Unsure to go with Win 7 or Win 8. Can 8 be that bad?

I've seen a lot of folks bad mouthing 8 for various reasons, mostly the way it looks (UI). But I've got to choose one or the other to install in my next computer. Possibly this one:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7512473&CatId=332

I've not used any OS newer than XP. I used Win7 for about a week; to be honest, I had the same bad thoughts about it that people now seem to have about 8. (Odd Startup screen, odd looking explorer, Libraries).

After reading about 8, I pretty much decided to just install 7 and skip 8, but then I was wondering if there was something not talked about that 8 does that I might miss having at some point down the road.

I've read that the new UI can be pretty easily bypassed to make it look more like a desktop. Right now with XP I really dont have anything show on my desktop at all (I don't show icons) and run everything from either the taskbar or a launcher called 'Magic Formation' (very cool item). I've added my own calendar and clock as well ('LClock'). I guess I tweak quite a bit to get things to work the way I like them.

So.....I was wondering if 8 had any redeeming features that I might be missing out of if I go with win7-64 instead? (The computer will only have dial-up internet...unless I go with satellite www in the future.)

I have a feeling I won't like switching to either 7 or 8 so maybe 8 might be better to have.

Thanks

Brian

 

Recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8

My personal thoughts are that neither OS is bad. I use 8 on a casual laptop that I just do internet browsing on. There are plenty of reviews on this site as well.

Since you've only used Windows XP, you are in for a treat
Both 7 and 8 take some getting used to (just like it probably took you a while to get used to XP). Once you figure it out, it's smooth sailing.

 

Thanks. The article led me to other links.

It seems like if I already had 7 I don't think I'd upgrade to 8.

It seems to me that if I went with 8 I would most likely install an application that would make it look more like 7 or XP. The 'Classic Shell' program looks interesting and something I'd try:

http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/features.html

and others:

http://www.howtogeek.com/127699/6-start-menu-replacements-for-windows-8/

Still a tough decision as it looks like 8 can be made to look and operate like 7 or XP. If they are both similar 'under the hood' I feel I'd be giving up 8's new features (which I might want to have later) if I choose 7 now.

The example of the File Overwrite Error is one thing that bugged me when I used W7 for a week.

 

My understanding is that Win8 is all new code underlying the GUI. Which we can assume must have some advantages (speed, efficiency). All Microsoft products and most new third-party programs are going to be optimized for this new shell.

Sort of like all MS up through win95 had DOS as the underlying shell. Then Win98 came out and gave up DOS as the underlying shell. Then XP gave up all remnants of DOS commands (virtually all remnants).

If I was starting fresh, I would go with Win8. Like you said there are programs to make it start at the Desktop which is half the battle. Since you didn't use Vista or Win7 you won't miss any particular features/shortcuts of those OS. So by going with Win8 you will be learning something current and can get used to it rather than spending time getting used to 7 and then having to learn all over again with your next computer.

 

I have 8 on my laptop. I found that I really like the desktop mode better than the live tiles, although some of the live tiles I really like (mail for example). I did have to install classic shell on mine. It is a cool little add on that gets you as close to the start menu as possible. It also lists all of your live tile apps as well. Really cool little tool. As for 7, I run it on my work laptop and love it. I came from an XP laptop to 7 so I saw a big difference. But, that is a work laptop so I dont play around with it as much unless I'm testing software.

 

And that really shows. I have XP, 7 Ult and 8 Pro on this 6 yr old box and 8 is just quicker and slicker all round. I have no time for the modern start screen though and have installed Pokki to avoid it and give me a Start menu. While 7 has been just great for me I find I never use it now, and XP is going to be removed entirely when I have the time. Solid as it is, it feels like a 10 year old motor in comparison.

I haven't had any issues with finding drivers despite the age of this comp and its peripherals - Vista drivers often work where nothing more recent exists - and the few bits of software that wouldn't run initially now do on their latest releases. Alcohol 120% was the last to fall into line.

So my advice would definitely be to go for 8 and make it look like 7. You'll soon love it :-D

 

I did not like vista and i still do not like it used it.

Win 7 used it i do not like it either.In many way's it is to complex some times in some parts of the OS.Some features will be anoying here and some willl not.

Same with windows 8 i tried the beta testing and still do not like it mostly be cause of the annoying UI.

 

I was of the opinion, after experiencing Vista, that XP was the acme of Windows evolution. Went to 7 and with the use of Classic Shell, love it.

8, with its new tablet like direction is not to my taste, I'll stay with 7 as long as it is supported. I'm moving to Linux and hope that the OEMs include ways to load that in the future on the new UEFI equipped hardware that will the new BIOS required to get Microsoft logo certification.

 

I just upgraded my 4-year-old laptop from XP to Win 7. While it takes a little getting used to (very little, actually) I find it is a bit faster. I have no intention of going to Win 8.

 

This is a very personal opinion.
I had windows 8 on one of my PCs (it's still there) from the beta testing and i did not like the tile setup although if you have a touch screen PC it is definitely the way to go, it is also superb on tablets.
Regarding windows 7 i have used it since it's inception (currently windows 7 pro) and think it is the best that MS have produced,it does take time and patience to get used to it but the effort is worthwhile.
Early days i was an XP die-hard and when Vista came on the scene i hated it if for no other reason than it was constantly updating due to it being rushed to the market too soon before it had had the bugs fixed, i soon realized that vista was a lemon and decided to wait for windows 7 which fulfilled all of my expectations, after the learning curve i thought i would never need to learn another OS and too be honest i am still of the same opinion.
No doubt if i bought a tablet i would be tempted to use 8 but other than that i will stay with 7 until 9 comes along and then i will re-evaluate.

 

I can honestly say that Windows 8 brings nothing to the table over Windows 7. Sure it has live tiles and some people love those, but a lot of times you will find yourself distracted from real work. That is not a very good feature in my opinion.

The other thing is that nothing becomes easier. If anything, you end up working harder to do the same tasks as Windows 7. Sure it boots faster, and maybe loads your apps 1 second faster. None of those things matter once you actually have to use it though. That is unless your idea of computing is turning off and on your computer and constantly reloading programs.

I have been using Windows 8 since it RTM'ed in August. My opinion has not become any better about it. I use it even today, but not because it is my OS of choice. It is because I want to develop Windows Phone 8 apps and they require Windows 8 to be built.

I have two laptops sitting right here. Mine, which is a year old:

i7-2670QM
8gb DDR3-1600
128gb SSD
15.6in 1080p screen
Windows 8 Pro

The touchpad is multitouch and supports Windows 8 gestures. I have no touchscreen though. It runs Windows 8 fast and stable, but then it did Windows 7 as well. It offers an 'OK' experience.

The second is a new one:

i7-3somethingoranother
8gb DDR3
750gb HDD
15.6 in. 1080p touch display

This one came with Windows 8 Pro. My mom dropped it off for me to do my magic on, and install Office 2013 (I have legit early access). I thought I would be totally stoked to try Windows 8 on a touchscreen and thought that it would get rid of its identity crisis.

Heck no it didn't. First, let me say just how smooth and fast Windows 8 is on a touchscreen. It was really nice. However:

• There are still many, many elements that are not touch friendly
• I found myself relying on the trackpad in more areas that I thought necessary.
• There is still a very disjointed feel.

So, it was a nice experience I guess, but nothing to woo me vs. Windows 7. It still feels like the OS has a severe identity crisis. Seriously MS, if you want to go touch interface, go the whole nine yards and make sure every part of the OS is touch enhanced. Don't half-*** the OS and make it so dang disjointed. After a day with it, I shrugged and couldn't care less, as it wasn't life changing or enhancing.

I also have Windows 8 and Windows 7 on my desktop. Sometimes I boot into Windows 7, and have absolutely NO desire to reboot to Windows 8. There is simply no need or feature that is needed.

I know there are proponents of Windows 8. The ones I see are:

• Diehard fans, trying to justify their purchase or install.
  --Seriously, you shouldn't have to justify anything unless there are problems you are trying to ignore.
• People who think solitaire requires a fancy computer and OS
• Those who simply wanted something new to play with.
  

tl;dr version:

Windows 8 is stable, fast, and pretty. It is also disjointed, suffering from an identity crisis and brings nothing to the table for computing efficiency. If anything, it removes things from the table. If you find yourself trying to justify it with addons or excuses, don't get it. Seriously. If you need a start menu/shell replacement to make it usable, STICK WITH WINDOWS 7 and save your money and wits.

 

The one biggest annoying part that errks me in windows 7 is the freaking annoying updates that take forever.Just installing the updates take too long.

That is one thing that windows xp does have over windows 7 windows xp updates are alot more smoother going then windows 7 and i highly doubt windows 8 is any better at it.

 

I don't understand this line of thinking. Windows 7 is not harder than Windows XP in any way. It is faster, looks better, and is just as stable. It is certainly more secure.

As for Windows 8, if you found Windows 7 too hard, you should have never even tried it.

 

I am talking about updating windows 7 it self yes 7 is faster in many areas compared to xp but installing and dowloading windows updates take too long.

 

I have an XP computer downstairs that takes ~30 minutes to install a major update. Of course it is an old machine too.

The OS does not make a difference in install speed (it is your hardware). It will however make a difference in how many updates you will have. XP has a lot more.

 

Thanks for the great feedback.

I'm now leaning towards 8. It seems that MS dumbed down it's Windows Media Player though. One reason to upgrade from XP was to use the new media features of 7 or 8. I'm not sure if this a big deal or not though.

"List of features removed in Windows 8

....Support for playing DVDs has been removed from Windows Media Player due to the cost of licensing the necessary decoders (especially for devices which do not include optical disc drives at all) and the prevalence of streaming services such as Netflix. For the same reasons, Windows Media Center will no longer be included by default on Windows 8 as well, but the software (which also includes support for DVD playback) can be added back through the paid "Pro Pack" (for the base version of Windows 8, which also upgrades the system to Windows 8 Pro) or "Media Center Pack" (for Windows 8 Pro) add-ons. Windows 8 will still support third-party DVD playback software."..from wikipedia

I've rarely relied on Windows for media playback as I've always found some 3rd party program for playing dvd's. I won't be streaming anything on dial-up.

 

Keep the guide in my signature handy.

 

Like Adrynalyne, I can't agree with this. Sometimes, the number of updates from Microsoft for Win 7 may be a few more than for Win XP. But, keep in mind Win XP is nearing end-of-life support from Microsoft and, since it's simply not as sophisticated an OS as Win 7, it should not be surprising if a few more updates are released for Win 7 than for Win XP. And, since updates are usually released just once a month, what's the big deal if installing updates in Win 7 may take longer than Win XP?

 

To add t to this, schedule updates to install when you aren't at the computer. Then you never notice.

 

I have done all the adjustments on windows 7 and xp.

Now installing updates from the web site it self is alot faster then using the windows OS it self.

Trust me i see lot of complaints on the net how 7 takes too much time and too many restarts on updating it self.

Windows xp on the other hand.If you have a good download speed and connection from mircosoft site it only takes about 20 to 30 mins downloading and about another 30mins to install the files and the restarts are a lot quicker then windows 7.

Windows 7 updating and installing the updates errkme be cause they take longer then windows xp and this is true.Windows 7 has too many restarts and when it does restart it does take a little longer to install the updates then xp.

 

Again, it is your hardware if you are seeing slower installs.

 

You must be thinking of Windows 8. The updates for 7 take less time than they do for 8. Also depends on what kind of hard drive you have in the computer running 7.

 

Even on a brand new machine with 16gb, 8 is as slow as running Win98. There is too much bloat on top of the actual OS that does not need to be there. Even with Server 2012, MS screwed that up by using the same fugly Metro Interface.

Add to that, Office 2k13 is even as bad as Server 2k12 & Win8. I have used every version of OS from MS, not skipping any, but after a week or two using my son's brand new Toshiba with 8 on it, I will stick with my Netbook running Win7 Pro sp1. It is the last OS I am buying from MS.

As I have stated before, the next computer I will buy will be running Mac OS, since all of our cellphones are iPhones, and until Apple releases publicly a version of iTunes that will run with Linux without running inside a VM type software, You are left picking which side of the table to sit on.

 

Picked up these two excellent articles from another place. They really are worth a few minutes of your time and dispel quite a few misconceptions about the new OS as well as thoroughly explaining quite a number of new features.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/software/47313-windows-8-part-three-desktop/

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/software/47317-windows-8-part-four-performance-verdict/

One feature I had no idea was present is File History. Got that running now to an underutilised NAS.

 

The first link, about the full screen takeover when using App Store apps is enough to irritate most users.

Like many all-in-one apps, Win 8 seems an epic fail, at least for me. Apps that try to be 6 things are usually not as good as an app that does one thing well.

Either be a desktop or a tablet OS. Or have some kind of boot option. But this hybrid seems horrible, I can't imagine what Grandma is gonna think of it...

And getting the OEMs to do the dirty work of locking out other OSes on their hardware stinks. Anybody thought of what this will do to recovery/imaging software? Will OEMs install keys for those products? :boxing

I think an anti-trust suit might be the thing needed, but who to go after? MS seems to have CYAed itself well on this.

 

I don't see why it has to be one thing or the other. If you prefer desktop mode it's easy enough to get it to default to that - Start menu and all and if you want touchscreen you've got it. After a few weeks constant use I've become completely used to it and never boot to my Win 7 dual boot any more. 8 is smoother and quicker for me all round and I haven't had to access the Modern UI or any app at all in weeks. It's more like a Win 7 SP2 than a different OS.

 

I'm going to hold off deciding between 7 or 8 for as long as I can.

So far it seems like there's no reason to upgrade from 7 to 8, but, as is my case... beginning with XP, there don't seem to be many reasons for me to buy 7 instead of 8.

It very much seems to depend upon what your currently using. Win8 seems to not really have that much wrong with it (other than the apparently easily avoidable UI).

As there's about a $10 difference in buying 8 vs 7, I have to say I'm leaning towards 8....only because 3rd party fixes can make it look like 7...or XP.

 

Let me clear up some misconceptions you have. First of all, MS did not lock down the computer. They are using secure boot, which is to keep the OS more secure on boot. This is part of the UEFI specification and has existed in hardware since before Windows 8. So there is no suing of MS for supporting a hardware feature. If there was to be a lawsuit, it would be OEMs, which would have a trickle down effect of including UEFI.org. I can tell you right now no judge would go for that ( nor should they).

Next, you can do what you will with your hardware. Format it, install another OS. No big deal. If you want to dual boot, the Linux Foundation is working on their own secure boot solution. Again, no big deal.

The bottom line is that MS decided to support a feature of UEFI. They did not invent secure boot. Nor does secure boot have to be used, UNLESS you want your PC MS certified (that little sticker).

 

You have just hit my point home about disjointed and having an identity crisis. Modes are fine. Modes imply you can switch between them though, which is not the case. Windows 8 would be the equivalent of running multiple modes at once, and that serves as nothing but confusing and disjointed.

I have easy mode on my phone. However, it doesn't run at the same time as normal mode. Therefore there is no confusion or redundancy.

Seriously, why do I need two control panel areas, two Windows Updates, two different search functions, two different browser interfaces, two different areas to run programs etc.

Why do I need or want two of anything that exists in completely different parts of the OS? That makes no sense from a design perspective.

Modes would have been fine. However they didn't make it as a mode, and you can't turn one or the other off.

As for it being like Windows 7 SP2, well no.

1. MS doesn't roll out new interfaces in service packs.
2. Its more like Windows Phone 8 and Windows 7 had a lovechild.

One criticism of GNU/Linux is that it ships with so many redundant apps. Multiple mail programs, multiple browsers, multiple desktop managers. Yet, now that MS is doing it, some people are heralding it as a new age of awesomeness. Makes no sense to me.

 

I realize the Microsoft isn't locking down the hardware, the OEMs are going to do that for them. The question is : Will OEMs build hardware that has a way to disable UEFI and will they go the extra mile to get and integrate other keys if they don't?

Somehow I don't think MS wants the OEMs making the hardware so other OSes can be installed. With a hint-hint, and a wink-wink they get hardware lockdown and someone else is responsible.

Microsoft's Tony Mangefeste of the Ecosystem team has written:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx

Also see:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-confirms-that-uefi-secure-boot-might-lock-out-linux-and-older-versions-of-windows-from-new-pcs/14942

And BTW, formating the UEFI will not be something easily done, and that would have to be modified to allow another OS on the hardware. Wiping the machine won't do it, it is hard coded...

 

You dont format uefi. You remove the OS supporting secure boot and use one that does not.

An OS does not have to support secure boot to run on UEFI.

Most motherboards today are UEFI. BIOS is mosrly dead and gone.

 

Also, I will see your more than a year old zdnet article and raise you a recent Pcworld article.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2015107/downgrading-from-windows-8-to-7-what-you-need-to-know.html

 

See that raise, and bump with:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/21/linux_foundation_secure_boot_fix_delays/

 

I do understand and mostly agree with your message, but what I'm trying to get across is that while the first encounter with the Modern UI can be seriously off-putting, it is in fact very simple indeed to make 8 look and feel just like 7 only faster, smoother and simply nicer to use. Once potential users realise that they may be more inclined to give it a go.

 

Again that is only for dual booting.

MS doesn't control secure boot.

An easy workaround is a second hard drive.

 

Dual booting isn't mentioned in the article, it is not about dual booting. It is about buying hardware that you put any OS on you want. With the Microsoft/OEM schema as it is you can't. Period.

Second, the hard drive isn't the problem. It is the UEFI hardcoded in the motherboard.

The fact is unless the OEM allows disabling of UEFI OR some way to add keys is forthcoming, any new hardware you buy will be locked to Win 8. Microsoft, as the article clearly shows, is not being helpful.

 

Stop reading blog articles and actually try what I am saying.

MS has no vested interest or control over oem hardware or diferent OSes.

The whole secure boot issue with Linux is that it can't interface with the MS bootloader because of it.

So they are working to sign their bootloaders with an MS provided signature.

Seriously, stop telling me what the problem is when you have no clue yourself.

Why would the Linux foundation work with Microsoft if it was only to use a UEFI feature? Answer is they dont unless interacting with w8 bootloader.

Tell you what. I have a windows 8 laptop here. I am going to install ubtuntu on a separate hard disk and prove you wrong.

 

At that point you should stick with 7.

That was what I was saying.

 

Microsoft has every vested interest in what the OEMs do. I have every clue, as does the senior management at Redhat. Denial of the problem doesn't make it go away or be magically solved.

What I wrote is true. You cannot, as it is now, load anything but Win 8 on OEM hardware that a) doesn't have the capability of bypassing UEFI or b) has 3rd party non-microsoft keys installed. Your suggestion about a second hard drive does nothing to address the issue: Motherboard hard code.

I do understand the problem, all too well. So does the Linux world. Redhat's lawyers are gearing up because of blog posts...

Sigh...

 

Lol and who are they going to sue?

/whine on

"But judge, upgraded hardware makes me use a signed bootloader!

/whine off

 

This topic is running in circles.

Here are some things for you and everyone else to think about.

1. Uograded hardware will at time require OS changes, be it drivers, or UEFI support.
2. Secure Boot is a UEFI spec. If oems are required to use it for w8 certification, so be it. Linux doesn't make them money. There is nothing in the MS certification program that says there cannot be an option to disable it in uefi options. Bios/uefi settings changes are nothing new to Linux users.
3. I see no reason why the Linux foundation cannot get an approved certificate and inform OEMs so they can put out a uefi firmware update to support it. I am sure some oems will not. Well Linux won't run properly on every single machine out there so this is nothing new.
4. Oems are not going to put effort into compatibility with their machines for an OS that they do not support.
5. Business purchases will undoubtedly have custom firmware or ensured workarounds.

Linux is behind in hardware support. Nobody's fault but their own.

I'm done with this topic of uefi as it isnt going anywhere. Blaming MS for hardware features is ridiculous.

 

It's not running in circles. It's running away from the topic.

Many of these posts don't address the original question, though some thankfully do.

Is any of this OEM or UEFI stuff important in deciding to go with 7 or 8 in a new build on a Windows only machine?

 

Umm, yes it is. It is like a three legged dog with two legs shorter, trying to chase its tail. b2009, you are fighting a battle you are not going to win, due to Adrynalyne knows their stuff, and I trust them over anyone else, with the knowledge they have.

 

I would look at it like this.

Buying a Windows 7 certified machine new is upgradable to Windows 8. However the tech in it could be older. It will not have secure boot enabled.

If you want latest and greatest with OEM hardware, you will need to get a windows 8 certified PC. I am 99.99% sure anyone can downgrade to Windows 7, especially since many licenses contain downgrade rights.

The bigger problem will likely be that you cannot find all the drivers you need. If secure boot really worries you, check the bios and make sure there is an option to disable (from what Ive seen they do). No OEM has said you can't downgrade to Windows 7 and there are plenty of howtos out there. They simply won't support you. HP is one of the worst to lock down BIOS and UEFI and they don't recommend it but will not stop you from downgrading. A lot of the secure boot scare out there is just silly.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25293/Dell_HP_Respond_to_Secure_Boot_Issue
(There are more of these out there I am sure)

The best answer is to not upgrade until you are sure about Windows 8. Downgrading any new machine has its pitfalls.

 

I'm not questioning anyone's knowledge here. I'm pretty stupid at all of this, that's why I ask questions.

The problem is that I cannot translate a lot of this information in any way as it relates to whether I should buy a copy of win7 or win8 to install onto a computer I am planning on building myself. Starting from a Barebones kit.

I have pretty much everything picked out except the OS.

I am not asking about buying an already built machine with its OS already loaded, be it 7 or 8. I am not asking about upgrading win 7 to win 8. This is all in regard to choosing the OS for a computer I will be building.

Maybe I didn't set up my question well enough. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Brian

 

Then you zero worries about secure boot

 

Adrynalyne, Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think it applied to my situation.

Looks like I'm going with Windows 8. From what I've been reading, it looks like the UI issues can be initially avoided, if desired. But I'd probably regret not joining in on the fun down the road without them.

 

I just moved my mom' business apps and data to a windows 8 machine. It really wasn't all that bad.


I still stand by my issues with it though

 

That'll be the opposite of 'damned with faint praise' then