Computer i3 or i5

Just asking for any advice from members regarding current desktop computer technology and their views.
Basically small business with a small number of employees using Accounting software, Tax software, Microsoft Office and other similar business software.
Need to change server and all PCs as they are getting very old (around 7 years old).
My IT guy is reccomending i3 for PCs for the employees.
i5 for me . I need extra power for non-business related stuff (like running sims)
For the Server he reccomends that it should have Stable State hard disks.
He also advices for Staple State for my PC also (but says it will not make much difference in speed in running sims)
HP is the brand he reccomends.
He likes Dell better but there is a different in price and he says that HP is good enough.

Any advice for member who understand more than I do, especially with regards to i3 for business use. Is it good enough?
And also for Sims. Is it i5 good enough or going to i7 will make a huge differnce in running sims (there is a big difference in price from i5 to i7)

I would be a bit wary about Solid State drives. They will speed up your boot time and generally make your system snappier, but they are really expensive. And they don't last as long as traditional hard drives because the memory wears out.

I'm not super up to date on this topic, but last time I checked SSDs were really only relevant for super specific use cases. Like if you have a super high load database with high contention from multiple applications, that's a great place for an expensive SSD.

In a desktop that you'll be using for general business and running simulations...meh. I don't know your IT guy, but I would be highly suspicious if he might make a bit more money if you spend a bit more money.

To the rest of your question (i3 vs. i5 vs. i7), I don't really know.

Quote: AcesAndEights

I would be a bit wary about Solid State drives. They will speed up your boot time and generally make your system snappier, but they are really expensive. And they don't last as long as traditional hard drives because the memory wears out.

I'm not super up to date on this topic, but last time I checked SSDs were really only relevant for super specific use cases. Like if you have a super high load database with high contention from multiple applications, that's a great place for an expensive SSD.

He says for sure that the Server should be SSD. For the PC is extra.
Any views on the Server having SSD.

I can't see a need for solid state drives apart from speeding up boot time and making the OS run a little faster. I'm not sure there's a good RoI on them as business machines. There is for developers. They are less prone to mechanical problems. I run with a small(ish) solid state drive and a big fat hard drive for Data.

SSD Is a life saver for video editing and other high end graphics. I have one and will never go back. Ff your just doing email and word no real need.

As far as the i5 vs the i7 goes, I seriously doubt you would ever come close to using all the i5 resources. I reasearched this extensively while looking to set up a recording studio. Even the high end recording software, that takes up large amounts of resources, and multiple process at one time, will run on a i5. The only thing you really need to be sure of is that you don't max your gigs of memory on the hard drive that your operating system is running on. I went with a i3 with a second hard drive and I am well pleased. Fast as lighting and does everything I need it to.

Thanks for all the info.
What about the i3 v i5 for Business use.
Is the extra money worth the i5 (say with a view that you keep the PCs for 5-6 years), or is i3 good enough?

If your running your business now on 6 or 7 year old computers, then i3 should work fine. If I where you I would definitely stay with the recommendations of my IT tech that knows what I am going to use the computers for.

The programs you mentioned will work fine on a i3. (unless by tax program you mean IRS size load of data)

Perhaps if you have people working directly with customers, constantly looking up stuff, opening programs, searching data, a faster computer will save some fractional waiting time in doing that while a customer is waiting. So, I would give that person the i5 if you had to choose.

If you are getting desktops the speed of the hard drive is not an issue, but it might be if you went with laptops, especially bargain deals. Most likely the i3 will allow ram upgrades if that is necessary, but you probably won't need it.

Make sure you get Windows 7.

Quote: AceTwo

He says for sure that the Server should be SSD. For the PC is extra.
Any views on the Server having SSD.

What software exactly runs on the server?

Quote: Mikey75

If your running your business now on 6 or 7 year old computers, then i3 should work fine. If I where you I would definitely stay with the recommendations of my IT tech that knows what I am going to use the computers for.

In the past what I used to do was keep the PCs for 5-6 years and upgrade RAM about midway (say 3 years). The plan was to change the PCs last year, events tend to make other priorities from the plan, so last year it did not happen.
The PCs are now quite slow and that costs time (and money). For the bookeeping software and Office there is no big problem with being slow. The real problem is with an Accounts preparation software with included tax software (these are not in the US) which are quite slow to boot up and quite slow for various functions that they do. There there is real cost in time delays for using my old computers.

I am sure the i3 will be ok for today's needs. But in the past my idea was to get computers where they will also perform relatively quickly at the 5-6 year end of the cycle. Because software are upgraded all the time with needs increasing.
Hardware cost is relatively low cost compared to Sofware and saving time costs.
And Changing computers is another cost in itself, and I do not like to do it often. Reinstalling all software into new PCs and usually initial problems with things not working properly or time delay in the changeover (especially with regard to changing the Server)

An i7 chip has more on-die cache, greater clock speed and uses hyperthreading compared with the i5 chip. All those differences will speed up CPU-intensive tasks such as simulations IF the sim program can make use of the resources. If the sim coding wasn't optimized for multithreading then it won't matter much. Look for reviews of the product you use.

Even an SSD pales in comparison to the speed advantage primary memory provides: we're talking magnitudes of difference. Buy the max RAM your desktop rig will handle. By a large disk for cost-effective storage. Check performance. If despite the max RAM memory you have your system accesses page/swap files a lot, then add a small SSD and move the page/swap files to that.

If you really need big-balls CPU capability think of adding graphics cards and utilizing the GPU's for the brunt work of the sims. Be sure to size the power supply and cooling appropriately if you go this route. There are lots of fried video cards being sold on eBay/Amazon that were burnt out doing Bitcoin mining.

Quote: AceTwo

He says for sure that the Server should be SSD. For the PC is extra.
Any views on the Server having SSD.

I don't agree, unless your servers need some lightning-fast response times such as airline reservation systems and stock trading platforms. Apart from speed SSD's have an advantage of no moving parts, and spinning disks do eventually fail. However, it is cheaper to handle that risk by using a hardware-controlled RAID5 array. A failed disk does not cause operations to stop nor data to be lost. The failed disk can be replaced on-the-fly and rebuilt as a background process. There is the risk that you will ignore a disk failure because operations don't stop. (They do slow down.) Big mistake: if there is a second disk failure you have screwed the pooch. Get out your latest backup media. You DO have those, don't you?

I'm not sure about running complex programs. I recently got a Asus touch Screen Laptop Intel Core i5 8GB Memory 750GB, it was slower then my old amd dual core HP

I thought for sure something was wrong with it so i took it back.

I then went with an Acer Aspire core i5 and it was crap to, I took it back.

Not sure if this is a window 8 problem, so I just bought a nice used I5 HP pavilion entertainment 17"+ screen for $200. I talked the guy down @ the pawn shop, I thought it was a steal. It's got a lot of fancy stuff lit external touch volume and cd control's. It works way better then the 2 two new ones I took back.

I don't see much of a difference between the I5 HP and my Dual core HP however.

An i3 chip is more than sufficient for common desktop applications. Buying for a 5-6 year lifetime? I think you will be doing your business in the cloud via a cell phone interface long before that.

Quote: AxelWolf

I don't see much of a difference between the I5 HP and my Dual core HP however.

There are many supporting chipsets on the "motherboard" that greatly influence the performance you experience. Manufacturers frequently scrimp on the supporting hardware to lower the price while still being able to tout the major components, such as CPU, that most consumers recognize.

Quote: AxelWolf

Not sure if this is a window 8 problem,

Aside from Win8 itself being a problem? ;)

Seriously, my old Toshiba laptop ran Win8.1 Preview much better than its own native Vista. of course, Vista has never run well anywhere, so draw your own conclussions.

I haven't run Win8.x ni my new Lenovo i5 Win7, so I can't comapre a newer machine. Win8 has a rep for booting fast and running well, if you can stomach the song and dance required to get thigns to run in the first place.

But then I positively wish Windows 8 would be erased from the Universe.

I've had a similar problem with all machines bought after Win95, though: bloatware. First thing I do with any new PC since then is clean up all the ballast installed by the OEM. 99.9999% is useless for me anyway. I recommend even running the task manager to identify hidden processes which may be slowing you down. The Lenovo, for example, was running a lot of Apple itunes, quicktime and other things. Sometimes some software youa ctually sue runs an update process to constantly watch out for updates. That can suck the life out of the CPU.

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

An i7 chip has more on-die cache, greater clock speed and uses hyperthreading compared with the i5 chip. All those differences will speed up CPU-intensive tasks such as simulations IF the sim program can make use of the resources. If the sim coding wasn't optimized for multithreading then it won't matter much. Look for reviews of the product you use.

Even an SSD pales in comparison to the speed advantage primary memory provides: we're talking magnitudes of difference. Buy the max RAM your desktop rig will handle. By a large disk for cost-effective storage. Check performance. If despite the max RAM memory you have your system accesses page/swap files a lot, then add a small SSD and move the page/swap files to that.

If you really need big-balls CPU capability think of adding graphics cards and utilizing the GPU's for the brunt work of the sims. Be sure to size the power supply and cooling appropriately if you go this route. There are lots of fried video cards being sold on eBay/Amazon that were burnt out doing Bitcoin mining.

I think this advice might be a bit too technical for the OP, who is relying on his IT dude to get the right stuff. I doubt if OP is building anything from scratch, himself.

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

I don't agree, unless your servers need some lightning-fast response times such as airline reservation systems and stock trading platforms. Apart from speed SSD's have an advantage of no moving parts, and spinning disks do eventually fail. However, it is cheaper to handle that risk by using a hardware-controlled RAID5 array. A failed disk does not cause operations to stop nor data to be lost. The failed disk can be replaced on-the-fly and rebuilt as a background process. There is the risk that you will ignore a disk failure because operations don't stop. (They do slow down.) Big mistake: if there is a second disk failure you have screwed the pooch. Get out your latest backup media. You DO have those, don't you?

Agree with your disagreement on the SSD being necessary. However, RAID5 has some serious issues with the big drives these days. The risk of an URE during drive rebuild is just too great. Go with RAID 1, disk is cheap. And yeah, additional backups for business critical data.

Quote: AcesAndEights

I think this advice might be a bit too technical for the OP, who is relying on his IT dude to get the right stuff. I doubt if OP is building anything from scratch, himself.


Agree with your disagreement on the SSD being necessary. However, RAID5 has some serious issues with the big drives these days. The risk of an URE during drive rebuild is just too great. Go with RAID 1, disk is cheap. And yeah, additional backups for business critical data.

Yes, I should have stopped after the first paragraph about CPU performance. I was on a roll! Thanks for the references about RAID5 risk in today's IT environment. I have been lucky, haven't had the described catastrophe happen in may years of operation. For my own home-built rigs I do just as you suggested: two disks using the motherboard hardware controller for RAID1.

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

Quote: AcesAndEights

I think this advice might be a bit too technical for the OP, who is relying on his IT dude to get the right stuff. I doubt if OP is building anything from scratch, himself.


Agree with your disagreement on the SSD being necessary. However, RAID5 has some serious issues with the big drives these days. The risk of an URE during drive rebuild is just too great. Go with RAID 1, disk is cheap. And yeah, additional backups for business critical data.

Yes, I should have stopped after the first paragraph about CPU performance. I was on a roll! Thanks for the references about RAID5 risk in today's IT environment. I have been lucky, haven't had the described catastrophe happen in may years of operation. For my own home-built rigs I do just as you suggested: two disks using the motherboard hardware controller for RAID1.

It's funny (not funny, actually sad) because I built a home system a few months ago with RAID5, and literally the next day was chasing down some leftover research links and read all that stuff about it. Thankfully my 3 drives are only 250GB so I'll probably be okay. The real problem is when you start using multi-terabyte drives.

But for my next home system build, I'm definitely just going to go RAID1. I

Seeing that you keep your computers a long time I highly recommend spending the little extra money and going with the i5 and at least 4GB RAM. For you it really depends on whether you mind waiting or need the highest speed. How much is your time worth? The i7 will definitely give you better performance but whether it's worth the extra money is a question that only you can answer. Personally I'd go with the i7 and 8GB RAM. I also recommend sticking with Win7 Professional (you need Professional to connect to a server).

When you look at the extra cost for an i5 based system amortized over the life of the computer it's really a no brainer IMO.

Quote: PBguy

I also recommend sticking with Win7 Professional (you need Professional to connect to a server).

Connect to a server in what context? Every time you open your web browser and bring up a website, you are technically connecting to a server (specifically the web server which is hosting that site).

Quote: AcesAndEights

Quote: PBguy

I also recommend sticking with Win7 Professional (you need Professional to connect to a server).

Connect to a server in what context? Every time you open your web browser and bring up a website, you are technically connecting to a server (specifically the web server which is hosting that site).

Might mean logging on to and working with a Windows domain context, for which Pro is required.

If I were buying, I would build not purchase. I've done this a few times over the last 17 years.
If the price of your electric bill is of no concern, go with i5-Quad-Core. DO NOT blow the money
on graphics unless you're a real gamer. Running sims is not terribly intensive. I was doing this
in 2003-05 with an AMD Single 3200 (2.0GHz). 20 Billion in about 20 minutes.

I really have no opinions about pre-builts other than they DO get loaded with junk, and proprietary
code to integrate video/HDD/printers, etc. Generally good specs are i5Quad 3.2GHz, 8Gb mem.
(2x4Gb), 256bit 2Gb video, and W7/os. Now HDD vs. SSD. I'll agree that SSD is faster, and HDD
is more reliable. Grab a 1Tb HDD... the same money MIGHT get you a 64Gb SSD on sale. However,
defragging 1Tb takes a while, and you WILL have to do it.

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

There are many supporting chipsets on the "motherboard" that greatly influence the performance you experience. Manufacturers frequently scrimp on the supporting hardware to lower the price while still being able to tout the major components, such as CPU, that most consumers recognize.

This explains it, thanks. I knew something was messed up and I wasn't crazy.

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

An i3 chip is more than sufficient for common desktop applications. Buying for a 5-6 year lifetime? I think you will be doing your business in the cloud via a cell phone interface long before that.

I do not think so regarding PCs. PCs have been faster more reliable and more cost efficient untill now against all others (Laptops, tablets, cell). I think this will continue. Just the PC market will only be more oriented towards the business market and all the rest towards the home market. Faster not only in computer speed terms but in typing speed terms and also be able to have a big monitor (and the monitor not shared with a touch keyboard). Try work on a big excel spreadsheet on a device with a small screen, it will take me more than twice the time to do the same work.
One solution that many companies do is have laptops with an extra monitor and keyboard. And you plug the laptop to the network at the office and take it to clients and at home when need to work from home. I hate laptops, I am much faster working on PC, so I never went with such a solution.
We have a laptop at the office for shared use when work needs to be done at a client.
With regard to the cloud that will probably happen to some degree.

Quote: PBguy

Seeing that you keep your computers a long time I highly recommend spending the little extra money and going with the i5 and at least 4GB RAM. For you it really depends on whether you mind waiting or need the highest speed. How much is your time worth? The i7 will definitely give you better performance but whether it's worth the extra money is a question that only you can answer. Personally I'd go with the i7 and 8GB RAM. I also recommend sticking with Win7 Professional (you need Professional to connect to a server).
When you look at the extra cost for an i5 based system amortized over the life of the computer it's really a no brainer IMO.When you look at the extra cost for an i5 based system amortized over the life of the computer it's really a no brainer IMO.

That's what I am thinking about. I hate changing computers all the time not so much because of the cost, but the hassle of the changeover. Transfering all software to the new PCs, setting up the new PCs for the configuration needed, transfer of data, time lost at the changeover but Number 1 issue is that after the initial changeover you find things that have not been set up properly so more time to spend to sort all of them. And of course after the changeover there is a learning curve to learn where everything is. That's been my experience in the past.
This also applies to software. On most PCs we have an old version of Office except for 2 PCs with newer versions. I work on the old Excel on my PC with lighting speed (as I know exactly where all the functions are). Sometimes I work on one of the other PCs on newer version excel to show something to an employee and I struggle to find where the various functions are. Of course once you get the newest version, after a couple of months you learn everything is and get back the speed.
For the cost of hardware v software the Cost of the i5 PC (excluding monitor) is the same with the annual licence per user that I pay for the Specialised Software (1/2 the employees use this). The rest of the software used are not expensive.
The difference in cost that I got between the i3 and the i5 is about $200. That's about 1,5 day's salary cost for an average employee.

WINDOWS
I aslo got the advise to go with Win 7.
The advise I got was that the Win 8 is more geared towards the Home market and other appliances (tablets etc) and the Win 7 towards business.
And also when you buy Win 7, you get the licence for Win 8 also and can upgrade at any time.

Thanks again for all the advice given.
I am not a Tech guy, so a I will be honest that some of the tech jargon that various people advised, I have no clue what they are talking about.
I do some of IT in the office. But I really do not have the time to be upto date with all the stuff as they come out, so usually I get the IT guy to do everything even the stuff that I know how to do.

Quote: AceTwo

WINDOWS
I aslo got the advise to go with Win 7.
The advise I got was that the Win 8 is more geared towards the Home market and other appliances (tablets etc) and the Win 7 towards business.

Not if you listen to Microsoft. And they say it with a straight face, too!

Regardless of focus, Win8 is a completely different interface, much dimminished as regards productivity as well as everything else. There's a long, tedious, thread about it in DT. And, yes, I did try the preview for the Win8.1 release. It fully lived up to my nightmares.

Quote:

And also when you buy Win 7, you get the licence for Win 8 also and can upgrade at any time.

I'd advice seeing it first. Also to wait for Windows 9, or whatever the next one is called. Windows 8 as a brand is as ruined as Edsel, Windows Vista, New Coke, and Windows Me (which MS swears up and down does not mean "Mistake edition").

Quote: AceTwo

He says for sure that the Server should be SSD. For the PC is extra.
Any views on the Server having SSD.

I don't think that's a widely accepted view. If you decide to go with SSD for your primary storage on a server, make sure you have a robust backup system in place - you're going to need it.

The boost in performance is negligible and the decrease in reliability is substantial.

Google "ssd for file server" and do some reading.

SSD shines in laptops.

I would seriously consider getting a second opinion.

Quote: AceTwo

Just asking for any advice from members regarding current desktop computer technology and their views.

This is my day job.
I prefer HP laptops over Dell laptops because of reliability and value. Have only ever had Dell laptops die early, though to give them their due, you can get good onsite support from Dell. I prefer Dell for desktops and towers. i5 if you can get them for not much more than i3's, though i5 laptops have recently leapt in price here in the UK, so I now purchase more i3's. Extra RAM (memory) is cheap and worth considering: An i3 with extra RAM (memory) can be more cost effective and even better than an i5 where you've skimped. Go for 6GB minimum per machine. You may be able to upgrade some machines with the RAM pulled from other, already upgraded ones: E.g. pop two 4GB memory modules into one machine and take the 2GB ones out and pop them in alongside the existing pair of 2Gigs of another machine.
Solid State drives are time savers when you are starting up a pc or application, but not such a big deal for number crunching applications where RAM gives the advantage.
SSD not recommended for your server. If its constantly reading and writing data, it will fail early and if you are not, then there was never any advantage.
Grab Windows 7 while you can :)

Quote: OnceDear

Grab Windows 7 while you can :)

With all the complaints about 8 you think they would do something about it. Are we really going to be stuck with 8? I talked to My local PC guy and hes making most of his off downgrading 8 to 7, upgrading is more like it. I think he gets 100 a pop. Not sure if one needs to buy a new copy of win 7 each time. I can imagine their are ways around this.

I heard its hard to upgrade XP to 7 is this true?

We will indeed be forced into Win 8 and even worse will have to subscribe for MSOffice rather than buy it as a one off cost.
If you buy genuine Dell or HP machines, they currently ship with Win 7 installed and with Win 8 disks to downgrade with. But I'm seeing Win 7 machines actually getting dearer faster than those with win8 preinstalled. Genuine HP or Dell new machines will take a genuine HP or Dell OEM win 8 or win7 installation disk and not make you buy an additional license.

XP to win7 isn't really an upgrade path. You'd blow the XP away with a fresh install. Before doing so, grab documents and things like device drivers and MSOffice 10 installation keys for reinstallation. Time consuming to do properly.

Quote: AxelWolf

With all the complaints about 8 you think they would do something about it.

If you have the time and patience, you can read about it here: http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/189/0/

Short version: Windows 8 was centered on the Metro interface (alter renamed Modern, later renamed Windows Store Apps, currently called "Metro" by most people), which features touch as the principal means of control. It also has hidden controls, like the infamous "Charms Bar." The desktop was still there, as a lone tile labeled "Desktop" as if it were an "app." It was also relegated to "legacy" status. But more improtant of all, there is no start menu. One is supposed to "pin" "apps" on the taskbar, or go to the metro interface to launch desktop programs (I kid you not).

Adoption rates were low, and still are. They comapre almost exactly with those of Windows Vista, complete with upgrade rigths to Windows 7 (which for some reason MS calls downgrade rights). Complaints from users were sky-high, and still are. Sales of start menu replacements by thirdparty developers are reported to be rather good.

Over the past year and change, since Late 2012 when MS spawned this abortion of an OS (Warning: My opinion may be biased from actually having used this thing), there have been two major changes. One was the release of Windows 8.1, which brougth back the start button but not the start menu. The revived button emrely sends you to hell, or the metro interface which is the same thing.

Last April they released Update 1. This actually improved things for the masses of unwashed, one assumes, troglodytes who actually use their PCs for something productive like, you know, work. For one thing it added an intermitent taskbar to the metro side, and an intermitent toolbar to metro "apps" (intermitent: it becomes visible only when you mouse over the area you'd never suspect of having anything at all). They added left-click context menus to the metro tiles, too.

Still no start menu

In between launch and now, too, just about everyone respnsible for Win8 has been fired or shuffled over elsewhere in the comapny, far, far away from the OS division. This includes former CEO Steve Balmer.

Current buzz is of a project code-named Threshold which will likely be launched as Windows 9 sometime next year. it will have a start menu (finally!!) which will feature metro tiles in it (I'm hoping it will be cutomizable, or that someone will hack it really well), the ability to run metro "apps" in floating desktop windows (which third-party developers already offer for a modest fee), and perhaps other things.

Quote:

I talked to My local PC guy and hes making most of his off downgrading 8 to 7, upgrading is more like it. I think he gets 100 a pop. Not sure if one needs to buy a new copy of win 7 each time. I can imagine their are ways around this.

Windows 7 is an upgrade compared to Windows 8 (see above). One can use a PC with Win7.

As I understand, Win7 is no longer sold to the public. You can get it from an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) such as Dell or HP or Lenovo, but only installed in new gear. All versions of Windows 8 Pro (8, 8.1, with or without upgrades) ahve upgrade rights to Win7, but I don't know how that works, and there is suppsoed to be some kind of fee.

Quote:

I heard its hard to upgrade XP to 7 is this true?

It depends on your hardware. Win7 uses up a great deal more in resources than XP. Ironically Win8 uses less (under the hood it's a good system, it just cannot be used). So most XP PCs won't be able to run Win7 without at least some hardware upgrades, some won't run it at all. The same applies to some PCs running Vista Home Basic.

I installed the Win8.1 preview in an aging laptop. It ran well, but using it was a chore until I installed the Start8 start menu replacement from Stardock. Fortunately I was able to find 1 (one) Win7 desktop PC last November to replace my old PC. I'm sure it will run Win9 well, should it be worth runnig (I'll try the preview first). If not, I've already looked hard at Linux and can experiment with it in the obsolete PC or the laptop.

Quote: AxelWolf

I heard its hard to upgrade XP to 7 is this true?

Yes. The first operation performed is a complete reformatting of the installation drive, so anything you want to preserve has to be saved to another media. All 3rd party products you are using and want to continue using will have to be reinstalled. Contacts, mail, web browser favorites... they all have to be saved and reapplied.

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

Yes. The first operation performed is a complete reformatting of the installation drive, so anything you want to preserve has to be saved to another media. All 3rd party products you are using and want to continue using will have to be reinstalled. Contacts, mail, web browser favorites... they all have to be saved and reapplied.

Windows Easy Transfer works just fine going from XP to W7 or W8. Yes, you need to save the transfer file on a USB drive or something but it's not hard to transfer all of your stuff to a new PC or fresh installation of a new version of Windows.

W8 is not nearly as bad as most folks would have you believe. Yes, the UI is terrible. But it has more than a few "under the hood" improvements that are quite an improvement over any other OS on the market, including OS X or Linux. In particular, the memory management is really, really good. I have two Windows Server 2012 (basically W8 Server) and they have been very good, especially the terminal server.

The first thing I do with any W8 machine is install Classic Shell (Google it - it's free and it works quite well) which gives you a start menu and several other nice features.

I'm typing this on a W8 machine right now, and believe me I was as much a W8 hater as anyone just 6 months ago.

Quote: TerribleTom

W8 is not nearly as bad as most folks would have you believe.

I agree. It's much worse than most people would have you believe.

Quote:

Yes, the UI is terrible.

See, for me that's where the story ends. If I can't use the computer, what do I care about anything else?

Quote:

The first thing I do with any W8 machine is install Classic Shell (Google it - it's free and it works quite well) which gives you a start menu and several other nice features.

If the first step is to kill the UI and replace it with a different one, then Windows 8 is much worse than people say it is.

BTW I like Start8 better, and Modern Mix helps kill the metro entirely.

Quote: TerribleTom

Windows Easy Transfer works just fine going from XP to W7 or W8. Yes, you need to save the transfer file on a USB drive or something but it's not hard to transfer all of your stuff to a new PC or fresh installation of a new version of Windows.

W8 is not nearly as bad as most folks would have you believe. Yes, the UI is terrible. But it has more than a few "under the hood" improvements that are quite an improvement over any other OS on the market, including OS X or Linux. In particular, the memory management is really, really good. I have two Windows Server 2012 (basically W8 Server) and they have been very good, especially the terminal server.

The first thing I do with any W8 machine is install Classic Shell (Google it - it's free and it works quite well) which gives you a start menu and several other nice features.

I'm typing this on a W8 machine right now, and believe me I was as much a W8 hater as anyone just 6 months ago.

I know this is not an operating system but i use this on my computers its the best environment I have found with so many unique options and its free. Its also cool when you get different 3d backgrounds. Bumptop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqcmPJ-oVL0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqcmPJ-oVL0