Just How Much Do People Hate Windows 8?

[ManofGod]

I haven't seen that in comparing a few games to Vista on the same hardware. The OS most certainly feels more responsive than Vista from a subjective perspective and even seems a little more responsive than 7 (though I can't really quantify that since I don't use the same hardware between 7 and 8 and the 7 system is a netbook so yeah...) but frame rates and load times are no different from my experiences.

I personally find games do run a bit better but that is because I use a AMD FX 8120 processor. I do not recall the link but it Windows 8, the overall frames per second were smoothed out for the FX processor compared to Windows 7. (Not a huge difference but it is still there none the less for me.)

 

[ManofGod]

I honestly wonder if at least one person has changed their stance based on the fluidity of MarketSpeak of some posters that we widely known but won't mention (and in my case thanksfully have been set to ignore for a couple months).

My 8ball says NOPE, but hey, let's check again next month to see if the adoption rate keeps decelerating!

PS: Ballmer, if you can read this, tone it down man!

Wow, marketspeak eh? Guess you just follow along the crowd then as a good, obedient sheeple then, baaaaaa! The fact that someone may not switch does not matter to me because it is their computer. However, that does not mean I am going to ignore ignorance or just outright hate but hey, what do I know, right?

Oh, and since you know how to use the ignore feature, feel free to use it on me, no problem. I personally find someone who must announce that they placed someone on the ignore list is just a bit insecure. Have a good day.

 

[JayJapanB]

I haven't seen that in comparing a few games to Vista on the same hardware. The OS most certainly feels more responsive than Vista from a subjective perspective and even seems a little more responsive than 7 (though I can't really quantify that since I don't use the same hardware between 7 and 8 and the 7 system is a netbook so yeah...) but frame rates and load times are no different from my experiences.

Some benches from people I trust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY
Bit dependant on the game.

 

[wtburnette]

See! and this is why I don't understand why there are so many people on here that have sand in their clits about Windows 8.

There are quite a few well reasoned posts from myself and other users as to why they don't like Windows 8. I'm thinking it's a failure of comprehension on your part. People having various opinions on everything. You don't have to agree, you just have to accept that some people have different opinions. I can understand that some people like Windows 8, but that doesn't invalidate my reasons for disliking it. What I'm saying is that MS has to weigh and balance the opinions of everyone, in order to capture the most market share. In the case of Windows 8, they're artificially limiting themselves for no good reason.

 

[heatlesssun]

Welcome to "debating" with heatlesssun where according to him Microsoft shits rainbows we should all be lucky to have dumped on us. There really is no point in talking about anything Microsoft related around here as long as they keep paying heatlesssun to go around defending them every time someone puts down a Microsoft product in any way, shape, or form. I am just waiting for the day he gets outed for working for Microsoft at this point.

Microsoft would be wasting its money if it were paying me to promote Windows 8 in this forum.

I've pointed out may times issues with Windows 8. I've never called Windows 8 a success or failure at this point. I've never told anyone around here that they should upgrade to Windows 8. But there are a lot of things said about Windows 8 that are technically not correct or just opinion and sure, the point of a debate is to well, debate opinion and point out errors.

If I were having a many issues of some around here are having with 8 I know I wouldn't use it. What would be the point in encountering nothing but problems? But I guess now that someone has to be paid instead of simply having a different experience and point of view than others.

 

[heatlesssun]

There is nothing wrong with providing an "off switch" for Metro. That would enable MS to gain market share because yes, if it was there, I think a lot of the Metro naysayers would adopt it. With a Metro off switch and Aero being fully back in the desktop UI, I'd upgrade. Why? Well for one, you get the security and speed enhancements, not to mention extended support coverage. Add to that the other enhancements they made (file copy dialog and things like that) and there is a compelling reason to upgrade. What's stopping power users is the ability to use the OS the way they want, preferably without using a third party app to enable functionality.

It's undeniable that the desktop market is shrinking. The thing is, it's not dead, or anywhere near dead. That means there's still a good sized market, it's just not as large as it used to be. What MS should be doing is finding out how people want to use their systems, what will make them upgrade and go that way. Trying to become Apple is one of the dumbest ideas they've ever come up with. They are not Apple and the business model they're shooting for will fail. The desktop is already great at what it does. Giving less flexibility hinders adoption to the new OS. People liked the flexibility of a desktop OS that they could use however they want. MS trying to lock people into a phone OS and buying their apps from a store is nothing but a money grab and certain of us see that and don't want any part of it. You may think that putting in a Metro off switch would be a stop gap measure, but I think it would enable enough flexibility that MS would see it's sales go up significantly.



Personally I love the Start Menu. It does what is needed and the rest of the time it's out of the way. Windows 7 had things done the right way. There weren't extra menus that didn't make sense, a separate UI that didn't make sense, etc. For the Desktop, Windows 7 makes a lot more sense. I think Windows 8 is great on mobile devices. The problem is that MS wants to force a UI where it doesn't belong. That's not very smart of them. The converged OS is not needed. There may be some people that like it, but enabling a way to avoid Metro entirely (meaning charms bar and other touch centric elements) would not hurt MS the way they think it would. Instead it would enable power users and people opposed to Windows 8 a reason to adopt it. As it is, no one having an issue with Windows 8 will move to it. MS will finally have to admit that after sales numbers continue to be poor. Not to mention, as has been said many times, enterprises have even less reason to deploy it. The company I work for has around 40k desktop/laptops and we have no reason to upgrade any of them to Windows 8, ever. That may change down the road when support will run out, but that's a long, long time for MS to continue to lose corporate sales.

Your arguments are reasonable and I don't take issue with them overall. It's just if indeed the desktop market is shrinking inherently beyond anything to do with Windows in and of itself, it would seem to be wise for Microsoft to work on retrofitting Windows to not be totally dependent on the desktop and keyboard and mouse operation.

As for the matter of convergence, I think that it is more compelling than you indicate. Why can't one OS and one device serve as both a tablet and a desktop/laptop? What is a power user? Only people that sit in front of a keyboard and mouse driven computer or those who do that and then need to have a thin and light device with access to the same applications wherever they go and have the ability to use touch or a pen or maybe some other input method input. I think that the Start Button/Menu are great but not so great that there can't be other ways to do these things, but yes, they have been around a long time and people are very familiar with them. That is a big part of the problem in Microsoft ditching them.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

I personally find games do run a bit better but that is because I use a AMD FX 8120 processor. I do not recall the link but it Windows 8, the overall frames per second were smoothed out for the FX processor compared to Windows 7. (Not a huge difference but it is still there none the less for me.)

Perhaps that's the case. I'm using an Intel processor and like JJ says...

Some benches from people I trust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY
Bit dependant on the game.

...there's obviously some game dependency. Most of what I play are older games that might not realize any benefits from the differences between OS versions. Maybe it's time to play something modern.

Farm Simulator 2013 here I come!

 

[wtburnette]

Your arguments are reasonable and I don't take issue with them overall. It's just if indeed the desktop market is shrinking inherently beyond anything to do with Windows in and of itself, it would seem to be wise for Microsoft to work on retrofitting Windows to not be totally dependent on the desktop and keyboard and mouse operation.

As for the matter of convergence, I think that it is more compelling than you indicate. Why can't one OS and one device serve as both a tablet and a desktop/laptop? What is a power user? Only people that sit in front of a keyboard and mouse driven computer or those who do that and then need to have a thin and light device with access to the same applications wherever they go and have the ability to use touch or a pen or maybe some other input method input. I think that the Start Button/Menu are great but not so great that there can't be other ways to do these things, but yes, they have been around a long time and people are very familiar with them. That is a big part of the problem in Microsoft ditching them.

The problem, IMO is with the way MS is reacting to the changing market. It wants to artificially force a change on a platform that doesn't want it. Again, I have no problem with Windows 8 on mobile devices. I've used a Surface and if it weren't for it being overpriced, I'd consider getting one. Windows 8 works perfectly well on it. The problem is, if you want to force people to give up mouse and keyboard on the desktop, give us a compelling reason to do so. Mouse and keyboard work best for most desktop setups. We want true multitasking, we want to size our app windows however it best suits our workflow, etc. Windows 8 does not allow for that, with the same level of robustness Windows 7 did. I think MS may eventually iron out the UI issues, but the current state of things is a mess. Because of this, they would be wise to let desktop users use the OS the way they feel is best, while enjoying some of the things that make Windows 8 better. Instead, they forcefully remove the start menu, aero features and make it so everyone has to interact with the new UI, even when it doesn't make sense to do so.

My personal opinion is that eventually, we'll have portable devices, like the Surface, or similar tablet style devices, that have enough power to dock and become a full blow workstation. You can take it on the road and it's a convenient device for while you're out and about, then you come home, dock it somehow and you've got a keyboard, mouse, multiple screens, whatever. I don't think this kind of thing is far away and I think it's great, but I don't think that Windows 8 is a catalyst for this. It would make more sense to me that when you take the device out of the dock that it goes into a "mobile" UI, like Metro/Modern. Dock it and you have the full Desktop experience by default. You can still pull up the mobile UI if you want, but by default the device should have a UI based on what it's set for. That would make more sense to me, rather then have one UI fit across multiple platforms. Again, that just IMO.

 

[heatlesssun]

The problem, IMO is with the way MS is reacting to the changing market. It wants to artificially force a change on a platform that doesn't want it. Again, I have no problem with Windows 8 on mobile devices. I've used a Surface and if it weren't for it being overpriced, I'd consider getting one. Windows 8 works perfectly well on it.

I don't think the change is that artificial in that more and more people are using tablets and are using them instead of PCs. Incorporating tablet capabilities into Windows would be a reasonable thing to do at some level.

The problem is, if you want to force people to give up mouse and keyboard on the desktop, give us a compelling reason to do so. Mouse and keyboard work best for most desktop setups. We want true multitasking, we want to size our app windows however it best suits our workflow, etc. Windows 8 does not allow for that, with the same level of robustness Windows 7 did.

I use Windows 8 with keyboards, mice and track pads every day. When running desktop apps on my convertible laptop or dual screen Windows 8 desktop their behavior is no different than under Windows 7, all the multi-tasking and resizing that's been in Windows for ages. Metro apps do behave differently but they aren't even available in 7. And when I wanted to use 7 on a tablet I was forced to used the same desktop metaphors on a tablet that don't work as well as the new UI in 8.

I think MS may eventually iron out the UI issues, but the current state of things is a mess. Because of this, they would be wise to let desktop users use the OS the way they feel is best, while enjoying some of the things that make Windows 8 better. Instead, they forcefully remove the start menu, aero features and make it so everyone has to interact with the new UI, even when it doesn't make sense to do so.

This I could agree with as a stop gap measure since there is definitely a lot of work that needs to be done on the new UI.

My personal opinion is that eventually, we'll have portable devices, like the Surface, or similar tablet style devices, that have enough power to dock and become a full blow workstation. You can take it on the road and it's a convenient device for while you're out and about, then you come home, dock it somehow and you've got a keyboard, mouse, multiple screens, whatever. I don't think this kind of thing is far away and I think it's great, but I don't think that Windows 8 is a catalyst for this. It would make more sense to me that when you take the device out of the dock that it goes into a "mobile" UI, like Metro/Modern. Dock it and you have the full Desktop experience by default. You can still pull up the mobile UI if you want, but by default the device should have a UI based on what it's set for. That would make more sense to me, rather then have one UI fit across multiple platforms. Again, that just IMO.

There is logic to this but touch, keyboard, mice and pens can work simultaneously and interchangeably in Windows. I know it's not there yet, but the idea of a "desktop" mode or "tablet" mode isn't how I see it. That's not to say that there shouldn't be accommodation for different input methods and form factors but different modes means there's a lack of unification which is clearly part of Windows 8's current problems.

 

[TheArTcher]

Please do not mistake Gabe Newell for someone who cares. He is a businessman and the only thing he cares about is making money, just like all other businesses. (It will be fun to see what comes of it but so far, the Steam box is vaporware and nothing else.)

Time for the annual reminder about what is real and what isn't. Businesses don't exist so they can't care about anything. Stuff like corporations, companies, universities, and countries are all just make-believe.

People are responsible for all of the software features you guys complain about, so blame them. And give the people credit where due. I doubt that any good game could come from a group of developers who don't care about the product.

Big companies suffer from complacent bureaucracies just like big governments. These bureaucracies make it difficult to innovate and create good products. Steve Jobs had to act like a raving tyrant to get good products out the door at Apple. Microsoft doesn't have a Steve Jobs. Their products show it.

Finally: Almost all of the great innovations come from small companies led by people who really care about the product. Most business leaders care about their company, employees, and the products they sell. The money just lets them keep having fun making products. Some companies, especially big ones, are led by reptiles. They are the exception, not the rule. The belief that all businesses and businessmen are uncaring or just greedy was put into your head by evil marxist teachers. Time to see through their propaganda.

ArTcher

 

[soulman901]

I'll agree that it's the UI a big problem for Windows 8. The other thing is why does Microsoft need a new OS every 3 years now? 5 years seems to be pretty good for them. Seems they got on that bandwagon with Vista-> 7 but since 7 is such a good product why did they decide that they wanted to mess with us with a phone interface for the PC?
Maybe this is why Bill Gates tosses and turns each night on his Million dollar matress.

 

[RangerXML]

The other thing is why does Microsoft need a new OS every 3 years now? 5 years seems to be pretty good for them. Seems they got on that bandwagon with Vista-> 7 but since 7 is such a good product why did they decide that they wanted to mess with us with a phone interface for the PC?
Maybe this is why Bill Gates tosses and turns each night on his Million dollar matress.

Well lets see, I'll start with Windows 3:
Windows 3 (1990)
Windows 3.1 to 3.11 (1992-3 ~2 years)
Windows 95 (1995 ~2-3 years)
Windows 98 (1998 3 years)
Windows ME (2000 2 years)
Windows XP (2001 or was it 2002 ~1 or 2 years)
Windows Vista (2007 ~5 or 6 years)
Windows 7 (2009 2 years)
Windows 8 (2012 3 years)

I do not see anything with Windows 8 release that really breaks any patterns. Don't forget that Service Packs were suppose to prolong XP's life so it wouldn't need a replacement too soon (ala Windows 3 to 3.1+), that didn't work to great considering how aged the OS became towards the end compared to OSX.

 

[wtburnette]

I don't think the change is that artificial in that more and more people are using tablets and are using them instead of PCs. Incorporating tablet capabilities into Windows would be a reasonable thing to do at some level.

There is logic to this but touch, keyboard, mice and pens can work simultaneously and interchangeably in Windows. I know it's not there yet, but the idea of a "desktop" mode or "tablet" mode isn't how I see it. That's not to say that there shouldn't be accommodation for different input methods and form factors but different modes means there's a lack of unification which is clearly part of Windows 8's current problems.

The change is artificial. I understand they want to compete in the mobile space, that only make sense. Putting mobile features on the desktop as the default is what I find artificial.

What I'd like to see is the UI able to play to the strength of the current setting. In the mobile space, touch is king and make sense. Not so much on the desktop. That's all I'm saying. Maybe in the future unification is the answer, but Windows 8 is not the answer. Not even close.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Microsoft doesn't have a Steve Jobs. Their products show it.

Apple doesn't have Steve Jobs either. The products...well, you get the point.

 

[wonderfield]

Please do not mistake Gabe Newell for someone who cares. He is a businessman and the only thing he cares about is making money, just like all other businesses. (It will be fun to see what comes of it but so far, the Steam box is vaporware and nothing else.)

Gabe had plenty when he founded Valve (he was one of the original "Microsoft millionaires"). His reason for founding Valve? He wanted to work with the best in the industry, and he spent considerable money to hire talent initially. Still does: Valve employees earn among the highest wages in the industry.

Naturally, he wants to make money. It's one reason why he got into the gaming industry when he did, when Doom and Quake were out-distributing any of Microsoft's products. But that isn't his primary motivator.

Now, doesn't the Bible say something about loving one's neighbor as one loves himself? Doesn't seem as though your attitude toward Newell is very 'loving'.