Ok, so my patched together XP laptop finally gave up the ghost and I went to Big Blue Box yesterday to get a new one...

Twenty minutes after I got it unwrapped and fired up, it's back in the box ready for return to the store for a refund. I don't think they've ever come out with a clunkier, uglier, more annoyingly non-functional user interface than Win 8, and I remember Windows ME, ffs.

I'm not computer illiterate by any stretch. That patched-together laptop had solders I made at circuit board level and I even managed to successfully change the tiny fragile fluorescent light tube for the display.

Anyone else have stories good or bad about this? Is it no more than just clicking the "Desktop" button to get the other chattering blinking crap to go away?

I had almost decided to give it a go after I got a desktop that looked vaguely familiar, then I found out I can't use Outlook Express (no POP mail compatibility), so back in the box it went.

I bought my mom a new computer that used Windows 8. It is horrible.

I wouldn't say horrible..... different maybe.... I did spend about 3 days getting my new laptop setup to look like Win 7.

And now that I think about it my Win 7 was set to look as much like XP as I could get it..... So you could say my Win 8 looks like a hybrid Win 7/XP.

With that said.... I'd be perfectly happy going back to DOS. :wink:

I'll preface this with the caveat that I'm a software developer with 25 years of service stripes going back to my Unix days at OU, to dBase III days under MS-DOS when I worked part-time, to QuickBasic, C, C#, VB, SQL (and a bunch I've since forgotten) to VMS, Windows 3.1, 3.11, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows XP, Vista, and 7. Heck, I had a developer preview of what was then the "revolutionary" Windows 98 interface grafted on top of Windows NT, the bleeding edge of the bleeding edge. I adapted to and enjoyed the evolution of those interfaces because each one seemed to be a good faith refinement and improvement of the one before it - although I will admit to being a command-line junkie at heart :)

That all changed with Win 8. Windows 8 was no effort to refine or improve the existing experience or interface; it was a desperate attempt by an out-of-touch company to manufacture relevance in a market where they were clearly clueless. I came variously to refer to Win 8 as "Windows Nause8," or the "Purple Flying Tile Interface." It's awful. Its as though the same advertising crew that thought MS could sell their goofy Surface notepadtopbook with dancing office hipsters designed the Win 8 UI. And the last two Windows laptops I've bought were off the Dell refurb site so I could get Win7 on them, particularly when my own high schoolers told me that they didn't want anything with "that ugly new Windows thing" for a laptop. MS has tried to do damage control that Win 8 was merely an evolutionary step like Vista was for Win7, but that was IMHO disingenuous from the start.

IF I ever try to run Win8, I"lll do it in a VM, and then only because I have to. I don't have the time or interest to install it on my day-to-day machine, only to spend a week installing third-party gadgets only for the purpose of restoring the Win7 experience I already had.

The paradoxical thing about the Purple Flying Tile interface is that it meshes and interoperates very well in the appropriate environment - the XBOX. Just as it would be unthinkably asinine to try to adapt the desktop metaphor to the XBOX, it is equally unthinkable to try and morph an XBOX-suited interface to the Windows PC environment.

I'll preface this with the caveat that I'm a software developer with 25 years of service stripes going back to my Unix days at OU, to dBase III days under MS-DOS when I worked part-time, to QuickBasic, C, C#, VB, SQL (and a bunch I've since forgotten) to VMS, Windows 3.1, 3.11, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows XP, Vista, and 7. Heck, I had a developer preview of what was then the "revolutionary" Windows 98 interface grafted on top of Windows NT, the bleeding edge of the bleeding edge. I adapted to and enjoyed the evolution of those interfaces because each one seemed to be a good faith refinement and improvement of the one before it - although I will admit to being a command-line junkie at heart :)

That all changed with Win 8. Windows 8 was no effort to refine or improve the existing experience or interface; it was a desperate attempt by an out-of-touch company to manufacture relevance in a market where they were clearly clueless. I came variously to refer to Win 8 as "Windows Nause8," or the "Purple Flying Tile Interface." It's awful. Its as though the same advertising crew that thought MS could sell their goofy Surface notepadtopbook with dancing office hipsters designed the Win 8 UI. And the last two Windows laptops I've bought were off the Dell refurb site so I could get Win7 on them, particularly when my own high schoolers told me that they didn't want anything with "that ugly new Windows thing" for a laptop. MS has tried to do damage control that Win 8 was merely an evolutionary step like Vista was for Win7, but that was IMHO disingenuous from the start.

IF I ever try to run Win8, I"lll do it in a VM, and then only because I have to. I don't have the time or interest to install it on my day-to-day machine, only to spend a week installing third-party gadgets only for the purpose of restoring the Win7 experience I already had.

The paradoxical thing about the Purple Flying Tile interface is that it meshes and interoperates very well in the appropriate environment - the XBOX. Just as it would be unthinkably asinine to try to adapt the desktop metaphor to the XBOX, it is equally unthinkable to try and morph an XBOX-suited interface to the Windows PC environment.

8's ok. I just killed the metro start menu and went on with things. If you like the CLI, check out powershell. It's much more *nix like in it's extensibility.

That being said, you're dead right about metro. It's great on the Xbox and touch screen widgets. It does nothing but get on my nerves on my desktop. Apparently, we're not alone in our annoyance with Metro, though: Microsoft Windows 8 Vista comparison made by employees | BGR (http://bgr.com/2014/01/17/microsoft-windows-8-vista-comparison/)

An update and thanks to all for their insight. I decided to perhaps give the unit another try. Its first attempt at reconciliation with me was to update itself to Win 8.1, after which it immediately went into a blue spiral (at least more decorative and moving than the BSoD), from which, an hour and a half later, it still has not recovered.

Back to the store it goes and off to the Dell refurb site go I.

SD, I share your love for command-line interface. A one-on-one (albeit machine language brokered) interchange between man and machine. The mass spectrometers I teach people to run are all icon-based operation now and when the little icon box gets clicked another zillion times with no result, the operators are lost as to what to do next...so when I sit down and type off what seems like a line of gibberish that fixes the problem, I get looked at by the Millenials/Gen X-ers I supervise alternately as if I'm either a savant or a grumpy old wizard who has brought fire into the camp.

You shall also get credit for the PFTI (pronounced "poof tee") for their new "screen look". Why the eternal **** does everything have to be written to appear as if the audience is 14 years old?

I bought two laptops last year right as Windows 8 was being rolled out. Went to Best Buy, chatted with a computer sales gal, she steered me to Windows 8, so we configured the machine and placed the order. It was HORRIBLE, and everything I read online agreed. Checking manufacturers' Web sites I saw that Windows 7 was still (barely) available, so back to Best Buy. They strongly resisted exchanging for Windows 7 and said that it wasn't available. I fortunately brought a printout showing the laptop, OS and price on the manufacturer's Web site and threatened to return the laptop and buy direct. After a couple of phone calls the manager admitted, "Well, they must have found a couple of laptops in the back of the warehouse." Uh huh, right.

Here is the market share & rank for the top five operating systems: Windows 8 slowly gains market share traction, analysis shows | PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2032764/windows-8-slowly-gains-market-share-traction-analysis-shows.html)

1. Windows 7, 44.73%
2. Windows XP, 38.73%
3. Windows Vista (wow!), 4.99%
4. Windows 8, 3.17%
5. Mac OS X 10.8, 2.65%

Even beaten by Windows Vista - OUCH!

So what happens when support for XP is finally pulled come April this year? My own plan is to turn the two XP boxes I have into offline workhorses with zero internet use. I don't see any reason to use Win8 thus far, and have no plans in that direction.

I finally wanted to test it out and my first reaction was like everyone's here. Win8 is definitely not worth it outside of a system that has a touch screen. On the laptop with a touchscreen it isn't bad at all. However, on the desktop...I had to go to Win 8.1 and then install Classic Shell to get my start menu back. If you have no choice but a Win 8 machine, then download and install it: Classic Shell - Start menu and other Windows enhancements (http://www.classicshell.net/)

I never see the metro/tile screen again in Win 8 and it functions just like a Win 7 machine now.

Side comment on those buying the Win 7 notebooks on the Dell refurb site - get them while you can. I resell a significant number of them per year (one of the larger dell refurb resellers - not to brag :) ) and the Win 7 configs are really starting to dwindle. Before it wouldn't be hard to get a few hundred a month but now they are pretty limited. I can't even get them in bulk anymore for my buyers.

While I would not go as far to say it is total garbage, more a case of one step forward two steps back, there was so many stupid decisions on that it was amazing to see they have really learned nothing about product design from their Vista experience. All the improvements they did were under the hood that you never see but the UI issues pretty much negated those benefits and to make it all more frustrating is they did all this when they had a large groups of people telling them what was the biggest problems from the dev and beta releases but they pretty much took all that feedback and threw it in the garbage. The most sound theory I heard was they wanted to force the one interface to familiarize people with win tablets/phones interface, which ironically may have stunted Win8 tablet adoption due to poor reputation of the desktop version.

IF I ever try to run Win8, I"lll do it in a VM, and then only because I have to. I don't have the time or interest to install it on my day-to-day machine, only to spend a week installing third-party gadgets only for the purpose of restoring the Win7 experience I already had.I too am a developer and participated in Microsoft's closed beta tests as far back as MS-DOS 5 -- but dropped out when they totally ignored massive complaints about a bug in the display code, for two successive major releases.

I vowed that the day when I could no longer run Win98, I would switch from Windows to Linux and have nothing to do with Microsoft. Unfortunately my customers stayed with Windows, so I had to run at least one WinXP system -- and learned to appreciate it. However when my old Win98 hardware finally died and had to be replaced, all that I could find on the market were Vista systems. I made good on my threat, re-formatted, and installed the Xubuntu distribution of Linux (available at http://xubuntu.org/getxubuntu/). that was six years ago and I still run that system; a later machine replacement got me a copy of Win7 (which I preserved and "dual-boot" with Xubuntu), and when my wife's machine gave up the ghost, had to settle for Win8 on its replacement.

I found that the freeware program "Classic Shell" makes Win8 look and behave very much like Win7; that horrible "Metro" interface stays quietly hidden in the shadows and no longer bothers me. I installed VMWare's "Player" virtualization program so that she could still use her beloved WinXP tools and Win 3.1 games, as well as interfacing with her (thoroughly obsolete) HP iPaq digital assistant.

As for my own use, I have about a dozen instances of Oracle's "Virtualbox" virtual machines set up on my Linux boxes with various flavors of Windows in them so that I can still support my customers. For daily use, though, I find Linux to be much more convenient than dealing with all the quirks and hipsterism that comes from Redmond these days...

My apologies to the non-geeks in our membership for all the techie talk here, but anyone who dislikes Win8 would do well to have a look at Xubuntu or one of the other flavors of Linux. They're absolutely free for the download, and fully legal. For more details, send me a PM and I'll be happy to help you get off the version-update merry-go-round.

Windows 8 is okay if you have a touch screen monitor/tablet etc. For a keyboard and mouse I find it stinks to high heaven.

Ugh. A couple of months before Christmas I was ready for a new laptop but held off to think about it because a lot of my software wasn't compatible. My laptop isn't going to last forever and this bit about Windows 8 is depressing.

I have Win8.1 on my desktop, Win7 on everything else except the iPad Air. It is a horrible interface, I run the classic shell on it which makes it more like Win7. I too have found that various pieces of equipment doesn't run on it.

Places like Directron.com and Mwave.com still have Win7 available if you want it.

I have Win8.1 on my desktop, Win7 on everything else except the iPad Air. It is a horrible interface, I run the classic shell on it which makes it more like Win7. I too have found that various pieces of equipment doesn't run on it.

Places like Directron.com and Mwave.com still have Win7 available if you want it.

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


(http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-e5430/pd)

I agree with just about Venture. It's pathetic that we have to go get software to fix the interface of this OS. The "bones" are fine, it's just the interface that's horrible. What completely floors me is that MS somehow thinks a similar interface on the server OS is a good idea.

There are two different opinions you will here frequently on Windows 8.

You have the Microsoft fanboys who love it, and immediately love everything Microsoft pushes onto the public no matter what it is. These are the ones that installed Vista and loved it before it was really ready in early 2007. They will tell you how the Metro interface is easier to use and a real step forward once you get used to it.

Then there is everybody else who doesn't understand why Microsoft couldn't have given an option as to which interface to use. Its understandable Microsoft wants to make inroads in the phone and tablet market, but its an extremely poor business model to alienate your core customer-base in order to attract a new set of customers that you may or may not be able to entice. Then MS releases Windows 8.1 after mountains of complains from desktop/laptop users and what do they do? They add back the start button but instead of a real start menu it takes the user into Metro! Talk about a slap in the face. Windows 8 is clunky and unintuitive with keyboard and mouse, and that is a fact. Hopefully Windows 9 allows Metro to be completely hidden for those who don't want it.

I bought my GF a new laptop with Windows 8 on it and downloaded a program that makes it look like either Win 7 or XP. I choose Win 7 and since she has it I don't know how thats working but she said it's working great and is good for all she uses it for. I can say I wasn't very impressed with the Win 8 layout.

Yeah 8 definitely has some good under-the-hood improvements. My perfect OS would be the Windows 8 kernel with the usability of Windows 7. I know there is Start8 but I don't believe in having to but third party software just to make my computer usable.

One way 8 differs from Vista is that Vista was rejected all around while 8 seems to simply be very polarizing. There are more people who love and advocate for 8 than there ever was for Vista.

I agree with just about Venture. It's pathetic that we have to go get software to fix the interface of this OS. The "bones" are fine, it's just the interface that's horrible. What completely floors me is that MS somehow thinks a similar interface on the server OS is a good idea.

I can't stand the fact they went with the same UI on Server 2012. Oh it drives me nuts. At some point I need to start learning Ubuntu or another Linux OS and put that on the other server box I haven't been using.

I can't stand the fact they went with the same UI on Server 2012. Oh it drives me nuts. At some point I need to start learning Ubuntu or another Linux OS and put that on the other server box I haven't been using.

I agree. Nobody uses a touch screen on their server and nobody will in the near future. Even worse, servers are usually managed via remote connection which works horribly with the metro interface. I wonder who made that business decision and why. Whoever it was needs to be fired. Smart people saw this failure coming since the Windows 8 Preview days and begged MS to make changes by release yet they did not. I know when I booted the 8 preview the first time I thought it was a joke and that there was no way they would release it like that.

I don't see the hate. The metro interface is just a full screen start button. Hit the windows key to switch between that and the traditional desktop. I spend very little time in the metro interface, but its existence doesn't bug me at all. In fact, I find 8 to boot faster, be more stable, and work better. I work full time on multiple monitors with it, and it seems to be a big improvement over 7.

I think folks learning how to use it (and yes, there are some changes, so there is a curve) makes the biggest difference. For example, hitting the windows key to bring up the metro interface, and then type the first few letters of the program I want to run, and hitting enter. Very quick, and responsive, and simplifies the use of the machine for me. The changed interface for managing networks is a significant improvement IMO as well.

I will say I switched to a touch pad from a mouse a while back, due to wrist and hand pains from 20+ years doing computer work, and the touch pad interacts with W8 very well, so that's been a bonus.

I can't stand the fact they went with the same UI on Server 2012. Oh it drives me nuts. At some point I need to start learning Ubuntu or another Linux OS and put that on the other server box I haven't been using.

Makes me delighted I"ve at least tried to keep some superficial Unix skills going with my Linux boxes around the house. Its reminded me how fundamentally important it is to continue understanding how the stuff operates under the hood, not just how the GUI cobbles it all together! :)

I don't see the hate. The metro interface is just a full screen start button. Hit the windows key to switch between that and the traditional desktop. I spend very little time in the metro interface, but its existence doesn't bug me at all. In fact, I find 8 to boot faster, be more stable, and work better. I work full time on multiple monitors with it, and it seems to be a big improvement over 7.

I think folks learning how to use it (and yes, there are some changes, so there is a curve) makes the biggest difference. For example, hitting the windows key to bring up the metro interface, and then type the first few letters of the program I want to run, and hitting enter. Very quick, and responsive, and simplifies the use of the machine for me. The changed interface for managing networks is a significant improvement IMO as well.

I will say I switched to a touch pad from a mouse a while back, due to wrist and hand pains from 20+ years doing computer work, and the touch pad interacts with W8 very well, so that's been a bonus.

As with many things, its a matter of preference, I suppose, but I've been working with multiple monitors on Win7 for years now effortlessly, so I'm not quite sure how Win8 makes that experience evolutionarly better...same goes for its stabilty. I couldn't tell you the last time I had any of my Win7 boxes bluescreen in the last...what...several years? Last time I can recall a bluescreen was on my daughter's laptop when she was playing some really old game, but the point is the BSOD became a bit of an anachronism with Win7, and the crazed chipmunk that made the decision to put the Win8 interface on a server operating system ought to be publicly flogged.

The "Learning curve" issue is relevant, but the bigger issue is the implied value proposition. What great thing resides in Win 8 such that I should a) pay for, and then b) take my precious time learning, and then c) spend time overcoming to get rid of? With a nearly always-on machine and no stability issues, the relative value of improved boot speed and stability aren't compelling selling points. I mean, I've tried over the years to stay as open minded as I can, adapt, take advantage of truly newer and better elements, but this time around I just don't see either an incremental or revolutionary improvement "under the hood" that convinces me I need to take whatever amount of time necessary to keystroke my way around an interface I have no desire to use (or to restore essentially what I already have, yet paid money to get).

Ballmer's long-term future at MS was more broadly scripted by virtue of the Surface failure, and the decreasing relevance and ubiquity of Windows and its cash-cow Office as things like GoogleDocs, iPads, Tablets, Android-based devices, etc, etc. become direct, lower-cost competitors. MS is now the IBM of the 2010's, trying to figure out how to be relevant in a market it can no longer dominate merely by virtue of its own inevitability.

then[/I] c) spend time overcoming to get rid of? With a nearly always-on machine and no stability issues, the relative value of improved boot speed and stability aren't compelling selling points. I mean, I've tried over the years to stay as open minded as I can, adapt, take advantage of truly newer and better elements, but this time around I just don't see either an incremental or revolutionary improvement "under the hood" that convinces me I need to take whatever amount of time necessary to keystroke my way around an interface I have no desire to use (or to restore essentially what I already have, yet paid money to get).

...

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.

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.

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 (http://hothardware.com/News/Windows-8-Reportedly-to-Blame-for-Worst-PC-Sales-Drop-in-History/)

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 (http://www.ubergizmo.com/2014/01/hp-windows-7-pcs-are-back-by-popular-demand/)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


(http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-e5430/pd)
I've got all I need at the moment, a Core i7 laptop to run Revit on.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 :)

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?

Touch screens for desktop applications certainly feel at best gimmicky.

I use this - Touchpad for Windows T650 - Logitech (http://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/touchpad-t650) - 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.

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

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...

RM,
Don't switch over to the "Dark Side" (Macs), if you do, you'll never go back to a pc. I think what I like the most is, they just work. My last Windows machine was Windows XP and it wasn't bad, but it was still a pc. I switched in 2007. And to paraphrase President Obama, if you like your Windows, you can keep it, period. Macs will run Windows, I put XP on my Macbook for two programs that I no longer even use, but it's there if I feel like booting Windows and being abused again! As far as I know, you can't load OSX (Mac operating system) on a pc.
C. T.
C. T.
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.

Sacolton,
As an IT professional, I had touch screen in 1983 and I hated it. I asked my boss to get a non touch screen for me and he did. The Hertz IT staff used them for a couple of years, especially the counter systems group.
C. T.
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

Jim,
That's the pc (Hewlett Packard) I was referring to in my reply to sacolton. It was the HP-150.
C. T.
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...

Sid,
You and I don't notice a lot of things, but people like my brother-in-law do. He owns his own business and he is good at what he does. He hated wasting his time (money) learning his way around a pc, he needed a computer to work for him. And, Mac was the answer for him. By the way, a programmer that worked for me typed with two fingers and he could type almost as fast as I do. My friend in London is pretty good with two fingers also. I'm a touch typist and I have no clue where the keys are, and when I get off the home position, I'm in trouble.
C. T.
I get I'm different. My dad though didn't grow up with them. He still types with two fingers. Hasn't had any issues with Windows 8.

Timely news story!
HP brings back Windows 7 'by popular demand' - NBC News.com (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/hp-brings-back-windows-7-popular-demand-2D11961317)

Timely news story!
HP brings back Windows 7 'by popular demand' - NBC News.com (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/hp-brings-back-windows-7-popular-demand-2D11961317)

heehee....I beat you to it by a page, zoo !)


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 (http://www.ubergizmo.com/2014/01/hp-windows-7-pcs-are-back-by-popular-demand/)

heehee....I beat you to it by a page, zoo !)

Oops! Sorry, SD.

Oops! Sorry, SD.

Heavens, no problem, zoo..all in good fun :)

I'd rather see voice-commands become more popular than touch-screens.

Not me. I don't want to be talking to my computer while I'm talking to a customer on the phone or at my desk.

Not me. I don't want to be talking to my computer while I'm talking to a customer on the phone or at my desk.

I think all of these comments re how one style of interface works in one circumstance, but wouldn't work in another, are perfect examples of the fundamental, fatal flaw in Microsoft's UI strategy - the one they make no bones about selling - "Many devices, one incredible experience" is their moniker, I believe. The increasing diversity of devices necessarily implies a diversity of purpose, and to suggest only one UI across them all can be made suitable hardly even passes the sniff test.