Originally Posted by *= WildCat =*
I don't see the comparison in a word Windows 8 is for touchscreens, Windows 7 is not
I've been saying this on every Win8 thread this forum has seen since it was released!
Have to agree with you on that one wildcat.^^
OK - perhaps an analogy here could work well.
It's a bit like Land Rover deciding that they're doing a revamp of their Defender:
After a few years working on it, the details are released. The marketing text seems incredible. The engine has more power and torque than the old one, performance is much better, 0-60 has been improved by an order of magnitude, it's been tested alongside some of the world's best drivers, it's lighter - the list goes on.
and it looks something like this:
Sure, the marketing text is bang on right. But there's an obvious problem - while they've done very well on (arguably) improving styling, speed, and all round performance on the race track, they've completely alienated their core bunch of users who want an easily repairable, solid vehicle to drive off road in harsh conditions. This move hasn't come in addition to the Defender - it's completely replaced it! Sure you could perhaps modify the new car to raise its suspension, waterproof components, fit hardier tyres - but it's always going to be a bodge job. Likewise, you could buy an older Defender and keep the parameters you love - but (let's say) in a few years, spare parts won't be available any more, and you'll eventually have to upgrade.
Likewise, if Windows 8 had been a "Windows 7 tablet edition" or similar, I'd have no problem with it. But it's not coming in addition
to Windows 7, it's all out replacing it
. If you're purchasing a new machine now, you'll increasingly struggle to find a good deal on Windows 7, being further forced to go down this route, touch screen or no touch screen.
of the (sensible) arguments I've seen for Windows 8 so far revolve around one of two things:
- It's fine because for the moment you can still use Windows 7 if you're not using a touchscreen / tablet.
- It's fine because you can easily install plugins / hacks to hide Metro as best as possible and gain a 3rd party start menu, retaining some of the "feel" of Windows 7.
I've yet to hear anyone even start to take the viewpoint that it provides a good interface for a desktop OS.
As far as I'm concerned, these aren't arguments that make it a good OS, these are arguments for a "just about tolerable" bad OS. If you take the first point, then logically you're implying it's a bad OS for non-touchscreens, which is around half or more of the intended audience. If you're taking the second argument, then you're stating that to make it work you have to heavily alter its behaviour to rely on the legacy interface - essentially reverting its behaviour back to what it was previously. It's difficult to then argue that the next version is an improvement simply because you can revert it to look like the previous version.
FWIW, I am talking entirely about the OS interface here. It comes shipped with some relatively decent applications, such as Bing Money, and underneath the hood there are actually some decent efficiency and performance gains to be had too. A sensible argument could then be put forward that since the compromises in the interface can be worked around with third party software, it could become a tolerable, "okish when tweaked" sort of OS. But the interface is too fundamental to the entire experience. If that is not done well for the target market, there is no way in my view it can be called a decent OS.