

Why Windows 8 will suck - orclev
http://orclev.tumblr.com/post/18555141412/why-windows-8-will-suck

======
JohnTHaller
Windows 8 sucks for different reasons than the alternating suck release
strategy. Windows 8 is primarily a tablet OS. On the desktop side, that OS UI
is bolted onto the underpinnings of Windows 7. It would be as if Apple forced
Mac OS users to interact with the all their Max OS apps through the iOS UI
primarily.

Additionally, 'metro apps' as they are known are basically tablet apps.
Windows 8 on tablets is Windows 8 in name only and this seems purposely
designed to confuse people into thinking it is more functional than it
actually is. No existing Windows desktop apps will work on it at all. If you
buy a Windows 8 tablet, none of your Windows software will work on it. Your
existing copy of Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc, none of it will work on
Windows 8 tablets.

On the desktop, using the metro interface and metro apps is incredibly clunky,
because you are using things designed for touch with a keyboard and mouse. It
takes longer to get at things and switching between running apps isn't
anywhere nears as convenient.

In the end, Windows 8 doesn't know what the hell it is yet. Either way, it's
definitely not ready for prime time.

------
marcusf
I'm unsure if this is trolling or not or if I lost my sense of humor. Anyway,
I can simply not buy that Windows 95 sucked or was a half way-house of old and
new tech where Windows 98 was a major technical step forward in comparison.
And of course, the author very conveniently forgot Windows 2000.

~~~
B0Z
I don't think it's trolling based on the following point. As a purely
intellectual exorcize, the article bases an argument on an unproven stated
fact -- that version "x" of Windows sucked or didn't suck followed by a
version that reversed the trend. While the merits of why an OS will or won't
be "good" may seem completely subjective to me, unit sales data as a
percentage of in-use computers around the world would provide a nice starting
point for debate. Windows 95 (for me) was a watershed OS that has influenced
how we use MS OS's _to_this_day_. I just don't have sales figures to support
my claim, therefore mine is just an opinion -- like the original article.

~~~
Symbol
The author also omitted certain releases (and fessed up to said omissions) to
better support his claim. You can't fit the data to the hypothesis. I stopped
reading. This is a novelty. Move along.

------
archgoon
Even if Microsoft has pursued the Alternating Suckiness Strategy in the past,
it's questionable that they can continue doing so.

The other operating systems, Android, iOS, Mac, Linux, are increasingly
becoming viable alternatives for a great many people, simply because the OS
has become increasingly irrelevant to the question of "Can I run this program/
open this file".

Microsoft cannot afford to give people another reason not to stick with their
platform.

~~~
Karunamon
>Microsoft cannot afford to give people another reason not to stick with their
platform.

Microsoft isn't going anywhere - they have the business segment locked down
tight. The reasons for which are out of the scope of this discussion- but
there are still companies out there writing ActiveX apps for IE6. Them
upgrading to 8 is irrelevant because they're still on XP fer chrissakes.

I can see them taking the RIM tack if they continue down this road (namely
making every other release distasteful for one reason or another and pissing
more people off) - disregard the wants of consumers and sell a primarily
business-focused product which consumers can also use, if they wish.

------
mynameishere
Windows 98 was just awful. I still remember having to re-boot that sucker 10
times a day.

~~~
Yarnage
Windows 98SE, however, was awesome and a VERY different beast from plain
Windows 98. It was an entirely new release and it should really be on the
list.

~~~
georgieporgie
Similarly, Vista Service Packs made Vista much, much better, as did improved
3rd party drivers.

------
TwistedWeasel
Adding Windows 2000 into his list would change the entire article.

~~~
orclev
Windows 2000 was targeted at businesses and servers. It's specifically
excluded as this is talking about the consumer releases that get bundled with
new computers. Likewise the NT releases and any of the server releases are
also excluded.

~~~
williadc
Nearly every nerd I knew in 2000-2 had Win2k on their PC. I can recall of two
holdouts specifically, and both because they perceived to have a performance
advantage in some game by sticking with Win98.

------
funkah
I recommend not buying into this narrative. 7 really was not that much
different from Vista, but people persist in this perception that Vista was an
abomination whereas 7 is somehow incredible.

The truth is, Windows has a huge obligation to legacy and backward
compatibility, and MS has to pay homage to that instead of breaking with the
past and starting something new. That's not to say that if they _did_ do that
the results would be any good, but they can't even try at this point. They are
attempting to sorta-kinda do that with the Metro experience stuff, but I think
this approach is ultimately doomed. Computing is changing, rapidly, and a
mish-mash of old and new probably won't work very well.

I hope I am wrong about this.

~~~
rst
Windows back-compatibility support has its limits these days. The advertised
vehicle for old enterprise XP apps that you just can't upgrade is "Windows XP
Mode" (duckduckgo it), which is XP itself running under Virtual PC. (Yes,
"well behaved" XP apps are supposed to be able to run on Windows 7 natively,
but the mere existence of this other thing is a concession that many apps of
interest are not that well behaved.)

The same strategy could be used to maintain back-compatibility across much
more drastic transitions, if they were of a mood to make them.

