More Than 3 Out of 4 Enthusiasts Reject Windows 8

To a certain degree I do agree with this... but
How much of the win32 API are they changing?

To my understanding, the code behind Win32 is allegedly getting bogged down because of a need to maintain high levels of backwards compatibility throughout development, which includes making it so Win32 programs that use unintended quirks in the API or uses the API in ways that were not intended will continue to function properly. For all I know, this really could be putting lots of work into maintaining and developing Win32, but as an end-user Win32 is 100% the reason why I (and I presume many others) use Windows; the complete failure of Windows RT adoption is a blatant sign that Win32 is what makes Windows practical and appealing.

IIRC, DRM was ingrained into the OS a bit more in Vista, and not taken/mentioned further in Windows 7.

Most of it had to do with DRM on entertainment media like movies and music, DVDs and Blu-Rays. The code and standards for it are there in Vista and 7, but they weren't ever put into use on a large scale as far as I know because of the backlash Vista received regarding them.

For true DRM to work as M$ wanted, then off-line apps need to be stopped, ie the cloud.
For this to be done, apps need to be re-written.

This is exactly why MS wants to kill Win32 in favor of WinRT. WinRT and its related infrastructure like Windows Store are designed in a way to enpower MS, and once Win32 is gone devs and vendors need to port to and develop for WinRT if they want to continue to enjoy the benefits of Windows's market share.

Remember they still have Windows 7 going and available, and whats even better is you pay again for another M$ OS.

Indeed Windows 7 is available for now, but MS is making it quite clear they don't want to support or encourage Windows 7 any more than they are obligated to. The refusal to issue an SP2 for Windows 7, nor backport DX11.1 are clear signs of MS trying to distance themselves as much as possible from Windows 7 without breaking any standing obligatory support commitments. In a way, I'll say Windows 7's "mainstream" support doesn't feel "mainstream" at all.

Apologies for responding in a slice-and-dice fashion, but I was unsure how to respond in a more fluid writing style without making another TL;DR post.

Hi there
I'm sure this horse has been flogged to death.
If you don't like, need or want Windows 8 don't bother with it -- you don't have to and W7 will still be available for a long tome yet.

However if Ms wants to try and make what IT feels is a more appropriate OS for the hardware available now why on earth shouldn't it.

What people here seem to be making an error on is that they seem to want a "newer W7" -- well for all sorts of reasons it can't reasonably be done --hence the need to design new OS'es. - By the logic expressed on this Forum by some people we'd sill be using XP (assuming we ever got beyond Windows 98 in the first place).

I really can't see what the beef is -- Don't like it (W8) then don't use it.

Ms isn't going "Bust" anytime soon -- remember it DOES have a lot of other divisions (all profitable) than purely Windows.

I suggest you forget what the sceptics say and have a look at the Markets view on MS -- a lot better than APPLE. Here's last Fridays market close for MSFT.

Cheers
jimbo

WELL said jimbo :)

jimbo45 said:

What people here seem to be making an error on is that they seem to want a "newer W7" -- well for all sorts of reasons it can't reasonably be done --hence the need to design new OS'es. - By the logic expressed on this Forum by some people we'd sill be using XP (assuming we ever got beyond Windows 98 in the first place).

Can you elaborate on the "all sorts of reasons". Other than Microsoft greed and panic in falling behind on the tablet and smartphone OS I can't think of one reason desktop users need to deal with a "Metro" interface. It's easy to talk in generalities, but give me a list of specifics.

gregrocker said:

I promised myself I would again with an open mind try Win8 on a new Asus i5 laptop which advertised it was optimized for 8.

What I learned is that I can't stand the Metrosexual start screen even for half a day, can't wait to install Windows 7 Start Menu for Windows 8 to have the replica 7 Start Menu. Then it's no faster or better than Win7 dual-booted on a second partition.

In this case I noticed this "optimized" Win8 was a bit sluggish so also clean reinstalled 8 to a third partition without the Asus bloatware, which unlike most Asus hardware is crap. Sure enough an 8 Clean Install (like Win7 Clean Install) is considerably faster than the "Optimized for Win8" Asus bloatware install.

I ended up running Factory reset and taking the PC back because it felt like cheap plastic compared to my ten year old HP 510 which even full of sand weighs only slightly more but feels like solid steel by comparison, and runs Win7 just as fast with a Celeron and 1gb.

This is why I always say its Win7 and the install that matters.

Hi Greg,

I have a Windows 8 Asus "bloatware" machine and other than just removing the installed anti-virus and one other program, I've not removed anything else and my experience with the machine thus far is fast and clean. And though I'm not a fan of the Windows 8 start screen, I find the OS isn't as bad as I thought, or bad mouthed.

Anyway the notebook runs just fine with it. This is an Asus Zenbook Prime with the latest i7 processor, 4gig of RAM and a 256gb SSD drive.

jimbo45 said:

What people here seem to be making an error on is that they seem to want a "newer W7" -- well for all sorts of reasons it can't reasonably be done --hence the need to design new OS'es. - By the logic expressed on this Forum by some people we'd sill be using XP (assuming we ever got beyond Windows 98 in the first place).

Putting aside small changes like the removal of the "classic" Start Menu and addition of security features like UAC, fundamentally there's nothing different between Windows XP and 7 in their design besides improvements to better support newer hardware (ie: SATA HDDs, and SSDs) and newer BIOS/UEFI software, and improvements to increase general performance.

A "newer Windows 7", which we would indeed love to have, would consist of kernel improvements we've seen in Windows 8 (faster boot tiemz!!!111!11one11!eleven) while keeping the desktop environment of Windows 7 and improving on it even further with improved support for newer hardware/software such as native USB3 support. It's all very reasonable to do and most end-users would prefer that over Windows 8/Metro/RT on desktops and laptops, it's just MS decided to be unreasonable and make us go their way or the highway; personally, I'm taking the highway on this one.

jimbo45 said:

nilank said:

One fact: If Windows 8 had that shiny Aero, most people would have simply liked it and dumped Windows 7. General human psycology, they unconsciously like what appears better!

Hi there
loads of people -- me included didn't like AERO so for us it's no loss at all.
I'm not an internal OS specialist so I've no idea how difficult it is to implement that feature or how it would affect the performance of the OS -- but Linux in its time also had problems with these types of effects -- was it called something like COMPIZ with all sorts of special desk effects including revolving pyramids etc -- however it seemed to cause more problems than it was worth trying to install it......

Cheers
jimbo

Yeah but W7 gave you a CHOICE, and you didn't have to go to a third party to get a half hearted fix.
The only choices W8 gave the desktop folks was "Take it or leave it."
The desktop got thrown under the bus.

I absolutely hate windows 8 it's only for Tablet PC's and not other pc's.

I don't think other divisions of Microsoft will be profitable soon, have you heard about Xbox? You have to have a Internet Connection permanently on to play games. Software subscriptions instead of licenses?