[karajorma]

You hear it every other OS.

Or the entire pre-XP era.

[Rodo]

Well we hear it because of something.
I'm inclined to believe ppl will always assimilate the improvement, not just the shiny new stuff just because it's shiny and new.

And to just to clarify my position, it's not like I'm some kind of delusional dumbass that likes to get stuck with old OS's. Windows 8 is clearly not though out for a user such as myself, I knew the second I tried using it.

It needs another pass through the design table, all that andoid-gadget thingy they just splatter all over the place is not feeling native for the pc user I am today.

[Luis Dias]

"pre-xp era". Clearly someone here is under some kind of amnesia of the phenomenal events of 2003 and what that year meant for both Windows XP and Longhorn's development.

[karajorma]

I have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. I simply meant that every single version of Windows for home users before XP was, quite frankly, rather ****.

[Luis Dias]

I'm talking about the blaster worm that managed to infect every single XP computer in the world (or close to that), exposed Windows XP's internet security as the shameful lunacy that it was and grinded Longhorn's development to a halt, so they could focus on building the service pack 2 (I think it was 2), that stopped the bleeding.

From that moment on, whenever I installed windows xp and connected it to the internet for more than a few minutes (before installing said service pack), it would inevitably get blaster and then other copy cats. It was a manic race to go to the windows site and download the SP before I got the worm.

Ah what a great OS! And of course, we all ended up having Windows Vista in all its paranoia glory due to this specific incident (instead of the maddeningly promising Longhorn's paradise).

But I'll give you this, there were some good naive years between 2001 and 2003.

[Klaustrophobia]

that can happen to any OS.  and when it probably does happen again, the same thing will be said about the target OS's security.

as for making 'another XP', I am ALL for that.  consumers for once showing a little bit of common sense and refusing to accept a crap product simply because it's the 'new version'.  what is so glaringly wrong with windows 7 that it needs fixed by using a new version, or what is so outstandingly awesome offered by 8 that it warrants paying over $100 and putting up with all the really crappy parts to go along with it?

[Luis Dias]

that can happen to any OS.

No it couldn't. XP's fragilities were mind-boggling on their own. Even for 2001.

[Mongoose]

as for making 'another XP', I am ALL for that.  consumers for once showing a little bit of common sense and refusing to accept a crap product simply because it's the 'new version'.  what is so glaringly wrong with windows 7 that it needs fixed by using a new version, or what is so outstandingly awesome offered by 8 that it warrants paying over $100 and putting up with all the really crappy parts to go along with it?

I agree.  I'm still on XP on this old scrap-heap because there's yet to be any pressing reason for me to upgrade further: this over-10-year-old OS still does everything I need it to do on a daily basis.  If this is still my only machine (and I hope to God it won't be) when next April rolls around and security support for XP finally stops, I'll bite the bullet and shell out for 7.  I really don't see any purpose in upgrading to a new OS every other year, when the only real thing that generally changes for the end-user is the coat of paint on top.

[karajorma]

I'm talking about the blaster worm that managed to infect every single XP computer in the world (or close to that), exposed Windows XP's internet security as the shameful lunacy that it was and grinded Longhorn's development to a halt, so they could focus on building the service pack 2 (I think it was 2), that stopped the bleeding.

From that moment on, whenever I installed windows xp and connected it to the internet for more than a few minutes (before installing said service pack), it would inevitably get blaster and then other copy cats. It was a manic race to go to the windows site and download the SP before I got the worm.

Ah what a great OS! And of course, we all ended up having Windows Vista in all its paranoia glory due to this specific incident (instead of the maddeningly promising Longhorn's paradise).

But I'll give you this, there were some good naive years between 2001 and 2003.

And once you had SP2 installed, the problem went away. Many of us just slipstreamed SP2 into the install CD and kept on using XP without any major issue.

Vista on the other hand is **** no matter what you do to it. As is everything MS came up with before 2000. As is Windows 8.x. Like I said since Windows ME MS have been on a ****/usable cycle. Windows 9 (or whatever they call it) will probably be the combo breaker though.

[Luis Dias]

Oh of course the problem "went away", but the point is that at that moment the saying "I hope MS gets their **** together in their next OS" came back with a vengeance.

Vista's development cycle was one of the worst pile of **** ever since Cairo or Copland. Of course the end product was going to stink.

[The E]

I must be completely weird then for actually preferring 8.1 over 7.

[Luis Dias]

Not really, from what little I've seen, I think it's an okay OS. The double UI is awkward (although pretty), mostly because it betrays dumbfoundedness from the part of the designers of it, and as an user it's like I'm constantly being bombarded by this company's cluelessness. It's not a good emotion that emanates from the system.

But I've been trying Ubuntu and as a comparison I can definitely say that oh god Windows has come a long way.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

I must be completely weird then for actually preferring 8.1 over 7.

Not a popular opinion, because the internet hates change, but I've been using 8 since the release preview and 8.1 since it was released. I like the under-the-hood changes (seriously, one of my laptops is an absolute dinosaur, 2GB of RAM, crappy Core 2 Duo, 5400 RPM hard drive, and it boots in less than 16 seconds on Win8 - I found it pretty impressive for specs that awful) and I really, really just don't hate the Metro interface. It's clunky, sure, but the start screen works almost the same as the start menu in most cases. The sheer tsunami of rage confuses me a little.

[butter_pat_head]

At one point in the past I had Win ME as my main OS.  I did not have any issues with it that were any worse than the rest of the 9x series (well maybe the default startup sound) and I found it perfectly usable, even when I got my first dual core CPU (yes I know ME wasn't multi core aware).  I even managed to run the apparently XP only Doom 3 and Quake 4 in WinME without crashing even once.

Now can somebody give me a decent reason why WinME is supposed to be so bad?  I am not trying to defend ME or anything, its just that I am confused as to why a OS that has run on 3 different system configurations, a OC'd Celeron 300A (runs at 450MHz with stock cooling), a Duron 1.3 and a Barton core Athlon XP 3000+ without any major issues other than the normal driver related 9x quirks.

[MP-Ryan]

What I'm finding obnoxious about Windows 8 is the way some very common features in the advanced user settings (Control Panel, etc) have been reorganized.  It's not intuitive.

What is also not intuitive is the various swipe-up/swipe-out/etc commands - sometimes they're context-sensitive, sometimes they aren't.  How do I determine that?  Try it and find out.  If not, then settings must be accessed some other way.

I like the idea of a tablet-environment running the Windows architecture and therefore able to run the same software I use on my computer.  That's awesome.  What is decidedly less awesome is the bastardized way in which that was glued on top of the desktop environment.  What the hell is wrong with having two separate, toggle-between interfaces and environments?  8.1 moves it more in that direction, but I am still dependent on the Metro interface for a large number of things, and it is bloody annoying having to flip interfaces to load different programs.  Seriously, let me boot directly to one mode or the other, and stick all my links to applications in one place (accessible to both environments!) regardless of which effing environment it runs in.

I look at Win8 and 8.1 and it just screams "beta product."  I use it on this tablet I'm trying at work, but I will certainly not be installing it on any of my existing PCs, and I hope there is either another major update or Windows revision before I have to replace my PCs, because I'm just not feeling the love here.  It's a good idea as a beta version, but it has a screaming need for further refinement.  In terms of productivity, it is considerably less efficient than Windows 7 simply due to all the flipping back and forth.

And whatever they do, they need to move all the settings to one location - it is ****ing ridiculous that I need to be in one mode or the other to access various settings.  Everything in one spot, damnit!

[Mongoose]

I'll admit that my intense dislike for 8 is solely based on aesthetics, since I've honestly never used it myself, but I take one look at that Metro start screen and just think...my God, that is hideous.  The completely-flat rectangles that waste massive amounts of screen real estate, the color scheme that looks like someone shut their eyes and stabbed their finger at random on a palette...it looks for all the world like Babby's First OS, and I want absolutely no part of it.  Most of us have been using the Start Menu since 1995; it works just fine, and over the years it's received incremental improvements that let it work even better.  So why in all the nine hells was there any need to toss it out completely in favor of that monstrosity?

Honestly, it feels like there's this bigger trend among a lot of developers to make drastic UI changes mostly for the sake of corresponding to some perceived sense of "modernity," as opposed to whether or not said changes are actually necessary or desirable.  The biggest personal offender for me has been Firefox; its most recent default appearance changes (along with the hyper-fast update schedule) make it clear that it's trying its very hardest to be as much like Chrome as possible.  But here's the thing: if I wanted something that looked like Chrome, I'd go and ****ing download Chrome.  I've done my very best to keep things looking as much like the classic FF3 layout as possible: the separate stop/refresh and home buttons all in a row, tabs on the bottom where they belong, the classic menu bar, the whole enchilada.  I know I could theoretically do the same with 8, but I shouldn't have to download third-party external mods to preserve the basic Windows look.  As much-maligned as the big Ribbon update for Office was several years back, at least it had the advantage of taking some functions that were buried under two or three layers of dialog boxes and putting them out in the open.  Tell me, if you're not using a touchscreen, what the hell does Metro do for you?

Bottom line: change just for the sake of change is a terrible thing and should be kicked in the nuts.

[Ghostavo]

To be honest, the new start menu also offers some usability improvements, especially as we move towards bigger screens.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

What I'm finding obnoxious about Windows 8 is the way some very common features in the advanced user settings (Control Panel, etc) have been reorganized.  It's not intuitive.

What is also not intuitive is the various swipe-up/swipe-out/etc commands - sometimes they're context-sensitive, sometimes they aren't.  How do I determine that?  Try it and find out.  If not, then settings must be accessed some other way.

I like the idea of a tablet-environment running the Windows architecture and therefore able to run the same software I use on my computer.  That's awesome.  What is decidedly less awesome is the bastardized way in which that was glued on top of the desktop environment.  What the hell is wrong with having two separate, toggle-between interfaces and environments?  8.1 moves it more in that direction, but I am still dependent on the Metro interface for a large number of things, and it is bloody annoying having to flip interfaces to load different programs.  Seriously, let me boot directly to one mode or the other, and stick all my links to applications in one place (accessible to both environments!) regardless of which effing environment it runs in.

I look at Win8 and 8.1 and it just screams "beta product."  I use it on this tablet I'm trying at work, but I will certainly not be installing it on any of my existing PCs, and I hope there is either another major update or Windows revision before I have to replace my PCs, because I'm just not feeling the love here.  It's a good idea as a beta version, but it has a screaming need for further refinement.  In terms of productivity, it is considerably less efficient than Windows 7 simply due to all the flipping back and forth.

And whatever they do, they need to move all the settings to one location - it is ****ing ridiculous that I need to be in one mode or the other to access various settings.  Everything in one spot, damnit!

That's a valid complaint, and it is a pain when I accidentally get into the Metro settings screen instead of control panel. Hell, I told MS /that/ during Win8 beta. I think my huge problem with the rage is that not everyone is like you or most of us here. They just say "Windows 8 SUCKS, rabble rabble rabble," and never get around to saying why. MS doesn't know what we like and what we hate unless we tell them. Bonus dumbass points if the person complaining has never actually used Windows 8. I have a friend that does this and it kinda makes me want to punch him in the nads.

[Lorric]

Most of us have been using the Start Menu since 1995; it works just fine, and over the years it's received incremental improvements that let it work even better.  So why in all the nine hells was there any need to toss it out completely in favor of that monstrosity?

Honestly, it feels like there's this bigger trend among a lot of developers to make drastic UI changes mostly for the sake of corresponding to some perceived sense of "modernity," as opposed to whether or not said changes are actually necessary or desirable.

Bottom line: change just for the sake of change is a terrible thing and should be kicked in the nuts.

Yes! Preach, Mongoose! Preach!

[karajorma]

Oh of course the problem "went away", but the point is that at that moment the saying "I hope MS gets their **** together in their next OS" came back with a vengeance.

And then they got their **** together in the same OS.

In fact XP is probably the only example of MS actually getting their **** together without charging the customer for leading them out of the hell hole they led them into in the first place. Windows 8.1 is a great example of them failing to do that.