KenB123
Am I missing something? What happened to Windows-9?

The odd-numbered OS versions are the best so they're probably just wanting to avoid that this time and serve up another "Vista" experience. 

My experience with windows 8 has been fine. The only annoyance was Metro. I turned on the option to boot to the desktop and for the most part things are fine. Sonar and my other apps run perfectly smooth on windows 8 and 8.1. Not a single problem.
 
I'm not fond of the way that metro forces the crappy metro apps on things like video and audio playback but those are easily changed to use better more stable desktop applications.
 
None of that takes away from the fact that the underlying system is very stable for audio and other purposes.
 
Vista had stability issues from the start that windows 8 does not have so equating them is really silly in my opinion.

Ham N Egz

sharke

Ham N Egz

sharke
Nope, still not seeing it. Windows 8 works perfectly smoothly for me and I haven't had one single problem with it.

And that is wonderful it works for YOU, however the GENERAL consensus is it sucks and is equal in  crappyness to Vista, or do you not agree with the majority of windoze users experience?

That is not the "general consensus" at all. And quite frankly some of the butt hurt surrounding Windows 8 borders on the hysterical. Like having to click to get onto the desktop upon startup. Yeah I'd change this, but on my (rational) scale of life annoyances it doesn't even register. Others have made such a big deal about how much this inconveniences them that I feel like grabbing them by the scruff of the neck, frog marching them onto a plane to Africa and showing them some REAL problems.

My (objective, non-hysterical) evaluation of Windows 8 is that it is very slick, fast, looks good and has given me a slightly more stable Sonar experience. If I had the slightest problem with it then believe me, I'd say. I suspect that much of the butt hurt surrounding the OS consists of people who like to jump on bandwagons.

Interesting, I will tell our office of technology and help desk they are full of butt hurt since they will not  deploy win 8 because it does NOT work with some of  our apps..
 
and if win 8 is all that great, why did win 10 come out so quickly and do an about face with the cutsie swipe krap.
 
Anyway you like it , I and many others don't , my Sonar is very stable on win 7 so each is different
AFA win 10 I rolled back since some ham radio apps didnt play well on it, but in fairness its still beta.
 
So we both derailed from the original topic.
I wont change your mind, nor do i wish to, and you wont change a great number of others..

Every OS upgrade has come with compatibility problems to some extent. That's why they have compatibility mode. Companies are usually the last to upgrade their OS, especially when they've invested so much into a previous version. NYU hospital computers are still on XP. Does that mean Windows 7 is worse? Of course it doesn't. 
 
The time gap between Windows 7 and 8 is the same as the gap between 8 and 10, so I'm not sure how valid that argument is. 
 
Anyway I think you'll find that most criticism of Windows 8 centers around the Metro interface, and most of that is a combination of bandwagon hate for anything new (especially where Microsoft is involved) and also people who aren't prepared to spend 20 minute watching a tutorial video to get them up to speed with the new way of doing things (which is guaranteed to save a ton of headaches when switching to ANY new system). A lot of people base their entire opinion of a new program on their first impressions of it without giving it a chance. So you had people faced with a new style of interface which worked differently to the old one, couldn't be bothered to learn a few simple tips and tricks to make it work (the number of people who have no idea what the Windows key does is astounding), said "no sir I don't like it" and that was that. I've talked to people who spat fire over the Metro tiles and who had no idea whatsoever that you can switch the large tiles to a start menu style list. Why didn't they know that? Because they didn't make the effort to find out. 
 
 

Tom Riggs
I'm not fond of the way that metro forces the crappy metro apps on things like video and audio playback but those are easily changed to use better more stable desktop applications.

I think what people forget is that the Metro interface is very much geared toward touch screen devices, but that it's just an option. I have a touch screen laptop and the Metro interface is great on it. Whereas I never use it on my desktop machine. Those full screen apps are terrible on a desktop but make more sense on a tablet. I applaud Microsoft for moving on and doing their best to cater to new technology. 

No issues with Windows 8 & 8.1 here. OK the Metro Interface is ugly as sin, but if you organise it properly you have options that go beyond the start menu.

That said I will admit to being a dinosaur and use classic shell, not because the Metro screen is not function but because it looks so aweful.

Glyn Barnes
No issues with Windows 8 & 8.1 here. OK the Metro Interface is ugly as sin, but if you organise it properly you have options that go beyond the start menu.

That said I will admit to being a dinosaur and use classic shell, not because the Metro screen is not function but because it looks so aweful.

If you click the down arrow on the Metro interface though, you're taken to what is essentially a very well organized Start Menu on crack. And you can set an option to have this start menu appear on startup instead of the Metro tiles. 

sharke
If you click the down arrow on the Metro interface though, you're taken to what is essentially a very well organized Start Menu on crack. And you can set an option to have this start menu appear on startup instead of the Metro tiles. 

Thanks for that tip.

That pseudo-start menu works fine as long as you only have a few dozen applications. Beyond that, you realize why you've always organized your programs by function, not alphabetically.
 
My biggest complaint with 8.1 is that it goes out of its way to hide the actual pathnames of executables. It used to not matter whether you knew the real location of a file because you could usually find it in the Start Menu. 
 
This morning I wanted to add a shortcut to Remote Desktop into a folder, but I couldn't remember the name of the executable (it's mstsc.exe, duh). So I had to locate and run it via the Search bar, open Task Manager to discover the actual pathname, and then manually type it into the shortcut. In previous Windows versions I'd have simply dragged it from the Start Menu. 
 
If W10 turns out to be as solid internally as 8.1 but brings back the damn start menu, then I'm onboard! But I'll wait a few months - I got tired of being a pioneer 20 years ago. Anybody else invest six months learning Xenix? It was the Next Big Thing c. 1985. Nope, my pioneering days are done.

bitflipper
That pseudo-start menu works fine as long as you only have a few dozen applications. Beyond that, you realize why you've always organized your programs by function, not alphabetically.

In the top left corner, where it says "Apps," there is a drop down where you can choose to list your programs by name, date installed, most used or category. It works pretty well. And you can whizz through your start menu horizontally with the scroll wheel (I swipe the screen on my laptop). 

Out of curiosity, has the team considered shared computers? Will the Windows automatically create a new session for the new user (opening a registered user’s account if present, and a guest account if not?) What happens if someone other than the logged in user wants to quickly check his/her email? Or open a quick Skype session (already impossible with Modern Skype)?

1 User per User Account makes sense only for smartphones and enterprise devices. Consumer tablets, notebooks and PCs are often shared devices. Finally I find Windows Password Key is a nice tool to unlock Windows 10 password.