Will Windows 8 Suck or Not? [Pic]

While the videos we’ve shown you of some of the new features of Windows 8 may make it look promising, odds are the OS will suck if we take this picture into account.

[Via CB]

35 Responses to Will Windows 8 Suck or Not? [Pic]

        • That wasn't the only difference:
          Windows ME used the FAT file system automatically. With 2000, you could format a partition using fat or NTFS.
          Windows me also had horrible driver support. Windows 2k has awesome driver support.
          microsoft knew they f'd up with Me, So they discontinued it. You could still get updates for 2000 until last year.
          THe last thing: the install process. I hated installing any entry from the 9x series. When I finally got windows xp (and 2000 after that), I couldn't believe how easy it was. Of course, we now have the GUI install of windows 7.
          Oh yeah: Windows Me had a monolithic kernel. Windows 2k had a hybrid kernel. Every time a program stop responding under ME, The bsod would come up. When a program stopped responding under 2k, It came up with end now, and everything was ok, no restarting!

    • NO. And you need to be punished for that comment. ME and Win2K were NOTHING alike. One crashed on initial boot and whenever you looked at it funny. The other was the beginning of the transition to the NT Kernel and what pretty much saved Microsoft from doom.

  1. Interesting that along with the Windows 8 previews on YouTube there are several postings of how to revert the Windows8 boot method back to Windows 7. I really like 7, and was only interested in 8 if it had Kinect attached. I don't see it in the previews…

  2. First, I'd never call 3.1 good, I would call it adequate. 95 certainly had some issues (figuring out partitions to be exactly 64K FAT allocations was bad when it came time to run CHKDSK, which for some god awful reason proceeded to think that you had more than two FATs, which meant corrupted files… Yes, I ran into that), but I certainly was happy with it. I don't even remember when I upgraded to 98, although it was before B came out. Didn't matter, I didn't have any USB ports anyway. A friend tried to get me to switch to NT 3.51, but I did decide to see what 2000 was about.

    I also ran 2003 as a workstation for the longest time.

    If MS can't figure out how to better meld computer mouses and trackballs into their touch UI, it certainly will be in the shit category.

  3. I used the Windows 8 Developer preview for a about a week and absolutely hated it. WIndows 8 is set up more like a tablet than anything else.

    • Obviosly you didnt use it that much then. Everyone knows Windows 8 has a tablet setup, everyone also knows it has GUI simular to Windows 7 if you so wish.

  4. Windows isn't Start Trek movies. Windows 8 will blow everything that has come before it away. I've been completely enjoying the previews that MS has been releasing on their Win 8 Dev Blog http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/

    The problem is that all the idiots, iTards, and nix heads are coming out of the woodwork to spread FUD fast and far on an OS that is, at best, a year from being released. To clear up a few FUD rumors that they have been spreading:

    1. You DO NOT need to use the Metro UI. You can turn it off and go back to Windows 7 "classic".

    2. Windows 8 WILL NOT keep you from dual booting another OS. That option is purely up to if hardware manufacturers turn on secure boot in UEFI and keep that option from being turned off. If you can turn off the option you can still install Windows 8 and a Linux dist. Or you just need to have a version of Linux that is signed which there are a few out there. The point being Windows 8 is implementing another layer of security. How can this be seen as a bad thing?

    3. Windows 8 uses a hybrid method to boot where its a combination of traditional startup and resume from hibernate. It dramatically cuts the time to boot. You are not forced to use this method. You can force the system to boot like normal. powercfg /hibernate off tadah! Turned off.

    4. The system requirements are NOT going to grow with Windows 8. If anything they are going to shrink.

    Seriously. MS has to be doing something right because the amount of FUD being spread around is insane.

    • on point 1: Just yesterday I read you can not tun off metro, rather you have to boot into metro every single time, and afterwards you can start some kind of classic-skin as a application on top of metro.
      on point 2: for one UEFI compatible hardware is required, so everybody needs to buy new hardware (especially bad since, as pointed out in 4, Windows 8 should run perfectly fine on old hardware.) For the other, I expect my hardware to run with unsigned software, if I want it to…
      on point 3: What is the standard-first-step when having trouble with windows? Well, try rebooting. And for good reason: if anything happens to the running system itself, it can be reinitialised with a reboot. Now what happens if you have a messed up System and try to reboot from an equally messed up hiberfile? I really hope they provide some way to completely reboot the system instead of hibernating. For powering down in the evening and starting up the next morning this hibernation-thingy may actually be fine, although personally I do not see the big issue. the wait for Win 7 to start up is not all that bad – just hit the button and go fetch some coffee, when you come back the system is ready…

      On the Picture: Well, I would not call 3.11 “good”. With the rest of the sequence I think I agree. On the other hand, since I expect to have to use Windows 8 when it becomes available, I really hope Microsoft finally manages to break said sequence. For now my position on Win 8 is: Wait and see…

  5. I wasn't spreading FUD, I was just giving my personnal opinion so far. The only real issues I had with it, was shockwave (crashes in 7 aswell) crashed more often, and I could not get all my drivers to load. But I understand that Windows 8 is on a different kernel, so it makes sense.

    • 1) I've never once had a single issue with Shockwave crashing in W7 (Windows 7 HP x64).

      2)It's a developer BETA (/borderline-Alpha)- you were expecting it to work perfectly with every piece of software out there? That's why companies release these things, so that all the developer out there can poke around in it and make sure all their previously written software will be compatilbe. I'm sure the guys over at Adobe have already give Microsoft the heads up that Shockwave is incompatible on some level and have already begun collaborating to fix what even it is that's buggered up.

      P.S. – shockwave technically doesn't exist anymore. It's complicated, but Adobe has been phasing out the "shockwave" brand ever since they acquired Macromedia, along with cannibalizing the features of Shockwave into their Flash player (why offer two products that perform the same function, but at different levels of capabilities?)

    • Nope it wasn't you I was talking about. Just a general statement. I've been seeing this on numerous blog sites where people are popping up to complain about things that just aren't true. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to Windows, but if you are going to do so, make them legit.

  6. *rolls eyes* Well lets see you are Missing Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, Windows 98 SE, and Windows 2000 in there. Might want to recalculate using the correct variables dude.

  7. This picture is horribly flawed and sadly the comedy fails because of it. From my personal experience of 20 years:
    Windows 3.1 was not stable. I rather used DOS.
    Windows 3.11 was almost okay.
    Windows 95a and b was rather mess but not as bad as 3.1, however not okay.
    Windows 95c, and d (and other custom 95d+ builds by MS) were actually very good for its time, more stable then 98a.
    Windows NT4, Really good for its time as a desktop OS. Not so user friendly though..
    Windows 98a, Was retarded in a few ways and MS admited it, and the fix was…
    Windows 98SE, for its time probably the overall best desktop OS.
    Windows ME, A bit worse then 98se close to 98a, could be made to be run as stable as 98SE with some skill.
    Windows 2000, Well hello pretty lady.
    Windows XP, Oh the bastard child of pretty lady, after SP1 it grew up and became an awesome OS.
    Windows Vista, Retards beware you'll fail and succumb to being fucked backwards, respect the OS and it will be a good ride. Easier to tame a few months before SP1. Don't turn UAC off.
    Windows 7, Fuck me gently how little support this OS has made me needed to give is astonishing. Leave UAC on for crying out loud.
    Windows 8, Looks like a even more polished Windows release. However it remains to be seen. Troll or Superstar?

  8. Everyone think Windows 95 was horrible, but in that time it was the best operating system around, and it has the base of the interface we use today. In that time Linux was a hell for human beings like any other OS.

  9. I left a lot of versions out since they were not significant, this is my personal experience…

    3.1 was cool for me when I was 7, The GUI helped me grasp the concept of how file systems and programs worked, it sucked so much ass though I learned to use DOS instead for my apogee games. The only real use for the GUI was Paint, Notepad and DUN internet that look a half hour to load a webpage with the 9600baud modem.

    Windows 95 I played with at school because after spending all that dough on the 386 3.1 system I couldn't purchase all the new hardware required to run it, especially knowing that I would spend most time in dos because it sucked anyway. The GUI was better than 3.1 (we still use it today) but I just never felt having it was a priority.

    Windows 98 was the first one I actually used since I finally got 56k and the internet became usable, chatrooms and warez sites rocked, online information I wanted was there. The system crashed every day, SE edition made this slightly less common and I had to do mad stuff to the shell just to make it somewhat stable. when you messed up the OS it had a software based installer in the system or windows folder.

    2000 was the first OS that didn't make me want to kick the side of my case in. They say it was for office use but it supported just about everything, ran faster, smoother and didn't crash. This system pretty much was XP

    XP rocked, you could make it do whatever you want, lots of support, I don't mind using it today

    7 rocks too, it's the first OS that I don't even need to reinstall every so often to keep my performance up, does what I want.

    So what if windows 8 sucks. I know it sounds naive but Windows 7 really can't be improved upon for a desktop or laptop user as long as it supports what you need, you don't have any real issues with it.
    so the way I see it, 8 will just be for another type of user and not so much a upgrade.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.