No Metro = Windows 7 SP 2. Don't like Metro, stick with Windows 7.

[sava700]

I'm just gonna stick with Windows 7.

This.. and while SP2 or any service pack will most likely have just bug fixes lets not forget that SP2 and SP3 for XP had major enhancements as did SP1 for Vista - I expect the same thing with Win7 if and when they announce it which I hope they do so with a SP4 for XP. XP needs that final pack before support is ended mostly for those that do PC work - last time I reloaded XP for someone which was a few days ago it took almost 120updates after SP3 so yeah its needed, and before someone says "Well they should upgrade" that isn't possible when you already have a paid purchased key stuck right on the side of a perfectly working computer.

[BajiRav]

This.. and while SP2 or any service pack will most likely have just bug fixes lets not forget that SP2 and SP3 for XP had major enhancements as did SP1 for Vista - I expect the same thing with Win7 if and when they announce it which I hope they do so with a SP4 for XP. XP needs that final pack before support is ended mostly for those that do PC work - last time I reloaded XP for someone which was a few days ago it took almost 120updates after SP3 so yeah its needed, and before someone says "Well they should upgrade" that isn't possible when you already have a paid purchased key stuck right on the side of a perfectly working computer.

Ok, I guess we will see you (and Vice) next in Windows 9 threads? ;)

[Seketh]

yes, because they usually don't add features, xp sp3 and vista sp2 are exceptions to that, it's very unlikely that Microsoft will port any of those features over to Windows 7 in a service pack

Not really an exception when it happened at least three times (also with Vista SP1)...

Yes they add features and improvements - of course, considering how many hundreds of Windows Updates and driver updates are included in them - but the point is they're mostly small things - a little polishing here, support for a new little standard there. They're collections of small bits of work - they don't usually add very noticeable things that everyone uses everyday.

None of them usually significantly alter the Windows Kernel, or how Windows work. And the performance improvements in the SP aren't on the same level as what we see with 8 - Refresh & Reset work outside of Metro (they're Windows Recovery Features and in the WIndows Recovery bootloader), Direct 3D 10.1 is not comparable to WDDM 1.2 (the update to WDDM 1.1 in Windows 7 is comparable).

In fact, you could most probably find a list of little technical things like that that's MUCH bigger for the changes in Windows 8 from Windows 7 soon, with more visible and important changes along with some of the much bigger architectural changes that have gone on inside Windows.

And like someone has pointed out before, what draws the line from just calling Windows 7 a service pack? After all, one could look at it as a very simple evolution of Vista with a slightly different coat of paint and faster boot up if they want too to be narrow about it.

That's right, what exactly draws the line from just calling Windows 7 a service pack? Aren't all the UI changes + features + improvements what makes a new Windows? (They also updated the Vista kernel [not sure if in SP1 or SP2].)

If you took the UI changes in Windows 7, and the features that depend on it, doesn't it become Vista with Service Packs, with just a few new features? Would Microsoft release a Windows 7 that way in the current market? I don't think so, it wouldn't justify the investment of a whole version upgrade, not for Microsoft and not for Consumers.

When you take Metro out, much like taking out the UI changes in Windows 7, you aren't taking out just the UI changes, you take out many of the features that are dependent of those changes, and all you have left is the improvements with a few features - Windows 7 Service Pack 2. Making Metro optional results in this, there's no way around that fact.

[zeke009]

Many people call Windows 7 a Service Pack 3 for Vista, but that isn't the case. The same could be said for Windows 8 when trying to refer to it as Service Pack 2 for Windows 7.

[~Johnny]

If you took the UI changes in Windows 7, and the features that depend on it, isn't it Vista with Service Packs, with just some new features? Would Microsoft release a Windows 7 that way? I don't think so, it would be justifiable. This is my original point.

No, because even regardless of the multitude of small changes, there are large underlying core architectural changes between Vista -> 7, and 7 -> 8 that wouldn't ever be seen in a service pack, which is my point :p Service packs don't usually change their base OS like that, they just add on top or fix things. The even without Metro, there are parts of 8 that are fundamentally different from 7, and are sizable enough pieces of work worth charging for.

[Krome]

While there are 7 pages to read, I sorta skim through it all. But I do understand everyone's sentiment towards the simplistic UI. I am going to say this in short, Windows 8 UI is simple here to stay. The reason is because the future vision that Microsoft see in the interaction on their envisioned hardware devices. There are many reasons why Microsoft choose to alter their desktop this way. Three words can describe this move. Dynamic versus Static. The future devices of computing will deal with "dynamic" displayed of information. A static desktop view does not seem productive and elevating environment. When a solidly frozen desktop (static desktop UI) that does not lend itself to dynamic component that always change itself and it's application, it does not promote modular computing-based application. That is why Microsoft choose the stance with the simplistic UI interface.

As much as I dislike the simplistic UI, the change is something that we all have to deal with in order to move forward towards a more modular interface.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

A static desktop view does not seem productive and elevating environment. When a solidly frozen desktop (static desktop UI) that does not lend itself to dynamic component that always change itself and it's application, it does not promote modular computing-based application.

What? :|

[Seketh]

No, because even regardless of the multitude of small changes, there are large underlying core architectural changes between Vista -> 7, and 7 -> 8 that wouldn't ever be seen in a service pack, which is my point :p Service packs don't usually change their base OS like that, they just add on top or fix things. The even without Metro, there are parts of 8 that are fundamentally different from 7, and are sizable enough pieces of work worth charging for.

But it happened in Windows Vista. The "large underlying core architectural changes" were brought to Vista with service packs...

What I think we disagree here is if the pieces of work without Metro, that are worth charging for, are significantly different from Windows 7 to Windows 8. In my opinion, they aren't. The changes without Metro are more close to a Service Pack 2 for Windows 7 than a brand new version of Windows.

In fact, if Windows 8 didn't have Metro, people would still discuss if it was worth to upgrade to Windows 8, since there aren't that many new features without Metro. I think that wouldn't even happen, since Microsoft wouldn't even release a Windows 8 that way. That's my point.

[Dot Matrix]

Many people call Windows 7 a Service Pack 3 for Vista, but that isn't the case. The same could be said for Windows 8 when trying to refer to it as Service Pack 2 for Windows 7.

Many Windows 7 detractors did. ;)

[Melfster]

Without vista we would not have windows 7. Vista was major jump over windows XP. WIndows 7 had minor improvements that along with better driver support lend to greater uptake for Windows 7.

[~Johnny]

But it happened in Windows Vista. The "large underlying core architectural changes" were brought to Vista with service packs...

Vista didn't really get any notable large architectural changes with service packs - and even how Microsoft describes them - "[they focus] on addressing specific reliability and performance issues, supporting new types of hardware, and adding support for several emerging standards. SP1 also continues to make it easier for IT administrators to deploy and manage Windows Vista. Service Packs are not intended to be a vehicle for releasing significant new features or functionality; however some existing components do gain slightly enhanced functionality in SP1 to support industry standards and new requirements."

Whereas, Windows 8, even without Metro, does bring significant new features and architecture changes over 7. They might not be what everyone wants but they're their, lounging around.

[Order_66]

Basically, because you see the StartScreen *at all*, it's a distraction. (Never mind that it's a waypoint, and is far less obvious than the Start menu it replaces.)

I never said that at all.

[Order_66]

Then answer me this - why wasn't the Start menu (in XP/Vista/7) a distraction?

Why would it be? was it in the way? it wasn't ever in my way.

[Dashel]

Let's say Metro in Windows 8 was optional. One click of a checkbox and no more Metro. What would you have then? A few updates, fixes and enhancements. Isn't that what defines a Service Pack?

Win8 adds much more to the backend than what is in a SP that we do want. In fact, we generally like everything about it except for the unreasonable mandate that benifits some devices to the detriment of others. (Or are you still playing the delusion card that typical desktop use hasn't been retarded).

And if you truly hate Metro, then stick with Windows 7...Change is difficult to accept, but touch and tablets are here to stay, and Windows has to adapt.

One of the biggest complaints about Metro, even by the people that like it, is that you eventually get back into the old desktop. But is it really the "old desktop"? Isn't it more like a "legacy desktop" application? You can close it just like any other application! In the end, it's a "legacy desktop" application in order to maintain compatibilty, because once those third-party applications get by the thousands, many people won't even have to use the "legacy desktop" during their Windows session

If MS actually commits to this insanity they are doing to to force development in their new 'app' market to make up for lost time. The desktop isn't going away any time soon so to force the issue before you even have converted your own flagship apps, like Office, is foolhardy. As you admit, Win8 isn't tailored for desktops so why would we make the sacrifice? How long do you realistically think its going to take for Office, CS Suite, VisStudio, and a mass of other heavy hitting apps to be 'converted'? And you want to pretend that while this is occuring we are 'maintaining compatibility'?

Are you guys actually serious that you can't see how a full screen transition to even do basic things like searches is more distracting than a pop up window that takes a fraction of your workspace, while allowing you to 'see' both?

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Wow this thread is still going.

The point is - Take windows 8, remove metro, is it still enough of a major change to windows 7? Yes, of course it is. Anyone who argues otherwise clearly has no idea of what changes are being worked on.

The OP wrote off a lot of things because the front-end for the new features was working with metro. That is blind and ignorant. Metro is just the presentation layer for such features - it is NOT the feature itself.

As for Metro? I love it in theory, hate it in practise. It's a good design badly implemented IMHO.

[BeerFan]

Bottom line for me: I've been using it as my main OS since the DP release, and I still think it's clunky and hard to use on a desktop or laptop. So, based on experience thus far, I'll be sticking with 7 and won't spend a dime on 8.

[PGHammer]

For the little amount that I would need backwards compatibility for I would choose UI consistency ever time.

Then why the assumption that the UI in even Windows 7 is consistent?

I have news for you - the UI in Windows 7 is actually rather INconsistent; a case could be made that Windows hasn't had a consistent UI since 9x.

That is, in fact, a major strength of Windows - the UI isn't a straitjacket.

Consider the more consistent UIs among operating systems (all operating systems - not merely those for computers). The most consistent UIs are closed (and are niche-device UIs). Even iOS (which gets all sorts of praise for UI consistency) is still a niche-device OS. OS X is more consistent than Windows (but less than iOS) - the marketshare has, however, punished OS X by nichefying it (Apple, however, is quite happy with the limited marketshare).

Linux desktop environments? Most are straitjackets (in fact, most are straitjackets in the OS X mold), which is why they have backward-compatibility issues (as bad, or worse, than those of OS X).

Windows' lack of a consistent UI means that applications can go more task-oriented with their individual user interfaces. It's also why Windows has the widest variety of supported formfactors (not counting Phone, WindowsRT, or the server flavors); contrariwise, it's also why Windows has had trouble fitting into niches (the same even applies to Windows Mobile, let alone Tablet PC Edition and, to an extent, Media Center Edition - despite MCE having better success than TPE).

In other words, Metro actually furthers a trend that has been part and parcel of Windows itself - Windows has *always* been a *Jack/Jill-of-all-formfactors* operating system. Any (and all to date) attempts of creating a superspecialist Windows have largely failed because that isn't what customers want in general. WindowsRT is a bit of a hedge because there ARE customers that want niche platforms where battery life is the most important; however, either the datafiles (or the applications themselves) are cross-compatible with Windows 8 for non-ARM (in case the hedge goes like previous attempts at creating a niche Windows; down to utter failure). WindowsRT (and the WinRT API) is an extension of the Windows APIs we have known - however, it can't replace them yet. Windows 8 doesn't try to.

Yes - there are formfactors where, quite simply, Windows 7 doesn't fit without a crapton of third-party software (often called *bloatware*) - the SAMSUNG SERIES 7 is a prime example. The SERIES 7 wasn't developed specifically for Windows 8 (though the Developer Preview did come installed on some of them); however, it was basically planned as an upscale (and upmarket) version of existing tablet and slate devices that are out there (running niche OSes, such as iOS or Android).

However, niche devices (running niche operating systems) are like gaming consoles - great at the simpler tasks they were designed for; however, give it something different, and it falls flat (and often on purpose).

Windows 8 is consistent in its lack of UI consistency, which is, in point of fact, a major reason why it is successful. Nichefying it (even to the point of restricting it to desktops) would actually break its trend (embracing new form-factors, users, and uses) and has not worked historically.

[goofyinthehead]

Bottom line for me: I've been using it as my main OS since the DP release, and I still think it's clunky and hard to use on a desktop or laptop. So, based on experience thus far, I'll be sticking with 7 and won't spend a dime on 8.

Uhh, then why are you STILL using it as your main OS?

[BeerFan]

Uhh, then why are you STILL using it as your main OS?

Because i'm a fan of trying out new things? Also because I'm an IT manager and want to learn it as best as possible before deciding that my workplace will not be upgrading to it? Also, bright one, i have more than one computer. (Y)

[PGHammer]

Win8 adds much more to the backend than what is in a SP that we do want. In fact, we generally like everything about it except for the unreasonable mandate that benifits some devices to the detriment of others. (Or are you still playing the delusion card that typical desktop use hasn't been retarded).

If MS actually commits to this insanity they are doing to to force development in their new 'app' market to make up for lost time. The desktop isn't going away any time soon so to force the issue before you even have converted your own flagship apps, like Office, is foolhardy. As you admit, Win8 isn't tailored for desktops so why would we make the sacrifice? How long do you realistically think its going to take for Office, CS Suite, VisStudio, and a mass of other heavy hitting apps to be 'converted'? And you want to pretend that while this is occuring we are 'maintaining compatibility'?

Are you guys actually serious that you can't see how a full screen transition to even do basic things like searches is more distracting than a pop up window that takes a fraction of your workspace, while allowing you to 'see' both?

To say that Windows 8 isn't *tailored* for desktops is to ignore the strength of the backward-compatibility that the Windows 8 Consumer Preview has.

Even most of you that are not fans of Metro readily admit that the backward-compatility that Windows 8's Consumer Preview has with Windows 7's existing hardware and application base exceeds that of Windows 7+ SP1. But because the UI is different *and* it adds support for new applications with a different user interface, you dismiss that backward-compatibilty as being irrelevant.

Even odder yet, while at the same time you readily admit that Windows has, historically, not played well in niche-targeted single-purpose variants (Mobile, TabletPC Edition, to an extent Media Center Edition), you would gladly straight-jacket and nichefy Windows itself.

Here's the problem that Steve Sinofsky faced - support new formfactors (including those that have traditionally been a poor fit for Windows, such as ultra-low-power devices) without throwing away backward compatibility. The existing ultra-low-power devices (iPad, Android-based tablets) chose to throw away (to a large extent) compatibility with Windows (or in the case of iOS, OS X). Hence, in solving that dilemma, Sinofsky can create an opportunity - something that Microsoft as a company, and especially in terms of Windows. has, in fact, thrived on.

And Microsoft in general, and Sinofsky and Windows in particular, need this opportunity.

Where has the growth largely been over the past three years? It's largely not in the desktop space.

It's been in the portable/mobile space. Notebooks, Netbooks. Ultra-low-power devices. This same space is where Windows in general, and Windows 7 in particular, has been a poor fit (or even been missing).

Hence the one-two punch of WindowsRT (for ultra-low-power devices running ARM, to take on the current niche ULP devices like the iPad and Android tablets/slates/etc) and Windows 8 standard and Pro for everyone else.

Want to run the same applications and games that you run today - whether you're interested in new WinRT applications or games or not? Then you want Windows 8 standard or Pro; the beauty of it is that it does NOT require a hardware upgrade; it runs on the same hardware that Windows 7 does today. Not merely similar hardware - the SAME hardware. It runs all the same applications and games that Windows 7 does today. The applications (and games) that I'd been running on Windows 7 run the same (in some cases, better, and in other cases, significantly better) - why the heck am i supposed to ignore that? It's no harder to access those applications and games than it was in Windows 7 (if anything, in some cases, it's easier - I launch Office applications, which don't create desktop shortcuts - via the Run box; that means I don't have to take the extra steps of creating shortcuts to individual Office applications that I have to in Windows 7). I can evaluate new WinRT applications and games at my pace. If they work, fine; I can keep them (and, if they are demos or shareware, pay for them electronically via the Store). If they don't, still fine; I can uninstall them, and use the application I had been using, if it existed, to do the same task. MY choice - not that of Microsoft.

WindowsRT has a use; however, it's largely a subset/restricted use. Ultra-low-power devices that still need data-file (but not productivity-application) compatibility with Windows (7 or 8, if not earlier). It includes (by default) OfficeRT. I can download more RT applications and games via the Store; even better, those applications and games that are also available for main Windows 8 I can install on both the RT device and my main Windows PC - be it tablet, slate, Ultrabook, or even gaming/productivity desktop. If I need greater compatibility, that's what Ultrabooks, x86/x64 tablets and slates, and more general-purpose desktops are for. Again - my choice. Not that of Microsoft - or anyone else.

If I wanted a non-Windows OS to run as a daily OS, the opportunity doesn't go away because Windows 8 becomes available. However, the trade-offs I'd have to make to do that (even if I just simply went back to Windows 7, let alone a non-Microsoft operating system) are not merely untenable, but unconscionable (at least to me).

[Rickkins]

But because the UI is different *and* it adds support for new applications with a different user interface, you dismiss that backward-compatibilty as being irrelevant.

But don't you see, if the majority of desktop owners avoid 8, and every indication is that they will, then the entire os will become irrelevant.

As it stands now, win8 will not rival apple or android on mobiles/pads, and will fail miserably on desktops. Irrelevant seems an understatement. Yes, we all know ms will claim huge successes, as they did with winme & vista, but we all also know bullploppy when we see or hear it.

[Dashel]

Really don't follow you PGHammer. Are you saying that I should be thankful that Win8 is tailored to run Windows applications? That is the compatibility olive branch from Microsoft on behalf of us desktop users that don't realize our platform is a dead man walking? Serious?

While new growth of course has occured in the mobile device space, you seem dangerously close to being another declarer of the death of the desktop.

The changes most of us want would have no effect on giving each device their just due, its simply stubborness if they continue this foolhardy path (or again, its simply their drastic efforts to jump start their marketplace).

[Dot Matrix]

Because i'm a fan of trying out new things? Also because I'm an IT manager and want to learn it as best as possible before deciding that my workplace will not be upgrading to it? Also, bright one, i have more than one computer. (Y)

I actually had an interview where the interviewee was pleased and impressed that I had Windows 8 listed on my resume. Not bad for a "turd OS".

Jus' sayin'. :)

[PGHammer]

Really don't follow you PGHammer. Are you saying that I should be thankful that Win8 is tailored to run Windows applications? That is the compatibility olive branch from Microsoft on behalf of us desktop users that don't realize our platform is a dead man walking? Serious?

While new growth of course has occured in the mobile device space, you seem dangerously close to being another declarer of the death of the desktop.

The changes most of us want would have no effect on giving each device their just due, its simply stubborness if they continue this foolhardy path (or again, its simply their drastic efforts to jump start their marketplace).

Not the death of the desktop, but the death of the desktop form-factor as the most important form-factor.

Let's be honest - Windows itself (in the current form) began before laptops, let alone notebooks and netbooks.

Leaving non-x86 hardware out of the mix (and that includes Windows RT), exactly how relevant are desktop PCs (as a form-factor)?

In order for Windows to remain relevant as an operating system, it has to embrace other form-factors just as it embraced laptops, notebooks, and netbooks. Otherwise, your worry about Windows becoming a niche operating system will fulfill itself.

In fact, where would computing (let alone Windows) be without laptops/notebooks/netbooks?

[chrisj1968]

Does anyone here still believe in the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" in this case, if some of us like the classic UI we've been accustomed to, why not install the UI of our choice? you can't win people over friendly to a new OS by nailing them to a wall by force to make them use the new UI. I admit MS makes some good OSes but, whoever get the concept of the metro UI in their head needs to be fired.