's soooo much better. Very responsive and accurate, despite the warnings that my screen is not "Win 8 optimized" or whatever. The Duo actually seems useful now. 8 is faster and more responsive all around, really. Start up, shut down, loading programs, etc. It's actually a joy to use the Metro interface in tablet mode. For "normal" use, the desktop works about as expected, once I found everything and got used to accessing the poorly named "search" screen. (I say poorly named because I don't ever use it to search, just to access the programs list.)

I put in the Media Center key and downloaded it. WMC8 is essentially the same as 7, which means they didn't make any of the buttons bigger or otherwise make it touch-friendly, but the only thing I've ever used the Duo for is basically a portable media device so naturally I had to give WMC a run. I set up my HDHomerun just as easily as always, no conflicts there. My main issue is that they changed the requirements for media center plugins (changed the required .NET version to 4.0) so Media Browser won't install on 8. Oh well.

The Metro video app works well also. I have my media drive shared in my homegroup, so I was able to navigate to it and watch any of my video files easily. It seems to have better format/container support out-of-the-box, because it played anything I tried to open and I certainly haven't added any codecs to this install yet.

I enjoy using Win 8 on the Duo. I really do. Would I upgrade? No, but that's nothing new - I get new OSes with new computers. The idea of just buying an OS is alien to me.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I've had Win 8 RP installed on my Dell Duo since two days after release. For anyone not familiar, the Duo is a convertible netbook / tablet thingie. Mine is red. I did a clean reinstall of Win 7 at the same time I did the Win 8 DB install so I could compare.

I used to hate using the touchscreen on the Duo. With 8, it's soooo much better. Very responsive and accurate, despite the warnings that my screen is not "Win 8 optimized" or whatever. The Duo actually seems useful now. 8 is faster and more responsive all around, really. Start up, shut down, loading programs, etc. It's actually a joy to use the Metro interface in tablet mode. For "normal" use, the desktop works about as expected, once I found everything and got used to accessing the poorly named "search" screen. (I say poorly named because I don't ever use it to search, just to access the programs list.)

I put in the Media Center key and downloaded it. WMC8 is essentially the same as 7, which means they didn't make any of the buttons bigger or otherwise make it touch-friendly, but the only thing I've ever used the Duo for is basically a portable media device so naturally I had to give WMC a run. I set up my HDHomerun just as easily as always, no conflicts there. My main issue is that they changed the requirements for media center plugins (changed the required .NET version to 4.0) so Media Browser won't install on 8. Oh well.

The Metro video app works well also. I have my media drive shared in my homegroup, so I was able to navigate to it and watch any of my video files easily. It seems to have better format/container support out-of-the-box, because it played anything I tried to open and I certainly haven't added any codecs to this install yet.

I enjoy using Win 8 on the Duo. I really do. Would I upgrade? No, but that's nothing new - I get new OSes with new computers. The idea of just buying an OS is alien to me.

I wonder if it would work as well on a non-red one?

I have an ExoPC tablet that came with Windows 7 installed. Terrible. Unusable. I installed the W8 consumer preview, and the experience is exponentially better. I admit, I have not put it through its full paces (because I got a shiny new iPad at about the same time), but it has me extremely optimistic. And it boots every bit as fast as the iPad from full-off. Actually, faster.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

I wonder if it would work as well on a non-red one?

I have an ExoPC tablet that came with Windows 7 installed. Terrible. Unusable. I installed the W8 consumer preview, and the experience is exponentially better. I admit, I have not put it through its full paces (because I got a shiny new iPad at about the same time), but it has me extremely optimistic. And it boots every bit as fast as the iPad from full-off. Actually, faster.

LOL! I always mention that it's red for some reason. I don't know why.

A lot of people who don't use or want touch seem to think Win 8's Metro is pointless, those who use touch seem to be noticing the improvements you and I have noticed. And I guess I'm in both camps, because on my desktop PC, Win 8 wouldn't add much, if anything, so it would be rather pointless for that. It's definitely one of those "it's fantastic if you actually have a use for it" things.

I think it will help fuel the popularity of the all-in-one desktops with touchscreens. Right now, they are really only fully functional with OEM touch-optimized programs (Dell Stage, for example, which is a cool concept done somewhat poorly, and that's being generous), but having a true touch-friendly interface for the OS itself is a whole 'nother animal. I think they will help each other in that sense.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

A lot of people who don't use or want touch seem to think Win 8's Metro is pointless, those who use touch seem to be noticing the improvements you and I have noticed. And I guess I'm in both camps, because on my desktop PC, Win 8 wouldn't add much, if anything, so it would be rather pointless for that. It's definitely one of those "it's fantastic if you actually have a use for it" things.

I think it will help fuel the popularity of the all-in-one desktops with touchscreens. Right now, they are really only fully functional with OEM touch-optimized programs (Dell Stage, for example, which is a cool concept done somewhat poorly, and that's being generous), but having a true touch-friendly interface for the OS itself is a whole 'nother animal. I think they will help each other in that sense.

I agree. I don't see an improvement over 7 for desktop/laptop use, and wouldn't be inspired to upgrade. It shines on mobile devices, which think was the gameplan.

[jocampo]

The thing about Microsoft operating system is that because they are so popular, there are much more viruses and malware as well. That's not the case with Ubuntu and Mac. However, looks is changing with Os X and its increasing popularity.

I find unacceptable having to buy and use AV programs on something that should be secure already.

Fragmentation is another problem. But I think that with solid state devices, that will not be an issue anymore.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by jocampo

I find unacceptable having to buy and use AV programs on something that should be secure already.

So don't. There's plenty of free alternatives for home users, that do the job more than adequately.

Originally Posted by jocampo

Fragmentation is another problem. But I think that with solid state devices, that will not be an issue anymore.

That's technically not Windows' fault, but the file system it uses. Or of you like, you can blame the technology and the way mechanical hard drives work for it as well. And it still happens with SSDs, it just doesn't have any impact on performance on them at all, since there's no moving arm in a flash device.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

So don't. There's plenty of free alternatives for home users, that do the job more than adequately.



That's technically not Windows' fault, but the file system it uses. Or of you like, you can blame the technology and the way mechanical hard drives work for it as well. And it still happens with SSDs, it just doesn't have any impact on performance on them at all, since there's no moving arm in a flash device.

Really? and who else's uses NTFs? lol ... There is no fragmentation on Linux / Unix Os using mechanical hard drives. It is a Microsoft issue.

Any Linux flavor is still safer and more secure than any current Microsoft Os.

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by jocampo

There is no fragmentation on Linux / Unix Os using mechanical hard drives.

Uh, not true.

NTFS seems particularly bad for fragmentation, but all file systems will suffer from it unless they automatically defragment in the background. Many Linux filesystems keep fragmentation low by tricks such as spreading files across the disk so there is a lot of free space between them for the file to grow into, but they can still fragment badly when the disk is becoming full and files have to be split among the remaining free blocks.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

Uh, not true.

NTFS seems particularly bad for fragmentation, but all file systems will suffer from it unless they automatically defragment in the background. Many Linux filesystems keep fragmentation low by tricks such as spreading files across the disk so there is a lot of free space between them for the file to grow into, but they can still fragment badly when the disk is becoming full and files have to be split among the remaining free blocks.

Please revise your facts.

In real terms, fragmentation does not exist on Unix or Linux systems. This is because the way data is inserted 1st time and later, and allocation for free space.

This is a long debate and discussion over the years. You can analyze a Unix server that has been in used for a year or so. You will see very small fragmentation on it but so low, that does not require any utility or action.

The only way or time a Unix server may suffer of bad fragmentation is when available free space is 20% or less. On that case, some fragmentation may occur.

Trust me. I was told the same and had an interesting debate with an HP UX engineer long time ago, at work. He basically explained that to me with some lab reports and actual data on real Unix / Linux systems that were live and being used over several a years.

In a short. You can actual run a command and defrag a Linux system. You may see small fragmentation over the years, but in real life it does not worth the time and action. Does not affect performance: Does Linux need to be defrag’d?

By the way, not trying to initiate a heated debate about Unix vs Windows or convince you that Linux is better. But I am telling you what I actually saw and validated over so many years after working with 24/7 mission critical servers running Unix and Linux, some running databases with 500GB of data and even twice that. You will be amaze of how the theory and books will separate from real life and actual performance.

The NTFS Microsoft file system is very inefficient. New solid state devices may be masking that issue, but still is or was.

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by jocampo

In real terms, fragmentation does not exist on Unix or Linux systems. This is because the way data is inserted 1st time and later, and allocation for free space.

Fragmentation exists on all writeable file systems. If you need to write 10k to the disk and all you have are 10 1k blocks, your file will be fragmented unless your file system automatically moves the other files around to defragment it.

And some Unix file systems like ZFS are fragmented by design.

This is a long debate and discussion over the years. You can analyze a Unix server that has been in used for a year or so. You will see very small fragmentation on it but so low, that does not require any utility or action.

As I said, Windows is worse, but Linux and Unix disks still get fragmented. I was responding to your claim that 'there is no fragmentation on Linux / Unix Os using mechanical hard drives,' which is blatantly false.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Really? and who else's uses NTFs? lol ... There is no fragmentation on Linux / Unix Os using mechanical hard drives. It is a Microsoft issue.

Unless all your files are the exact same size as the blocks on the drive, you get fragmentation, since the file by necessity needs to be saved to several blocks, as several file fragments. The file systems used by Unix/Linux are much better at handling fragmentation and minimizing the performance drops it can cause, but all file systems suffer from fragmentation to some extent. There's no way around that.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

Fragmentation exists on all writeable file systems. If you need to write 10k to the disk and all you have are 10 1k blocks, your file will be fragmented unless your file system automatically moves the other files around to defragment it.

And some Unix file systems like ZFS are fragmented by design.



As I said, Windows is worse, but Linux and Unix disks still get fragmented. I was responding to your claim that 'there is no fragmentation on Linux / Unix Os using mechanical hard drives,' which is blatantly false.

Ok, let me rephrase what I said, which looks it was bad English or I took my own experience and technical lingo when explaining.

When I said no fragmentation I meant no significant amount of fragmentation. Not enought that will affect performance. Something that NTFS does! How about that?

Real world, practical terms, performance perspective, Linux and Unix system do not suffer of fragmentation issues. Not significant amount of it. C'mon, all people know it. I used to format my work's PC at HP every year or so, because that. Not anymore at my current job; mine has SDD drive ;-) ...

I've never seen in my life, not at work, a Linux or Unix server, running on regular hard drives, with fragmentation issues or that needs to be defrag. They run wonderful for years. It's a fact.

Thats why I would not recommend anyone Windows over Linux or Mac as a regular PC, one without solid state devices. Only exceptions are for those who play games or need specific Windows software which counterpart is absent on Mac or Unix, which happens sometimes.

But granted, Windows is very popular and arguably, easy to use. So many software companies still write games and programs for it. Most companies also use Windows as Os for their client PCs; Office dominates the market.