Discussion on:

Windows 8 infographic: Pros and cons at a glance

My Windows history is Windows (for WorkGroups) 3.11, 95, 98, XP and 7. Of all these, I prefer Windows 7. In my hands, it is far more robust than XP, and the learning curve up from earlier versions was easy to manage. Just a Woody Leonhard Dummies book was all I needed.

I have no smartphone or tablet, and no plans to upgrade to a product that doesn't allow me my 40-odd desktop icons where I want to see them and 10 Quick Launch icons. If MS doesn't revert to sanity by Windows 9 or 10, I'll be converting to Linux. I feel played, with MS wanting to implement Gates' decades-old dream of making monthly subscription fees a reality, and treating us as if we were Apple sheep. I won't stand for it. Classic Menu Forever!

You can right click on the task bar, choose toolbars>new tool bar. Navigate to C>Program Data>Microsoft>Windows>Start Menu>Programs (Open it) and choose Select Folder at the bottom. Gives you everything the old Start Menu had. You can try it on your Windows 7 PC right now, works the same.

Windows 8 is super fast also, great OS.

My history adds XP 64, NT4, 2000, 2003 server, and 2008 R2 to your list. I even thought Vista had some positive points, and was able to coax it to run well on my PCs. I have a full MSDN subscription, so I can try anything MS at will. I came to the same conclusion as you about Win 8.
I just commented in another discussion where someone installed Win8 on a Mac Retina. I detested MAC until I tried Win8 and my daughter's Retina at the same time. Just for fun I threw in Linux, something I had not used for years.
Win8 runs poorly on my i7 with SSD (I know, it is beta). I spent three hours with the thing learning to use its lousy GUI. The trip was not worth it. No sale.
My Linux experience was very good, and I was very surprised to actually enjoy the Apple ML (I had never used it in my life). No subscriptions, no extra costs, I could do what I needed with both OSs. You are probably right that Gates' dream is fee based usage. Contrary to what I had thought, Apple (I still have trouble with the name) main products are not currently fee based. Some programs yes, but not for standard business apps. Except for Linux the price for Office functions on the the three seem about the same, although MS is more if you do not need all of the applications.
I too may be leaving MS behind for Linux for my existing desktops, until I replace the hardware and will look at that other company I still have trouble mentioning. It is not due to unfamiliarity, I have always embraced that when a new Win was released and I needed to learn new features. MS may be in trouble with this loser.

No problem with 40-odd desktop icons or 10 quick launch icons, plus pinned task bar icons if you want. There are more short-cut keys already built in than 7. You can get to the desktop with 1 keystroke or 1 click at start-up. You can arrange your start screen for ease of use more easily than in 7. Look a little deeper by really using it and you may find, as I did, that the user interface is like 7 super-charged, even for a desktop user.

The Pros look pretty weak, not very strong points for upgrading, while the Cons seem massive in comparison.
The Common User Experience Pro assumes that people will own a Windows Phone or go out and buy one just because of Win8 - not gonna happen.
Windows To Go - I've absolutely never needed this...ever, so who cares?
Push Button Reset - Meh. IT already has processes in place for this scenario so not much value add here.
Gesture Login - Again, on a PC, who freaking cares? I don't have a touch monitor nor would I want to reach 3 feet to login with it.
Faster Boot Time - This would be great if it were true. From the time I turn on my machine and can get to the Start page, yes it's around 8 seconds. But is it 8 seconds from boot to actual productivity? I doubt it.
3G/4G Support - Again, this assumes you have a Windows Phone or will buy one.

Windows 8 has built in data management features for mobile connected Slates.

"3G/4G Support - Again, this assumes you have a Windows phone or tablet, or will buy one. "

Good
1. Common user experience across platforms - agree

2. Windows 8 to go - is this really a big thing? I'm not planning on using at all for my small to mid-size clients but then again, they typically wouldn't be the ones licensing a Windows OS in the manner to have access to Windows8 To Go so I'll have to rely on other more corporate administrators to give their opinions.

3. Push button reset - I've tried it and it worked ok. It made me wish Windows 8 restored more items automatically via it's cloud sync. I haven't looked into the technical details but it's probably just a matter of time until the right virus cracks this method and makes the benefits of the clean slate evaporate.

4. Touch log in - I prefer using a PIN but to each their own. Surprised this is a highlight.

5. Faster boot time - much improved, agree.

6. 3g/4g support - Have to wait to see how this works out. My Slate doesn't currently have built-in 3g/4g and my Verizon LTE dongle isn't supported yet.

BAD
1. No start menu, worth mentioning, agree that it should be pointed out but I'm not quite sure it belongs necessarily in the bad column as a single item as it really is more about the retraining as the start menu's functionality for the most part has been replaced by other elements. Also, in most environments, I tend to find that users use desktop icons and taskbar icons more than the start menu regardless but it might be a crutch for users regardless. I would think the biggest task for IT would be to make sure that the users icons are on the desktop, pin'd to the start screen and pin'd to the taskbar and that would eliminate most questions though the topic of the start menu WILL come up as a training issue.

2. Training, yes, agree but I think that people will 'get it' after a day or so primarily because most of their day is spent in the apps and very little of a day is spent performing system tasks like opening applications, shutting down or logging off. I don't think 'massive' training programs will be necessary and probably a 'things to know' list and some screenshots would be more than adequate.

3. Fragmented Ecosystem - I really do think that ARM's non-support of native Active Directory is not that big of a deal and here's why: If AD support is necessary, there are x86 options that are rumored to have good battery life (~10 hour range and more for the transformer models when used with keyboard). The typical Slate which would be the only real option for ARM cpu's, is not really meant to be used primarily in the office. Why by an ARM powered slate for a non-mobile employee? And if they're mobile, why use AD to lock them down when their attack surface is much much smaller than typical Windows. For security conscious persons, there are methods for managing ARM devices remotely via non AD tech though I do agree that it would be best if ALL management of Win8 devices (ARM and x86) were done via a single interface though I doubt Microsoft would transition them to native AD/GPO and will probably merge their support in System Center.

4. Desktop abandonment - I'd argue against this one. The desktop is pretty much as good as it can get. What innovations are really left for 'the desktop' that can't be added to or offset with 3rd party software for those unusual/non standard user demands? So assuming that the desktop is 'finished' in terms of innovation, why would you assume it's abandoned because Microsoft has rolled in other methods of usage? It's like if I praise an employee's performance when getting a task done, am I at the same time automatically saying the other employees have performed badly? No, I'm just noting good work. Microsoft by adding a touch mode is just saying 'here's another path and we're proud of it' and that doesn't automatically mean that the desktop is 'abandoned'. This seems more to me of a worry/perception issue than an actual issue.

5. Hardware Outlay - Seriously? Windows 8 runs better than Windows 7 and from what I've read, it's ran pretty well on the same hardware that runs XP. Now, specifically you mention touch interfaces: There's NO requirement for Windows 8 that you purchase touch hardware and if you are specifically looking at touch for your mobile workforce, the touch requirements are exactly the same as any other touch operating system (iOS, Android, etc). You wouldn't touchify your desktop for mobile usage, you'd buy a mobile device with built-in touch capabilities.

To counter, here's my list:

Good
1. Common user experience shared on PC and Phone
2. Possibility for using a single device for most usage scenarios (desktop, mobile and couch) resulting in decreased costs for mobile oriented employees when compared to mixed vendor solutions (desktop/notebook+ipad vs single Slate device)
3. Increased security and resiliency to infection (should Metro be used more than the desktop for data access outside corporate mandated apps, it probably would be as the store would be the source for app installs and IE metro is sandbox'd more so than before)
4. Faster startup / Decreased boot times
5. Windows store for easy access to apps selected and approved by IT
6. Mobile print support
7. x86 versions support remote desktop/screen sharing applications for easier remote support
8. Hyper-V support allows for easier packaging of legacy systems across servers/workstations
9. Native USB3 support

BAD
1. Requires additional user training than previous Operating System upgrades. Start menu removal, system task adjustments and processes, etc.
2. Inconsistent experience quality for mobile users across hardware brands/models (iPad is pretty much the iPad always apart from storage and versions where different Windows vendors may provide different levels of hardware quality - this applies more to Windows itself rather than Windows 8 as a traditional problem with desktop and notebook devices but now that it's intended as a viable tablet platform, it's worth re-iterating for mobile devices)
3. The Metro UI may present graphical issues for Remote Desktop/Citrix installations due to the heavy use of animations in the Metro UI
4. Legacy or niche device incompatibilities due to missing, incomplete drivers - USB security devices may no longer work or not work properly

Depends on what you think is Massive. You give a day for users to pick it up, I'll give 2 hours. 1000 users x 2 hours, is 2000 hours where they aren't productive in their regular jobs while they are in training. Half of those, we'll have to pay another person to take their place, and some we'll have to pay overtime and shift differential so that we cover all three shifts. I'd call that massive number of hours, and massive cost.

Our users will have to know how to find and launch apps, how to do a bit of basic troubleshooting (where did my application go?), rebooting, etc..

By the time our applications are FDA certified for this OS, we'll be on Windows 9, and Windows 8 will be known as another ME or Vista. Good try, poor execution.

The FDA does not certify applications.
Even a software vendor should not claim that their application is "FDA certified" because they have no control over how it will be implemented.
For example, your company might decide not to enforce strong, unique, expiring passwords. This would not pass FDA requirements. see Code Of Federal Regulations' 21 CFR Part 11.
It is the responsibility of your company to validate your implementation of an application i.e. provide evidence that it meets the FDA requirements for security, data integrity, and electronic signatures.

Windows 8 Pro, just like XP, Vista, and 7 uses Active Directory to manage user accounts. So in that respect, Win 8 Pro is on the same playing field as its predecessors.
A vendor may choose not to support their application on a Win 8 Pro machine but they can not "certify" their application for any OS.

Edited to add: I should have used FDA approval instead of FDA Certified in both posts. It seems like it's just semantics, but I did use the incorrect terminology and that does change the meaning.

Some apps that interface with a medical device have to go through an FDA certification process. For example, the Lab system that interfaces with the devices that process your bodily fluids and return your lab results has to go through a cetification process, and includes each operating system. Our perinatal centralized monitoring system is FDA certified as it interfaces directly with the fetal monitors and the vendor has to prove that what the monitor reads shows up exactly the same way in the charting system as it does on the paper strip. It used to be that some were certified for only Windows, but now most are certified on Linux and Unix as well.

Clinical systems that don't interface directly with a medical device don't have to be FDA certified. Everything has to be Meaningful Use certified with CMS, and some vendors worked for a year on it. If they have to make significant changes to their application, they'll have to recertify.

I apologize for being a stickler about the word "certified".
I have over 20 years experience validating hardware and software for use in biopharmaceutical manufacturing including having to defend my IT policies and procedures with FDA auditors.
It's a common mistake to confuse "certified" with "approved for use". I am frequently correcting hardware and software sales people on the subject.

User retraining is an on-going expense that should be incorporated into corporate budgets and not just because of Windows 8 but rather with technology being the way it's been for the last 15 years or so (when it really started to get going), you cannot simply hire an employee and then expect to never have to retrain them. Every new software package, OS update, switch from thin to thick client and back again, etc requires additional user training. It's just a cost of doing business when your business relies on modern technology to accomplish it's every day tasks. So, if your company has budgeted the time, the decision is: Is Windows 8 worth upgrading to en masse? And the answer, more often than not will be "no" because like it's been noted in the press/blogs, the upgrade to Windows 7 is under way across most organizations and most companies do not want to upgrade again so soon for so little benefit. Windows 8 will be rolled out as needed. If companies haven't budgeted time for any user re-training, they're SOL for any upgrade and not just to Windows 8.

Also, I meant massive in terms of the size and scale of the effort having to be put into the retraining by IT: You don't have to print signs, produce instructional videos, hand out t-shirts or write supportive messages on white-boards (We can do IT!). In those terms, it wouldn't require a massive effort. In terms of financial impact, you have a point but like I said, it's a cost of doing business.

You make a bunch of well-reasoned arguments in both posts. I think there's a lot of FUD because it is so different, and there's the issue of the OS being tailored to the touch screen.

I'll steal what someone else posted in another thread and say, it's a lot like office 2007 and 2010. Most people who are real experts in the office applications from 2003 and before hate that darn ribbon with a passion. People who've never used it before, think the ribbon is awesome. Windows 8 is like the ribbon.

To be honest, I was looking at a slide show the other day and thought to myself, "huh, it looks like Windows 3.1 with better graphics." The slide show was showing like tiles grouped together, which reminded me of the windows you launched everything from, pre-start button and task bar.

I'm not sure what people are complaining about the learning curve. Having used Consumer Preview and not Release Preview on my main machine, I have to say that it feels just like Windows 7 with improvements. Honestly I never have to go into Start menu and I imagine most employees in the enterprise won't have to either once all their applications are pinned to the taskbar. Even when you have to go into the start menu, it's really not that much of a learning curve; just a couple different steps. Honestly, I hardly use the Start menu and almost all my applications are on the taskbar or desktop just as they were in Windows 7. I actually forget I'm even using windows 8 sometimes because the desktop interface is just like Windows 7. The only annoyance is the way they've changed Start search which is the only thing I really use Start menu for. If MSFT changed that, I'd be totally on board with the metro update. Now of course, whether it is worth the upgrade to Windows 8 is another story. A Windows 7 user would have little difficulty transitioning to Windows 8. But, there is not much in Windows 8 that makes it worth the cost to upgrade. It's kinda similar to Office. There were plenty of reasons to upgrade to Office 2007 from 2003. But, there's not enough new features in 2010 to make it worth the upgrade from 2007 unless you use the cloud or Office 360 features. Similar thing applies here. It was worth the upgrade to Windows 7 from XP, but I don't think it's financially worth it to upgrade to Windows 8 from 7.

The Start menu still exists. It's just been reconfigured as the "UI formerly called Metro". In other words, the tiles. But, that doesn't eliminate the need for retrianing users.

No mention here of UEFI and Secure Boot. Although a controversial feature for those who want to install Linux, it's definitely security enhancement in the corporate environment where you are probably not going to be dual booting or wanting to install a different OS. Memory allocation improvements also add security. This paper from BlackHat goes into the low level security improvements: http://illmatics.com/Windows%208%20Heap%20Internals.pdf . Of course, the sandboxing of apps and vetting of apps through the Store will also improve security.

Also disagree that the corporate desktop is an "afterthought." I've been using Windows 8 for months as my primary OS and rarely go into the UI formerly known as Metro. The desktop works fine. I especially like the improvements in multiple monitor support that will make things a lot easier for corporate employees with high end, multi-display workstations. Touch is there if you want/need it, but it's not required, and with the changes made to the RP version, using the mouse with the new UI is now much easier.

How do you avoid it? Isn't it there every time you log on?

I have said this several times in other TechRepublic discussions - If you put the desktop tile in the upper left corner of the Metro UI screen, once you boot your machine and the metro screen shows, hit the enter key and you are back on the good ol' desktop screen.
If you really hate the Metro UI screen, log on, quickly turn off your monitor, hit the enter key, and turn your monitor back on.

Where are all the icons I used to pin to the Start Menu? Don't they get pinned to the Metro interface instead?

Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't like shortcuts on the Taskbar. I have a difficult time determining which ones are active and which aren't. I find that between the pinned shortcuts and other active apps, the Taskbar also becomes crowded.

I haven't pinned a shortcut on the desktop in years. I got tired of minimizing everything else in order to find one, plus they obscured my wallpapers

If I'm not pinning to the Taskbar or desktop, can I still avoid Metro? I have eight or nine icons I click anywhere between once a day to one a week. I don't need them often enough to launch at startup and leave running, or often enough to have them cluttering up the Taskbar full time. The Start menu was always a convenient place for me to pin them, going back to W2K.

"Where are all the icons I used to pin to the Start Menu? Don't they get pinned to the Metro interface instead?"
Nope - well... not unless you want to.
You can still pin them to the taskbar on the desktop.
If you're worried about clutter on the taskbar, you can trick Win 8 just as you can with Win 7 to pin a folder of related app shortcuts to the taskbar - say... all of your Office programs.
Google "pin folder to windows 7 taskbar".

I'll have to give that folder trick a try.

and for being a I.T. does he know for all his pining uses more and more ram and slows down start up.but in win 8 all thouse box's do not till you tap into them .that is something a lot of us developers have been working on for over the last few years to reduce power consumption and to be able to run on older computers .that is why windows 8 requirements are so low.

My 64 bit Win 8 tablet convertible with SSD and 4Gb RAM takes 10 seconds to boot. My programs open in a couple of seconds. I am not seeing a performance hit from the 4 programs I have pinned in my taskbar.
The power consumed when invoking the same program from the taskbar or a tile is the same once the program is invoked.
I was just explaining to Palmetto how he can reduce clutter on the taskbar through folders.
Don't be so insulting.

You're a developer too? Sailor, aircraft mechanic, tech support for religion, retired, and now developer. My, my, is there anything you haven't done? I admire someone with dyslexia who accepts the challenge of keying code in correctly.

Pining a shortcut to the Start Menu doesn't use any more RAM than a shortcut on the desktop or taskbar, and likely no more in W7 than on W8's Start screen. Putting those shortcuts in the Startup group will cause a slow start and increased RAM usage, but that's because of the applications triggered and not because of the shortcuts themselves.

What ever made you think that it uses more RAM? It causes an extra hard drive read (to get the Icon data) but that is no different than having an icon on your desktop or displaying all those icons in the start menu.

Metro on the other hand, has live tiles. Live means its running something, its not just displaying a picture.

that the tweak to put the Quick Launch bar back in Visa/7 also works in 8. At least it did for Developer Preview. I haven't had much time to try Consumer Preview or anything else (new job taking too much time). You can search for "restore quick launch" or some such.

I have grown to despise Metro. Hopefully someone will come up with a tweak to get rid of it.

This was supposed to be a reply to JJFitz. Guess I hit the wrong reply link.

for me. I don't ever want to see that atrocity. Guess I'll have to turn off my left monitor and hit enter.... (if I upgrade, that is).

nt

Were the 5 cons listed actually given by IT professionals?
Need for Massive Training - The one has merit just not sure if it can be considered massive.
No Start Menu? You have an entire start screen.
Fragmented Ecosystem? This would be for tablet users only and still beats whats currently available.
Desktop Abandonment? So it does not include a desktop?
Hardware Outlay? My 6 year old system is performing better now than when it was new.

These numbers look pretty typical to me.
I dont know of many enterprises that upgrade their OSs within the first year or two of availability anyway.

I have two relatively great Windows 7 computers with i 7 processors, and I will be content to wait for up to a year to really see how things work out for W8. I don't see any immediate reason to update. I don't expect to buy a new computer for at least one year or possibly longer, so will be content to stick with W7. W7 is the best O/S from Microsoft so far, and W8 may be better, but most W7 users will likely stick to W7 for the foreseeable future. If you are using a desktop, the so called Metro interface may not be as desirable as the actual desktop that we have now with the start menu. I use the start menu pretty frequently for programs that I don't actually want to put in the launch area. In about a year, we should know if designing the interface the way they did is a net negative or positive. If for some reason I have to buy a new computer and decide to stick with Windows, I will not have much choice. One thing that Windows needs to do is cut down all the background services that they have running. They are selling a home user basically same computer as they sell business, and we have very different needs frequently. Even W7 can be extremely difficult for a home user to fix when things go wrong. They probably need more human factors added to the O/S

Windows 8 hauls ass and on old hardware. Take those old XP machines either are no longer getting security updates and repurpose them. I absolutely love it. I'm going to be reactivating some boxes I haven't used in years.

Vista was faster in Beta as well, but then crashed and burned when it was released.

these are not the numbers publish at the time of the poll. look for your self.

this is the poll and your numbers dont add up

All the bleating about the start screen seems to be nonsense to me. It makes sense to have the same style of interface for users desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. It doesn't matter that two of them are not touch devices, the style makes it easier for users. It seems to me that it is only a few of the IT journalists that didn't get it and they have unreasonably influence those who were not prepared to fully try it themselves.
I've used every version of Windows (and DOS, CP/M, OS/2 and many versions of Linux) and windows 8 seems to be the best so far. It has all the benefits of Windows 7 plus a UI that is like my Android phone. As Deb pointed out it also has UEFI and secure boot. It is faster than 7 to boot, it doesn't appear to carry as much baggage as previous updates. I think after the inevitable resistance to change it will probably be the most successful Windows yet.
I will be demonstrating it to other retired computer users at this month's computer club.

I can't stand seeing that Metro screen. I think they just want to put me in a box. The screen space that is just empty bothers me too much.. What is the value of a big white space or big black space? Run things full screen? Ok for a movie, but why buy a big monitor to just see one mail box or control panel?
I like a cluttered desktop, real and computer. I have one window on top and seven hanging out parts in the corners so they are there when I want, fast. I like groups of icons around the sides and spaced just how I like. not on some bodys else grid.
Some people like neat, organized and clean. Ok, up to them. And then there are people like me who see their own order in seeming chaos.
I'll stick with Mac and some windows on a virtual machine for the rare times I need it.
Note to Windows users, You can now run the Mac OSX as a virtual machine on a windows box, so no need to buy a new computer.
http://www.souldevteam.net/blog/2012/07/28/os-x-mountain-lion-10-8-retail-vmware-image-release-notes-links/

I admit I haven't tried it, so maybe I'm missing out on some stuff. But I still haven't seen a compelling reason to install this on my desktop PC instead of windows 7.

Common user experience: Doesn't it always start out this way? Are they saying I can't customize it to my preferences?

Windows to go: Why?

Push Button Reset: This could be useful, but I'm skeptical. Isn't this built in reimaging? If not, how will it preform against corrupted registries, root kits, viruii and buggy applications/toolbar addons installed by the users?

New log in options: The passwords work great for me and don't require new hardware. How do you write down a gesture you forgot?

Faster boot time: Great. But this takes about 10 seconds of my time, about once a week currently.

Some of the items on the list are true for ANY operating system (i.e. new hardware, training). And 3G/4G is help to a corp user on a desktop/non-mobile machine how?

I've installed win 8 preview edition in 25 of my user desktops. The learning curve is sharp but short. I installed stardock and most of learning problems went away -- now the users could deal with the desktop as they know it. Metro is useless to desktop users.. I feel Microsoft has totally misread the business market; by insisting on the metro (or whatever) interface they've almost assured most businesses will NOT switch over to win 8. I like the fast boot up and shut down times. The OS seems stable. I plan on getting at least one of the final release versions to test out.

Are you smoking something?