I don't really think Win8 is 'faster' than Win 7 either. Maybe there is some truth to it that Win8 is more optimized for use with SSD's (as some claim) but honestly I cannot tell the difference. Win7 is a very solid OS, and easy to customize. Plus, it will be a viable OS for years to come (updates-wise) so it will be a reliable friend to many. I do hope Microsoft will decide to make a Win7 SP2. Integrating close to 400 updates to SP1 image is getting a bit crazy But so far MS has been a bit naughty where it comes to Win7, and has been consciously holding back certain developments on the Win7 side as to bring favor to Win8's side. Examples are the latest DirectX not being released for Win7 (only Win8) and the holding off on a Win7 SP2 (which is due). I've seen some motherboard companies come out with BIOS revisions that will state things like "increased stability for Windows 8" which may explain some of the stability issues some people are having (that and immature or outdated drivers). For me personally, Win8 is now very stable, and I have a 4.6ghz overclock on my system. Even though I like have access to the Store in Win8, I haven't used it much yet. If you're used to installing a lot of software then there is not much draw to be installing Store apps. The live tiles are kind of cool, that adds some usefulness besides just being an app shortcut. It's true that Win8 with its Modern UI will be very nice to use on touch devices, but having used Win8 for a while on a desktop PC I have to say that the desktop experience in itself is really not inferior to Win7 if you tweak it according to your preference. I had to do that with Win7 all the time also, so either way I had to customize things according to my liking. Really the only thing that is substantially different in the UI is the lack of Aero Glass/Transparency, which does affect the look of the desktop a lot. If you have some choice themes made it won't be that bad on Win8, but if you let your wallpapers rotate and let the windows borders change color according to the wallpaper, you end up with some really funky desktops. With Win7 and Aero Glass you just don't have that, it blends with the walls much better (by design). If MS was worried about lower-spec'd touch devices trying to run Aero (due to inferior graphics and system resources) they could have just disabled Glass on the devices installed with RT, and kept Glass on the non-ARM specific Windows 8 versions. But I suspect that more than just being potentially problematic on lower spec'd devices, MS took Glass out because of the actual design philosophy behind Win8. If that is the case I don't think we'll see Glass back any time soon. Right now I have tweaked my Win8 image to go straight to skip Lock screen (and does autologin), and I use Start Screen to start up applications a lot (it's attractive and fast when using the Win button on keyboard, in combination with mouse to click programs on Start Screen). I have not felt the need or desire to install Classic Shell or any program like that (which on Win7 was the first program I installed), and I can report I start up programs faster than when I have to wade through a start menu. It just take a little time to organize the Start Screen to have the most accessed programs you use to display first (on the left), and I have any Store app tiles on the right side as I use those far less. Once I got accustomed to work with the Win8 interface I have not found anything particularly detrimental about using Win8. Desktop mode is not different in any other substantial way when compared to Win7. The only thing that is noticeably different to me is the implementation of UAC in Win8, it is definitely more aggressive and invasive than UAC on Win7, and I'm still getting used to that in minor ways. So after using Win8 a bit I'm starting to regard the intense negativity regarding it more a reflection on the engrained ways of previous Windows users than it being such a bad design by MS. I think Modern UI is fine as it is, but MS could have made access to it from the desktop (or lock and login screens) much easier (visual representation) and that would have avoided much of the initial aggravation. The charms bar auto-hides itself, as it should, but since we have a static taskbar on the desktop, it then became weird to not have a static visual representation of the Start Screen (besides an invisible hot corner). And as another user commented, Modern UI is merely a shell sitting on the desktop, it is not like it's vice versa. It's just an access method that is fast and fluid. In other words, I could see if Modern UI had been a standalone app that could be installed on Win7, that many people would have found it to be an amazing start menu replacement But yeah, the Win8 bashing is getting a bit old now. It's not like you have to say Win7 vs Win8, I just see it as Win7 alongside Win8. They are alike enough to be allowed to be different
Ahem, my dear friend. From this post alone I conclude (maybe I'm wrong, so I apologize in advance) that you didn't play with Win3.1 or Win3.11. Windows 8 start menu is the exact same thing with brighter colors. If the start screen was a viable option, there would be tons of programs emulating Win8 start screen for Win7/Vista or even on XP, but I haven't seen any. All I've seen are the alternatives of the start menu for Win8 - which is the other way around.
Lots of people including myself like the new start screen better than the old start menu.. One of the Apple fan boys main argument in Windows bashing was, that the old start menu was a terrible app launcher, that was bloated with tons of irrelevant short cuts to uninstallers and websites and lots of other stuff you never clicked on. And although I prefer working in Windows over OS X, I think they were right to bash the start menu. I think a lot of Windows user have nostalgic feelings about the start menu, but in reality it actually wasn't that good. IMHO Micro$oft fixed some of those problems with the new start screen by separating the settings, shut down options (why were they ever put in a menu called "Start" anyway?) from the apps, getting rid of everything besides the actual application short cuts, and by making everything bigger and easier to find. If you refuse to actually use it and continue to bash it solely based on the new look, you will never realize the advantages. But if you would actually try to learn how to group you applications and name them accordingly, I think you would find, that it actually does, what it is supposed to do (launch applications in my opinion) faster and with fewer clicks.
@papagoejoe: I'm not bashing anything my friend. You're the one that plays the brainwashed record of: "if it's newer it must be better." How many start screen replicas are out there? NONE. How many start menu clones are out there: at least 10, if not 20. Now, in your honest opinion - what's usually replicated: a GOOD thing or a bad one? Hello? Good mornin' little fella...
@socrate: I understand your point about the lack of start screen apps for running on previous versions of Windows, but I also understand that you underestimate how involved it is to write an app that behaves like the modern start screen Plus, start menu apps for Win8 are quite often made by companies that see financial potential for the app (or to draw in users that will buy their other offerings) and that is less based on a developer's personal dislike for Modern UI than it is for the perceived reception among unconvinced users of Modern UI, if you get what I mean. So then we are back to how people trained by previous Windows UI dislike Modern UI. All I'm saying is that, in my case, I had the same initial dislike to it. But after really giving it a good go (working with it a lot during sysprep sessions and creating many images and testing them) I realized that my consternation with Modern UI was a bit silly and immature. When I really used it (rather than scrambling to find a start menu replacement as soon as I could) I found that it actually works very well and very fast. As I said before, when I compare accessing a program tile/shortcut from Start Screen, I can actually do this faster than from the (classic) start menu. It is less clicks, and easier to find. Don't get me wrong, I very well understand the reluctance surrounding the adoption of Modern UI, but now that I know how strongly I once felt about it, to only find I actually never really gave it a chance because of being impatient and rash and demanding (yes, like an angry driver in morning traffic) then I know many other people are going through the same thing. The Win7 default start menu sucks big time, it is no better than Modern UI. I never used it either, I always installed Classic Shell classic start menu (still existing in Vista and earlier Windows). But even that can't compete very well with Modern UI start screen for speed and overview/perspective. On Win7 I even categorized the start menu shortcuts into main categories as to make the shortcuts more accessible (not one long crazy list of unrelated items), and although that sped up things a bit, it was still a mess. So if you ask me would you rather click a start button and get to an inefficient, fugly start menu from the dark ages, or would you rather click win button and pull up the start screen, I would say the latter. But I'm all for options, and I would agree that Microsoft wouldn't have to take away options to promote a new feature or method of access. And I'm also for a democratic approach. But not just democracy, also meritocracy. And I do feel that on the field of merit, Modern UI has not gotten the reception it deserves. It is also silly to think that 40 years from now people are still using a start button... People will laugh at you if you would want a start button then So either way it's not here to stay, neither is Modern UI. But I do think it is closer to what we'll see in the future -- much closer. The argument that the lack of backporting proves unpopularity does not prove Modern UI is a disaster, it may only prove it is not popular. But the Bachelor TV show is also popular, but it's a stupid, cheesy show that could only serve to make the hopeless even more hopeless. So that doesn't prove anything. Further, the Linux comment, well... There is NO WAY that the majority of people will be using any Linux fork -- talking about popularity -- so as far as making a good argument for Modern UI, there could be no better one than that! Most people still use a regular drip coffee maker and put some crappy milk powder in it, instead of using an espresso maker and frothing real milk. Again, something being widespread doesn't make it better. In the end I'm not saying Win8 is 'ideal' for me, but Win7 never was either. Win7 is just more what we're accustomed to, and yes MS did train us to be accustomed to it in that fashion. Personally, I just don't see what the big problem is about. The OS runs fine, Modern UI is handy and looks good, and is fast to access, and faster than a start menu in my experience (even a modded one). So I realize the problem is just one of habit, not one of function. So in that sense I think it has at least as much (read: more) to do with the habits and expectations of people than it does with the actual offering. Again, just my two cents!
@parapher: so it's very easy to come up with a start menu clone, but difficult to come up with a start menu clone? Well, use Vista or XP or even some linux distro if Win7/8 doesn't suit you. I know you love Win8, all I have to do is to read your posts - but you're trying to look "impartial". It doesn't work on me that stunt.
Want to know how great Win 8 is, look at all these deluded people scrambling to install a start menu on 8. Obviously there is something fundamentally wrong with 8 to a lot of people. And if it hasn't dawned on anyone as yet, you can get 8 with a start menu it's called Windows 7. By the way rule of thumb, skip the OS till SP1.
I'm saying that the Modern UI start screen isn't just a 'look' so if you would want to create a clone with full function (live tiles, etc.) it will obviously not be as easy as providing a start menu and button. It's easy to get my points when you read and listen, but hard when you come at everything with prejudice (hence so many people have problems using Modern UI) I hated Win8 for several months. In fact I abandoned using it for several times when trying it. I really don't think you understand what I'm saying about Win7. Win7 is a very good and solid OS, and I have no problem with using the (classic from Classic Shell) start menu. I just said that the default start menu, introduced in Vista and made the only option in Win7, sucks to me. What I was saying about Modern UI was that it is actually easier to use for me than even that classic start menu. And still I have consternation about Win8; I would have liked it if they kept glass, for example. But the things you can customize yourself about an OS will of course not be an enduring problem, but the things you can't customize might. Given that, I do think MS should have kept in the option for start button/menu, and have a native solution for desktop-only mode (or going straight to desktop). So I see the problem I had with Win8 at first not as proof of how bad it is (as it isn't for me now) but rather as proof of how pronounced the changes to the UI have been, which, in itself, is not a bad thing. Then it's only usage that will determine how it fares. The only thing I can do is to share my experience, which is that start screen is actually a fast and functional interface, and to have a problem with it I would have to create one. But please, don't excuse me of trying to 'come across as impartial when in fact I'm not'. That is very disrespectful to say, and not based in truth at all. Rather, it shows much more about how you think than about how I think. Understand it. You really are not reading what I'm saying at all... I feel silly answering you because you've shown not to read what I'm saying. But, I think hanging around in Win8 thread when you hate it so much (which totally goes against your sig principles, btw ) is not productive. What I'm doing is mainly upholding or maintaining usage, I am not complaining on how not to use something. But I would like for people to experience what I experience with Win8, and from the negative comments I can see people just aren't getting that experience. And I know enough about computers and the various version of Windows going back to 3.1 (for me) to know it's not personal quirkiness. Nor is the design philosophy behind Win8 such. Your stance on change is natural, but not necessarily informed by using what is new. It is rather informed by maintaining the previous model and applying it to the new. It won't work, hence the negativity. So if you don't like the UI, don't use it. But to shoot it down every chance you get, why waste your energy on that? I'm not in the Win7 thread bashing the Win7 UI -- not because there's nothing wrong with it (I can use it just as well as Win8's; in fact they are not that different!) but because there is no use. Just like me trying to talk to you, I think
@parapher: I can until my stomach hurts reading your arguments. If the interface of win8 is great why is not copied on Win7. I'm sure that are smart people out there with great programming skills who can develop a clone of start screen. Why isn't being done? Even more: if it is so great, why isn't MS itself offering a start screen option to Win7 users? Why is that? P.S. This thread is entitled Windows 8 vs 7, not Windows 8 is the best.
Ehrm... why use Win7 if you want to Start Screen? You'd be using Win8! Plus you'd have the Store as well and a newer OS kernel. So why would you ever use Win7 then? If you think this makes sense, I can see how you have trouble using the Start Screen PS: This thread is not titled "Windows 7 vs 8" It is titled, "Win8 vs Win7". So I think I'm more in line with the subject matter than you are
"I like it" versus "I hate it", seems majorly pointed to Win 8 ... that's what I've read in this thread.
There is no need to patronize. I think I gave at least three solid arguments why I prefer the new start screen. I don't know how it would be possible to brainwashing me into believing, that I can launch my applications faster with the new screen. You only gave one reason, but I don't think the amount of ports necessarily decides whether one is better than the other. Lots of things can be to blame for that. Most people don't like change, because change means working to learn something new, and most people don't like work. And why would you even need to port it to an older system? Just upgrade if you want it, there are loads of other advantages (like native iso handling, native virtualization technology, native AV and so on and so forth besides the better benchmarks).. But let me give you a challenge. Try opening an application in your start menu, that you have not opened recently, with two clicks. You can't, can you? First you have to click "Start", the "All programmes", then you have to scroll through the endless list of programmes in the menu. If you are lucky, the application folder is named the same as the application, and then you only have to click the folder name, then click the application. If you are not lucky (happened often to me), the application is in a subfolder named after the producer of the software, which means you will have to do some more searching until you remember, that the company was called "Pheonix Tech" or something, so you finally click that folder and then click the app to launch. Of course you can hit start and just start typing.. But you can also do that in Win8, only faster. What I'm saying is, you don't have to like it. Use whatever you feel comfortable using. But the fact that it is hard for people to get accustomed to, does not mean it is bad. I for one think it is a huge improvement, and many others do to. It took me a while to realize that though, I hated it as much as anyone else in the beginning. But a friend told me, what I am telling you now, and slowly I realized, he was right..
But Start Screen does that too You just click Win button and start typing. Then in Start Screen on the left a list appears of programs matching what you've typed so far. You then enter on the one you want, just like search box but better. For example I just start Photoshop within a second using only win button and "ado..." (as in: "Adobe Photoshop CS6") and it was there. If, like you say, the start menu is indeed not that central, then nor does the start screen of Win8 have to be. See? When things are followed to their conclusion, start screen isn't bad at all.
I know my post was rather long, but you have bothered to read a bit further, you would have seen: I can only speak for myself, but I use a lot of different applications, and I certainly wouldn't call anything other then my ten most recently used apps as "unused crap". You fail to see how the question of whether basic tasks has been made easier or harder to perform with the new layout is relevant anywhere. Well then I fail to see what is relevant at all. I use my PC mainly as a tool to work with. Of course I like it to look good, but my main focus is whether it is easy and intuitive to work with and not unnecessarily difficult. One thing that has been put further away is the shut down option. I first have to move my mouse to access the charms bar, then click settings, then click power and then finally click shut down. That is exactly unnecessarily difficult, but I suspect that is an error, that might be fixed with an update or a service pack..
Please, don't make it into my issue, that is not honest. I just like to discuss things, not get personal. But when you're a habitual line-crosser, you're gonna hear it. That's all Now let's move on and discuss the virtues/vices of Windows, rather than our own