Windows 8. Do desktop users need it?

[SnowyGamester]

It's basically Windows 7 but a bit quicker, with a new start menu and a few new features (useful ones, too). Unless the few new features seem interesting though, it probably isn't worth the upgrade. That being said, I've been using the release preview and things are going great, and while I haven't gotten around to mounting any ISOs or testing how cloud settings or USB booting works I'll definitely be glad they're there when I need them.

Also, for anyone reading this that still hasn't worked it out - WINDOWS 8 ISN'T RESTRICTIVE OR CLOSED DOWN IN ANY WAY THAT PREVIOUS VERSIONS WEREN'T. The settings, functionality, and desktop are still there, for the desktop/laptop releases the Metro interface is just a start menu replacement that can also have gadgets on it (though I can't speak for the version for ARM processors in tablets which may be more like a mobile OS).

 

[Hoplon]

It's basically Windows 7 but a bit quicker, with a new start menu and a few new features (useful ones, too). Unless the few new features seem interesting though, it probably isn't worth the upgrade. That being said, I've been using the release preview and things are going great, and while I haven't gotten around to mounting any ISOs or testing how cloud settings or USB booting works I'll definitely be glad they're there when I need them.

Also, for anyone reading this that still hasn't worked it out - WINDOWS 8 ISN'T RESTRICTIVE OR CLOSED DOWN IN ANY WAY THAT PREVIOUS VERSIONS WEREN'T. The settings, functionality, and desktop are still there, for the desktop/laptop releases the Metro interface is just a start menu replacement that can also have gadgets on it (though I can't speak for the version for ARM processors in tablets which may be more like a mobile OS).

I think what most dev's are worried about is having to sell though the "app store" the way apple seem to be pushing too.

 

[Lukeje]

I'd wait for the first couple of service packs regardless. After that it should at least be usable...

 

[loc978]

Actually, I think this is just what we've needed for a long time. A Windows OS so bad that it causes enough companies to jump ship to Unix-based OSes that we actually have a viable alternative with native gaming support. I fully support Windows 8 being released on the track it's on, and the OS monopoly ending as a result.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Also, yeah... I dual-boot XP and kubuntu. I'd like to stop needing XP.

 

[Rack]

It's a very slightly improved version of 7, absolutely no reason to upgrade over that, but if you're still on Vista definitely go for it as it's a cheap upgrade and massively better than that. If you're on XP then maybe not, it's a lot of new stuff to get used to and a fair performance drop but it will be supported longer.

Oh and if you're complaining about the lack of a start menu then why the hell are you using the start menu?

 

[SnowyGamester]

I think what most dev's are worried about is having to sell though the "app store" the way apple seem to be pushing too.

Some of them mention that, yes, though from what I've seen the Windows 8 store seems to only provide apps and gadgets for the Metro interface which is quite limiting and won't be appropriate for most things (though it may offer more in the future). What I take issue with is people reading about some aspect being closed off (be it the Metro interface or the Windows store) and take that to mean the entire system is somehow closed off without bothering to take note of the context and what is actually being discussed. 8 seems to be going in a pretty good direction and I don't particularly want people to be discouraged from upgrading...vote with your wallet and all that jazz.

 

[Hoplon]

8 seems to be going in a pretty good direction and I don't particularly want people to be discouraged from upgrading...vote with your wallet and all that jazz.

This I disagree with, I think this is more of Microsoft not talking to it's self, they have a arm based touch orientated OS already. This is overlap that's then interfering with non touch screen functionality.

 

[SnowyGamester]

This I disagree with, I think this is more of Microsoft not talking to it's self, they have a arm based touch orientated OS already. This is overlap that's then interfering with non touch screen functionality.

I do agree on that front...I'm not entirely sure where the ARM version is going to fit in when the Windows Phone OS already exists, especially considering that there are already plenty of x86 tablets on the market that wouldn't have any trouble with the full version of Windows 8. Regardless, although the emerging tablet market has made an obvious impact on the start menu redesign, it is more than accommodating for a mouse+keyboard setup and is still a step up from the classic start menu.

 

[devotedsniper]

It's amazing the amount of people on the other thread who think Windows 8 is going to be the downfall of Windows and such (a lot of long live linux talk on there too). So far from the couple of times I've used it on my virtual machine (both dev preview and release) it's not a bad OS really, it ran fine even on just 2GB of my RAM.

My only 2 real issues with it are the fact that you have to buy DVD playback because it's "too expensive" (seriously Microsoft? You can't just import the Windows 7 one? guess I'll use VLC or hack it back in for free), and the fact there's no option to turn off metro and have a start menu instead (I'm sure they'll be a work a round anyway).

Other than those two small issues so far I have no reason to not upgrade, all this talk about Microsoft locking 8 down to just their own store is stupid, I can understand it on tablets but doing it to desktops/laptops would be near suicide on there part. I also get the pro version of every windows OS (starting from xp, including 32bit and 64bit) for free from my uni so I can always revert to 7 if I don't like it, my system could do with a wipe anyway so I might as well wait to do it and try out 8 properly.

 

[gigastar]

Psh, no. Im keeping my vista. Its got me by this long, i see no reason to change it.

...I had to double take that line. People may not be hot for W8 but Vista has always belonged in the bin... in the eyes of PC gamers at least.

 

[Signa]

Having absolutely no expereince in using Windows 8, I can say with no expertise at all that it is not worth upgrading to. For me, it's not so much the question of if I need it, but more of if it's going to offer something that I don't already have. Maybe I'm missing something, but I strongly sense it will be another step back in UI design. There's already a few things missing or changed in 7 that I miss about XP. 8 seems to take that further without much rational thought behind it.

Oh and if you're complaining about the lack of a start menu then why the hell are you using the start menu?

What?

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Ive seen no reason to upgrade, but neither any good reason not to upgrade either. I tried an early release and it was ok. I doubt I'd use the Metro interface (or whatever they end up really calling it as Metro isn't its real name) unless I got a touchscreen monitor. I don't really understand why people are going on about a closed system when I haven't seen anything to say its closed off. I know they're trying to make a Windows ecosystem with tablets and windows phone 8, but they're not closing the OS off to other programs.

 

[Rack]

Oh and if you're complaining about the lack of a start menu then why the hell are you using the start menu?

What?

The biggest complaint about 8 seems to be replacing the start menu with metro. But the start menu has been completely pointless for years now.

 

[Andrew_C]

The biggest complaint about 8 seems to be replacing the start menu with metro. But the start menu has been completely pointless for years now.

Why is it pointless and what replaced it, may I ask?

I use Windows and I am constantly using the Start Menu. I have my 4 most used programs pinned to the Taskbar but I run far more programs than that regularly. I also don't run programs fullscreen, apart from graphics programs and games, which is one of my other issues with Win 8 - Metro programs are fullscreen and can't be resized.

The Metro start screen wouldn't be so bad if you could sort or control the size of the tiles, but you can't and the defaults are incredibly wasteful of space.
EDIT: spleng

 

[Signa]

Oh and if you're complaining about the lack of a start menu then why the hell are you using the start menu?

What?

The biggest complaint about 8 seems to be replacing the start menu with metro. But the start menu has been completely pointless for years now.

Says who, and why? I use it every time I want to do anything! All my most used tasks are on there, anything I need to search is there too. The only thing that has become dated about it is browsing the program folders in it. I only do that a fraction of what I use to in 95/98.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

No from what I've used of Windows 8 it seems that desktop users are not the focus of this OS. I'm not bothered they got rid of the start menu, the problem is that the metro ui does not work as well as the start menu. For starters takes up the entire screen to do what the start menu does. Another thing I've found is that apps don't show up in the normal desktop taskbar instead open ones are shown by hovering the mouse over the top left corner. so far I've found no way to close these apps except through the task manager (if anyone knows another way I'd love to know). So far my personal verdict is that it is clunky to use and the slight performance improvements over windows 7 is not worth the upgrade.

 

[Burig]

Am I going to buy it? No.
Do I want others to buy it? No.
Would I recommend others buy it? No.
Would I stop others buying it? No.

I think the whole intergrating tablet and desktop UIs is a ballsy move, and an interesting one, but not one that would work. I've been wrong before - yes, and can't be absolutly sure without using it myself, but I can't see it working well unless you're on a tablet.
To paraphrase Chris Pirillo: If I'm on the desktop interface, I don't want to see the tablet interface, and if I'm on the tablet interface, I don't want to see the desktop interface.

The start menu is only one of the complaints I would have, I've also heard that you can't run more than one program at a time (although if this is true, or has been changed, I'm not sure).

I'm going to be waiting for windows 9 and seeing how that turns out. I like Windows 7 at the moment, so see no real need to upgrade, certainly the cons outweigh the pros for me.

 

[Zipa]

From a gaming standpoint no you don't need it, there is no new version of direct X with windows 8 unlike 7 and vista which introduced DX10 and DX11.

Plus after having used 8 for a bit on my non touchscreen laptop I can safely say I wont be upgrading to it, its a pain in the arse to use compared to previous versions of windows, it takes longer to do simple tasks like starting up a program (which are now called apps for some reason, lolwhat?) like say steam or firefox for example. Plus non MS programs seem to be suspiciously more difficult to find than MS ones.

The small tweaks under the hood so to speak are good like all the improvements to file and registry management and the native dual monitor task bar support but overall the trade off is too high.

Plus I don't get people who say the start menu and the current file navigation system doesn't get used , I use mine on a daily basis and would prefer not to see a clown throwing up every time I want to go into program files and such. That and the windows 7 search bar on the start menu is way better than 8's it seems to be a step back to the XP version which was a bit hit or miss at finding stuff.

Plus for some reason it has a thing against Kaspersky AV programs since none of them will run which is stupid. That could change before release though I guess.

All in all I will be telling people not to buy it who ask me to it has some good improvements over 7 but they don't outweigh the bad by far. Now if they offered a desktop version with a start menu and no requirement to use metro then it would be a different story. I don't see why they won't / can't since the majority don't have touchscreen monitors and they are expensive ass hell to buy still.

Its pretty clear that MS is giving desktop uses the finger with this OS since it is a tablet/phone OS and it shows.