This is one feature where I think they could've done better. File copies are added to the same window, however, you have to manually pause them if you don't want them running simultaneously. I definitely consider that a con, but not in the context of this discussion of Windows 7 vs 8, since 7 didn't have it either.

As far as the task manager, yeah it's not perfect. It misreports my overclocked CPU and RAM. (Displays the default speed instead of actual.) You can display multiple CPUs in it still, though. Right click on the graph, click "Change graph to" and select logical processors.

As far as running processes without an associated username. Are you sure that windows isn't just hiding the user until they are logged out before actual deletion? (So they still run with same basic permissions until that point.) I would imagine this is something they would check for and handle somehow.

I read about all the Windows 8 hate, but I also read about the many cool new features. From everything I read, Windows 8 sounded better except the metro interface and that was mitigated if you used keyboard shortcuts. I decided to give it a try at the limited time upgrade price of $40.

My take on it is that I like Windows 8 over Windows 7. Would I like a start menu over metro tile UI? Well, yeah. However, the fact of the matter is that I rarely use metro. 99% of my time is spent in desktop mode. I only use it for searching apps, just as I did in Windows Vista/7. Hit Windows key and start typing and hit enter on my app. Metro, also, displays your most used apps, just like 7. So you can just click those if you want too. Any apps I don't have automatically start, I just pin to my taskbar, though, and then I can run them in desktop mode.

Here are my reasons why I like Windows 8:
*) Boot/shutdown time reduced. I don't really notice this, though. Windows 7 was fast too.
*) Much improved task manager. This thing is a beast. A bunch of performance measurements in one SIMPLE place. Seeing what is using cpu/network/disk/memory in one spot is nice.
*) Windows explorer has a bunch of advanced and simple to use toolbar options by default. (I use them rarely, but I appreciate they are there.)
*) Master volume is overlayed on the screen as you change it with keyboard buttons. Previously I had to use 3rd party drivers/software for this.
*) No more Aero UI. Just a plain interface. I don't need the extra pretty graphics and I assume this gets better performance even if only a sliver.
*) File copying is much better. You get a nice graph and the time estimate is actually accurate now. You can, also, pause it. This has made a world of difference for my external drive.
*) Win-X: Pops up a menu of many administration tasks. (ie. Control panel, disk management, command prompt, run, etc). You can, also, modify this list with a 3rd party program.
*) Notepad is MUCH faster now. I'm not sure what they did, but in 7 and below, notepad would take seconds to load/display a simple 25MB file. Now it is instant.
*) Storage Spaces. I'm not using it yet, but being able to put drives in a pool is nice and I foresee use in the future. Built-in unraid. Yes, please.
*) Microsoft Security Essentials built in. (Called Windows Defender.) Malware/antivirus for the masses. (Supposedly it isn't quite as good at 0 day exploits as some other antivirus software, but for my purposes it is fine and it doesn't take up much resources.)
*) Win-P Shortcut: Easily change monitors in use and/or extend desktop. I use this to activate/deactivate my tv.

Cons:
*) I disabled the login/lock screen foreground wallpaper. This required you to click once before you saw your login box. This was simple and works the way I want now.
*) Don't like how metro tries to handle windows updates. However, the old Windows update from Vista/7 is still there, so I usually access that through the control panel.
*) Metro. I've disabled most tiles. It's pretty much used to search only and isn't a hindrance to me.

Here's what I think: If the start menu was available in Windows 8, it would've been very well received as a better OS than 7. The lack of it for me is not a problem as I search my apps anyway, just as I did in Vista/7. For those that are used to clicking with the mouse and can't change, they can get Classic Shell or Start8. I haven't tried either and probably won't, though, because they aren't needed for me. I definitely do not regret my purchase.

As has been mentioned already, you could get 2TB for that price back then. You are also forgetting that after a year, you would be able to get more TB for the same price. Given that, you would think you could get 2.5TB or more for ~$85 now, but that is certainly not the case.

Storage Spaces sounds interesting to me. Basically, you can create a pool of disks and by using mirroring or parity you can have redundancy. The mirroring allows data to be backed up to 1 or more drives. The parity part is most interesting to me, because it sounds similar to Unraid for those that have heard of that. Could be nice to get extra storage space that is portable to any computer as long as it has Windows 8. (Not held down by certain hardware such as motherboard raid controller.) Here is the article from Microsoft on it.

That along with faster booting, better file copying interface (which still could use work in my opinion), better task manager, and some other things make me interested for sure. However, all the bad information I am hearing about the Metro interface has me hesitant. I will probably wait until service pack 1 to decide whether to pick it up. It sounds like a good OS if you aren't worried about the UI, though. Since UI is so important, I'm not sure why Microsoft didn't give the option to just use the classic interface. I guess they want to try and force people to accept the Metro interface.

As mentioned below, I think we have Enhanced 9-1-1 (E911). This allows emergency services to access GPS information on the phone if the user calls 911. I would imagine a text would allow the same thing or could send location info in the text.

I've always wondered why there isn't some kind of expansion port standard for video cards on laptops. Let me plugin a video card black box onto the side of my laptop! I don't care if I need a power adapter for the video card box. That way I can use the normal onboard graphics as needed, but occasionally, when I want to game, I can just plugin my video card box, turn on my laptop, and the laptop will automatically switch to using it for graphics. Heck, maybe the port could be PCI express (without power if needed), that way it could have other uses as well.

Anybody more familiar with this issue (hardware or market) have any thoughts on the feasibility of this? Anybody know why something like this hasn't been done?

Possible reasons on the top of my head:
Laptop makers want a user to buy a whole new laptop when it is "slow".
Hardware issue.
Most users wouldn't use it and we only cater to the top X% of people.

Maybe someone will mod this up for others to see, but the thread is probably too old already. Thanks again.

WOW! Hey thanks a lot. A lot of good quality information. I appreciate how you went through some of the reasons for choosing what you did as well. I've bookmarked this and will look into some of these technologies as I get time. Thanks!

I'm interested in your setup. I imagine some others that read your post might be as well. Perhaps some links to components you are using and an overall cost would be good. I'm interested in comparing this to some of the other options mentioned in this thread. Does your setup work with HD 1080P movies? That part is required for me.

Also, are you sure the people expressing interest every month don't just want to copy your particular collection and are drooling at the chance? :)

I'm no expert, but I did go to Wikipedia and it appears to indicate that your statement is false and 56k is indeed the base speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56_kbit/s

However, with upload speed you appear to be more correct. (33.6 for V.90 and 48 for V.92)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56_kbit/s_modem

Modem compression (v.44 for example) can provide much faster rates than 56k. For highly compressible text, Wikipedia suggests topping out at 3:1 (~150kbit/s) rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.44#Error_control_and_data_compression

If you feel my understanding on these Wikipedia articles is off, I'm definitely interested in hearing more.

This sounds easy on the outside, but in reality it is not if you are doing it right. (FYI: I have experience adding a third party sales tax vendor (similar to the API you write about) into ecommerce websites.) It definitely does not take 5 minutes and I wouldn't suggest that any script kiddie do it. (You are dealing with real money here.) In the real world, you have to deal with all sorts of things like:
*) Taxes that vary depending on the type of item being bought. (Meaning you have to make sure your items have the various classifications for all the various laws.)
*) Need to then deal with crediting taxes on order cancels/returns/changes, which can be even more fun when you are doing it for a split quantity returned.
*) Error handling when remote API goes down
*) Validating user inputted address matches up with a valid tax address.
*) Shipping is taxable for some areas and others not. So again, you get to deal with this headache every time there is an order return or other order changes.

It's definitely doable, just not near 5 minutes doable and is definitely a cost to be considered by smaller sites.

I replied to a similar post above with: I don't think this would work, because the javascript could be modified as well. This means the modified man in the middle javascript could just return the expected hash.

I don't think this would work, because the javascript could be modified as well. This means the modified man in the middle javascript could just return the expected hash.

This solution only works against listeners, not injectors. So it provides a defense for those cases. It is not any less secure, but I admit to it being useless in this case where they probably were doing injection. (Didn't read article, probably should've.)

Good point. The solution I mentioned only works when ISP or middleman isn't injecting things. Sorry about the unnecessary reply.