Why You Shouldn't Upgrade to Windows 8

Give users an OS that won't make their computers behave like third-rate iPad knock-offs.

Microsoft Windows 8

[Part two of a two-part series. Also see, "Why you should upgrade to Windows 8."]

Im writing this in a Microsoft Word 2010 window that fills less than half of my screen. Also visible are two Chrome windowsone containing my inbox, the other some pages relevant to this articleand Windows Media Player, which reports to me that Im listening to Beethovens Seventh Symphony. I can easily get to any installed program with a few clicks of my mouse.

Enterprise Upgrades: Five Reasons to Focus on Windows 7 not Windows 8

You can probably guess that Im not using Windows 8. I have a copy of it set up on another PC for testing purposes, but for the PC I do my work on, I need a powerful and versatile operating system that lets me arrange programs and windows as I see fit. For these purposes, Windows 7 qualifies; Windows 8 does not.

Windows without windows: Does anyone at Microsoft understand that Windows is called Windows because it has windows?

That seemingly obvious fact harkens back to a time before the geniuses in Redmond decided to weigh us down with the Interface Formerly Known as Metro (which Ill abbreviate to IFKaM). The Windows 8 Start screen has no windows. At best, you can display two programs side by side, and even doing that is impossible if your screens horizontal resolution is less than 1366.

But the lack of actual windows isnt IFKaMs worst flaw. You can still organize the Start page by dragging your productivity apps, your media players, and your utilities into separate groups; however, IFKaM doesnt allow you to arrange your programs hierarchically, like folders on a hard drive or submenus on the Start menu. Instead, you must accept an arrangement where everything is displayed up front.

The crippled Windows desktop: Windows 8 retains the old user interface, which is now officially called Desktop, but in a sadly hobbled form. You cant use Desktop as your default interface. You cant boot into it or close Windows from it. On the other hand, you can manage files in Desktop. Theres no IFKaM equivalent of Windows Explorer.

Even worse, Microsoft has removed the Start menu, except for a cut-down version called simplified start. Introduced in Windows 95 and improved many times since, the Start menu has evolved into a brilliant work of convenience.

Think about all you can do with the Windows 7 Start menu. You can pin shortcuts to programs to its top level, but you dont have to, because the programs you use frequently show up there automatically. Each shortcut contains a menu of recently used and recently pinned data files.

Two operating systems, little common ground: To make things worse, the two separate interfaces dont play well together. Going from one to the other is just plain crazy.

Windows 8 includes two versions of Internet Explorerone for each environment. But they dont work together very well. When you create a Favorite in the Desktop version, it appears only in the Desktop version. Create a Favorite in the IFKaM version, and it still appears only in the Desktop version. (The IFKaM version also has an option to pin a webpage to the Start screen, increasing the congestion at that overcrowded location.)

It could have been so much better: Microsoft totally missed the boat here. We dont need a confusing mix of Desktop and IFKaM applications. We need an OS that can change its user interface when we change our hardware.

It should all be configurable, and you should be free to decide what criteria create the changeor you should have the option of sticking with the interface you prefer.

Alas, Microsoft didnt choose that route. So Ill stay with Windows 7 for as long as I can, and hope that the company fixes everything in Windows 9 (or better yet, Windows 8 SP1). And if Microsoft doesnt? Well, thats why we have Apple and Linux.

This story, "Why You Shouldn't Upgrade to Windows 8" was originally published by PCWorld.

NEW! Download the State of the CIO 2017 report