Consumer Reports: Just Stick with Windows 7 For Now

[oldboy2508]

MY feeling is the classic "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". Staying with Win 7. For my uses there is no reason to upgrade.

 

[jazz84]

...-but eventually the new Windows will be unavoidable.

Wow, what a depressingly fatalistic and cynical assertion. I completely disagree not only with the wording itself, but with the overall implication: that consumers should just accept whatever crap is fed to them and move on. Look, Ballmer's (allegedly) already on the rocks if 8 fails, and that in and of itself should show that consumers speaking with their wallets will eventually be listened to if enough of us do so together. Yeah, people can get their classic desktop back relatively easily, but MS has gone out of their way to prevent this, instead trying to force everyone into what Microsoft just happens to think is the "wave of the future." Whether the consumer backlash is sensible or not is a subjective judgment, but the backlash is there nonetheless and any company worth its salt should respond appropriately to such backlash in a way that will satisfy their market (and therefore the shareholders). If the majority of the market rejects "the new Windows," then by no means should it be unavoidable.

 

[twelve25]

The biggest problem with Windows 8 is that even someone who has been using Windows for 15 years will have no idea how to even close an application, shut down the computer, find the start menu, etc. They are all hidden in secret corners where you have to luck upon them. My parents (Mom has worked with computers for 30 years) just got a windows 8 PC and I had to go install a VM of Win8 so I could help them with basic tasks. If they had got Windows 7 instead, then upgrading from XP would have been a breeze. Who the F know to hover your mouse on the top right corner to see a special menu by default? It's even a bit of a guessing game on how to get the initial screen with the pretty picture to flip up and display your login prompt.

I think the only answer is the ability to restore the classic start menu and kill tablet interface if you are on a non-touch-screen device. Tablet (Metro) should be optional, not forced.

The fact that people who support computers for a living have to look up guides on how to even shut down the computer or do a search means it is a major interface fail.

 

[Darkpriest667]

CR has no idea what they're talking about.

Hate to break the news to everyone that has no idea what's going on but the security and the memory management alone are reason enough for most users to upgrade to windows 8.

 

[Learn_w_Graffix]

I recently spent a few hours trying to "fix" Windows 8 on a relative's laptop. (The auto update had failed and was in a repeat loop that, supposedly, gives up after 3 failures, each of which takes considerable time.) I thought launching programs was easy enough. Screen behavior was inconsistent (the Windows key switched to more of a “classic” view sometimes, but not always). However, doing admin tasks and configuring was not at all intuitive. I found Control Panel only by typing "?" then "Control Panel" from the home screen (no dialog box to type “?”—just start typing). Finding configuration and settings screens and boxes never seemed to be the same way twice in a row. Good luck on changing Internet Options (it can be done, but I’ll leave that to the Indiana Jones in you to find out how). I appreciate that R&D went into Windows 8, but didn’t R&D go into Windows 95 through 7? Or was the start button and programs listing all a lucky guess? Or was it only preferable for 50.0001% of the population, and, since the last few geniuses were born, it’s now preferable for only 49.0009% of the population? Or is the new format all a ploy to get people to purchase more apps, as killerclick suggested above? I don’t know, but my overall impression is to stick with Windows 7. (If you really want to take time to “explore” an OS just to get it set up, why not spend your time on Linux?)

 

[jazz84]

[citation][nom]Darkpriest667[/nom]CR has no idea what they're talking about. Hate to break the news to everyone that has no idea what's going on but the security and the memory management alone are reason enough for most users to upgrade to windows 8.[/citation]

This is true, but how many average users will even take this into consideration? The vast majority of the computer-using public isn't nearly as tech-savvy as, say, your average Tom's reader. They're looking for a consistent and reliable user experience at the interface level and rarely give a second thought to under-the-hood improvements (regardless of how beneficial those improvements may actually be). The Dead Kennedys put it best with the classic album title, "Give me convenience, or give me death!"


EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not condoning the lazy mentality of the average consumer when it comes to making ANY effort to understand what they're buying / using; I'm just pointing it out.

 

[doct3rphil]

[citation][nom]Darkpriest667[/nom]CR has no idea what they're talking about. Hate to break the news to everyone that has no idea what's going on but the security and the memory management alone are reason enough for most users to upgrade to windows 8.[/citation]

Exactly this statement is just plain wrong: "If you've been happy with Windows 7 and even Windows XP up until now, there's no compelling reason to switch to Windows 8."

I could agree with Windows 7, if they said fewer reasons to upgrade, but to say no compelling reason to upgrade from XP?!?! are they nuts. A decade old OS is going to be as secure from malware as a modern OS?

 

[teh_chem]

The first argument in the original article of "if it ain't broke" is where I stopped taking this person seriously.

Windows XP wasn't "broke," so by her argument, we should all be on XP still. Yet Windows 7 was a significant upgrade from XP. Windows 8 does offer significant system resource usage efficiency upgrades from even Windows 7. The only stumbling block is its change in UI, and people not really giving it a shot before making a judgement.

There's nothing inherently different in Windows 8, other than its UI. The issues and perceived flaws of Windows 8 are mainly held by people who are resistant to change or didn't even try using it.

On the other hand, I agree Windows 7 is just fine. At this time, I have no desire or motivation to upgrade my home systems to Windows 8 after using it, but I have no issues with using Windows 8 either. But there's nothing inherently wrong with it that an overwhelming majority of consumers couldn't use it. Vista was much more of a nightmare than this. The people speaking out so much about this are likely the ones that looked at it and probably never tried to use it for any given amount of time.

 

[acadia11]

So this is vista all over again, let me know when windows 9 is ready.

 

[antilycus]

Just because their is a new version of something out doesn't mean it's better
Microsoft is a software company. They want you to buy their product. Of course they will tell you it's better. it's not. it's a slap in the face of typical, common, people that don't read this website, users. WIN8 is crap. It's kernel is slow, it's memory management sucks(just like all version of windows) and it's thread management is sub par. (so is Apple for that manner). If you want something different, don't spend a dollar and get a Linux (Ubuntu or Debian) desktop. All updates are free and there is more free support out there for Linux than any other operating system.

There is absolutely no need for WIN8 in the work place (nor is there for server 2012 or 2011 sbs) and it will be at least 15 years before anyone even thinks (if ever) of changing desktop interfaces for teh end user. If you refuse to see this you are simply in denial. Just because it's new doesn't mean its good.

Win Vista got such a bad rap because microsoft pushed it to the masses. driver support was nowhere to be found, but end users had no choice. Hate to braek this to you but all Win7 (and win 8) are is the WINDOWS VISTA KERNEL tweaked a bit. WIN 7 took out a lot fo the crap and WIN8 didn't change much either. So why is the this a superior os? Because you can run DX11.1...nope,nobody cares.

 

[antilycus]

IF you dislike WIN VISTA, you should dislike WIN 7. Pretty much the exact same operating system. Win8...different interfaces, same operating system.

 

[twelve25]

There's nothing inherently different in Windows 8, other than its UI. The issues and perceived flaws of Windows 8 are mainly held by people who are resistant to change or didn't even try using it.
.

Suppose I put you in a car with no steering wheel and said "c'mon, there's nothing inherently different about this car other than the UI". It would be true, but that doesn't mean you'll like it.

 

[twelve25]

IF you dislike WIN VISTA, you should dislike WIN 7. Pretty much the exact same operating system. Win8...different interfaces, same operating system.

And a donkey is pretty much a horse, right?

 

[mcd023]

I know taters and gonna tate and gonna tate all over the place, but I'm really liking W8. Yes, I know I don't sit and stare at the start screen for hours like ppl seem to imply the purpose of it is for. I do occasionally use metro apps on the desktop, mostly the normal desktop. So, I'm defending it and I think MS is going in the right direction. Ppl flipped when MS changed things by adding a start button and they're flipping out again.

Though, maybe I don't care as much, since I've always started by programs by either Win + type + enter or right click on open app icon to launch a new window.

At first, I didn't like it. Now, I don't like going back.

 

[teh_chem]

[citation][nom]Twelve25[/nom]Suppose I put you in a car with no steering wheel and said "c'mon, there's nothing inherently different about this car other than the UI". It would be true, but that doesn't mean you'll like it.[/citation]
And I'd probably be able to intuitively figure out how to use the car, much like how you can figure out how to use windows 8.

I can never get over the hypocrisy of people who continually cry out for new things, yet have a panic attack if it looks just slightly different, and then then it's met with resistance. Maybe, just maybe, sometimes the way things have always been done aren't necessarily the best or easiest way. It's just the way that people got used to doing things. Why don't we just go back to command line interfaces entirely?

 

[cRACKmONKEY421]

I agree with the title of this article. I've been using Windows 8 for a while now, and even if I don't consider the new UI at all, I can't say it's a whole lot better. The idea that the metro UI is a complete replacement for the desktop is just a joke. It's really not all that bad though if you just use the start page the exact same way you would use a start menu. It's sufficient enough to quickly run or search for desktop applications, and it runs all the desktop applications with just a click. If I boot from my desktop, I'm a double-click away from Chrome, yet if I boot to metro start page, I'm a single-click away from Chrome. Not a big difference in my book. Not enough for me to bitch about it, but certainly not enough for me to recommend everyone go out and upgrade.

 

[Guest]

Bottom line is Im keeping 7. Dont need or want 8 on my pc.

 

[jnjkele]

The irony in the community response should not be lost on those that remember the introduction of Windows95. People ridiculed and complained (anyone remember the classic complaint "why do I have to use the 'start' menu to shut down my computer?") the last time MS decided to take UI technology in a different direction from what had been seen in the prior 10 years of computing. Now, MS removes the much maligned start menu 17 years later and there's practially an internet revolt with millions of users recommending to stay away from Win8. These are probably the folks that would've said 'bwaaa - why the start menu, nothing is wrong with Win3.11! I want my program groups back!"

MS is envinsioning a different way to interact with your PC that takes cues from the mobile world in terms of how you use and interact with applications. Basically they took the un-organized and painful to navigate start menu and pasted it all over your desktop such that you can actually find and launch apps that you use frequently, and do so conveniently without wading through the start menu every time. If you don't like the start screen, drop into desktop and sleep your computer from there. I've been on Win8 for two months and the only time I see the start screen is when I want to or when I have to fully reboot from updates. Otherwise it comes out of sleep mode in the desktop, no buggy 3rd party apps required. I hated it too until I grasped the concepts behind Win8, and actually gave it a chance. Guess what? It's actually easier to use than the beloved start menu, and it has a lot of security and performance improvements to boot.

 

[MarioJP]

Wow never knew this issue was going to be this big. See this is why i find tablets and smartphones more interactive than a desktop computer. Sure people don't like change and i understand that. But lets be honest here. We cannot be relying on the same interface forever. Heck some Linux distro does not have a start menu yet people don't complain about it but i respect change. Reason why i jump to windows 8 is due to the app store and some of these apps are more interactive than most desktop applications. So should Microsoft stop making software and everyone switch back on xp and let it stay forever. no new changes while the rest of the world like Apple, Google and other companies keep on thriving??. This whole argument is about the user interface but performance wise and better memory management and even the filesystem is 10x better than 7. Windows 7 is a good OS and no need to upgrade to 8 if you don't like the new trend and "Apps". I personally like the Apps that is no longer exclusive to tablets and phones. That is a big changer. Why?? because you never see a desktop version of some of these good apps that were for tablets and phone. I can name a few that made it easier for me. Instead of going to Amazon using a web browser i can now use the Amazon App which feels tightly integrated with the system. Your browser has no way of doing this. Its not about whats "not broken don't fix it" its about progress. I am sure the desktop is not going anywhere anytime soon but will it be around in the next 5-10 years later when your tablet and phones have become so powerful enough to outspace consoles. And i don't mean that desktop is gone gone. More like rename or "file manager or explorer" something like that. I am truly trying to understand what is the h8 going on. Been using windows 8 for awhile. Like i said i upgraded because of the App store. Something that 7 does not support.

 

[hate machine]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]The only thing Windows 8 has over Windows 7 is faster boot time, and that's only noticeable if you use a spinning disk as a boot drive.[/citation]

Negative, use a Crucial M4. Windows 7 booted before the colors came together. Like 5-6 seconds. Windows 8 boots the second the new blue windows logo appears. It is literally instantaneous. Outside of that its easier on memory and every UI element populates much more quicker. Windows 8 is amazing and unfortunatley I have to wait 1 more month for our Corporate Windows 8 Enterprise Image to arrive at work. Going back to 7 is such a drag.

 

[computerguy72]

I just don't get most of the criticism.
People keep focusing on the start 'menu' vs. the start 'button'. Access to the start menu from the desktop is only moved like 3 pixels from where the start 'button' was. Effectively some people are asking that they add a 'target' for them to aim at like the start button. Function of the start menu is easier and better than the start button in every way I can think of. My own start button program file list had gotten ridiculous to say the least with stuff that stretched back many years. The start 'Menu' is 1000x more organized. You can even uninstall 'old' windows software from their tile which previously required the developer to add an uninstall shortcut or you find it in programs in the control panel to get rid of it. 99.9% of my apps are things like photoshop, vlc, some games etc.. and getting to them to run them is faster and easier.

I laugh when I read you can't boot into the desktop as a complaint. When you boot in win8 it's almost like you boot with the start 'button' clicked with the menu's exposed. You can instantly hit the desktop just by moving the mouse to the upper left corner and clicking. Literally .01 seconds and you are there.

Also people seem to think that's the only thing that is different. USB 3.0 native support, win8 has vastly better file copy functionality like auto-resuming big copies that you have to pause, the recovery tools are massively better than win7, windows refresh is far superior to doing it in windows 7 with SFC, anti-virus is included finally, the task manager is vastly improved, device driver handling is obviously improved. Most reviews including here at Toms showed win8 performance is equal or slightly better in all the tests.

Most of the criticism of Vista was valid and had direct technical merit. GDI memory being double allocated in many cases, inferior performance almost across the board, lots of technical issues that in some cases were rather fundamental. With win8 it seems some people are relegated to the start menu is 3 pixels from where the start button was and doesn't have a target for them to aim and it requires .01 seconds after boot to get to the desktop. Stuff like "I don't care it's 5% faster but the damn start button is missing" is just silly...

 

[jazz84]

Wow never knew this issue was going to be this big. See this is why i find tablets and smartphones more interactive than a desktop computer. Sure people don't like change and i understand that. But lets be honest here. We cannot be relying on the same interface forever. Heck some Linux distro does not have a start menu yet people don't complain about it but i respect change. Reason why i jump to windows 8 is due to the app store and some of these apps are more interactive than most desktop applications. So should Microsoft stop making software and everyone switch back on xp and let it stay forever. no new changes while the rest of the world like Apple, Google and other companies keep on thriving??. This whole argument is about the user interface but performance wise and better memory management and even the filesystem is 10x better than 7. Windows 7 is a good OS and no need to upgrade to 8 if you don't like the new trend and "Apps". I personally like the Apps that is no longer exclusive to tablets and phones. That is a big changer. Why?? because you never see a desktop version of some of these good apps that were for tablets and phone. I can name a few that made it easier for me. Instead of going to Amazon using a web browser i can now use the Amazon App which feels tightly integrated with the system. Your browser has no way of doing this. Its not about whats "not broken don't fix it" its about progress. I am sure the desktop is not going anywhere anytime soon but will it be around in the next 5-10 years later when your tablet and phones have become so powerful enough to outspace consoles. And i don't mean that desktop is gone gone. More like rename or "file manager or explorer" something like that. I am truly trying to understand what is the h8 going on. Been using windows 8 for awhile. Like i said i upgraded because of the App store. Something that 7 does not support.

Yes it's about progress, but progress from who's perspective? MS would have had a MUCH easier sell here if, instead of trying to force their userbase to use an unfamiliar GUI, they kept the interface everyone has grown used to and instead tried to better educate consumers about why the "under-the-hood" improvements matter to them. It should be no different from how the auto industry has educated consumers about even basic concepts of performance and efficiency alongside aesthetics. Where Microsoft screwed themselves here is that the Metro / Modern / Whatever-they-call-it-next UI is something they pushed out primarily for their OWN benefit, not that of their consumers. The mentality was essentially, "We have plans for a new ecosystem that will span across multiple device types, including our own touch-based hardware that we want to sell. Customers will eventually adjust around us whether they like it or not; we know better than they do." This is evident in their specific removal of the registy "hack" that allowed users to default to the original interface. They have actively taken steps to prevent consumers from using their computers in the way to which they've grown accustomed since Windows 95. Basically, instead of looking at what the market is demanding, Microsoft is trying to tell the market what Microsoft believes they should be demanding.

 

[MarioJP]

Hey everyone lets just go back to XP and pretend Vista and 7 never took place. After all the desktop should stay the same to please these people. We don't need change. Whats that gizmo you are carrying in your hand I don't like it *clings on Pentium 3 PC*

 

[killerb255]

Like I said when commenting on the Ballmer article:

The thing is, Microsoft was desperate for mobile share. They figured "What better way to get more mobile share than to shove the mobile interface on the product that we've penetrated the most: PCs?" I think they should have thought it through more because even Windows PHONE 7/8's interface is better than Windows 8's start screen! At least on WP7/WP8, installing an app doesn't automatically throw it on the main screen. Installing ANYTHING in Windows 8 results in it being thrown on the start screen, resulting in a big cluster****!

To summarize, these are the issues with Windows 8:
1) It succeeds Windows 7. If it succeeded Vista, or even XP, it'd probably do better.
2) It's not intuitive. The hot corners don't exactly stick out to the Average Joe.
3) It's schizophrenic. Having two different interfaces confuses people. The Desktop is not good for touch screens and the Start screen is not as good for point-and-click (granted it's adaptable, but still, it's not intuitive).
4) The issue I mentioned before this list: putting everything on the Start screen makes it a cluster****.
5) Those that don't like Apple's walled-garden model don't take lightly to the Start screen.
6) Not enough new touch screened PCs with Windows 8. Often I walk into a Micro Center or Best Buy and see people poke at the screens only to complain that "it's not working!" Touch screens are expensive right now.
7) Windows RT vs Windows 8. Too much confusion. This didn't happen nearly as much with x86 vs x64, as the WOW6432 layer in x64 Windows is EXCELLENT! There is NO backward compatibility in Windows for ARM (I'm not sure if it's feasible, though, as they could end up with terrible compatibility a la Itanium).

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I didn't need Consumer Reports to tell me this. Sticking with Windows 7 was the plan until SP1 for Windows 8 arrives. If SP1 adds functionality for a start menu and boot to desktop like we've been use to since Windows 95, then I'll buy it.