Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Best Argument: No
Audience Favored: Yes (74%)
It's simply worth the change
My opponent is unable to make a convincing argument from a purely technical perspective that installing Windows 8 on older PCs which can already accommodate Windows 7 is a net negative. And at the end of the day, that is the crux of what we are debating here.
His powers are weak.
Obi-Wan Vaughn-Nichols was once my teacher, but now I am the master. Indeed, by using the Source, Linux can bring life back to even the oldest systems, even ones which cannot run Windows 8, Windows 7 or even that pile of Bantha droppings, Windows Vista.
But Linux will not run your legacy software, and it requires a transition to a completely new environment with all new Open Source apps. Only a Gungan fool like Jar-Jar would move to Linux thinking their critical application software would still work. A FOOL!
Indeed, the new Metro UI and Star Menu in Windows 8 is also different, and will require adaptation as well as developers to create new WinRT-based programs to take advantage of it.
But it is worth adapting to the change because Windows 8 will improve the performance of your old PC, it will still run your existing applications, and also provides you with many new features that will invigorate your system with the power of The Dark Side.
Darth Perlow: Your Linux powers are weak, old man.
No real reason to bother
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Seriously, I can't see any but the most hard-core and techie Windows fans moving their current PCs to Windows 8. There's just no real reason to bother.
Don't believe me? Since I started this debate, I've seen another program, Classic Shell that lets you restore real Windows functionality to Windows 8, and, far more telling, Samsung is bring the Start button back to Windows 8. Come on, Windows 8 isn't even shipping yet and already people are ignoring what Microsoft wants you to do with it in favor of making it more like Windows 7?
I said it before, I'll say it again. Metro should have gone to phones and tablets, and all the real improvements in Windows 8 should have gone into Windows 7 SP2.
Obi-Vaughan: You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
[Cue theme, start closing roll, Coming Next Summer: The Mac Strikes Back!]
It's tough to recommend upgrading
This was a fun debate. In fact, these guys almost had a little too much fun with the whole Star Wars theme. But you've got to love their enthusiasm. In terms of who won the debate, that's tough because both of them brought up some important stuff but neither of them totally convinced me that they have the right perspective on all of this. As Perlow pointed out, Windows 8 has some key underlying improvements in security and performance that will make it a safer and more efficient experience. But, Steven is right that the new interface is going to confuse a lot more people than it is going to help.
If this were just about Window 8 then I would say it's going to do well out of the gate based on all of the interest it has already generated and the fact that it is so new and different that it will convince a lot of people to give it a try. However, this debate is specifically about whether users should upgrade their old PCs to Windows 8. Because Windows does not have a very good track record on operating system upgrades when it comes to stability and performance and the fact that Windows 8 is adding such a radical new user interface to the desktop, it's difficult to recommend that any but the most curious technophiles should upgrade their old machines to Windows 8. Instead, try it out on your next laptop, especially if it's a touch-screen hybrid. So, Steven gets the win.