Windows 8: Good or Garbage?

[White Peacock]

If you have Windows 8 on a non-touchscreen computer, you will probably hate it. It was designed as a touch interface UI to keep up with the Joneses of mobile computing. I absolutely hated it at first, but after my wife bought a Windows 8 laptop with touchscreen, after using it for a while I came to like it. Now I own a Surface 2 (with Windows RT 8.1) and I have to say that this is the best operating system for a tablet. Once you learn, and become accustomed to, all of the touch based gestures, you'll find that you can navigate the OS and programs with minimal effort.

The only glaring difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 is the Metro/Modern UI (the left to right scrolling home screen comprised of squares, known as "live tiles"). When you're in the desktop environment of Windows 8, it's just like Windows 7 (minus the function of the Start button, which is easily worked around). Without a touchscreen, Modern UI can go right to Hell. Not intuitive in the slightest to navigate it with a mouse. My desktop PC isn't touchscreen, and it runs Windows 7, and that will not change. But on a tablet or touchscreen laptop, 8 is actually pretty slick, despite my earlier assessments.

[SoonerDave]

People buying the software and updating an old pc is generally the exception not the rule, most of the time people are buying a new machine and getting a copy of whatever version the OEM was putting on it. Though a lot of medium to large businesses were able to do this for either Win7 and Win8 just from where standard pc specs were at the time, the licensing model MS does means they had the option of upgrading but pay the same if they choose to or not, though in Win8's case they have pretty much been avoiding it both due to the hassle of training everyone on a new interface and with many still having only recently gone to Win7 from XP do not want to go through all the testing of 3rd party software and updating internal applications for what looks like is a version that is going to be as lightly used as Vista by corporations.

Agree with you there - for all the advent of alternative computing devices, a basic desktop computer isn't exactly disappearing from the world - particularly in the corporate environment. And I don't think there's going to be significant traction for Win8 in that corporate environment any time soon, surely not where I have any chance to read the proverbial tea leaves. In fact, I read what I think was a Gartner group report/study/commentary that strongly suggested the presence of Windows 8 was actually making PC sales worse. Sales were already down, but they believed there was evidence that the public's negative reception to Win8 has actually made sales worse, because people buying new systems don't want it.

I can attest to that, from my own statistically irrelevant corner of the world. Friends/family members that come to me for suggestions or "advice" as it were tell me pre-emptively they "don't want to mess with that ugly new Windows thing" (or words to that effect). It isn't a fictional phenomenon.

If I can find a link to that story re Win8 hurting PC sales, I'll edit and post.

Edit: Good Grief, found so many references to different articles on this, it was hard to pick which one, but this one was representative. IN fairness, this dates back to April, so doesn't include the absolute latest sales figures. :Windows 8 Reportedly to Blame for Worst PC Sales Drop in History - HotHardware

[SoonerDave]

Another article I found incidentally while searching for the other article - and this has to stick in Microsoft's craw to no end - and this is a current article, dated Jan '14:

HP Windows 7 PCs Are Back By ?Popular Demand? | Ubergizmo

I will be very interested to see if any other vendors, such as Dell, pick up on this and return Win7 mainstream configurations to their product suite. I have to believe that this kind of action, while a big thing at retail, might not also be driven by some communicated corporate preferences as well. Now, normally, something like that would kindle the ire of Microsoft within their partner channels, but it was interesting to read the comment later in that same piece about rumors within MS that "Win 8 is the new Vista," and that they're reportedly willing to "give up" on the Win 8 brand in favor of accelerating the push to Windows 9.

For a long time, MS has been able to push vendors into doing its bidding, but with PC sales so bad, and MS no longer looking quite so invincible, some of these hardware vendors may be starting to push back (at least some) while they diversify into non-PC hardware.

Lots of speculation there, of course, but I think the dynamics of the situation are really, really interesting for the market going forward.

[White Peacock]

I will be very interested to see if any other vendors, such as Dell, pick up on this and return Win7 mainstream configurations to their product suite.

If you order by phone with Dell (and presumably just about any other PC maker), you can select the OS version. Dell has gone all-in with Win8 recently, with their line of Venue Pro tablets. Which brings us to Microsoft's conundrum: the PC market is moving toward touchscreens, and the traditional Windows UI is ****e for touch input. That's why earlier Windows tablets failed even worse than the first Surface line. That's why the Modern UI should be an opt-in/opt-out feature for the next version of Windows.

[zookeeper]

If you order by phone with Dell (and presumably just about any other PC maker), you can select the OS version. Dell has gone all-in with Win8 recently, with their line of Venue Pro tablets. Which brings us to Microsoft's conundrum: the PC market is moving toward touchscreens, and the traditional Windows UI is ****e for touch input. That's why earlier Windows tablets failed even worse than the first Surface line. That's why the Modern UI should be an opt-in/opt-out feature for the next version of Windows.

The Dell business online store, as I said in a previous post, still has Windows 7 as the default on most laptops. A few lines aren't, but most are Windows 7 (sometimes with a free Win 8 license) and Windows 8 is "available." With all of them, you can configure it with Windows 7. As White Peacock said, if you don't see it for some reason online, just do the live "chat" or call them on the phone and they'll get you Windows 7.

[MadMonk]

Windows 8 is the "New Coke" for it's industry. Hopefully, with the next version MS will listen to its customers and adapt to them, instead of forcing customers to adapt to MS. I know one thing for certain though, there are no plans to deploy this version on corporate desktops in our office.

[jerrywall]

I remember when 98 came out. People threw a fit. It was horrible. Terrible. How dare they mess with Win 95. They made patches over time and eventually people enjoyed 98 SE.
Then XP came out, and people refused to switch to it. 98 is perfect. Why are they messing with our OS? Leave it alone. XP will fail! People hated it, and they made changes over time, and once SP1 and SP2 came out, people liked it.
Vista was a truly bad OS. It and ME were there only ones truly deserving of disdain.

As I said before, I don't mind 8. When not in the metro UI it's just like being in 7, but more stable and faster. So I don't understand the hate there. I actually support the idea of unifying the UI across platforms and devices, but that's a gutsy path to take. 8.1 brought back the start button and boot to desktop, and 8.2 or whatever they'll call it will probably bring back more. And then, when Windows 9 come out, I predict there will be hoards of people demanding that MS leave Windows 8 alone.

[White Peacock]

The Dell business online store, as I said in a previous post, still has Windows 7 as the default on most laptops. A few lines aren't, but most are Windows 7 (sometimes with a free Win 8 license) and Windows 8 is "available." With all of them, you can configure it with Windows 7. As White Peacock said, if you don't see it for some reason online, just do the live "chat" or call them on the phone and they'll get you Windows 7.

Apologies if I stepped on/repeated previous posts. I really didn't read all of the prior entries.

Windows 7 should definitely still be an option, considering how polarizing Win8 is. But imagine Win 7 on a Venue 8 Pro...what a nightmare.

[bluedogok]

If you want a new laptop with Windows 7, Dell stills offers them with a free Windows 8 license in the 3000 series. Even they understand what the people want.
For example, their venerable, top-selling Latitude 5430 series is still offered with Windows 7. Only in the overview does it tell you it's "available" with Windows 8.
Latitude E5430 Affordable 14" professional laptop | Dell

I've got all I need at the moment, a Core i7 laptop to run Revit on.

[venture]

Apologies if I stepped on/repeated previous posts. I really didn't read all of the prior entries.

Windows 7 should definitely still be an option, considering how polarizing Win8 is. But imagine Win 7 on a Venue 8 Pro...what a nightmare.

Thankfully we won't have to deal with that. I'm just glad there is an Android for the Venue 8 (not the Pro) and have been moving a ton of those lately. I double checked today and Win 7 is available on all the Latitudes still...so that helps businesses out.

[AP]

I think part of the reason it doesn't bother me as much is that I've always been more of a search to open person. I didn't use the start menu that often before too. I'd made a habit over the years to just hit the windows button and then start typing the application I want to open, then enter. It always has worked faster for me. That's very possibly a good reason why I'm not as bothered by the UI.

I'm the same way. Always hit the window key and search for app. My issue is with Server 2012. Most of the time I'm on a client's server so it's a real hassle using the windows key remotely. As far as windows 8, not really a problem for me.

[MadMonk]

8.1 brought back the start button and boot to desktop, and 8.2 or whatever they'll call it will probably bring back more. And then, when Windows 9 come out, I predict there will be hoards of people demanding that MS leave Windows 8 alone.

I guess we'll have to revisit in a few years and see how history judges it. I'll probably still be running Windows 7.

[RadicalModerate]

As far as I'm concerned, Windows peaked with XP (and 2000 wasn't too shabby) and it's been going downhill ever since.
Almost tempts me to completely switch over to Macs.

[MWCGuy]

I asked one of the IT guys at work this same question. He laughed so hard I thought he was going to wet himself.

[SoonerDave]

I remember when 98 came out. People threw a fit. It was horrible. Terrible. How dare they mess with Win 95. They made patches over time and eventually people enjoyed 98 SE.
Then XP came out, and people refused to switch to it. 98 is perfect. Why are they messing with our OS? Leave it alone. XP will fail! People hated it, and they made changes over time, and once SP1 and SP2 came out, people liked it.
Vista was a truly bad OS. It and ME were there only ones truly deserving of disdain.

As I said before, I don't mind 8. When not in the metro UI it's just like being in 7, but more stable and faster. So I don't understand the hate there. I actually support the idea of unifying the UI across platforms and devices, but that's a gutsy path to take. 8.1 brought back the start button and boot to desktop, and 8.2 or whatever they'll call it will probably bring back more. And then, when Windows 9 come out, I predict there will be hoards of people demanding that MS leave Windows 8 alone.

I think you and I have different perceptions of reality - I remember people lining up for Win95/98, and the only reason I didn't participate was I had already made the jump to full 32-bit computing with Windows NT. They grafted the Win95 GUI on to NT 4.0 later, and it was really a decent transition. Ahh, perceptions

The key difference in each of those product stages that there was a revolutionary change in underlying technology that made the interim changes to the OS worth the effort. Win95/98 were not pure 32-bit operating systems; they were 16-bit hybrids that still, at their core, relied on MS-DOS, which had been stretched, torn, and mutilated years beyond anything it was designed to provide. Businesses had already been given the first insights into 32-bit computing with Windows NT, with its VAX/VMS DNA, an underlying, integrated security system, a far superior file system, protected, independent processes with real multitasking, and the concept of being integrated into a full network operating system - remember in those days MS was always keeping one eye on the Novell folks in the NOS realm.

In that vein, businesses saw no future in 16-bit computing, and 32-bit architectures (and OS's) became the inevitable path ahead, and that meant the future on the consumer side was, eventually, going to be the Windows NT architecture in some sort of friendlier user container - hence, XP was born. Even at that, MS carved out a way to run at least some legacy 16-bit apps, but that kind of support wasn't going to be possible forever.

But the shift from 32-bit computing to 64-bit computing was not nearly as watershed an event as was the jump from 16-bit to 32-bit, and as a result, the move from XP to Vista (which was obviously a rushed effort given the way the market was starting, albeit slowly, to change as the Internet became a bigger and bigger gorilla) did not provide nearly the substantive or imperative technology leap that made it nearly as compelling as those before it. And with Vista's well-documented problems, people realized fairly quickly they didn't have to make that jump.

Paradoxically, I think MS's decision to push out Vista in an effort to accelerate platform change actually hurt Win7 adoption over the long haul. People had realized they no longer had to upgrade, and Win7's adoption became evolutionary, not revolutionary. I was never a fan of Vista, but I didn't have to go very long before I saw that Win7 was worthwhile. Now, with the 7 to 8 jump, there are even fewer compelling technological reasons to make the change, and people are less compelled than at any time in the relatively brief history of the PC to make such a change - particularly when the value proposition has so thoroughly failed - and people go over to their phones, tablets, iPads, e-readers, to do what they want. And that makes the Win8 proposition even harder still. And there has to be a fundamental mistake in design and marketing when there seems to be such an obvious, visceral dislike for just the appearance of that purple-hued GUI - folks not even realizing what it is are/were just turned off by it before they were aware it was the "New Windows."

So, to a degree, yes, there exists the superficial similarity in the evolutionary resistance to the newer operating systems, but under the hood, I think the dynamics are considerably different in important ways. For those who like the Win8 UI, great, power to 'em, but arguably for the first time, users see no detriment in saying "no, thanks," and keeping their pocketbooks closed in the process. How and if Microsoft overcomes that remains to be seen.

[jerrywall]

Ah, you're talking preference, which I have no problem with seeing, verses hate, which is what confuses me. I can certainly see not spending the money, and rushing out to upgrade. Just like I wouldn't run out and get the newest iphone each time one came out, but instead tend to skip generations. That being said, if buying a new platform, I would still tend to get the newest, and can't see a compelling reason not too.

I do agree on the evolutionary vs revolutionary paths for upgrade. This has become sort of the SOP for operating systems at this point, which I agree hurts the ability for any platform to make any significant changes in interface design.

[gjl]

Put a Win 8 laptop in front of someone who is not tech savvy at all that has been using Win 7 or XP and see what happens. I got to see this over at a relative's house at Christmas. Big time box popping up on the screen every 15 seconds. Them saying they used to have this or that on the screen and now those things are gone. Not knowing how to get on the internet and do the things they used to do with their old computers. People shouldn't experience that with 1 week old computer they just bought.

[SoonerDave]

Man, I'm confused. Where were they on their computer? Getting on the internet is exactly the same as it always has. you either download your own browser or you click on IE. What was so hard?

But, see, Sid, that's the whole point - perhaps for you the new GUI is no big transition, no big deal, and no issue. And that's absolutely great...for you. But the reality is that a great many more people - right or wrong - have a perception that is very similar to what gjl described above, and they simply don't want that "hassle factor," even if you (or, at some point, even I?) think isn't that big. In a strange, throwback vein, the customer really is still always right. And I've come across more (many more, in fact) with a story akin to this than saying how "it was exactly the same as it always has." The perception is that it has changed too drastically.

I think about someone like my wife, who uses a computer primarily because she has to, and she navigates her Win7 laptop adequately. She looked at a Win8 box on more than one occasion, and after some paying around such that I could see the frustration level on her face, she said "forget that," shoved the keyboard away, and walked off. I remember she asked, "If I ever get a new laptop, do I have to have that?"

Some folks have the luxury or desire to work through all the intricacies or subtleties to make things work more like they're accustomed, some don't, and for her there is simply no compelling reason to re-learn how to use the tools that already suit her just fine - the technical novelty of a "new OS" is entirely lost on her - and thousands upon thousands just like her.

Really think that's the kind of story gjl is trying to convey. Doesn't make anyone right or wrong. It's just the way things are - or, put another way ,the UI redesign was an archetypal example of a solution in search of a problem. MS used to be able to get away with that...but these days...not so much.

[jerrywall]

Put a Win 8 laptop in front of someone who is not tech savvy at all that has been using Win 7 or XP and see what happens. I got to see this over at a relative's house at Christmas. Big time box popping up on the screen every 15 seconds. Them saying they used to have this or that on the screen and now those things are gone. Not knowing how to get on the internet and do the things they used to do with their old computers. People shouldn't experience that with 1 week old computer they just bought.

Oh, I agree. For my parents, it was Windows 7. Was a nightmare to get them comfortable on it. Rough transition. And the simple stuff that I took for granted (network sharing, printer setup, wireless connections, etc) was so different than it was with XP that they were totally lost.

[sacolton]

Working in IT, I always thought the whole idea of touch-screens should have happened before the mouse. I don't normally sit close enough to my monitor to run my fingers all over it ... and then I hate the idea of smearing my nice expensive 32" monitor with fingerprints. Horrible idea! Not so bad with phones, but on a big computer monitor - it's just awful.

Then there's the whole aspect of having to raise your hand every time to navigate the desktop. The mouse makes it so much more comfortable for this application. I really hope this isn't the future. I'd rather see voice-commands become more popular than touch-screens.

Just my .02

[SoonerDave]

Working in IT, I always thought the whole idea of touch-screens should have happened before the mouse. I don't normally sit close enough to my monitor to run my fingers all over it ... and then I hate the idea of smearing my nice expensive 32" monitor with fingerprints. Horrible idea! Not so bad with phones, but on a big computer monitor - it's just awful.

Then there's the whole aspect of having to raise your hand every time to navigate the desktop. The mouse makes it so much more comfortable for this application. I really hope this isn't the future. I'd rather see voice-commands become more popular than touch-screens.

Just my .02

Navigating the kids' Xbox with voice is very interesting - until you realize it is always listening and doesn't always capture the correct context of what's being said. The other day, we were watching a Netflix movie and someone said something that the XBOX picked up as a command to shut the thing off! We didn't realize it until some sort of confirmation dialog (or something) came up and we all said, "huh?!?" then realized what must have happened. The notion of what an MS computer might do in response to hearing the word "format" kinda scares me

Ultimately, though, I think the reality is that different kinds of devices work best with different interface systems. Don't think one will ever become ubiquitous everywhere - for precisely the kind of reasons you describe above. What works great for one system is absolutely pointless on another, which is why I tried to point out earlier in the thread that the Win8 interface works much, much better in the XBOX world, just as typing on the XBOX is an ongoing exercise in frustration...can't even imagine if they tried to build a mouse for it

[gjl]

Man, I'm confused. Where were they on their computer? Getting on the internet is exactly the same as it always has. you either download your own browser or you click on IE. What was so hard?

How old are you? At what age did you start using computers?

[jerrywall]

Touch screens for desktop applications certainly feel at best gimmicky.

I use this - Touchpad for Windows T650 - Logitech - Which I feel is more the future. The mouse as an interface is both limited, and bad for health under heavy use. Apple has the magic pad as well. I love using gestures and such for navigation and windows control. Pinch to zoom, etc, is also nice. It did take some time to learn everything, and I used a cheat sheet for a while though. I will say that folks who've borrowed my computer always comment on the touch pad (positively). The touch pad works well as a touch screen alternative.

[CuatrodeMayo]

I couldn't imagine the hilarity of voice-controlled computers in my firm's open-office environment.

[Jim Kyle]

Working in IT, I always thought the whole idea of touch-screens should have happened before the mouse.

Actually, it did! Back before Windows 3.1 made the mouse a necessary tool for any use of the machines, HP came out with a touch-screen package that had a custom GUI on it but could run DOS programs. It went over like the proverbial lead Zeppelin, consequently making touch-screens the kiss of death for the next 20 years or more, although several specialty markets (such as restaurant POS terminals) did keep them alive until smart phones brought them back into the limelight...

I remember seeing a couple of those early HP systems at a computer store on NW Highway (like the systems, long gone and almost forgotten) back in the very early 80s...