8 ms·

Why I’m uninstalling Windows 8

49 points by ElliotH 14y ago

wamatt 14y ago
Now, "Why I'm installing Windows 8" would be more make for a more interesting story :)
- Tarrosion 14y ago
  Well, there's this: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/16/3246185/this-is-my-next-windows-8 http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/16/3246185/this-is-my-next-wi...
  - tdoggette 14y ago
    I'd like to see the author of this piece respond to the criticisms in the "uninstalling" article. Some of the answers will be "it's a lot better with a touchscreen," of course, but I'd like an experienced user to weigh in.
edandersen 14y ago
-- If you’re using Metro apps, there is no clock Probably one of the most glaring omissions.
smartician 14y ago
It's true: roughly every other version of Windows is awful. Windows 95: Bad. Windows 98: Pretty good. Windows ME: Awful. Windows XP: Good. Windows Vista: Errrrr. No. Windows 7: Sweet! Windows 8: ...
- dag11 14y ago
  You're forgetting Windows 2000. Regardless of how good you consider it to be, including Windows 2000 would break the alternating good/bad pattern.
  - thehodge 14y ago
    and windows ME
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    I think technically Win2K lived in the branch known as 'NT' so there was Windows NT, W2K, and then merged back at the Vista point (and made usable by Win7) point. The timeline as presented would be accurate for a 'home' desktop user.
    - DrJokepu 14y ago
      XP was also based on the NT kernel and it was a direct descendant of Windows 2000.
    - wluu 14y ago
      NT "branch" releases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases And that was: * NT 3.1 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 3.5 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 3.51 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 4 - Had Windows 9x type UI * Windows 2000 (NT 5) * Windows XP (NT 5.1 - XP x64 was 5.2 though) * Windows Server 2003/R2 (NT 5.2) * Windows Vista/Server 2008 (NT 6.0) * Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 (NT 6.1) * Windows 8/Server 2012 (NT 6.2) I remember NT 4 was used on the main server(s) at my highschool. I think it's safe to say, XP was the first consumer/"home" user version. Though, Windows 2000 (Professional) was used in corporate environments.
  - mbell 14y ago
    The list provided focuses on consumer oriented OS's. Windows 2000 was a decidedly business only OS. They didn't merge as the user facing front of windows till XP.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    And Windows 95 was most certainly not "Bad" compared to Windows 3.1x, unless you personally redefine the word "Bad" to mean "A godsend."
  - eikaterine 14y ago
- contextfree 14y ago
  What a brilliantly original and scientific insight.
- DASD 14y ago
  I'd further break down Windows 98. My experience with the initial version was that it was not reliable. Microsoft actually released a Second Edition that I considered quite capable. The SE Version also should be considered when USB on a consumer OS really became usable. I also recall many disliked XP in it's early days(until SP2) and Windows 98 users were "never going to upgrade." Funny, how things change and yet remain the same.
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  What are you comparing to? Windows 95 was a lot better than Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 for Workgroups), and 100% compatible with 16 bit apps as well as 32 bit apps. 98 was a refinement, but also introduced FAT32. 98SE was rock solid refinement on that. (FAT32 technically came in an OEM release of Windows 95 but wasn't available to most users.) NT 3.1 isn't on your list but it wasn't particularly good because it was really a 1.0 release. NT 3.51 was excellent. Windows 2000 was rock solid. You could do suspend & hibernate reliably. XP is notable because it was effectively a merge of the compatibility of the Windows 9x line, with the kernel of the Windows NT/2K line. The UI changes were not widely lauded, but were only superficial and easy to turn off. Vista had many good technical changes under the hood especially in the kernel. Up to that point things had been engineered for being severely resource constrained. For example the default disk cache size in XP is 10MB! Networking was redone etc. It did finally take advantage of "excess" hardware. There were also UI changes that were pervasive, but still very rough, so you had to use them. Windows 7 was a refinement of Vista, getting rid of remaining baggage and with the polishing the UI changes feels more usable. Windows 8 has core architectural changes that don't matter to x86 users (support for ARM), and has structural UI changes to support a different application architecture (apps that will run on x86 and ARM and desktop and tablet). There is no one today who has apps they need to run on x86/ARM/desktop/tablet, but if Microsoft didn't put this support in then the apps would never exist - they had to start first to solve the chicken and egg problems. And it turns out that Microsoft would like its own apps to run across the x86/ARM/desktop/tablet range (think Office, Outlook etc). Anything they did would be problematic. If they let you run in pure "desktop" mode only, then all system apps have to be implemented twice - once for desktop and once for tablet. So you end up with a chimera of desktop and tablet, but every user will have a learning curve. However once over that learning curve they will be productive on other Microsoft properties such as the phones. There is no easy way to do what Microsoft is doing which is a major overhaul of application architecture with all eyes on the future, not the past. Everyone else who has ever done it has had massive complaints too - MacOS X wasn't well received, neither was Gnome 3 or KDE 4. The developers all kept at and several point releases later it becomes the new norm.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Interesting that most of this boils down to 'its different'. Learning a new window system is always taxing on the brain because our brains code repeated movements into our muscles so we don't have to think about them, when you change the rules and have to re-train muscle memory its harsh. I give the guy credit for giving it 8 months. That said, on the 'preview' edition I loaded you could simply turn off the UI formerly known as Metro which gave you a kind of windows 7 plus experience. Nothing I tried forced me to use the Metro UX if it was disabled, now I'm curious if this is not true in the released version.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  It didn't need to be different. My desktop PC is not a tablet.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    I agree with that it doesn't have to be different and that PCs are not tablet, at least on the preview version you could set it to be just like Win7. So I was reading through the article to see if the OP had actually run it in old school mode and still found it unusable. I can't tell. Maybe they will post here.
    - memnips 14y ago
      There is no "old school mode" left. There are third party utilities to bring back things like the classic start menu, to disable booting into Metro, etc., but it cannot simply be disabled.
    - contextfree 14y ago
      There's not an "old school mode" in that the Start screen will always replace the Start menu and there's no way to reverse that without installing third-party software for it. You can choose to only run desktop apps (and set the file associations to desktop apps) and the experience will be 95% the same, though.
    - drcube 14y ago
memnips 14y ago
Having extensively used Windows 8, I completely agree with every point raised in this article. Using Windows 8 on the desktop might actually be migraine inducing. All of these little pain points build-and-build to utter frustration. What I find disappointing is that Microsoft has essentially stopped trying to innovate on the desktop. They built a tablet OS, slapped it on top of their desktop OS, and are forcing desktop users into it to ensure they get the eye balls they require build a new app ecosystem.
Avalaxy 14y ago
I pretty much agree. Especially for power users it sucks. Here are some strange points: - I can't run multiple instances of visual studio... - IE in Metro doesn't share cookies/settings with IE in desktop mode... - Closing apps is awkward... Drag them downwards (WTF) or use ALT+F4 (no, leaving the open in the background is not an option, it will clutter my alt+tab menu). - Start menu gone, wtf? Yes I do use it, and yes I do still click on it with my mouse to find certain things. The new search is worse... If I want 'windows update' I first have to click where I want to search for 'windows update' (and if I can't remember the name of what I'm looking for, this doesn't even work). - I want to leave windows partially open (not fullscreen) so I can see other things on my screen (download progress, file copy progress, etc.). Again: not possible in metro. - I can't get rid of the mandatory password/pin. These are just a few of the annoyances I encountered.
- contextfree 14y ago
  Running multiple instances of VS (or any other desktop app) should work the same as before (shift-click on taskbar), not sure what was happening there.
  - Avalaxy 14y ago
    Shift click? Didn't try that yet. I always just click the VS shortcut again, and voilà: a new instance is launched.
    - contextfree 14y ago
      Wait, are you opening it from the Start screen? That switches by default instead of opening a new instance, but for desktop apps there's an app command (right click) to open a new window. I'd still recommend shift-click from the taskbar though (same as in Win7).
      - numo16 14y ago
        I think this may be an issue that will be popping up a lot, people thinking that everything has to be started from the start screen when everything works just as it always has from the desktop (minus a start menu, which is actually the start screen).
CamperBob2 14y ago
It's funny how frustrated the few Windows 8 boosters are starting to sound. Either Microsoft is recruiting astroturfers from YouTube comment threads, or their evangelists' vocabularies are regressing to that of a 7th-grader. Guys, guys. Listen. Calling people "dumba$$" is not going to convince anyone to use your new OS. OK? Nor will demanding that people learn new keyboard shortcuts in the year 2012.
unconed 14y ago
Meanwhile, the Mac OS X users are buying magic trackpads in droves, scrolling and swiping between their windows and virtual desktops with ease, and enjoying non-crippled desktop apps... A lot of the awkward controls in Windows 8 seem to stem from Microsoft's lack of a real multi-touch input device... hovering in screen corners, dragging screen edges, etc.
magoon 14y ago
I have no problems with Windows 8. Yes the start button is now full-screen, yet I hardly have to use it -- but I actually find it useful so I do. I am not confused in the slightest by Metro, just as I'm not confused by OS X's gestures, launchpads dashboards and mission controls. With every Windows release these rants come, yet with actual real world use I find all of the problems have easy workarounds so what's left is a faster, leaner, smarter operating system.
madoublet 14y ago
I actually really like Windows 8, and, at the same time, agree with a lot of the points that the author makes in the article. I think the big difference is that I am actually really excited that Windows 8 is a touch first OS. Yes, this makes it less than ideal to use with my existing hardware. But, I am completely fine with that. I plan on upgrading my mouse on my desktop to a multi-touch mouse and I plan on taking advantage of the new track pad gestures when drivers become available. Long term, I do not imagine ever owning another device that does not support touch. In my opinion, if you are viewing Windows 8 through the eyes of current day hardware, you are missing the point.
tzs 14y ago
I think the biggest flaw is that the help system is not a tile on the main screen. Like the author, I was baffled when I wanted to shut the thing down. I found the thing that shows all the applications on the system, and noticed one of them was a help application. The help application was able to tell me how to shut down. I never would have found it without that help, as it would never even occur to me to look in the settings. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the new interface is actually good. Regardless, it is sufficiently different from what people are familiar with that people are going to have trouble figuring out things and need help--even basic things like shutting down the computer. Finding help needs to be trivial and obvious.
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
The problem is that they came up with a novel (and hopefully better) approach to UI that works wonders on smartphones because it's a greenfield - there is a new, suitable HID (touchscreen) and no legacy or broken interaction models to support in the first place. Then they tried to port it to desktop, where touch interfaces make no sense whatsoever and still keep a ridiculous amount of backwards compatibility with everything, as usual. The obvious result lacks conceptual integrity and is so full of compromises that it doesn't even make sense.

49 points by ElliotH 14y ago

wamatt 14y ago

Now, "Why I'm installing Windows 8" would be more make for a more interesting story :)

Tarrosion 14y ago
Well, there's this: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/16/3246185/this-is-my-next-windows-8 http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/16/3246185/this-is-my-next-wi...
- tdoggette 14y ago
  I'd like to see the author of this piece respond to the criticisms in the "uninstalling" article. Some of the answers will be "it's a lot better with a touchscreen," of course, but I'd like an experienced user to weigh in.

edandersen 14y ago

-- If you’re using Metro apps, there is no clock Probably one of the most glaring omissions.

smartician 14y ago

It's true: roughly every other version of Windows is awful. Windows 95: Bad. Windows 98: Pretty good. Windows ME: Awful. Windows XP: Good. Windows Vista: Errrrr. No. Windows 7: Sweet! Windows 8: ...

dag11 14y ago
You're forgetting Windows 2000. Regardless of how good you consider it to be, including Windows 2000 would break the alternating good/bad pattern.
- thehodge 14y ago
  and windows ME
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I think technically Win2K lived in the branch known as 'NT' so there was Windows NT, W2K, and then merged back at the Vista point (and made usable by Win7) point. The timeline as presented would be accurate for a 'home' desktop user.
  - DrJokepu 14y ago
    XP was also based on the NT kernel and it was a direct descendant of Windows 2000.
  - wluu 14y ago
    NT "branch" releases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases And that was: * NT 3.1 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 3.5 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 3.51 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 4 - Had Windows 9x type UI * Windows 2000 (NT 5) * Windows XP (NT 5.1 - XP x64 was 5.2 though) * Windows Server 2003/R2 (NT 5.2) * Windows Vista/Server 2008 (NT 6.0) * Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 (NT 6.1) * Windows 8/Server 2012 (NT 6.2) I remember NT 4 was used on the main server(s) at my highschool. I think it's safe to say, XP was the first consumer/"home" user version. Though, Windows 2000 (Professional) was used in corporate environments.
- mbell 14y ago
  The list provided focuses on consumer oriented OS's. Windows 2000 was a decidedly business only OS. They didn't merge as the user facing front of windows till XP.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  And Windows 95 was most certainly not "Bad" compared to Windows 3.1x, unless you personally redefine the word "Bad" to mean "A godsend."
- eikaterine 14y ago
contextfree 14y ago
What a brilliantly original and scientific insight.
DASD 14y ago
I'd further break down Windows 98. My experience with the initial version was that it was not reliable. Microsoft actually released a Second Edition that I considered quite capable. The SE Version also should be considered when USB on a consumer OS really became usable. I also recall many disliked XP in it's early days(until SP2) and Windows 98 users were "never going to upgrade." Funny, how things change and yet remain the same.
rogerbinns 14y ago
What are you comparing to? Windows 95 was a lot better than Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 for Workgroups), and 100% compatible with 16 bit apps as well as 32 bit apps. 98 was a refinement, but also introduced FAT32. 98SE was rock solid refinement on that. (FAT32 technically came in an OEM release of Windows 95 but wasn't available to most users.) NT 3.1 isn't on your list but it wasn't particularly good because it was really a 1.0 release. NT 3.51 was excellent. Windows 2000 was rock solid. You could do suspend & hibernate reliably. XP is notable because it was effectively a merge of the compatibility of the Windows 9x line, with the kernel of the Windows NT/2K line. The UI changes were not widely lauded, but were only superficial and easy to turn off. Vista had many good technical changes under the hood especially in the kernel. Up to that point things had been engineered for being severely resource constrained. For example the default disk cache size in XP is 10MB! Networking was redone etc. It did finally take advantage of "excess" hardware. There were also UI changes that were pervasive, but still very rough, so you had to use them. Windows 7 was a refinement of Vista, getting rid of remaining baggage and with the polishing the UI changes feels more usable. Windows 8 has core architectural changes that don't matter to x86 users (support for ARM), and has structural UI changes to support a different application architecture (apps that will run on x86 and ARM and desktop and tablet). There is no one today who has apps they need to run on x86/ARM/desktop/tablet, but if Microsoft didn't put this support in then the apps would never exist - they had to start first to solve the chicken and egg problems. And it turns out that Microsoft would like its own apps to run across the x86/ARM/desktop/tablet range (think Office, Outlook etc). Anything they did would be problematic. If they let you run in pure "desktop" mode only, then all system apps have to be implemented twice - once for desktop and once for tablet. So you end up with a chimera of desktop and tablet, but every user will have a learning curve. However once over that learning curve they will be productive on other Microsoft properties such as the phones. There is no easy way to do what Microsoft is doing which is a major overhaul of application architecture with all eyes on the future, not the past. Everyone else who has ever done it has had massive complaints too - MacOS X wasn't well received, neither was Gnome 3 or KDE 4. The developers all kept at and several point releases later it becomes the new norm.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Interesting that most of this boils down to 'its different'. Learning a new window system is always taxing on the brain because our brains code repeated movements into our muscles so we don't have to think about them, when you change the rules and have to re-train muscle memory its harsh. I give the guy credit for giving it 8 months. That said, on the 'preview' edition I loaded you could simply turn off the UI formerly known as Metro which gave you a kind of windows 7 plus experience. Nothing I tried forced me to use the Metro UX if it was disabled, now I'm curious if this is not true in the released version.

CamperBob2 14y ago
It didn't need to be different. My desktop PC is not a tablet.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I agree with that it doesn't have to be different and that PCs are not tablet, at least on the preview version you could set it to be just like Win7. So I was reading through the article to see if the OP had actually run it in old school mode and still found it unusable. I can't tell. Maybe they will post here.
  - memnips 14y ago
    There is no "old school mode" left. There are third party utilities to bring back things like the classic start menu, to disable booting into Metro, etc., but it cannot simply be disabled.
  - contextfree 14y ago
    There's not an "old school mode" in that the Start screen will always replace the Start menu and there's no way to reverse that without installing third-party software for it. You can choose to only run desktop apps (and set the file associations to desktop apps) and the experience will be 95% the same, though.
  - drcube 14y ago

memnips 14y ago

Having extensively used Windows 8, I completely agree with every point raised in this article. Using Windows 8 on the desktop might actually be migraine inducing. All of these little pain points build-and-build to utter frustration. What I find disappointing is that Microsoft has essentially stopped trying to innovate on the desktop. They built a tablet OS, slapped it on top of their desktop OS, and are forcing desktop users into it to ensure they get the eye balls they require build a new app ecosystem.

Avalaxy 14y ago

I pretty much agree. Especially for power users it sucks. Here are some strange points: - I can't run multiple instances of visual studio... - IE in Metro doesn't share cookies/settings with IE in desktop mode... - Closing apps is awkward... Drag them downwards (WTF) or use ALT+F4 (no, leaving the open in the background is not an option, it will clutter my alt+tab menu). - Start menu gone, wtf? Yes I do use it, and yes I do still click on it with my mouse to find certain things. The new search is worse... If I want 'windows update' I first have to click where I want to search for 'windows update' (and if I can't remember the name of what I'm looking for, this doesn't even work). - I want to leave windows partially open (not fullscreen) so I can see other things on my screen (download progress, file copy progress, etc.). Again: not possible in metro. - I can't get rid of the mandatory password/pin. These are just a few of the annoyances I encountered.

contextfree 14y ago
Running multiple instances of VS (or any other desktop app) should work the same as before (shift-click on taskbar), not sure what was happening there.
- Avalaxy 14y ago
  Shift click? Didn't try that yet. I always just click the VS shortcut again, and voilà: a new instance is launched.
  - contextfree 14y ago
    Wait, are you opening it from the Start screen? That switches by default instead of opening a new instance, but for desktop apps there's an app command (right click) to open a new window. I'd still recommend shift-click from the taskbar though (same as in Win7).
    - numo16 14y ago
      I think this may be an issue that will be popping up a lot, people thinking that everything has to be started from the start screen when everything works just as it always has from the desktop (minus a start menu, which is actually the start screen).

CamperBob2 14y ago

It's funny how frustrated the few Windows 8 boosters are starting to sound. Either Microsoft is recruiting astroturfers from YouTube comment threads, or their evangelists' vocabularies are regressing to that of a 7th-grader. Guys, guys. Listen. Calling people "dumba$$" is not going to convince anyone to use your new OS. OK? Nor will demanding that people learn new keyboard shortcuts in the year 2012.

unconed 14y ago

Meanwhile, the Mac OS X users are buying magic trackpads in droves, scrolling and swiping between their windows and virtual desktops with ease, and enjoying non-crippled desktop apps... A lot of the awkward controls in Windows 8 seem to stem from Microsoft's lack of a real multi-touch input device... hovering in screen corners, dragging screen edges, etc.

magoon 14y ago

I have no problems with Windows 8. Yes the start button is now full-screen, yet I hardly have to use it -- but I actually find it useful so I do. I am not confused in the slightest by Metro, just as I'm not confused by OS X's gestures, launchpads dashboards and mission controls. With every Windows release these rants come, yet with actual real world use I find all of the problems have easy workarounds so what's left is a faster, leaner, smarter operating system.

madoublet 14y ago

I actually really like Windows 8, and, at the same time, agree with a lot of the points that the author makes in the article. I think the big difference is that I am actually really excited that Windows 8 is a touch first OS. Yes, this makes it less than ideal to use with my existing hardware. But, I am completely fine with that. I plan on upgrading my mouse on my desktop to a multi-touch mouse and I plan on taking advantage of the new track pad gestures when drivers become available. Long term, I do not imagine ever owning another device that does not support touch. In my opinion, if you are viewing Windows 8 through the eyes of current day hardware, you are missing the point.

tzs 14y ago

I think the biggest flaw is that the help system is not a tile on the main screen. Like the author, I was baffled when I wanted to shut the thing down. I found the thing that shows all the applications on the system, and noticed one of them was a help application. The help application was able to tell me how to shut down. I never would have found it without that help, as it would never even occur to me to look in the settings. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the new interface is actually good. Regardless, it is sufficiently different from what people are familiar with that people are going to have trouble figuring out things and need help--even basic things like shutting down the computer. Finding help needs to be trivial and obvious.

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

The problem is that they came up with a novel (and hopefully better) approach to UI that works wonders on smartphones because it's a greenfield - there is a new, suitable HID (touchscreen) and no legacy or broken interaction models to support in the first place. Then they tried to port it to desktop, where touch interfaces make no sense whatsoever and still keep a ridiculous amount of backwards compatibility with everything, as usual. The obvious result lacks conceptual integrity and is so full of compromises that it doesn't even make sense.