[Docrwm]

Here is a good analysis on metro: Analyzing the Windows 8 Metro/Desktop interface train wreck | ExtremeTech

Excellent article - thanks! I particularly like the analysis of handling photos under Win7 and Win8. The take away, Win8 can't do any of the things when just viewing/reviewing photos that Win7 did with ease without LOTS of jumping through flaming Microsoft hoops.

[debmalya]

And here is something to "unmetro" Win 8 - ModernMix runs Windows 8 Metro apps in traditional desktop windows

But then comes the obvious question: why bother? Just stick to Windows <8

[reeftool]

That is one of the more critical reviews I have read. A lot of others were leaning in that direction but held back a lot of the details. These guys didn't hold back a thing.

[Docrwm]

That is one of the more critical reviews I have read. A lot of others were leaning in that direction but held back a lot of the details. These guys didn't hold back a thing.

But were they overly critical? I don't think so but my views are known. I think that the fact that none of the major corporations have jumped on 8 is a good indication that its not just some sour grapes guys like me.

[mattb123]

But were they overly critical? I don't think so but my views are known. I think that the fact that none of the major corporations have jumped on 8 is a good indication that its not just some sour grapes guys like me.

Not necessarily. A lot of big companies have a SP2 policy for operating systems. They won't put in a new OS until there is a second service pack. They also need a good reason. Right now I'd say there is very little reason to upgrade to Win8 from a corporate IT standpoint. Maybe that will change in the future, maybe not. A lot of places went from XP to Win7, skipping everything between because there was no compelling reason to upgrade until they needed the security, stable 64 bit platform, or some other Win7 feature. Based on that line of thinking those places may hold off until Windows 10 or 12...

[reeftool]

But were they overly critical? I don't think so but my views are known. I think that the fact that none of the major corporations have jumped on 8 is a good indication that its not just some sour grapes guys like me.

No, I don't think they were. I think most of the tech sites have been easy on Windows 8 for whatever reasons, probably advertising revenue. That review was very specific about how poorly Win 8 on the desktop is. Most of the reviews kind of end with a "I'm sure the few shortcomings will be fixed with SP1 real soon". Most of what I have read stated that it is just a little different but everything works. You just do it a little different. According to this review, that isn't the case at all. I had no intention of upgrading my desktop anyhow. I'm perfectly happy with Windows 7. I considered a Surface Tablet but just a short time in the store turned me off.

[scratchpaddy]

It's been said before that every other Windows release is not worth having. It's the truth. Stick with 7 and wait 'till 9. That stratagy has worked pretty well since 1995. I upgraded to 8 because it was only $40, came with a small boost in performance, and I wanted to decide for myself if it was really as bad as people were saying.

It is well deserving of the criticisms people have heaped on it. A PC is not a tablet. It does not work like a tablet. The tablet interface and its "apps" have no place on a desktop. Every point in the article debmalya linked to hit home with me. So, sales of PCs are down, and tablets are up, but kludging a tablet interface onto a PC is not helping anyone. It just doesn't work. I use my computer primarily for content creation. The Metro interface is completely useless for that, and clumsy and akward for the content consumption it was made for.

Still, there is one point that everyone seems to overlook: Windows 8 is more stable than Windows has ever been before. Vista's problem was that it was a major resource hog, and it was extremely unstable. Windows 7 fixed most of those problems, and Windows 8 is even better.

If you can dodge Metro, Windows 8 is great. The problem is the interface. As soon as Microsoft overcomes its ego and admits that plastering a clumsy content-consumption-only interface all over something that should be, and is, a powerful content creator was a mistake, it should be an easy fix.

[Tom S.]

Still, there is one point that everyone seems to overlook: Windows 8 is more stable than Windows has ever been before. Vista's problem was that it was a major resource hog, and it was extremely unstable. Windows 7 fixed most of those problems, and Windows 8 is even better.

That is what MS is claiming but I haven't seen any independent verification of it being so. Besides, I've been running Win 7 for a few years and have had no stability problems with it, so at least as far as I'm concerned, their claim means nothing.

[scratchpaddy]

That is what MS is claiming but I haven't seen any independent verification of it being so.

Is the testimony of a user not enough? I'm saying I had very few problems with 7, and even fewer with 8. This is on a home-built PC, and I can tell the difference between an error caused by my own stupidity and one caused by Microsoft's. I just wanted to make the point that the problems with Windows 8 are deliberate interface decisions. We know what the problem is, and we know how it can be fixed: Just make Metro less intrusive, or remove it entirely. Certainly don't force the user to start out in it.

If the problem was stability and optimization, like with Vista, Microsoft would have a serious task of debugging and reprogramming on their hands. As it is, fixing it shouldn't be hard. The framework is there, and Windows 8 is a very capable and stable OS. The only problem is that an idiotic user interface is getting in the way.

[Tom S.]

Is the testimony of a user not enough?

Did you type that with a straight face? Of course the testimony of one user is not enough. If I posted links to two users who countered your claim with horror stories, would it be enough to make you renounce 8? I didn't think so.

Now if you had said 8 was more secure, I would have agreed - to a point. We'll see how well it remains secure.

[Docrwm]

I've had no stability problems with Win7 on several machines that are used constantly with a variety of both mainstream and industry specific semi-wonky software. I have 1 program from years ago that I can't get to run on it at all and its the USB "Key" that is the problem, so we use it on an XP Netbook and its fine. Otherwise its taken every piece of hardware and software and run like a champ without any stability issues.

[magkelly]

I got Dell Win 7 Pro 32/64 bit discs with this computer. It was supposed to be Home, but actually it shipped with Pro for some reason when I asked for a physical set of discs. As an OS it's not as easy to bypass when you want to as XP was. It gets in my way a lot in terms of trying to hold my hand, but if you're a power user of the OS and I am and you hack certain things or turn off certain things and cover your arse with certain software it's remarkably stable and mostly secure. The only real problems I've had with that have usually come from my Dad being allowed to use the PC and not being careful. I still don't trust the Windows firewall or anti-malware software and I tend to check every service pack to see if there are any major problems before I install it. I do not just let MS auto update anything on my machine. I still have problems running some older programs and games and the compatibility mode is bunk in so far as I am concerned. I have yet to run it to fix incompatibility with anything and actually have it work on any setting.

I liked XP Pro better actually and I still have that on my laptop because it won't run Win 7. I've seen the disaster that is Win 8 and the way I see it MS asked for that they got with this one. As a tablet OS I'd guess it works well enough, but as a desktop OS I'd want nothing to do with it unless they can make it operate more like Win 7 and before in terms of the menus and such. I don't want animated tiles on my desktop streaming content either. My desktop is my personal area. I like to put my pics on for wallpapers. I have maybe 4 icons on there usually otherwise and yes, I use that start button, that menu and the task bar, in fact I have them very streamlined towards the exact way I work. Glorified animated icons simply aren't welcome there.

All I see when I look at Win 8 is a tablet oriented, dumbed down, inconvenient OS. What used to take me one or two clicks to accomplish now means swapping to a different screen then clicking a couple more times. How is that progress? They put the rest back in and give the user a choice of which interface they want to use, and I mean REALLY do that, not needing to go through the other screen to switch over every time, not needing any outside software to have a menu et all I might actually consider upgrading at some point to a future MS operating system. But if this is where they are going I am done. This is my last OS and I'll stick with it as long as I have a computer that can run it. Or can make one. Fact is this computer can do almost anything I need. I don't need any further upgrades.

It's not like it was 5 years ago when I just needed to every so often regardless. I can do it all on this machine, or one like it. That I think is MS's real problem. They're writing for tablets because tablets are where people are going, in droves, but they're forgetting that people still work in the office on PC's and at home with them. Tablets are wonderful but they are not a replacement for a laptop at this point when it comes to doing certain things. You want to read on one, watch a video on one, maybe eve work on a plane on your spreadsheet, okay, but when it comes down to it, doing anything more heavy duty most professionals are on a laptop at least.

At some point tablets as laptops will be fully realized. It's already happening but right now the desktop and traditional laptop still have a place in the work area and in schools and I don't think MS quite gets that. They're trying to transition everyone over to cloud computing and tablets and I don't think the public at large is as eager to go there as they think.

As a tablet user, though to be fair I don't have anything like an Ipad, I use my tablet for a number of things. I like it's portability a lot. I wish it could do more than it can, and maybe if I had a better one I wouldn't still feel the need to have a laptop, but so far no tablet that I have had my hands on and I have played with 2 besides mine now, can actually do all that my laptop can, which make the tablet a convenient add on device, not a replacement for my laptop or the PC. In fact, not even my laptop can replace my PC, even now.

There are still things like graphics, video and music editing, playing games, that I just prefer to do on a bigger screen on a more powerful computer. I do like being able to run a quick slide show of photos on one and I certainly do like having a library of books on there instead of carrying them all over the place when I travel. But my tablet it's just not as powerful as my laptop and my PC kicks my laptop's butt when you get right down to it.

I was actually hoping for a tablet that basically would run Win 7, that was more like a fusion of laptop and tablet. I did not get it with the one they made. Can't stand Win 8, won't get a tablet from them or upgrade to it on the PC until they fix this mess, and that's my final call. My opinion hasn't changed one jot since this thread first started. In fact my feelings of negativity about this OS have only gotten more so and yes, I have actually played with it a bit more. My roommate is running it on her PC at work and her laptop, hates it, is about to go back to Win 7. I tech her machines so I have had to deal with it like it or not. I don't like it at all, still think it's awful, and being more acquainted with it has definitely not made me fonder. FYI, I've had to revert several machines for people back to Win 7 by their choice when I've set up a new machine. That's not a good sign, someone going out to get a new machine and wanting the OS off at any price. Most people won't go out and buy an older OS if they get a new one, not if they can help it, and actually a few people I know they have. It's just really being that disliked. 2 couples in my park they completely put off buying a new computer because they were told they couldn't get Win 7 anymore. I don't think it can get much worse than that for MS. The business people are ducking an upgrade and now the home users won't have it on a new PC? They're in real trouble.

[scratchpaddy]

I was actually hoping for a tablet that basically would run Win 7, that was more like a fusion of laptop and tablet. I did not get it with the one they made.

They've actually been making those for years. I've seen some with Windows XP, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some before then. They're called "slate" computers. They're popular in the medical industry. They really are laptops without keyboards, not enlarged smartphones without the phone.

I had a slate/laptop hybrid five years ago. It failed catastropically just after the warranty expired due to a major design flaw, and it's the reason I will never buy another HP product, but it was great while it worked. It came with Vista, but I "upgraded" to the 7 consumer preview, and it was just perfect. You could flip the screen around, fold it down, and just use it as a touchscreen computer, and it was still a fully capable Windows 7 machine.

I did get a tablet two years ago. It was great for e-textbooks, solutions manuals, and reviewing pictures, but it fell out of use after I finished college. I just sold it, and I don't regret it.

About the other points you made, I completely agree with you. The interface is a big step backwards, and Microsoft is alienating their core market: enterprise costumers and office workers. Power users are also being hung out to dry. I just wanted to point out earlier that it's not all bad. At least it's stable, and it still works with just about any piece of hardware you throw at it, which has always been Windows' strong suit.

[reeftool]

Is the testimony of a user not enough? I'm saying I had very few problems with 7, and even fewer with 8. This is on a home-built PC, and I can tell the difference between an error caused by my own stupidity and one caused by Microsoft's. I just wanted to make the point that the problems with Windows 8 are deliberate interface decisions. We know what the problem is, and we know how it can be fixed: Just make Metro less intrusive, or remove it entirely. Certainly don't force the user to start out in it.

If the problem was stability and optimization, like with Vista, Microsoft would have a serious task of debugging and reprogramming on their hands. As it is, fixing it shouldn't be hard. The framework is there, and Windows 8 is a very capable and stable OS. The only problem is that an idiotic user interface is getting in the way.

You stated the problem. Idiotic user interface. That is what makes or breaks any OS, not stability. Windows 98 was the most unstable OS ever but it was hugely successful. Why? Regardless of the fact that every 6 months or so you had to start over with a fresh install, people generally liked it. Why are there so many people still running XP? It's stable but mostly it's the user interface that users don't want to give up. What Microsoft doesn't get is that people generally like Windows. They need to become a 2 OS company. Microsoft needs a tablet OS to survive. Fine, build one. They also need to keep a traditional desktop as long as the user base wants it. Apple was sensible enough to have two OS.

[boriscleto]

Apple was sensible enough to have two OS.

But they don't. They have 2 interfaces. One for tablets and one for desktops. Underneath it is running the same kernel (XNU).