IDC: Happy Windows 7 PC Users Won't Switch To Windows 8

71

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Tickle

I have tried the developer preveiw. First problem, no "easy" way to shut down applications. Have to start good ole' task manager...kinda dumb. Second problem, shutting down the pc - most people wouldn't think of using ctrl-alt-del. Third problem....the quick boot up won't work on some machines since hibernate (sleep) isn't available/working. I have two machines that have motherboards that hang if put to sleep requiring me to remove the clock batteries and reset the bios and let it sit overnight (dunno why but it works) to get em to boot up again. Fourth problem - my PC is a PC not a #$%$%# android phone. Why would I want to scroll sideways forever to start a program when I can do the same with one to three mouse clicks? To sum up - I love Win XP and 7 - Win 8 is a no show for me. Wish I had the cash to upgrade my remaining XP machines to Win7.

avatar

derp

Simple add for shutdown: Right-click on desktop>New shortcut>location Shutdown -s -t 0 >name it whatever you want. Left-click on it and enjoy a very quick shutdown.

avatar

keyzs

many thanks to JohnP...

i poking around Win8 with some time to kill.... well the good news is that the Metro UI can be fully disabled using a simple REGEDIT. its not even a hack just a simple setting.

for all who wish to remove the METRO UI and use the accustomed Windows Desktop here's the REGEDIT

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer

set the RPEnabled key to 0

restart the computer and we'll get the standard Win7 and Vista desktop along with all the rest of the same UI stuff...

Cheers!!!

avatar

praack

it;s an os made for touch screen and tablets

it requires a hotmail (live account) to log in (something many people don not have) and goes off the idea of single sign in - if you trust MS to be secure enough with your details and data

The desktop is sort of compatable with mouse and keyboard - but face it - it is really set up for touch screen

nope- after using the dev build don't see it flying as a desktop/laptop build -and the desktop section is crippled since by default you are pushed to metro all the time.

most people will not want to have to mod the OS out of the box on a consumer desktop

avatar

AndroRabbit

 

Windows 7 is working great for me and finally gave me a way to eradicate all the XP versions and their boring and annoying problems.   7 is working fine.  

I tried the Windows 8 beta (yes, I tried and THEN decided) and I probably will keep trying them as new ones come out, however, it offers me nothing new that is also useful at the same time.  On the contrary, it changes enough things to make doing what I need or want to do more difficult than I want.  Maybe other people have time to spend learning over again how to do what they need to do.  Why should I bother when Windows 7 already does what I want the way I want?   I use a Mac too and it does what I want the way I want. and the same for my Android phone.  

Machines and UIs that don't work my way have no room in my computing world.  It's their loss, not mine.  

Oh wait.  The Windows 8 behind the scenes stuff is better.  Better than what works fine now?  That's about as useful as the label on a box of soap that says "New and improved!" without having to qualify how, or explaining how that means the stuff you've been buying wasn't actually all that great afterall.    Well, it's different.  I don't want different.  I want to do what I want to do and it honestly does not matter if the OS is Windows 7 or Android or MacOS or a Chromebook or something else.  

So no, I won't be jumping all over Windows 8.  MaxPC:with your zeal for latest and greatest, I know you will feature this OS is every single dream build in 2012.  Great.  10 years ago, you could have done the same thing with BeOS and where the hell would that have gotten you?  Cutting edge, you bet.  Off a cliff, you bet.   

 

avatar

Mysts

Personally, I love Windows 8. Ive been using Win 8 DP on my Girlfriends Laptop, using a few friends to be beta testers on their laptops. Plus I have my 50 year old mother using Windows 8.

Its truly wonderful, I love the boot up times. I am able to access the programs I use frequently much faster. The search is for a file is faster

It is tricky to navigate around, but any type of un traveled area is tricky to navigate around without a roadmap.

Lets see some of us go to a untraveled terrain, unknown area and see how well we can navigate ourselves withotu a field guide. Some wont make it, some will, some wont care. Point is.
For those who struggle with saying this is hard..Nothing is ever truly simple if you dont understand a basic concept with THAT specific item.

Windows 7: should be here to stay and remain in the business world as xp did for half the decade to longer.

Windows 8 will be nice for those of us who will want something other than an Ios, Android smartphone, tablet or mobile device.  THIS IS where Microsoft makes the break in the market industry. Im glad Ms is brining something to the table.
If they were not, id be worried.

 

avatar

JohnP

I agree totally. Win 8 is large step forward and is worthy of a Kick Ass award. By judging Win 8 solely on the Metro interface, folks are going to lose out on the best operating system MicroSoft has put out since Win95.

avatar

noobstix

I haven't been interested in Windows 8 ever since there was news about it.  In fact, I never even bothered to try it out.  I already made the jump from XP to 7.  I plan to hang on to Windows 7 for as close to 10 years as I can get.  Right now, Windows 7 has enough to keep me happy (faster boot and shutdown times, Aero, WEI, etc.).

avatar

keyzs

The only thing good going for Win8 is a better thread and process management. other than that its Win7 with some wiredly named UI. as is, Win7 is stable and good enough.... most softwares are still playing catch up....

if there is a way to rid that then maybe.... otherwise please teach me how to draw ACCURATELY using my fingers.

thanks!!

avatar

JohnP

Oh so wrong. As a poster said up above, Win 8 has  a LOT going for it. It is Win 7 slimmed down, sped up, and a joy to use. Boot times and program starts are so much faster that I gave my son my SSD drive as I didn't need it anymore. With a 2 minute to install hack, I skip the Metro interface entirely and have changed the start menu back to normal. Win 8 is  definite winner.

avatar

keyzs

thanks for the heads-up... :-)

i guess it'd be true that Win8 has an improved kernel.

hmmm.... perhaps over the coming holidays, i would look into removing the Metro UI, install some tools and see how it goes....

Cheers!!

avatar

maxeeemum

Yes I agree with most of you. I installed this on a old hard drive in a desktop PC and what a shock. What a POS OS! I couldn't figure out how to use it for about an hour and I have used Windows, Mac and Linux. I had to use another PC to Google all types of ways to hack it to work. The Metro GUI just sucks on a desktop PC.

On a desktop PC I would prefer XP over W8 DP as is.

I hear it works good on a tablet. But I don't want or need one. If MS puts this out as a one size fits all OS it will fail big time.

 

avatar

livebriand

The metro UI sucks. Behind the scenes, it's great.

avatar

znod

I really like 7 on my 2 desktops. I will have to like 8 a great deal before I go to the trouble of reinstalling these 2 machines (with two RAID 0's on 1 of them). I plan to install 8 on a decent, but older, laptop when the betas begin. I haven't used the developer version of 8 nor have I read much about this version, but as indicated I intend to try it. If I like 8, then I'll install it on Bootcamp partition of my main Mac laptop.

avatar

jawspinkid

The more I read about Windows 8, the more I want to move to a Mac. I've been happy with Windows since 1997. But with the changes I see, and since I'm a photographer, the software features and gestures built into OSX Lion & the trackpad look more appealing and productive to my workflow. I'll hang onto my Win 7 PC, and eventually switch to a Mac, and run a Virtual Win7 when I need to. I did take the preview for a test drive, and the whole look and feel of it seems like a step backward, and seems counter-productive to what I do on a PC.

avatar

DigitalNogi

I've had Windows 7 since it came out and I loved it over XP and much more over Vista. I've installed Windows 8 DP on my laptop and am loving it! However the real test is how it will work on my desktop and the four monitors.

avatar

HagarTheHorrible

Do you think that the crew in Redmond will actually listen to these rants?

avatar

Cregan89

Windows 8 Blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/

Read the articles and comments there and you'll see that the community is more involved with this version of Windows then any other version before it. They explain their reasoning behind every single design decision and change immaginable. They are of course still going after a very specific goal with Windows 8 though, so saying things like "Metro SUCKS!" is obviously going to get ignored as they're only interested in actually useful comments. 

avatar

HagarTheHorrible

I am a big a Microsoft fanboy as you can get, but I absolutely hated the Windows 8 preview. I have been beta testing since 2000 and this is the first Windows test platform that I have uninstalled.  The Metro interface works great on my Windows 7 phone, but on my desktop it sucks beyond belief.

avatar

Dartht33bagger

I've had no interest in Windows 8 ever since news started coming out about it.  It looks like a pointless upgrade and I'll be sticking with Windows 7.

avatar

CHR15x94

Same. Looked like a step backwards from Windows 7 really, especially as far as how it looked. Really seems more portable device oriented.

That being said I haven't tried the Developer's Preview, so I can't give a fair view of it. I also don't really like any of the OS's out there, whether it be Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, etc (haven't tried Haiuku/*BSD, so no comment on them). They all have their benefits and downfalls, but none of them really hit all of my wants and must haves. Windows (7) does come closest though.

I could go on about this, and the whole n00b friendly shift technology has taken in the past few years (things like the GNOME 2 vs 3 debate, iOS crap and what not.. bleh), but I won't. Don't want to bore anyone, lol.

Anyways, for me, Win8 looks like a no too.

avatar

HagarTheHorrible

Well said.

avatar

Wingzero_x

Microsoft needs to get those guys from Stardock to design a cutting edge UI for them!

avatar

Wingzero_x

Tried the Dev preview in Virtual Box, thought ugh, but thought maybe it would be better on hardware, installed on laptop with AMD e350 Fusion APU, still not feeling it, and then I decided that maybe going as far as Microsoft wants so I spent $350 on a multi-touch monitor, and... And well let's just say Windows 7 will be staying on my systems for a while. 

Some of the issues I had:

The main thing, clicking the start menu and returning to the Metro interface! Which I guess is the new start menu.

Side scrolling a half mile to get to the application icon, so I can launch it.

Now I do like the boot times in 8, though one problem is that works by putting the computer to hibernation, and if you have an SSD that file can take up a lot of real estate, but perhaps by it's release SSDs will be so cheap it won't matter.

avatar

markly86

Windows 4 (ME) sucks

Windows 5 (XP) good

Windows 6 (Vista) sucks

Windows 7 (7) good

Windows 8 (8) ?

Anyone see the pattern here?  I will wait for the odd numbered OS.

avatar

Slugbait

Windows 4 was also 95 and 98. WinME was only the final point release.

Windows 5 was Win2K. XP is a point release, version 5.1.

Windows 7 is also a point release, version 6.1.

And there are some people who enjoyed a couple of the odd-numbered Star Trek movies.

avatar

Cregan89

The only reason Windows Vista "sucked" was because they significantly changed the OS's driver and application model to more modern programming conventions in the name of security, stability, and scalability. For that reason, upon it's release, most people's existing hardware and software had compatibility issues.

The only reason Windows 7 was a success was because it was based on the same driver and application model as Windows Vista, and Windows Vista had already paved the way, forcing developers and hardware manufactures to get over the intial compatibility and stability hurdles. Had Windows 7 been released in Windows Vista's place, I guarantee you it would have been considered a "flop" as well.

Windows Vista's failure had nothing to do with the quality of the product as a whole. 

avatar

livebriand

From what I've seen so far, if I am not allowed to do registry tweaks, Vista SP2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Windows 8.

avatar

Cregan89

First of all, it's pre-beta software. I've seen some of the leaked builds of Windows 8 that have come out after the developer preview and they have some significant changes to the Metro interface. When it comes out in beta, why don't you just give it a chance and then provide Microsoft with some valuable insight instead of just making useless comments?

And secondly, the desktop is still there... And there's some significant improvements in it over Windows 7. The "Start" menu isn't intended to be used very often. It's assumed that your freuently used desktop applications will be pinned to the taskbar anyways.  

avatar

Vano

As far as I remember XP had even more problems with drivers then Vista, yet it caught up to the most popular MS OS. Vista on other hand never had a chance.

avatar

DoctorX

wrong... thank you for playing... try again... Vista was a flop due to the high system requirements and the gross instablility. Vista64 wasnt that bad... but not that good either.  Windows 7 in beta form was much better stability and speed wise than vista on the same hardware. Vista had significant problems that took to sp2 to get fixed.  By then, everyone was ready to move on or stay with xp.

avatar

Cregan89

 

"Vista was a flop due to the high system requirements"
Yes, and Windows 7 has the EXACT same system requirements as Windows Vista.

 "Vista64 wasn’t that bad"
This further proves my point actually. The reason Vista64 was better than 32 is because you can't run unsigned kernel level drivers in 64. This meant that at launch 64bit Vista drivers were generally more stable.

"Windows 7 in beta form was much better stability and speed wise than vista on the same hardware."
Speed wise yes, Windows 7 definitely has performance improvements over Vista, but these were hardly the reason for Vista's failure. Vista's failure was caused by it's stability issues, like you said. BUT, Vista's stability issues were not actually Vista's fault. They were poor quality 3rd party drivers and applications fault.

"Vista had significant problems that took to sp2 to get fixed."
Besides a select few very specific issues, sp2 didn't fix any of Vista's stability issues. What fixed Vista's stability issues were newer drivers and applications written for Vista's new architecture. I guarantee you, go install pre-Vista drivers and pre-Vista software on a Windows 7 machine and you'll see the exact same problems. Vista was just a bit ahead of it's time. Lower-powered system's of the time struggled to keep up, especially when loaded with extra factory crapware, and drivers and applications weren't ready for Vista when it was first released. It got a bad name out of the gate, and everybody just talked shit about it. But from an engineering standpoint, it was a fantastic OS. I'm not saying that Windows 7 isn't better, I'm just saying that Windows 7 could never have been as successful as it is without Windows Vista. And even though the general population will always believe that Windows Vista "sucked", those with any software engineering or OS design background know that architecturally, Vista was the reason that Windows 7 was so successful.

 

avatar

burntham77

Well put. I really enjoyed Vista and had almost no issues. My wife had an older digital audio recorder so I put her on 32-bit Vista, but that was it. I had Vista x64 on my PC and an HTPC and our roomie had Vista x64 on his main gaming rig, and we all loved it. When people say "Vista sucks" they just show they are not technically savvy.

As for Windows 8, I would like to see them finally ditch 32-bit. I think it's time. We've had two solid 64-bit versions of Windows to get acclimated. Time to let 32-bit go.

avatar

KidCurry

*

avatar

bloodgain

I will probably pass on Win8 and wait for Win9. I get the feeling that Win8 is going to be the traditional incremental/experimental tick before the major upgrade tock of Win9. There will be a lot of good ideas that aren't that well executed, and several things that people will hate or find very annoying. In Win9, they'll fix the broken good ideas and offer alternatives to the annoying features -- along with something in the back end, like a working version of a new indexed file system.

Oh, and maybe in Win9, they'll finally drop the 32-bit versions. It's time to force people to run a 64-bit OS.

avatar

burntham77

As much as I want to like Windows 8, and there are some cool features, I think you're right. It's just too bold a step. I'll probably get it because I'm just that kind of tech guy, but I am expecting it to be an odd experience, or the Metro interface will only be seen by me for a few seconds, then I'll click on the desktop and get to playing games or downloading pictures of Ewa Sonnet or some such person.

avatar

igoka

Well first of all like other commenters already mentioned there is not big difference between win7 and win8. I mean inside it feels like win7.

Second : I don't like metro-screen on start up. Huge tiles are designed for fingers , not mouse.

Third : office like ribbon in explorer.

Fourth : Is it just my PC but there is something that pissed me when i was using it , I actually couldn't turn it off. No seriously. I coudn't find shutdown button not in metro screen not in login screen. I had to hold power button for 10 sec to turn it off. I mean for tablets it's ok , not for PCs unless MS assumes that PC users gonna use standby.

I'm gonna wait and see but for right now I don't see a single reason to switch.

" Don't fix it if it is not broken " Old saying.

avatar

ZayLay

Took me longer than i would have liked to find it, feels like i'm trying to use windows with my hands tied behind my back.  Shut Down & Sleep & Restart are now burried in the Start > Settings screen shows you the standard on/off button when clicked finally gives you your options you seek.

P.S. Love the TaskManager

avatar

Alex_2.1

I tried the developer preview, and I was not impressed. I will have to force myselft to use it though, just so I know how it works when someone comes to me with a problem. I'll probably just put it on a laptop and use it around the house. Sticking with 7 on my main system!

avatar

zeroibis

I am very interested in the faster boot times which really help as I can not do anything to speed up the load time for my RAID arrays. Even now it takes twice as long to get windows to start loading as it does to load. However if I greatly reduced the windows load time I could get my boot time to 30seconds or so!

The real problem is all the bad parts of windows 8 which are the bad ui changes. Luckily you can disable those, similar to what I did with the crap they tried pulling in windows 7. The only UI change that may be good is the startmenu it really is a pain to get that thing organized. I am also a fan of the lower weight of the os. Lastly I think they way they are dealing with system backups and restores will make life a lot easier fixing registries that have crapped out.

avatar

stradric

I'm not willing to call this another Vista yet.  I have the dev preview, but it's not actually Windows 8.  It's basically a reskinned Windows 7 so that developers can play around with the new start menu's HTML5 applets and what not.  I am a fan of the Ribbon interface as well, and always have been.  Some people just like to be cranks and can't embrace change even when it increases efficiency.

As far as upgrading, I can't say yet.  I'm certainly not thrilled about redoing my system where Windows 7 has been running pretty rock solid for a few years now.

Having said that, if I take the tablet plunge, Windows 8 will be a very welcome alternative to the comparatively gimped iOS and Android options.

avatar

TommM

" Some people just like to be cranks and can't embrace change even when it increases efficiency."

Explain to me how being forced to click through several different icon menus that are taking up 1/5 of your screen to get what you want as opposed to using keyboard shutcuts as used in the older UI's is "increasing efficiency?"

avatar

Cregan89

@TommM

Everything in the Ribbon UI is a maximum of 2 clicks away. The Ribbon UI can also be hidden to use even less space then the old interface. It also includes all of the exact same keyboard shortcuts from the old interface and adds even more shortcuts, and also makes it way easier to visualize which keyboard shortcuts link to which function. 

avatar

TommM

Sorry Cregan89, but it most certainly does not use all of the same keyboard commands as the old interface.  You still have the generic print, copy, paste keyboard commands, but when you get down to more unusual commands like Alt+F+N for a new document, it just drops you into a whole new array of icon menus.  When the first ribbon UI showed up in 2007 it took me several days to rediscover which keyboard commands still worked and which didn't.  In the meantime, forced to use the ribbon UI

Sure, you can hide the ribbon UI, but you still have to scroll your mouse to the top of the page to drop it back down.

Bottom line, the ribbon UI creates a lot more work and takes up more desktop space than the old UI.

avatar

Cregan89

I was referring to Windows Explorer, in which case every single keyboard shortcut from Windows 7 absolutely does exist in Windows 8. Plus a whole bunch of new ones.

I don't know about Office because I rarely ever used keyboard shortcuts before Office 2007 because there was no obvious way to see what keyboard shortcuts were available. But considering you chose the example Alt+F+N which instead of creating a new blank document like in Office 2003 adds one additional "template" menu in Office 2010, making the direct translation Alt+F+N+N (hardly difficult to figure out), I'm going to assume most other keyboard shortcut variations between Office 2003 and Office 2010 are similarly minor.

And one of the major positives of the Ribbon UI is the fact that by pressing Alt, you get an overlay of all the available keyboard shortcut combinations over the corresponding functions. This makes learning the keyboard shortcuts trivial. If it took you several days to make the connection between an image of a letter on your screen and the corresponding key on your keyboard, well then you're just an idiot. Is that image an x-ray of yourself by any chance?

"Sure, you can hide the ribbon UI, but you still have to scroll your mouse to the top of the page to drop it back down."
I don't really understand this argument? When the Ribbon UI is hidden it is literally exactly the same as the old "File/Edit/etc." drop down menu interface, except that the items within the menus make better use of modern widescreen screen real-estate, and the items have a more obvious graphical component to them. In the old drop down interface you had to scroll your mouse to the top of the page to drop the menu down also. So how is this any less efficient?

Bottom line, you have still failed to provide and credible evidence that the Ribbon UI creates any more work (other then the relatively quick initial learning curve) and takes up more desktop space than the old UI.

avatar

KidCurry

 

I was an avid keyboarder prior to the ribbon and much of it in Office.  Let me put things into perspective ... I'm now 52 and used to provide technical support for Microsoft prior to Windows 95 (Windows 3.X and MS-DOS).  I was ready to strangle the person who thought the ribbon was a great idea, but I assumed at the time that the majority of users liked it because all they knew was the mouse.  I chose (in time) to accept and work with the ribbon because I figured that if I learned the new keystrokes, they would again change one day or be eliminated.  Sometimes it's easier to just go with the flow.  @TommM has just as valid a point as you do.  The problem is that our experiences are completely different and our reasons for liking something or hating it are the result of those experiences.  @TommM doesn't have to provide "credible evidence" to you to make his point meaningful and valid.

 

avatar

Cregan89

But my whole point was that the keyboard shortcuts never changed, or if they did it was very slight! (I'm going off of his example so feel free to prove me wrong) And the Ribbon UI is intuitive in that (using his example) if you used the old Alt+F+N shortcut with the Ribbon UI, it actually overlayed the next key combination on the function so that you could never possibly miss it!

And what I meant by "credible evidence" was that he couldn't provide a single argument that I can't completely discredit. I stand by my stance that the Ribbon UI is superior to the old interface in every way possible. I've proven this to at least 10 people in person time and time again. I've literally heard every single argument against the Ribbon UI and every single on of them is based on pure ignorance. People are just "fighting" with it because they refuse to accept change, even if it's for the better. And that's fine, if you're happy with the way the old version of the software works then by all means stick with it. But you can't get angry at a software company for progressing their interface in new versions. It's ridiculous. After I've sat down and argued my case for the Ribbon UI with every single person who has complained about it to me, and I actually show it to them in use, and force them to actually TRY IT, they agree that it's better every single time.

The thing that bugs me the most about it, is that it's virtually identical to the old interface, just with better labelling, grouping and hierarchy. How can you possibly complain about making it easier to find a specific function?! And every single function is a MAXIMUM of 2 clicks away! And if there's a function where 2 clicks is too many, you can pin it to the favourite's bar! And if you argue that it waste's space (I think it's an extra like 40 pixels or something larger than the old interface), then you can set it to autohide, at which point you actually GAIN space!

Sorry for the rant, and I understand people's problem with it, they don't want to relearn what they already knew. But to claim that it's less efficient than the old interface is flat out incorrect. 

avatar

KidCurry

I've never felt that it's less efficient as a general rule.  I'll even go so far as to say that it's incredibly versatile compared to the old menu structure.  The problem was that it was a major change for me (and obviously others).  I was in my late 40's and was quite comfortable with the status-quo.  It worked for me and I was in no mood to learn something new.

I even went so far as trying other Office-like products thinking that if I was going to have to re-learn something it might as well be something that didn't support Microsoft's deep pockets.  In the end, I came back to Microsoft because there was always something about the other products that just didn't cut it for me.  I guess you could read between the lines and suggest that that means Microsoft has a superior product, but in the end it really depends on the user.  It's no different than thinking you're attractive when "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

I've since begrudgingly become more of a mouse person and am SLOWLY learning some of the features of the ribbon, but it's been over four years now.  I fear that by the time I get the ribbon down pat, some young engineer will come along and think of something better.  I guess in hindsight maybe my time would have been better spent picking up a copy of "Ribbon for Dummies" and just sucking it up.

My point to all this is that we all have our own perceptions and our own realities.  In this case, I think it's pointless to argue efficiency.  I prefer to give some users room for disagreement.  The introduction of the ribbon left a bad taste in my mouth and it's taken four years for me to now accept it for what it is ... a very versatile tool.  I fully understand @TommM's take and opinion and I personally think there's room for his perception/reality and yours.

Thanks for the exchange!

avatar

gatorXXX

I might buy it and a 1TB HDD (cause it's cheap) and use my Rosewell sata dock to boot it from to play around with. But under no circumstances will I use it to replace Win7. It's too.....too....metro style for me cause I isn't metro sexual if you know what I mean.

I bet when this get's outed, MS will have commercials (like the new apple ipod commercials) that have a bunch of dorks....er....kids running around in those stupid dumb ass skinny jeans singing the bubble gum song jumping up and down like doorknobs while playing with a Win8 tablet...... 

avatar

JDHatman

I'll set up a dual boot with it, or I guess triple boot since I already have Ubuntu on it.  I'll disable Metro and see how I like it.  Definitely not giving up my Win 7 install without first giving the full Win 8 release a lengthy test run.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.