[The E]

I did use it. I found the removal of the start menu, and the enforced switch to a full-screen menu just for starting programs to be too much of a hassle. It's not something that is impossible to get used to, not by a long shot, but it's a change that screams "Hi, I'm a committee-designed WTF".

[BlueFlames]

I did use it.

When instructed to "throw the mouse" were you at any point tempted to physically throw it out an actual window?

[Spoon]

After years of XP usage there were several good reasons for me to switch over to 7 (one of the main reasons being the switch from 32 bit to 64 due to hardware and such). I quickly adapted to 7 and am now really enjoying using it. It's basically windows xp but just better on a lot of fronts. So I expect to be using it for many more years to come.

Everything I've read about 8 makes me wonder 'why'. Why would you try and force this ugly looking interface on desktop users? Why would you do this, why would you do that. etc etc.
But most of all I wonder: Why would I want to make the switch from 7 to 8? What kind of improvements would it offer? How would my pc life be enriched?
I still fail to see the benefits. 7 offers me everything I want.

[karajorma]

Admiral LSD, you really need to stop assuming that everyone commenting on this thread hasn't used it. That's at least the second time you've complained that someone needs to use Windows 8 to understand the issue to someone who actually has used Windows 8.

There are quite a few people who have used it and simply disagree with you.

[Admiral LSD]

Admiral LSD, you really need to stop assuming that everyone commenting on this thread hasn't used it. That's at least the second time you've complained that someone needs to use Windows 8 to understand the issue to someone who actually has used Windows 8.

There are quite a few people who have used it and simply disagree with you.

Yeah, people who use it *just* long enough to confirm their initial preconceptions before nuking it. I know the type because I *was* the type before I got off my backside and made the effort to actually use the previews MS make available to anyone who wants them to make up my own mind. Three weeks in, and I'm still failing to see what all the fuss is about.

Moreover, once again the whole idea of certain things being 'forced' on users comes up again when, if you'd used it for any length of time, you'd know

[headdie]

Admiral LSD, you really need to stop assuming that everyone commenting on this thread hasn't used it. That's at least the second time you've complained that someone needs to use Windows 8 to understand the issue to someone who actually has used Windows 8.

There are quite a few people who have used it and simply disagree with you.

Yeah, people who use it *just* long enough to confirm their initial preconceptions before nuking it. I know the type because I *was* the type before I got off my backside and made the effort to actually use the previews MS make available to anyone who wants them to make up my own mind. Three weeks in, and I'm still failing to see what all the fuss is about.

Moreover, once again the whole idea of certain things being 'forced' on users comes up again when, if you'd used it for any length of time, you'd know

I havent used it but when the likes of The E say something is forced, it is either forced or the option to change the behaviour is deeply buried and or in such an illogical place that it id difficult to find.

[Admiral LSD]

I havent used it but when the likes of The E say something is forced, it is either forced or the option to change the behaviour is deeply buried and or in such an illogical place that it id difficult to find.

Yeah, because that "desktop" tile is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hard to find...

[LHN91]

Looks like I'm going to be somewhat of a middle-ground-sitter here. I'm currently running the Release Preview on 3 of my primary computers as the primary OS, my desktop, home theater and laptop.

I've yet to find a program, though admittedly I've not tried that hard, that won't just install and run just as it did in 7. And for that matter, in general, games and the like run more smoothly, likely due to the reduced overhead. There are several things that are, in effect, forced; like different locations for some things (most of which aren't that hard to find) and the fact that the Start Screen isn't optional.

I hardly ever see the Start Screen in general use, except when launching games that aren't pinned (that I place in the first section of the Start Screen) or when typing WinKey -> something I'm searching. Which still works, albeit ever so slightly differently.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not revolutionary by any means, and frankly if someone released a 3rd party tool to put back in the start menu I'd at least try it out. But for me, the performance improvements for desktop applications are completely worthwhile. Not to mention little tidbits like integrated ISO and VHD mounting.

[Admiral LSD]

That's basically what I did. After being berated myself for making the same kinds of judgements the people in this thread were making I threw together some old components and set about installing it as the primary OS. I did much the same thing with 7, only this time I wasn't quite as confident about upgrading/installing over my existing OS (the 7 beta/RCs came out while I was right in the middle of an upgrade cycle making it fairly easy to substitute it as I had already reformatted as part of the upgrade).

The most surprising thing I've learned from the experiment so far is just how little I actually use the start menu. I kind of knew I had mostly given up using it as an app launcher, but it didn't fully register until it was taken away. According to Microsoft (you can take this however you want, but based on my own personal experience I'm going to say it's closer to being true than not), only about 10-15% of users actually use the start menu anyway, it's role as an application launcher mostly being usurped by either the desktop or the new taskbar in 7 (which, while having its roots in the old quick launch bar introduced in IE4s shell upgrade, was updated to function more like the OS X dock) leaving 85% who probably aren't going to really miss it.

The thing with the start screen is the only time you're really forced to see it is right after you log in (from a full system start. If you recover from sleep, hibernate or screen saver, it remembers where you were and takes you back there whether it's the desktop or the start screen) and even then, only long enough to click the desktop tile and start partying like it's 2009 (which, btw, is the year 7 came out, not any reference to the desktop being outdated). Even if you don't like desktop icons, having your most used apps pinned to the taskbar is often quicker than hunting for them through either the start screen or even the old start menu, especially since, for the first 10 at least, you can call them up by using the Win+{1..0} shortcuts. This functionality was in 7 too, btw.

[The E]

I havent used it but when the likes of The E say something is forced, it is either forced or the option to change the behaviour is deeply buried and or in such an illogical place that it id difficult to find.

Yeah, because that "desktop" tile is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hard to find...

It is not the ****ing desktop tile that is the problem. Which you would know, if you had read what was said here.
If the Desktop tile would be something I had to click through once and then be able to stay on the desktop, that would be fine. But MS made the decision to make the desktop just another app (as opposed to a different usage mode), meaning that in order to start new, non-pinned programs, I have to either navigate to the executable, clutter up my desktop with links, or go through the start screen. None of these are things I particularly enjoy having to do; The fact that the start screen takes up a LOT of screen real estate (namely, all of it) in order to expose less functionality than the old start menu is pretty appalling to me.

Now, Win 8 would have been great if they had retained the start menu functionality. MS chose not to do that, so I guess it's up to the user community to come up with replacements. The thing is, the early beta versions had the ability to display a normal start menu. This was removed for the RTM version.
Now, as objections go, this is rather minor, granted. But, and this is the point where we apparently disagree, it's a decision that was made by MS despite a lot of feedback saying that the change would be unnecessarily stupid.
In the end, MS chose to antagonize a very vocal part of the Windows userbase. They chose to follow up one of their greatest successes with something that is needlessly rough-edged and feels unfinished and not fully thought through. You can try to defend these decisions, but I would guess it won't be fun to do so. I know, I used to defend Vista.


Oh, and all this talk about the UI is just a minor battle compared to MS' obsession with copying Apple badly, see App store.

The most surprising thing I've learned from the experiment so far is just how little I actually use the start menu.

See, that's where my way of using Windows is different. I have a slew of programs I use frequently, but not frequently enough to pin them to the taskbar. Pinning them to the Start menu, or using the Start menu search, is my preferred way of accessing these progs, since I absolutely hate desktop icons.

[pecenipicek]

The most surprising thing I've learned from the experiment so far is just how little I actually use the start menu.

See, that's where my way of using Windows is different. I have a slew of programs I use frequently, but not frequently enough to pin them to the taskbar. Pinning them to the Start menu, or using the Start menu search, is my preferred way of accessing these progs, since I absolutely hate desktop icons.

this. a thousand times this.
if its as fast as the start menu and as useable as it, **** it, i'll deal with the ****. if it aint?

[mjn.mixael]

The most surprising thing I've learned from the experiment so far is just how little I actually use the start menu.

See, that's where my way of using Windows is different. I have a slew of programs I use frequently, but not frequently enough to pin them to the taskbar. Pinning them to the Start menu, or using the Start menu search, is my preferred way of accessing these progs, since I absolutely hate desktop icons.

Indeed. Hooray for no icons at all! A few super frequent programs are pinned to my taskbars, the rest are start menu accessible. I wuv my start menu.

[Mika]

Additionally, if I'm forced to learn a new UI, what's stopping me from switching to Linux, since the biggest hurdle has been - wait for it - the user interface? Now that Microsoft is generously giving me a "chance" to relearn the operating system, I might go over to Linux directly as some relearning is inevitable. And if I'm sufficiently pissed by Windows 8, I might do that at work as well. I do like Windows 7 after I got the old Start menu restored, so far it has been better than XP that I still use at work.

I tend to pin the most important programs on the taskbar. Start menu is used to launch less frequently used stuff. People use operating systems differently, and Microsoft's current our way or no way doesn't sound very good. In the hindsight, my colleague used to laugh at me complaining about the changed UI in Office 2010, but after a while the argument went in to "you are just afraid of / too lazy" either relearning stuff or change. At that point I asked him whether he feels that he would be afraid of a change if it happened so that I broke his elbows and he would be forced to relearn using his hands... Sort of way of saying that not all changes are necessarily for the better.

[FlamingCobra]

Wouldn't it be a better business decision to just fork it and have two operating systems? One for PCs and Laptops that continues to march on with Win32 (Windows) and one for tablets and phones built around WinRT (Metro).

[z64555]

Wouldn't it be a better business decision to just fork it and have two operating systems? One for PCs and Laptops that continues to march on with Win32 (Windows) and one for tablets and phones built around WinRT (Metro).

From a business standpoint, having 2 OS's would mean double the amount of logistics and help support needed. 1 OS to bind them, 1 OS to rule them all is attractive to dark lords companies.

[LHN91]

Wouldn't it be a better business decision to just fork it and have two operating systems? One for PCs and Laptops that continues to march on with Win32 (Windows) and one for tablets and phones built around WinRT (Metro).

From a business standpoint, having 2 OS's would mean double the amount of logistics and help support needed. 1 OS to bind them, 1 OS to rule them all is attractive to dark lords companies.

As well as double the code to write. A unified OS means one unified developer base, or at least one smaller one instead of 2.

[sigtau]

Yep.  That's why Windows XP acted as the "merger" between the "consumer Windows" class (95/98/ME) and the "corporate Windows" class (NT3/NT4/2000) by using the proven-to-be-more-efficient NT architecture while also retaining some degree of backwards compatibility with its consumer predecessors.

Microsoft wants money (as with any corporation, no matter how much you love them), and they're going to try their hardest to save it if they can.

[FlamingCobra]

Apple maintains two OS'

[Ghostavo]

You do understand that it actually takes some commitment to download, install and test these "free and open public betas" right? You keep going on about them as if it's as simple as reading a page of text or something.

Isn't that what most people here are doing, reading pages of text and then forming an opinion without ever using the thing in question? Hell, it's how this very thread started off. My point here is that, if you're unable to make the commitment to give the thing a go, then why comment on it?

In order to install and test Windows 8, I' have to repartition my drive, register with Microsoft, install the new system and pray to high heaven it does nothing to damage the already installed OS.

You know that nowadays, virtualization allows you to test any OS as easy (if not easier) than any other application, right? Sure, you may not get accurate performance metrics, but that's not what is at stake here.

[Flipside]

There's also the matter that Windows 7 works just fine for me, I have no desire to upgrade and I'm perfectly happy to wait out Windows 8 and see what happens.

As I said before, I have concerns, founded or not, from reading other people's experiences of it, but if there's one thing I've learned from any new software, especially an OS it's "wait till about a year after launch before even thinking of buying it". By that time, the more serious bugs/security holes are fixed, a more complete 'feel' for the system is among the users of it, and you can get a more realistic view of what it has to offer.

I'm in no real rush to upgrade, so downloading and testing an OS that I don't intend to use for several years would be pointless in the long run.