Just how many people hate Windows 8?

[Rickkins]

I think the hate will likely increase once 8.1 comes out. This time, they won't be able to say they didn't know........

[Dot Matrix]

I think the hate will likely increase once 8.1 comes out. This time, they won't be able to say they didn't know........

 

Then why is there so much positive anticipation for it?

[Luc2k]

Then why is there so much positive anticipation for it?

Neowin reality distortion field.

[Fourjays Veteran]

It is very important for Microsoft to get Windows 8.1 right, IMHO. As someone who loved the Metro design language, and went all in with using Windows 8 the "Modern UI way" for over 5 months (and liked it for a while, despite initial reservations), I have finally come to the conclusion it is a mess. The more I use it, the more I realise just how poor it is in many aspects. I can't even begin to imagine how bad it appears to people who don't even "get it" conceptually.

 

Windows 8 may be a work in progress as a whole, but Windows 8.1 really needs to prove the concept isn't flawed, that they are sending it in the right direction and it is going to be improved (to a finished state) rapidly. Maybe I'm alone on this (maybe I'm not), but I for one will start to seriously consider jumping ship if things don't begin to shape up with 8.1.

[PGHammer]

Haha, oh god I remember the old Audigy cards from back in the day. There were hacked drivers that enabled surround sound, whereas the actual drivers from Creative disabled surround for whatever reason. I had an HT Omega for a while, but their driver support seemed to be pretty poor and their control software was crap. The Xonar card I have now is phenomenal (at least on Windows 7). Best sound I've had on my Klipsch Ultra's. But yeah they seem to also have crappy driver support since 8 came out.

Is there any company out there that does a good job with driver updates? :/

Please - the issue with surround in the Audigy was that it could use drivers from the A2 and later A2 ZS (understandable, as all three used either the EMU10K1 or the backward-compatible EMU10K2), and then following *that* the X-Fi came out, and naturally Creative wanted to upsell.  I have all three cards (a "classic" Audigy, a ZS Gamer LE, and an X-Fi XtremeGamer low-profile).  The only advantage the Audigy/ZS have it that they work (with modified drivers) on OS X (either Mountain Lion or Mavericks DP1) - as far as audio performance goes (in common operating systems), the XtremeGamer walks all over the two Audigy cards.  It's not *just Windows*; the XtremeGamer kicks Audigy butt in Linux and even (surprisingly) Oracle Solaris.  The bigger issue for Audigy fanatics is that they just wanted to hold onto the cards and NOT upgrade, even when a massive rewrite of Windows' audio stack pretty much busted EAX (and, to put it bluntly, Audigy cards, including the ZS, do NOT perform that well using OpenAL, which is the successor to EAX, compared to the X-Fi cards).  I've had my XtremeGamer since 2006 - seven years is a long period to hold onto any single piece of hardware.  I'm looking hard at the Sound Blaster Z because my experience with Creative and Windows has been stellar, and especially compared to the competition - I just want to get OTHER hardware upgrades done first.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Then why is there so much positive anticipation for it?

 

The average user has no idea what 8.1 is or that is it is even on it's way.

[Sebass]

Win 8 is a big let down for me as a desktop user it bringed little to the table. The whole metro interface is useless for me I have no use for that and It serves no purpose on a desktop computer.

[PGHammer]

Win 8 is a big let down for me as a desktop user it bringed little to the table. The whole metro interface is useless for me I have no use for that and It serves no purpose on a desktop computer.

Then the question begs - what COULD have been brought to the table for desktop users - which is a (like it or not) dying category?

The moribundity of the desktop category started to be seen with Windows 7 - at most, desktop software is evolutionary, not revolutionary.  Why is that the case?  That's easy enough to answer - that's what the users generally want.

Had Windows 8 NOT added ModernUI, and instead stuck with the baby steps in builds 79xx, it would have actually gotten LESS traction than Windows 8 - issues and all - has gotten; worse, it would have been dismissed as an overblown service pack for Windows 7.

 

In fact, the features that Windows 8 includes that are either ground-up new (Hyper-V and disc-image mounting) or improved (Task Manager and Disk Optimizer) are lost in the woodwork over the insistence on the baby-steps approach.

 

If anything, the criticism of Windows 8 is because it's actually too MUCH operating system for the average critic.

 

I have - from the beginning - called Windows 8 a "superset" operating system; everything Windows 7 has WITH improvements plus new features plus improved support for interaction OTHER than with the keyboard and mouse (but NOT at the expense of the keyboard and mouse).  It's more akin to what's included in the average Linux distribution than anything that has previously come out of Microsoft aimed at average desktops, laptops, or even notebooks, let alone tablets and slates - two categories that didn't even really exist before Windows 7 launched (at least in terms of Intel/AMD-based hardware capable of running Windows).  Unlike Linux distributions, however, it still has access to, and can happily run, the overlarge majority of existing Windows software - including software that gave Windows 7 fits.  However, the hardware requirements (compared to Windows 7) actually didn't change one bit.  Leaving ModernUI completely out of the mix, Windows 8 is the love-child of Windows 7 and (don't faint) Windows Server 2008R2 Standard.

 

And it's the fact that there is far more there than has typically been the case in Windows that is doubtless driving the critics nuts.

 

It's like going to Burger King and ordering a Whopper Junior and getting an Angry Whopper - for the same price.

 

It's too much, apparently, for some.

 

Note that the majority of the suggestions involve PRUNING features - not adding them.

 

In fact, I haven't seen ANY suggestions as far as adding features (other than the Start menu).

 

Sounds like the real criticism of Windows 8 is that it offers too MUCH choice.

[Fourjays Veteran]

Then the question begs - what COULD have been brought to the table for desktop users - which is a (like it or not) dying category?

The moribundity of the desktop category started to be seen with Windows 7 - at most, desktop software is evolutionary, not revolutionary.  Why is that the case?  That's easy enough to answer - that's what the users generally want.

Had Windows 8 NOT added ModernUI, and instead stuck with the baby steps in builds 79xx, it would have actually gotten LESS traction than Windows 8 - issues and all - has gotten; worse, it would have been dismissed as an overblown service pack for Windows 7.

 

In fact, the features that Windows 8 includes that are either ground-up new (Hyper-V and disc-image mounting) or improved (Task Manager and Disk Optimizer) are lost in the woodwork over the insistence on the baby-steps approach.

 

If anything, the criticism of Windows 8 is because it's actually too MUCH operating system for the average critic.

 

I have - from the beginning - called Windows 8 a "superset" operating system; everything Windows 7 has WITH improvements plus new features plus improved support for interaction OTHER than with the keyboard and mouse (but NOT at the expense of the keyboard and mouse).  It's more akin to what's included in the average Linux distribution than anything that has previously come out of Microsoft aimed at average desktops, laptops, or even notebooks, let alone tablets and slates - two categories that didn't even really exist before Windows 7 launched (at least in terms of Intel/AMD-based hardware capable of running Windows).  Unlike Linux distributions, however, it still has access to, and can happily run, the overlarge majority of existing Windows software - including software that gave Windows 7 fits.  However, the hardware requirements (compared to Windows 7) actually didn't change one bit.  Leaving ModernUI completely out of the mix, Windows 8 is the love-child of Windows 7 and (don't faint) Windows Server 2008R2 Standard.

 

And it's the fact that there is far more there than has typically been the case in Windows that is doubtless driving the critics nuts.

 

It's like going to Burger King and ordering a Whopper Junior and getting an Angry Whopper - for the same price.

 

It's too much, apparently, for some.

 

Note that the majority of the suggestions involve PRUNING features - not adding them.

 

In fact, I haven't seen ANY suggestions as far as adding features (other than the Start menu).

 

Sounds like the real criticism of Windows 8 is that it offers too MUCH choice.

I think they could have brought quite a bit. Instead they got hooked a few key ideas on the tablet side of things, poorly implemented the Metro UI concept and have more or less painted themselves in a corner for both now and the future.

 

Too many people have homed in on the start menu/start screen (both fans and critics) and have missed the bigger problems with Windows 8. The more I use it and the more I think about it, the more I find it to just be a flawed concept.

[Rickkins]

I think they could have brought quite a bit. Instead they got hooked a few key ideas on the tablet side of things, poorly implemented the Metro UI concept and have more or less painted themselves in a corner for both now and the future.

 

Too many people have homed in on the start menu/start screen (both fans and critics) and have missed the bigger problems with Windows 8. The more I use it and the more I think about it, the more I find it to just be a flawed concept.

 

Yes, absolutely it is a flawed concept....insofar as desktop computing is concerned. Ms brought this out is a desperate bid to take on Apple & Android. Clearly, it has not only failed at both but it has also alienated it's base, the desktop user. Despite the voices of it's tiny band of do-or-die hard core supporters, the masses have spoken, by largely rejecting 8. And even of the few who are ending up with 8, a majority are opting for a 3rd party addon to eliminate tikfam.

 

Sadly, I think the vitriol will increase with 8.1, as ms tries some sleight-of-hand to fool the masses into thinking that they have heard their cries.

 

We will not be fooled.... and you were warned. This time, those in charge need to be held accountable, and fired for incompetence....

 

You were warned.

[Dot Matrix]

The average user has no idea what 8.1 is or that is it is even on it's way.

 

You give less credit towards the average user, than they deserve.

 

 

 

Yes, absolutely it is a flawed concept....insofar as desktop computing is concerned. Ms brought this out is a desperate bid to take on Apple & Android. Clearly, it has not only failed at both but it has also alienated it's base, the desktop user. Despite the voices of it's tiny band of do-or-die hard core supporters, the masses have spoken, by largely rejecting 8. And even of the few who are ending up with 8, a majority are opting for a 3rd party addon to eliminate tikfam.

 

Sadly, I think the vitriol will increase with 8.1, as ms tries some sleight-of-hand to fool the masses into thinking that they have heard their cries.

 

We will not be fooled.... and you were warned. This time, those in charge need to be held accountable, and fired for incompetence....

 

You were warned.

 

Windows 8 is no more flawed than any previous version of Windows was flawed. The concept is sound, and just needs time to mature, and have the kinks ironed out. In a world where we're always connected, and looking ever more towards mobility, Windows 8 makes a lot of sense. If you're stationary on a desktop, Windows 8 does nothing to prevent yo from installing desktop apps and running those. Windows 8.1 will be addressing the "Jarringness" of going into Start, to make a more streamlined UX.

[Azies]

I seem to be having issues running Windows 8, for some reason it just seems laggy in comparison to Windows 7, and I have no issues on any other machine I use it on. My thought might be driver incompatibilities, but I'm just not sure anymore, I don't hate Windows 8, it just hates me.

[Rickkins]

You give less credit towards the average user, than they deserve.

 

 

 

 

Windows 8 is no more flawed than any previous version of Windows was flawed. The concept is sound. In a world where we're always connected, and looking ever more towards mobility, Windows 8 makes a lot of sense. If you're stationary on a desktop, Windows 8 does nothing to prevent yo from installing desktop apps and running those. Windows 8.1 will be addressing the "Jarringness" of going into Start, to make a more streamlined UX.

 

Yes Dot, I get that you truly believe that... but, imho, you are well and truly completely wrong. Tikfam will never be truly accepted on the desktop by the masses.... certainly no in the numbers that ms, and the market, have come to expect.

[Fourjays Veteran]

Yes, absolutely it is a flawed concept....insofar as desktop computing is concerned. 

I'm not sure it isn't flawed for tablets either, myself. Microsoft has missed some tricks with the concept and have put themselves in a situation where a few years/versions down the line, I believe things are going to be in an even bigger mess than they are now.

[Dot Matrix]

Yes Dot, I get that you truly believe that... but, imho, you are well and truly completely wrong. Tikfam will never be truly accepted on the desktop by the masses.... certainly no in the numbers that ms, and the market, have come to expect.

 

This was the SAME thing said to every piece of technology we use now. Either way, whatever comes next, one thing is certain: There's no going back. The Windows of old is dead, and not coming back.

[Rickkins]

This was the SAME thing said to every piece of technology we use now. Either way, whatever comes next, one thing is certain: There's no going back. The Windows of old is dead, and not coming back.

 

Dead...??? A billion and a half desktop users may just disagree with you....

[Dot Matrix]

Dead...??? A billion and a half desktop users may just disagree with you....

 

And there's billions more who don't even use desktops to begin with. They're growing up with laptops, smartphones, and tablets. But what I'm talking about is, the Start Menu, and all the other tidbits Microsoft has removed. They're not coming back in any fashion similar to what's come before. It's impossible to remain the same when everyone else around you is changing.

[Rickkins]

And there's billions more who don't even use desktops to begin with. They're growing up with laptops, smartphones, and tablets.

 

And the laptop users will still demand a normal desktop os, while the majority of phones and tabs will still belong to Apple and Android.... with tikfam barely rising to the level of "also ran".

 

Also, it's disingenuous to suggest today's kids do not use desktop environments.... they most certainly do. They just "also use" tabs & phones...

[PGHammer]

I think they could have brought quite a bit. Instead they got hooked a few key ideas on the tablet side of things, poorly implemented the Metro UI concept and have more or less painted themselves in a corner for both now and the future.

 

Too many people have homed in on the start menu/start screen (both fans and critics) and have missed the bigger problems with Windows 8. The more I use it and the more I think about it, the more I find it to just be a flawed concept.

Then give me gist - what could it have brought for desktop users?

 

I didn't ask that as a facetious question - the question has to be asked.  What could Microsoft bring - beyond what was already in Windows 7 and non-ModernUI additions that Windows 8 and 8.1 have - that would actually be used by the desktop masses?  You keep insisting that more could be brought - I'm asking exactly WHAT could be brought.

 

Given the lack of gist (and instead asking that ModernUI be killed or sluiced off), I'm left to think that the real issue with Windows 8 is that it offers too MUCH choice - it's not an either/or operating system.

[PGHammer]

And the laptop users will still demand a normal desktop os, while the majority of phones and tabs will still belong to Apple and Android.... with tikfam barely rising to the level of "also ran".

 

Also, it's disingenuous to suggest today's kids do not use desktop environments.... they most certainly do. They just "also use" tabs & phones...

Rickkins - Windows 8 (even Server 2012, surprisingly) is perfectly usable as a desktop OS - do you think I've been running Windows 8 (since the Consumer Preview as either primary or sole OS) on a portable PC of some sort?

 

I've been running Windows 8 on a desktop.  Keyboard.  Mouse.  No touch support whatsoever.  In fact, it's an OLD desktop.  ASUS microATX motherboard that dates back to Vista.  So does the CPU (Intel's Q6600).  Only the GPU (AMD HD5450) and primary HDD (WD10EADS) are even from the Windows 7 era. My games (close to one hundred) are all over the map (some ModernUI and some Win32, including both Steam and Origin-hosted titles).  Productivity is mostly (but not completely) Win32 (I've mentioned both exceptions before - MetroIRC and MetroTwit).  Just because you yourself can't get past the StartScreen replacing the Start menu, don't assume that's the case for everyone else.

[Fourjays Veteran]

Then give me gist - what could it have brought for desktop users?

 

I didn't ask that as a facetious question - the question has to be asked.  What could Microsoft bring - beyond what was already in Windows 7 and non-ModernUI additions that Windows 8 and 8.1 have - that would actually be used by the desktop masses?  You keep insisting that more could be brought - I'm asking exactly WHAT could be brought.

 

Given the lack of gist (and instead asking that ModernUI be killed or sluiced off), I'm left to think that the real issue with Windows 8 is that it offers too MUCH choice - it's not an either/or operating system.

Funnily enough, Metro UI. Just not in its current half-baked, "the boss thought bolting a tablet OS on here was a great idea but nobody would tell him it wasn't" incarnation.

 

The problem with Windows 8 for me is not the removal of the start menu. Nor the myriad of other minor changes which, albeit daft and symptoms of its problems, can be worked around. But the concept as a whole. I'll explain further tomorrow as I don't have the time for writing a lengthy explanation right now.

[Rickkins]

Rickkins - Windows 8 (even Server 2012, surprisingly) is perfectly usable as a desktop OS - do you think I've been running Windows 8 (since the Consumer Preview as either primary or sole OS) on a portable PC of some sort?

 

I've been running Windows 8 on a desktop.  Keyboard.  Mouse.  No touch support whatsoever.  In fact, it's an OLD desktop.  ASUS microATX motherboard that dates back to Vista.  So does the CPU (Intel's Q6600).  Only the GPU (AMD HD5450) and primary HDD (WD10EADS) are even from the Windows 7 era. My games (close to one hundred) are all over the map (some ModernUI and some Win32, including both Steam and Origin-hosted titles).  Productivity is mostly (but not completely) Win32 (I've mentioned both exceptions before - MetroIRC and MetroTwit).  Just because you yourself can't get past the StartScreen replacing the Start menu, don't assume that's the case for everyone else.

 

Since you mention it, it is not just because "I can't get past the startscreen replacing the start menu" nor am I assuming "that's the case for everyone else"

 

Nice try though.(although in fairness, it really wasn't)

 

Figures that can be found just about anywhere indicate 8's sales are abysmal, and couples with the amount of the 3rd party tifkam eliminators clearly indicate serious displeasure with the metro interface.... and no amount of spin in the world will alter that fact.

 

And for the record, I use 8 exclusively on my desktop, and now on my new 17" laptop, which came with 8 preloaded. The desktop was already running exclusively in desktop mode, and of course the laptop followed suite as soon as it arrived.

 

My two touch devices, my gs3 and my hp touchpad, both run Android.

 

I don't foresee any of those facts changing. But don't get me wrong... if ms(or anybody else for that matter) brought along a new way of doing things that was better, I would jump on it in a flash.

 

Sadly, tifkam is not it... not even close. and the people that agree with this, are legion. Sorry if you have a hard time accepting this... it really isn't personal.

 

What you should realize though is that no amount of championing by you & others will do anything whatsoever to change the above mentioned facts. We cannot be "convinced". Only change from ms can save the day.

[PGHammer]

Since you mention it, it is not just because "I can't get past the startscreen replacing the start menu" nor am I assuming "that's the case for everyone else"

 

Nice try though.(although in fairness, it really wasn't)

 

Figures that can be found just about anywhere indicate 8's sales are abysmal, and couples with the amount of the 3rd party tifkam eliminators clearly indicate serious displeasure with the metro interface.... and no amount of spin in the world will alter that fact.

 

And for the record, I use 8 exclusively on my desktop, and now on my new 17" laptop, which came with 8 preloaded. The desktop was already running exclusively in desktop mode, and of course the laptop followed suite as soon as it arrived.

 

My two touch devices, my gs3 and my hp touchpad, both run Android.

 

I don't foresee any of those facts changing. But don't get me wrong... if ms(or anybody else for that matter) brought along a new way of doing things that was better, I would jump on it in a flash.

 

Sadly, tifkam is not it... not even close. and the people that agree with this, are legion. Sorry if you have a hard time accepting this... it really isn't personal.

 

What you should realize though is that no amount of championing by you & others will do anything whatsoever to change the above mentioned facts. We cannot be "convinced". Only change from ms can save the day.

I never said that there wouldn't be displeasure with the interface.  Not once.  If anything, I've stipulated it, time and again - you can't change seventeen years worth of habit without wrecking a lot of applecarts and making lots of applesauce.

 

However, going back to an admittedly broken interface (the majority of the critics of Windows 8's UI also admit that the Start menu is broken) is basically a patch.  It's a bandage AND a reversion - it really does nothing to fix the Start menu's gaping faults (which is why I was glad to see it go in the first place).

 

Statistics can be used (and have been) to prove anything.  Whole-system sales have indeed been abysmal - and desktops have borne the biggest brunt of that decline.  One set of statistics I have NOT seen are the breakdown in Windows 8 license sales (OEM vs.full retail vs. upgrade) - that is, in fact, something we don't get for ANY version of Windows until later in the run than is the case today.

 

However, you have also failed to make a compelling case for sticking with the Windows 7 Start menu OTHER than it being habit/what you are used to.  The benefits in moving to Windows 8 (for me) vastly outweigh ANY gain there would have been from keeping the Start menu - and that is on a desktop PC.

[Rickkins]

 

 

However, going back to an admittedly broken interface (the majority of the critics of Windows 8's UI also admit that the Start menu is broken) is basically a patch.  It's a bandage AND a reversion - it really does nothing to fix the Start menu's gaping faults (which is why I was glad to see it go in the first place).

 

Making stuff up out of the blue does not help prove yer point. I don't know anyone, nor have I heard of anyone...outside of the tiny "pro-metro set" claim that the start menu was in any way broken.

However, you have also failed to make a compelling case for sticking with the Windows 7 Start menu OTHER than it being habit/what you are used to.  The benefits in moving to Windows 8 (for me) vastly outweigh ANY gain there would have been from keeping the Start menu - and that is on a desktop PC.

 

I wasn't trying to make any "compelling" case for anything... I don't need to. I like what I like, as do multitudes of others... and none of us need to make any case, compelling or otherwise.

[+DonC Subscriber²]

Oh come on.  Just about ALL of this thread is made up and out of the blue!  The cynic in me thinks you're just keeping it up to have the thread title visible on the front page.