Windows 8 Flack

[tacticalpanic]

I think my biggest grip with windows 8 is that it feels like its a solution to a problem we didn't have, until a few years ago I hated to use a track pad , felt so slow and clunky , trying to drag windows a nightmare. Then I tried a mac book air that was running OSX lion , I had not used os since... os 9 I think it was when I was in school , and I was utterly blown away by how good there touchpad was , ok hardware wise there touchpads are well built , but it felt like the entire OS was build around touch gestures , and I already knew them because there the exact ones that I use on my phone , pinch to zoom and all that, that's a real solution to a problem many computer users today have because more people are buying laptops than they are desktops.

 

I'm not sure exactly what windows 8 wants to be , the biggest issue is that "apps" and "programs" are two different things on the platform , and that's just ridicules, modern UI and desktop may as well be two different operating systems , in 8.0 they don't talk to each other , I've not used the update so I cant speak of that.

 

I really want to know why exactly the old way (win7) was worse than the new way of doing things (win8)

[Billbob]

The metro start menu is basically the same as the program manager in 3.1, except that had less pointless eye candy and was easier to read.

 

I could not care less if you think windows 8 is the best thing ever, market share pretty much points out that the majority of the m$ customer base thinks it is not worth the money and time. These threads are getting pretty pointless, an individual with a keyboard who apparently is incapable of reading all the existing reasons people do not want windows 8 creates a thread asking why people do not want windows 8, then proceeds to tell people they are wrong. Windows 8 failed, the sales statistics show this, if people wanted it they would have bought it and oems would not be shipping with win 7 or 3rd party start menus.

 

I am willing to bet not many people asked for a vista downgrade when windows 7 came out.

[GoodBytes]

I am not sure what you are taking about.. but Windows 8 is made by Microsoft. Not M$.

Maybe you are looking at a different product? Tip for argumentation, doing things like this, is what makes you entire post loose all validity, and your post becomes more a waste of time, the the thread, based on your view.

 

I see this thread as more educational. Some people don't like Windows 8. That's fine. And they presented their constructive argument, which is just awesome. There is a argumentation challenge, which shows that this thread is being productive in seeing the 2 views (like and dislikes), and not a flame war of sorts.

 

So I think it's this thread is pretty good.

 

 

And, people asked for an XP downgrade when Windows 7 came out, because they didn't want to use the "MacOS replica of Task bar in Windows 7". Long live ignorance! Hence, also why OEMs made task bar replacement programs for it, let alone people installing third party Start Menu, as they want the Windows 2000/98 Classic Start Menu, over Windows 7's/Vista's one because 'it sucked'. This disappear towards the end of the life cycle of Windows 7, as people adapted, and learned how to use the interface changes. in this case, I don't see it happen until really the end of the life of the OS, or next version. All depending on the progress of Microsoft trying to continue to balance the UI for all devices, as they have done in 8.1

 

Also market share shows that they are more Windows 8 users than MacOS X.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Sooo.... I guess it's better than MacOS, based on your argument?

[Billbob]

OS X is a completely different os, comparing windows to osx in a 7 vs 8 argument means nothing. Most of the XP downgrade was for businesses for compliance with existing systems not because of ui changes. You can change the win7 taskbar to work the same as XP by changing 2 options (Use small icons and never combine) so this is hardly a problem.

 

edit: I fail to see how using a nickname (M$ for Microsoft) changes any validity for my argument, there is no ambiguity here, especially as the context of the statement solely relates to that of products made by the fore mentioned company. With regards to argument validity you seem to have introduced a straw man element here, this is not my doing.

[TheArium]

The metro start menu is basically the same as the program manager in 3.1, except that had less pointless eye candy and was easier to read.

 

I could not care less if you think windows 8 is the best thing ever, market share pretty much points out that the majority of the m$ customer base thinks it is not worth the money and time. These threads are getting pretty pointless, an individual with a keyboard who apparently is incapable of reading all the existing reasons people do not want windows 8 creates a thread asking why people do not want windows 8, then proceeds to tell people they are wrong. Windows 8 failed, the sales statistics show this, if people wanted it they would have bought it and oems would not be shipping with win 7 or 3rd party start menus.

 

I am willing to bet not many people asked for a vista downgrade when windows 7 came out.

 

I will argue that the poor sale statistics show more than anything how reluctant people are to try new things - especially in the field of technology. Sadly, this is still a time where a relatively large percentage of the population are outright afraid of technology and an even larger percentage how absolutely no clue whatsoever how to use a computer and how it works. This results in people either in ignorance buying a Windows 8 pc and getting surprised and returning it or see the new UI and just skip it. There is absolutely nothing Microsoft can do about this other than stick it out until people get used to it and start adopting it. It'll probably take a couple of years still before that vast majority of PC users will agree that the start screen is superior to the "old, packed start menu". Might I remind everybody how much hate the mouse and the start menu even received when they were introduced. I can imagine a couple of years from now looking back and laughing about the rage and intense debate on this subject.

[Billbob]

People are free to purchase what they want, as a company it is generally a good idea to produce products people want to buy.

 

Aside: a similar argument happened when gnome 3 + unity were released, the end result is that distros with a more traditional ui eg mint became more popular than Ubuntu and are still more popular a few years later.

[TheArium]

People are free to purchase what they want, as a company it is generally a good idea to produce products people want to buy.

 

Agreed, but if no one ever tried evolving the product line we would get nowhere. The reason W8 receives so much criticism is Microsoft changed a product people use everyday and generally are pleased with, which is the exact same story that also took place with the introduction of the mouse and the start menu. I recon if I made a poll "Who would prefer not having the mouse and who would prefer not having the start screen (or an equivalent)" 100% would vote in favour of these two technologies. Who would have thought that back then??

[Billbob]

I agree, changes need to be made for progress to happen, but when changes are made and the general opinion is that these changes are not an improvement then this is not an innovation. Clearly metro is better on a tablet, however on a desktop many many reasons are given why this is not an improvement for many people.

 

What is frustrating is we have one of these treads per week with extremely similar content, not specific questions, maybe a pinned independent comparison would be useful.

[TheArium]

I agree, changes need to be made for progress to happen, but when changes are made and the general opinion is that these changes are not an improvement then this is not an innovation. Clearly metro is better on a tablet, however on a desktop many many reasons are given why this is not an improvement for many people.

 

What is frustrating is we have one of these treads per week with extremely similar content, not specific questions, maybe a pinned independent comparison would be useful.

 

You make a good point, however I will still argue that that number of people who like it seem to have increased over the past months indicating the people are getting used to it and seeing it for what is is. I will also argue still that a lot of people didn't see the mouse and the start menu as improvements.

 

But you are right, the discussion is getting stuck and were putting the same arguments against the same arguments over and over again. Ultimately you either like it or don't and the intense debate indicates that there is indeed not truly a right or wrong answer although I personally think it has been shown why the start screen is superior in it's design to the start menu once you get used to it.

[GoodBytes]

The mouse, and the entire GUI aspect, was hatted. It was said to be less productive as you can type faster than moving a cursor across the screen.. basically letting go of the keyboard, using a device that doesn't work properly (early mouse). Over time, people learned it, liked it, mouses got better, GUI got better, and things started to evolve continuously, and today, no one wants to look back (except hardcore Linux OS fans/developers... who also hate Ubuntu, because they highly modify the Linux kernel to drastically cut down on the usage of the terminal to do pretty much anything. Maybe that's why Linux based OSs aren't getting much traction).

[Billbob]

I agree, with windows 7 I can press the windows key, type what I want and hit return, but crucially it is all contained within a small space in the lower left, no eye movement or head movement, and with small icons enabled it is minimal movement if I have to use the mouse. Yes I could use a 3rd party addon for windows 8, but then there is additional grievances like settings being in varying places etc etc. But the improvements are not worth this time, or the cost of upgrading.

[rashdanml]

(except hardcore Linux OS fans/developers... who also hate Ubuntu, because they highly modify the Linux kernel to drastically cut down on the usage of the terminal to do pretty much anything. Maybe that's why Linux based OSs aren't getting much traction).

Which is a major misconception. Linux is perfectly usable with a mouse/GUI, and the really hardcore users are a minority. The rest pick up on keyboard/terminal tricks to increase productivity, and it's amazing what you can do with the terminal with relatively short commands.

 

The message that Linux forces you to use the keyboard though, is not the right message. However, it is true that Linux lets you get your hands far dirtier in tinkering around with the OS. Most people don't want to do that, or are afraid to. People shouldn't be.

[TheArium]

I agree, with windows 7 I can press the windows key, type what I want and hit return, but crucially it is all contained within a small space in the lower left, no eye movement or head movement, and with small icons enabled it is minimal movement if I have to use the mouse. Yes I could use a 3rd party addon for windows 8, but then there is additional grievances like settings being in varying places etc etc. But the improvements are not worth this time, or the cost of upgrading.

 

This is a false argument; The fact that it is all contained within this small space with small icons heavily decreases efficiency in Windows 7. Rather, as shown on the picture below, longer travel towards a big target is more efficient than less travel towards a small target.

 

I'll quote:

"(...) The mathematical formula is somewhat complex, but the basic premise is as follows:

• The farther away a target is, the longer it takes to acquire it with a mouse
• The smaller a target is, the longer it takes to acquire it with a mouse

So the speed with which a target can be clicked on with a mouse is a factor of both size and distance (...)"

 

Besides, isn't it in itself very inefficient not being able to utilize your entire screen when finding content? I think so.

Source: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx

[JujuShinobi]

I don't think Windows 8 is all that bad. Just install Classic Shell or buy Start is Back and you effectively have a better version of Windows 7. For what you get going to Windows 8, I'd say people are complaining too much

[Billbob]

This is a false argument; The fact that it is all contained within this small space with small icons heavily decreases efficiency in Windows 7. Rather, as shown on the picture below, longer travel towards a big target is more efficient than less travel towards a small target.

 

Picture removed for space.

 

I'll quote:

"(...) The mathematical formula is somewhat complex, but the basic premise is as follows:

• The farther away a target is, the longer it takes to acquire it with a mouse
• The smaller a target is, the longer it takes to acquire it with a mouse

So the speed with which a target can be clicked on with a mouse is a factor of both size and distance (...)"

 

Besides, isn't it in itself very inefficient not being able to utilize your entire screen when finding content? I think so.

Source: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx

 

 

Personally I only find myself clicking in the start menu if I know where the item is already eg "Computer" which usually, probably due to muscle memory, I have no problem finding quickly. On a tablet screen I suspect the effect described in this article is more apparent.

[TheArium]

Personally I only find myself clicking in the start menu if I know where the item is already eg "Computer" which usually, probably due to muscle memory, I have no problem finding quickly. On a tablet screen I suspect the effect described in this article is more apparent.

 

It's not so much a matter of being able to find something quickly rather than a matter of finding something even quicker. That something isn't directly inefficient doesn't mean it couldn't be more efficient. The article is written from the point of view of a desktop user with a mouse, hence the images show mouse pointers and the starting point from interaction is determined to be the lower left corner where you would typically access the start menu with a mouse.

[NaftaLord]

Personally what i like about the old windows 95 style UI is that it got easy access to everything
and it got good overview of program that i'm using at the time. Easy access with minimal effort.

I've only tested win8 in VM so i'm not expert in Modern UI but what i have seen and felt it's not for me.
And it's the same with Unity and Gnome 3 and other "modern" UI's.

[GoodBytes]

Personally what i like about the old windows 95 style UI is that it got easy access to everything

and it got good overview of program that i'm using at the time. Easy access with minimal effort.

I've only tested win8 in VM so i'm not expert in Modern UI but what i have seen and felt it's not for me.

And it's the same with Unity and Gnome 3 and other "modern" UI's.

 

You cannot test or experience an OS in VM. It needs to be your main OS, and using for at least a month, where you look into how to use it.

No mater the OS you use. That is why you liked the Windows 95 style UI.  Else, if we had VMs back then, then you would probably say, its not for you=,

much like looking at screenshots.

[NaftaLord]

You cannot test or experience an OS in VM. It needs to be your main OS, and using for at least a month, where you look into how to use it.

No mater the OS you use. That is why you liked the Windows 95 style UI.  Else, if we had VMs back then, then you would probably say, its not for you=,

much like looking at screenshots.

True to a point, if you use something long enough you might get used to it, but for some things you know that this is not for

me right a way when you look or test it, i'm not in any way saying that modern ui sucks or is bad, i'm sure some people love it

and others hate it, i don't really care what other people feel about it, but i do know that for me it won't work no matter how long

i'm going to use it.

[Blingy]

I will argue that the poor sale statistics show more than anything how reluctant people are to try new things - especially in the field of technology. Sadly, this is still a time where a relatively large percentage of the population are outright afraid of technology and an even larger percentage how absolutely no clue whatsoever how to use a computer and how it works. This results in people either in ignorance buying a Windows 8 pc and getting surprised and returning it or see the new UI and just skip it. There is absolutely nothing Microsoft can do about this other than stick it out until people get used to it and start adopting it. It'll probably take a couple of years still before that vast majority of PC users will agree that the start screen is superior to the "old, packed start menu". Might I remind everybody how much hate the mouse and the start menu even received when they were introduced. I can imagine a couple of years from now looking back and laughing about the rage and intense debate on this subject.

 

Microsoft wouldn't have a monopoly if that was the case.

 

They basically rely on the non-techies on the desktop market, people hate change. (baby duck syndrome)

[xBlizzDevious]

My personal experiences with Windows 8:

 

The Metro/Modern UI is a nice interface and suits a MOBILE, TOUCH device perfectly. For most people's general use on a desktop, it is awful. A mouse is a device for point and click, not touch and it does not work well for emulating touch. It can, but poorly. This makes the UI just not feel right for a desktop.

 

Another user mentioned this one: switching between windows in the Metro interface is clumsy. This is because of my above point on how Metro works in general.

 

Program incompatibilities: I've installed many - more server orientated - applications and a number of games that just plain will not work with Windows 8.

 

 

 

With ClassicStart or any other 'StartIsBack' application, you can hide this less-mouse-friendly interface in favour of the more-mouse-friendly start menu. This is not perfect, but it's about 99% perfect, compared with Metro (for mouse use).

 

It is fast to boot. Very fast in some cases.

 

It runs faster than Windows 7 in most cases. The desktop seems to be a little more prone to hanging for a second, but it's definitely not a major issue.

 

 

 

There's a few points for either side. I personally prefer Windows 7 for a number of reasons but after playing Spore (a true EA game that is so buggy it will literally break your computer) yesterday, I had to reformat! All issues I've been having with my computer just instantly gone.

 

EDIT: And installing Windows 8, that is. Haha!

[Billbob]

It's not so much a matter of being able to find something quickly rather than a matter of finding something even quicker. That something isn't directly inefficient doesn't mean it couldn't be more efficient. The article is written from the point of view of a desktop user with a mouse, hence the images show mouse pointers and the starting point from interaction is determined to be the lower left corner where you would typically access the start menu with a mouse.

 

However the same effect could be achieved using large icons on the desktop, which would also retain the current start menu people are used to and could be easily reverted for people who did not want it. Also would avoid having a large coloured screen obliterating everything on screen.

[CWP]

The Start Screen does that. You can pin web site to it via IE (or any web browser that will come for it, and support hat feature). Firefox is coming along with theirs.

That was an example of the illiteracy of the user and his resistance to learn a new way of doing things, and not as a request for how to do it in Windows 8 (but thanks for the tip).

 

I went to the bank recently. Their system is running XP. The system was so slow, as they entered my account number, she was answering stuff on their phones, when my profile was loaded, they didn't pay attention, and continue to check their phones. Then 2-3 min later, she noticed and click on something, it didn't work, and start trouble shooting (restart the computer - took forever), and every time there was a wait period, she was on her phone. And I noticed the others did the same, or talked to each other, then when it worked and did my stuff, and rinse and repeat for other clients. What a waste of time! If the bank updated their network infrastructure, computers, new OS, my service time would be significantly less. Let alone, not have to open 10 programs, where each of them did something different, all made by different companies, where (I was told) run under a custom DOS emulator. Unify things, do things right!

 

I worked at retail, and I had the same experience. The computer was on admin account under XP pre-SP1 (SP2 was long time out), and using DOSBox to run the cash register software, and oh god the computer was slllloooowww, and processing bills took forever. Heck even the credit card machine was on a 56K modem, it did all the dial sound at every card swipe, and constumers were pissed by the slowness.

Waste of money and time! Upgrade!

Obviously, if the computer meets only the minimum requirements of XP, you cannot expect it to run well. My point was that when XP is paired with some proper hardware, it can last a very long time. When I was initially hired at my workplace, I can generalize the XP users into two groups: the poor saps who were stuck with <1GHz P3s, 128-384MB RAM, and the other group using computers that were 2-3 times beefier than the application requirements (dual/quad cores, 2-3GB RAM). For the first group, as soon as I got the approval to purchase new systems, those old clunkers were out the door. For the second group,... let's just say if Microsoft did not put the EOL stamp on XP, we would not be planning for the OS's premature retirement. It has survived the last 4 years (how long I am with the company), and it can easily survive the next 4 years.

Luckily for me, the executives I work for are not as backward as those in your two examples. However, again, it is down to money: they would rather I purchase new computers than have me spend too much time (and thus my salary) on repairing/upgrading/tinkering with the old.

 

Vista didn't have the old Start menu. It was removed, and people complained, while IT, while hating the OS, was happy with the decision, so it makes support MUCH easier. It was an XP mistake.

You had me there for a second and I had to check to make sure. Naw... Vista still has the old menu. It was definitely a Windows 7 "feature" of not having the Classic Start.

 

100% that used Windows 7 as a VM hated it, at least on forums I participated in.

The only way to learn and adapt is to use it as a main OS. I bet you, you still have Windows 8 default tile layout.

You are right; I have not touched the layout. Like I said, I have not spent a lot of time in the VM as I would like to.

 

Where I work, the IT manager and IT employees, love Windows 8. But we didnt' switch because:

- People still getting used to Win7, as we recently switch the entire place to Win7 (1 year ago, every computer ran on Win7, but we started 2 years ago). We need to wait and cause too much switching around as it may be chaotic, naturally. The transition was smooth, and we received a total of 5 calls for help with Win7. Pretty good!

That pretty much mirrors what I experienced with our partial migration from Win2k/XP mix to Win7. There were certainly a few hiccups here and there, but they were easily fixed.

I do agree on waiting for Win8 to be the norm before we even consider adopting. By then, a lot more people would have experienced Win8 on their own so that it makes most of my argument against it irrelevant. However, our biggest show-stopper is in the manufacturer's webapps. It is written for IE8 only, and not even developer mode or compatibility view helped. Mind you, I am not counting this against Win8. That would be unfair. However, the fact that it came with a later version of IE means that some of them will not be able to perform his/her duties at all. We have had this same issue when we were moving toward Win7; their webapp would only work in IE6-7, and again, F12/compatibility is of no use. As long as this manufacturer keeps developing for specific versions of IE, we are, unfortunately, forever behind.

 

You cannot test or experience an OS in VM. It needs to be your main OS, and using for at least a month, where you look into how to use it.

No mater the OS you use. That is why you liked the Windows 95 style UI.  Else, if we had VMs back then, then you would probably say, its not for you=,

much like looking at screenshots.

Back then, I did not have VMs for me to play with either when I dabbled into the Linux world. However, it was also not my main OS - I just learned it via dual-booting. It turned out great. I am extremely comfortable setting up Linux servers in the workplace. However, it does require a lot of discipline to muddle through all the hardships, whether you are using dual-booting or VMs to test new OSes.

[TheArium]

Microsoft wouldn't have a monopoly if that was the case.

 

They basically rely on the non-techies on the desktop market, people hate change. (baby duck syndrome)

 

Yet it's the truth and some people are even proud they know nothing of computers. It means they are not a part of the "tech geeks" - people thrive in their ignorance. Have you ever overheard the phrase "Every time I touch a computer it breaks"? If you have you know what I'm talking about.

 

Nothing is popular when it was first invented/thought up exactly because people dislike change. Doesn't mean it won't turn out to be a good thing despite popular belief (which isn't so general/popular anymore as more and more people are adjusting to Windows 8).

 

However the same effect could be achieved using large icons on the desktop, which would also retain the current start menu people are used to and could be easily reverted for people who did not want it. Also would avoid having a large coloured screen obliterating everything on screen.

 

The reason why the desktop is a very poor way of accessing your programs is you need to minimize all of your windows to access it. Then you need to re-optimize(?) every single one of your open windows. You cannot tell me that is efficient or even clever thought out. In that way, the start screen is way less obtrusive as it quickly takes you back to the exact setup you had on your desktop. And in W8.1 you can use the same image in the start screen as on the desktop. You have now effectively gotten rid of the "large coloured screen obliterating everything on screen". In other words, the start screen will work as your desktop did, but you don't have to re-size your programs every time you want to do something.

[fracking4oil]

Your issues with the search feature have been fixed in Windows 8.1

 

 

Actually his issues with the search feature never existed. In his example of searching "printer", it searches everything you simply just have to click settings after searching, you don't have to click settings before hand as he suggested. The OS isn't broken because you don't know how to use it, you're just ignorant (nice way to say stupid).