OS and Software > Microsoft Help > What are the substantive reasons to reject Windows 8?

What are the substantive reasons to reject Windows 8?

reply to Gem
Not sure it qualifies as "substantive" but I simply found nothing compelling about Windows 7 after testing it. No advantages for my personal use cases, but plenty of disadvantages. I just had no need of anything new 7 brought to the table.

Same for Vista, only worse.

I stayed with XP til 8.
--
Think Outside the Fox.

reply to Gem

reply to Gem
I'm probably that "knowledgable member who runs XP" that you refer to. Whee. :P

My list of reasons for staying with XP, at this point, is somewhere in the low hundreds (in the 1xx range), and I'm not exaggerating in the least.

It would take me weeks to create the full list of all the reasons (you are not the first person who would be inclined to ask me for such (I've had several)). Many of them are bugs in Windows 7 itself and have been fixed (even with SP1), and a good number are GUI or UI-related (read: not involving third-party software). These are outright bugs/flaws and not matters of opinion -- what is a matter of opinion, however, is how severe I consider them. They're major enough that they're deal-breakers for me when it comes to my own home workstatation, where I have no tolerance for fooling about.

Key pieces of information:

1) My previous job of 8 years was at Microsoft -- ironic -- where corporate policy mandated use of Windows 7. So I do have experience using it for 8-10 hours, 5 days a week, since its release. All I can say is that every day when I came home, I felt like hugging my XP workstation. I won't answer questions like "so if you worked there why didn't you tell people of the bugs?" as they open up a huge can of worms + requires discussion about how the company works/operates, how things are organised, etc. and I'm not at liberty to discuss those. All I'll say is that yes, I did try to find the teams responsible for each and every issue, but was unsuccessful.

2) The Windows kernel (and generally device drivers) has greatly improved in highly positive ways since XP. The kernel improves in every OS release in excellent ways -- it's all the other crap (the stuff you and everyone else has to deal with) that makes me grit my teeth and want to stab myself.

3) There are only a handful of features in Windows 7 that I wish I had on XP. The negatives for me, however, easily outweigh the positives. I will say, however, that 7 was a tremendous improvement over Vista (particularly with regards to DWM/DCE -- Vista was a sick disgusting performance-destroying joke in this regard).

4) I do not dare try Windows 8. The more I see stuff like this, the less I'm inclined to try it. I have numerous friends who have tried 8 (one for an entire 3 months) and have gone back to 7 for multitudes of reasons; their rants to me, often of a highly technical nature, hold a lot of weight. Sure, Metro is an indicator of how absolutely out-of-touch certain developers/designers are with technical users of a desktop GUI-based OS, but I'm not going to shell out money (or effort for that matter) to inundate myself given what my experience was like with 7.

Basically the bottom line is that on XP, I can run the applications I need without any intervention or under-the-hood nonsense going on, I have a GUI/interface that works/looks like what I want/is responsive/is minimal, and overall can get a lot more done easier/quicker than I can in Vista, 7, or (almost certainly) 8. I can accomplish tasks without having to fight with the system. It's my workstation, it therefore needs to meet my needs.

My copy of Windows 7 Ultimate sits happily collecting dust on a shelf (and no it's not for sale), and I will not be buying (or using) 8; I'd go the *IX (FreeBSD or Linux) route before turning my workstation into a device requiring a fist fight every time I'd try to use it. Remember: computers are tools that are supposed to make our lives easier, and technology is supposed to improve in positive ways -- when either of those things prove untrue, one must ask oneself "is this worth it".
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

reply to Gem

Re: What are the substantive reasons to reject Windows 8?

reply to Gem
I had to get a new computer so reluctantly left my XP which I loved. I had read that windows 7 was the closest to XP so elected that OS and like it. I am of the opinion that if you like something stick with it so have no reason to experiment with something else.

reply to Gem
I am a Windows 8 user. I do miss aero glassand the start menu of w7. I stick with windows 8 because it uses 10w less power than w7, and every little helps to reduce our carbon footprint.

reply to Kerodo

quote:

---

If you're excluding dislike of Metro and the UI, then I don't think there are any other substantial reasons for rejecting Win 8, other than possibly a variety of minor glitches and reinstall gotchas that I've ready about over the past 6 months or so.

I personally love 7, I think it's their best OS to date. I reject 8 due to Metro primarily. There are actually other reasons to like 8 due to internal tech improvements, etc, from what I've heard. But if you take away the Metro/UI issue, then I don't think there is too awfully much to complain about.

---

reply to techsup1983

reply to Gem
Usability is a big factor, so you're skewing your survey by excluding Metro. The interface matters.

Some of us have work to get done - we're not just playing at home with all the time in the world. It's not that we can't learn, but we can't afford the downtime. Also, many of us would never ever dream of adopting a new os until at least the first service pack.

The larger questions are, what does Win8 offer that what we have now doesn't; do we even need what it offers or is it "nice to have but not essential"; does it play nice with the software we already use; and is it cost effective - not just the cost of the os itself, but the cost of possible required hardware upgrades and/or software/interface upgrades.

If a new version of anything doesn't offer real improvement or brings more problems than it solves, why go there? It's not just Windows, ya know?

reply to Gem
I guess I'm with the minority here: I run multiple Windows machines, one of which is XP, but I probably work with Win7 more frequently during the day than XP or Vista (or the different server editions based on NT 5 and 6).

This topic/question still runs along subjective ground. I'm operating the other way around: as long as the XP desktop runs the applications I want and stays out of my way, I'll keep using it. XP still works just fine, especially as a business desktop and it's fine from a security standpoint.

The biggest issue I have with "Windows" as it morphs is the degree to which (in my opinion) the GUI favors new users over current users. The touch-based "desktop" in Win8 is the latest in that line of GUI/Shell changes. I have Windows 8 VMs handy for compatibility testing purposes, but today the touch "Shell" is pure annoyance for me, it would only get in my way. If/when Windows 8 has or supports something I want/need -- and if it remains cost-competitive with the alternatives -- then I'll reconsider.

reply to Gem
User interface.

That's the reason if you like it or not.

reply to Gem
Touch - if you want it, 8. If you don't, not so much. That's the only technical reason for me.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

reply to Gem
I'm running Windows 8 on my desktop because I was able to upgrade from Windows 7 for $14.99 and for that price, was willing to try it out. Aside from the interface, which I dislike and use Classic Shell to basically replace with the Windows 7 start menu and interface, I haven't noticed any real issues with 8.

On the other hand, I haven't really noticed any real advantages to it either. Apart from the interface changes, in everyday use, it just doesn't seem like much of a difference from 7, so I'd have a hard time justifying upgrading another system from Windows 7 at any significant cost.
--
Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Pinky: I think so, Brain, but "Snowball for Windows"?

reply to Mike

reply to Gem
Application and driver compatability? I don't want to go through the same mess that I've went through with every early adoption of Windows. I stayed with Win XP until Win 7 had drivers and application kinks worked out for everything I had.

The problem with the OP's question is that he's asking the wrong question. It isn't "What's wrong with Win 8?", the question he should be asking is:

What does Windows 8 offer of value to make me want to switch from Windows 7?
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK

reply to Gem
I believe that 'usability' and interface design is a substantive issue. And as a dual-screen desktop user, I think that the lurching context switch into a different display, just to start a new program, seriously affects usability.

To overcome that negative, Windows 8 would have to be offering something I really wanted, and I have not heard what that might be.

(My Windows creds: have adopted every version since NT 3.1 up through Windows 7, including running Vista on at least a couple of machines in the house -- we typically have 6 to 8 operational computers. So I've seen plenty of Windows GUI style changes, and prior to 8, the only one I didn't much like was XP; I ran that in 'classic' style).