No sht.  Not twenty minutes after the bombs went off in Boston, some breathless TV reporter was blathering about the fact that she (we) didn't know when or by whom Obama had been told of the bombing.  As if that was somehow important news that we needed to know ASAP.  Please, not everything thing is about Obama, even though he believes it himself.  Seems most 'journalists' have lost all rational perspective & common sense.

Haven't seen anyone having a go at the OS, just the UI ... if you wish to call people morons because they have an opinion on what's broken and needs fixing, then I think you are more poorer for it.

24hr news cycle, don't you just love it 

I didn't call anyone a moron. What I said was that it is moronic to judge, condemn, ridicule Windows 8, a really stable OS, purely on the basis of looks/the UI.  I'm not fond of the Metro UI, either, but I see beyond that to use a solid OS that does all I need and much, much more... it is far from broken.  The fact I rarely see Metro, like ONLY WHEN I call it up once in a blue moon, tells me that the whining and bitching about it is unnecessary.  In fact, much of it is pathetic and childish.....

starkers....spend the time and watch the link in #84.  It goes a long way towards explaining why there is a significance in the CORRECT management of a GUI.

It'll also go a little way towards helping you understand both why skinners do what they do...and why Stardock is a commercial success compensating for WHEN MS gets it wrong....

The only 'moron' in this discussion has probably already been sacked from MS.   [although chances are there's a tattoo on his forehead which says 'scapegoat' which has yet to get furry]...

As for moronic if it's "only" about the GUI...when the whole rest of the OS is so brille....

Swapping out the Vee Dub motor for an RSR Turbo Porsche engine is all well and good...but if you also have stuck the pedals and steering wheel on the OUTSIDE of the car it's an utter waste of time....

I use Windows 7 without Windowblinds. Works just fine. Looks great. 

No thanks. I like the default look. 

The only blue screens I've had were due to a faulty card reader and the only security issues I've had has been YahooMail getting hacked. Can Windows 8..."The Miracle OS" prevent those from happening?

Add to that the fact that not everyone can afford to build a rig such as yours which based on specs alone, would be faster than most even with XP for an OS. Giving MS the credit for your setup being fast is utterly ridiculous. With a SSD and my well outdated Phenom 9850BE/8GBs DDR2, my rig is still a very solid performer. I don't need thousands of dollars worth of new hardware.....yet and certainly not just to get the most out of the newest operating system.

IMHO, UI or no UI, there isn't/wasn't $40 worth of 'better' in Windows 8 over Windows 7 so I kept what I have and like. If you like it, fine but stop belittling those who don't pee all over themselves at the prospect of upgrading to it. Most of us are fine with waiting to see if MS pulls their collective heads out of their collective orifices with the next OS.

This post was made from an XP box that has NO AV. Sempron 3100+ @1.8 GHz, 1.5 GBs RAM, nVidia FX5200 gfx and was built out of parts from a $20 yardsale eMachine. It has never had a BSOD or a security breach since I put it together, it must be the OS.

@ #99 Wiz, I'm not going to bother with a reply to any of that.  None of what you said answers anything I said and.... never mind.

As for belittling anyone... nope, never directly said anything demeaning/derogatory to anyone.  However, if the shoe fits... is all I got to say to anyone who thinks I singled them out.

We're done now!

THAT shoe doesn't fit me or many of the well informed long time Windows users who populate these forums. I value almost all opinions but yours has become very biased and insulting.

Now we're done.

Seen it before... the bloke is a complete wanker.  Unusable my arse!  I've been using Win 8 for 10 months and can do everything that I did on Win 7.

I'm out of here... the whining never stops.

Some might say that Microsoft shoots itself in the foot by having a new operating system follow so close on the heels of the previous one.

The cost of upgrading might merit a bit of a shrug, but the thing that you can count on is that MS will have another operating system out in a few years, so if you're a late adopter of W7 like me, why trouble yourself with W8 when you can just wait for W9?

There is a good reason for having very similar operating systems released so close together on the timeline.  Change isn't always welcomed, so when you break it up into smaller steps and gradually steer towards a particular result, it isn't as scary for the end users.  Also, you get money for selling each version of the operating system which helps to pay for developing the next version.  If one version isn't as popular, well that's unfortunate but a necessary part of the evolution of the operating system.

With that said, it is quite clear that people are more interested by new and ground-breaking products.  So, while Windows 8 might be a change too far for some users, at the very least you can see that MS is not quite so afraid to experiment with changing things.  It means that Windows 9 (whenever it is released) will probably look a lot different to Windows 8 but, as with Windows 7, it will retain the features and improvements introduced by its predecessor and add a few of its own.

Unless MS goes completely off the rails and releases W8-2.  Then the heavens will split open and molten lava will spew from the earth, and the whole world will scream 'WHY!' for a brief moment before a fiery meteorites smashes into it and waves of zombies eat everyone's brains.

That's just it.  It is more secure than any previous MS OS (as it well should be).  It has better and more secure memory management, better power management and better DEP.  All detailed in that article I linked to in several threads already which never got a response.  None of that may interest you in the least and the GUI (as has been pointed out to me many times now) may be the most important thing to folks around here.  I can respect that and don't seek to change anyone's mind on that.  I do however seek the same respect for my position.  That being the 'under-the-hood' advancements in Windows 8 are very much real and important to me.

Unlike starkers who is running Windows 8 on a fairly awesome machine, I on the other hand have installed it on the least capable of my machines (from a hardware perspective) which has served to highlight exactly how much better the latest OS offering from MS actually is.  The system I chose for this 'experiment' was my 2005 DELL Inspiron 6000 (detailed in another thread) which shipped with XP Pro, was reformatted to Windows Vista Business, then Windows 7 Pro, and finally Windows 8 Pro.  That system has been used over the years for the same day-in-day-out tasks.  It still is and under Windows 8 it is enjoying the best performance it has ever had.  Same hardware from 2005, new OS.  Best yet performance.  To me anyway, that says something.

Again.  Hyper-V out of the box, Windows to go, App and IE tab sandboxing, the better power and memory management to name a few may not be worth the $40 to you.  I can respect that.  Can you respect that it is well worth the $40 for me to have my oldest machine running better than it ever has?

This post was made using a: 

Dell Inspiron 6000

1.6Ghz Intel Pentium M centrino (533MHz FSB)

2 GB 533Mhz DDR2 RAM

128 MB ATI Mobility X300 video chip

160GB 5400rpm HD (the only thing changed since 2005 -  went from an 80GB 5400rpm to this one)

running Windows 8

linux still sucks. do ya know why? i don't use it therefore it must suck. ios sucks, too. so does osx, android, chrome os and all other operating systems i don't use.

that's pretty much the gist of this thread, along with the other win 8 and wp8 bashing threads. those of us who do use and like win8 and/or wp8 must be idiots.