Actually worth a play? Or not worth wasting my time?

I'm considering the upgrade offer, just because it would cost £25. Even if I don't install it just yet, it's probably worth it just for a play at some point. It might even be good.

Worth a play. Designed for touch screen so much though it's never going to be a first OS on a non touch screen device.

If you are purchasing: Go to www.windowsupgradeoffer.com Enter any old rubbish for details etc Remember what you enter as the email address Select other for PC build Follow through the wizard and it will say code is available via email and copy the registration ID Go back to the site windowsupgradeoffer.com Log in to the site using the registration ID and the email address from earlier Save £10

Meh formatting is weird in last post, not sure what happened there

I really hated the preview version. I think part of the reason is that it really is a compromise between a desktop/laptop operating system, and a phone/tablet whatever OS.

There was definitely some resistance on my part similar to the switch from Windows 3.1 to 95, but even the parts that look the same at first, appear to have been 'fiddled with' in an almost wilful attempt to make them different.

I can get a free upgrade for my laptop, but I'll almost certainly let my daughter put it on hers as she likes shiny new things.

I never installed Vista, and it will be interesting to see what Windows 9 looks like in a year or so.

This is the only version of Windows that I haven't played with a Beta/RC when I've had the chance. I did with XP, Vista and 7.

I don't feel like I'm missing out at all. 7 still seems fresh to me.

Up to you! I tried it at work for a few days (TechNet RTM version) and I detested it to the point that I really loved being able to re-format my PC and put Windows 7 back on.

To be honest, I saw it as an OS that had lots of promise and some very nice features (really). But there's a few things about it which spoil it for me. Being forced to use Metro (unless you install third party apps), the fact that Search no longer searches the Control Panel, the awful full-screen view of Metro apps (like the built-in PDF handling) which means you can no longer snap multiple Metro apps side-by-side with other apps.

Yeah, it's got promise and I can see the point of the Metro start screen, but for me it's a bit like Vista. Some promising ideas and improvements, but too much poor and inconsistent execution. I'll wait for them to fix things properly for Windows 9 before moving away from Windows 7 methinks.

Agree 100%

It's the perfect OS for a tablet. For a PC, the decision to use the mouse as a virtual finger is horrendously flawed in execution and overly complex. I seem to spend more time fighting the OS than it blending into the background.

I installed it again the other day. No idea why. Like the others have said, it's going to be nice on touch devices like surface, but on a lappy or desktop it sucks. I can't tell you how many times I've opened IE because it's where the start button used to be. I will be going back to 7 shortly.

Some would say it's the ultimate in monopoly abuse. Microsoft taking advantage of their dominant desktop position to push an OS that they *know* is badly suited to the desktop, just to help plug and push their tablet and phone offerings.

I don't see it as monopoly abuse, just good old fashioned bad engineering.

By forced to use Metro, presumably you mean forced to use the Start Screen part? You're forced to use the Windows 7, Vista, XP, Windows Me, etc. Taskbar and Start Menu unless you install 3rd party apps too, so that's hardly a fair criticism of the OS. The Metro Start Screen is the Start Menu in Windows 8. It's kinda like saying you're forced to use the dock because you've installed OSX.

Start Screen Search does search Control Panel, it's categorised on the right hand-side into Apps, Settings and Files. To view the results for Settings you can press the down arrow on your keyboard to change the category or click on it with your mouse.

Not being able to snap Metro apps side-by-side is a bit odd, but I can see what they were aiming for with a common applicable-to-all UI that works the same for every app you install, be it by Microsoft or Blurbcorp.

Vista really wasn't that bad considering the huge overhaul they did to all the code, the security of the whole OS was drastically improved over XP for one. No doubt the bean-counters were pushing the development team to release something they could sell rather than give them more time to improve it some more and that's kinda how I feel about Windows 8 too, development of it has been restricted by Microsoft's bottom-line.

And if Microsoft's mobile OS development's are anything to go by, where they've adopt an Apple-esq release schedule (release frequently, sometimes with fewer new features), I think we'll see a Windows 8.5 before we see a Windows 9.

I have been running it on my home laptop since the. released rtm on msdn and I am slowly warming to it. I work mainly in the desktop and only use tifkam when I want to have a play around or use a downloaded application from the store. It is faster and Snappier than 7 and there are some nice new features that i feel make it a useful tool.

The wife was a first a little miffed at first but she soon got used to it and spends most of her time actually in tifkam. She saw the new ms tablet advert yesterday and was actually excited about a bit of kit. Looks like we will be an apple free household soon. Bye bye ipad 2 woo!

What I can't understand though is the use of tifkam in server 2012. Wtf were they thinking?

Try it, you might like it!

But that's just because you need to get used to IE (or whichever app you've pinned there) being there instead of the Start Button.

And anyway, hardcore techies like yourself should be pressing the Windows Key on their keyboard not clicking the start menu with their mouse :P

My argument is that in every previous version of Windows, there has been ways to revert to "classic" design elements. Win95 still included "Program Manager" for the luddites that still wanted it from their W3.1 days, XP and Vista still included the "classic" start menu. Windows 8 is the first OS from Microsoft which has implemented sweeping changes whilst simultaneously providing no official route back to the old way of doing things.

Criticism of W8 would be reduced if you could toggle the Start Menu back on, but you can't without installing something like Classic Shell. Hence I feel that it's a perfectly legitimate complaint about it.

I know that Search does still search the Control Panel, but extra steps are required to get to those hits, whereas in Windows 7 that's not required. Still a step backwards from Windows 7 IMO. New OS versions should speed actions up, not slow them down.

Not being able to snap Metro apps side by side isn't just odd, it's appallingly backwards. There's no good reason whatsoever why the desktop version shouldn't allow me to drag my PDF to one side of the screen and have Word or Firefox or something open at the other side. The fact that it's not allowed is appalling, lazy and backwards design and makes Metro apps effectively useless on a normal PC IMO.

Vista IMO was poor. The interface felt cluttered and unfinished and it felt badly designed to me. That's why we ended up with about 8 different options under "Shut down" with "Sleep" being the default option - even on Laptops, and with a hefty trip into the depths of Power Options being necessary to change it. This is the same reason that Windows 8 needs you to go into the "Charms bar", then into "Settings", then into "Power" to find the "Power off" option. It's just poor design.

Vista really needed another 6 months of development and feedback in order to correct its flaws and bad design elements. As it didn't receive that, it felt rushed and flawed to me - hence why I used it for a while, then jumped back to XP. It's also why it ended up as a flop in general. Windows 8 feels exactly the same in this respect. With a few tweaks and improvements and a bit of listening from MS, it could have been a real improvement over Windows 7. But too many aspects of it feel poorly conceived and badly designed to me. Hence, Windows 8 (to me) is a disappointment that I'll be avoiding.

Luddites is a very apt word choice :P

Switching back to Task Manager could only be done it you knew where to change the shell in the Windows Registry. Microsoft never provided an official user configurable option to disable the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 95. You should see Classic Shell or Start8 (or the other various hacks floating around) in the same vein as modifying the Registry.

If you know it can search Control Panel, why did you say it can't?

That aside, I like the improvements to the search categorisation in Windows 8. On more than one occurrence when searching in Windows 7 I've ended up opening some random document or email instead of the app I wanted because of the looser categorisation of results that sometimes puts documents above programs for no obvious reason.

And new OSes (anything actually) shouldn't just speed things up with new releases, they should also make things easier to accomplish. This is a really difficult thing to balance correctly, efficiency vs. usability is often the bane of most software developers' working lives.

I totally agree about not being able to snap Metro / TIFKAM next to each other, it's silly, but it doesn't make the whole damn thing useless!

And I totally disagree with you about Vista. It wasn't poor and it wasn't generally a flop either. Yes, it wasn't as good as Windows 7 and yes it was flawed in some aspects, but it was also featured some huge improvements over XP in both performance and security.

Also, need to clear your cache to stop the double-line-break-me-do.