Why does everybody bash Windows 8 so much?

[Internetlad]

Just browsing through a couple of tech news blogs and every comment about Windows 8 is OHHH IT'S SO BAD OHHH IT'S SO DIFFERENT METRO SUCKS WIN8 SUCKS WIN7/XP FOR LYFE!


They're basically the same damn OS. If you really can't figure out the new start menu (takes literally 3 minutes because it's just the old start menu but in tile form instead of list form and with the charms on the right (as selected by moving to top or bottom right corner) instead of the power button/control panel))

Literally the only gripe I have about Win8 is that It's not as efficient to get to your "Computer" (IE the file explorer) if you don't know that winkey+e will take you right there. Easily fixed with a shortcut on your desktop (Winkey+e, drag and drop "Computer" onto desktop)

So where's all the flak coming from? IE10 is a solid improvement over IE9, which was already at least comparable with firefox and chrome (and easier to maintenance since it has a simple reset button instead of having to navigate to an obscure file folder and delete/rename it) Windows 8 is probably just as efficient if not moreso than Windows 7 as it seems to start, shutdown and basically perform just as well if not faster.

Thus far the only main reasons I can find for people moaning about Windows 8 are as thus follows

"I haven't tried it, but

1. I don't like the look of metro (sic) and tiles are dumb and bad for mouse

2. My freind said it was (going to be, if before release) bad, so it must be.

3. It's the odd in the even/odd release of windows , and since 2000 and vista sucked and XP and 7 are good, this one MUST be bad.

So i'm not going to use it."

Odd that it comes from the same people running around calling anybody with an iPod "iSheep" (I don't much care for Apple as a corporation or thier business practices, but I can see the appeal of some of their products, although I find them to closed to own myself) when all they are doing is parroting what everyone else is saying.

\rant

[keyboardlover]

If there is something to complain about, people will complain.

[Internetlad]

If there is something to complain about, people will complain.

Trickle down complainomics.

[tjcaustin]

It's also cool to bash new windows releases.  I'm fairly certain it's a geek commandment at this point.

[Dgsbllx]

It's also cool to bash new windows releases.  I'm fairly certain it's a geek commandment at this point.

Too true. I know a guy that still uses XP claiming its the best but he is yet to use any of the others? Then moans when he can't play games due to direct x etc. Jokers.

[Hyde]

I personally haven't try it yet.  But a few people mentioned that every other windows sucks.  And it's proven by history.

Since window 7 is good so people based on that logic that windows 8 must suck, though windows 9 will be good.

LOL though like I said I haven't try window 8 yet 

[fohat.digs]

Migrating to a new OS is painful.

About once every 5 years is often enough for me, and I stayed with XP for something like 8 years.

[Internetlad]

Migrating to a new OS is painful.

Maybe that's part of it. Not the OS itself but the actual transition.

I personally don't keep anything on my install drive that I couldn't immediately download again (got a second HDD for data) so reinstalls and other wipes take less than a day providing I have the parts.

I have to admit that I don't personally plan to upgrade to 8 myself, but having a machine at work and using it extensively, I see little to no difference between 7 and 8 besides a couple new tricks to using it. (Ironically, one of the things i'm having a hard time getting used to is that the keying a new folder isn't Alt+F N F anymore, it's Alt+H N)

I could understand if people were saying "There is no point in upgrading if you have 7" because I consider that true, but "Windows 8 SUCKS" is basically saying Windows 7 sucks because they are, for intents and purposes, pretty damn similar.

[swagpiratex]

Once you are able to distinguish between subjective and objective rationale then you will reach a state of awareness that will elucidate your question.

[nullstring]

There are a few new features in windows 8 that seemed nice, so I will probably upgrade.
I will, however, be disabling everything metro related.

Metro seems obviously not designed for a workstation environment

[Internetlad]

There are a few new features in windows 8 that seemed nice, so I will probably upgrade.
I will, however, be disabling everything metro related.

Metro seems obviously not designed for a workstation environment

That's the thing, though. I spend all day on the computer and only time I even see metro is when I start up and shut down (providing I dont' just slap the power button)

Pin the few programs you use on your task bar, stick a link on your desktop to My Computer or just use winkey+e and you can ignore the-interface-formerly-known-as-Metro all day long.

[tjcaustin]

Once you are able to distinguish between subjective and objective rationale then you will reach a state of awareness that will elucidate your question.

Elucidate is a properly good word.

[baldgye]

there is only one real problem I have with it, and its becasue MS assumes that no one pre-8 used the startmenu search option... which is basically how I navigate win7...

when using win8 you can use it pretty much in the same way except the whole screen is then filled with the search results instead of a small section of your screen, and then 'metro' apps are prioritsed over actual desktop applications.

The second problem I've had with it is actually digging into the options and trying to set it up to work how I'm used too, there are basically two sets of controls and options, desktop traditional win7 style and then metro options and settings, both are diffrent and neither really explain why or how.


If there was a way you could disable the new start menu and have the win7 one back, I'd happly upgrade, but it's just a move that would not benfit how I use my machine in anyway...

[Lanx]

Migrating to a new OS is painful.

I have to admit that I don't personally plan to upgrade to 8 myself, but having a machine at work and using it extensively, I see little to no difference between 7 and 8 besides a couple new tricks to using it. (Ironically, one of the things i'm having a hard time getting used to is that the keying a new folder isn't Alt+F N F anymore, it's Alt+H N)

i do new folders with win7 by ctrl+shift+n, maybe windows 8 has that too. (can't test out windows 8 anymore, wife couldn't stand it so i had to reinstall windows 7)

[Wildcard]

I was using Win8 very early in the dev preview and kept thinking, Microsoft are you serious with this? Yes, there are some nice updates as with most new releases, however, this feels so wrong in so many ways. Unless there was some super secret plan to introduce a new input device that would revolutionize the desktop PC, I was pretty sure this release was going to be a big kick against Microsoft. Unless the plan is to give everyone "gorilla arm" (real term look it up), the mouse and keyboard are still integral to the modern desktop setup. I do like the use with a convertible laptop, but the OS should configure itself on install to match your hardware. No touchscreen input = no metro.

I'm f'ing tired of feeling like a beta tester for Windows with these bad releases. They need to do their market research before introducing a new product.

[tjcaustin]

I suppose that technically, apple had this out a few years ago, but this seems like a good indicator of what they were streamlining it for:

http://www.logitech.com/en-us/promotions/touch-collection?pcid=10335

[rowdy]

Talking about that search (which I almost never use in Win 7), it struck me that Windows apps install a lot of crap.  Each folder in the start menu has at least 2, usually half a dozen or so, entries).  It would be near impossible to provide that as one list.

Compare that to OS X, where there is an Applications icon on the Dock.  Click it, and you get a single alphabetical list of application icons.  Each application has one icon.  There are a couple of folders, like Utilities, to group utility apps that people might not use every day.

So me that is just so much simpler and easier to use and to find apps.  Plus I on the Mac I can click once to open Applications, and once again on the app's icon.

With Windows it is Start - All Programs, then the app's folder, then try to select the right app shortcut from there.  Or take my hand off the mouse, lose focus, and type in the search field.

If Win 8 contianues that Microsoft trend, I will continue to prefer the alternatives.

[baldgye]

Talking about that search (which I almost never use in Win 7), it struck me that Windows apps install a lot of crap.  Each folder in the start menu has at least 2, usually half a dozen or so, entries).  It would be near impossible to provide that as one list.

Compare that to OS X, where there is an Applications icon on the Dock.  Click it, and you get a single alphabetical list of application icons.  Each application has one icon.  There are a couple of folders, like Utilities, to group utility apps that people might not use every day.

So me that is just so much simpler and easier to use and to find apps.  Plus I on the Mac I can click once to open Applications, and once again on the app's icon.

With Windows it is Start - All Programs, then the app's folder, then try to select the right app shortcut from there.  Or take my hand off the mouse, lose focus, and type in the search field.

If Win 8 contianues that Microsoft trend, I will continue to prefer the alternatives.

use search, its by far the best way to find programs and use the OS as a whole, winkey+progname = easy

[tjcaustin]

Talking about that search (which I almost never use in Win 7), it struck me that Windows apps install a lot of crap.  Each folder in the start menu has at least 2, usually half a dozen or so, entries).  It would be near impossible to provide that as one list.

Compare that to OS X, where there is an Applications icon on the Dock.  Click it, and you get a single alphabetical list of application icons.  Each application has one icon.  There are a couple of folders, like Utilities, to group utility apps that people might not use every day.

So me that is just so much simpler and easier to use and to find apps.  Plus I on the Mac I can click once to open Applications, and once again on the app's icon.

With Windows it is Start - All Programs, then the app's folder, then try to select the right app shortcut from there.  Or take my hand off the mouse, lose focus, and type in the search field.

If Win 8 contianues that Microsoft trend, I will continue to prefer the alternatives.

Done right, the new start menu is fairly similar to how apple does things. Start->click app tile.

[baldgye]

I personally think that the taskbar/start button makes windows so much more powerful and easier to navigate than anyother OS, but MS seem more interested in having everyone use touch screens, even, on a full desktop machine...

[rowdy]

Sounds like Windows 8 might be a small step forwards then.  I have not tried it yet, nor am I in a position to for now.

[tjcaustin]

I personally think that the taskbar/start button makes windows so much more powerful and easier to navigate than anyother OS, but MS seem more interested in having everyone use touch screens, even, on a full desktop machine...

All-in-ones with touch seem to be at least moderately popular.

Additionally, cell phones and tablets kinda indicate a slight market for them. 

[baldgye]

I personally think that the taskbar/start button makes windows so much more powerful and easier to navigate than anyother OS, but MS seem more interested in having everyone use touch screens, even, on a full desktop machine...

All-in-ones with touch seem to be at least moderately popular.

Additionally, cell phones and tablets kinda indicate a slight market for them. 

I agree, which is why I think that there needs to be a tickbox or something to enable the old startmenu back, if thats what you want/how you use your machine... like how XP had a way you could make it look and feel exactally like win98...

...win8 is a downgrade in terms of being able to use a windows machine on a desktop quickly becasue of how it priorites 'apps' and how it ignoors your desktop...

People have been using the docked icon approach becasue windows icons and the start menu as a whole is bad... instead of making all that **** bigger and easier for touch screens they should have actually addressed the problem... all they have done with 8 is changed the problem...

[baldgye]

...you removed your post it seems :/

but it commands the tablet market with a smartphone OS... MS is going the other route, which instead of limiting what the tablet can do, it limits the desktop experiance...

that said, the tablet market isn't one I understand at all... I don't get why you'd buy something so big thats a poor middle ground between an actual laptop you can work on, and a phone you can carry everywhere in your pocket, but hey, thats just me..

[Malphas]

I personally haven't try it yet.  But a few people mentioned that every other windows sucks.  And it's proven by history.

That's a pile of excrement that's been repeated ad nauseum by mouthbreathers in response to Windows 8, basically. I don't know what columnist or forum poster started the bandwagon rolling, but no-one ever said this about Windows prior to like a year ago tops, and no-one with any credibility has ever said it, and it's blatant nonsense in general.

[Lanx]

touch is stupid on a desktop, i'm leaning back on my 24in monitor, i don't want to sit up to "touch" anything. Now if they incorporate a kinect into windows 8 and i can swipe that way, it might be useful.

I personally haven't try it yet.  But a few people mentioned that every other windows sucks.  And it's proven by history.

That's a pile of excrement that's been repeated ad nauseum by mouthbreathers in response to Windows 8, basically. I don't know what columnist or forum poster started the bandwagon rolling, but no-one ever said this about Windows prior to like a year ago tops, and no-one with any credibility has ever said it, and it's blatant nonsense in general.

no that's pretty much observational history, of anyone that's used windows since 3.0 it's a proven track record.

[tjcaustin]

touch is stupid on a desktop, i'm leaning back on my 24in monitor, i don't want to sit up to "touch" anything. Now if they incorporate a kinect into windows 8 and i can swipe that way, it might be useful.

I personally haven't try it yet.  But a few people mentioned that every other windows sucks.  And it's proven by history.

That's a pile of excrement that's been repeated ad nauseum by mouthbreathers in response to Windows 8, basically. I don't know what columnist or forum poster started the bandwagon rolling, but no-one ever said this about Windows prior to like a year ago tops, and no-one with any credibility has ever said it, and it's blatant nonsense in general.

no that's pretty much observational history, of anyone that's used windows since 3.0 it's a proven track record.

Other than all of those same people forgetting how goofy XP was before SP1.

[BoxWithADot]

Been using Windows 8 for a while, and I actually like it pretty well. Took about half an hour to get the hang of it. I don't know why everyone hates Metro so much, it's really not horrible to navigate with a mouse. That being said, if you really don't want the Metro interface you should look into Classic Shell. It lets you bring back the start menu, as well as loads of other old features, and it's pretty customizable. I played with it a bit, but I'm going to keep using Metro for a while.

[Internetlad]

The whole "Every other version of windows" thing is goofy and stupid. Let's look at it objectively.

This myth never seems to take into account anything before Windows 3.1, so Windows for Workgroups, DOS 6.0, ETC are all disincluded.
Also this myth seems to strangely disinclude server, thin client and CE versions of OSes, focusing mainly on the "home" or "pro" teirs (assuming the software is tiered)


3.1- GUI improvements over DOS

95- Built from the ground up, Most computers couldn't run it properly due to it requiring higher resources than earlier iterations of windows.

98- Hardware catching up to software. Some driver and implimentation issues.

98SE Slight improvements over 98. Hardware is now caught up with OS and the "everyman" pc runs it well.

2000- Driver and performance issues. Based on the Windows NT Generally thought of as "good" despite viral issues. Recieved updates for a decade after release

ME- New UI built on features from 2000 and 98SE. Cited stability issues. Considered by many as "worst OS (Microsoft) ever made"

NT- (Suppose, specifically NT 4.0)

XP- Issues before SP1 which introduced large tweaks and updates on both the front and backend including changes in menus and the UI and driver fixes and updates

Vista- Much like 95, many PCs running at the time only had 256-512 MB RAM, not nearly enough to stably run Vista. After hardware improvements and SP1, the OS performs much more reliably.

7- Built off the features Vista presented. Hardware has time to catch up, many computers are running 2+GB RAM, 64 Bit computing is becoming mainstream. Currently regarded as "Good" by consumers.

8- Still very early in it's life cycle. Performance is identical or better than that achieved with the same hardware running W7. Metro interface main cause for consumer dissent.

So I don't really see where people get the good/bad cycle from. As you can see a lot of it has to do with M$ releasing a software that will take advantage of hardware that will be available in about a year after release on the majority of consumers, possibly assuming consumers will update their systems with the OS. This doesn't seem to be the case as consumers would rather complain about how **** their computer is than spend the money to fix it.

Other than all of those same people forgetting how goofy XP was before SP1.

And everybody hated 98 when it first came out BECAUSE it had a start menu. Why isn't just the desktop good enough?! How different! We hate it!

EDIT: Here's a list from a different user on anandtech

Win 3- terrible, just use DOS
Win 3.1- slightly better, but still inferior to DOS, another BAD
Windows 95- Good compared to everything up until this point, but BAD compared to future OS.
Windows 98- Fixed a lot of the issues with 95, but had some problems of it's own, better in Win98 Second Edition.
Windows 2000- Good, amazing, perfect OS. Flawless in every way.
Windows ME- Considered bad, but IMO pretty much equal to windows 98. Clearly inferior to Windows 2000 though.
Windows XP- At release, BAD- lots of driver issues, some infamous problems with sound blaster live cards and via drivers, but after the 3rd service pack it was mostly redeemed and considered good.
Windows Vista- At release, considered BAD by most, but IMO most of the blame is on bad drivers from nvidia or ATI. After SP1 I had no problems with Vista, although many still consider it bad. Still nothing wrong with it IMO, but 7 makes it obsolete.
Windows 7- Good, considered good by most users.

[Malphas]

touch is stupid on a desktop, i'm leaning back on my 24in monitor, i don't want to sit up to "touch" anything. Now if they incorporate a kinect into windows 8 and i can swipe that way, it might be useful.

I personally haven't try it yet.  But a few people mentioned that every other windows sucks.  And it's proven by history.

That's a pile of excrement that's been repeated ad nauseum by mouthbreathers in response to Windows 8, basically. I don't know what columnist or forum poster started the bandwagon rolling, but no-one ever said this about Windows prior to like a year ago tops, and no-one with any credibility has ever said it, and it's blatant nonsense in general.

no that's pretty much observational history, of anyone that's used windows since 3.0 it's a proven track record.

Other than all of those same people forgetting how goofy XP was before SP1.

Precisely. As well as the other numerous other actual facts that contradict the distorted revisionism of the simpletons that subscribe to the "every other Windows is bad/good" myth. Like the fact Vista was actually fine, or that the 9x line was all just bad, or that the NT and 9x lineages were totally separate prior to XP, which is another thing the revisionists like to disregard in order to shoehorn their theory into sounding as if it's correct (e.g. going 2000 = good, Me = bad, XP = good).

There is no good/bad pattern to Windows releases. The closest thing to a pattern is the trend of general improvement which each release, combined with some teething issues every time there's a major overhaul, like compatibility issues with drivers and software, a bump in hardware requirements, etc.

Also, for those that look back at XP with rose tinted glasses, it was plagued with all the same issues Vista was when it's released, only it was around for so long that everyone (except for rational grown-ups) forgot: http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-is-the-new-xp-7000006095/

[Internetlad]

http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-is-the-new-xp-7000006095/

dude that site looks awesome. I'm going to remember it for when I want to read real tech articles.

all tomshardware does these days is who is suing who and barry gerber's joke articles. The hardware charts barely keep me around.

EDIT: Also second article I read from there is a rework of the first lol

http://www.zdnet.com/with-windows-8-microsofts-playing-a-scene-from-groundhog-day-7000008243/

[baldgye]

IMO XP was pretty awful... Vista is a much better OS, always has been... Vista could have been amazing and people still would have complained about it..

I'd upgrade to Win8 if I could remove metro and have back a win7 style taskbar... I know you can do it with mod tools etc but I'd rather have them patch it all in

[Internetlad]

IMO XP was pretty awful... Vista is a much better OS, always has been... Vista could have been amazing and people still would have complained about it

I think that's part of it, perception.

If somebody tells you "you won't like this candy" and then you give them the candy, they're far more likely to say "I don't like this candy" than if you just hand it to them, because they're EXPECTING to dislike the candy.


stupid comparison, but you know what I mean.

[baldgye]

IMO XP was pretty awful... Vista is a much better OS, always has been... Vista could have been amazing and people still would have complained about it

I think that's part of it, perception.

If somebody tells you "you won't like this candy" and then you give them the candy, they're far more likely to say "I don't like this candy" than if you just hand it to them, because they're EXPECTING to dislike the candy.


stupid comparison, but you know what I mean.

idd, I actually like alot of win8 i just can't stand being slown down by the new start menu... and at least in the RC version sc2 wouldn't install... so yeah... dunknow what that **** is about...

[nullstring]

There are a few new features in windows 8 that seemed nice, so I will probably upgrade.
I will, however, be disabling everything metro related.

Metro seems obviously not designed for a workstation environment

That's the thing, though. I spend all day on the computer and only time I even see metro is when I start up and shut down (providing I dont' just slap the power button)

Pin the few programs you use on your task bar, stick a link on your desktop to My Computer or just use winkey+e and you can ignore the-interface-formerly-known-as-Metro all day long.

I use the windows 7 start menu alot though. I like being able to press win and then type in whatever command I wish to run. I'd hate to lose that feature.
Fortunately, there is way to restore this start menu and not have to deal with the metro stuff at all.

[Internetlad]

I use the windows 7 start menu alot though. I like being able to press win and then type in whatever command I wish to run. I'd hate to lose that feature.
Fortunately, there is way to restore this start menu and not have to deal with the metro stuff at all.

They didn't remove that feature from 8. It's almost exactly the same except now instead of settings/programs/files being displayed in list form you have to choose if it's a setting/program or file.

[m00nshake]

I personally like Windows 8, it's rock solid as an OS, it hasn't given me a single hiccup. The Metro interface has great potential, if you're already used to a smart phone/ tablet style widget interface, as I am. I upgraded to Windows 8 with a lot of doubts, but I don't plan on downgrading to Windows 7 after using it, especially the low price for the upgrade. I'm not saying that there aren't things that have to be tweaked, because there are, but as a robust and solid OS, I'm quite pleased. It's fast to boot and shut down, runs very smoothly, incorporates the things I like about a widget type interface for things like weather and news, and has everything else in the desktop interface. If you're skeptical, give it a fair chance. I am not regretting the upgrade one bit.

[Glod]

Everyone can has a right to hate it or like it, i think some people hate it due to Microsoft ramming live tiles, which are aimed towards tablet/touch screen users, down our throats and this ad nausea as Microsoft is spending big bucks on horrible ads (at least in the states). Hell some people think all desktop operating systems are doing it wrong, see the Humane Interface written by Jeff Raskin. However i think human-computer interface studies always ignore heavy multitasking and power users such as myself.

Not like anyone cares but I've been running Windows 8 for about a month now and I am overall OK with it, I don't hate it but at the same time nothing really stands out as justification for the upgrade.

I didn't see any learning curve people speak of and I see no substantial changes. The new start menu is a gimmick to get people to buy touch screens and the app market is filled with stupid crap aimed for RT tablet users. I guess this talk of a "learning curve" only applies if you mess around with windows live tiles (previously called metro) too long; I honestly don't give a $@!# about the windows live tiles, i launch apps 99% of the time by pressing my windows key and typing the app i want to run, i've been doing this since vista and i did the same with my experience with OSX. There are minor visual tweaks of things like the task manager and a multi-monitor taskbar. I actually forget i upgraded to windows 8 most of the time because there is that little of a difference with the desktop UI.

Boot time appears to be faster as it may be taking advantage of my SSDs more than it did in 7 and I haven't had a single system crash since i have upgraded. Games appear to run at the same frame rates though 3dmark11 refuses to score on windows 8 so i don't have a good quantitative figure to compare to windows 7.  I have had no problems with drivers for any of my components or peripherals.

[quadibloc]

Part of it is the principle of the thing: that Microsoft, because it is in a monopoly position, instead of being part of an intensely competitive marketplace for computer operating systems, can make the next version of Windows even slightly less well suited to personal computers because it wants to be better prepared to obtain an advantageous position in the new, growing market of tablets and smartphones just naturally provokes outrage.

When we consumers pay good money for a consumer product, we expect it to be designed to serve us, not the company that's selling it! Then they will have earned their reward of money pouring in from high sales.

[cwang1004]

I just think people in general simply have too much hate now days. I don't know, I'm a computer scientist/software developer and regardless of the technical level of the system, I think to an average user the only difference would be that the traditional start menu is missing. But...is it really that bad? Do you really use it THAT often to find a program you installed or something? And for people who are complaining about games are not compatible on Win8, I really wanna say some dirty **** to yall but I'll save them.

I guess the bottom line is go try out the system if possible. If you don't like it you don't like it, it's cool. But don't just search up a few images of the system on google and say "oh that must be a failure"

[rowdy]

For those complaining about games not compatible with Windows 8, try using a Mac.  Or GNU/Linux.  You Windows users are spoilt for choice.

[baldgye]

For those complaining about games not compatible with Windows 8, try using a Mac.  Or GNU/Linux.  You Windows users are spoilt for choice.

or, just win7... lol

[Internetlad]

For those complaining about games not compatible with Windows 8, try using a Mac.  Or GNU/Linux.  You Windows users are spoilt for choice.

What do you MEAN I have to run dosbox to run Commander Keen! It was only made 20 years ago! Why the HELL isn't that supported!?

[rowdy]

For those complaining about games not compatible with Windows 8, try using a Mac.  Or GNU/Linux.  You Windows users are spoilt for choice.

What do you MEAN I have to run dosbox to run Commander Keen! It was only made 20 years ago! Why the HELL isn't that supported!?

But that's on almost any platform.

For mainstream games, most are console or Windows only.  Valve have done well with Steam/ Half-Life 2 and Portal (to name a few) for Mac.  And soon for GNU/Linux too.

Actually I kinda see Windows as a gaming operating system.

[baldgye]

Actually I kinda see Windows as a gaming operating system.

how is it not that already?

[davkol]

I don't bash any particular version of Windows, I bash Windows in general.

If they want my money (oh wait, I have access to an academic license for free), they should rather create a sane, configurable desktop environment (see KDE Plasma Desktop Workspace), use better package management (not that closed "app store" crap), replace that command-line parody with a proper shell (don't even let me start about PowerShell and graphic configuration tools in general, WindowsY2K8-R2 server setup is one of my worst nightmares) etc.

tl;dr Next Windows should be some UNIX flavour. Oh wait, I probably wouldn't use it for licensing reasons anyway.

P.S. I still need WinXP because of some obscure hardware, and hastaLaVista/Sieben for development. Gods, how I hate it.

[alaricljs]

... hastaLaVista/Sieben ...

Wha?

[microsoft windows]

To be honest with yall, I don't really care about Windows 8. I'll still use Windows 3.1 no matter what Microsoft calls their new version.

[keyboardlover]

To be honest with yall, I don't really care about Windows 8. I'll still use Windows 3.1 no matter what Microsoft calls their new version.

PREACH!

[TheSoulhunter]

Actually I don't want a start menu at all, nor this new metro thingy (I prefer to use a top bar with drop down menus, much faster...)
Under Windows 7 you just have to run a app like "Startkiller" to remove the star menu, but how do I easily remove metro under Windows 8?