Was Windows 8 THAT bad?

[VinLAURiA]

Just like I defended Windows Vista, I'll defend Windows 8.

 

To be fair, Win8 wasn't the massive leap forward for its time that Vista was and so I'm not quite as fervent a defender of it as I am with Vista, but under the hood it was a solid upgrade to Win7 and even for KB/M users, the Win8 interface was pretty usable once you got used to it and knew your way around (particularly with keyboard shortcuts). After the learning curve it really is just... Windows. I mean, when you realize that the Start Screen is pretty much just a full-screen Start Menu - it's in the name - and that you get a lot of customizability in how it's laid out, it was just as functional as the old-style Start Menu if not moreso in some ways. It's absolutely no surprise how Microsoft ended up merging the two in Win10 to what I still feel is the best Start interface yet, having the classic apps list on the left and the Metro panel on the right; seriously, Win10's Start Menu is ace.

 

But if I'm being honest, Linus absolutely has a point that for new users - and especially those not well-versed in computers to begin with (whom you can't rely on to know things like keyboard shortcuts) - there was no real guidance on how to use Win8's overhauled interface.

 

This was a big paradigm shift in how Windows' UI had been working for seventeen years by that point, and unlike the initial overhaul to Windows 95 that gave you the big bright Start button so you knew where to begin, Win8 took that very button away and left you to fend for yourself on figuring out where all the new controls were hidden, particularly if you were a KB/M user. Touchscreens would only slowly grow in popularity on Windows throughout the 2010s and so it's more understandable that Win8 never really caught on; it's not like the Vista days where everyone was just being stubborn even after the hardware quickly caught up to its system requirements (and OEMs stopped labelling computers as Vista-capable that clearly weren't). But in a way, Win8 was ahead of its time just as Vista was; the lack of touchscreen proliferation just meant that the hardware paradigm hadn't caught up to it yet and it wouldn't be as swift to catch up as it would with Vista.

 

The 8.1 service pack genuinely did fix a lot of problems such as this and made it much more usable for desktop users, but reputation is a nasty thing and Win8 ended up suffering the same fate as Vista in that regard. I mean, I took the XP -> Win7 -> Win10 upgrade path myself for my daily driver, not for lack of wanting to upgrade to Vista and Win8 (although I had trial partitions of each in their heydays), but for lack of funds at the time as new versions were still paid upgrades. Plus those two had such short lifespans that by the time I was ready to upgrade from my XP computer, Win7 was already on the market and then everyone got a free upgrade to Win10.

 

... It's Win11 where it's the first time even I'm holding off on upgrading even when given the option. In many ways, its interface does feel like a step back, particularly from what it takes away that Vista and Win8 introduced. Seeing the tail-end of Metro in the Start Menu due to its functionality being split off into a separate widgets panel again and for the Start Menu itself to be stuck with a more limited smartphone-like icons drawer sucks, and the removal of the lovely Ribbon that the Vista era brought us from things like File Explorer, replaced with that very limited minimalist interface... I wouldn't have a problem if all these regressions were just optional. And that's a shame, because Win11 itself looks like it has quite a bit of good new stuff under the hood, but this is the first time functionality has been taken away.

 

Windows 8 just required you to relearn things a bit - if admittedly things you shouldn't have needed to relearn - and its potential would quickly be refined with 8.1 and Win10. But just like Vista, it definitely didn't deserve its bad rap. That said... considering I saw people gearing up to hate a future Win7 successor even before we knew anything about what it would be like (this was as early as 2010), in some ways it really was just the internet being the internet again. The Windows Cycle has never, isn't, and will never be a thing outside of memesters' heads.

[CurryMantou]

My first PC Build with a Intel 4th gen and 750 Ti, wow a decade this year?!, initially used Windows 8 and the start menu was very shocking after getting used to Windows 7 on my previous PC. I never got to use the full features but app permissions was very annoying. Playing my old PC games was also a pain. I had to use it until Windows 10 fixed their massive initial problems, because even w10 was terrible for me back when.

 

That being said. I kinda liked the Start Menu in that I could play around with the tiles. I was kinda sad that the feature kinda disappeared with 10 or it felt not as good.

 

Oh I dislike the W11 start menu.

[Ultraforce]

I will say after having recently started to try out Linux I don't know if it's fair to say that Microsoft had spent 20 years perfecting since there are some of the desktop interfaces that I've tried out recently that feel like more work has been done perfecting them even if other elements such as the base of the desktop interface cause issues for the Desktop's usability. For the classic control panel, I really feel that's one of Microsoft's failure's to properly be able to include the necessary options and details in more recent settings which is what causes that issue. Specifically I feel like Material Shell and some KDE global themes seem closer to having perfected a set up then Windows 7 did or now Windows 11.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

7 hours ago, Vishera said:

For both touch screen and desktop experiences seems like a separate menu for each is better:

For touch:

 

For desktop:

Which is odd because there are still to this day NO TOUCHSCREEN MACS. And launchpad has been around since what? OSX Mountain Lion or something? 

 

Correction, it was Lion. I'm honestly surprised they kept it around because I can't think of any reason why one would want to use it. At least with Metro UI you can argue for the lucky 1% who had a Surface Pro or a convertible laptop, it might be fun to use every now and then and possible to get used to. With Launchpad it was strictly 0% because there was no hardware to utilize it. Or the 0.000000000000000000001% of those who had a ModBook. 

 

[Luscious]

What's most shocking is that even in 2023 Windows 7 still has a higher install base than Win 8 had AT IT'S PEAK. Microsoft had good reason to extend Win 7 and it's the OS that I still use TO THIS DAY on multiple machines... without any issues.

 

That said, I most likely will be forced to transition over to Windows 11 over the next two years not so much for software (new games like Cyberpunk 2077 no longer run on 7) or even security concerns but because of hardware. Trying to find Windows 7 drivers for new hardware sold today is next to impossible and the same applies when trying to get Windows 11 drivers for hardware from 7-8 years ago that is still working.

 

I know I'm not alone with this headache of moving over from a perfectly working old system to a new one. There's lots of hardware out there that still works and shouldn't be thrown away yet you cannot get drivers for it. Then there's the issue of software licensing - things that you already paid for and work on Windows 7 will most likely won't on Windows 11. That can be very costly if software that you paid for already for full price has moved over to a monthly subscription model.

[Vishera]

11 hours ago, Senzelian said:

32-bit software on 64-bit Win7

Nuff said.

That's completely false,

64-bit Windows versions supported 32 bit applications ever since Vista came out.

I have been using Windows 7 ever since the open beta (now in dual-boot) and never had issues with 32-bit applications,

except for applications that relied on DOS functionality like the installer of Shin Megami Tensei Persona that used a DOS based installer while the game itself wasn't a DOS application and didn't depend on DOS at all.

[Senzelian]

2 hours ago, Vishera said:

That's completely false,

Unfortunately it isn't. When I bought my first Windows 7 PC, which was using the 64-bit version, I had so many issues with software not wanting to run that I returned the entire thing. (It was a pre-build)

[Vishera]

7 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Unfortunately it isn't. When I bought my first Windows 7 PC, which was using the 64-bit version, I had so many issues with software not wanting to run that I returned the entire thing. (It was a pre-build)

Maybe you had a 32-bit OS and tried to use a 64-bit program.

Anyway it's user error in both cases since 32-bit applications work really well on Windows 7 64-bit.

[Senzelian]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

Maybe you had a 32-bit OS and tried to use a 64-bit program.

Nope, because this was software that was previously running fine on Windows XP. In fact Windows 7 64-bit was the reason I got into tech. Until then I wasn't interested all that much into computers and was just using them for games and school work at the time. But after I saw this specific issue I wanted to know more about it.

[Vishera]

4 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Nope, because this was software that was previously running fine on Windows XP. In fact Windows 7 64-bit was the reason I got into tech. Until then I wasn't interested all that much into computers and was just using them for games and school work at the time. But after I saw this specific issue I wanted to know more about it.

It sounds like we were using completely different operating systems that by chance had the same name

32-bit applications worked really well for me even when i daily drove the beta pre-release builds.

[Senzelian]

4 minutes ago, Vishera said:

It sounds like we were using completely different operating systems that by chance had the same name

32-bit applications worked really well for me even when i daily drove the beta pre-release builds.

It wouldn't be the first time that one OS behaves entirely different on different devices. And on top of that it's still Windows... So yeah  

[ahuckphin]

18 hours ago, James said:

Was there anything worth remembering in this wildly unpopular version of Windows?

Working remarkably well on a Compaq Presario Athlon 64 X2 laptop. 

[manikyath]

50 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Unfortunately it isn't. When I bought my first Windows 7 PC, which was using the 64-bit version, I had so many issues with software not wanting to run that I returned the entire thing. (It was a pre-build)

windows 7 PC, 64-bit version, 2010, never had any issues with it until it was replaced 4 years later.

 

now.. that said.. what win7 x64 does NOT do, is legacy features that go back to the 16-bit era. if you want to run some weird DOS software, chances are your x86 system will still have the correct fallback modes, but x64 just doesnt.

 

that said.. the windows XP days were full of REALLY weird software that works in all sorts of weird twists. (and doesnt work in very strange ways as well...)

 

in fact - i remember the same fuss around windows XP x64, but my sister's windows XP laptop ran x64 without any signs of issues for the 8-something years she used that thing, and it's still my go-to device if i need/want to run something that doesnt run on win10 anymore.

 

either there's a very weird hotspot of luck spread out over belgium, or the problems lie elsewhere than x64.

(which.. weird x64 driver issues that dont exist in the x86 version sound completely reasonable to me, for example.)

[AI_Must_Di3]

It was THE WORST OS. They took a mobile, winphone os and tried to pack it down your throat on a desktop. They wanted to do that crap to a laptop fine, it may be argued but desktops are such a different world that it was like putting 4 flat tires on a delivery truck. Now, to someone that hasnt a clue about PC's and that crap was there first introduction to pc's from cell phones, they could probably pick it up pretty quick and think its not so bad, but the rest of the world thought we fell into the twilight zone. Thats why windows 7 had the staying power it did/does is because of that horrendous flop right there. Nobody wanted to even go to win 10's spyware o/s after the 8 debacle. After you abused us with 8 we just werent going to say thank you sir, may i have another. NOPE!

[Radium_Angel]

36 minutes ago, AI_Must_Di3 said:

It was THE WORST OS

You never used Windows ME did you? 

[OhYou_]

Windows 8 was not bad and anyone who says otherwise is smallbrain, fight me. 
 

First windows os to have multi window taskbar
First windows os to bake in drivers for every disk drive controller under the sun

First windows os to natively support multiple workspaces

First windows os to natively support modern standby and sleep sedation 

 

Windows 8 is far better than 10 for actual tablets too. Win10 tablet mode is garbage and bad and if you do not run tablet mode then your osk lags or doesnt load at all when you tap on text boxes. 

[AI_Must_Di3]

10 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

You never used Windows ME did you? 

LMAO, I DID actually, started way back in the 80's IBM's and 5" floppys and i was going to mention that hellscape of a OS too, but when 8 came out it was so bad, it ruined the windows environment and was sooo clunky that i even gave 2k the number 2 spot. CRAZY right!?!?? That one was baad too. I guess now that i think more on it, its really a toss up. You wanna really torture someone dual boot those two on one pc for them.

[Radium_Angel]

1 minute ago, AI_Must_Di3 said:

LMAO, I DID actually, started way back in the 80's IBM's and 5" floppys and i was going to mention that hellscape of a OS too, but when 8 came out it was so bad, it ruined the windows environment and was sooo clunky that i even gave 2k the number 2 spot. CRAZY right!?!?? That one was baad too. I guess now that i think more on it, its really a toss up. You wanna really torture someone dual boot those two on one pc for them.

I put WinME on the list of worst MS OS, mainly because it was never stable...even after patching etc, it'd fall over at the drop of a hat.

Win2k took 4 Service Packs to become fantastic, and NT 4.0 took 6, but no amount of tinkering could ever fix WinME. 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Linus lists "Windows Store" as a positive feature?

 

Let me go on a rant:

.exe files already are universal! Once I built a .exe windows application and deployed it on a windows phone! And it worked, because of course it did. BECAUSE OF THE WINDOWS API! How on earth do you strip features and permissions of an .exe file, hide it behind a walled garden "Windows Store", and call it "Universal Widows App"? Do UWP still have trouble with exclusive full screen? You know, they might be useful for making useful applications otherwise.

 

Windows Store is also garbage because it is integrated with the windows credential manager. Once I made the mistake of typing the wrong user name in the steam version of Sea Of Thieves. At the end of the rabbit hole I had to mess with the WINDOWS CREDENTIAL MANAGER to get the game to work again, this is because of the garbage XBOX/Windows Store/Windows integration that is done incompetently.

 

So no, windows 8 wasn't that bad. It was worse.
Good thing the backend code was good and was deployed in windows 10. Because the front end was terrible.

[AI_Must_Di3]

2 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

I put WinME on the list of worst MS OS, mainly because it was never stable...even after patching etc, it'd fall over at the drop of a hat.

Win2k took 4 Service Packs to become fantastic, and NT 4.0 took 6, but no amount of tinkering could ever fix WinME. 

YEEESSS!!! Some great points right there. Ok, so ME, 8, Vista?!?! Hows that? The first 2 are so bad that i really am fighting to put 8 second but ME is so atrocious after thinking about it more that it may deserve that 1st spot.

[Radium_Angel]

4 minutes ago, AI_Must_Di3 said:

YEEESSS!!! Some great points right there. Ok, so ME, 8, Vista?!?! Hows that? The first 2 are so bad that i really am fighting to put 8 second but ME is so atrocious after thinking about it more that it may deserve that 1st spot.

IMO....

 

WinMe

WinNT 3.5

 

Vista, once patched, and drivers were up to snuff and vendors started selling systems with more than the bare minimum in hardware specs...was fine. The end version of Vista is little different than Win7

 

But honestly, if we go far enough back (say the days pre-Win2k) few people here will have direct experience with it, and comparing say Win 98SE with anything *of this time period* is unfair...you have to compare it with what we had at the time (Mac OS...6? 7? I don't recall) 

[AI_Must_Di3]

Agreed. I liked win 98 SE.... actually i still have it somewhere, lol. I dont what they were thinking trying to cram 98 with nt into some franken os amalgamation from hell though. Funny now, not then, but i guess all scars are like that.

[VinLAURiA]

6 hours ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Linus lists "Windows Store" as a positive feature?

 

Let me go on a rant:

.exe files already are universal! Once I built a .exe windows application and deployed it on a windows phone! And it worked, because of course it did. BECAUSE OF THE WINDOWS API! How on earth do you strip features and permissions of an .exe file, hide it behind a walled garden "Windows Store", and call it "Universal Widows App"? Do UWP still have trouble with exclusive full screen? You know, they might be useful for making useful applications otherwise.

 

Windows Store is also garbage because it is integrated with the windows credential manager. Once I made the mistake of typing the wrong user name in the steam version of Sea Of Thieves. At the end of the rabbit hole I had to mess with the WINDOWS CREDENTIAL MANAGER to get the game to work again, this is because of the garbage XBOX/Windows Store/Windows integration that is done incompetently.

 

So no, windows 8 wasn't that bad. It was worse.
Good thing the backend code was good and was deployed in windows 10. Because the front end was terrible.

I like the Windows Store. The more programs that migrate to it - especially now that it allows native Windows applications - the more I don't have to worry about keeping stuff updated manually. Especially freeware stuff. Blender, Inkscape, Paint.NET... although there are a few that don't bother keeping their Store versions updated, like GIMP.

 

It's the only thing that Windows had before winget was a thing that was anywhere close to a package manager. Even now, it's still the only one with a GUI.

[ObsoleteTech]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:30 PM, Senzelian said:

Best Windows ever.

Windows 7 sucked.

 

Fite me.

Agreed about windows 7, i also hated it, both slow and ugly.

I liked Windows 98 if it is not the PRO-versions av newer Windows.

 

My only experience of Windows 8.1 is on phone, had my old Nokia running yesterday and it just feels and looks so much more modern than Ios 16 and Android 12 even though being from 2014...

[Guest]

My personal anecdote on Windows 8:

I tried it years ago, and I'm not impressed.

The Start Screen got in the way, and that's about it.

 

It made me go back to Windows 7 for a while (before the change to Windows 10, and eventually Linux), just because Windows 8 doesn't seem revolutionary to me.