Windows 8

[Archbob]

all i'm hearing is raaaaaaah change!!!!!!

I don't really care about people who don't even know the name of the program they want to open.

Its easier just to double-click an icon?

You don't but MS should care because its the majority of their users. You know the 99% that doesn't have multiple monitor(or anyone that uses a laptop really).

Its just not as good for anyone but really techie users.

 

[Mise]

Half the critics say that Metro dumbs down the UI, the other half say that it's too difficult for normal users to use. It's easier than driving a car and even my Grandmother can drive a car. I can't say I'm too fussed about the Metro UI either, and I'll probably never use it, but these criticisms are just "raaaaaah change" criticisms.

 

[Archbob]

Half the critics say that Metro dumbs down the UI, the other half say that it's too difficult for normal users to use. It's easier than driving a car and even my Grandmother can drive a car. I can't say I'm too fussed about the Metro UI, and I'll probably never use it, but these criticisms are just "raaaaaah change" criticisms.

The issue is that it doesn't give any real advantages to regular users over the Win 7 desktop. The blocks are just really cluttered and unless you have multiple monitors, you not going to be able to fit 30-40 blocks on your screen without it looking like a mess. That and the flash plugin doesn't work right on Metro for all but a few sites.

I've tried using several different UI's before on different OS's, none of them are as good or intuitive as the Windows XP or Windows 7 UI(which is the same thing as the Win 95 UI).

MS would have done a lot better if the desktop OS just defaulted to desktop with an option to switch it into the new UI by launching a program, instead of the other way around. Its just MS's attempt to feed people crap they don't want because they want to make people dependent on their app store.

 

[Zelig]

Having to type program name is ********, most people don't remember what their program names are called. I'd much rather hit the start button and have everything listed. The icons in windows 7 are a whole lot better than the blocks on Windows 8 as well. I hardly ever typed in a program name in either XP or 7, I don't think your getting this point. Hardly anyone I know actually does this, even most of the programmers usually use the start menu or double click on a icon.


Very few people actually use run and type in a program name. So, no, its not just like Windows 7. It sucks.
Your thinking of yourself, 99% of people aren't power users and most people don't have multiple screen on a laptop/desktop. People want a simple thing that works, no extra clicks to launch desktop view, no remembering program names, etc. Windows 8 does not deliver that.


MS is not making for power users or geeky people, they are making it for the general audience. It sucks for that purpose.

You should learn the names of programs you use, you're really bad at using a computer.

You're objectively wrong about most people using the start menu, telemetry data shows that start menu use since Vista has plummeted, most people either search on the start menu, or pin things on the taskbar.

Sorry you don't know any good programmers, the ones I know realize the start menu/screen are equivalent and use launchers (Launchy, Alfred, Quicksilver, dwm, GNOME Do, Katapult) which are all far more efficient than either the start menu/screen.

Windows 8 is incredibly simple, the blocks are huge and easy to see, I don't even know what use case you think is difficult.

The issue is that it doesn't give any real advantages to regular users over the Win 7 desktop. The blocks are just really cluttered and unless you have multiple monitors, you not going to be able to fit 30-40 blocks on your screen without it looking like a mess. That and the flash plugin doesn't work right on Metro for all but a few sites.

I've tried using several different UI's before on different OS's, none of them are as good or intuitive as the Windows XP or Windows 7 UI(which is the same thing as the Win 95 UI).

MS would have done a lot better if the desktop OS just defaulted to desktop with an option to switch it into the new UI by launching a program, instead of the other way around. Its just MS's attempt to feed people crap they don't want because they want to make people dependent on their app store.

Sorry you think that no OS since Windows 95 has given real advantages to regular users, you can probably just keep using Windows 95 if that's the case.

Why on earth would you need more than 30-40 blocks on your screen? There's no way you use that many programs regularly.

It's been shown that no computer UI is intuitive, people who haven't used computers before are equally worthless on any UI you give them. The only thing computer UIs have is familiarity and consistency.

It does essentially default to the desktop, except the start screen/menu starts open - Win7 with a start menu that begins open works exactly the same way. You've still failed to provide a single use case where booting the the desktop with no start screen/menu is better than in Win8.

 

[Iranon]

To most people who're neither terribly interested in computers nor utter newbies, easy means familiar. Many would have preferred a familiar desktop, with the UI innovations being entirely optional.
The important question: Why should Microsoft care?

Macs are still expensive, Linux is still nerdy, most users will get Windows bundled with their computer anyway and be reluctant to leave the massive and familiar software ecosystem.
Focusing on the new interface is less likely to scare away desktop users than it is to serve as a gateway to Windows on mobile devices and the Windows Store. Let them rage, as long as they buy.

 

[Archbob]

They did that start menu thing on some focus group. Even the majority of people at slashdot oppose not having a start menu. In generally people hate the Metro UI on desktop because its just not as good for them. I use 15-20 program regularly. If I want to play League of Legends, no one I know brings up the search and types "league of legends", they just double click the icon. I am not going to remember all of those program names regularly, double click on a desktop icon is so much easier.

MS's "research" was drawn upon the conclusion of a focus group of interested OS users. I tried googling for actual statistics and found nothing on what % of people actually use the start menu.

The only time I really see people type in a program name is to bring up the ms-dos prompt or something they don't use very often.

You've still failed to provide a single use case where booting the the desktop with no start screen/menu is better than in Win8.

Except no one actually does this. Not at the company at worked at or when I check out people's PC's or laptops. Everyone has the start menu on Win 7.

You can try to praise Win 8 all you want but the actual stats show that very few people are using it on desktop compared to Win 7 at the same stage. The 40 million sales you tout are mainly to manufacturers. Actual use of Win8 a month after launch is 1/3 of what Win 7's was. Feedback wise, most people just really hate the new UI, because it sucks. I'm pretty sure Win8 is gonna flop on desktop.

 

[filli_noctus]

For my wife's Win8 laptop I installed this. You can configure it to skip straight to desktop, reimplement the start menu, disable the hot corners and generally fix the mess that is Win8 on a desktop.
It's probably nnot worth arguing the point with Zelig though, the same points have been made for the last ten pages and he won't so much as acknowledge that people have genuine issues with the changes.

 

[Zelig]

If you want to play league of Legends, you can still double click the icon in Windows 8 exactly the same as you would in Windows 7. There's nothing the desktop in Windows 7 does that the desktop in Windows 8 doesn't do.

And you don't need to type entire program names to search, just the first 2-3 letters is usually enough.

MS telemetry data is from everyone who enables the Microsoft Customer Experience Improvement Program on their PCs.

I haven't been touting sales, I've mentioned them once. I've been pointing out that you can't mention a single thing that Windows 7 does better than Windows 8.

For my wife's Win8 laptop I installed this. You can configure it to skip straight to desktop, reimplement the start menu, disable the hot corners and generally fix the mess that is Win8 on a desktop.
It's probably nnot worth arguing the point with Zelig though, the same points have been made for the last ten pages and he won't so much as acknowledge that people have genuine issues with the changes.

There are some legitimate issues, that legit sites (See ArsTechnica or TheVerge) have mentioned in their reviews but people in this thread are mostly just, like Mise said, "raaaaaah change".

 

[filli_noctus]

People have mentioned several things, you just dismiss them out of hand.

For example, here are some ways off the top of my head that Win7 does better:
Starts up into a useful desktop environment
Fails to throw you into random programs if you move the mouse wrong
Look good

 

[Zelig]

I dismiss them out of hand because they're easily dismissible.

"Starts in a useful desktop environment" - This isn't a use case, a use case is something you do after it's started up. Regardless just put the desktop tile in the top left, and hitting enter when you boot will bring you to the desktop.

"Fails to throw you into random programs if you move the mouse wrong" - It is impossible to change programs in Windows 8 by simply moving the mouse.

"Looks good" - Windows 8 on the desktop is IMO the best looking OS available.

 

[Iranon]

I don't think lacking Windows 7's early sucess means very much.

When 7 came out, many users were more than fed up with Vista (rocky start with driver and other technical issues, policy changes caught users off guard and some applications struggled too, it got bundled with plenty of hardware not powerful enough to run it. Most kinks were worked out by then, but its reputation was ruined) and XP seemed quite long in the tooth.
7 was a conservative release with uncontroversial changes from Vista and few teething issues, meeting a user base fairly desperate for something - anything - new. Of course it was successful.

Windows 8 offers more value over 7 than 7 did over Vista, even just for a classic desktop system.
But it looks alien at first glance, hints at a direction many don't want their OS to go, is somewhat disjointed ergonomically and stylistically, and replaces something many users actually like.
Expecting the same early success Windows 7 enjoyed wasn't realistic.

 

[Archbob]

Vista never had large usage, it flopped, much like Win 8 probably will.

Most users switched from Xp to 7, not vista.

The really successful Windows release(95, XP, 7) all had high adoption rates right after release, while the ones that flopped like ME, Vista, and probably 8 didn't do well post-release.

I remember switching from 3.14 or whatever to Win 95. That was a big change but most everyone I remember loved it. It was like the 2nd coming or something. Most people hate the new UI for 8. This tablet UI should have never been introduced on the desktop. Its that simple.

The blocks are way to cluttered, there's a lot of icons I use regularly and several I use periodically enough to want an icon on my desktop. My desktop would be a cluttered mess of blocks if I did that with Win 8. Why would I want to search for a program when I can just double click the one I would want to use? Its much less hassle.

 

[filli_noctus]

I dismiss them out of hand because they're easily dismissible.

, so are your defences of the flaws.

"Starts in a useful desktop environment" - This isn't a use case, a use case is something you do after it's started up. Regardless just put the desktop tile in the top left, and hitting enter when you boot will bring you to the desktop.

Still one more keypress than needed, and it's still something Win8 does so use cases are kind of irrelevant to the point at hand.

"Fails to throw you into random programs if you move the mouse wrong" - It is impossible to change programs in Windows 8 by simply moving the mouse.

Have you used Win8 with a touchpad? Unless you disable hot corners (which requires a third party program) AND side swiping it happens all the sodding time.

"Looks good" - Windows 8 on the desktop is IMO the best looking OS available.

IMO it bears a striking resemblance to 3.X.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

"Looks good" - Windows 8 on the desktop is IMO the best looking OS available.

Well to me it looks like some half baked idea that video game consoles use, which were designed to be looked at by someone sitting half a room away on a sofa.

Also you say "it's easy to get to the desktop from boot, just schedule it and press enter". Well my question is "why should we be forced to perform these extra steps just to do what previous windows OS did for us automatically"?

Wasn't the default boot to desktop easy enough for the normal person? What on earth can possibly justify an extra step just to get your desktop?

It really reminds me of that HP quick start crap sub-OS that comes on HP Laptops.

 

[Zelig]

", so are your defences of the flaws."
- Not objectively.

"Still one more keypress than needed, and it's still something Win8 does so use cases are kind of irrelevant to the point at hand."
- If you're only legitimate complaint with Windows 8 is that you have to push enter when you boot it up (which should only be happening monthly or so, just put the computer to sleep unless you need to reboot for updates), take 2 minutes and set it to boot to the desktop from the task scheduler, good until you reinstall Windows.

And use cases are extremely relevant. What's the first thing you do when you turn on the computer and boot to the desktop? Launch a program? Because you can launch a program in exactly the same way from the start screen, and the result is that program, open on the desktop.

"Have you used Win8 with a touchpad? Unless you disable hot corners (which requires a third party program) AND side swiping it happens all the sodding time."
- That's not even a Windows 8 thing, that's a touchpad driver thing - updated Synaptics drivers lets you do whatever you want with these gestures.

"IMO it bears a striking resemblance to 3.X."
- IMO Win7 bears a striking resemblance to DOS.

Vista never had large usage, it flopped, much like Win 8 probably will.

Most users switched from Xp to 7, not vista.

The really successful Windows release(95, XP, 7) all had high adoption rates right after release, while the ones that flopped like ME, Vista, and probably 8 didn't do well post-release.

I remember switching from 3.14 or whatever to Win 95. That was a big change but most everyone I remember loved it. It was like the 2nd coming or something. Most people hate the new UI for 8. This tablet UI should have never been introduced on the desktop. Its that simple.

The blocks are way to cluttered, there's a lot of icons I use regularly and several I use periodically enough to want an icon on my desktop. My desktop would be a cluttered mess of blocks if I did that with Win 8. Why would I want to search for a program when I can just double click the one I would want to use? Its much less hassle.

You're not even making sense, you don't double click programs on the start menu. Have you used any version of Windows in the past decade?

Well to me it looks like some half baked idea that video game consoles use, which were designed to be looked at by someone sitting half a room away on a sofa.

Also you say "it's easy to get to the desktop from boot, just schedule it and press enter". Well my question is "why should we be forced to perform these extra steps just to do what previous windows OS did for us automatically"?

Wasn't the default boot to desktop easy enough for the normal person? What on earth can possibly justify an extra step just to get your desktop?

It really reminds me of that HP quick start crap sub-OS that comes on HP Laptops.

So stick to Windows 7 if you think the 2 minutes it takes to make Win8 boot to the desktop is too much, or see my replies to previous poster.

 

[filli_noctus]

Like I said, impossible to discuss the issues,

 

[sophie]

Like I said, impossible to discuss the issues,

It's not his fault that you have no legitimate points to argue.

I mean honestly, listen to yourself. You're complaining about having to hit the enter button.

 

[Archbob]

You're not even making sense, you don't double click programs on the start menu. Have you used any version of Windows in the past decade?

I was referring to the icons on the desktop for that comment. I don't need them turned into ugly block format.

I mean honestly, listen to yourself. You're complaining about having to hit the enter button.

Why should I have to customize it so its the first tile and hit enter, why doesn't it just boot into it by default?

And use cases are extremely relevant. What's the first thing you do when you turn on the computer and boot to the desktop? Launch a program? Because you can launch a program in exactly the same way from the start screen, and the result is that program, open on the desktop.

I either double click a non-crappy block icon on my desktop or I use the start menu. The new interface sucks for non-mobile users. Blowing up the start screen to 3x is normal size is a ******** idea and windows 8 doesn't really offer any benefits. 7 never really crashed for me and it boots pretty fast.

 

[Zelig]

I was referring to the icons on the desktop for that comment. I don't need them turned into ugly block format.

So use the icons on the desktop. Not sure what you find particularly ugly about live tiles though, blame your app developers if they make ugly tiles.

Why should I have to customize it so its the first tile and hit enter, why doesn't it just boot into it by default?

Why should I have to customize it so it's 24hr clock, why can't I have that by default?

I either double click a non-crappy block icon on my desktop or I use the start menu. The new interface sucks for non-mobile users. Blowing up the start screen to 3x is normal size is a ******** idea and windows 8 doesn't really offer any benefits. 7 never really crashed for me and it boots pretty fast.

Those things function exactly the same on the start screen, you either click an icon or type the start of a program name. Windows 8 doesn't do anything worse than Windows 7 for non-mobile users.

List of benefits over Windows 7:
Boots faster.
Connected standby.
Better task manager.
Better file moving/copying.
Better multimonitor support.
Better backups.
Better cloud syncing.
Better USB3 support.

 

[Archbob]

Those things function exactly the same on the start screen, you either click an icon or type the start of a program name.

Except the icons are a lot bigger and come in a ******** format. You can't fit as many of them on a desktop with it looking like a mess.

If you use IE(which many people still do), flash doesn't work right in Metro mode. A lot of sites I go do just don't run and I have to switch to desktop mode to get them to work right. If you hate flash, its not a big deal I guess, but I don't mind it and HTML5 honestly causes far more problems for me than flash does.

Basically the desktop mode is far superior for desktop that this new Metro UI, its stupid to defaultly boot into this new UI for desktops. Why not just boot into desktop for default and have metro as an option?

On a clean install the boot time different is hardly noticable, the boot time on a machine is more determined by what you have installed on it than what OS you have. Hell XP boots almost instantly if its a clean install.

Have you ever actually looked at the default interface for Win 8?

Its a jumbled blob of crap.

Win 8 would be fine if they go rid of that.