When Microsoft introduced the ‘Modern UI’ on the XBox 360 a while ago, it seemed obvious to most people that the new UI was just an excuse to shove more advertising into the faces of users. It changed a perfectly functional, text-based navigation system into an attention-grabbing, image-oriented, and ultimately wasteful navigation system. Visual ads are much more effective than text ads, and the current XBox 360 interface delivers them relentlessly.

A bit of background: Microsoft has long been jealous of Google’s ability to make massive amounts of money through advertising. Microsoft has tried to emulate Google by mirroring the services Google provides with Bing, Bing Webmaster Tools, and so on. When the new XBox 360 UI – the one filled with ads – first appeared, Microsoft may have expected backlash from users. When no such backlash materialized, Microsoft must have decided they could get away with the same thing in Windows.

So, when Microsoft announced that Windows 8 would have the same interface as the XBox 360, I immediately assumed we’d be seeing ads in Windows 8. Sure enough, we’re starting to see reports of advertising appearing in the apps built into Windows 8.

But here’s the problem: XBox 360 users spend very little time looking at the user interface. 99.9% of the time, they’re looking at full screen content in the form of video and games. The interface ads barely register. That’s not the case with Windows applications, where most desktop users spend all their time. If I need to use a certain type of application, and I have a choice between one that shows me ads all the time, and one that doesn’t, guess which one I’m going to choose? Business IT departments are going to really hate this as well, and it’s going to be yet another reason for them to avoid Windows 8 completely.

The Australian site pcauthority.com has an interesting post about consumer confusion related to the retail version of Windows 8.

Microsoft has made significant changes to the way Windows is being sold. The resulting confusion has retailers claiming that the boxed copies of Windows 8 they are selling are full versions, not upgrades. In fact, they are upgrades. Anyone wishing to purchase a non-upgrade version of Windows 8 can either buy a new computer that comes with an OEM version of Windows 8, or wait until the new “System Builder” version becomes available. The System Builder version is not yet available, and pricing is yet to be confirmed my Microsoft.

The pcauthority.com article explicitly demonstrates that retail boxed copies of Windows 8 cannot be used for new installs. And despite the source being Australian, the same rules apply here in North America.

The latest in Ars Technica’s series on Windows 8 covers the basics of getting up and running with the new O/S. It includes some help with common problems.

The new O/S is apparently selling well, or at least better than Windows 7 did at this stage, according to Steve Ballmer. Of course, when Windows 7 appeared, the previous viable version (Windows XP) was not imminently losing support from Microsoft. Clearly, the huge number of Windows XP systems out there have to go somewhere, and it looks like a lot of early adopters are going for Windows 8. I’m sure the much lower upgrade price ($40 as opposed to $100) was a big factor in those decisions.

ARS Technica has an extended look at the use of Windows 8 in the workplace, specifically the Enterprise edition. Their conclusion? That upgrading to Windows 8 isn’t really worth the trouble, unless your existing systems run Windows XP. In other words, stick with Windows 7 if that’s what you’re using in your business. There are simply not enough useful new or improved features in Windows 8 Enterprise. Add to that the increased training costs associated with the new user interface, and it’s best to stick with 7 for now.

Yet another post from ARS Technica looks at the viability of Linux as a replacement for Windows on the desktop. They conclude that the arrival of Windows 8 is not going to drive people to Linux, as others have predicted, and that the big beneficiary is actually going to be Windows 7. I think they’re right. However, if the current push towards mainstream gaming on Linux goes anywhere, that may change.

According to a recent review over at ARS Technica, the core apps that come with Windows 8 (People, Calendar, Mail, etc.) may be okay for tablet users, but most desktop users will probably avoid them in favour of what they used previously.

Which raises the question: if the idea was to move toward a common user interface for all Windows platforms, but desktop users avoid apps that use the new UI, has anything really changed? Application developers (including Microsoft) will be working on software that supports the new UI, but for now, nothing much has changed.

There’s a lot being written about Windows 8 on technology blogs. Below I’ve linked to a few recent posts from ARS Technica and The Verge. These articles are not reviews, so don’t expect much in the way of criticism. Still, for anyone trying to decide whether to try Windows 8, they might be useful.

• The Verge: Windows 8 primer: how to navigate Microsoft’s new operating system
• ARS Technica: A visual tour of Windows 8
• ARS Technica: Better on the inside: under the hood of Windows 8

Traditionally, upgrading to a newer version of Windows on existing hardware meant a noticeable drop in performance. That’s because ‘new’ in the software world usually means ‘uses more memory and other hardware resources’. Is that the case with Windows 8?

Ars Technica ran some benchmarks, comparing the performance of Windows 8 with Windows 7 on the same hardware. Given the amount of hype out there about Windows 8’s improved boot times, I was curious what a real world test would show.

Well, there’s good news and there’s bad news. The bad news is that although boot times have improved with Windows 8, the difference isn’t as large as we’ve been led to believe. The good news is that Windows 8 doesn’t appear to be any slower than Windows 7. In fact, in most tests, Windows 8 is about the same or slightly faster than Windows 7. Of course, that really just emphasizes a point that Microsoft has been making: that Windows 8 is – at its core – the same as Windows 7.

Today is the big day for Windows 8. Those of us who remember the Windows 95 release are perhaps less excited about this one. As was Windows 95, the new O/S is being touted as a game-changer. Jaded by the marketing hype, and disappointed by duds like Windows Me and Vista, my considered opinion is “meh.” I’ll get it, I’ll install it, I’ll test it, and I’ll report on it. But I seriously doubt it’s going to change much of anything for me.

Pricing and retail availability for the new O/S are discussed in a post over at net-security.org. As predicted, a download-only upgrade version of Windows 8 Pro is available for $40 USD. If you want media, the same thing will cost you $70 USD. The new System Builder version, of interest to PC hobbyists and professionals, has yet to be announced.

Ars Technica has a detailed report on the Windows 8 upgrade experience. They wanted to know if the old warnings about Windows upgrades still hold true. Spoiler: yes they do. If you’re one of those people who only uses a few applications, and who keeps their software and drivers up to date, then the upgrade may work fine for you. Otherwise, you’re taking a chance on making a big mess.

Ars Technica also has a new review of Windows 8.

The Verge has a useful buying guide for Windows 8 that helps to sort out the various options.