Windows 8, your thoughts?

[DarkShot]

They should offer a GUI that meets people needs, not deny people what they are familiar with.  Changing it because they think swirly transparent crap will make them more money.

To be completely fair, they are. It is touch centric, but of course we're going into the age of touch, so it's needed. Even for the non-touch users, it gives realtime information to those who might want it, and a simple, large menu to pick and choose the programs they want to run stuff in. And I'm speaking only for the start menu. You still have the taskbar for desktop mode that you can pin apps on, and there's the desktop itself to launch applications should you want.

Like you'd do to your living room, they've rearranged things with newer furniture and gotten rid of some of the old.

And the QL area isn't the only way to launch apps. Sure it might be the most convenient, but

I played around with W8. Seems like a step backwards from win7, just like how vista was a step backwards from XP.

I don't agree with that.

[tjcaustin]

They should offer a GUI that meets people needs, not deny people what they are familiar with.  Changing it because they think swirly transparent crap will make them more money.

To be completely fair, they are. It is touch centric, but of course we're going into the age of touch, so it's needed. Even for the non-touch users, it gives realtime information to those who might want it, and a simple, large menu to pick and choose the programs they want to run stuff in. And I'm speaking only for the start menu. You still have the taskbar for desktop mode that you can pin apps on, and there's the desktop itself to launch applications should you want.

Like you'd do to your living room, they've rearranged things with newer furniture and gotten rid of some of the old.

And the QL area isn't the only way to launch apps. Sure it might be the most convenient, but

I played around with W8. Seems like a step backwards from win7, just like how vista was a step backwards from XP.

I don't agree with that.

I decided it's easier to just say ^^ this.

[Ian S]

Regarding the living room analogy; Plenty of people like to change for the sake of change, a change is as good as a rest, etc.  I don't.  I tried it every way in the 1970's and '80's, found out what worked best and stuck with it.  Changing won't make it work better unless it's usage changes, then an update can be done.

With the PC desktop it's the same; the usage has not changed.  My 23" 16x9 screen is not touch sensitive.  For me I expect they're making it worse to use, not better.

I preferred the look and feel of GUI's before XP.  How may of you remember 'File Manager' and still lament it's passing?  I forget now exactly which elements they took away or degraded but I was disappointed with the XP GUI.  I avoided Vista and have not liked Win 7.

Sure the OS needed work over the years but the GUI is what we're talking about here in thread and is what is annoying so many people, not how much better the back ground technical tasks are performed, it's a given that that kind thing has to be evolved or stop working.

You need different horses for different coarses, at the moment this company appear to be trying a one size fits all approach, and that is never going to please all the users.

What amazes me is that with 7 billion people in our species that there aren't loads of people writing and offering their own personal ideal GUIs that end users world wide can pick from to suit their own very particular needs.

It amazes me that there aren't a load of operating systems to chose from.  Our species certainly doesn't work together for it's own good.  Although internet forum 'Group Buys' do buck that normality.

[NKRO]

Regarding the living room analogy; Plenty of people like to change for the sake of change, a change is as good as a rest, etc.  I don't.  I tried it every way in the 1970's and '80's, found out what worked best and stuck with it.  Changing won't make it work better unless it's usage changes, then an update can be done.

With the PC desktop it's the same; the usage has not changed.  My 23" 16x9 screen is not touch sensitive.  They're making it worse to use, not better.

Computers are still intimidating to a large number of people on the planet, and I don't think anyone would argue that interfaces had been perfected and there is no need for change.

Windows 8 brings a number of improvements that have nothing to do with touch, and it's really easy to disable Metro and never see any of it.

I preferred the look and feel of GUI's before XP.  How may of you remember 'File Manager' and still lament it's passing?  I forget now exactly which elements they took away or degraded but I was disappointed with the XP GUI.  I avoided Vista and have not liked Win 7.

Can you be more specific about what it is that you were disappointed with in XP compared to previous versions of Windows, or what you don't like about 7?

What amazes me is that with 7 billion people in our species that there aren't loads of people writing and offering their own personal ideal GUIs that end users world wide can pick from to suit their own very particular needs.

The operating system isn't what's important to people, the software you run on it is. Most people just live inside a web browser or office.

[Internetlad]

For instance the last three iterations are commonly referred to as XP = good, Vista = bad, 7 = good, which is pure BS. XP had all the same issues that Vista did upon it's release, it bumped performance requirements, had buggy drivers, incompatible software/hardware issues, etc. However because it was so long and two major service packs before the replacement, everyone had forgotten about that by the time Vista rolled round, and were used to running an old operating system on massively overpowered hardware.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EDIT: Another thing that bit vista was, firstly, laptop manufactuerer's like Acer & Dell putting it on a single core Celeron 1.8 machine with 512 mb DDR ram and calling it a day. No modern OS (Even XP) will run properly on those sort of mobile specs, in my opinion.

When crApple swooped in with the "i'm a mac, i'm a pc, hey vista why do you suck so bad, it's because i'm retarded and slow" ads, public opinion just dropped and m$ basically disowned it.


I'm not saying vista is the best OS, i'm not even saying it's better than 7 or XP, i'm just saying it's not near as bad as most people think. I've met people (customers) who admit they've used vista for a while and like it, but that still doesn't mean I could sell a refurbished machine with vista on it to save my life to some people.

[Lanx]

EDIT: Another thing that bit vista was, firstly, laptop manufactuerer's like Acer & Dell putting it on a single core Celeron 1.8 machine with 512 mb DDR ram and calling it a day. No modern OS (Even XP) will run properly on those sort of mobile specs, in my opinion.

Not true, i have and still use a netbook, your basic 10in 270atom 512mb from 3 years ago running xp, it ran great with 512 (i did upgrade to 2.5 when the memory market was cheap).


i've had a htpc for years, it might have been upgraded (when i upgrade it get's the hand me downs, or when wife upgrades etc), but it's relatively the same, it connects to my PC, largely now it's become my tv, because of stupid cable costs(i have to have basic cable, cuz i have comcast internet) my htpc is my huluplus  pc that i use to watch all my tv, heck hulu is even faster with anime than the independent subbing groups.

Any, i've tried using the interfaces such as Boxee, or xbmc to control everything, that "overlay" interface just ends up slowing me down, i have to flip through so many hoops to get to where i want, it's akin to putting in a GPS and no matter what you can't force it to go the "shorter, faster route" that you know by heart.

this is what i envision metro is like to many (i will admit i haven't had time to evaluate it)

[Malphas]

Only that people are bastardizing it before they even use it.

Precisely. When you actually question the most vitriolic anti-Windows 8/Metro people it appears all they've done is seen a few screenshots, noticed it's different from what they're used to and immediately ran to the nearest Internet forum/comments page to spew out their hatred for it.

e.g.:

this is what i envision metro is like to many (i will admit i haven't had time to evaluate it)

lol...

[DarkShot]

this is what i envision metro is like to many (i will admit i haven't had time to evaluate it)

I might suggest you try it out. I mean not to attack you, but it's as Malphas said, you're best off to form your own opinion after you use it for a couple days and see how it handles. Saying you haven't tried it but talking down is like looking at pizza and saying it tastes like ass when you haven't had a bite.

It isn't perfect, nor is it an entire different world, but Microsoft has done well in what they were aiming to do.

[Internetlad]

this is what i envision metro is like to many (i will admit i haven't had time to evaluate it)

lol...

At least he admits that he hasn't used it. Hell some people don't even realized they've basically been brainwashed.

That said, I just used the windows 8 RT surface tablet and

daaaaaayum

is it ever nice. THAT is what Win8 is built for. M$ pulled out all the stops. The construction, while somewhat angular, is magnesium. Gives the unit solid construction and a nice weight. Certainly at least on par with the iPad. The cover/keyboard is SURPRISINGLY responsive and solid. It behaves much like a regular keyboard, you can rest your fingers on it, and it seems to be very well thought out and produced.

Of course, windows 8 compliments the touch screen beautifully.

If you seriously believe that windows 8 is "the next vista" or "the next bad ms OS, wait for 9" head to any shop that is demoing the surface tablet and try it out. Very impressive stuff and syncs seamlessly with skydrive, win8 desktops and other cloud-based solutions.

Very, very impressive. Keep an eye out for this. I'm not a "tablet" man, but if I get in the market, I'm looking at a Surface.

[fohat.digs]

Migrating to a new OS is quite traumatic for a lot of us. Once every 5-8 years is plenty for me.

I used DOS until the first service pack of Win 98 came out. I was very happy with 98 and used it until I bought a computer with XP pre-installed about in about 2004.

I only moved from XP to Windows 7 in June of this year.

In each case, I was driven at least as much by problems related to compatibility problems with newer and/or older software and/or hardware than pure lust for change.

The move to 7 from XP was to just barely catch up to the curve rather than get ahead of it. Just because Steve Jobs hated keyboards does not mean that everybody does.

Windows 7 locks me out of a few older programs that I like. Yes, I know that there is a "compatibility mode" which is great, but I usually bite the bullet and move on at some point. But, for me, "moving on" meant only as far as 7.

[MMB]

For the desktop, there's not much reason to upgrade over Win7 other than to say "I have windows 8". On the tablet side, I like Windows RT. It's recent reviews on Surface get really great ratings.

[m00nshake]

I'll probably try it on my desktop since my student account is still active and its free, although I will say normally I'm wary of trying any new Windows OS until it's been out awhile.

[Internetlad]

For the desktop, there's not much reason to upgrade over Win7 other than to say "I have windows 8". On the tablet side, I like Windows RT. It's recent reviews on Surface get really great ratings.

In a nutshell.

[DarkShot]

For the desktop, there's not much reason to upgrade over Win7 other than to say "I have windows 8". On the tablet side, I like Windows RT. It's recent reviews on Surface get really great ratings.

I'm gonna install it on my desktop tonight. I was able to get a Win8 Pro upgrade license for $15 so I'll see how it goes. After I have everything on my computer that I need, I'll talk about what I like and dislike, as my laptop is used rarely whereas my desktop is on and used almost all my home spent wakeful hours.

I look forward to trying out an actual Windows 8 tablet device.

[NKRO]

That said, I just used the windows 8 RT surface tablet and

daaaaaayum

is it ever nice. THAT is what Win8 is built for. M$ pulled out all the stops. The construction, while somewhat angular, is magnesium. Gives the unit solid construction and a nice weight. Certainly at least on par with the iPad. The cover/keyboard is SURPRISINGLY responsive and solid. It behaves much like a regular keyboard, you can rest your fingers on it, and it seems to be very well thought out and produced.

Of course, windows 8 compliments the touch screen beautifully.

If you seriously believe that windows 8 is "the next vista" or "the next bad ms OS, wait for 9" head to any shop that is demoing the surface tablet and try it out. Very impressive stuff and syncs seamlessly with skydrive, win8 desktops and other cloud-based solutions.

Very, very impressive. Keep an eye out for this. I'm not a "tablet" man, but if I get in the market, I'm looking at a Surface.

While the Surface might be nice hardware (though the screen is low resolution, and 4:3 is much better suited for tablet use) I just don't think having a device that is stuck with "Modern UI" apps is worthwhile. I just don't see much potential there, and having Office & IE as the only desktop apps you can run seems like a very strange decision.

I think the Surface Pro has potential to be good, but x86 hardware just isn't ready for that form-factor yet. Haswell next year could change things in a big way, however.

For the desktop, there's not much reason to upgrade over Win7 other than to say "I have windows 8".

It's quicker, it's a lot more efficient (both in memory usage and power consumption) it takes up less space (I have about 5GB extra space on my SSD now) there are some great new features that haven't had much attention, and there are a number of UI tweaks and other OS improvements that make it a worthwhile upgrade, especially at the discounted price it's selling for right now.

If you don't like the "Modern UI" stuff, spend $5 on Start8. With that installed, you get back a Windows 7 style start menu (mostly feature-complete, at least for how I used it previously) and you never have to see "Modern UI" again, unless you actually want to.

I haven't seen a single "Modern UI" app that seems worthwhile using on the desktop, so that's how I have it set up now. There are free apps that offer similar features, but Start8 requires almost no configuration and worked best out of the ones that I tried.

[tanilolli]

So I decided to pop into BestBuy today to see if they had any devices with touchscreens running Windows 8 and I got a chance to spend some time with an Acer laptop with a built in touchscreen. It felt like a very natural experience finally using the Modern UI with a touchscreen. Everything was really responsive, and the gestures work great on the touchscreen. The thing I was most impressed with was how snappy the maps application was using multiple fingers to navigate. I'm really impressed with Windows 8 now but I don't have a touchscreen display at home to use it with. I think I'll wait until the Surface Pro gets released before I make the switch.

Also, pro tip for anyone trying to find touchscreen laptops in stores. Simply drag your finger across the displays in the isle while walking and see which ones exit the screensaver 

[CKTofu]

I'm running it through VMWare to test it out, but I'm not liking the UI  for desktop uses. For a tablet, fantastic, aside from the swipe-down-to-quit thing, that seems like a problem. Currently performance is at a disadvantage compared to Windows 7, the cold boot time is faster, but not that fast, and the pressure Microsoft is putting to get people to use Metro apps is annoying. The Start Window in theory could actually be better than the start menu, were they to make the tiles smaller and make the search functionality work a bit more fluidly (like Win7). I'm giving Windows 8 until the $40 upgrade sale stops to see if they make any additions to the functionality that would make it worthwhile, or to improve the performance beyond that of Windows 7. Otherwise here's hoping Windows 9 will be worth it.

[Ian S]

From reading more, it seems that the £25 'upgrade' is not the value it appears.  Apparently your older Office does not work with Win 8 so you have to fork out £180 for the 2012 version. 

And to get rid of the, IMO, ridiculous 'Metro' start page as much as possible, you have to purchase third party software, but you still lose the start menu, I personally find that menu useful.  I don't want to work around, adjust, get use to a useful part not being there!!  Whatever way anyone tries to paint it, that's a down grade.

The more I read about users personal experiences with trying to install it, installing, trying to use and using it, the less interested I am in wasting time with it, and I don't need more stress, I have enough of that already.  Most of the positive reviews are one sided and leave out (any) important info and very much look like they've been written by the sales and marketing teams.

I read the reviews on Amazon UK; only about 20 reviews, about half saying they'd never use it again and half gushing a nauseating sales pitch.

Personally I don't want to have to purchase new 2012 office to replace what's not broken and is doing the job adequately already.  I don't want to purchase third party hacks to work around it's crapness to get back to a productive product that I can already use without having to Google for the first month or two to find out how to do simple stuff I can already do.  I want an intuitive GUI where I don't have to learn anything to use a PC, just use it in the way that seems to make sense using common sense and logic.  That has always and evidently still does not apply to products from MS.

The Mac SE20 I used in the 1980's made sense. I didn't have to learn how it worked more than a brief introduction to using the mouse and treble clicking.  I was then straight away using PageMaker, Database, and word processing.  From never having seen one before, I was able to use it straight away professionally for DTP and office admin.  At home I had an Atari for running MIDI for my small home studio and playing some games, we didn't have Google and I didn't have to read a load of help files to learn how that worked either as that also made sense.  MS products have never made logical sense to me in that way to configure or use them, they need to be patiently comprehended and learned.  It shouldn't be that way.

I'm not sure how my XP PC could be faster, it starts in about 60 seconds and shuts down in about 20sec so maybe that could be but its not an issue as the modem takes more than a minute to get going.  Apart from that I'm not waiting for anything to open, work, do anything.  I have 560 tabs open now in Firefox and it's fine, not stalling or any problems.  I run Winamp and AudioBurst FX 32bit re-sampler to play music and at the same time as all that can run a full res 1080p video clip.  My PC, according to the 'wall wart' Wattmeter uses 45W in normal running with a peak of about 85W.  People keep say how much faster Win 8 is than Win 7.  Was Win 7 slow?

[SurgeonKyle]

Bought myself a copy from my work and it's pretty rock solid (especially since it was all of 70 bucks for the pro version) coming off of a clean install I'm liking it so far even if it is a lot harder than I expected it to be to adjust to the new scheme, but damn it's faster, looks alright, and lets me do everything my seven install did so I can't complain too much, just hope there aren't going to be any vista sized security holes (praying to god)

[Beta32Delta]

Not a fan of it, for tablets sure, but for desktop I don't see the point. I think its going to be eventually known as vista 2 sales wise.

[Rumudiez]

I love how all the negative reviews for Win8 complain about desktop functionality getting screwed over, whereas the positive reviews are strictly boosting its tablet and touch screen performance while still doing "everything my seven install did," which is completely subjective anyways.

I really hate the different versions they have.. Is it actually worth it to manage a product by taking out features you developed already for a cheaper product? It's annoying because many of my programs only run in whole on Ultimate/Pro versions.

[NKRO]

From reading more, it seems that the £25 'upgrade' is not the value it appears.  Apparently your older Office does not work with Win 8 so you have to fork out £180 for the 2012 version.

What version are you running? I think everything from 2007 onwards works fine in 8?

And to get rid of the, IMO, ridiculous 'Metro' start page as much as possible, you have to purchase third party software, but you still lose the start menu, I personally find that menu useful.  I don't want to work around, adjust, get use to a useful part not being there!!  Whatever way anyone tries to paint it, that's a down grade.

Start8 is $5 (£3) and basically turns Windows 8 into an enhanced version of Windows 7.
You can have it disable Metro entirely - no more Metro start screen, no more hot-corners, and it brings back the Windows 7-style start menu. (or alternatively, a Metro-style one that stays on the desktop and doesn't fill your screen)

I'm not sure how my XP PC could be faster, it starts in about 60 seconds and shuts down in about 20sec so maybe that could be but its not an issue as the modem takes more than a minute to get going.

I boot to the desktop in about 10 seconds with Windows 8 compared to about 45 seconds for Windows 7.
That might not seem like a big deal, but I would often just leave my PC on idling rather than shutting it down due to the delay. (I don't like sleep as it tends to have issues with some of my hardware)

My PC, according to the 'wall wart' Wattmeter uses 45W in normal running with a peak of about 85W.

You're only measuring the idle state (unlikely to change) and the peak power consumption. (also unlikely to change) Those kind of power meters are often inaccurate with PCs as well.

Windows 8 allows the system to get into an idle state much quicker, and for longer periods of time. It will also support better power-saving states in upcoming processors. (Intel's Haswell architecture for example)



I am also noticing that power management seems to be much more dynamic and responsive in Windows 8. In Windows 7 my system basically only ever jumped from being completely throttled at 1.6GHz, to running full-tilt at 4.5GHz. There was never any intermediate, and there were a number of tasks which caused the CPU to stay in the 1.6GHz state, even though they were considerably slower when doing so. On Windows 7 I ended up disabling CPU throttling, which is very wasteful.

In Windows 8, my CPU is scaling anywhere between 1.6GHz and 4.5GHz depending on the demands being made of it. I've often seen it running at 2.x or 3.x GHz rather than only switching between 1.6 & 4.5
I haven't noticed any performance drop when enabling all the power-saving features in Windows 8, unlike Windows 7. XP is much worse than that, even.

Memory usage is down, leaving more memory free for applications.
In general the UI just seems more responsive than Windows 7.
File transfers are noticeably quicker, and there is now an excellent status display giving you information on their progress. (Windows 7's information was useless at best, and estimates were often wildly inaccurate)

People keep say how much faster Win 8 is than Win 7.  Was Win 7 slow?

It wasn't slow, but 8 is faster. That's never a bad thing.

Not a fan of it, for tablets sure, but for desktop I don't see the point. I think its going to be eventually known as vista 2 sales wise.

I'm quite sure Microsoft will be happy selling another 60 million copies of Windows then...

[ra7c7er]

I will be holding off on it for a while I don't see anything it does on the user end that is fundamentally better than windows 7. I know it has some more secure background/security things but that isn't enough for me to switch.

[Ian S]

Thanks for your detailed and helpful response

What version are you running? I think everything from 2007 onwards works fine in 8?

2003.  So that alone would appear to be a sufficient deal breaker.

Start8 is $5 (£3)

Thanks I'll forward that onto my pal who's planning to upgrade.  He's had the trial version for a few months on not his main PC and can't, doesn't want to, deal with Metro.

boot to the desktop in about 10 seconds with Windows 8 compared to about 45 seconds for Windows 7

Yes I also do leave it running a bunch of programs where I might not if it came on near instantly with them all immediately usable.  10 sec boot does not mean with everything running though, so I'd still leave it on.  I've not tried to use sleep since the '90's when it didn't really work.

Haswell

Thanks for the link and image.

These various power saving and performance enhancing features are all good to have and I like to have them.  But at what cost.  New office.  Other stuff that I have that is old and work well on XP that probably won't.  Eg, Revosleep that keeps my extra internal HDDs off.  I simply can't have them all spinning all the time.  I expect there will be others.  Maybe I'll upgrade in a couple of years when these things have been fixed by their respective programmers.

[Internetlad]

I'm not going to be relying on any of the "Start button" apps, as It seems m$ is standing firm on putting the kaibosh on the start menu.

Realistically, the Metro interface is just a full-screen start menu, So I don't see what the fuss is about.

[Rumudiez]

The fuss is that it's not the start menu and is less friendly to the methods we've all become so accustomed to in using the start menu for the last half dozen versions of Windows. WinKey -> Search just became five strokes longer..

[DarkShot]

The fuss is that it's not the start menu and is less friendly to the methods we've all become so accustomed to in using the start menu for the last half dozen versions of Windows. WinKey -> Search just became five strokes longer..

Press the Win key -> start typing -> arrow down to the context you want to search in -> select the file/link/whatever

It really hasn't added all that much to it. If anything, it's much more powerful as it's a universal search for not just programs, but files, and anything else within the means of the apps you can select.

[smoke070]

I'm loving it, even though i'm kinda cheating.. I'm using it with Start8 and I uninstalled all of the apps and I don't even touch the Metro nonsense. But i'll take the performance benefits and stay future-proof.

[Malphas]

The fuss is that it's not the start menu and is less friendly to the methods we've all become so accustomed to in using the start menu for the last half dozen versions of Windows. WinKey -> Search just became five strokes longer..

The Start Menu is antiquated crap, though. No-one even uses it anymore (according to personal experience and Microsoft's telemetry). Why would anyone want to go through half a dozen clicks in a cluttered, disorganised menu of fairly small proportions meaning your clicks have to relatively precise and therefore take longer, when you just just hit winkey and type, or just have a large, easy and quick to click tile on your screen instead?

[NKRO]

2003.  So that alone would appear to be a sufficient deal breaker.

Well it is over nine years old at this point, but it's understandable that you wouldn't want to upgrade if you need to upgrade office. (I assume alternatives like LibreOffice don't suit your needs)

Yes I also do leave it running a bunch of programs where I might not if it came on near instantly with them all immediately usable.  10 sec boot does not mean with everything running though, so I'd still leave it on.  I've not tried to use sleep since the '90's when it didn't really work.

Hibernation wakes just as quickly as a cold boot does for me, and I haven't had the issues with it that I get with sleep. It does eat up some hard drive space though. (3/4 of your  total RAM which may be an issue if you have an SSD)
Sleep usually works fine for me on notebooks, but I tend to have issues with peripherals that are left connected to the system when sleeping a desktop PC.

These various power saving and performance enhancing features are all good to have and I like to have them.  But at what cost.  New office.  Other stuff that I have that is old and work well on XP that probably won't.  Eg, Revosleep that keeps my extra internal HDDs off.  I simply can't have them all spinning all the time.  I expect there will be others.  Maybe I'll upgrade in a couple of years when these things have been fixed by their respective programmers.

Again, completely understandable. There's no point in upgrading just for the sake of upgrading, or if it means a lot of unnecessary additional costs. For me, Windows 8 brings a set of useful new features, performance improvements, and power savings. If you're happy with how your system is running on XP, other than security issues, or buying new hardware (you should not use Windows XP if you have an SSD) there's probably no real reason for you to change.

The fuss is that it's not the start menu and is less friendly to the methods we've all become so accustomed to in using the start menu for the last half dozen versions of Windows. WinKey -> Search just became five strokes longer..

It's the same in Windows 8 as it is in Windows 7 - hit the windows key and just start typing. The difference is that I find the presentation to be unintuitive on a desktop machine, and they split things off into different categories now. By default it only searches applications, control panels and files are split off into separate categories.

The Start Menu is antiquated crap, though. No-one even uses it anymore (according to personal experience and Microsoft's telemetry). Why would anyone want to go through half a dozen clicks in a cluttered, disorganised menu of fairly small proportions meaning your clicks have to relatively precise and therefore take longer, when you just just hit winkey and type, or just have a large, easy and quick to click tile on your screen instead?

Microsoft can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't change the fact that I use the start menu all the time. I use it as a quick app/file launcher (hit the Windows key and start typing) and I keep infrequently used applications pinned to it. (utilities like WinDirStat, Acronis TrueImage etc.) Frequently used applications get pinned to the taskbar so I can access them with the Windows key and the corresponding number.

The Modern UI start screen interrupts my work and takes over my screen. I also find the file search less than useful in its presentation compared to the list found in the start menu.
While the click targets may be larger, there is considerably more distance to  be travelled to get to what you want on the Modern UI start screen. With the start menu, I have to move a maximum of about 450 pixels to select any of my 10 pinned apps, and the click targets are still fairly large. With the Modern UI start screen, I have to cover the entire distance of my monitor.

[Lanx]

The fuss is that it's not the start menu and is less friendly to the methods we've all become so accustomed to in using the start menu for the last half dozen versions of Windows. WinKey -> Search just became five strokes longer..

The Start Menu is antiquated crap, though. No-one even uses it anymore (according to personal experience and Microsoft's telemetry). Why would anyone want to go through half a dozen clicks in a cluttered, disorganised menu of fairly small proportions meaning your clicks have to relatively precise and therefore take longer, when you just just hit winkey and type, or just have a large, easy and quick to click tile on your screen instead?

the whole point of the start menu is that it is for a gui, a graphical user interface, what you are proposing is basically dos, the difference between clicking on what you see vs. typing what you want from memory.

[TheProfosist]

Im likeing it so far i cant actually wait to have it on my main computer to get some real use into it.

[Malphas]

The fuss is that it's not the start menu and is less friendly to the methods we've all become so accustomed to in using the start menu for the last half dozen versions of Windows. WinKey -> Search just became five strokes longer..

The Start Menu is antiquated crap, though. No-one even uses it anymore (according to personal experience and Microsoft's telemetry). Why would anyone want to go through half a dozen clicks in a cluttered, disorganised menu of fairly small proportions meaning your clicks have to relatively precise and therefore take longer, when you just just hit winkey and type, or just have a large, easy and quick to click tile on your screen instead?

the whole point of the start menu is that it is for a gui, a graphical user interface, what you are proposing is basically dos, the difference between clicking on what you see vs. typing what you want from memory.

You realise you're on a keyboard enthusiast forum, right? "From memory" is a bit of a stretch as well, remembering the first few letters of the application you want to use is hardly testing anyone memory ability. You're also rather cynically ignored the part of my post where I said you can just click the tile instead.

The Start Menu is antiquated crap, though. No-one even uses it anymore (according to personal experience and Microsoft's telemetry). Why would anyone want to go through half a dozen clicks in a cluttered, disorganised menu of fairly small proportions meaning your clicks have to relatively precise and therefore take longer, when you just just hit winkey and type, or just have a large, easy and quick to click tile on your screen instead?

Microsoft can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't change the fact that I use the start menu all the time.

That's a shame for you, but the world moves on and some people get stuck in their ways and left behind.

[NKRO]

That's a shame for you, but the world moves on and some people get stuck in their ways and left behind.

Can you elaborate on how I am being "left behind" by not using the Metro start screen?

[crthell]

Will you be getting a copy?
--I have one, actually. I've been testing since the Consumer Preview, and have the 90 day RTM trial. After that, I may or may not buy a copy.
What do you think of the low price?
--Its about time!
What are your opinions on the new features?
--I love the enhancements to startup, which greatly reduced boot times. I don't like the new Modern interface, as the transition between Modern and the classic desktop is clunky and counter-intuitive.
Will this new OS be a problem for PC users?
--Yes. My grandma spent over fifteen minutes trying to find the option to shut down.
What do you think of the new ribbon feature in place of the Windows Explorer address bar?
--I like it! Its an improvement over the Windows 7 Windows Explorer layout. The best layout, IMO, was the Windows 2000/XP layout with the menu bar. This is a close second in my mind.
Any features that you love and is the soul reason you are getting the new OS?
--Besides the Modern UI, there are really no groundbreaking features. Its more of an incremental upgrade under the hood.
Will you be getting a Windows 8 tablet or Smartphone?
--No. I'm not a tablet fan, and I'm happy with my iPhone 3GS (for a little longer, anyway.)
How will the new OS affect your gaming?
--I'm not a huge gamer, but all of the games I've tried to play run perfectly. Every Windows 7 app should work fine. Windows 7 is NT 6.1, 8 is NT 6.2, so again its pretty incremental.
Anything else that you think that should be addressed about Windows 8?
--The transition between the new Modern UI and the old classic interface. Its awful! Gestures are awkward with keyboard and mouse setups. Also, there are two control panels, etc.- a Modern UI version, and a classic version. Modern UI apps are counter-intuitive and hinder powerusers due to their fullscreen nature.

heckyeah!

[vun]

I would consider upgrading, but I figure I can't downgrade if I don't like it so I probably won't. Yes, I know Win8 might get a lot of flak from people who haven't really tried it, which is why I have been rather quiet about it as I've only had a brief look at it on a friend's laptop. Although so far there isn't really a lot that appeals to me, the ribbon is just another way to do things I currently have no problem doing and makes a visual mess, the whole metro thingie seems to be a more cumbersome start menu, although I almost never click "all programs" on the start menu, but I do use the recent programs, pinned programs and explorer shortcuts on it all the time. From what I've seen Win8 just makes this more cumbersome as well. It's supposedly better than 7 regarding performance, but currently I don't need that extra performance enough to want to permanently switch to Win8.

As for those saying "get with the times" and similar comments; exactly how is the new UI a step forward for PC power-users?

[Lorem-Ipsum]

Well after my scathing review I'm now planning on replacing windows 7 with 8 on my laptop..... of course dual booted with Linux/BSD

[Internetlad]

The IT guy for our local hospital was holding an extended conversation about win8 with me, and he basically compared it to win3.1-->win95

"When it first came out, everybody HATED 95. I hated it. It was so different and nobody wanted it. Now, everybody is angry that the start button is getting removed. Think about when the start button was introduced."

He proceeded to show me through the news and sports apps. The sports app could be huge for sports nuts, as you can pin your favorite team, and it will give you a breakdown of who's hot, who's cold, the entire team roster, schedule, and standings, as well as streaming headlines straight to your live tile. That's a pretty cool feature, but everybody is too busy yelling about how the windows 8 UI breaks desktops to realize that there are some cool advancements in it too.

[schizrade]

I am enjoying it. New stuff.

It works great for somebody that has left hand on a keyboard and right on the mouse. Very fast.

[Malphas]

That's a shame for you, but the world moves on and some people get stuck in their ways and left behind.

Can you elaborate on how I am being "left behind" by not using the Metro start screen?

What I mean is you'll become one of "those people", like how you still get people who refuse to use computers entirely for instance. The traditional desktop in Windows 8 is akin to the MS-DOS mode in Windows 9x - it's a legacy feature that's going to become gradually stripped down further and further in successive incarnations of Windows as applications and people become less reliant on it, until eventually it won't be there at all. So you'll be left either begrudgingly using it whilst complaining like an technologically-illiterate pensioner, or using Windows 7 long after it's become obsolete and barely usable, or perhaps off using some irrelevant Linux distro that nobody cares about. Either way, everyone else will have moved on as I said, happily using touchscreen interfaces and a variety of form factors.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Your argument that Windows 7 will eventually be useless doesn't make any sense to me.  I think of it this way... I can still use a computer running DOS 6.0 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and still be able to do much of the stuff I could do on a modern PC.  High-speed internet, email, web browsing, etc.  Sure, all the software is obsolete, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S USELESS!!!

Where is Microsoft Windows when you need him?

[Malphas]

If you think a PC running DOS and Workgroups 3.11 is still relevant then there's no point even discussing it since our perceptions of reality are too radically different to bother, ha ha.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

I am simply saying that said PC with DOS and 3.1 is NOT useless, and never will be COMPLETELY useless (until it physically dies).  The same can be said about Windows 7 20 years from now... it will NEVER be totally useless.

[Malphas]

But it will still be an irrelevant piece of **** that nobody in their right mind uses. Which is the state DOS and Windows 3.1x are held in regard as by the majority of non-delusional people today.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

True... except if you're Microsoft Windows...

Why are you saying that anyone who uses obsolete operating systems are delusional?  I know for a fact that some people might consider vintage computing a hobby, much in the same way we consider mechanical keyboarding to be a hobby.  Are you saying hobbies are only for the delusional?

[Malphas]

This is like the third time now you've somehow not understood what I've said, despite it being blatantly straightforward.

i.e.

"Your argument that Windows 7 will eventually be useless" - Never said this (with your level of Asperger's-esque level of literalness).

What I did say is that Windows 7 will eventually become irrelevant, I suppose you could consider this me saying it will become "useless", but only in a practical reality sense as oppose to absolute literal meaning of it having no potential use. e.g. A Ford Model T isn't literally useless, as it can still function, but realistically yes it is.

"Why are you saying that anyone who uses obsolete operating systems are delusional?" - Also never said this. What I quite clearly said was that if you consider DOS/Windows 3.1x to still be relevant to modern day mainstream computing then you're delusional.

[IvanIvanovich]

I like some of the under the hood enhancements, and that it is less bloated in regards to disk space which is nice for us ssd users. I hate the ui changes. But I don't hate it becuase it's different, I hate it becuase it's not what I want, just like every other MS ui in history. Once I know how to mod all the resources that they have moved around, I will probably go ahead and upgrade.
I haven't really used the start menu since pinning on the taskbar was introduced, so that isn't much of an issue for me. I don't care about the live tiles junk on the start screen as I have been a rainmeter user for years enjoying most of that funtionality already.
I don't like the aesthetics of the ui changes, or understand why they moved so many options around again needlessly.
In my opinon they shouldn't have bothered with the start screen at all, but just integrated it with the desktop. Just have everything on the desktop ready to go, save the trouble of switching to another view for no f-ing reason.
I do agree that it is way too touch centric. It also would not have been hard to have all of that as a package as they have done in the past, which you can go into windows components and disable/remove.
I don't and never intend to own touchscreen or tablet pc, so I don't give a s__t about those features. Asides from gaming there is nothing else keeping me on Windows. If steam manages to gather enough interest in publishers to get linux ports done problem solved and MS can turn Windows into an iOs/droid imitating piece of crap all they want.

[Carnage]

Bleh so far w8 looks as promising as vista... From what information I've gained and experimented with i strongly disliked this new style there going for. Plus I believe the current version right now isn't anything special IE performance wise i actually think windows 8 booted faster and shut down quicker but in cpu, gpu, ram, etc benchmark tests it seems as if its a slight bit slower then a un-modded windows 7 86 bit. Which is nothing special itself i only switched to w7 because dx11 isn't optimized for windows xp. For now ill stay with my modded w7 ultimate 64 bit and registry edits. At least until there is either a good reason to switch for a new direct x or bench markings improve over w7. But we shall just have sit and wait i will be keeping a close on w8 capabilities maybe something interesting will be unleashed...

[Internetlad]

What I did say is that Windows 7 will eventually become irrelevant, I suppose you could consider this me saying it will become "useless", but only in a practical reality sense as oppose to absolute literal meaning of it having no potential use. e.g. A Ford Model T isn't literally useless, as it can still function, but realistically yes it is.

Despite the danger of edging this pissing match forward, i'm going to say I see where both you and CLiB are coming from. I think what you desired to say is that using windows 7 (or the included features thereof in a future iteration of windows) will become highly impractical. Theoretically you COULD run most o the commands ( and it is still necessary to run some higher-level commands, ie IPCONFIG ) via DOS today, but you wouldn't expect Quickbooks 2013 to come out and feature support for DOS.

and as far as saying

I can still use a computer running DOS 6.0 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and still be able to do much of the stuff I could do on a modern PC.

I think you would find that a LOT of what you do nowadays couldn't be achieved by doing that. Hell, most modern websites barely work with anything older than IE7, never mind Netscape Navigator. Most any new off-the-shelf printer, specifically inkjets and lasers (You could get an OkiData 320/420 to work fairly easily in an IBM compatability mode) and never mind finding manufactured ink or toner (again, the ribbons would be readily available) for those units lol.

However. . .  You could run MS Paint.

I had a lot of fun with MS Paint.

[IvanIvanovich]

I keep an old DOS/9x box around. I only use it for old games that won't run on anything newer and go totally mental in vms though. I won't even connect it to my home network, let alone the internet.