Windows 8 has been panned by many reviewers. It's following in the tradition of even-numbered OS stinkers.

I have not used Windows 8, do not plan on using except for repairing customers computers.

But have you tried any compatibility modes, running as administrator/etc ?

This "even numbered Windows OS' suck" is nothing more than mythology and should be left as such. Anyone who has used Windows long enough, knows better.

Speaking as someone who's been a Windows developer since Windows 2.1, I can tell you with utmost confidence that it's not a myth. Windows 2.x, 4.x (NT), and 6.x (Vista) all have sucked. Microsoft trials new ideas on the even-numbered releases, then they spend 2 years learning how to make it work right, with results seen in the much-more-stable releases of Windows 3.x, 5 (XP), and 7.

How does the Win9x's fit in this? They had even numbers.

Waiting also gives time for manufacturers to come up with drivers that actually work. A lot of what made Vista horrible wasn't quite Microsoft's fault as much as it was a lack of decent drivers for anything, though there was the "push it out the door before anyone's ready for it"" aspect.

And some manufacturers stayed behind the curve and/or expected you to buy new hardware to go with your new version of Windows -- the reason I now just use onboard sound.

TL;DR rambling:

The "Even Number Rule" is a bit of a simplification, IMHO.

For example, there were 4 distinct releases of Win95.

95.0 (Original), 95.a, 95.b, 95.c

I had "Original" -- I had to reinstall every three months. B and C were reasonable stable, and you needed them anyways for proper USB support.

98 (which was really just 95 with fewer bugs) had "sort of" three versions not counting betas:

98 Original Release
98 Orignal Release + Service Pack
98 Second Edition

I preferred the 98 Original + SP because Second Edition had a bug that tended to scramble hard drives (It would power down the computer before it was done writing to them).

So, Windows 9X had 7 distinct versions. Really fun for tech support because you had to make sure the customer had the matching install media. "Bad Things" happened when you tried to fix windows with the wrong version of the install files.

Subsequent versions of windows didn't have this problem, they copied themselves over to the hard drive in a predictable way, and while there were a few hiccups with service packs, the versions weren't so distinctive as they were with Windows 9X. Although WinME's "Automated System Restore" was nightmarish for it's ability to put back viruses and broken files.

----

Anyhow:

Windows 2.0 -- I don't remember, I was using a C128 at the time.
Windows 3.1 -- Good
Windows 3.11 -- Good
Windows 95/98 -- Very rocky start, but mostly got better over time.
-- 95.0,95.A Bad
-- 95.B,95.C Better
-- 98, 98SP Best
-- 98SE - IMO, a bit worse, introduced some glaring new bugs.
Windows NT/2k -- NT: meh, esoteric though it fathered 2k, which was good after a couple of service packs.
Windows ME -- Forced interbreeding of NT and 98. Comic Book Guy: WORST WINDOWS EVER
Windows XP -- Good
Windows XP64 -- Drivers were hit-or-miss, but Windows itself was okay.
Windows Vista -- A lesson in not being an early adopter.
Windows 7 -- Good, mostly because it's a less-buggy version of Vista (see 95 -> 98 )
and by the time it came out, manufacturers had caught up with drivers.

I'll likely not bother with Windows 8 -- it's full of fluff I don't need because I run a standard desktop, and I'm perfectly happy with Windows 7.

Even if you disregard the driver issues, Vista was a crappy OS. Why? Because it was a silly resource hog. It required at least 4x as much memory and CPU as XP, ran slower no matter how much RAM and CPU you threw at it, and offered no must-have features in return. In short, it was a bloated pig. Microsoft is known for bloatware, but Vista took it to a whole new level.

Windows 7 actually requires fewer resources than Vista, runs faster than Vista (or even XP), and is the most stable Windows release I have ever used (even more stable than NT and 2k). I very much doubt anyone will ever say that about Windows 8.

NT and 2k are Windows 4.x (look at the internal version number). NT was the first 32-bit OS from Microsoft. All versions of Windows prior to NT were built over DOS and suffered from the DOS limits on memory usage. Yes, even Win9x. NT removed those limits and paved the way for today's much more powerful desktops. Before NT, desktops were hamstrung, with the OS unable to properly utilize the memory and CPU capabilities of the then-current hardware.

XP, aka Windows 5.x, basically added the drivers (and game-playing compatibility) that NT lacked, plus a more user-friendly UI than NT had.

WinME was an attempt to create a more stable DOS-based Win9x platform, since Microsoft acknowledged that NT wasn't a good fit (IOW, ready) for home and small office use. It failed to deliver. Spectacularly. At the time I had an IBM Thinkpad that came with ME. It was constantly crashing. After months of fruitlessly trying to fix it I finally decided what the heck, let's try XP, since it can't possibly be worse than ME. I was right. The stability problems instantly disappeared. I promptly upgraded all my desktops from 98SE to XP and led a much happier life afterwards.

I've been using Windows 8 for a few months and playing various mmo including sto, i had a few problems getting hardware to work, but used compatibilty mode to get them going. The Windows 8 is ok but microsoft installing it's version of the apple store and doing away with the start button going to kill it.

Ah, the heady joys of config.sys

And yes, 2k = improved NT. Ninja-edited my mini-review accordingly.

With WinME, I went back to my copy of 98 w/ sp until I got my mitts on a copy of Win2k that served me well until I got a dual core machine (so I used XP64 because it wasn't Vista).

I moved to Win7 because
-- It didn't have the issues of Vista (Bloat, instability, driver woe)
-- Having what other people are using is helpful when doing informal tech support
-- Native SSD support