Has Microsoft stumbled?

[Mr.WorldWide]

So rather than just disabling phoning home in the first place, you regularly block the connections whenever they try to happen?

The applications I'm blocking have no option to block certain connections during use. For example, one client I use wants to dl unnecessary images every time I open it, the images are quite stagnant, loading news from up to several months ago. I have no need to waste bandwidth and time loading those images so I kill that connection. The client however gives you no options to disable loading those images.

No, using the mouse to move the cursor, click, move the cursor and click again is not easier than pushing a single key on the keyboard.

Hmm, to move my mouse 2cm and click twice or to move my arm ~38cm? That's a tough call but I'm going to go with the former.

Non-exclusively, any version of Windows/Mac OS/Linux/Solaris/BSD released since 2006 sees essentially no benefit from being rebooted any more often than monthly.

Truth be told I only shut down desktops, my laptop I shut down once about every 14 days, I usually use hibernation mode.

Claiming that Windows needs to be rebooted more than on a monthly basis would be outrageous.

What prevents your claim from being equally outrageous? Common Knowledge?

You still haven't linked to one study which found conclusive evidence of that.

 

[Zelig]

Honestly, you don't really have any valid points worth responding to, I'll properly debunk anything if you post some supporting (wrong) evidence.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

Windows Vista needs to be rebooted once every two weeks.

 

[Zelig]

It does not.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Windows Vista needs to be rebooted once every two weeks.

Once a month for me, unless i do it deliberately

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

Hmm, then it's probably time for a clean install for me because I have a notable decrease in speed after 14 days or so.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Actually, task manager, kill explorer.exe, then restart explorer.exe. It helps sometimes when you think you need a reboot.

Actually, I use this, which sits in the system tray and is a great little program
http://www.askvg.com/restarter-rest...t-responding-tasks-using-windows-system-tray/

 

[innonimatu]

But it really isn't.

Those people were doing it poorly in Windows 7 anyway, they should be grateful that Windows 8 helps them improve their workflow.

They were holding the mouse the wrong way, was it?

You're not on the same level as Steve Jobs in distorting reality, and even he didn't get away with that one. Don't try it.

 

[Zelig]

They were holding the mouse the wrong way, was it?

You're not on the same level as Steve Jobs in distorting reality, and even he didn't get away with that one. Don't try it.

Don't try what?

I'm clearly explained how every use case pointed out is no less efficient in Windows 8 than in Windows 7.

 

[Iranon]

The start screen is is more visually disruptive and puts whatever you're working on out of sight, immersion-breaking with or without animation. Bigger is also not necessarily better in this context - a compact menu means you know exactly where to look while you may now have to scan the entire screen.

Small routine tasks involving start screen/menu didn't really get any harder or take any longer, but they became more distracting. More so if users think of the start screen as being or belonging to a separate interface from the desktop.
While things haven't really become any more complicated, they feel that way because of a less cohesive design.

 

[Zelig]

That mostly seems like after-the-fact justification for not liking the change. I know exactly where to look. On my screen. Making big things take more room or small things take less room makes very little difference to my overall speed of scanning unless I'm sitting at arms' length from my 55" tv.

 

[Iranon]

Not at all.

Compromises are just that, and the Windows 8 interface requires a lot of them to work with all devices it's supposed to. This one isn't even a pure disadvantage because more space is an opportunity to fit more clever stuff... and given a choice between Windows 8 start screen with associated functionality and Windows 7 start menu with associated functionality I'd pick the former.

Windows 8 has more distractions and rough edges than its predecessors, as far as the interface for an old-fashioned desktop is concerned. Arguing against that seems silly.
Arguing that the former stems from reasonable compromises, the latter is to be expected when you're innovating rather than just refining, that the overall experience is better? I'd largely agree. Blind fanboyism is a disease.

 

[Zelig]

Well, I think you could do something better without taking up the entire screen (Quicksilver), but the start menu certainly isn't it.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

Is there any way to collapse the all apps list into their respective folders?

I find it far more time consuming to scroll through hundreds of shortcuts looking for the one I want. This was much faster in previous versions of windows because the start menu showed the folders and not each and every shortcut inside.

 

[Zelig]

That's the fault of the app makers for putting links to stupid things like readmes that were never appropriate in the start menu in the first place.

You can just manually delete all the crap shortcuts from the Start Menu directory.

And you really shouldn't regularly need to go to the all apps list, if you use a thing regularly, pin it to the start screen or remember and type it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

That's the fault of the app makers for putting links to stupid things like readmes that were never appropriate in the start menu in the first place.

Wait, so it's not just me who's annoyed by that? If I want to uninstall the program, I'll go to add/remove programs. If I want to visit the site, I'll look it up in my bookmarks. If I want to view the help file I'll launch the program (or go to the application's folder) and then open it.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

Why not just allow users to browse "all apps" by folders like in the start menu?

---------

Guess who's back, back again. http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsof...ild-9374-disappoints-start-button-fans-216968

 

[Zelig]

Because folder-based hierarchies are terribly inefficient outside of the command line, and allowing every program to dump a half-dozen links into its own folder is possibly the worst possible way to do it.

 

[Mise]

Can it not just filter by executable? Registered programmes?

p.s. tags > folders

 

[Iranon]

Because folder-based hierarchies are terribly inefficient outside of the command line, and allowing every program to dump a half-dozen links into its own folder is possibly the worst possible way to do it.

I don't know, that seems more a problem of presentation. On the start screen, click to launch, some secondary action to show all associated actions seems nice.
Not perfect though - it would make the folders in the explorer a little messy unless we use tags, which seems overkill.

Enforcing good practice by reducing convenient options can backfire: instead of inconsistent implementations contrary to your design goals you get slightly more consistent but godawful implementations contrary to your deisgn goals.