Windows 8 is the new Windows Vista...

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Windows 8 is the new Windows Vista...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

9364 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#969898 20-Jan-2014 10:33

MaxLV: Only once has Microsoft really stuffed up an upgrade of Windows, and that was Windows ME, IMHO.

I bought Windows Millennium Edition on the day of its release.
The man in the shop asked me "Do you really want this?" Wise man.
I installed ME and hated it for 24 hours, before uninstalling it.
I destroyed the ME CD because there was nobody I hated enough to give it away to :)

Sideface

robjg63

4100 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#969919 20-Jan-2014 11:03

Vista ran like a dog - it was/is sluggish and if you ever had hardware that had vista and installed later reinstalled win 7 it is amazing how much nicer will run.

Windows 8 performs well. It seems very stable. Its pretty quick as well. So in that respect its nothing like vista.

It does however try and be a touchscreen and desktop OS and as a desktop OS its a bit of a pain.
At least they have now allowed you to boot straight to the desktop - though the option is a little hidden.

I wouldnt say its Vista by any stretch of the imagination (maybe in sales numbers?) - but MS could have done a better job with legacy/desktop/non touchscreen users.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

k1wi

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

#969922 20-Jan-2014 11:17

I happen to be sitting at a laptop running Win Vista in my bedroom, but I have win7 at the office and on my home desktop/server/htpc. I also have an ultrabook running win8. I also have a Linux desktop, an Ubuntu VM for webserving and my partner is an Apple fan, so I'm fairly OS-agnostic. Just retired my XP laptop. I'd say XP -> 7 has been my 'favourite' transition between OSs.

To be perfectly honest, I use to be pretty skeptical of Win8 - but then I tried it and dont really mind either way. I don't actually think it's that bad and paired up with a touch screen is actually pretty intuitive. I don't feel the need to downgrade to 7 to avoid it, but I also don't feel the need to upgrade from 7 to it.

My partner said she thought a touch screen laptop was a gimmick, but within a minute of using one she was at home using the screen as another input device alongside the keyboard and mouse/trackpad. One of the few times she's admitted she was wrong actually...

It takes a little bit to get use to the different ways of doing things, but I'd say most things translate easily. So the start menu is replaced with a metro screen. It's the same way to get to it (windows button) and if I need something that's not on the screen (it makes getting to apps/programs easy) I just start typing it. I don't even use the start menu that often really.

In any event, none of its weakness (or even Vista's for that matter) have ever been bad enough to cause me to feel the need to replace the OS. In fact, when I have switched OS's - say to Linux etc, I've generally found just as many if not more changes that have bugged me to no end.

Technofreak

6531 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#969943 20-Jan-2014 11:37

When I bought my current laptop it came with a free upgrade to Win 8. Since there was a lot of negative press about Win 8 at that time I didn't upgrade.

I wanted to be able to try Win 8 before taking the plunge.

I only got the chance to do that very recently and I quite liked what I saw with Win 8. So much so I considered upgrading. However the free upgrade option had expired and I would lose Windows Media Player and would have to either pay for that option or download something like VLC Media player.

So as much as I might like Win 8 I'm not going to pay out a bunch up notes to upgrade when Win 7 is doing a good job.

I have the following comments to make about the various upgrades Microsoft have introduced.

I think Microsoft are disconnected from their customers. They have a very clever bunch of whiz bang computer programmers who come up with these new OS and Office suite versions and add in all sorts of wizardry but lose sight of who uses this stuff and how it is used. The majority are not people like us who frequent Geekzone.

Take the changes Office 2010. I migrated from Office 2003 and found the way you accessed various functions in 2010 to be very clumsy requiring in many cases more keystrokes/mouse clicks to access.

With Win 8 the change from Win 7 was huge and for many people the Metro screen was seen as clumsy or unintuitive.

It takes a lot of time to for most users to become familiar with a new OS or programme version, so much so, they are very reluctant to upgrade next time.

No wonder people have shied away from Win 8.

Microsoft would be much better off to improve features, change screen graphics etc. Only making small incremental changes to the functionality as and when that functionality improves the user experience without confusing the user.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

wasabi2k

2096 posts

Uber Geek

#969944 20-Jan-2014 11:37

As has been said - Vista was an absolute dog performance wise, hardware upgrades were required to get it to run the same as XP. In addition WDDM and a number of other changes to driver frameworks meant that it was months before hardware had decent drivers - or in some cases the vendor didn't bother - in most cases XP drivers didn't work.

Windows 7 was much better performance wise and 8 is even better. It is fast and stable underneath. Drivers are less of an issue (either because Windows 7 ones work or vendors and just less useless).

I use Desktop and very rarely ever use Metro, I use keyboard shortcuts more now than with Win7 and I can happily navigate.

Never used it on a touchscreen so maybe that's amazing?

WRT the comment - Windows 8 is like Vista in terms of consumer opinion and backlash imo, beyond that the two share no similarities.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#969969 20-Jan-2014 12:27

Why the constant comparisons re performance improvements when Thurrott is speaking metaphorically? Wasabi2k gets it.

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#969975 20-Jan-2014 12:47

Slightly unfair comparison considering that Vista was actually buggy, unreliable, slow and insecure.

Windows 8 was tainted by an incredibly ill-conceived design and interface conceit, but underneath that the core OS is - on the whole - stable, secure, fast and reliable.

If you can fight your way past Metro, which on a non-touch screen and/or desktop device is utterly hopeless, then it is a decent OS.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#969981 20-Jan-2014 12:56

Vista SP1 was perfectly fine. As mentioned, Win7 is allmost just Vista Sp2. But by the time SP1 was released, it was too late. Its reputation was tarnished beyond repair .

Vista's main issues were:
- so many bugs pre SP1. Basic stuff that should have been fixed pre-release . Sp1 made it usable
- Low spec lappies & pc's were sold with Vista pre-installed, when it was obvious to all they didnt have the grunt to run Vista and the programs we all use ...1.6Ghz, 1g RAM, slow HD ..... If MS had made the Min RAM spec 2G, or 4G this wouldnt have been such an issue. But MS wanted upgrade sales (pfft, as if) so they made the min spec far too low.

Win8's main issue is MS trying to force the touchscreen interface on us. If they just made Metro the optional interface & made the desktop with start menu the default we wouldnt be having this conversation. And obvious things like a one click shutdown button.

It now doesnt matter if Win8 is good or not. Its reputation is pretty much trashed.
You can tell a OS is doing badly when OEMs still sell new PC's & lappies with the old version 'downgrade' (win7) preinstalled ,even after all this time, due to demand for it.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29770 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#969983 20-Jan-2014 13:04

Depends on whether we get windows 9 this fall :)

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#969998 20-Jan-2014 13:38

MaxLV:
Buzz Bumble: There was a news story last week that Microsoft is planning to call the next update "Windows 9" (rather than 8.2 or whatever) to escape the mess they created with Windows 8.

What mess?

Windows 8.1 works fine here, including the 'metro interface.' I highly recommend it as an upgrade to Windows 7.

Most of the complaints a 'Luddite' type complaints about the new interface, and the lack of ONE button on the task bar. That's it.

I was simply stating what the news story said.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#970002 20-Jan-2014 13:51

Buzz Bumble:
MaxLV:
Buzz Bumble: There was a news story last week that Microsoft is planning to call the next update "Windows 9" (rather than 8.2 or whatever) to escape the mess they created with Windows 8.

What mess?

Windows 8.1 works fine here, including the 'metro interface.' I highly recommend it as an upgrade to Windows 7.

Most of the complaints a 'Luddite' type complaints about the new interface, and the lack of ONE button on the task bar. That's it.

I was simply stating what the news story said.

An opinion piece isn't 'news'. It's from someone who used to be Microsoft's most famous number one Fan boy. I really have to wonder why he decided it was a good 'story' to publish.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#970004 20-Jan-2014 13:58

Windows 8 is the new Vista simply because it's an upgrade nobody wants or needs. To me it's not that Vista or 8 are so bad. It's that at the time XP and Windows 7 were good enough to not justify the pain of upgrading.

While MS keep charging >$100 for anyone but early adoptors to upgrade, they're dreaming if they think people will upgrade until they buy their next machines.

networkn

Networkn
32359 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#970005 20-Jan-2014 13:59

MaxLV:
Buzz Bumble:
MaxLV:
Buzz Bumble: There was a news story last week that Microsoft is planning to call the next update "Windows 9" (rather than 8.2 or whatever) to escape the mess they created with Windows 8.

What mess?

Windows 8.1 works fine here, including the 'metro interface.' I highly recommend it as an upgrade to Windows 7.

Most of the complaints a 'Luddite' type complaints about the new interface, and the lack of ONE button on the task bar. That's it.

I was simply stating what the news story said.

An opinion piece isn't 'news'. It's from someone who used to be Microsoft's most famous number one Fan boy. I really have to wonder why he decided it was a good 'story' to publish.

Yes he used to be their biggest fans, but doesn't have much good to say about W8 or W8.1. Perhaps there is a good reason.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#970007 20-Jan-2014 14:09

Item: Slightly unfair comparison considering that Vista was actually buggy, unreliable, slow and insecure.

Windows 8 was tainted by an incredibly ill-conceived design and interface conceit, but underneath that the core OS is - on the whole - stable, secure, fast and reliable.

If you can fight your way past Metro, which on a non-touch screen and/or desktop device is utterly hopeless, then it is a decent OS.

Nothing ill conceived about Metro at all IMHO. It's just another way to access programmes, and it's a lot easier to use than the old start button where your had to remember which folder programmes were in, and often navigate through multiple levels of folders just to find what you're looking for. Either that or everything has been dumped in one folder and you have to spend minute scrolling up and down trying to what you're looking for.

I've mentioned it before, I stopped using the start button with XP, and replaced it with STab launcher, which still works well in Windows 8.1.

With Metro you can set up all your apps, desktop, Windows Programmes, data locations, etc in their own named group and simply scroll left or right to find what you're looking for and click once. That beats a multilevel start button menu system hands down, and it works just as well with a mouse and keyboard as it does with a touch screen.

I agree most of the Apps in the store are 'crap' but then so are most of the Android and IOS apps. Cant blame Microsoft (Google, Apple) for the (poor) quality of those Apps. Blame them for allowing them to be hosted in the store sure...

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#970011 20-Jan-2014 14:19

networkn:
MaxLV:
Buzz Bumble:
MaxLV:
Buzz Bumble: There was a news story last week that Microsoft is planning to call the next update "Windows 9" (rather than 8.2 or whatever) to escape the mess they created with Windows 8.

What mess?

Windows 8.1 works fine here, including the 'metro interface.' I highly recommend it as an upgrade to Windows 7.

Most of the complaints a 'Luddite' type complaints about the new interface, and the lack of ONE button on the task bar. That's it.

I was simply stating what the news story said.

An opinion piece isn't 'news'. It's from someone who used to be Microsoft's most famous number one Fan boy. I really have to wonder why he decided it was a good 'story' to publish.

Yes he used to be their biggest fans, but doesn't have much good to say about W8 or W8.1. Perhaps there is a good reason.

Like playing to his (paying) audience, his advertisers wanting a headline that attracts lots of readers?

The criticism of Windows 8/8.1 is nearly ALL about the Metro Interface, and how people 'dont like it' because it's different to the Start button. Not that it doesn't work, or that Windows 8/8.1 is buggy, slow, like Vista...

That's it.

You dont have to use (or even see Metro) if you dont want to.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6