Does anyone prefer Windows 8?

[kol12]

I'm just curious as I've installed Windows 10 on a laptop but I'm hesitant about on my machine as I actually really prefer the start menu in Windows 8 (the full screen app page etc.) I find it much easier to find my apps rather than scrolling through the older smaller start menu they've brought back to 10. I wish and am surprised that they didn't make an option to switch to the Win 8 style start menu in Win 10. If they had I would probably upgrade. I suppose eventually you will have to run Win 10, hopefully by then there might be enough support to implement the Win 8 style start menu back as an option?

 

[Colif]

why not run in tablet mode?

http://www.howtogeek.com/221973/what-is-tablet-mode-in-windows-10-and-how-to-turn-it-on-and-off/

 

[notuptome2004]

I'm just curious as I've installed Windows 10 on a laptop but I'm hesitant about on my machine as I actually really prefer the start menu in Windows 8 (the full screen app page etc.) I find it much easier to find my apps rather than scrolling through the older smaller start menu they've brought back to 10. I wish and am surprised that they didn't make an option to switch to the Win 8 style start menu in Win 10. If they had I would probably upgrade. I suppose eventually you will have to run Win 10, hopefully by then there might be enough support to implement the Win 8 style start menu back as an option?

you can turn on tablet mode in windows 10 to give you a more full screen setup just click on the notification icon and click tablet mode. but yea not many like windows 8.1 look and feel not many but some do and windows 10 has many benfites over windows 8/8.1 so it is a must upgrade

 

[Hlsgsz]

I'm just curious as I've installed Windows 10 on a laptop but I'm hesitant about on my machine as I actually really prefer the start menu in Windows 8 (the full screen app page etc.) I find it much easier to find my apps rather than scrolling through the older smaller start menu they've brought back to 10. I wish and am surprised that they didn't make an option to switch to the Win 8 style start menu in Win 10. If they had I would probably upgrade. I suppose eventually you will have to run Win 10, hopefully by then there might be enough support to implement the Win 8 style start menu back as an option?

There is an option for that, and you don't need to go into tablet mode: just go to settings > personalization > start and toggle "use start full screen"
And, yes, 10 is a worthy upgrade for what's "under the hood".

 

[TbsToy]

No, no one prefers 8 to 10. It is 2016.
W.P.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

10 is certainly not a must upgrade. For those who actually used and liked Windows 8, tablet mode in Windows 10 is still far behind. Why on earth would I want to ditch the desktop? Why would I want to hide my programs, or subject myself to any of the other irrational nuisances that are built into tablet mode? Non-tablet mode 10 is more useful, even on sub 8" tablets. There is no reason that tablet mode in 10 shouldn't just put back the Windows 8 interface, and plenty of folks have asked for this through the feedback app. Even the way touch is handled in Windows 10, in both accuracy and with gestures and screen edge detection, which one would think wouldn't have had to change, is inferior in Windows 10. For those promoting the speed improvements in 10, 10 is actually slower than 8 due to added bloat. The speed improvements are leftovers from the efficiency improvements that went into 8. 10 takes those improvements and runs heavier on the backend, as Microsoft knew few would realize just how much bloat they were shoehorning in. If you run a system that is light on resources such as raw CPU, 10 is a bad pairing.

Windows 10 actually does have a full screen Start option, if that's what you want, however the full screen Start option in 10 is not a direct replacement for 8's Start. It looks more like an afterthought, to try and appease those who used the Start screen. Again, why did the dev's go out of their way to make something that was almost the same, but different enough to be unappealing? The work has already been done. Microsoft actually did their homework when they built the tablet interface for Windows 8. The tablet interface in 10 is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Colif]

i liked win 8 so much I stayed on win 7, so I didn't touch the question.

I agree with one thing that was better on 8, Onedrive. Not sure what they were thinking when they made current one... to back up files it copies all my files onto my hdd in another folder and then online. So instead of online syncing with me, its in reverse. its more likely to replace local files with their online version... that is useful for mobile devices but sort of backwards for pc. What isn't useful is if you had a large library on one drive and attach a device to it with less memory, it still tries to install it all. Better off just using Google Drive, its not as pushy.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Windows 8 was a wonderful upgrade from 7, on the backend. The only real issue with 8 was the total throwing away of the interface that people were so used to. Had Microsoft not pulled that stunt, 8 would likely have been a big hit. For all practical purposes, I can find only one benefit when moving from 8 to 10, and that's the inclusion of DX12. Right now, that improvement is a complete wash, as there's no titles I'm playing that require it. Every other aspect of 10 is a step backward from 8. Even battery life on a laptop with 10 is worse than 8, which was a good deal better than 7. As I said before, all of the improvements 10 is claiming are a farce, as they were made in 8, with the exception of DX12.

 

[jimmyEatWord]

win 8 was experimental , not only windows 10 is cooler it has better functionality , it finds you most of drivers in device manager when you wanna update , windows 8 in that regard is pretty much like win 7 ..

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Windows 8 was a full retail release that ran on both ARM and x86. Nothing experimental about it.

Windows 8 handled drivers just fine.

Windows 10 has a bad habit of installing drivers, stable or not, and replacing drivers that are manually installed with copies that either don't work, or were replaced due to special functionality.

From a stability standpoint, how Windows 10 handles drivers is also a step backward.

 

[jimmyEatWord]

to me windows 10 seems much cooler driver wise it even downloaded the driver of my 12 year old hp laser jet 1100 printer , that windows 8 simply couldn't ..

also it constantly improves , threshold 2 build is being replaced by redneck 1 which is a heck of an improvement

 

[kol12]

10 is certainly not a must upgrade. For those who actually used and liked Windows 8, tablet mode in Windows 10 is still far behind. Why on earth would I want to ditch the desktop? Why would I want to hide my programs, or subject myself to any of the other irrational nuisances that are built into tablet mode? Non-tablet mode 10 is more useful, even on sub 8" tablets. There is no reason that tablet mode in 10 shouldn't just put back the Windows 8 interface, and plenty of folks have asked for this through the feedback app. Even the way touch is handled in Windows 10, in both accuracy and with gestures and screen edge detection, which one would think wouldn't have had to change, is inferior in Windows 10. For those promoting the speed improvements in 10, 10 is actually slower than 8 due to added bloat. The speed improvements are leftovers from the efficiency improvements that went into 8. 10 takes those improvements and runs heavier on the backend, as Microsoft knew few would realize just how much bloat they were shoehorning in. If you run a system that is light on resources such as raw CPU, 10 is a bad pairing.

Windows 10 actually does have a full screen Start option, if that's what you want, however the full screen Start option in 10 is not a direct replacement for 8's Start. It looks more like an afterthought, to try and appease those who used the Start screen. Again, why did the dev's go out of their way to make something that was almost the same, but different enough to be unappealing? The work has already been done. Microsoft actually did their homework when they built the tablet interface for Windows 8. The tablet interface in 10 is a step in the wrong direction.

I agree, sure people protested that they wanted the old start menu back but did they stop to think that some people actually like the Win 8 style start screen as well? I think the best of both worlds would have been more thoughtful. And like you said, they tried to provide a Win 8 style start screen but it's nowhere near the same.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

redneck 1? [sic] I hope you're being funny here.

You bring up a good point however about Windows being experimental, I think you just have it in reverse. 10 is the only version of Windows that has ever been commercially released in what amounts to a perpetual Beta test. How many Windows releases have had major overhauls applied to them within 6 months of release? Even Millennium Edition was more stable and had fewer out of the box issues when it was paired with hardware that had properly supporting drivers.

 

[bloodroses75]

In regards to the Windows 10 start menu, it can be resized to fill the whole screen. The top and right edges can be dragged out.

 

[Colif]

I had ME long before i knew what drivers were and it was not funny, all I remember of ME was constantly reinstalling it. XP was such a relief after ME. But unlike a lot, I didn't stop at XP, I used Vista as like ME, it was fine on equipment made to run it, and Win 7 was not that much different to Vista, it had improvements but for many people, fact it wasn't called Vista seemed enough. Microsoft aren't afraid to try new things, which is a good thing really.

I have used Windows since 3.1 and I didn't want to learn a new interface to use 8, if i wanted to learn new stuff I would have chosen linux. That was main reason I didn't get it, now people who never had 8 get 10 and think fast boot, advanced start up, and a few other things are all brand new. I apologise for us as we do not know any better.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Been using Windows since 3.1 as well. If you actually took the time to learn 8, you would realize how little time you spent in the Start menu in the first place. Microsoft looked at metrics before making the switch, and I have to agree with what their numbers said, not what the people who are stuck in 1995's start menu are saying.

My personal favorite is right mouse-clicking Windows 7's Start menu, trying to get to the Device Manager or somewhere else useful, to be greeted with, well, nothing very useful. One forgets how improved Windows 8's interface really is, until they have to give it up. Sadly, so many people jumped on the Start screen bandwagon, they missed the big picture.

I've plenty of experience with Vista, just never upgraded to it because there were no tangible benefits. DX10 was not compelling enough for the significant performance hit you took for a slightly prettier looking Windows interface.

In my own personal opinion, Windows 7 was worth upgrading to. Windows 8 was as well. Windows 10, can't be upgraded to if you use Windows Media Center, which is really too bad. The issues 10 has, are tolerable, to a point. I particularly found the missing file copy dialogue in one of the Fast Ring builds amusing. On another note, it would be nice if we had a few choices, such as not being forced to use a dark color scheme. Even Ford offered more colors for his original cars than Microsoft's one color scheme to rule them all nonsense. Remembering Windows 3.1, we had more customization then than we do now.

Resizing the Windows 10 Start menu is pointless unless it's full of tiles, as it just resizes itself back down to fit the tiles in it. What's more, you can't resize it to fill the screen. It has an arbitrary hard limit.

 

[Colif]

I hardly use start now, i only have a few things on it I don't need on taskbar. Wiun 10 felt like Win 7 after a few days of use.

My pc at time win 8 came out was almost 7 years old. At that stage I wasn't in a good enough financial situation to update and I didn't have a touch screen so some of the benefits of Win 8 were of no use to me. Fast boot would have helped. I think I had just recently gotten Win 7 after my GPU died and took the win Vista with it. Win 8 is the only version of Windows I never got. I could have chosen it for this PC but I stuck with Win 7 as really, this PC was made to run Win 10.

I think a lot of the differences of opinion are based on people wanting to think they made right decision and beating down those who disagree. I am guilty of it, everyone wants to think they made right choices.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Microsoft made the upgrade from Windows 7 to 8 Pro $40 for a year after release. That's a pretty good deal, considering licensing costs to that point. Windows 8 ran better on older equipment than Vista or 7 ever did, so in terms of old equipment, if you were running anything after XP, 8 is the fastest, most efficient, mass market OS since XP that Microsoft has released. Touch is a red herring as the performance was worth upgrading for. Windows 7 supported touch also, as did previous Windows releases, but nobody ever touted that as a reason they chose not to upgrade.

10 is free for more than one reason. It's hardly a finished product. I highly suspect it would fail worse than 8 in the upgrade market, and in the end, it's really all about the money that is to be made from Windows as a service, not a product. If Microsoft had been willing to add the old start menu to 8, Windows 10 wouldn't even need to exist with it's myriad of issues.

Windows 10 is a very restrictive version of Windows, and also collects the most personal data, probably the worst in that regard that I can think of, not including starter editions of course. Since folks decided to forgo judging 8 on it's technical merit, but valued it on it's UI alone with a form over function mentality, they are now stuck ushering in a new level of feature and performance loss and thinking they are getting a great upgrade.

How about Windows 10's universal calculator app? Great upgrade from 7 and 8, right? So intent on pushing their universal framework for apps, they throw away software that is actually faster and more usable for an app that needs a splash screen during startup. Great business model. Convince everybody you've lost your direction.

How about shoehorning 75% of Control Panel's functionality into a universal app as well? It's all fun and games until you realize, you can't have two separate settings pages open at the same time. Since they all run through the same app, every time you want to look at another settings page, you have to leave where you're currently at. This is a bit of a problem if you haven't memorized the locations of all the settings yet. It's confusing for no apparently good reason. With Control Panel, if you were drilled down into a particular setting, opening a new Control Panel really opened a new Control Panel, not just reused some old settings app window.

Another favorite of the interface changes is the left side swipe gesture. In Windows 8, it made sense in that, if you had other apps open, it switched between them or brought up the app switcher. If you had no other apps running, it did nothing, like it should. In 10, a left hand swipe brings up the Task Switcher, whether you've got any tasks to switch to or not, requiring the extra step of undoing it, if it was an accidental gesture, or better yet, if what you were trying to do was move cards on a left hand column in Windows 10 Solitaire. Don't worry, the Solitaire folks fixed the issue by making the gestures in apps into two-part maneuvers. Completing the transition from the mediocre touch interface Windows 10 shipped with to something even less usable. Yep, totally love trying to hit the tiny X in the top right corner of universal apps with my finger after first pulling down the bar. If you miss, no problem, you can pull the bar down and try again.

 

[notuptome2004]

Microsoft made the upgrade from Windows 7 to 8 Pro $40 for a year after release. That's a pretty good deal, considering licensing costs to that point. Windows 8 ran better on older equipment than Vista or 7 ever did, so in terms of old equipment, if you were running anything after XP, 8 is the fastest, most efficient, mass market OS since XP that Microsoft has released. Touch is a red herring as the performance was worth upgrading for. Windows 7 supported touch also, as did previous Windows releases, but nobody ever touted that as a reason they chose not to upgrade.

10 is free for more than one reason. It's hardly a finished product. I highly suspect it would fail worse than 8 in the upgrade market, and in the end, it's really all about the money that is to be made from Windows as a service, not a product. If Microsoft had been willing to add the old start menu to 8, Windows 10 wouldn't even need to exist with it's myriad of issues.

Windows 10 is a very restrictive version of Windows, and also collects the most personal data, probably the worst in that regard that I can think of, not including starter editions of course. Since folks decided to forgo judging 8 on it's technical merit, but valued it on it's UI alone with a form over function mentality, they are now stuck ushering in a new level of feature and performance loss and thinking they are getting a great upgrade.

How about Windows 10's universal calculator app? Great upgrade from 7 and 8, right? So intent on pushing their universal framework for apps, they throw away software that is actually faster and more usable for an app that needs a splash screen during startup. Great business model. Convince everybody you've lost your direction.

How about shoehorning 75% of Control Panel's functionality into a universal app as well? It's all fun and games until you realize, you can't have two separate settings pages open at the same time. Since they all run through the same app, every time you want to look at another settings page, you have to leave where you're currently at. This is a bit of a problem if you haven't memorized the locations of all the settings yet. It's confusing for no apparently good reason. With Control Panel, if you were drilled down into a particular setting, opening a new Control Panel really opened a new Control Panel, not just reused some old settings app window.

Another favorite of the interface changes is the left side swipe gesture. In Windows 8, it made sense in that, if you had other apps open, it switched between them or brought up the app switcher. If you had no other apps running, it did nothing, like it should. In 10, a left hand swipe brings up the Task Switcher, whether you've got any tasks to switch to or not, requiring the extra step of undoing it, if it was an accidental gesture, or better yet, if what you were trying to do was move cards on a left hand column in Windows 10 Solitaire. Don't worry, the Solitaire folks fixed the issue by making the gestures in apps into two-part maneuvers. Completing the transition from the mediocre touch interface Windows 10 shipped with to something even less usable. Yep, totally love trying to hit the tiny X in the top right corner of universal apps with my finger after first pulling down the bar. If you miss, no problem, you can pull the bar down and try again.

How is windows 10 very restrictive ? everything i have always been able to do on windows i can do on windows 10 Now as far as the Data collecting all that can be turned off permintily with Spybot-anti beacon ( works well ) same guys who does Spybot search and Destroy ( there spying Data collection problem Solved

Now as for Windows 10 not being a finished product guess what you are incorrect on that as While tyes we are getting Feature improvments and new features with the Windows 10 anniversary update this summer they are just improvements to Windows 10 and improving the system as will be the case 10 years down the road or 11 years down the road windows 10 will continue to have new features updated and added to the system ..

That is why they called it Windows as a Service because they built the infostruction of the underlining OS to be well kinda Modular in away being able to infuse new features and add new features are improve exsisting ones without buiilding a Whole new operating system

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

How is windows 10 very restrictive ? everything i have always been able to do on windows i can do on windows 10 Now as far as the Data collecting all that can be turned off permintily with Spybot-anti beacon ( works well ) same guys who does Spybot search and Destroy ( there spying Data collection problem Solved...

You can still do everything you always could? How much did you ever need to do? How about hiding a Windows update through the built-in Windows Update client?

While I'm glad you are enjoying Windows 10, let me be the first to respectfully say that we disagree on some things, and that's okay. I consider an OS restrictive when it requires 3rd party software to change functionality, not because the OS doesn't have the ability to change that functionality, but because the software's owner decided we may not change that functionality.

I'm not certain why you think Microsoft will be releasing new features for Windows 10 eleven years from now. This is not likely to be the last release of Windows, just the last numbered release, and even that may change. Just as new features will scarcely come for Windows 7, Windows 10 will be deprecated and forgotten in time. If history is any indicator, Microsoft wants OS releases to be every few years, tops, but will likely push that out a bit as the need for more time in software development invariably seems to pop up.

If you think Windows 10 was a complete product upon shipping, trying restricting your web browsing to the Edge browser that shipped with it.

 

[mjslakeridge]

I also got the $40 version of Windows 8 Pro, and also got Windows Media Center upgrade for free when Microsoft had a promotion going on. After a few days of navigating around I found most everything I need and have been very happy with it since. I don't plan on going to 10 until I have to, because of the absence of Windows Media Center, which I use a lot. I know there are alternatives for recording TV.

I still have an XP machine which I use for Pro Tools audio recording software (not connected to internet at this point). That has been rock solid since I got it about 10 years ago.

Edit: My guess is that at some point MS will start charging an annual license fee for 10. Why else would they offer it now for free, but for to wean people off of licences for 7 and 8 that have already been paid for in full.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

There is still no alternative to Windows Media Center if you use a cable card tuner to record your TV. It's the only software product where the licensing was ponied up for. I've looked at the alternative packages for OTA recording that invariably pop up as suggestions in forums, and even the quality of the recordings is inferior.

I highly suspect Microsoft to be trying to monetize a new replacement for WMC, and at some point we may see the re-emergence of it's functionality under new branding on Windows 10. At that point, I should be able to upgrade the last remaining systems I know of that are stuck in the past. You can see this in their XBone DVR upgrade package. Hopefully the management isn't too nearsighted to realize there is still a market for DVR functionality on a PC. I've made it a point to turn metrics on for all machines running WMC, so Microsoft has as accurate a picture as they can get in that regard.

Forcibly removing WMC during install is yet another restriction of Windows 10.

 

[notuptome2004]

How is windows 10 very restrictive ? everything i have always been able to do on windows i can do on windows 10 Now as far as the Data collecting all that can be turned off permintily with Spybot-anti beacon ( works well ) same guys who does Spybot search and Destroy ( there spying Data collection problem Solved...

You can still do everything you always could? How much did you ever need to do? How about hiding a Windows update through the built-in Windows Update client?

While I'm glad you are enjoying Windows 10, let me be the first to respectfully say that we disagree on some things, and that's okay. I consider an OS restrictive when it requires 3rd party software to change functionality, not because the OS doesn't have the ability to change that functionality, but because the software's owner decided we may not change that functionality.

I'm not certain why you think Microsoft will be releasing new features for Windows 10 eleven years from now. This is not likely to be the last release of Windows, just the last numbered release, and even that may change. Just as new features will scarcely come for Windows 7, Windows 10 will be deprecated and forgotten in time. If history is any indicator, Microsoft wants OS releases to be every few years, tops, but will likely push that out a bit as the need for more time in software development invariably seems to pop up.

If you think Windows 10 was a complete product upon shipping, trying restricting your web browsing to the Edge browser that shipped with it.

Microsoft siad it had no plans to do a every few years release Windows 10 is the last version of windows as Windows 10 was made to evolve and grow as new technology arrives it adapt as MS can then push out new features or even Core operating system changes when Windows 7 was released it was Done they could not add new features in the way windows 10 is able to as they are able to i should say in windows 10 the only upgrade 7 got was DX11 much later in life but only the base version of it.

on Windows 10 we still have the windows 10 anyversiery update for this summer of what was called Redstone update 1 and we still have Redstone update 2 slated for next year or so early next year based on what MS has stated or info has come out . now windows 10 11 years from now will be differant then Windows 10 we have now or even windows 10 this summer after the big OS update so windows 10 is the last version of windows there will not be a Windows 11 in 3 years MS has no plans for this .


Now guess what on your point or replay on why you consider windows 10 restricted guess what Windows has always been restricted because one way or another ther have always been the need for 3rd part softwate to do thing windows could not do or make changes to somthing you cant. now course in windows 10 you can turn off all the spy stuff it is built in to do so and while yes some siad after november update that stuff was reenabled well you have a 3rd part solution that couod or does work better same as any anti virus stuff a good portion of use use a Free alternitive to Windows defener do we not so this is by means of 3rd party.


If ytou dont want 3rd party then and want full control use any varion of a linux distro that is fully open

 

[mjslakeridge]

There is still no alternative to Windows Media Center if you use a cable card tuner to record your TV. It's the only software product where the licensing was ponied up for. I've looked at the alternative packages for OTA recording that invariably pop up as suggestions in forums, and even the quality of the recordings is inferior.

I highly suspect Microsoft to be trying to monetize a new replacement for WMC, and at some point we may see the re-emergence of it's functionality under new branding on Windows 10. At that point, I should be able to upgrade the last remaining systems I know of that are stuck in the past. You can see this in their XBone DVR upgrade package. Hopefully the management isn't too nearsighted to realize there is still a market for DVR functionality on a PC. I've made it a point to turn metrics on for all machines running WMC, so Microsoft has as accurate a picture as they can get in that regard.

Forcibly removing WMC during install is yet another restriction of Windows 10.

I use the HDHomerun tuner to get my signal into my router via ethernet cable, and then to record in my PC. I am not sure if that is considered a cable box tuner that you mentioned. My TV signal is received via an antenna in my attic, then connected to the coax cable that runs throughout my house, so is not paid cable tv service.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

I agree. Microsoft did state that they had no plans, as it were, for a future major Windows release, as we've seen in the past. This isn't a guarantee it won't happen. Things change and only time will tell. Microsoft may face a hardware landscape in a few years that a simple or even complex update to Windows 10's core infrastructure can't efficiently target. We can both voice our disagreements until we run out of breath, but neither of us can say with complete certainty that another version of Windows will never happen.

Linux is not a turn-key solution for somebody who has a library of Windows software.