Windows 8 does seem to run better on lower powered hardware than Windows 8. I have an ATOM based Nettop computer that seem to be faster with Windows 8. I can see they did some performance tuning.
The biggest complaint with Microsoft is they are moving choice. It has been a long-standing unwritten rule that there are many ways to do thing in Windows. Another unwritten run is allowing users to customize Windows. Windows 8 breaks both of those rules.
- You can't choose which desktop you want to boot into, the Windows or Windows RT.
- The Windows desktop is crippled because of no Start Menu.
- Microsoft won't let you by default change the picture on the back of the Start Screen. Nor the application button colors, nor the images displayed for an application.
- There are no common programs for both desktops. What I mean is if you launch IE in Windows and then go to Windows RT, IE isn't also available there too, already running in the exact spot your Windows desktop view of the application is at. Instead, Windows RT has a different IE, and there is no way to make them the same. I had hoped that an application could be accessed from either desktop and depending on the desktop you are in, is how the application would be presented to the user. Now there are two different and unequal applications.
(As a side note, I've noticed that Windows 8 desktop crashes are a lot harder to get through. I've had Explorer.exe crash, and back in Windows 7, the OS would start a new Explorer and the desktop will come back. In Windows 8, not only does Explorer not restart, but I can't pull up anything that will allow me to start an Explorer. I usually have to click the power button and have the laptop shutdown. I'm not sure why Windows 8 desktop is less stable than Windows 7, but I hope that gets fixed.)
The Ugly is that users will have to deal with all these problems until a better alternative is made. I don't know if it will be Linux or third party vendor creating a Windows shell that gives the users what they want (which means is configurable).
I can see businesses and desktop/laptop users will still need a Windows 7 like desktop, a desktop mainly designed for high interactivity. There are also tablet uses for Windows that require low interactivity. Each is good for that it is designed for and bad at the other.
Bolting touch onto Windows 7 probably wouldn't have worked out too well, like wise needing to type and draw with precision doesn't work well only using touch.
I hear Microsoft isn't going to give users a Start Menu in Windows 8.1, but I guess we all can hope in Windows 9 the Windows desktop of Windows 7 will be restored. Also, the two desktop will be fused so only one application is needed, and depending on your view, is how you will see it.
Lastly, I guess I would have to put the Windows RT desktop under the ugly column. The irony isn't lost upon me where Microsoft wanted us to upgrade our machines to computers with stronger GPUs so we could have this pretty Aero Glass interface. Not Aero was removed from Windows 8 and not only does the Start Screen look ugly but now the Windows 8 desktop as well. It is sad that the start menu uses flat colors (no gradients no curves, no 3D tile look, no shiny gloss finish) and makes no attempt to look beautiful. Also sad is how the Windows RT designers say the removed all the chrome and only show content. However the Start Screen is full of buttons, and the layout of information in apps do break into lines. The "designers" in Windows 8 need to realized they may have renamed things but they are about the same. Everything they claim to have gotten rid of and can found in the new interface. (For example "wasted space by having the chrome", if you look at a Window RT application, there is plenty of space in applications that is not used. Some applications do a better job than others, but many of the default templates waste screen space.) Personally, I will be glad when the
Metro/"Modern" interface gets improved into something that not only looks good but is also more useful.