win8 The Real Reason for FUD Regarding Windows 8

[PGHammer]

As someone that kicked Windows 7 completely to the curb with the release of the Consumer Preview (I now use it only in VMs), the FUD over Windows 8 (and the Consumer Preview) has, if anything, grown more vociferous - despite even the detractors' admission that Windows 8's Consumer Preview is actually better at backward compatibility than the Windows 7 beta (same stage of development).

So I took a look at where we are in terms of both hardware and software and came to some rather surprising conclusions.

1. Justifying an OS change (any OS change) has gotten a lot harder. For all too many computer users (not just desktop PC users), what they have (hardware and software) is just fine. The concern is that Windows 8 will be like the Affordable Care Act - looks great on the surface, but with a hidden sting in the tail.

2. High-power hardware is actually highly affordable on the desktop. Thanks largely to Sandy Bridge, high-power hardware is no longer expensive - far from it. It's gotten affordable, if not downright cheap. While even Windows 8's Consumer Preview can leverage Sandy Bridge better than Windows 7, how many folks can (or will) actually use what Sandy Bridge brings to Windows 8? (The situation is, on the desktop, no better with Ivy Bridge; however, IB, unlike predecessor SB, brings more benefits to smaller formfactors. It still remains to be seen how many users will actually buy the new IB Ultrabooks, tablets and slates, as opposed to sticking with their current hardware and Windows 7. One feature both Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge both bring with Windows 8 is better support for desktop virtualization with Hyper-V - however, even with as much of it that I do now, and will in the future with a Windows 8 desktop featuring SB or IB, I'm not typical - I'm an admitted outlier in that area.)

3. It's always easier to not spend than to spend (time OR money). This is the enterprise/SMB position - basically do more with less. The UI change is plenty of excuse not to move (training costs), despite that their core line-of-business applications need not change much, if at all.

By and large, the detractors are comfortable, and don't want to move - and are perfectly willing to make any excuse to NOT move, no matter how silly-sounding it may be. While I see the benefits of upgrading to Windows 8, a rather vocal group of detractors are quite comfortable where they are, and are absolutely unwilling to move.

[Southern Patriot]

despite even the detractors' admission that Windows 8's Consumer Preview is actually better at backward compatibility than the Windows 7 beta (same stage of development).

Well, no ****, why wouldn't it be? It isn't as if they threw out all of the final Windows 7 code and started over. I always have to roll my eyes at idiotic statements like that.

[Cheatyface]

Oh. Look. Another "I'm right, you're wrong" Windows 8 topic.

[Josh the Nerd]

Well, no ****, why wouldn't it be? It isn't as if they threw out all of the final Windows 7 code and started over. I always have to roll my eyes at idiotic statements like that.

They didn't throw out the final Vista code and start over with Windows 7 either, so the comparison is fair in this regard. A better question is "Why was the Windows 7 beta less compatible than the Consumer Preview?"

[goofyinthehead]

The real reason for FUD regarding Windows 8 has nothing to do with anything you talked about.

It basically boils down to this:

Windows 8 on the desktop looks like **** and belongs nowhere near a desktop environment. It's a freaking tablet/phone OS.

[PGHammer]

Well, no ****, why wouldn't it be? It isn't as if they threw out all of the final Windows 7 code and started over. I always have to roll my eyes at idiotic statements like that.

So what is behind all the distaste for the Consumer Preview then?

Pretty much *every* whine and complaint from the detractors has to do with the UI.

In other words, never mind that backward-compatibility (both hardware and software) is better than even Windows 7; because the UI changed, (insert name here) will pass, and recommend others pass also.

When the Developer Preview came out, my biggest concern was, in fact, backward-compatibility (both hardware and software) largely *because* of the radically-different UI. Guess what - applications worked pretty much as they did in Windows 7. Absolutely unheard-of (Windows 7's own Consumer Preview wasn't this good, and Linux desktop environments are actually far worse than Windows 7 was in that area, and don't get me started on Lion's backward-compatibility with Snow Leopard, or even Snow Leopard's backward-compatibility with Leopard). Basically, the biggest problem with Windows betas to date has become a non-factor, and despite the biggest UI change since Windows 9x - and it gets pooh-poohed.

If anything, the Consumer Preview hardened the detractors' positions even further - again, because the UI is unchanged from the Developer Preview. I actually *widened* the application test pool - I included all the games I normally ran in Windows 7 and (due to having a much larger boot drive) added more (both applications and games). Despite the widened test pool, applications (both old and new) worked as well as, if not better than, Windows 7. Same applies to games. Same even applied to all my hardware. What are all the detractors saying? "Meh - it still has that radically-different UI. Pass."

This isn't going from XP to Vista (which I DID do while still running a P4 Northwood-C), as I'm actually *behind* the power curve at present (which I was squarely in the middle of when the XP/Vista changeover began) - pushing an Intel quad-core in LGA775 (no less than the defining quad-core - Q6600), but still behind the curve for desktops by at least a generation, if not two. Yet folks with better hardware than I have (again, by at least a generation) didn't want to move from Windows 7.

It's why I took a look at not just the state of software that runs on both 7 and 8 (traditional applications and games, in other words) and the state of computer hardware (motherboards, CPUs, GPUs, etc.) to uncover the reality behind the reticence.

Part of the issue has its genesis in the brouhaha over Crysis 2 - it's a multiplatform game, and therefore doesn't stress PC hardware very much at the defaults. The same has been pretty much a constant throughout gaming, and even to an extent in the entire application space. Except for outliers, there's no *gotta-have* game, or even application, out there that will even push Windows 7, let alone the Windows 8 Consumer Preview to where folks will upgrade from whatever they have now. (One feature that I did, in fact, point is a biggie in the current generation of Intel CPUs - support for Hyper-V - is an outlier feature; how many Neowinians even care about improved desktop virtualization? I stated quite plainly that I do, and it is, in fact, why I'm going to be upgrading to, at the very least, Sandy Bridge, if not Ivy Bridge - however, I'm also an admitted outlier.)

With no reason driving an urge to move, with a new version of Windows coming up fast, the hunt is on for reasons (or excuses) NOT to move. However, the usual reasons (too stressful on hardware, application breakage, driver breakage) aren't there this time. And with the usual reasons gone, folks are trying to come up with new ones.

I get every bit that change (especially a radical change such as a user interface) can be quite stress-filled - and this is a monster. However, unless you want things to remain firmly in the Land of "Meh" (which is exactly what a lot of us in computing have been complaining and whining about), staying put simply doesn't get it done.

[ahhell]

The real reason is that people need something to whine about.??Windows 8 just happens to be the latest thing.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

seriously though, I DON'T understand all the rage for the new metro start screen

if you don't like it install something like Classic Shell to bring back the start menu, there is just too much improvement to Windows 8 to put it down and diss it just because of a stupid UI change that's very easy to work around

[Woelfel]

So what is behind all the distaste for the Consumer Preview then?

Pretty much *every* whine and complaint from the detractors has to do with the UI.

In other words, never mind that backward-compatibility (both hardware and software) is better than even Windows 7; because the UI changed, (insert name here) will pass, and recommend others pass also.

When the Developer Preview came out, my biggest concern was, in fact, backward-compatibility (both hardware and software) largely *because* of the radically-different UI. Guess what - applications worked pretty much as they did in Windows 7. Absolutely unheard-of (Windows 7's own Consumer Preview wasn't this good, and Linux desktop environments are actually far worse than Windows 7 was in that area, and don't get me started on Lion's backward-compatibility with Snow Leopard, or even Snow Leopard's backward-compatibility with Leopard). Basically, the biggest problem with Windows betas to date has become a non-factor, and despite the biggest UI change since Windows 9x - and it gets pooh-poohed.

If anything, the Consumer Preview hardened the detractors' positions even further - again, because the UI is unchanged from the Developer Preview. I actually *widened* the application test pool - I included all the games I normally ran in Windows 7 and (due to having a much larger boot drive) added more (both applications and games). Despite the widened test pool, applications (both old and new) worked as well as, if not better than, Windows 7. Same applies to games. Same even applied to all my hardware. What are all the detractors saying? "Meh - it still has that radically-different UI. Pass."

This isn't going from XP to Vista (which I DID do while still running a P4 Northwood-C), as I'm actually *behind* the power curve at present (which I was squarely in the middle of when the XP/Vista changeover began) - pushing an Intel quad-core in LGA775 (no less than the defining quad-core - Q6600), but still behind the curve for desktops by at least a generation, if not two. Yet folks with better hardware than I have (again, by at least a generation) didn't want to move from Windows 7.

It's why I took a look at not just the state of software that runs on both 7 and 8 (traditional applications and games, in other words) and the state of computer hardware (motherboards, CPUs, GPUs, etc.) to uncover the reality behind the reticence.

Part of the issue has its genesis in the brouhaha over Crysis 2 - it's a multiplatform game, and therefore doesn't stress PC hardware very much at the defaults. The same has been pretty much a constant throughout gaming, and even to an extent in the entire application space. Except for outliers, there's no *gotta-have* game, or even application, out there that will even push Windows 7, let alone the Windows 8 Consumer Preview to where folks will upgrade from whatever they have now. (One feature that I did, in fact, point is a biggie in the current generation of Intel CPUs - support for Hyper-V - is an outlier feature; how many Neowinians even care about improved desktop virtualization? I stated quite plainly that I do, and it is, in fact, why I'm going to be upgrading to, at the very least, Sandy Bridge, if not Ivy Bridge - however, I'm also an admitted outlier.)

With no reason driving an urge to move, with a new version of Windows coming up fast, the hunt is on for reasons (or excuses) NOT to move. However, the usual reasons (too stressful on hardware, application breakage, driver breakage) aren't there this time. And with the usual reasons gone, folks are trying to come up with new ones.

I get every bit that change (especially a radical change such as a user interface) can be quite stress-filled - and this is a monster. However, unless you want things to remain firmly in the Land of "Meh" (which is exactly what a lot of us in computing have been complaining and whining about), staying put simply doesn't get it done.

Well f***ing said.

[Dot Matrix]

The real reason for FUD regarding Windows 8 has nothing to do with anything you talked about.

It basically boils down to this:

Windows 8 on the desktop looks like **** and belongs nowhere near a desktop environment. It's a freaking tablet/phone OS.

A person's opinion doesn't make it a fact. Metro has been working for me just fine, even on the desktop.

Another person's trash, is another's treasure. Metro will continue to evolve for Windows 9 where many people will pick up using it.

[PGHammer]

The real reason for FUD regarding Windows 8 has nothing to do with anything you talked about.

It basically boils down to this:

Windows 8 on the desktop looks like **** and belongs nowhere near a desktop environment. It's a freaking tablet/phone OS.

And if the Consumer Preview (let alone the Developer Preview) had kept the Windows 7 UI (which the two previous leaks did) it would have faced the same abrupt dismissal said leaks did - it's not different *enough* from Windows 7 (which would be an absolutely correct assessment). In fact, consider the Samsung Series 7 - it's a tablet driven by an i5-2400 CPU (an Ultrabook competitor); while it was given to attendees with the Developer Preview at BUILD, it shipped simultaneously with Windows 7 installed on it (which is what it ships with today). Even those that OWN the Series 7 are embracing the Consumer Preview (which the detractors, which are running current-generation, but traditional, formfactor hardware are passing up). Your complaint that it's a *phone OS* is exactly what it sounds like - an attempt to pigeonhole Windows 8's Consumer Preview into an easier-to-dismiss category, as opposed to considering it on its merits. The very fact that traditional Windows 7 applications and games (as well as traditional hardware) work as-is utterly trainwrecks the *phone OS* argument - you might as well be saying that Android tablets (EEE Transformer Prime and Galaxy Tab/Note) are "phone tablets" - in fact, you'd be a lot closer to the mark with THAT assessment (especially since they are all running Android) than you would with Windows 8's Consumer Preview (or even Windows RT) as there is practically *everything* in common between Android on tablets and smartphones - and, other than parts of the UI, practically nit between Windows Phone and either Windows 8 or Windows RT. You don't want to move, and are looking for any reason - or excuse - to justify it.

[migo]

The real reason is that people need something to whine about. Windows 8 just happens to be the latest thing.

This sounds about right, but also the fact that there's no need to upgrade.

When Windows Vista came around, it had system requirements that put it out of reach for most people, including for new systems being sold. When Windows 7 came around, peoplle had been sticking it out with Windows XP for so long that they were happy for a change. People haven't been using Windows 7 long enough to get tired of it.

[Dot Matrix]

And if the Consumer Preview (let alone the Developer Preview) had kept the Windows 7 UI (which the two previous leaks did) it would have faced the same abrupt dismissal said leaks did - it's not different *enough* from Windows 7 (which would be an absolutely correct assessment).

I completely forgot about that. People bitched up a storm becuase Windows 7 didn't look too much different from Vista, and many, MANY, tech pundits predicted its failure as a result.... Now look where we are. :rolleyes:

[PGHammer]

They didn't throw out the final Vista code and start over with Windows 7 either, so the comparison is fair in this regard. A better question is "Why was the Windows 7 beta less compatible than the Consumer Preview?"

It's valid for another reason - 7 did NOT make a UI change and a driver change at the same time (which Windows 8 DID do). Yet Vista had quite a few standard and traditional applications (let alone games) break under 7; however, my transition from 7 to the Consumer Preview was absolutely flawless - in every hardware and software aspect. So what did the Windows 8 Consumer Preview get right (despite a much bigger change) that 7's Consumer Preview blew up in?

[PGHammer]

This sounds about right, but also the fact that there's no need to upgrade.

When Windows Vista came around, it had system requirements that put it out of reach for most people, including for new systems being sold. When Windows 7 came around, peoplle had been sticking it out with Windows XP for so long that they were happy for a change. People haven't been using Windows 7 long enough to get tired of it.

I covered that - in fact, it was the first of my three points. The lack of *gotta-have-it* is, indeed, a major problem. I'm simply pointing out that staying put (which is the detractors' exact advice) won't fix that problem (which predates Windows Vista, and actually had it's "birth", so to speak, in that five year lag between XP and Vista). We, as computer users, are the real driving force behind change - unless we get off our butts, change won't happen.

[techbeck]

FUD looks and just sounds stupid, and yes...I know what FUD means.

IMO, the reason why lots of people are skeptical about Win8 is because its a big change to how the OS looks. I dont like the tiles and really dont like the design of the OS...but again, thats my opinion. I also never cared for the ribbon menu system.

Will I use Win8? Sure I will probably when it goes RTM since I need to keep up to speed on these things for my job.

[goofyinthehead]

And if the Consumer Preview (let alone the Developer Preview) had kept the Windows 7 UI (which the two previous leaks did) it would have faced the same abrupt dismissal said leaks did - it's not different *enough* from Windows 7 (which would be an absolutely correct assessment).

That's an assumption, not a fact as far as I know.

Your complaint that it's a *phone OS* is exactly what it sounds like - an attempt to pigeonhole Windows 8's Consumer Preview into an easier-to-dismiss category, as opposed to considering it on its merits.

If you expect me to believe that Microsoft didn't have the tablet/phone market in mind when they built this then you are living a fanboy dream.

The very fact that traditional Windows 7 applications and games (as well as traditional hardware) work as-is utterly trainwrecks the *phone OS* argument.

I never said that applications did not or will not work on Win 8. Not once. I do however feel/know that it works like crap on a desktop. Not intuitive at all. (In my opinion).

As far as a desktop OS, it's a great tablet.

[PGHammer]

FUD looks and just sounds stupid, and yes...I know what FUD means.

IMO, the reason why lots of people are skeptical about Win8 is because its a big change to how the OS looks. I dont like the tiles and really dont like the design of the OS...but again, thats my opinion. I also never cared for the ribbon menu system.

Will I use Win8? Sure I will probably when it goes RTM since I need to keep up to speed on these things for my job.

That's why I said that the UI (how the OS looks) is an excuse - if it actually made a difference to applications, there would be more application breakage than there has been (in my own case, there hasn't been ANY application breakage).

Was I skeptical? You better believe it - that is precisely why I tested with the Developer Preview for precisely that (and why I further opened the testing gamut even wider since with the Consumer Preview). Given that not a single everyday (or even part-time) traditional application or game failed (which couldn't be said about the Windows 7 Consumer Preview) the radically-different UI certainly isn't a problem in that sense.

Despite the radically different UI, it's still Windows (with the same application, game and even hardware base that Windows 7 has, in fact). I'm certainly having nary an issue with it, and that's on a traditional desktop - not a tablet, slate, or Ultrabook/netbook. While the UI is a curve, if anything, it's a hanging curve - over the heart of the plate; why are you having issues smacking it out of the park?

Lastly, the very fact that the UI *is* so important to the detractors (enough so that they can, and quite deliberately do, dismiss that Windows 8's Consumer Preview gets right the two major issues new versions of Windows usually get wrong) leads me to my theory of comfort zones and whinging for its own sake.

[Stoffel]

You hit the nail on the head with your post PGHammer.

Totally agree with the whole thing.

Looking forward to the beginning of june to see what the RP brings

[remixedcat]

vmware is at the ready....

[rajputwarrior]

you people making threads bashing other people who like/disklike windows 8 need to all go fly a kite and leave the world alone. no one cares. it's an opinion. deal with it.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

you people making threads bashing other people who like/disklike windows 8 need to all go fly a kite and leave the world alone. no one cares. it's an opinion. deal with it.

Especially when we're talking about a product that MS wants actual money for. It seems to be the assumption here that it is the default setting of users to just be waiting to finally be able to pay for a new OS - regardless of whether it brings anything of significant value to the table for them...

[goofyinthehead]

you people making threads bashing other people who like/disklike windows 8 need to all go fly a kite and leave the world alone. no one cares. it's an opinion. deal with it.

As much as I sometimes disagree with my fellow Neowins, (sometimes too harshly), there would be no need for forum discussions or for that matter, forums in general. The livelihood of any forum is to debate each other, to sometimes agree with each other and to sometimes disagree with each other. Because of YOUR opinion(s), this topic continues.

[goofyinthehead]

Especially when we're talking about a product that MS wants actual money for. It seems to be the assumption here that it is the default setting of users to just be waiting to finally be able to pay for a new OS - regardless of whether it brings anything of significant value to the table for them...

I agree. Change is not always good.

[Southern Patriot]

They didn't throw out the final Vista code and start over with Windows 7 either, so the comparison is fair in this regard. A better question is "Why was the Windows 7 beta less compatible than the Consumer Preview?"

The final Vista code had huge compatibility issues, many of which were resolved in the final version of 7. However, even the beta of 7 was better than the final version of Vista.