Editorial

Windows 8, why I love it

While I'm not against change for the most part, I can understand why people get very passionate when something so ingrained in their lives is taken away from them. By this I am talking about the decision to remove the Start Button from Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012. I can also understand that the alternative the same people are then presented with just doesn't do it for them. I am talking about the Start Screen and the Modern UI that Microsoft has brought to their Windows OS.

So I've decided to take a stand. I'm taking a stand against all the haters and trolls that do nothing but dump on Windows 8. Now, yes I am opening myself up to a raft of questions such as “why,” abuse about why I am taking a stand, and ultimately hate for taking a stand and sticking up for the much maligned OS.

Okay, first thing's first; why?

While I don't want to spoil the ending of the article, even though the title already does that, Windows 8 has impressed me. It's not been a completely smooth transition for me, depending on what I needed to do and what device I used it on.

So why don't I like it, or when is it that I loathe using the OS? One word springs to mind; laptops. I find the Start Screen very, very strange to navigate with the touchpad or a nipple mouse. I find that newer laptops, which can double the touchpad up as a multi-touch interface device, can be easier to use but I still don't like it as much as a conventional keyboard and mouse or a tablet. Just to add another negative into the mix, I've used it with an older tablet PC that utilizes a stylus rather than pure touch; it worked, but again it was clunky, just like using the laptop.

Other than that though, I can have no complaints. I'm not going to leave things at that either. I want to go into a bit of detail why I like the OS, from the UI to its performance. I guess I should start with the marmite of the OS, the UI.

The revolution, evolution and revolution of the UI

Any change to a UI in any version of software will irk some people. They will have functionality moved, renamed, added or removed because the vendors deem it fit to move the product forward. However, familiarity is going to be the key in convincing the user the newer version of their software is for them.

So, Microsoft blew the whole familiarity argument completely out of the water by not only removing the Start Button, but changing the Start Menu to the Start Screen. This is not the first time Microsoft has made such a drastic change to their flagship product's UI. For that you have to go all the way back to August 1995 and the release of Windows 95. So, let's throwback to the mid 90's and wistfully think back to those simpler times!

It can't be denied that computing, both in the home and in the work environments wasn't anywhere near as prominent as it is now. But Microsoft took a big risk, albeit in front of a smaller user base, with the introduction of the Start Button, Start Menu and Taskbar. Concerns were raised by users of Windows 3.x and Windows NT 3.x that they would need training and that adoption of the OS would be slow due to legacy application compatibility issues, part in thanks to the move from 16-bit architecture to a pre-emptively multitasked 32-bit architecture. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It was the simplicity of Windows 95 and it's UI that brought computing to the masses. Microsoft got celebrities of the time - Jennifer Anniston and Matthew Perry - to promote the OS, bundled the positively epic music video ‘Buddy Holly' by Weezer on the installation media and got the rights to use The Rolling Stones' ‘Start Me Up' in the advertising campaign. All of this must have worked; Steve Ballmer himself said at BUILD 2012 that one of the three biggest events to happen during his time at Microsoft was:

The launch of Windows 95 which was really the thing that brought computing into the mainstream and opened up the internet with the first integrated browsers.

He's right. The OS, its simplicity, its marketing techniques and celebrity endorsements (if you could call them endorsements that is) all brought computing to the general population. Computers were no longer for the pasty white geek sitting in a basement writing code or fiddling with electronics, nor was it now restricted to the workplace as a device you used to get things done. Microsoft was in the right place at the right time with Windows 95, and it was the first OS I installed myself from media.

Ballmer added that the third biggest event is the release of Windows 8, going on to say that Microsoft is “all in” when it comes to the OS. Well, they're not going to slate their newest OS are they?


The evolution of the Windows UI

So, over the years, Microsoft has tweaked and improved the Start Button and Menu, depending on the trends of the time. The OS has always remained constant and consistent in how it works, functionality added and removed, with tasks and configurable options becoming more accessible, even to the most novice of computer user.

So, bringing things speedily to October 26th 2012, Windows 8 hit the stores and Microsoft pulled out all the stops for its launch. The general feedback from Joe public seemed to be positive, with Surface tablets, All-in-One PCs and Windows 8 laptops being demoed and seen for the first time, outside of a Microsoft keynote speech, by the people that matter to Microsoft, their customers.

So, onto the UI and my first question has to be, is it that bad?


My Start Screen as it is at the moment

Well it depends on how you look at it. Or wish to use it. Using Windows Phone 7 for nearly two years prior to the general release of Windows 8, I was more than prepared for what Microsoft wanted to achieve on the desktop with the OS. As I've already stated, the navigation left me a little disappointed when using a laptop, but once I got the OS onto a test PC with a keyboard and mouse, my perception changed immediately and I realised that it wasn't at all as terrible as I'd experience so far. I've even had the opportunity to use Windows RT on a Surface and use Windows 8 Pro on a touch screen Ultrabook, and I have to say, the navigation works very, very well.


Post made by a friend of mine on Facebook after getting Windows in November

 

I've had many debates with friends and work colleagues around the UI and what it is like to use. The general consensus has been that, even before they use it, they respond with “it's crap!” Now, this is a little harsh, as I would understand if they'd used the OS and could get to grips with the UI, but from only seeing the UI in screenshots and videos, that's a little bit unfair.


Another post by a Facebook friend after getting Windows 8

 

The UI isn't bad at all. Microsoft are being very clever in providing the touch centric aspects of the OS as the main or first interface you see, while at the same time they have kept the traditional desktop experience there for all to use, if they so wish or need. Essentially, there are two UI's in the one OS out of the box. And I like both of them.

The Modern UI has been designed for touch based devices. We first got to see it, called Metro, in the Zune HD, Windows Phone 7 and then the Xbox 360 dashboard. It's a good interface, very much suited to touch based devices and the gesture controls of the Kinect. And with a standard keyboard and mouse it works well too. The Live Tiles are a revelation. For years, UIs have been becoming flashier, adding animations and detailed icons and graphical eye candy. But with the Live Tiles, while there is eye candy there, with the dynamic changing of the information on the tiles, icons for Outlook, Xbox Live, SkyDrive, Calendar and Xbox Music are all two tone flat icons. Microsoft has taken a step back from the bells and whistles and managed to produce something that offers the same for less. Theme colour on white and that's it. And you know what, I think it works, and works well.


A nice wee video from CBT Nuggets showing the UI and how to use it

Even the animations aren't anything special. They are simple. It's a common fact that the simplest things in life are the hardest to do right. But Microsoft has done it well. Transitioning between apps is nice. The apps flip/spin on and off screen. The Live tiles contain a mixture of flips and slides, while the whole time maintaining a very flat graphical look. I find it hard to describe the UI without over simplifying things, saying “it's class” or “I love it” but the overall look of the touch UI is beautiful.

Search works in the exact same way as it did in Vista and 7, but you just don't have a text box to prompt you to type what you're looking for. Instead, just start typing and you should get the desired results. Although, you will have to have at least a little knowledge of what you are looking for, with the search being broken down into Apps, Settings and Files.

The themes are slightly limited in number and there could be more options to personalize the UI (custom background on the Start Screen, without using third party apps like Decor8), but that doesn't take away from what is already a very simple, but perfectly executed touch UI. And the icing on the cake? The fact that no other touch UI looked or looks like it now, that's not a cheap Indian knock off! While they are mobile OS', Android and iOS both share a similar interface - a few screens of icons, search functionality and configurable settings. At least Windows 8 sets itself apart from the competition.


My desktop at the time of writing

 

And what of the UI on the traditional desktop? Aero has been semi-retired in favour of, the Modern UI. Obviously, the first thing you see is a clear lack of Start Button. But the Taskbar remains the same as Windows 7. What we get is the last remnants of Aero Glass transparency on the Taskbar, square corners to windows and square flat edges to tabs in the Ribbon interface of the desktop apps. Curves are pretty much ignored. While the desktop and Start Screen are different experiences, it's all been done to blend the look of both that little bit more. Personalization remains the same as Windows 7, being able to change the theme, wallpaper, font & icon size, it's all there. Microsoft has even bundled in a panoramic theme, Nightfall and Starlight, to show off the desktop across multiple monitors. Not that this wasn't possible in Vista, 7 or even XP for that matter.

If you move the mouse to where the Start Button would have been, you get a little image of the Start Screen fade up (or Charm) to show you the experience is still there, albeit loosely. The Charm Bar is presented when you move the mouse over to the right corners of the screen. Finally, any Modern apps that may have been opened, but you've switched back to the desktop, can be accessed by moving the mouse to the top left corner of the screen. It's a very streamlined interface, and if you pin your favourite apps to the Taskbar, you've put yourself in the position of never having to leave the desktop for the Start Screen.

The final point to make is that Aero Peek still exists, but unlike Windows 7, where you can see a very distinct button-like graphic at the extreme right of the Taskbar, Windows 8 doesn't have it. It's like it's been hidden, but the option still functions in the same way.

I don't know what really to say about the UI without going into an in depth review, one I would not be qualified to make. As much as I've repeated what people have read and already know, after doing so I have to ask, what is the problem with the UI(s)? I mean, you're getting a two-for-one here, why can't you make one of them work for you, without needing to resort to an application like Start8 to feel like you're using still using Windows?

OS performance and subtle changes

Without pretending to know what I'm talking about, I know that Microsoft have made a sea of changes under the hood for Windows 8. They do it for each version of the OS they build and ultimately release. But how has the changes they've made, made a difference between Windows 8 performance and Windows 7? Well, it depends on how you look at it again.

Installation is a dream. There are just far fewer steps to have to go through and, from DVD, the installation is completed in around 20 minutes depending on your system spec. Installing the OS from USB stick is even quicker, taking just over 12 minutes for me to be sitting at the desktop after installing on a PC recently. I've even installed it on my wife's netbook! While the spec isn't stellar, it's a decent system that ran Windows 7 Starter. But the install (and subsequent performance) of the device is downright outstanding. But then again, none of the HP bloatware exists on it anymore!

Boot and Shutdown times/speeds have been greatly reduced with the introduction of Windows 8. I've had the OS boot, from cold on a system spec of Pentium 4 631, 2GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM hard disk and a Radeon X600, in 20 seconds. 20! That's insanely quick, given the six and a half year old spec of the system. The netbook also boots in 15 seconds. It's insane.

Jumping to the other end of the spectrum with the main PC I have at home that I, my wife and kids use, the longest part of the power on/boot process is the POST and motherboard detecting the hard disks. I see the Windows 8 Boot screen for all of three seconds, with a blank screen for just over two then BAM, time to logon. The Windows boot takes all of 7 seconds, with the other 10 being the motherboard doing its thing. It's not like my PC is the highest spec either. It's good, but not great; Core i5, 8GB RAM, 120GB SSD and a 9800GTX.

Microsoft have worked hard on getting the boot times down to as quick as possible with this version of Windows, but they do start that you should be able to jump in and out of Standby and Hibernate rather than a straight power on/off all the time. The Windows Engineering Team posted a very detailed blog on what they did to reduce boot times and how they did it!

And what of the OS performance? Again, two different experiences exist, the traditional desktop and the Modern UI. And while both are quick at opening, closing and switching between apps with speed and fluidity, is there a noticeable difference between Windows 8 and its predecessors? Well, in reality no, but should that matter?

Across all the systems I've used Windows 8 on, it's been a dream to use. Once at the Start Screen, as soon as I click on an app, it's open. I click on the desktop, I'm there. When on the desktop, I can transition between my open Modern apps and other desktop apps with the same swiftness as Windows 7, so I really can have no complaints about the performance of the OS from an application point of view. What about gaming? I play Football Manager, CS: Source and the Angry Birds games. The games are quick to load and don't have any negative impact on my general system performance either. I do a bit of photography as well, so how is opening the RAW images and editing them in Photoshop for me? Absolutely spot on! As PS is installed on my SSD, it loads quickly. Very quickly, around 2.5 seconds in fact. I can't really compare it to my previous install on Windows 7, as the install was running from a standard 7200RPM drive (hardware RAIDed as well), but I'm sure you've guessed it's super-fast on 8 in comparison to 7.

What's that you say, application compatibility? Well, I've had no issues, but that's not to say some people haven't or won't. But the pitfalls of compatibility, that I have experienced, started as far back as XP's release. And since then, there has always been that little caveat of “will all my applications work” with whatever version of Windows is released. All I can say is, everything I've thrown at Windows 8 has worked and worked well.

Battery life is the last performance upgrade I received with Windows 8. I can remember when I first went to Windows 7 on my laptop and I got an extra 20 minutes out of the battery. The same was true of Windows 8 as I was able to get an extra 15 minutes out of my battery over Windows 7. It's the changes to the UI and the changes under the hood that have given me that little bit more time with using device.

Ultimately it's the changes under the hood and the changes to functionality that have been made to Windows 8 that will set it apart from its predecessors. From an admin point of view, the Task Manager and improved file transfer information is a joy to work with. IE10 is now a very good browser, and while it will still need improvements to compete with Chrome and Firefox on a performance level, an out-of-the-box browser like this is great to see. It's a long way from IE6 now! Pretty much all audio and video formats I use play without any issue, PDF's open without needing Adobe and Flash is bundled in as well. What more could you ask for from an out of the box experience?

What Next for Microsoft?

The answer to that is actually in the question. Windows Next, as it's been called but now knows as Windows Blue, will be the version of Windows to supersede Windows 8. Can we expect Microsoft to give into certain pressures that the Start Button and Start Menu should return? Not at all, and they have said it's gone and won't be back.

While it's being classified as an update or even a service pack, what sort of user experience can we expect from the OS? Well the obvious one is more changes under the hood (read kernel changes) to improve performance, boot times, ease of install and battery life. UI changes are expected, but it'll be more about customisation rather than giving the users something back. Aero will be completely removed in favour of the Modern UI.

The one major change that rumour has Microsoft pegged to go with is faster development and release cycles, much like Apple and Google do with their OS'. This would be of benefit to them as they could address issues with the OS much quicker. But it has been said that more frequent releases of the OS could hurt the business market. Enterprise customers are notoriously cautious when it comes to the early adoption of new a new OS, especially if legacy application compatibility is involved.

Finally, when can we expect the updated OS? It's been suggested that it could arrive in 2013. That would definitely fit in with the faster release cycle talk!

So, why then?

When it comes down to it, Microsoft has created a very good OS. Windows 7 was the right OS at the right time, and it recaptured the market for Microsoft in a way that Vista should have but didn't.

While many people will always be unhappy with the changes Microsoft has made to the UI for Windows 8, I happen to love it. Whether it is the simplicity of the live tiles and themes, to the performance of the OS when doing what I need to do, I am more than happy with what the OS has given me. Even in work, where I have to support Windows XP and Server 2003 up, I can't wait until the customers I deal with start to purchase the software and the hardware to compliment it, specifically tablets.

We can talk about sale figures and public opinion, but when it comes down to it, had Microsoft kept the Start Button and Start Menu, but kept the Modern interface graphics for the desktop, there would be more positivity around the OS overall.

In nowadays tablet hungry consumer market, a proper, touch capable OS was what Microsoft needed to produce. So what better than to slap a UI that was already tried and tested in Windows Phone 7 onto the Windows 7 OS? That may be simplifying the process, but that's what was done. And instead of providing two ways to use the OS, Microsoft went with the touch UI right from the off, scrapping the traditional and going with the new UI. It was the only way to move the OS forward, even if that was at the expense of some of its users. Bold move Microsoft!

So, why do I like it? The performance, the UI, all my software and hardware works, Microsoft's brave decisions and its open and transparent development of the OS. But I like it because it's different. I like it, much like I love Windows Phone, because there is nothing quite like it on the market. And to me, that's a great thing.

Benchmark images courtesy of TechSpot | Love Windows 8 image courtesy of HDWallpaper

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Telstra confirms Windows Phone 7.8 for Lumia 800 in January, other devices later

Next Story

Amazon finds loophole around Apple's walled garden

268 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I love Windows Phone 8 and the tablets, but for daily desktop usage Windows 8 has a few bad issues.

Metro is useless without UAC, UAC needs to be disabled for full VS 2012 usage, with it enabled it breaks stuff, even if you start the IDE as administrator.
It also breaks functionality of a few 3rth party applications.
Had to revert 2 ASP.NET developer machines back to 7 cause of it, there was no solution to make it work with Windows 8 Enterprise.

Netsh interface tcp commands don't stick after rebooting, this adds issues with slightly older network equipment, autotuning as example.

Metro apps are not that cool for desktop PC usage either since they take up the full screen to be usable.

I'm still using Windows 8 on my private PC together with VS2012, but also here I had to kill off UAC completely.
Regarding netsh commands, I probably need to use a startup script, which is rather annoying, since applied commands did stick after a reboot on Windows 7.

As for startup, shutdown and general performance, Windows 7 is as fast as Windows 8 on my machine, makes me wonder how some of the journalists test the performance difference.

I finally got my grubby paws on win 8...and it's simply amazing! I can't believe how much faster it actually is than 7 on my laptop! And all I did was upgrade (for the first time since the 98 to ME upgrade)....and I'm simply blown away! StartIsBack helped me out a lot...but I'll eventually remove it, due to the fact that I actually like the metro start menu! Progression=awesome, that is, when you know how to adapt to it.

I'm sure for the casual consumer PC user, who has just bought an expensive touch-centric device, Windows-8 will be just fine. For the rest of use, including businesses, who have serious data entry requirements, Windows-7 will be working just fine for a long time.

TsarNikky said,
I'm sure for the casual consumer PC user, who has just bought an expensive touch-centric device, Windows-8 will be just fine. For the rest of use, including businesses, who have serious data entry requirements, Windows-7 will be working just fine for a long time.

This is where I disagree. I'm a hardcore keyboard and mouse user - I have to be, because I'm a professional translator, which involves typing from one end of the working day to the other. If that doesn't count as "serious data entry requirements", I don't know what does!
I will never ditch my desktop PC and standard keyboard. I don't like the layout and feel of laptop keyboards, and I certainly have no intention of moving over to a touchscreen interface for work.
The fact is that once I've fired up Word, Excel or whatever other application I need for my work, then the only clue that I'm using Windows 8 comes from the cosmetic appearance of the windows themselves. That, and how much faster it starts up, shuts down and runs.

I have a Surface tablet and I still have to use Windows 7 at work, so I do have to be switching between both Oss. Every time I click on the Win7 Start menu I am aware how unhelpful it is:
1) The application I want almost never is in the common used top 7, I always end up going to All programs.
2) I don't use the search too much, it is slow in Win7 and after using search in Win8,the start menu search is perceivable slower than ever.
3) From the right side of the start menu I only use Control panel and right click on Computer to Manage. I never use Profile, Documens, Music, Pictures, games, Computer, Devices and Printers or Help and Support. For that, I right click on the Explorer icon pinned to the taskbar and the folder I want is accessible from there much easier.
4) I never shut down the computer, so never use shutdown either.
The Start menu is useless, is a lousy task launcher, is not a task switcher, slow and limited search.
The Start Screen can be used as task launcher, widget dashboard, and task switcher, and you can search faster and more effectively. I see kids using it to explore what apps are available and some people use it to switch tasks and go back to another app. You can use it as advanced or as basically as you want. Toddlers and adults can use it. For me, is the best idea in computing UI in years, and I'm never going back to menus.

I'm so glad I found this thread. I'd downloaded the surprisingly cheap upgrade for Win7 to Win8 Pro, but I'd read an awful lot of negative comments about the new version. However, I've given it a go and I'm glad I did.
In contrast to many posts I've read, I actually like the fact that we have both the traditional desktop and the new Metro interface here. It has a comfortable familiarity once you're beyond the Start screen. For the majority of my working day I'll be dealing with my usual Office applications with the familiar desktop and taskbar there in the background.
It's only day 2 of my installation, but the only thing that's tripping me up now is the lack of the Start button. However, there are plenty of keyboard shortcuts to use, and the search facility brings up applications pretty swiftly, so I'm not going to be installing an extra App to bring the start button back. It's not impossible to learn if you have the right attitude.
The Shutdown procedure is a bit long-winded if you use the mouse, but the Power button on my keyboard does the job perfectly, with just one press.
My feeling is that moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8 isn't the huge leap I thought it might be, but I suspect moving, from Windows 7 to the Windows 8 successor could be a lot more difficult, especially if there is increased focus on the Metro interface and further erosion of the traditional desktop environment.
My biggest source of relief is that Windows 8 is fine for me as a keyboard and mouse user (although I can understand the frustration of those needing to visit the corners of giant-sized monitors to access various features). It certainly wouldn't work for me ergonomically to use a touch-screen monitor - too much physical movement required - or to swap to a tablet - wrong position and key action for extended typing activity. As long as Microsoft don't alienate mouse and keyboard users like me with later versions, then I'll continue to be happy.

mrbutt89 said
I actually like the fact that we have both the traditional desktop and the new Metro interface here.
Me too. I love the Start Screen and it works so seemlessly with the Desktop

mrbutt89 said
It has a comfortable familiarity once you're beyond the Start screen.
Agreed.

mrbutt89 said
the only thing that's tripping me up now is the lack of the Start button.
Yeah, I must admit. At first glance I was a bit shocked at the decision to axe the start menu. It's perfectly understandable. It's been apart of Windows since Windows 95. I think, after a week of using the Developer Preview of Windows 8 I was hooked on the Start Screen.

mrbutt89 said
However, there are plenty of keyboard shortcuts to use, and the search facility brings up applications pretty swiftly
I love keyboard shortcuts. I use it all the time. I've actually got a sticky note above my monitor of all the keyboard shortcuts in case I forget one

mrbutt89 said
so I'm not going to be installing an extra App to bring the start button back. It's not impossible to learn if you have the right attitude.
That is so true. If you've got the will to learn, then this could be a goal. I know for me, that was my goal. I will say that because Microsoft didn't quite thoroughly explain the changes and the Modern UI to people, it has left some of them in the dust because of they don't know how to navigate it. For me, it took one week to fully get used to Windows 8. I guess it's easier when you're a geek, because your mind is quicker at understanding things.

mrbutt89 said
The Shutdown procedure is a bit long-winded if you use the mouse, but the Power button on my keyboard does the job perfectly, with just one press.
True, and that right there is another example of how Microsoft could of explained the changes to average users. For me I just created a batch file with the shortcut command and pinned it to my Start Screen.

mrbutt89 said
My feeling is that moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8 isn't the huge leap I thought it might be, but I suspect moving, from Windows 7 to the Windows 8 successor could be a lot more difficult, especially if there is increased focus on the Metro interface and further erosion of the traditional desktop environment.
Well I wouldn't think that Microsoft would axe the desktop just yet since the PC market is on the decline. They'd probably want keep the Desktop for a few more years at least.

mrbutt89 said
My biggest source of relief is that Windows 8 is fine for me as a keyboard and mouse user..
Me too. I use it on a laptop and I find it a bit better than 7 because it's faster, and it appears to be a lot more stable. After using it for over a year I still haven't gotten any blue screen errors yet. After the same amount of time on Windows 7, I would of had to reboot my laptop numurous times just to get it to login to Windows without giving me a Blue Screen Of Death.

'My start screen as it is at the moment'

Holy yikes. I'm not sure what's worse, you for making it look like that, or Microsoft letting you make it look like that.

Truly ghastly.

Y'know how dated XP looks now. In a decades time people are going to look back at Windows 8 and think..."My God it was hideous looking"


There's no accounting for taste.

My biggest problem with Windows 8 apart from a few but very real annoyances, is that despite the hype and the very minor improvements, it's REALLY about trapping users in another walled garden. The last thing I want is a MS walled garden, so, no thank you.

if the "You MUST NOT doing CLASS ACTIONS SUIT Againt Microsoft" were removed from ToU / EULA / etc ....

i wonder how many would like to file a class action suit againt microsoft ?

I love Windows 8. I really like the new start menu. Already I find going back to Windows 7 seems "old".

The only thing I really hate, is the placement of the shutdown command, That is a pain.

Personally I really like Windows 8. The boot up time is faster than any other OS MS has created. I have an older system and the boot time is about 30 seconds on 8 and about a minute on 7. Yes, it's an older computer Vista was twice as long as 7. 7 and XP boot up about the same.

At first I found the lack of a Start button to be counter intuitive because that's what I would expect to see from a Windows OS. However, with a few keyboard shortcuts, I am able to navigate to applications just as quickly as I did with Windows 7. Logo + Q, Logo + F, etc.

I have had no issues with drivers. Search works just as well as in 7, etc. I enjoy the integration with my hotmail account. I love the fact I can login with my hotmail account.

What I don't like is the fact that the modern apps, particularly IE, do not offer as many customizations, settings as their desktop counterparts.

I purchased a very inexpensive visual guide for Windows 8. And within a short time I was able to get up to speed with the OS and feel comfortable with it.

Where, oh where, is my nice solitaire game and start button?? Otherwise satisfaction is 99%.

Seriously, the Metro has a very childlike colour scheme which is very off putting at first. The lack of start button is a mistake, ditto not being able to have no password if you have a picture on your user profile. I think Microsoft needs to give its user input team a thorough shake-out in order to deliver more appealing OSs for average users.
It is late, I'm tired. so off to bed.

And your massive comment is unfair. I admit mouse/keyboard are not ideal with windows 8 but they are not abysmal. I am also not sure how IE is absolute garbage and not sure if you are referring to the modern UI or desktop edition. As far as I am concerned, IE is faster and more stable on my machine in comparison to the other browsers.
I use Windows 8 to write documents and create presentations, join Lync conferences, play games, listen to music and write code. To top it up, I use Hyper-V 3.0 for SharePoint and CRM development so there is proof that you can use it for serious work.
If you are not happy with the metro versions of Skype etc., then use the desktop versions instead? I use the metro apps mostly for entertainment purposes (WWE, Cocktail flow, some games, ministry of sound etc.).

I agree there are some usability concerns with metro that I hope Microsoft will resolve in 8.1. Having said that, any feedback I provided so far via various channels have been addressed (mostly functional). Perhaps you should use less colourful words to describe stuff

I was referring to the modern version of IE (which the modern apps tend to launch by default). As for Skype, I said I use the Desktop version so the new and improved, modern one is absolute garbage to me.

So you use Hyper-V for SharePoint and CRM development - why is that? Doing it natively on Windows 8 ain't working so well? You need to resort to virtualization to get proper work done?

And what entertainment purposes can I use the crappy modern apps for? The modern music and video apps are a complete joke. The old school media player that's buried in there by default is leaps and bounds better than it's new and improved counterparts.

Whatever Microsoft resolves in Windows 8.1 would be great, I'm not talking about that though, I'm talking about Windows 8 as it is today and it isn't polished and thought out as well.

My massive comment is my own personal experience and opinion. Do I not have a right to have one or do I just need to become a sheep and like everything that gets thrown into my face?

Obry said,
....

Sorry, all I see there is "modern ups suck so i hate win8"...

That Hyper-V comment just means that you have and enterprise level VM integrated into consumer OS - that is just awesome in so many ways. That "sharepoint and CRM development" can just as easy be used on the host Windows 8 OS, but in a lot of situations developers like (even need) to create special development environments... Keep in mind that a Hyper-V VM can just run another instance of Windows 8 (which is what I do as well, keep a VM with W8 as a sandbox, and others for development as needed)...

As for the Modern apps, it would be unreasonable for the new Modern apps to be better than their old classic counterparts on first release: the classic apps had years and years to get to where they are now. The Modern environment is a completely new environment, which to any reasonable person means that it requires a full and complete remake of any app. It's not just the UI, but the underlying API and so on...
Give it some time, the apps should get there soon enough.

That keyboard/mouse comment vs Windows 8 is just stupid. Win8 is at least just as good with mouse and keyboard as any previous version of Windows, and any other OS. Period. In some areas (like keyboard shortcuts) it even improves compared to Win7...
The Modern UI is optimized for touch, deal with it. However it really works awesome with mouse/keyboard too.
Unfortunately, a lot of apps don't implement proper mouse/keyboard functionality, but that is not even remotely the fault of the OS. MS did an awesome job to lay out solid standards and guidelines for the developers to follow, and provide by far the best tools in the industry for development... they can't really do much more without writing all the code themselves.

On the other side you have customers who now expect apps to be FREE (or almost free)... so you get tons of so-called developers making sorry excuses for apps... That's what the market wants. Just as today's market is full of no quality "chinese" products that break if you look at them funny...
As a side note, I hope that Win8 will at least a bit rid the market of that "free apps" mindset, but am not holding my breath...

As far as your opinion goes - your right to have/say any opinion you like, but please don't confuse facts with opinions. You state false arguments and base your "opinion" on that, not really fair is it ?

This article sounds more like a love letter than concrete reasons why Windows 8 is so great. I hope the author doesn't do this to his computer or monitor: http://fangsbites.com/wp-conte...ForbiddenLove_34_Taboo7.jpg

This is the first time so far that I hear anyone say that Windows 8 is pleasure to use with a mouse and a keyboard. I am looking to get a multi-touch pad because to me personally the mouse experience is abysmal and there is so much mouse movement required that my right hand has started giving me problems lately and has been aching even more (I'm a computer programmer but Windows 8 makes me work even harder with the mouse).

Also, I am yet to fall in love with the Modern UI. Skype for instance is absolutely useless on the Modern UI - full screen mode is only good to call your parents. What if you use Skype for work and need to have multiple active conversations? Not so easy to use or intuitive then, is it? Quite the contrary - waste of time and space. The classic Skype for the Desktop is leaps and bounds more usable than it's "modern" counterpart. And what if you need more than just Skype for work? How the hell can I have 2 Modern IM clients running and visible at all times while working? Not possible anymore unless I go to the Desktop.

Next up is the "modern" IE is absolute garbage - switching tabs is counter-intuitive, flash support is completely crippled (not talking about full flash sites or the major brain-washing news sites; talking about the many smaller news sites that have audio/video content that most likely won't be switching to HTML5 in the near future and might never get whitelisted by Microsoft).

And finally if Windows 8 was so great, don't you think we would've seen a much stronger influx of apps for it already? When Windows 7 was coming around stuff was coming out "optimized" for it before it even hit RTM - drivers, everything. NVidia's drivers for Windows 8 used to crash and restart for me pretty much until the last update. Couldn't even run Photoshop on dual-monitors because of that.

If you only use your computer for light work and content consumption, Windows 8 is great. If you need your computer to do serious work rather than ooh and aah at some rainbow looking start screen live tiles, then you might get just a little aggravated after a month or two (have been running Win 8 since it hit RTM; whether I like it or not, it's kind of my job to be up to date on technology and the Microsoft stack). But when it's time to hit the ground running, you can find me getting real work done in my Windows 7 Virtual Machines which won't be seeing Windows 8 anytime soon.

EDIT/UPDATE:

In all fairness though, the core (kernel) of the OS is amazing - it's fast, light and the battery life is a little better. But all that is suffocated by the counter-intuitive user interface. I wonder what moron's idea was to hide most chrome - can't see the time, have to click like crazy just to pull up a calendar. Also, even on Windows Phone (and it's small screens) the app bars aren't hidden but on Windows 8, made for larger screens, for some idiotic reason they decided to hide most chrome and force users to click (or swipe) for no reason to reveal it. If I open the calendar app (never again), I want to be able to switch views and do things immediately with the first click. Forcing me to do extra steps just to reveal the controls of the application does one thing - uninstall/unpin from start and never use again.

Edited by Obry, Jan 20 2013, 2:49pm :

I love Windows 8 as well. I honestly prefer the new interface and the gestures (even on non-touch). I can understand that others feel differently about this and I think for them Microsoft should add a 'mouse+keyboard' mode that puts all the GUI elements on the screen.

But for myself I prefer the intuitive gestures. I'm so fast with the charms now that I find myself making the movements when I'm behind a Windows 7 PC. Yesterday I had to prepare my nephew's netbook for school use. It was running Windows 7 and I found myself thinking what a sh*tty OS Windows 7 is compared to 8. Both technically as visually, I will never switch back to desktop Windows.

Unless of course the masses that have never personally tried Windows 8 will collectively hate Windows 8 and Microsoft is forced to change back. I can understand it if you have tried getting used to Windows 8 but just didnt like it. I've tried getting used to OSX and I hated it so I can understand the sentiment. However those that have not tried it (or only briefly) I can't understand.

Ronnet said,
Yesterday I had to prepare my nephew's netbook for school use. It was running Windows 7 and I found myself thinking what a sh*tty OS Windows 7 is compared to 8. Both technically as visually, I will never switch back to desktop Windows.

Haha, I felt the same way when I went to upgrade my parents' computer to Windows 8 (used Win8 just for a couple weeks at that point). Windows 7 is just so last century

I also love Windows 8. I really think it's the better OS, covering all my needs. Of course, everything is not perfect, but it's actually the better way Windows could evolve. These changes were necessary. If Microsoft have kept Windows 7, PC market would have continue bleeding, while people adopts tablet. And the great risk is the day Tablet usage take over pc usage, nobody would use Windows7 (and desktop OS ?) anymore (at least, mass users, maybe not professionnals but we are now in an era where professionnels Tools follow mass users tools), then It would had been too late for change anything for Windows and Microsoft cause everybody will be passed to others systems, tablet systems, as every day systems. People behind Apple and Google knows that and they knows that Microsoft strategy is good while their solution tablet oriented only is less. So they try to influence people about poor Windows8 need and selling.
Even if I also use a tablet (Love my Surface) I still think There still a large place for desktop pro desktop applications I still use every day... Today, There is no serious replacement for pro apps like Photoshop, inDesign or editing applications on tablet.
I think Windows 8 is a big deal cause It match its goals about usage, tablet transition, etc. Necause the only simple truth is on Surface, I pass 95% of my time on Modern UI while on my desktop, I am on the Desktop UI for 95 % of my time (and all is working fine as It does on Windows 7, or better).

I agree on some points, but saying it's a far cry from OSX is a bit over the top.
OSX has it's good things, but is annoying the hell out of me as much as Windows at some times.

As much as I've repeated what people have read and already know, after doing so I have to ask, what is the problem with the UI(s)? I mean, you're getting a two-for-one here, why can't you make one of them work for you, without needing to resort to an application like Start8 to feel like you're using still using Windows?

Because it lacks consistency. There are at least four different control panels instead of the previous one. Even shutting down the computer isn't in a logical place (PC settings or something. Shutting down is not a setting). The Charms bar on the desktop often offers options that allow you to do nothing. Why show them at all in that case? This is just the tip of the iceberg of poor UI design. Of course, Windows has a track record for that but at least Win7 got rid of some of the baggage XP/Vista had but 8 just bring a whole new set of annoyances.

There's the fullscreen Metro side that becomes largely useless when used on a desktop with a large display. Do you think that at 2560x1600 running simple apps fullscreen is a good idea? No, that space is highly useful for showing several apps in smaller windows. Oh but you can just have those Metro apps side by side with the desktop! Except you can't resize them as you please - you're stuck with either unusable skinny strip (if the app developer didn't implement a mini mode) or something that makes the other app (in this case desktop for example) an unusable 1/4 screen strip.

It's not about making things work different but making things work different and worse than the previous version. Windows has lots of areas that could be improved, there are even websites pointing out those things but instead MS decided that people want a combined touchscreen/desktop experience. While Win8 has some great improvements under the hood, the poorly thought out user interface is a good enough reason for me to stay on Win7. It's still a far cry from OSX but at least it's a Windows version that doesn't annoy the **** out of me (XP is really terrible too to be honest).

I hate really ignorant people who say "hate windows 8, not buying it"... they haven't even experienced it themselves

This guy I work with roundly criticized Windows 8 because it "doesn't have a Start button." He called Microsoft a bunch of "idiots" because he couldn't find out how to get to Notepad.

Well this is very simple. Logo + Q and you will see Notepad right there. Logo + R...type Notepad and comes up in the Run box.

So what's the problem here? It's a combination of people being too lazy to spend a few minutes to learn how to use an OS and Microsoft doing a poor job of educating consumers on how to use it.

Mr. Stevenson, I would definitely see your thoughts/opinions regarding this review of Windows 8 which concludes that Windows 8 hampers productivity regardless of system speed.

Or would anyone else like to comment? I'm definitely not trolling, but this does have the ability to be a very good intellectual debate regarding the polarizing ability of Windows 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTYet-qf1jo

It's all about adjusting your workflow, my Start screen is set up so I have the default apps then the applications I use regularly in groups next to them, then the Modern UI apps after that.

The Start Screen is great because it's infinitely more configurable than the Start Menu ever was, it's not perfect but IMHO it's definitely better. It's not just that it's more configurable, the amount of information it provides through the use of Live Tiles makes it more useful than the Start Menu as well.

Microsoft mistake is to keep desktop alive.

they should get rid of it , so people dont get to have this feel of duality that confusing and sucks, 2 interbet explorer that si just plain stupid.

get rid of the desktop, windows 7 apps will run full screen like metro apps, and organized under new metro UI.

Yes, because people buy maxed-out systems with huge monitors...so they can be forced to use a bunch of mediocre 'apps' permanently full-screen.

Sounds...stupid. If people want to gimp themselves like that, they'll buy a..wait for it...tablet. Those sorts of limitations have no business being on a personal computer.

I want to give W8 a genuine try, but I've never upgraded a computer before. While W8 may work fine on my laptop (HP Pavilion dv7), it's not really designed for it.

I think it'll be hard to consider it a failure based on upgrades for reasons like mine. I really do wish I had a touchscreen laptop because it'd be a done deal at that point. But I don't and I haven't heard a lot of good things about trackpad effectiveness, as this editorial mentions.

You might want to try it on a multi-monitor setup, or a 30" screen, or really any computer designed for grown-ups to actually do work on. In those configurations, Windows 8 is utter ass.

I use Windows 8 at my business and have a dual monitor 30" and 27" and I love Windows 8 and it works flawlessly. I do design and administrative work 10 hours a day. What was your point?

excalpius said,
You might want to try it on a multi-monitor setup, or a 30" screen, or really any computer designed for grown-ups to actually do work on. In those configurations, Windows 8 is utter ass.

excalpius said,
You might want to try it on a multi-monitor setup, or a 30" screen, or really any computer designed for grown-ups to actually do work on. In those configurations, Windows 8 is utter ass.

I spend so much time in front of my computer that it's scary... Even have a laptop on the side at times (not needed for the workflow, just like having some stuff separate)...
None of those displays is touch-enabled...

Been using Win8 since RC, and I really can't see your point...
Accessing the sidebars can be a minor annoyance on multi-monitor setups, but not serious really, and it only counts for the modern UI ... so I'm sure that you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever for your desktop mode "grown-up" needs. That is, if you actually know how to use the computer (you know, EXACTLY the same way as Windows 7 for "grown-up" work).

as much as i love win8, i am really in pain over how Microsoft is screwing it up

the music app, the email app, the playto feature...etc
the beauty of win8 in my opinion was to be able to update its components easily... yet thats not happining

I upgraded to Windows 8 Pro recently and TBH the changes to my workflow don't really bother me. Having used Windows since version 3.0 I've seen some pretty major changes, not just UI wise either.

The learning curve for Windows 8 and Windows RT might seem huge but it really isn't, after less than 5 minutes using Windows RT I had learned how the UI works and adjusted my workflow accordingly. The best bit about this is that I use a Microsoft Account to log in, so all my preferences were imported into Windows 8 automatically and my workflow remains the same whether I use my desktop or Surface.

I'm not saying either OS is perfect, far from it in fact, but I'm willing to stick with it and see what Microsoft have in store with the Windows Blue update.

For windows 8, Modern UI *IS NOT A NEW OS INTERFACE* it is just a frontend . So, don't try to fool us. Two words : HP TOUCHSMART.


how many sleepless nights has this author sat up just hoping their opinion mattered to anyone who will actually read such a long blathering article. after the third screen full i scrolled down, then scrolled down some more. then some more. then i thought i would leave a comment hoping no one cared what i had to say, and that i'm going out for the night. why? because i don't have a long blathering opinionated article to write about something no one cares all that much about. see ya...

theMike said,
...

Translation:
I just wanted to troll in on a topic and write a solid paragraph about some nonsense...

(ye, your post was on bottom when i dropped in so I actually read it... no need to comment on my comment, I feel bad enough...)

Windows 8 didn't really bother me on desktop when I tried the public beta out. It seemed simple enough and straight forward enough to use. If I had to replace my existing desktop at home or my work laptop, I wouldn't resist Windows 8 at all.

That being said, even with the low price of $40 for the upgrade I'm not really compelled to upgrade from Windows 7. Maybe if I was still on Vista or something.

I too am not impressed with the Surface RT. The Pro may be worth considering. RT falls short in not delivering a complete tablet experience (they still had to glue 'desktop' on it because they were clearly not finished and had to release). Maybe an update will fix that. The PPI of the tablet is also very uncompetitive considering the price point they targeted.

These sorts of articles and posts reek of desperation.

Good products speak for themselves. They don't need an entire cheer-leading troupe constantly regurgitating the same diatribe.

I use Windows 8, and have done so since it went RTM. In many areas, it is substantially better than Windows 7. The masses will speak with their wallets and only time will tell if this 'Modern' experiment was a failed endeavor.

Personally, I'm expecting SP1 or 'Blue' to make some drastic changes.

Empyrean Glow said
Personally, I'm expecting SP1 or 'Blue' to make some drastic changes.
There will be more changes, but the UI is apparently staying and the only thing they've mentioned is that the Taskbar is going to be more integrated with the Modern UI.

Empyrean Glow said,
These sorts of articles and posts reek of desperation.

While I want to remain neutral and smile and nod as such, I have got to the point where I hear criticism from all the physical people I come into contact with (not online in otherwords).
I don't think it's being desperate, and I fail to see in what way it is being so. But I agree with the "good products speak for themselves" comment, you're bang on. It's just a shame that no matter how good Windows 8 actually is overall, people can't see past the UI. And while people look at Windows Phone and go "what's that?" or "wow!" they look at Windows 8 and knock it at every opportunity. Shame really.
I am just hoping that it's not a failed endeavor!

yeoo_andy_ni said,
a shame that no matter how good Windows 8 actually is overall, people can't see past the UI.

Uh...that really surprises you? The UI is kind of an important part of the OS, nowadays...

It's just a shame that no matter how good Windows 8 actually is overall, people can't see past the UI.

That's just the thing, though. Most of the lauded changes will go unnoticed by the average user. It boots a few seconds faster. It's got an improved file transfer dialog and task manager. It can mount iso images in explorer...all the other talking points that get regurgitated ad nauseum. Do any of those little talking points really compensate for a UI that, by and large, people will either grudgingly tolerate or downright hate? If people did like the 'Modern' UI, they'd be buying products that use it. Thus far, they are most definitely not.

Empyrean Glow said,

That's just the thing, though. Most of the lauded changes will go unnoticed by the average user. It boots a few seconds faster. It's got an improved file transfer dialog and task manager. It can mount iso images in explorer...all the other talking points that get regurgitated ad nauseum. Do any of those little talking points really compensate for a UI that, by and large, people will either grudgingly tolerate or downright hate? If people did like the 'Modern' UI, they'd be buying products that use it. Thus far, they are most definitely not.

But.... they are. Nokia's sales are up, Xbox continues to sell, Surface has done amazingly well, and even Windows 8 continues to do well. So, I'm not sure where you are getting that they are not buying, because they are.

You have a truly bizarre view of reality.

Nokia sales are up, yet most of their sales are due to the Asha line sold mostly in Asia. Xbox sales are down nearly 50% year over year, and no one in their right mind would attribute Xbox sales to the 'Modern' UI. Balmer himself stated the Surface sales have been "modest", which is a nice way of saying only about 1 million over the past quarter; pathetic. And that leads us to Windows 8, coming out of a new OS launch cycle, right after the holiday season, and Win8 did absolutely nothing to boost PC sales, and if anything, was a major hindrance.

So, I'm sorry that you can't accept reality, but...that's just how it is. People don't like the 'Modern' UI. Period.

Empyrean Glow said,
You have a truly bizarre view of reality.

Nokia sales are up, yet most of their sales are due to the Asha line sold mostly in Asia. Xbox sales are down nearly 50% year over year, and no one in their right mind would attribute Xbox sales to the 'Modern' UI. Balmer himself stated the Surface sales have been "modest", which is a nice way of saying only about 1 million over the past quarter; pathetic. And that leads us to Windows 8, coming out of a new OS launch cycle, right after the holiday season, and Win8 did absolutely nothing to boost PC sales, and if anything, was a major hindrance.

So, I'm sorry that you can't accept reality, but...that's just how it is. People don't like the 'Modern' UI. Period.

The major hindrance is OEMs not making hardware people want to buy. Why do you think Microsoft made Surface?

Likely...because most OEMs thought the concept was a bad idea and wouldn't sell.

Sorry to intrude into your slice of reality again, but OEMs are making unsellable hardware, and unfortunately, so is Microsoft.

Empyrean Glow said,
Likely...because most OEMs thought the concept was a bad idea and wouldn't sell.

Sorry to intrude into your slice of reality again, but OEMs are making unsellable hardware, and unfortunately, so is Microsoft.

Sorry, how is Surface unsellable?

Dot Matrix said,

Sorry, how is Surface unsellable?

Well, when the general public has nearly zero interest and doesn't want to purchase a product, I'd consider that product unsellable. Wouldn't you?

Who knows...maybe Microsoft will start bundling Surface with everything, like they did with the Xbox360. Would you apologists consider that a 'sale', then?

Empyrean Glow said,

Well, when the general public has nearly zero interest and doesn't want to purchase a product, I'd consider that product unsellable. Wouldn't you?

Who knows...maybe Microsoft will start bundling Surface with everything, like they did with the Xbox360. Would you apologists consider that a 'sale', then?

Last I checked, the Surface sold out, and continues to be the number one RT device on the market...

Dot Matrix said,

Last I checked, the Surface sold out, and continues to be the number one RT device on the market...

Oh, there you go again, twisting facts. Pre-orders sold out, in October 2012. Since then, sales have been "modest", and that's according to Ballmer himself. In other words, it's been a mediocre launch, if not flat-out bombed in the market.

As for being the "number one RT device on the market"...well, you yourself stated that sales have been hindered by mediocre OEM hardware. The Surface RT being the sweetest smelling turd floating in the toilet isn't exactly much of an achievement.

I want to believe that Windows 8 is worth using. I really do. There are some very good features that are under the hood that helps speed up operations and makes the OS really smooth to use. But there are still a multitude of issues that in my mind remain show-stoppers, such as the opening interface (yes, I use Classic Shell to bypass it), having to turn off all live tile updates as I'm on a desktop and desktops do not have the same functions to limit/shut down network connectivity for these applets as a laptop does.

But the real show-stopper remains the fact that I watch Windows 8 make a connection to some website while absolutely no applications are open, and begin sucking down network connectivity at 1MB/sec, which over time means that in an hour you've eaten up 3.6GB of bandwidth... for no discernible reason. Svchost.exe is the culprit according to the resource manager, but just what it's doing and why is a question that no one's been able to answer.

Network usage is nowhere near this bad under Windows 7, and this is with a fresh install of Windows 8 that this is happening. Something in the OS is instigating this link, and there does not seem to be a way to turn it off or filter it from happening.

Tal Greywolf said,
Svchost.exe is the culprit according to the resource manager, but just what it's doing and why is a question that no one's been able to answer.

Svchost.exe (service host) can represent any number of process's. You can't really know what's causing your bandwidth usage just from that name...

If you want to figure out what's going on, try doing this:
1. open Task Manager
2. go to Performance tab, click on the link "Open Resource Monitor" on the bottom
3. In Resource monitor go to Network tab
4. Look for the process that's using the bandwidth (you can sort them by sent/received/total), and note the PID
5. Open up cmd (start, type cmd) and enter (copy-paste) following command (without <>):
<tasklist /svc /fi "imagename eq svchost.exe">
This will list all the running process under svchost
6. Find the PID (that you noted previously) in the list, and there you can find what service/s are running under that PID
7. Google what those services are for if needed...

I did that, and discovered that WIndows 8 is trying to keep a constant connection to Akamai, aka the service that Microsoft uses to distribute almost everything. The only way I could kill it and preserve my bandwidth was to go into the local group policy editor -> User configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Start Menu and Taskbar -> Notification and set "Turn off Tile Notifications" to Enabled. This kills all connectivity for the Smart Tiles, which is what I wanted/needed.

Note that in a business environment, with hundreds if not thousands of users, having those Live Tiles pulling data constantly will cripple a network... did Microsoft think about this fact? Of course not...

Hmm, interesting. I don't have similar bandwidth issues though. In normal situations (no downloads or similar running) my bandwidth usage is close to zero (around 100 B/s tops). Of course, it could be that you have some different/bw-hogging apps installed...
And ye, I see your point for the business environment, if that would be the case...

Are you sure that it's because of live-tiles? As far as I know, Akamai is only used as a download manager (for large content). Quite sure it has nothing to do with the OS (sorry if I'm wrong). Maybe check services/start-up to see if you have akamai running in background? (just some wild guess)

If I had been the person who was responsible for signing off the new Start Page then I would have asked a few things:

Your current design seems to take everything that is added to the Win7 Start Menu and places it on the Start Page. Based on basic testing we can see that installing most programs will result in a cluttered Start Page. As the Start Page is something Windows 8 will boot onto, how will the new UI address the potential overcrowding of the new UI?


Windows is an OS that has continued to evolve. Windows 8 will not have separate editions for tablets and desktops. The current UI boots onto a Start Page which is optimised for touch. How will the final version offer a touch interface that allows control over the OS along with a desktop interface for detailed control using the keyboard and mouse?

is that all you are.. a whiner...a complainer... Windows 8 is designed to Support both hand-Operator and touch devices..just as Windows 7 was also designed for some work tablets....since ist for work fields only..but Windows 8 brings fun for touch games and what not...and hell i Play those touch games with my mouse.. and ist still friggen fun.. well.. whatever floats your boat.. Windows 8.. rocks the best..

jp.vdvyver said,
is that all you are.. a whiner...a complainer... Windows 8 is designed to Support both hand-Operator and touch devices..just as Windows 7 was also designed for some work tablets....since ist for work fields only..but Windows 8 brings fun for touch games and what not...and hell i Play those touch games with my mouse.. and ist still friggen fun.. well.. whatever floats your boat.. Windows 8.. rocks the best..


I don't believe I have whined or complained, just given my opinion. Im really disappointed that you have to make out that Im letting the side down after I give my opinion, and I kind of wonder why you do?

Im glad Windows 8 'rocks' for you and that you can play touch games. I play a lot of touch games on my phone, it runs Android and I really like it, but I would never replace Windows with Android because I want more.

you expect me to be professional..this is where unprofessionalism Looks at ist best.. anyway... cant tell you to like Windows 8 or whatever... all i can say..ist all good.. and way better than Windows 7 for sure.. so much lighter for the Hardware System.. and the Performance is a Juice.. Windows start button was always a Symbol for Windows of OS...now ist a Start Screen..a whole new Generation....better to have something new for a Change then something old.. new things, new ways, makes things more incredible..
and you Sound like you whined... you seemed to have this itchy hate Feeling for the startscreen... lol oh who am i to jugde... i bid you sir a joyous good night...

Ive been a Windows user since Windows 95, Ive always looked Forward to a newer Windows and to expierance ist newests Features.. so far.. as a Windows 8 user.. i friggen love it.. hell i dont have a Touchscreen...dont Need that.. ist sexy enough and productive and creative and just friggen awesome and completely something new..
but i cant put my finger on others.. either you Windows 8 haters are just trolling or have a mental disorder for going all haywire against Windows 8..
let me tell you one Thing to upgrade to Windows 8.. only if you want
upgrade to Windows 8, if you want to expierence a whole different use of a System.. a new adventure.. ist just amazing...stable it is...smooth and fast it is aswell..
eh 7 is old News for now.. xp will always be a legend for the 2000-2006 PCs... Vista well.. Baby that Vista burned up some stuff real bad.. but 8 the successor to the 7... the better and newer Jackpot number.. 8 is the star.. and hell.. i cant wait untill a Windows 9 tablet Comes out in 3 years or so.. this is what life is about bitches.. expierence new things...if youre gonna whine and stick with the old....whatever floats your rickity boat..

oh and just for the record.. the start button can kiss my ass goodbye.. i rather prefer the start Screen...it digitalize a whole new world..

jp.vdvyver said,
oh and just for the record.. the start button can kiss my ass goodbye.. i rather prefer the start Screen...it digitalize a whole new world..

My three 30" screens profoundly disagree with you.

[quote=jp.vdvyver said,either you Windows 8 haters are just trolling or have a mental disorder for going all haywire against Windows 8..[/quote]

lol wut. I think you just won a prize.

It's amazing seeing all these lengthy essays from people justifying their love of Windows 8.

If you have to write a few thousand words to say "It's good, I mean it. Really." then there's something wrong with it.

Yeah, wasn't the Windows 8 review up months ago. Idk, around the time of release?

Maybe if there was a major update to it..then, ok, lets hear about it.

lunarworks said,
It's amazing seeing all these lengthy essays from people justifying their love of Windows 8.

If you have to write a few thousand words to say "It's good, I mean it. Really." then there's something wrong with it.


Completely contrary to the lengthy essays people write in the forums bashing it.

If it "just worked" we wouldn't have all of this debate.

Unless people just wanted to troll it out of boredom with their lives..

lunarworks said,
It's amazing seeing all these lengthy essays from people justifying their love of Windows 8.

If you have to write a few thousand words to say "It's good, I mean it. Really." then there's something wrong with it.

Been saying the same sort of thing for ages now.
If an OS is met with so much ambivalence and division, there's gotta be something wrong.

I love it too.
I thought i'd miss the start button. turns out, start screen = way much better and more aesthetically pleasing.

For me there is only one question:

Is it worth upgrading from Windows 7?

I have yet to see any real reason.

At the current discount price, that alone is worth upgrading but you better hurry. All-in-all it is faster and more stable, not to say 7 was unstable.

MorganX said,
At the current discount price, that alone is worth upgrading but you better hurry. All-in-all it is faster and more stable, not to say 7 was unstable.

In my personal experience Windows 7 is more stable.

Stability is more of a hardware dependent than software dependent thing these days. I've seen some benchmarks that suggest Windows 8 is faster.

USB 3.0 drivers much more stable and faster with same hardware. App faults do not crash system (require hard or soft reset). Same software. This is the desktop environment. Quite a bit in the Metro environment (apps) are somewhat unstable. But if you're talking about a Win 7 upgrade, you're comparing the Windows 8 Desktop Environment, the rest is ... extra.

Also, same hardware, ACPI much, much more stable. I no longer have to shut down. Windows 7 on same hardware was hit and miss at best if system went to sleep.

Windows 8 Desktop Environment "is" the best Windows yet, minus the start menu and acknowledging you must search from File Explorer as Modern UI search is trash IMO.

Shadrack said,
Stability is more of a hardware dependent than software dependent thing these days. I've seen some benchmarks that suggest Windows 8 is faster.

In fact, some benchmark show that windows 8 is fast only in a couple of task while Windows 7 wins other. But of course, a brand new OS without patches or software installed (or fragmented) could looks fast during the first month. Also is the fact that windows 8 lacks of Aero.

However, about stability, i tested the next issues:
a) wifi is funky at best.
b) borders are annoying, specially when it is used multi monitor (but apparently it can be disabled).
c) permissions are also funky. I disabled UAC and even with that, some programs gives me some troubles. Also, disabling UAC also disable the Windows Store O_O
d) task manager is slow (even for a i7).

I've been using it for quite some time and it's just faster all around, been that way since release. Adobe CS5 (Photoshop and InDesign are faster too.) Sometimes faster can be perceived when in fact, you're experiencing no lags or slowdown. ::shrug::

a) Wifi rock solid here and I mess around with my router, SSIDs, and bands a lot. Also user numerous USB adapters.
b) personal preference, I understand annoying. a lot about metro is annoying.
c) absolute non-issue here
d) I admit, I've rarely had to use it, but it's as fast as Windows 7 for me.

I do think you're on to something with Aero. I think window performance is probably faster, and definitely VDI performance is faster without Aero.

Lamp0 said,
I have yet to see any real reason.

The more impressive WinRT apps are still coming.

Skulls of the Shogun is the first one I really want, that's out at the end of the month. Will probably take a few months before the selection is impressive, but it's the main functional point of differentiation between 7 and 8.

Lamp0 said,

Is it worth upgrading from Windows 7?

Of course not. Which is why consumers, businesses, and desktop users are avoiding it to the detriment of the entire PC industry right now.

If Microsoft doesn't fix these issues by this summer, they risk losing another year of PC sales across the board.

no it is not worth it.
lets see metro version of ms offiice 1st. sadly even MS seems cant figure out how metro office will be

sinis said,
no it is not worth it.
lets see metro version of ms offiice 1st. sadly even MS seems cant figure out how metro office will be

Oh really? You mean an API they and everyone else have decades of experience with took precedence over one nobody has much experience with?

Shocking. Truly shocking.

Win 8 is faster. I tested a fresh Win 7 vs. a fresh Win 8, DPC Latency Checker in win 7 gives 21µs-26µs, Win 8 gives 6µs-8µs (both with Power Saving disabled in bios, and set to High Performance in Power Options since that stuff causes much latency). There was an article from an audio professional saying Win 8 is much better regarding latency for audio professionals. See: http://blog.cakewalk.com/windo...ic-production-applications/ . There was another article that compared frame times (vs. frame rate) in games and Win 8 was much less laggy per individual frame. (I can't find this link right now, but maybe someone else saw it and can post it.)

Here is another one that shows Win 8 is faster: http://www.techradar.com/us/re.../windows-8-1093002/review/9

ozzy76 said,
how exactly is it more stable? I'm genuinely curious. Any real world examples?
I had Windows 7 on my laptop that now runs Windows 8, and it got so bad to the point where I had to reboot the laptop about 4 times before I could get past the blue screen. I've been using Windows 8 for over a year now and I've had no blue screens or other system-wide issues.

excalpius said
Of course not. Which is why consumers, businesses, and desktop users are avoiding it to the detriment of the entire PC industry right now.
Actually I've seen a couple businesses adopting Windows 8.

http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...-U.S.-Government,20258.html

excalpius said
If Microsoft doesn't fix these issues by this summer, they risk losing another year of PC sales across the board.
You make it sound like it's Microsofts fault that the PC industry is on the decline. The reality, is that it's been on the decline since 2009'ish. Ever since the iPad and all the other tablets started rolling out, people found a device that could replace their need for a PC.

I too love Windows 8. My friends on the other hand... Without even trying it they claim that it is terrible. Some even claiming that they've stayed with Vista because W7 and W8 are much worse. The only thing that they might not like (though I do) is the Start UI, other than that everything has improved. I get quite annoyed hen they make flippant comments regarding W8.

same, my friends are the same way.

i ask them if they like windows 8 or are getting it. they say "no, i've heard bad things about it"
i ask them what? they say "b/c the start menu is gone."

for everyone else, i just wish ms would give the start menu as an option. not mandatory, just something optional for traditional users.

I had a friend who refused to move to Windows XP. He stayed on Windows 98 until about 2003, and then eventually switched to XP to play some new game. We do this same thing ever 3 years or so, and no one seems to remember.

With respect, why does it matter? If you like Windows 8, use it. If you prefer Windows 7, use that. If you like Windows XP, use it till April next year - then switch to whatever OS you prefer out of 7 and 8. Or switch to Mac or Linux. Inconsequential in the scheme of things.

Very nice article. I am one of the few who liked the OS from the beginning and never cared about the removal of the Start menu. I love the start screen and the ModernUI. I even mought the new multitouch Logitech trackpad to compliment the OS. It wasn't until earlier this week when I got my first multitouch monitor that I really realized the beauty and functionality of Windows 8. I find myself in the Start screen more than ever now, using my fingers to interact and it's a lot of fun and natural. It makes a lot less sense to mouse users for good reason but once you get used to it and if you get a touch monitor, you won't know how you lived without it.

superconductive said,

Thanks for doing that math---
579 vs. 431? That's a whole lotta haters wouldn't you say?
How bout you compare those figures to Win7? http://www.amazon.com/Windows-...e=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Yeah, there are a lot of haters, that's for sure. But the tone of your post seems to imply that everyone hates Windows 8. The only "true nature" these reviews reveal is that people either hate it or love it, with little in-between. For such a big UI change that was introduced, I don't see how this result is in any way surprising or unexpected.

Anyway your link shows that Windows 7 only has 1 star more than Windows 8. That's hardly indicative that Windows 7 was so much more loved, especially from a sample of 300 people vs. over 1000 for Windows 8.

It's also interesting you use the System Builder edition aimed at techies with only 300 reviews, compared to the Upgrade Edition with over 600 reviews, that shows a closer match between Windows 7 and Windows 8 (only .5 stars apart).

http://www.amazon.com/Microsof...=1-3&keywords=Windows+7

PC sales are slumping below predictions and expectations. This is because there is no real consumer demand for touch screens on the desks of 99% of users. It's uncomfortable to use for anything more than a few minutes and offers no advantages whatsoever in those circumstances.

Windows 8 should have been released as is for tablets, but should have had the option to boot straight to the desktop (with Start menu) for legacy desktop users.

The new Start screen should have been made available, of course, so that over time Microsoft could have gotten a sense of whether desktop users (home/business/casual) were moving over to it or avoiding it entirely.

If they don't do this with Windows Blue this year, Microsoft and its partners will get reamed during the next holiday sale season like they were this holiday sale season.

"Where's the Start button!?" My response "Look at your keyboard." I really like Windows 8, especially since I have a TabletPC, but there are some quirks that really rub me the wrong way. Resolution requirements for snapping (a good majority of upgraders on laptops are going to miss out on this....), hidden app bars, etc. They said they brought over the interface of Windows Phone, but in reality all they brought was smoothness and live tiles. I think they could have brought over a few more things. I'm not sure why need need to hide everything, they could have at least made an app bar like they did on Windows Phone; the screen is bigger, not need for no chrome, whereas the tiny screens and Windows Phone still have an app bar in apps even though it takes up space on their smaller screens? Also, desktop OS is about multitasking, they could have had something like a small popup when an app needs attention, like, making it peek out and jump a little bit from the right to let the user know an app requires attention instead of temporary toasts that disappear. Hope they consider something like that later on, because new users can be really lost. Even if they swipe from any edge like the new user account intro says, that isn't enough to show other things like semantic zoom, and searching.

I just got back from using a Microsoft Surface for the very first time. Someone needed help using it. They were annoyed it didn't come with any kind of manual. She thought maybe she had to buy the manual separate.

When using the surface the one thing I complained about without ever using it was far worse when actually using it. This was the fact that Microsoft left the desktop on the surface Windows 8 ARM.

It completely takes away from the tablet experience. It felt like a tablet pc that they failed at time and time before. They should NEVER give the user any option to drop out to the desktop. At least not ARM.

warwagon said,
I just got back from using a Microsoft Surface for the very first time. Someone needed help using it. They were annoyed it didn't come with any kind of manual. She thought maybe she had to buy the manual separate.

When using the surface the one thing I complained about without ever using it was far worse when actually using it. This was the fact that Microsoft left the desktop on the surface Windows 8 ARM.

It completely takes away from the tablet experience. It felt like a tablet pc that they failed at time and time before. They should NEVER give the user any option to drop out to the desktop. At least not ARM.

Never to drop the desktop? Huh? People don't want the desktop on tablets. That's why Windows 7 tablets failed.

@Dot Matrix, I think you misunderstood what warwagon said. He did not say that they should not drop the desktop. Read it again.

warwagon said,
I just got back from using a Microsoft Surface for the very first time. Someone needed help using it. They were annoyed it didn't come with any kind of manual. She thought maybe she had to buy the manual separate.

When using the surface the one thing I complained about without ever using it was far worse when actually using it. This was the fact that Microsoft left the desktop on the surface Windows 8 ARM.

It completely takes away from the tablet experience. It felt like a tablet pc that they failed at time and time before. They should NEVER give the user any option to drop out to the desktop. At least not ARM.

I'm sorry but Windows RT is Windows 8. Windows 8 is Windows so why should the desktop be left out? I have file explorer, task scheduler, task manager, cmd, powershell, office and a tonne of other programs like PuTTY that can run when signature requirements are dropped (jailbreak). The desktop is one of the things that puts Windows RT above any other shiity tablet OS like Android or iOS. To the end user (with desktop removed) the only difference the see is a more limited app selection! Microsoft thought this one through, it will stay there at least until all of the control panel items are there and there are metro solutions to file exploring, networking and Bluetooth file transfer etc.

I find Windows 8 to be equal or slightly faster for me than Windows 7 was and I don't mind the interface changes and little effort was needed to adapt. I do wish for more customisation options as there are areas for improvement.

For example, access to shut-down and restart is needlessly several clicks away. Rather than bang my head on my keyboard and proclaim my hatred for Windows 8, I simply added icons for shut-down and restart on Metro.

http://i49.tinypic.com/vngsab.jpg

On the desktop, for shutting down or restarting, I simply added a toolbar and as I did in Windows 7, moved the folder to the left as I like my main launch icons in the centre of the taskbar.

http://i46.tinypic.com/jqjk76.jpg

But overall I'm very happy with my machines performance and I'm looking forward to seeing how Microsoft intends on improving Windows with the yearly updates.

Edited by ManMountain, Jan 19 2013, 5:22pm :

I am glad people still like Linux but really is there a need to bring it up on every windows and gaming post made?

Face it linux is not ready for the big time i really can't even be bothered to list why there are so many reasons i can think of and i am sure you can as well.

Anyway Windows 8 is awesome and i am loving it and have been since beta. Can't wait till i get a touch screen coffee table in my living room with it installed on .

Windows Search from Windows 7 to 8 notoriously sucks.
If Microsoft does not fix it, I will never upgrade to them.

That's the main thing that killed it for me. I shouldn't have to install add-ons like start8 or startisback in order to enjoy a better search, and one that does not take me into a full screen display (of wasted space mainly).

some cited that "Aero" was killed to conserve the battery, while it make sense on mobile platform, its unreasonable on desktop.

has there any proper research on how much electricy consumed while aero was enabled,
and what how many was 'conserved' when not using aero on desktop ?

Torolol said,
some cited that "Aero" was killed to conserve the battery, while it make sense on mobile platform, its unreasonable on desktop.

has there any proper research on how much electricy consumed while aero was enabled,
and what how many was 'conserved' when not using aero on desktop ?

Its not "electricity" that is consumed. More so that Aero required more CPU or GPU cycles which in turn required the device to run at a higher state.

Brandon said,

Its not "electricity" that is consumed. More so that Aero required more CPU or GPU cycles which in turn required the device to run at a higher state.

Which hasn't been an issue on desktops for over a decade.

Windows 8 was created as a (desktop) solution for problems that didn't exist.

I don't find it as much of a shock to use as its just tricky. Some text can be clicked- some cannot. Due to its lack of definition on what are and are not buttons this is trivial. Menus are hidden in hot corners and sides where accidental mouse jerks can put you into a menu you didn't want to be in, or you could find yourself gently rubbing the sides of your screens to bring up the menu - which I have yet to execute quicker than pinpointing a few pixel big button with the mouse. WIth my mouse center Im required to head to the bottom corner, then keeping within the charm bar width move up to select search. Its hard to do fluidly, least using this legacy mouse thingy. Lets forgot about how poorly fly mice work with windows 8.. I find myself always heading back to the corner to bring the menu up when I wonder off. Accidentally clicking the bottom corner while in classic mode I find myself at a blank desktop - guess the show desktop button is there - but again not defined. Finding software shutdown is a literal trick many people struggled with on their first use. Classic mode as well requires a full-page start screen for app loading, and switching between the environments/multitasking isn't as visual as it was in previous OS versions. And my biggest complaint - its a dual-environment. A program may run in either one which in my eyes is their biggest flaw. You have to goof around to see where its running. Win 7 was a quick look at the bottom of the screen, regardless of what you were doing. Now we are forced into a side-bar that auto-hides as well as the normal classic shell, which if you have hidden you have to mouse over 2 different sides of the screen, nevermind searching for that desktop button if you hit the windows key... MS continuing their naming scheme with windows 8 adds to the confusion, as people expect the XP-Vista-7 style progression. Not something that they'll need to actually learn. The menu system has more features I don't want to use at the cost of system performance. I do notice a lag when trying to boot a program up that requires classic mode from classic mode, unless i have it pinned. My windows 7 search was tremendously quicker to display and use.

Windows 95-Win 7 was conclusive. Things got more refined, less button clicks every time a new OS came out... MS dropped the years, went with nicknames, then finally to revisions. This scheme worked, until Win 8. Win 8 reminds me a LOT of windows 3.11 in how it was decentralized... It makes me wonder why they opted to adapt the start bar in the first place, and didn't go full-screen at that time. Win 8 should have been called something else, and nobody would be as angry at it... I also do not see the reason MS Couldn't have left the windows 7 start/search option for classic mode, which was almost a unanimous complaint in testing phases. For preformance and stability its there. I have had driver issues, especially with homemade stuff, but generally theres a work around/fix/force and no more difficult than windows 7 was when it came out.

Edited by srbeen, Jan 19 2013, 5:34pm :

I think they can do a "no touch devices detected" auto detect and enable or disable certain features according to this. They haven't implemented this, but I do know that win8 knows if you have touch abilities or not.

It could do much better. If Im using a tablet then I basically cant use the Desktop, so I need an interface for viewing media and Internet but I accept that unless I use countless, easy to touch, drop down menus, then Im not going to get the detailed change I want. If Im on a nice big and powerful desktop, which for me is my main hub as it offers detailed control, then Im going to want to utilise that mouse and keyboard along with all the potential that a big rig brings.

People are moving away from desktops because tablets can do the same thing, its not because the hardware is now equal, its just because MS (in my opinion) always seems to be chasing the lime light at the expense of the their loyal windows customers. Windows 7 worked great on a desktop because it utilises the power, Windows 8 has the options but they are hidden from direct view and a nuisance to get to.

Windows 9 needs to be an OS that adapts to mobile tech but also offers the access to and control that a big powerful rig can give - without having to bypass default options, move to keyboard shortcuts and download third party extras.

I like Windows 8, but a few things are really annoying me. The first one is the way to shut it down on a pc. I think it should be in the menu that shows up when you click on your avatar on the start screen. That's the central place of Windows 8 so it makes sense that the button is there.

The other that annoys me is the lock screen. A lockscreen makes no sense on a pc. It's nice to see some information. But they can integrate it with the loginscreen.

If they change this in Blue I'll be a happy consumer

I agree with the shut down location being strange. probably the only thing I had to look up so far with using win8 was how to manually sleep, or shut down. I really don't like that windows update has become harder to find either, but i'm learning where it as and dealing with it.

Invizibleyez said,
I agree with the shut down location being strange. probably the only thing I had to look up so far with using win8 was how to manually sleep, or shut down. I really don't like that windows update has become harder to find either, but i'm learning where it as and dealing with it.

search windows update or when ur on the desktop rightclick the action center flag and click windows update

Windows 8 is still extremely buggy and that isn't just the drivers, it just isn't ready. Don't get me started on the awful metro u.i. I'm sticking till windows 7 which is a great o.s

Odd, I haven't experienced 1 bug, much less a lot to make it EXTREMELY buggy. And driver support is also not lacking in any way that I have come across either. If you don't like metro, ok.

torrentthief said,
Windows 8 is still extremely buggy and that isn't just the drivers, it just isn't ready. Don't get me started on the awful metro u.i. I'm sticking till windows 7 which is a great o.s

Which part is buggy? I haven't had a single problem since RTM, even with drivers.

If you don't like modern ui you really need to think ahead. Modern UI isn't going anywhere, and you simply cant stay on windows 7 forever.

Invizibleyez said,
Odd, I haven't experienced 1 bug, much less a lot to make it EXTREMELY buggy. And driver support is also not lacking in any way that I have come across either. If you don't like metro, ok.

That's great for you, but the thing is your experience has no effect on his. If its buggy for him then its buggy for him. Even a hundred people saying it works fine for them isn't going to change the fact that it is being buggy for him.

xendrome said,
If your having such major issues, you have 100% hardware or driver problems.

So in essence you're saying there could never be anything wrong with the OS? Microsoft should stop making those stupid patches then. What are they thinking!

So why don't I like it, or when is it that I loathe using the OS? One word springs to mind; laptops. I find the Start Screen very, very strange to navigate with the touchpad or a nipple mouse.

Here is a tip that will help you with this...

I have never been a fan of trackpads or eraser mice; although I have forced myself to be proficient with them. I think my adversity to them goes back to my younger days when I was doing graphic design and a Graphics Tablet or Mouse was just necessary to product the content with reasonable quality or speed that a trackpad or eraser mouse was never designed to accomplish.

The obvious answer, when you are working on a Laptop, anytime you can pull out your portable mouse and scroll wheel and click to your heat's delight.

The less obvious answer...

With Windows 8's new UI, it is far easier to navigate the Start Screen and EVERY 'modern' App using just keyboard navigation for a lot of users.

The obvious keys to use to get anywhere:
Windows Key
Arrow Keys
ESC
Enter
Menu Key (The seldom used Windows Menu looking button)
Tab

You will be surprised how fast you can get around the Start Screen get to and from open Apps, use existing Apps, and navigate inside Apps with just the keyboard.


Microsoft added a new level of keyboard simplicity that isn't talked about with Windows 8. Windows always had great keyboard support with Alt- and access to control and toolbars and menus via the keyboard. However, Windows 8 removes even that level of complexity, as all the user ever needs now is the basic navigation keys and no longer has to memorize Alt- combinations.

(Media Center was fully usable with just arrow keys as well, and Windows 8 WinRT based Apps all inherent this that same ease and simplicity.)

thenetavenger said,

Here is a tip that will help you with this...


Thanks for the tips man. I've used the keyboard a little, makes it much, MUCH easier to use, but I'll give it more of a go next time.

I figured out most of it through the previews etc one major show stopper was that on my laptop i had to wait for synaptic to load (usually required going to classic desktop then to MUI) on top of this in some programs I couldn't scroll side ways.

When I read the line of "I don't understand why people hate Windows 8...." it's clear to me that these people cannot read, nor understand what others are writing.... yet somehow I'm supposed to relate to what they are writing about??

The issue with Windows 8 for me is that by default, I wish to have the desktop as my main first view. READ THAT LINE - AND READ IT AGAIN - Comments such as: "Oh, you just press a key and you go to the desktop blah blah..". READ THE START OF THIS AGAIN.... Once you grasp that and understand what is being said, move onto the next paragraph.

Trying to work with files, finding files becomes a nightmare as you flip between full screen windows, back to a desktop and back again till you eventually get so frustrated that you have to walk away from the computer before you smash it off a wall.

Windows8 is faster? Oh, please.... just turn off all the AERO type effects in Windows 7 and you have something running just as fast, and actually faster in most cases as you can actually work with windows 7.

Home users and people who don't do much with their PC will be fine with windows 8, but anyone doing anything remotely serious will soon grow tired of the whole sorry mess that is windows 8.

Some would say that it's an age thing, not liking Windows 8... what utter nonsense. I love to see new things being released, but the one thing I hate is something new being released that offers nothing new and is just fluff, and to me that's all windows 8 is.

As it is, I'll continue to use Windows 7, OSX and now Linux as WIndows 8 has hacked me off so much that Linux is something I now see as something I may have to move to in the years to come if Microsoft carry on down this stupid path of the METRO interface.

If you love windows 8 - great.

If you hate windows 8 - i understand - great

If you cannot understand why someone likes or hates it, re-read their posts

Gordon Keenan said,
If you love windows 8 - great.

If you hate windows 8 - i understand - great

If you cannot understand why someone likes or hates it, re-read their posts

That should be on the front page of forum rules.

I really enjoyed reading your comment, I feel the same.

I also would like to remark that people here seems to think that UAC is ok for every single user out there... and clearly is not. (Which is why I disabled it), also, windows 8 is clearly far more usable with a start menu replacement has Start8, the start screen is.... just bad.

Not to mention, disabling transparencies... all in the name of helping these old GMA 450 intel integrated graphics.

Gordon Keenan said,
When I read the line of "I don't understand why people hate Windows 8...." it's clear to me that these people cannot read, nor understand what others are writing.... yet somehow I'm supposed to relate to what they are writing about??

The issue with Windows 8 for me is that by default, I wish to have the desktop as my main first view. READ THAT LINE - AND READ IT AGAIN - Comments such as: "Oh, you just press a key and you go to the desktop blah blah..". READ THE START OF THIS AGAIN.... Once you grasp that and understand what is being said, move onto the next paragraph.

Ok... so clicking a button to get to the desktop is your issue. Got it.

Gordon Keenan said,
Trying to work with files, finding files becomes a nightmare as you flip between full screen windows, back to a desktop and back again till you eventually get so frustrated that you have to walk away from the computer before you smash it off a wall.
Why would you do that? Just go to the desktop, which you clearly did already, and use My computer, like you did before with every other version of windows ever.

Gordon Keenan said,
Windows8 is faster? Oh, please.... just turn off all the AERO type effects in Windows 7 and you have something running just as fast, and actually faster in most cases as you can actually work with windows 7.
Yes, windows 8 is faster. Now you want to dispute facts? I can understand you having a different opinion about things, and things as trivial as "clicking the button that says desktop to go to the desktop after booting" makes you so angry you hate windows 8 for it, but facts are facts, and windows 8 is faster. Deal with it. Get over it. Move on if you so choose.

Gordon Keenan said,
Home users and people who don't do much with their PC will be fine with windows 8, but anyone doing anything remotely serious will soon grow tired of the whole sorry mess that is windows 8.
So... what exactly are you doing that doesn't allow you to work entirely in desktop mode like you always did with every other windows ever? If you don't want to use the start screen, don't, especially when trying to "do something remotely serious".

Gordon Keenan said,
Some would say that it's an age thing, not liking Windows 8... what utter nonsense. I love to see new things being released, but the one thing I hate is something new being released that offers nothing new and is just fluff, and to me that's all windows 8 is.
If by fluff you mean, you don't like user interfaces... well, I think I may still have some DOS floppys floating around for you. There really is no user interface there, but I believe software support for it is kind of lacking.

Gordon Keenan said,
As it is, I'll continue to use Windows 7, OSX and now Linux as WIndows 8 has hacked me off so much that Linux is something I now see as something I may have to move to in the years to come if Microsoft carry on down this stupid path of the METRO interface.
Linux will welcome you with open arms, and nobody will miss you. There are quite a few people who love Linux, and even OSX, so, if that's what you desire, help yourself.

Gordon Keenan said,
If you love windows 8 - great.

If you hate windows 8 - i understand - great

If you cannot understand why someone likes or hates it, re-read their posts

To me, you HATE windows 8 for the same reason a person buying a box of cheerios with a dented corner hates cheerios, it's no big deal, but... some people are extraordinarily picky. I guess life must be pretty good if the biggest deal in the world to you is clicking a button. Sorry we couldn't make things more perfect for you.

Gordon Keenan said,
The issue with Windows 8 for me is that by default, I wish to have the desktop as my main first view. READ THAT LINE - AND READ IT AGAIN - Comments such as: "Oh, you just press a key and you go to the desktop blah blah..". READ THE START OF THIS AGAIN.... Once you grasp that and understand what is being said, move onto the next paragraph.

So then why don't you just set it to do this by default? I have my desktop set up like this. There are about 400 utilities out there now that do this and other customizations. Here's where you complain it's not a little checkbox baked into Windows 8 by Microsoft, right? Good luck on Linux if you think you'll download a distro and it will be EXACTLY tailored to your personal tastes.

Microsoft makes one OS for a billion customers. You think they should include a billion check boxes for each person's tastes? If you don't like what they produced, that's what third party software is for. You're buying an OS after all, not an ordinary piece of software.

Why is so difficult for some people here to accept the fact that different people have different opinions? Some like the OS and post that they like it; others do not like it and post that they do not like it. Why as soon as two different opinions are posted we get tons of reply with labels like "troll", "fanboy", "dinosaur", " unable to adapt" etc., etc.
Time will tell if MS decision to not offer a "Classic view" will pay off or not.
Simple as that.

I do agree with what you're saying, but at the same time I don't understand the hate towards the OS, just because of the UI.
If MS had bundled the Windows 8 with the Start Button and Start Screen, the performance increases alone would have had all the haters crying it's better than Windows 7.
Although I can understand why people don't like it or can't get used to it. You should hear my parents, lol. "We can't cope" was the quote I got the other day

Everyone's needs are different and Windows 8 is less meeting of users with customization needs than previous versions of Windows. Customization doesn't mean just changing color.

At least SOMEONE gets it.... thank you for posting this editorial. It's nice to finally see a positive one from someone that actually took the time to adapt and understand the benefits. Those friend posts really show how dumb society is getting. I'm worried about humanity in the future.

"And with a standard keyboard and mouse it works well too.".

---No. It does not. Seriously, You just can't make that statement. I doesnt work any near-well the metro UI with m&k.

gonse said,
"And with a standard keyboard and mouse it works well too.".

---No. It does not. Seriously, You just can't make that statement. I doesnt work any near-well the metro UI with m&k.


you right, it doesn't work well with the keyboard+mouse, it works great! Now stop being so stubborn and try something new and different with an open mind, you just might like it.
Sometimes I feel like getting people to try win8 is like getting a kid to try vegetables.

gonse said,
"And with a standard keyboard and mouse it works well too.".

---No. It does not. Seriously, You just can't make that statement. I doesnt work any near-well the metro UI with m&k.

works perfectly fine here with a mouse and keyboard dont know why your bitching

gonse said,
"And with a standard keyboard and mouse it works well too.".

---No. It does not. Seriously, You just can't make that statement. I doesnt work any near-well the metro UI with m&k.

What do you mean it doesn't work well?
Do you miss the "Start" menu? LOOK AT THE SCREEN!

Move the mouse pointer and click; use the scroll wheel on the mouse to scroll the screen.

Don't have a scroll wheel? Use the directional arrows on the keyboard.

Don't have directional arrows? TYPE THE NAME OF THE PROGRAM.

When exactly did "point and click" become "touch and tap"?

Friggin' elitist teen buffoons looking to get noticed, expecting their spoon-fed Obama rights, thinking they're the next great thing because they have 1000 friends on Facebook and just as many "twits" subscribing to their rants.

... and not realizing that even if they have 1,000,000 people paying attention, they are not even 1%.

Edited by abecedarian paradoxious, Jan 19 2013, 7:09pm :

gonse said,
"And with a standard keyboard and mouse it works well too.".

---No. It does not. Seriously, You just can't make that statement. I doesnt work any near-well the metro UI with m&k.


I can and do. Once I got a K/M I was able to navigate without any problems at all

I've had IT people asking me how to do certain things in Win8, even when it is just the same. It seems the start screen just throws them off and think everything is different. It's quite funny, and sad at the same time.

I love it too, totally agree with this editorial, spot on. In "modern" layer, it is awesome. In desktop - it is as it always was. I spend most of my day in desktop for work, but in modern on my Surface and Acer tablet. I can get best of both worlds!

So regarding the changes in the UI I still read in the article "it isn't that bad", which is not the same to "I like it". Then at the end author conclude by only what he likes "the performance, Microsoft's brave decisions" etc...
But again, it's regarding the UI change in win 8 that people that there is the controversy.
Seems the inverse problem of Vista: with Vista interface was improved , but performance downgraded. Now it's reverse with win 8: interface downgraded, performance improved.
Problem: performance of win 7 is enough good for people.

Indeed. Performance hasn't been an issue for the general user in over a decade.

But usability out of the box is ALWAYS a huge issue for 99% of novices computer users (re: not the experts we find here).

Windows 8 has invisible as well as illogical controls and inexplicably defaults to a touch-screen/tablet-based workspace paradigm.

It short, Windows 8 was designed for a problem that did not exist (no one likes or uses touch screen devices on their desks) and as such has already alienated the vast majority of consumers and business users alike.

And it's not a "generational" issue. Only technophiles seem to care one whit about Windows 8. Teens and under-30's are NOT gobbling Windows 8 desktops as the next "it" thing. Businesses are unilaterally skipping Windows 8 because of the inordinate amount of training it will require in comparison with absolutely no productivity gains whatsoever.

Therefore, I maintain that Windows 8 is even less popular than Vista on the desktop and has already become Microsoft's "New Coke" fiasco.

I have to apologise.
A mixture of personality traits and local dialect has come across in my article.
If you're lucky enough to know anyone else from Northern Ireland, "not bad" usually translates to that's "pretty f---ing good." Example - I just saved myself £50 on my car insurance. "Aye, that's not bad at all man."
Trust me, if you hear "not bad" coming from the mouth of a NI person, that generally means "that's pretty damn good."
Sorry for the confusion

I agree with everything you said, I've been using 8 since the day it RTM'd and it is so much better than Windows 7. I still don't understand why everyone misses the start menu? The start screen is way better.

ASZ20 said,
I agree with everything you said, I've been using 8 since the day it RTM'd and it is so much better than Windows 7. I still don't understand why everyone misses the start menu? The start screen is way better.

I love Windows 8, and, same as you, I've been using it since RTM. I did install Start8 and purchased it for use on my 3 machines (all now running Win8). I don't mind the Metro UI, but I simply prefer using a start menu. I feel like the Metro menu is intrusive and I don't want a full screen menu for something that can do the same as a 1/6th window menu does.

Overall, I use 8 the same way I used 7.

I agree with the author entirely. I think the problem with win8 is the users are becoming older and less likely to want to move on. I notice this alot through the years, usually with music. Too many people tend to prefer music from there teenage years, and I think a similar phenomenon is now hitting computing. The older, wiser more knowledgeable hate it because its different, which is exactly the same reasons the younger, learning, maturing group will love it. Of course, there are exceptions, but people in general follow these patterns.

I also decided to give w8 a try. Bought a brand new Core i7 3770k, 32GB RAM, and an ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe.

After the installation:
- sleep does not work by default. It enters then when i turn it on again i get and error and windows needs to load all over again...
- I hate the fact that i am not in control of my PC. No program opens as Administrator even if UAC is off. You need to hack your way to FULL Admin and that disables the store (which i don't use). With UAC off w8 won't even let you save to C:\ !!
- Setting your bars black will emm get you black theme but there is no way to set white writing on black window bars...You can hack that also as far as i know
- installed Start8 which is ok. This is the main reason why i decided to install w8 (the ability to get the old start menu back.

You should NEVER be running as administrator for your entire login account. Do you even understand how and why the session level security system exists and is designed to work? Cause if you do, you wouldn't want to be running as Full Administrator, just like you would never want to run as full root on a *nix OS.

Here is the solution. Right Click - Run As Administrator

Then you can retain your login session security, and still run everything with Administrator level access, even though it is a bit crazy.

Funny, just built the exact same spec machine. Tried using w8 twice, just don't like it. Glad others do and not knocking them, it's just seems clunky to me. I'm looking forward to w9 or maybe w8sp1 will fix all the annoyances enough to make it usable for people like me. It's not that I CAN'T workaround it all, I just don't want to and don't see that I'm losing much by not "upgrading".

thenetavenger said,
You should NEVER be running as administrator for your entire login account. Do you even understand how and why the session level security system exists and is designed to work? Cause if you do, you wouldn't want to be running as Full Administrator, just like you would never want to run as full root on a *nix OS.

Here is the solution. Right Click - Run As Administrator

Then you can retain your login session security, and still run everything with Administrator level access, even though it is a bit crazy.

I disagree.
1) some applications refuses to work with UAC.
2) some users consider annoying to work with UAC.
3) UAC is poorly designed, it is not equal than OSX.
4) For install some application,it requires administrative permission, with administrative permission, the software have green light to do whatever he want, they are not a warning saying "this program will do x,y and z" (like Android or IOS), it just simply could take control of the system. And some system could screen all the system, specifically Microsoft software. For example Office, it mess with the system, with the explorer, with internet explorer, with the windows service and with other browsers. So usually UAC is an all or nothing.

Exactly Brony,

Some peoeple know what they are doing, and thus if i pay 2000$ for a PC i need to have full control over it. You think BMW`s IT works with UAC on?! )

Qiuness said,
....- installed Start8 which is ok. This is the main reason why i decided to install w8 (the ability to get the old start menu back.

So, the only reason you installed Windows 8 was because of the ability to get the old start menu back!!!!

This might just be me but why did you even bother upgrading to Windows 8 then?

Nailed it. I love the OS. Its fast and stable. Sure, there are plenty of things MS can tweak. However, MS needed to take a bold approach and change the OS and take the risk. Times are changing. People want their PC, Tablet, and Phone OS to synchronize, have a similar interface across all platforms, be social, and obviously stable.

People don't like change to something that has stayed the same for the past 20 (almost) years. I can understand that, but it needed to happen eventually. I imagine both MS and Apple will eventually move to remove the desktop environment completely. The only reason its there now is for developers to catch up.

rkenshin said,
I imagine both MS and Apple will eventually move to remove the desktop environment completely.

For Apple that would mean killing the Mac. I see absolutely no good reason for them to do so.

Not necessarily. iOS would only be further adopted. Its already there with Launchpad, but now perhaps apps launch full screen, similar to what it does on their mobile devices and the desktop is nothing more than an app launcher.

I dunno. Again, its just my opinion with the changing times and adaptation of mobile devices and computers. Of course, there is still the argument that the PC era is dead. Not yet .... not yet.

rkenshin said,
Not necessarily. iOS would only be further adopted. Its already there with Launchpad, but now perhaps apps launch full screen, similar to what it does on their mobile devices and the desktop is nothing more than an app launcher.

I dunno. Again, its just my opinion with the changing times and adaptation of mobile devices and computers. Of course, there is still the argument that the PC era is dead. Not yet .... not yet.


To each their opinion of course. Certainly they're busy picking elements from iOS and adopting them in OS X wherever it makes sense. But making OS X exactly the same as iOS, i.e. forcing a fullscreen mode, making Launchpad mandatory, reducing file system access or locking the system down completely would make OS X itself superfluous. And going by what Cook has said, Apple doesn't intend to do that:

"Customers want iOS and Mac OS X to work together seamlessly, not to be the same, but to work together seamlessly."

Yeah, like we're gonna switch to a Linux distro just so we can use less than 1% of the applications that we use on Windows.

xiphi said,
Yeah, like we're gonna switch to a Linux distro just so we can use less than 1% of the applications that we use on Windows.
If you play games on your machine, sure keep windows, but if its just for the sakes of general stuff you should switch

t's xt

CSharp. said,

I never heard of it, but it definitely looks interesting. Might try it in a VM!
it's shot up to #20 on distrowatch

xiphi said,
Yeah, like we're gonna switch to a Linux distro just so we can use less than 1% of the applications that we use on Windows.

It's called bash. While you're looking for a windows program that does EXACTLY what you want, linux users can build a program with a couple lines of bash in a few seconds that does indeed do EXACTLY what we want. For Free.

We can also install 20 different programs with one command in terminal, whereas you have to visit 20 different websites, and at least twice as many web pages to download the programs, and that's not including the time it takes you to run the setup program for each one. Have fun with your Windows.

zikalify said,
If you play games on your machine, sure keep windows, but if its just for the sakes of general stuff you should switch

I'll pass.

zikalify said,
I use this http://manjaro.org/ No major upgrades ever again, no IE, based on arch, made for a desktop and like all linux distros include a powerful terminal.

No offense, but while it's great to support new open source projects, manjaro looks very similar to the much more mature Linux Mint (at least from screenshots), and is still in beta. It also has a measly 950 members on its forum, which is literally nothing (1.1%) compared to the 84,755 members of the Linux Mint forums, and even more insignificant (0.05%) compared to the 1,777,312 Ubuntu Forums members. If your plan is to recruit people to linux, manjaro isn't the best distribution to go with...

If you're recruiting specifically for manjaro on the other hand, I think you'll have better luck with disgruntled Ubuntu users than disgruntled Windows 8 users.

HellSpawn said,

It's called bash. While you're looking for a windows program that does EXACTLY what you want, linux users can build a program with a couple lines of bash in a few seconds that does indeed do EXACTLY what we want. For Free.

We can also install 20 different programs with one command in terminal, whereas you have to visit 20 different websites, and at least twice as many web pages to download the programs, and that's not including the time it takes you to run the setup program for each one. Have fun with your Windows.


I have everything I need already, and didn't have to look far. I don't have to worry about dependencies. I don't want nor need a half-assed Linux distro that will only be a novelty and nothing more. Also, you telling me that I can build a program in bash is nothing more than a flat-out lie. It's a script and nothing more. I will have fun with my Windows, and I do, because everything just works.

HellSpawn said,

No offense, but while it's great to support new open source projects, manjaro looks very similar to the much more mature Linux Mint (at least from screenshots), and is still in beta. It also has a measly 950 members on its forum, which is literally nothing (1.1%) compared to the 84,755 members of the Linux Mint forums, and even more insignificant (0.05%) compared to the 1,777,312 Ubuntu Forums members. If your plan is to recruit people to linux, manjaro isn't the best distribution to go with...

If you're recruiting specifically for manjaro on the other hand, I think you'll have better luck with disgruntled Ubuntu users than disgruntled Windows 8 users.

I just like it because my wireless works out the box, ubuntu doesnt, and its got newer packages

xiphi said,

I have everything I need already, and didn't have to look far.

I have everything I need on my Linux as well, but we're not discussing you and me - we're discussing windows and linux. Just cause YOU have everything you need doesn't make installing 20 programs with one line on linux any less awesome, or any less useful to millions of people.

xiphi said,
I don't have to worry about dependencies.

It's called a package manager. Casual Linux users haven't had to worry about dependencies for over a decade. I'm not bringing up Windows 95 shortcomings as examples of why Windows sucks...

xiphi said,
I don't want nor need a half-assed Linux distro that will only be a novelty and nothing more.

I use Linux at my work (ISP) and at home. It can do way more work than windows can, and way faster. If you do nothing but play solitare on your computer, than I suppose you don't need Linux. If you do anything even remotely productive, than it would speed up your work by several times.

xiphi said,
Also, you telling me that I can build a program in bash is nothing more than a flat-out lie.

My statements about bash were an oversimplification since I assumed you had no background knowledge about Linux which, as far as I can tell, still appears to be the case. In reality, there are millions of simple programs in Linux that do specific functions, and bash ties them all together. If I want a program that converts a bunch of wav's to mp3 files, and then tells me when it's done, "lame -h -b 192 *.wav; mplayer some_music_file.mp3" and I'm done. Go have fun looking for a FREE program that can not only convert mp3's to wav's, but also warns you when it's done. Maybe after scouring tens of websites and downloading/installing half a dozen programs, you'll be in luck. I spent 5 seconds on that linux line...

Dot Matrix said,

Terminal? Did I travel back to 1970 or something?

LOL I know, just a few days ago the retarded Linux fanboys were talking about how you didn't need to use the terminal anymore

zikalify said,
lol, just lol at u for sticking to a junk os

You know what's funny? Windows 8 could be selling slowly and yet there's still 10 times more people using it than every Linux distro combined.

Lord Method Man said,
LOL I know, just a few days ago the retarded Linux fanboys were talking about how you didn't need to use the terminal anymore

You know...just because a powerful Terminal exists, doesn't necessarily mean you need to use it. There's one in OS X as well, despite the fact that most people won't find a need to use it.

Lord Method Man said,

You know what's funny? Windows 8 could be selling slowly and yet there's still 10 times more people using it than every Linux distro combined.

It's called having financial backing and a ton of advertising.

Lord Method Man said,

LOL I know, just a few days ago the retarded Linux fanboys were talking about how you didn't need to use the terminal anymore

You don't need the terminal, there are gui interfaces for installing software. But for me the terminal is much faster that any app store.

you know power shell is more powerful than terminal... which is actually a bunch of programs running in the command line unlike powershell that is one program that does everything you can do in terminal.

zikalify said,
No one wants linux? Hmm funny.

It is funny. It's been around for decades, it's free, everyone knows of it by now including my granny, yet still nobody wants it. Not even remotely close to double digit market share.

HellSpawn said,

I have everything I need on my Linux as well, but we're not discussing you and me - we're discussing windows and linux. Just cause YOU have everything you need doesn't make installing 20 programs with one line on linux any less awesome, or any less useful to millions of people.

It's called a package manager. Casual Linux users haven't had to worry about dependencies for over a decade. I'm not bringing up Windows 95 shortcomings as examples of why Windows sucks...

I use Linux at my work (ISP) and at home. It can do way more work than windows can, and way faster. If you do nothing but play solitare on your computer, than I suppose you don't need Linux. If you do anything even remotely productive, than it would speed up your work by several times.

My statements about bash were an oversimplification since I assumed you had no background knowledge about Linux which, as far as I can tell, still appears to be the case. In reality, there are millions of simple programs in Linux that do specific functions, and bash ties them all together. If I want a program that converts a bunch of wav's to mp3 files, and then tells me when it's done, "lame -h -b 192 *.wav; mplayer some_music_file.mp3" and I'm done. Go have fun looking for a FREE program that can not only convert mp3's to wav's, but also warns you when it's done. Maybe after scouring tens of websites and downloading/installing half a dozen programs, you'll be in luck. I spent 5 seconds on that linux line...


Just like you know what to do on Linux, there are people that know what to do on Windows.
And you got your old fashioned terminal, I'll go with Powershell in the meantime and enjoy with my object oriented shell instead of the outdated filebased shell.
And you know Windows' strongpoint, customization. I can easily get your Linux bash to work on my Windows box, and can do exactly what you can with ease, using the old dated CMD, and still have access to my powershell.

I can easily run something from the 90s and designed for Windows 95 on my latest Windows 8.
To do similar and run Debian 2.0 on the current distro, I can just hope for the love of god it still supports the proper dependencies.

Oh and how my OS handles 32bit on a 64bit environment, I do not have to keep track of every 32 and 64bit package separately, hoping my 32bit app has all 32bit dependencies.

1Pixel said,

It is funny. It's been around for decades, it's free, everyone knows of it by now including my granny, yet still nobody wants it. Not even remotely close to double digit market share.

Stop saying nobody wants it, there a plenty of people who want and use it. and no not everyone knows of it..

Shadowzz said,

I can easily run something from the 90s and designed for Windows 95 on my latest Windows 8.
You're seriously claiming that you can easily run something from the 90s on win8? How far is it till its not easy, does running it in compatibility mode count as easy? if so i guess you're right well, half right because compatibility mode doesn't work for all old programs.

HellSpawn said,
My statements about bash were an oversimplification since I assumed you had no background knowledge about Linux which, as far as I can tell, still appears to be the case. In reality, there are millions of simple programs in Linux that do specific functions, and bash ties them all together. If I want a program that converts a bunch of wav's to mp3 files, and then tells me when it's done, "lame -h -b 192 *.wav; mplayer some_music_file.mp3" and I'm done. Go have fun looking for a FREE program that can not only convert mp3's to wav's, but also warns you when it's done. Maybe after scouring tens of websites and downloading/installing half a dozen programs, you'll be in luck. I spent 5 seconds on that linux line...

Audacity.

Do you really think people want to be typing terminal commands all day?

In a terminal there isn't much I need to do. Install and remove programs eg "sudo pacman -S programname" and sometime remove folders if I can't do it through a gui. sudo rm -rf /directory/name/here. Sure if you do that on powershell cool.

mrp04 said,

Audacity.

Do you really think people want to be typing terminal commands all day?

Most people don't BUT the option is there. That is the point.

stop being blind... Linux bash shell or as the OS is concerned is not better than windows... I always see Linux fans coming here to troll on windows 8 article. I am writing my computer science exam and all I can say is out of all the 20000 computers in the school non runs Linux or os x... but there are sun machines... or server might be Linux which I access with my windows using xming and get the sun desktop interface on my windows.

zikalify said,
I use this http://manjaro.org/ No major upgrades ever again, no IE, based on arch, made for a desktop and like all linux distros include a powerful terminal.

No major upgrades is like no new machine. You won't get excited to try out the new stuff

Jose_49 said,

No major upgrades is like no new machine. You won't get excited to try out the new stuff
ikr, the biggest updates I get that I'm most bothered about if firefox and kernel updates now

recursive said,
Nope, its called having monopolistic and shady business practices and strong arming OEMs.

Is that what Linux fanboys are still saying as they quiver in their dank little caves, huddled together for support?

I started reading these comments since I thought it'll be a good laugh cause of all the win8 hate posts... turns out the linux fanboys made my day. Well, thx, lol.
These comments are so full of fail that it kinda stops being fun at some point, hence the comment...

First of all:
People write quality software so that others can use it, and not write their own for everything. Of course it's not free, like you would build a house for me for free (if I provide materials).
I just think that it's better to spend few bucks on quality products, and spend the saved time and nerves to actually be productive and get multitude of your investment back, or just spend some quality time with family/friends...

HellSpawn said,

installing 20 programs with one line on linux any less awesome, or any less useful to millions of people.

Get real! Sure, it would be useful if you do frequent system re-installs, write a script with all you need, and play system refresh every day. Otherwise, you have to first open up tons of websites to find what you need (and good luck finding it on Linux), then open up tons more to figure out how to write that script, and finally write the script...
For all normal people it's just faster to click a couple installs.

HellSpawn said,

It can do way more work than windows can, and way faster.
...
If you do anything even remotely productive, than it would speed up your work by several times.

That's just plain bull*. Guess you have to keep telling yourself that cause you desperately want to keep using Linux.
Every time I have to fire up my Linux install it gives me headaches (Fedora and Mint atm btw, trying to find a less sucky distro for what I need). Even for simple stuff like writing a damn console program is just painful, not to mention some real stuff... there just aren't any good tools available to speak of (compared to quality tools on Windows). Heck, you can't even find real software to write a damn document.
If you need a cheap gateway, some cheap testbox or whatever, Linux is your guy.
Or, for e.g. I did recently build a simple cluster, with heavy stripped down Linux, for a local school (you know, for kids to "play with")... took some time to config as I needed, but hey, it's free, runs on air, and good enough for demos...

HellSpawn said,

"lame -h -b 192 *.wav; mplayer some_music_file.mp3"
...
I spent 5 seconds on that linux line

Dude, you keep comparing stuff that a Windows user "needs to find first" and stuff "that you already have AND KNOW what to do". How much would it take for an average Joe to find the software he needs and find how to write a terminal command for it... and even have to remember that stupid 1970 command line for every single thing.

CSharp. said,

You know...just because a powerful Terminal exists, doesn't necessarily mean you need to use it.
...

There is a powerful "terminal" on windows too (arguably more powerful then "terminal"), what's your point? As a bonus, that "terminal" on Windows really is just for advanced users, you know, for what it's meant to be, and the normal user doesn't even need to know about it...

zikalify said,

You don't need the terminal, there are gui interfaces for installing software. But for me the terminal is much faster that any app store.

Really?? Writing 20 excruciatingly long commands, that you need to know (including exact app/program package names), is faster then just browsing some pictures and clicking install 20 times? I fail to see the advantage, sry...

zikalify said,

I use this http://manjaro.org/ No major upgrades ever again, no IE, based on arch, made for a desktop and like all linux distros include a powerful terminal.

Weeeee, let's all go back to 1980 and stick with it. The OS has a powerful terminal, it's extremely lightweight (it needs a couple kb of RAM, couple Hz of CPU), and you never ever have to upgrade to something productive and meaningful ever again.

the whole terminal thing bugged me... i know dos and today's cmd is no different, but i grew up on dos so i know all the ins and outs.. i just don't wanna learn somethin new i gave nix' a chance, i just... couldn't adapt would have loved to though.

Lord Method Man said,

LOL I know, just a few days ago the retarded Linux fanboys were talking about how you didn't need to use the terminal anymore

And then he opened his mouth ...

Lord Method Man said,

LOL I know, just a few days ago the retarded Linux fanboys were talking about how you didn't need to use the terminal anymore

Firstly that's offensive at so many different levels.

And secondly, anybody who calls Linux users retarded, just basically shows himself up. Maybe it's just me, but I just don't get iOS and Windows users foul mouthing Android and (desktop) Linux users. Seriously

I know this is a Windows forum and I use it myself obviously, but still

zikalify said,
I use this http://manjaro.org/ No major upgrades ever again, no IE, based on arch, made for a desktop and like all linux distros include a powerful terminal.

Fail! This guy not an apple fan boy, and doesn't want to downgrade and made him choose Linux. Lol, just lol!

Izlude said,
the whole terminal thing bugged me... i know dos and today's cmd is no different, but i grew up on dos so i know all the ins and outs.. i just don't wanna learn somethin new i gave nix' a chance, i just... couldn't adapt would have loved to though.

Respect, an honest opinion and statement. Instead of complaining about anything new (like these trolls), you just stick to what you like...

Heres an idea. Everyone stop trying to pass your opinions off as fact. Im effing tired of this os war debate. You use what you want, and Ill do the same.

Read it now, it's just a love letter. I particularly love this bit:

"I can't really compare it to my previous install on Windows 7, as the install was running from a standard 7200RPM drive (hardware RAIDed as well), but I'm sure you've guessed it's super-fast on 8 in comparison to 7."

HAHAHA! Man, I couldn't believe it! I was trying to find who wrote this comment... I thought it was just a comment! HAHAHA!

Also, for that Excel Test, I'm pretty sure he tried hard until he get the results he wanted... In order everything to be... in order! Excel 2013 first, Excel 2010 on Windows 8 second, Excel 2010 on Windows 7 last... A few ms convinced him everything is "very quicker on 8".

Mate, I tell you... No, no... This is not paid by MS article... This is not an MS Fanboy article... This is plain stupidity! HAHAHA! Neowin and its legendary "writers" -"where unprofessional journalism meets... stupidity".

But don't forget... "Everything is quick, very quick!" HAHA! I can't stop laughing, damnit. This thing wouldn't be approved either on the last blog on darknet.

PC EliTiST said,
HAHAHA! Man, I couldn't believe it! I was trying to find who wrote this comment... I thought it was just a comment! HAHAHA!

Also, for that Excel Test, I'm pretty sure he tried hard until he get the results he wanted... In order everything to be... in order! Excel 2013 first, Excel 2010 on Windows 8 second, Excel 2010 on Windows 7 last... A few ms convinced him everything is "very quicker on 8".

Mate, I tell you... No, no... This is not paid by MS article... This is not an MS Fanboy article... This is plain stupidity! HAHAHA! Neowin and its legendary "writers" -"where unprofessional journalism meets... stupidity".

But don't forget... "Everything is quick, very quick!" HAHA! I can't stop laughing, damnit. This thing wouldn't be approved either on the last blog on darknet.

Man, I came from Windows XP. I got Windows 7 and 8 very close to the same timeframe, and Windows 8 truly is faster. I'm not so sure about apps starting, but it's definitely quick to switch between desktop and Windows 8 apps. It's also so much faster just when Windows boots up.

Btw, I made the decision about sticking with Windows 8 just by trying them both out, not by reading Microsoft's webpage or others' blogs. I started reading about Microsoft news instead of Apple news as a daily basis because I tried out Windows 8.

Jarrichvdv said,
Lost faith in humanity again when reading these friend posts... *sigh* is it REALLY so hard to adapt?!

It's not about being hard its about not trying. Look in the forums and you will see lots of people type stuff like "Installed Windows 8 hated it and 10 min later reinstalled Win7".

What? You lost faith in humanity because they don't like the products you do...? You're a strange one.

Myself, I'm staying with Win7. It works fine so there's no reason to upgrade

I have 2 laptop HDDs. My original HDD which runs Windows 7, and I installed Windows 8 on the secondary HDD. I always change between HDDs. One day I decided to go back to Windows 8. Since then I never actually change the HDD back to Windows 7 one. It amazed me because of the speed and performance. No, I didn't install any Start Menu... And I absolutely loving Windows 8.

Tpiom said,
What? You lost faith in humanity because they don't like the products you do...? You're a strange one.

Myself, I'm staying with Win7. It works fine so there's no reason to upgrade

Possibly because mass swathes of people are seemingly unable to cope with a rather small change.

nekrosoft13 said,
have windows 7, have windows 8, use 7 more. it works better, it works how it supposed to straight from the box.

wha? It works better? How in the world is that? You mean the start menu?

Tpiom said,
What? You lost faith in humanity because they don't like the products you do...? You're a strange one.

Myself, I'm staying with Win7. It works fine so there's no reason to upgrade


Windows 8 is better than Windows 7. There you have it. A reason to upgrade.