It's just not the same.

I'm with Varrok. You don't want cutsified interfaces for solving serious problems. They don't have circus clowns taking 999* calls. Because that's clearly the same thing.

*or 911, 112, or 0118999881999119725 3.

I really like that actually. But then I really embrace the advancement of technology. Windows 8 looks like a step towards a simpler and more modern UI, after the mishap that was Vista it's applauded, at least by me. I don't see what the problem is, you don't even have to use that start thing if you don't want to. I thought it was all available from that new screen, was a little disappointed it still had the old desktop.

Why was Vista a mishap, I just don't get this.

In lieu of the resounding flaws of recent operating systems, I've almost totally forgotten what was actually wrong with Vista. Like, I'm running Vista on one of my older machines, and it's given me less shit than the freshly installed W7 I just put on my new one.

According to legend Vista SP1 fixed most of the problems and everyone forgot what they were.

With everything I've said here I need to mention that I love Win8 as a tabled OS. I can't see myself migrating to that kind of interface on a desktop yet. I want to see what other people can do with it before I really decide if I'm defecting to Linux in the near future.

The issues with Vista were 95% bad driver and application support and 5% confusing security settings. The former have all been ironed out by now.

I'm still running Vista on my laptop. The only major difference that I can find between Windows 7 and Vista is the lack of a taskbar.

Before SP1 though, it was utter shit, it wouldn't connect to the internet because there wasn't a driver for my wireless net card built into it, I had to plug it into the Ethernet instead to download SP1 so I could connect wirelessly.

Not particularly interested. Looks pretty but I really like Windows 7 so I'm sticking with it for now.

Actually this is true, the problems with Vista were fixed eventually, I distinctly remember the original release not being as good as XP or 7. I think my favourite release was 95 or perhaps 98, but those are purely for nostalgia related reasons.

They crashed/BSODed a lot. A lot more than Winxp and later. Oh god how often they crashed

I've been using Vista since it came out and I'm just so used to it, it's nowhere near bad as everyone says it is. Any problems I have with my computer is because of the computer itself, not the OS.

The one major problem I have with it is that the in-built disk defragmenter doesn't work at all.

I've never had any problems with Vista either, but 7 is just plain better.

I don't think 8 looks very good for a PC OS, though.

I had another go on Windows 8 in Curry's, I can safely say that it DOES suck as a desktop OS. Granted, I haven't used it properly yet, but now I really don't want to.

> It sucks.
> I barely tried it.

How enlightening those few minutes must have been.

I loathe loathe loathe win8 with a passion. I want it to die and burn and suffer for eternity.... Why? Theres no start button... Had to install third party plugin to get it back. Ya....

I don't understand why people miss that so much, since you can still use the windows key open a menu that serves the same purpose and is nicer to use.

In my opinion Microsoft is forcing this change. I still think that forcing a tablet interface on your faithful desktop users that have been using your desktop products for over 25 years is just really bad marketing. A tablet interface doesn't work on a desktop and a desktop interface doesn't work on a tablet. Why the hell would you combine them?

I've tried the consumer preview and it took me way too long to adapt to the tablet interface. Things just didn't make ANY sense until I switched my head from desktop mode to tablet mode. Once I did that I could suddenly find everything I needed in the (poorly designed) apps in the Metro interface. But that means that whenever you want to use the Metro interface (for whatever reason, I see no reason to use it on a desktop at all) you have to switch your entire work flow.

Biggest thing though, is the removal of the start menu. Not only does Microsoft offer people a desktop/tablet hybrid, they actually try to force you to use it the way they want. I use the start menu easily 20 times a day because it holds all my programs, how would Windows 8 suggest I open my programs? Icons on the desktop? Use the stupid icon in the startbar thing which I never thought worked on OSx, let alone on Windows?

No thanks, I'll stay on Windows 7 for as long as I can. It's working fine and I have absolutely no reason to switch.

That's because Windows 2000 and all later versions of Windows were based on Windows NT, which handled multitasking differently than previous versions of Windows. If I recall correctly, the older versions made it the responsibility of a process to release its control of the processor. That meant that if a program froze, it would freeze all of Windows.

WinNT had a seperate process that oversaw multitasking and forced programs to close if they had frozen. That's why the OS crashes less, even if the programs crash at about the same rate.

It's also worth mentioning that the DOS -> Win 95 era had some ridiculously bad coding practices that were fairly common. Things like programmes attempting to allocate all available memory. Things that you couldn't actually do in Win NT.

Or the original Sim City, which allocated some memory, freed it, then tried to use it later. It worked fine in DOS because there was no multitasking, so no other program could attempt to use that memory. When the first versions of Windows first came out, everyone started complaining that it was killing their programs and blamed Microsoft rather than the original developers' poor coding practices.

Microsoft actually wrote tests in to Windows to see whether certain programs were running and then allowed illegal behaviours based on the results. For instance, every time you open any application in any version of Windows right up to WinXP, the OS is testing to see whether you're playing Sim City. One of the reasons why Vista is actually a more efficient OS, but that certain programs died a lot, is that they got rid of all that automatic compatibility bloat.

I think that's mentioned somewhere in here.

Some of the assembly stuff is a bit nerdy, but you can get the gist of most of it.

I haven’t been visited by the Metro Mafia yet, when did they come to your house and forcibly erase Windows 7 from your computer?


I think one of my pet hates is people who try to use something in completely the wrong fashion.

What you’ve done is you’ve taken an operating system which says “we’re going to make everything as convenient super-simple as we possibly can for our average end user!”—which equates to a simple, trim interface which introduces new methods of interacting with shit—and then you’ve tried to make it work the same way the old one did. Of course you’re not gonna get it to work, because you’re literally doing it wrong.


Firstly, OSX is great for opening apps – you pin the ones you need most to your dock (like in Windows 7), and then you use the built-in search tool called Spotlight to find the others when you need them (like in Windows 7).

And the stupidest part is Windows 8 has the exact same functions built into it Go to the Start screen by hitting the Windows key, then start typing. BAM, search results show up, and then you pick what you want.

The Start screen is the Start menu, and it works the same way in every way except the way it looks.


And that’s perfectly fine. Windows 8 is a new operating system with a new interface and style because it is designed for a new market and a new ecosystem. You’re a heavy desktop user with no touch screen, so you’re not likely to get anything out of switching. Microsoft has historically been all about legacy support and Windows 7 is still one of the most-used OSes out there, so what have you got to worry about?

The moment the average non-computer savy consumer steps into a store and wants to buy a new desktop from Dell or HP. The second Windows 8 launched every pre-build desktop came pre-installed with it. There is no choice there unless you want to spend extra cash on a Windows 7 license and even more cash to pay some computer store to install it for you.

The problems I described don't apply to me, like I said I'm content with Windows 7 and am not switching anytime soon. But the average consumer will have this change forced down their throat next time they upgrade their system, which is just bullshit. Not to mention that support for Windows 7 will stop at some point, even if that is 10 years from now.

Some retailers over here are actually banking on the W8 hatred by offering downgrades to W7 for the new pre-builts that come with W8. There's also a few stores that offer "crash courses" in W8 because of the number of complaints they get about it.

Funny, because the exact same thing happened with Vista.

The real funny thing is, I never noticed that with Win7...Why's that? Not many complains? Was the software really better?

I did have my share of problems with Vista, so when Win7 was available, I thanked to the Gods, the old and new ones, for that.

W7 has tons of little problems that are only mildly irksome. With every new OS, they simplify it to make it more user friendly. This is the bane of computer savvy folks everywhere, because we don't like to have our stuff dumbed down and our options limited.

The answer shouldn't be to give users fewer options, it should be to make the options that are already there easier to understand.

Yes, and that’s where Microsoft’s influence over its hardware manufacturers comes in. They’ll be leaning heavily on Samsung, Toshiba etc. to introduce touch screens, trackpads etc. in a big way, and move towards form factors like ultrabooks, tablets, touchscreen all-in-ones which work better with the software.

If someone’s flogging Windows 8 on a hefty old desktop they’re being stupid.


Yeah, probably around the time Windows 10 gets released.


At some point, you have to sit down and say “do we really need to keep this feature?” An interface with too many options for a single task is never a good thing – as Milton Glaser once said, “just enough is more”.

This is why Apple products like iPads are so easy for the average joe to get – they’re simple. And simplicity is not necessarily detrimental to power.

It is when they cut your number of monitor display options in half, or don't allow automatic ownership of your own C drive. Like I said, it's little things, not major things, but they add up in the end. Someone who knows what they're doing can get passed these minor annoyances, of course, but those few extra steps and seconds of effort add up in the end.

I'm interested in both ease of use and customization. With each new OS, this ratio is tilted a little more towards the former, which I wouldn't mind if it also wasn't restricting the latter. More and more do I find myself disliking "consumer" operating systems, including Windows. Not because they're bad, but because I need more control than what they offer.