"Windows 8 Survey: Half Who Have Tried the OS Wouldn't Recommend It"

[alphanumeric]

Hi everyone
Perhaps we're asking the WRONG question here.

Instead of saying whether the UPGRADE is worth the price or not -- perhaps we should be asking --when you buy your NEXT computer will you STICK with W7 or Choose W8 as I'm sure by then an upgrade path will be available.

If you are happy TODAY on the computer(s) you are using and there isn't a "killer" feature on W8 that "You Must Have" then stick with the old OS.

I stayed for ages and ages with XP on one laptop -- it did everything I wanted and I couldn't be bothered to upgrade to W7. However when I got a NEW machine that was another issue.

Most of the threads here seem aimed at the UPGRADE market -- I think MS is changing the marketing strategy to appeal to the NEXT generation of NEW Windows users.

I can't see ANY business upgrading to W8 for years yet as some of them have barely started converting to W7 from XP --and I've still seen a few W2K servers around too!!!.

A lot of die hard users won't (predictably) like this version of Windows -- but you might find it appeals to a load of the current newer generation who seem to spend all day long staring into their mobile phones.

Big Market out there.

Cheers
jimbo

I build my desktop PCs myself, so the way it is now I'd buy Windows 7 if I built a new rig. At some point I would really like to get a tablet and if it came with Windows 8 preinstalled I'd give it a go. If I was buying a laptop I'm not so sure I'd want Windows 8 on it and if I had the option I think I'd go with Windows 7.

 

[whs]

You are right alphanumeric. I would not pay extra either just to get the Metro - there must be more meat on the bone. But I think that the Metro is actually easier for the average Joe who is no geek and only wants to run his/her few applications.

I have tested that with a group of seniors at my computer club and they confirmed my theory. They thought that the Metro would make their job easier.

 

[Coke Robot]

Eight is great! Honestly, some people just don't like change.

For some people, there isn't sometimes a good reason to make changes. I look at the way that I use a computer and I look at Windows 7 and find very little that I would change to make myself more proficient in getting things done. From my limited experience with using Windows 8, I found that I had to learn how to do basic tasks all over again, and I often times had to click through multiple screens and dialog boxes to do the same tasks that I would do in less steps with Windows 7.

A big factor for me on using a new operating system is cost. Changes aside, the question becomes whether spending $199 or $299 provides enough additional benefits to outweigh the costs. I was never a big fan of Vista, and didn't upgrade my main desktop from XP as I didn't see any value in Vista. However, when I built my new rig, I invested in a copy of Windows 7 as it seemed a substantial upgrade from XP. But I haven't seen enough evidence that investing in Windows 8 is going to make me happy or feel that the cost of the upgrade was worth it.

Initially, when I was used the Developer Preview back in September, I didn't realize I could shut down without logging off for about three days. Then when I did, everything basic fell into place, and I was able to use the Start Screen's better navigation. And now with the Consumer Preview of Windows 8, I already know the basics, and am learning of the new things Microsoft put into it. It's quite a system!

Honestly, if people are still using xp, upgrading to Windows 8 will be like, ZOOM! It's stupid fast! The Consumer Preview made me feel like I was using Windows 7 on a SSD most of the time, and I'm using a hard drive! Startup, shutdown, sleep and resume, and hibernate and resume are all faster. It literally takes a laptop, literally 1 second to resume and be already connected to wifi and back into the Desktop or Start Screen or where ever.

Setting that aside, just the Start Screen is enough to make me upgrade. Using it, the start menu just doesn't cut it anymore...

 

[Coke Robot]

You are right alphanumeric. I would not pay extra either just to get the Metro - there must be more meat on the bone. But I think that the Metro is actually easier for the average Joe who is no geek and only wants to run his/her few applications.

I have tested that with a group of seniors at my computer club and they confirmed my theory. They thought that the Metro would make their job easier.

I have a series of programs and apps installed on my 30 gig partition, and I find the Start Screen allows me organize my frequently used programs much easier and my non-frequently used programs faster and easier. Metro design isn't all that there is to Windows 8. There is still MUCH more to come. Windows 8 on a flash drive, probably built in Skyping, improved navigation, and the such.

 

[Coke Robot]

Hi everyone
Perhaps we're asking the WRONG question here.

Instead of saying whether the UPGRADE is worth the price or not -- perhaps we should be asking --when you buy your NEXT computer will you STICK with W7 or Choose W8 as I'm sure by then an upgrade path will be available.

If you are happy TODAY on the computer(s) you are using and there isn't a "killer" feature on W8 that "You Must Have" then stick with the old OS.

I stayed for ages and ages with XP on one laptop -- it did everything I wanted and I couldn't be bothered to upgrade to W7. However when I got a NEW machine that was another issue.

Most of the threads here seem aimed at the UPGRADE market -- I think MS is changing the marketing strategy to appeal to the NEXT generation of NEW Windows users.

I can't see ANY business upgrading to W8 for years yet as some of them have barely started converting to W7 from XP --and I've still seen a few W2K servers around too!!!.

A lot of die hard users won't (predictably) like this version of Windows -- but you might find it appeals to a load of the current newer generation who seem to spend all day long staring into their mobile phones.

Big Market out there.

Cheers
jimbo

I build my desktop PCs myself, so the way it is now I'd buy Windows 7 if I built a new rig. At some point I would really like to get a tablet and if it came with Windows 8 preinstalled I'd give it a go. If I was buying a laptop I'm not so sure I'd want Windows 8 on it and if I had the option I think I'd go with Windows 7.

Considering that xp still has about 40 percent of OS marketshare, if I were in charge of a fleet of PCs in an enterprise, I would make the shift from xp to 8. Though there will be an initial learning curve, as comes with ANY new Windows OS, I would do it because a) Windows 8 actively manages any CPU's clock speed to reduce power consumption, b) it's compatible with new and old devices, c) it offers better networking abilities than 7 or xp, d) it offers better file navigation, e) it will still look pretty regardless of the age of the PC itself.

 

[Sardonicus]

Would I recommend Windows 8?
I'd only recommend it to someone that was tech savvy and knows their way around an OS.
Anyone coming from XP should probably learn Windows 7, first.
The shell shock for XP users going directly to Windows 8, may be too much to handle.

 

[nitroman84]

It just looks too much like an add on aimed at teaching a child how to use a computer. Kind of a slap in the face if you know how to really use a computer.

 

[whs]

But on the other hand, it makes it much easier for users that have only simple requirements. All they need is Start, All Apps and Win+I. For the rest they go with the defaults.

 

[gregrocker]

Gotta say when I was told repeatedly at MVP Summit that Win7 is now considered a dead OS by MS and all focus is on Win8, I was a little sick at my stomach. I did ask a few times why when they finally got it perfect they would be in a hurry to move on, which sounded a bit Luddite but I got a lot of nodding heads and shrugs.

I've been Dual Booting on it for a week and I like the Windows 7 parts of Win8 which seem just a tad quicker. But I have no use for Metro except to make it as painless of a Start page as possible. The revolving-wall trial apps mess were out the door in a day. And they plan to sell these?

 

[whs]

Right, the trial apps are pretty poor. And half of them don't work.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Software Rewrites?

Considering that xp still has about 40 percent of OS marketshare, if I were in charge of a fleet of PCs in an enterprise, I would make the shift from xp to 8. Though there will be an initial learning curve, as comes with ANY new Windows OS, I would do it because a) Windows 8 actively manages any CPU's clock speed to reduce power consumption, b) it's compatible with new and old devices, c) it offers better networking abilities than 7 or xp, d) it offers better file navigation, e) it will still look pretty regardless of the age of the PC itself.

You're just assuming that everyone using XP, is an uneducated Luddite.

IT people regularly complain (on forums) that software companies won't update their software to run on W7 (I seriously doubt that they'll update it to run on W8).
I assume that you would personally rewrite all of the "mission critical" software, which only runs on XP & IE6?

This doesn't affect me, as all of my software runs on W7, or in an XP VM (except for one game).

 

[Coke Robot]

Considering that xp still has about 40 percent of OS marketshare, if I were in charge of a fleet of PCs in an enterprise, I would make the shift from xp to 8. Though there will be an initial learning curve, as comes with ANY new Windows OS, I would do it because a) Windows 8 actively manages any CPU's clock speed to reduce power consumption, b) it's compatible with new and old devices, c) it offers better networking abilities than 7 or xp, d) it offers better file navigation, e) it will still look pretty regardless of the age of the PC itself.

You're just assuming that everyone using XP, is an uneducated Luddite.

IT people regularly complain (on forums) that software companies won't update their software to run on W7 (I seriously doubt that they'll update it to run on W8).
I assume that you would personally rewrite all of the "mission critical" software, which only runs on XP & IE6?

This doesn't affect me, as all of my software runs on W7, or in an XP VM (except for one game).

No, I'm assuming that many enterprises are still running xp, considering about 40 percent of the OS marketshare is WINDOWS XP.

I highly doubt many of the same programs that ran in Windows 7 won't run in 8. That is a random general assumption. I've done three installs of Windows 8 Developer Preview on three separate systems, installed the same software as I usually do when I do 7 installs, and all but two programs didn't work. I've done two installs of the Consumer Preview on two separate systems. I haven't tested those two programs yet, but they might not still work. If I need those programs for whatever reason, Windows 8 offers Hyper-V built into the client to address that.

Even if some software doesn't work in 8 if it did in xp, Hyper-V is there. Even then, with a new OS upgrade, there is a chance to update or upgrade to different solutions. It sounds ridiculous to hinder an entire upgrade for the sake of one program.

 

[jimbo45]

Considering that xp still has about 40 percent of OS marketshare, if I were in charge of a fleet of PCs in an enterprise, I would make the shift from xp to 8. Though there will be an initial learning curve, as comes with ANY new Windows OS, I would do it because a) Windows 8 actively manages any CPU's clock speed to reduce power consumption, b) it's compatible with new and old devices, c) it offers better networking abilities than 7 or xp, d) it offers better file navigation, e) it will still look pretty regardless of the age of the PC itself.

You're just assuming that everyone using XP, is an uneducated Luddite.

IT people regularly complain (on forums) that software companies won't update their software to run on W7 (I seriously doubt that they'll update it to run on W8).
I assume that you would personally rewrite all of the "mission critical" software, which only runs on XP & IE6?

This doesn't affect me, as all of my software runs on W7, or in an XP VM (except for one game).

Hi there

Some people (not you !!) I think just have their brains and vision limited by staring all day long into small Mobile phone screens and assuming if there isn't an app around then you are an old Technophobe who's afraid of upgrading.

Loads of EXPENSIVE equipment lasts years --I'm talking about highly specialized gear that often can cost 1000's or 100,000's of Dollars / Eur etc.

There is a HUGE amount of this type of legacy gear out there designed for W2K and XP that Still works fantastically well (on XP of course).

During the life cycle of the product (some of this equipment is often used for 20 - 30 years -- inconceivable to a lot of people these days brought up in the era of the "chuck it away and buy a new one" society) the manufacturer may well have gone out of business - and even if a new model is available that works on W7 the business can't afford the upgrade - and why should they if the gear still works properly.

Please note here I'm not talking about cheap printers, scanners, etc but highly specialized industrial grade equipment -- for example Blue print drawing equipment, Computerized cutting equipment, glass working gear, Oceanography gear, Oil rig equipment etc etc).

This stuff can run quite happily on an XP VM and a lot still do --- this isn't being a Dinosaur but using properly designed products sensibly and economically -- and especially today until we get the economies working again is probably the best way to ensure a small business's very survival ( and save a considerable amount of cash too).

Some will use XP under a VM, some will continue to use XP natively since the computer may well be dedicated for that particular application so upgrading the OS wouldn't make any sense.


Finally remember most of the guys using this stuff e.g roustabouts on Oil Rigs don't give a hoot about CPU cycles or the other "Geeky" stuff mentioned in the very first post in this thread -- they just turn on the machine and get on with it. This type of gear isn't really dependent on having Ultra fast computers.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[seavixen32]

As with any new software there are several questions that need to be asked before you part with your money:

1. Does it work?
2. Is it easy to to install and configure?
3. Is it user-friendly?
4. Does it offer value for money?
5. Is it better than what you already have?

If the answers are yes, then go ahead and upgrade, but if the answers are no, save your money until something better comes along.

I've tried Windows 8 and wasn't all that keen on it, so for the time being I'll stick to Windows 7.

 

[lehnerus2000]

ROI

No, I'm assuming that many enterprises are still running xp, considering about 40 percent of the OS marketshare is WINDOWS XP.

That is exactly the point I was alluding to.
Businesses aren't going to swap to W8, just because you demand that they do.

I highly doubt many of the same programs that ran in Windows 7 won't run in 8. That is a random general assumption.

I never said that W7 programs wouldn't run in W8.

I specifically mentioned ""mission critical" software, which only runs on XP & IE6".

I've done three installs of Windows 8 Developer Preview on three separate systems, installed the same software as I usually do when I do 7 installs, and all but two programs didn't work. I've done two installs of the Consumer Preview on two separate systems. I haven't tested those two programs yet, but they might not still work. If I need those programs for whatever reason, Windows 8 offers Hyper-V built into the client to address that.

Programs I installed in W8 all worked the same as the W7 installs (except for my sound driver).

Even if some software doesn't work in 8 if it did in xp, Hyper-V is there. Even then, with a new OS upgrade, there is a chance to update or upgrade to different solutions. It sounds ridiculous to hinder an entire upgrade for the sake of one program.

It's ridiculous to disable equipment that literally makes millions of dollars/day (e.g. Oil rig equipment) just to play around with making it work in W8, using an XP VM.

Why spend millions of dollars upgrading computer equipment, just so that you can run XP in a VM on it, when the existing hardware already runs XP?

Some people (not you !!) I think just have their brains and vision limited by staring all day long into small Mobile phone screens and assuming if there isn't an app around then you are an old Technophobe who's afraid of upgrading.

Loads of EXPENSIVE equipment lasts years --I'm talking about highly specialized gear that often can cost 1000's or 100,000's of Dollars / Eur etc.

There is a HUGE amount of this type of legacy gear out there designed for W2K and XP that Still works fantastically well (on XP of course).

During the life cycle of the product (some of this equipment is often used for 20 - 30 years -- inconceivable to a lot of people these days brought up in the era of the "chuck it away and buy a new one" society) the manufacturer may well have gone out of business - and even if a new model is available that works on W7 the business can't afford the upgrade - and why should they if the gear still works properly.

Please note here I'm not talking about cheap printers, scanners, etc but highly specialized industrial grade equipment -- for example Blue print drawing equipment, Computerized cutting equipment, glass working gear, Oceanography gear, Oil rig equipment etc etc).

You are 100% correct.
Businesses don't throw away their working equipment, every six months, like some consumers do.

When I worked as a telecommunications technician, I literally had to work on 80+ year old switching equipment.
It was already installed, working and generating profits, therefore it wasn't replaced.

Equipment was only replaced, when it was deemed uneconomical to repair.

 

[gregrocker]

I agree that this new hybridized Start Screen looks like buttons in search of a touchscreen, but they also seem to want to sell apps similar to how Apple does.

Why the apps would be so terrible is beyond me. A few extra features to customize or Close (Hello?) the apps would have made them more palatable since the revolving-wall thing is decent. Isn't that exactly copied from Ipad, though?

 

[nitroman84]

I have came across an acceptable fix (in my opinion) for the lack of a real start menu.
This replacement works very well in win 8 and also captures the windows key input like God intended.

 

[gregrocker]

So you reinstall the 7 Start Menu?

The talk at MVP Global Summit in Seattle last week was that MS would have to add back in the Start Menu by the time of RTM.

But using it for awhile it becomes clear that Metro is simply a Start screen which you actually start on, for the purpose of using buttons. Toggling it with windows key is then no different than Start button, just unusual.

 

[nitroman84]

Yes reinstall the start menu, I realize that metro is windows half cocked desperate attempt to finally get into the mobile market. But it is in no way an acceptable start menu. I just won't take bright colorful things zipping around my screen like some sort of digital circus act. Now before we get into this old guy set in his ways scared of change talk again, keep in mind I am 28 years old. I love change when it is for the better, but this is just another marketing gimmick they expect everybody to swallow.

 

[monkeylove]

The most important aspects for me would be the boot up and shutdown speed, memory management, system stability, and program loading, etc., performance.