Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Jun 2012 17:52 UTC
Windows Adrian Kingsley-Hughes pens a rant on Windows 8, calling it 'awful': "I'm now ready to sum up my Windows 8 experience with a single word: awful. I could have chosen a number of other words - terrible, horrible, painful and execrable all spring to mind - but it doesn't matter, the sentiment is the same." I've been using Windows 8 Release Preview on both my ZenBook and my regular desktop since its release, and here's my short review: "I like it." Issues a-plenty, but for what is essentially a 1.0 release - not bad. It's a hell of a lot better than other releases which were similar in scope (Mac OS X 10.0, KDE 4.0).
Order by: Score:
Too polite
by adinas on Sat 16th Jun 2012 18:41 UTC
adinas
Member since:
2005-08-17

Calling Windows 8 awful is really being too polite.

Edited 2012-06-16 18:49 UTC

Reply Score: 20

RE: Too polite
by Morgan on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:12 UTC in reply to "Too polite"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Windows 8 on non touchscreen devices could be a great thing if Microsoft would allow it. Metro on a touchscreen device is pretty awesome (speaking from personal experience).

Metro on Windows 8 on a desktop PC, however, feels like an abomination. I suppose I'll get used to it so I can support customers with new PCs but I'll never use it for any mission critical work. I think I'll be content to let it live in a virtual machine.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Too polite
by adinas on Mon 18th Jun 2012 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Too polite"
adinas Member since:
2005-08-17

Yes I agree. I should have been more accurate. I meant on the desktop. I don't have an opinion regarding tablets since I haven't used it on one.

Reply Score: 1

I like it!
by SvartSaft on Sat 16th Jun 2012 18:43 UTC
SvartSaft
Member since:
2012-06-16

I have been using Windows 8 Release Preview exclusively for the last couple of weeks, both at home and at work - and I like it alot. Sure, it takes some time to getting used to, and there are some things I miss that I hope will be fixed soon (such as the ability to use POP3/IMAP-accounts in the mail app) - but overall I think it's an refreshing take on how operating system looks and works.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I like it!
by tidux on Sun 17th Jun 2012 04:27 UTC in reply to "I like it!"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

What the hell can you DO with a mail client if not POP3 or IMAP4? NNTP? UUCP? VAX Notes?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: I like it!
by Lennie on Sun 17th Jun 2012 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE: I like it!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

My guess is it supports the Exchange protocol(s) and those protocols over HTTP, you can probably also use it with hotmail/msn.

Not that I really consider these proper protocols, they are a horrible contraption.

Edited 2012-06-17 10:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I like it!
by oinet on Wed 20th Jun 2012 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE: I like it!"
oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

What the hell can you DO with a mail client if not POP3 or IMAP4? NNTP? UUCP? VAX Notes?

It's not an e-mail client; it's an e-MS client ;)

Edited 2012-06-20 21:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

One may like it or not
by reduz on Sat 16th Jun 2012 18:50 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

I don't dislike it (I'm fine with win7), but I can't help to feel that win8 is not really an improvement. Windows versions have improved always sightly by improving and adjusting the user experience.

This one feels more like Microsoft trying to force the desktop users to become familiar with their mobile interface, just for the sake of it so they choose mobile Microsoft products in the future, because of familiarity.

I'm not sure that's going to work..

Reply Score: 14

RE: One may like it or not
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:31 UTC in reply to "One may like it or not"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


I'm not sure that's going to wor..


It won't. For every tablet sale they get there will be hundred Windows 7 users who don't upgrade because they rightly see Windows 8 as a waste of time. They'll never make up the lost revenue and it will show up in their statements.

The tablet market is mainly an ipad market and Windows 8 won't change that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: One may like it or not
by contextfree on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:26 UTC in reply to "One may like it or not"
contextfree Member since:
2009-06-01

Although I've been defending W8 a lot here I actually agree.

The problem is that people are willing to deal with a learning curve, but only when the benefit at the end is clear and considerable. Unfortunately, Windows 8, even once you've learned it (and by "learned" I don't just mean knowing how to use it, but internalizing it so you do things without consciously thinking about it), is only a little better than 7 on non-tablets. The Start screen is better in some ways and worse in others, overall net better IMO, but only slightly. Metro style apps are nice to have, but on desktop/laptop more like improved gadgets than applications that have a huge impact on your workflow. The desktop improvements are nice but minor. Overall the benefits are just too small not to be drowned out by FUD about an apparent massive change (that isn't as big as it looks). "Buy our new product, it will appear to be hugely disruptive to your work, but once you get over the pain of adaptation, you'll realize it's actually not that different and slightly better than what you had before!" just isn't a great sales pitch.

(There is also the problem that Metro style apps and cloud push are moving computing further in the walled garden, Big Brother-ish direction, which I do think is a valid concern though not specific to W8)

I bet Windows 9 will be much better received, not necessarily because it "fixes" things that are broken in 8 (though people will say that's the reason ), but because it will add enough cool/useful new stuff that perceived benefits > perceived pain of adoption.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: One may like it or not
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE: One may like it or not"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The Start screen is better in some ways and worse in others, overall net better IMO, but only slightly.


Do explain your opinion here.

Please consider first that we already have instant notifications in the tray and in the gadgets.

Tell me exactly how the start screen boosts your productivity over the start menu.

Reply Score: 5

Saving this
by Bishi on Sat 16th Jun 2012 19:02 UTC
Bishi
Member since:
2009-08-27

I'm saving that article, along with all the other similar ones. This is hugely similar to the Xbox, iPod and XP start menu rants.

The people saying the start screen is a disaster are the same ones that didn't adapt to the XP start menu and changed it back to the classic one.

In my opinion, the start screen is a great feature. I'm not so sure about the Metro apps, but I suppose alternatives will start appearing.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Saving this
by ichi on Sat 16th Jun 2012 20:02 UTC in reply to "Saving this"
RE[2]: Saving this
by Bishi on Sat 16th Jun 2012 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Saving this"
Bishi Member since:
2009-08-27

Hey hey, you're getting too close to the Godwin's singularity.

What I wanted to say is that there's always people who blindly reject change, especially if it's a big one like this. One of the article arguments was that "Microsoft trained us to search for apps in a small, vertical list, and now they force us to look all over the screen". It also dismisses app search functionality, saying "every use of it is a failure".

As a Mac user who has his main apps in the dock and launches the rest through Spotlight, I don't see the downside. As a Win7 user who has his main apps in the taskbar and launches the rest through Start Menu search, I don't see the downside. Win8 launcher it's the same, and allows pinned apps to show extra information.

The article also bashes the Ribbon toolbars. Personally, I think the Ribbon is the killer feature of Office, as it exposes lots of functionality I'd have never discovered otherwise.


This article is a rant, as Thom pointed out. Metro needs some adjustments, and real, non-toy third party Metro apps are badly needed. But there's lots of things in Win8 that could potentially change relationships within apps. The Contracts feature is a really good idea. Cross-app file picking and sharing, among other things, will allow apps to be smaller and focused. That's a really good thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Saving this
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Saving this"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

There's always a crowd people who blindly fall for new and shiny and get upset with the guy who points out that the emperor is actually naked.

Windows 8 is a waste of time for enterprise and Microsoft cannot afford to ignore that market.

We're talking about billions of dollars here. For every Windows 8 defender who takes pride in embracing the golden linen of "change" there is a hard nosed CIO who will ask what exactly will offset the increased user training costs. Sinofsky still hasn't answered this question and you can live in la-la tablet land with him until Windows 8 drops along with Microsoft's revenue. Then it will be back to reality and those who were called "afraid of change" will be seen as realistic thinkers whose concerns should have been heeded. Windows 8 defenders will be viewed as vain and completely disconnected from the financial realities of a company like Microsoft and enterprise computing in general.

Just because YOU don't mind the start screen doesn't mean a Fortune 500 hundred company with 100 start menu shortcuts in a shared system image thinks it's f--king jolly to dump them on a single screen with animated icons and then retrain each user to re-learn where their programs are. Office workers are notoriously fickle and will drain thousands hours of support costs over something like this. That's real money, not ill feelings on a tech forum.

Oh but YOU don't mind it, YOU probably spend most the time in a browser and have no consideration for these things. Well don't feel bad, neither does the Windows president.

Edited 2012-06-17 01:19 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Saving this
by tylerdurden on Sun 17th Jun 2012 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Saving this"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

And it is always interesting to see so many people who can't cope with change to become so emotionally vested on a field like IT, where change happens at almost exponential rates.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Saving this
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Saving this"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I'm not seeing that actually.

I'm seeing people who deal with change on a daily basis and can distinguish productive change from change as part of a corporate strategy that doesn't benefit end users

Embracing all change is idiotic. Or may be you think the people who rejected Microsoft Bob early on were afraid of change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Saving this
by ichi on Mon 18th Jun 2012 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Saving this"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Hey hey, you're getting too close to the Godwin's singularity.


Because I said something related to nazis?

Ok, let me rephrase that:

"If you really want to invalidate negative opinions you could go further and state that they are also the same ones that killed Bambi's mother".

Better now? The point is your broad statement was silly.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Saving this
by przemo_li on Sat 16th Jun 2012 20:35 UTC in reply to "Saving this"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

WoW

If you that there is only new START MENU in Win8 then you really should try it for yourself!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Saving this
by Windows Sucks on Sat 16th Jun 2012 22:08 UTC in reply to "Saving this"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

I'm saving that article, along with all the other similar ones. This is hugely similar to the Xbox, iPod and XP start menu rants.

The people saying the start screen is a disaster are the same ones that didn't adapt to the XP start menu and changed it back to the classic one.

In my opinion, the start screen is a great feature. I'm not so sure about the Metro apps, but I suppose alternatives will start appearing.


The XP start menu was a change but at the same time it was the same. It was ugly to a lot of people but like with the Vista, 7 start menus any old Windows user could after a couple of days of playing still use it, most things were still in the same places.

The Metro UI is totally different. Sit a regular Windows user down in front of it and they are totally confused, its like starting all over from scratch. Decades of training out the Window. So Windows 7 will be around for the next 15 years like XP was to cover this fail. LOL. Gonna be real interesting. Because a lot of people are going to stick with Windows 7, Windows 8 tablets etc are going to stall. Crazy mess. Too much going on.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Saving this
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Saving this"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Sit a regular Windows user down in front of it and they are totally confused, its like starting all over from scratch.


Lockergnome did this and the results are on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU

Novice users hate the drastic changes, power users hate that the start menu has been replaced with a blinky clusterfuck of icons that they can't avoid. Sounds like a winning combination. Piss off everyone.

http://www.neowin.net/news/weekend-poll-will-you-buy-windows-8

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Saving this
by jptros on Mon 18th Jun 2012 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Saving this"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

The Lockergnome video is classic. It doesn't matter what anyone says, that video drives the point that average users are not going to be able to use this software efficiently. They will figure it out eventually but first impressions are everything and Microsoft is in a world of hurt when it comes to first impressions with this OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Saving this
by righard on Sat 16th Jun 2012 22:08 UTC in reply to "Saving this"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

I'm still doing that ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Saving this
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:12 UTC in reply to "Saving this"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The people saying the start screen is a disaster are the same ones that didn't adapt to the XP start menu and changed it back to the classic one.


No actually a lot of the same bloggers who liked Vista are not liking Windows 8. Kingsley was one of the few bloggers who actually benchmarked Vista and pointed out that the outstanding issues had been fixed with updates. Thurrott has endorsed every MS product except for Windows 8.


In my opinion, the start screen is a great feature.


Well you obviously don't use many programs then. It's a step backwards for productivity and program organization.


I'm not so sure about the Metro apps, but I suppose alternatives will start appearing.


Microsoft has pissed off developers with Windows 8 and now expects them to cater to a minority of Windows users. Good luck with that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Saving this
by Nelson on Sun 17th Jun 2012 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Saving this"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


No actually a lot of the same bloggers who liked Vista are not liking Windows 8. Kingsley was one of the few bloggers who actually benchmarked Vista and pointed out that the outstanding issues had been fixed with updates. Thurrott has endorsed every MS product except for Windows 8.


Can you stop regurgitating this same FALSE bullshit.

Quoting Thurrot:
"But I think people are going to love Metro. Yes, there’s been the expected kvetching from the tech enthusiast crowd, especially around Windows 8, where Metro is seen as an interloper that has destroyed these suddenly beloved interfaces -- like Shutdown and Restart, and the Start button and Start Menu, of course -- that were previously the source of ridicule. Here’s the truth: Sure, there’s always a bit of pain when Microsoft moves options around in a new version of the Windows UI. But these things are, by and large, more consistent now."

Emphasis mine.

Reply Score: 3

I wouldn't say aweful...
by BluenoseJake on Sat 16th Jun 2012 19:39 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

Just really different. I like the live tiles, I like the charm bar a lot, easy access to settings, search, whatever.

I hate the music and video apps, they kinda suck, I want to see my music or videos, not what's on Xbox or Zune. I absolutely hate the mail app. No IMAP support? No POP? Really MS?

The start screen kinda eventually gets out of your way, once you get used to it. It took me a while, but I have been running Windows 8 on my laptop and Dell tablet since the Developers Preview, and I can use it, I can work if need be, I can play games, I can surf the web.

It's usable, but if you can't handle change, then you will hate it. If you hate learning a new style of doing things, you will hate it. If you just want to get some work done, and don't really care about the OS chrome, you can get down to it, especially if your apps are all desktop apps, and really, at this point they all are.

Edited 2012-06-16 19:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: I wouldn't say aweful...
by SvartSaft on Sat 16th Jun 2012 20:29 UTC in reply to "I wouldn't say aweful..."
SvartSaft Member since:
2012-06-16

I agree - I cannot understand why there is no POP3/IMAP in the email app - I hope that will change soon.

On the other hand - the Remote Desktop Client is awesome! And the Messages app is great as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I wouldn't say aweful...
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:24 UTC in reply to "I wouldn't say aweful..."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I absolutely hate the mail app. No IMAP support? No POP? Really MS?


No, not really. Read the recent Building Windows 8 blog entry on the mail app, and you see: "Don’t worry, support for other protocols, such as IMAP, are on the way." [/q]
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/06/14/building-the-mail-app...

That said, POP and IMAP are dying protocols.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I wouldn't say aweful...
by Moochman on Sun 17th Jun 2012 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE: I wouldn't say aweful..."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

That said, POP and IMAP are dying protocols.


To be replaced with what exactly??

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I wouldn't say aweful...
by laffer1 on Sun 17th Jun 2012 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I wouldn't say aweful..."
laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

Quite a few people think IMAP and POP should die and be replaced by web based mail. However, all those web based mail programs use either POP or IMAP to talk to the mail server!

GMail and iCloud use IMAP for their web interfaces. GMail doesn't replace IMAP, it uses it.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, not really. Read the recent Building Windows 8 blog entry on the mail app, and you see: "Don’t worry, support for other protocols, such as IMAP, are on the way."

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/06/14/building-the-mail-app...

That said, POP and IMAP are dying protocols. [/q]

This insane attitude be why Outlook sucks worse than any other mail client at IMAP. Despite providing outlook to everyone at work, no one uses it, due to its terrible performance loading and searching IMAP inboxes. Microsoft products just shouldn't be used with email that isn't from exchange, and I don't think that's an accident.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I wouldn't say aweful...
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I wouldn't say aweful..."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Exchange blows away IMAP based mail.
I feel sorry for you if you're stuck with IMAP.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

It does, if you're using outlook;)

Reply Score: 3

przemo_li
Member since:
2010-06-01

Somehow the message that KDE 4.0 is for 3rd party devs (so they can port their apps to KDE4) never got into the news headlines. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Because calling a alpha/beta release "4.0" is retarded and counter intuitive. Deal with it - they deserved it.

Reply Score: 5

1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Why are we regurgitating the same old sh!t again? If you didn't notice, KDE is quite mature and stable now. I don't see anyone moaning about OS X 10.0 today. That's because everyone moved on to what's currently available.

Living in the past instead of using what's available now gets us nowhere in this discussion.

Reply Score: 2

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Hehe.

When comparing something BrandNew (tm), then you should compare stable editions of beta editions, or whatever point-in-the-app-life you choose.

That's why you want to go back to the past. So comparision is right.

Reply Score: 0

No-It's Awful
by chrisale on Sat 16th Jun 2012 20:49 UTC
chrisale
Member since:
2010-02-01

I used MacOS X 10.0

Unlike Windows 8... MacOS X 10.0 actually functioned. It was bare bones, and lacked features, but there was nothing functionally wrong with it. It even had a functional Unix layer.

Windows 8 barely functions. In order to do anything with you have to actually fight with the interface... and when you finally get there, it's a dogs breakfast.

Hell. Rhapsody DR2 was lightyears better than Windows 8 RC

Reply Score: 11

RE: No-It's Awful
by BluenoseJake on Sat 16th Jun 2012 20:59 UTC in reply to "No-It's Awful"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

OS X 1.0 was horrible. It was slow, it couldn't even play DVDs, it was crashy, Windows 8 is amazingly complete in comparison. If you really think that OS X 1.0 (a release) compares favorably to Windows 8 (a release candidate) Then I seriously doubt you have used either.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No-It's Awful
by thavith_osn on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE: No-It's Awful"
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

True. OS X 10.0 was slow. I had the beta before that as well, and both slowed my Bondi iMac from super fast on OS 9.x to "wtf"?? I remember going into our local Apple store and trying it on a Power Mac at the time, expecting it to fly, but found it just as slow on that. The sales guy tried to defend it - LOL.

Having said that, Apple was still pushing OS 9 (until 10.1), so wasn't suggesting people move en masse to it. Also, 10.0 wasn't a huge change as far as the UI was concerned, but was a big change as far as the look & feel was concerned (lets not go into the unix underbelly). The mouse and keyboard were still the primary ways of interaction, menus were still at the top, Apple-P (now cmd-P) still printed, you could still Hide apps, you could still pretty much use it the way you had in OS 9, and this was one of the design goals. (Sadly, Finder could have done with some much needed love, still can).

Win 8 on the other hand is a "brave" attempt by MS to create a new way of interacting with users, forcing "touch" onto us (Apple does the same with other tech - no floppy drives - use internet, no DVD - use streaming and so on). Yes, you can work Win 8 without touch, but it's not the same experience.

Personally, I don't like Win 8, but at least MS is trying something, doing something, not just seeing what Apple is doing and following (as has been their way from time to time). I think MS will get this right if they are brave enough to stick with it. If they can just have one desktop, then I'll be onboard at least. I think MS need to take at least one tech they have seriously. I got burned with Active X, I stayed away from .Net (as did MS for most of their apps), and now I am worried you can't build apps in Metro with the same functionality as Win32.

Apple is doing something similar with iOS as it's finding it's way into Lion and now Mountain Lion (which I love). MS went with the "throw the frog into boiling water", Apple is just turning up the heat slowly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: No-It's Awful
by zima on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No-It's Awful"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Having said that, Apple was still pushing OS 9 (until 10.1)

"Reluctantly offering it for lack of better option" is probably closer to what was happening... (OS9 itself having quite a number of issues)

Oh, and "no floppy drives - use internet" led, I believe, to a large spike in the sales of external drives. :p

at least MS is trying something, doing something, not just seeing what Apple is doing and following (as has been their way from time to time)

But at least as often not really, maybe even also a bit the other way around ...Office, browser, Xbox, AD/Sharepoint stuff, mobile OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No-It's Awful
by No it isnt on Sat 16th Jun 2012 22:02 UTC in reply to "No-It's Awful"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Wrong. OS X 10.0 ran like treacle on then modern hardware (and I bet it would on today's hardware as well), whereas Win8 is pretty damn fast on anything that can run Win7. Fighting the interface is always the Wrong Way to do something, so you should rather adapt than criticising something for not responding well to the wrong input. It's not like it's hard to use or anything.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No-It's Awful
by kragil on Sun 17th Jun 2012 06:57 UTC in reply to "No-It's Awful"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

8 up votes? WTH, OSnews crowd does not know its history anymore. I hate Windows 8 with a passion, but compared too MacOSX 10.0 it is fast, stable, finished and functional.

10.0 was an utterly broken 0.1 in reality, way worse than KDE 4.0.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: No-It's Awful
by No it isnt on Sun 17th Jun 2012 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE: No-It's Awful"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Apple fanboys and denial ...

Reply Score: 2

Not for business use.
by Windows Sucks on Sat 16th Jun 2012 22:00 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

My main problem is that the Metro UI on my laptop feels like I am using an iPad on my laptop. I don't like the one off App feel I get with it. That sucks bad enough on my tablet and my phone, but to have that on a full computer is silly. Apples approach to take the best features from the iPad and iPhone but leaving the UI mostly the same seems much smarter.

Also all the products that Microsoft has used the metro style UI on have failed. The Zune? Windows Phone? I am not sure why they really think this will be something I want to see everyday when I am working.

Live tiles etc are cool for a tablet, or a phone but in a business setting they are useless, most of the apps that use live tiles will be taken out when the OS is locked down with GPO's etc in a secure office network.

I think that they should of toned down the Windows 7 interface (Getting rid of Areo) like they do in the Windows 8 classic desktop, added in Metro as a option and go from there.

People compare the Windows 8 changes to Mac OS 10. But remember when Apple did this the Mac was a blip on the user radar, they didn't have a billion users to deal with and the change actually made the Mac OS way more popular to the regular user. Ms waits till their most popular version of Windows ever, the comeback from Vista and then again throws everything into a total tail spin? Gutsy I must say. Or maybe a little crazy.

I will say I think Windows 7 will be around for a VERY, VERY long time. Especially since VB 6 is still the most popular development environment for Windows.

Only thing saving Microsoft is they have no comp on the desktop front.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Not for business use.
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:24 UTC in reply to "Not for business use. "
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The funny thing is that a lot of us like metro in WP7. I went with WP7 over Android because of metro.

But in Windows 8 it is being shoved down your throat and disrupting workflow. Windows 8 gives metro a bad name.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not for business use.
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:29 UTC in reply to "Not for business use. "
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Also all the products that Microsoft has used the metro style UI on have failed. The Zune? Windows Phone?


I like how you say "all", implying many, then name just two items. And Zune failed because of Metro? You REALLY believe that?

BTW, Xbox is a great success, and it uses Metro.
And Windows Phone usage is steadily increasing, so you might be premature in celbrating its "failure" just yet.

Normally I ignore your posts, since your very user name screams "I'm a troll", but I made an exception in this case.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Not for business use.
by anevilyak on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Not for business use. "
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

W, Xbox is a great success, and it uses Metro.


Minor nitpick, but the 360 was a success long before the quite recent retooling of its UI to make use of Metro, so it seems a bit disingenuous to use it as an example here.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Not for business use.
by thavith_osn on Sun 17th Jun 2012 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not for business use. "
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Amen...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not for business use.
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not for business use. "
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Yeah, but it had metro when it became tops in sales. ;)
Indeed, its sales increased after it received the Metro treatment.

I'm not saying it was *because* of Metro, but the guy above is suggesting that Zune failed *because* of Metro, which is absurdity. And he, by implicaiton, suggests that anything to which Metro is applied would die because of it. Xbox disproves that nonsense. According to his "logic", Xbox sales should have crashed after Xbox got Metrofied. That didn't happen, indeed quite the contrary.

Edited 2012-06-17 20:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not for business use.
by edwdig on Mon 18th Jun 2012 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not for business use. "
edwdig Member since:
2005-08-22

Xbox sales went up because of the redesign, Kinect bundles making it appealing to a wider audience, and price drops.

The Metro UI on it is widely hated. It's much slower than the old UI, both in terms of how quickly you can access what you're looking for and in screen loading time. The only positive I've heard about it is people with Kinect seem to like the new Bing voice search.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not for business use.
by MollyC on Mon 18th Jun 2012 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not for business use. "
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I find your comment to be absurd.
Those that complain about Metro on Xbox seem to have the common trait that they don't know that the secondary trigger buttons cycle through each tile grouping. Once you know that, it blows away the "blades" (which was the epitome of style over substance). Even without using the secondary triggers, Metro blows away the "blades".

And your comment doesn't change the fact that the "Windows Sucks" troll said that there was no successful product with Metro, which is false. Metro is here to stay. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not for business use.
by edwdig on Tue 19th Jun 2012 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not for business use. "
edwdig Member since:
2005-08-22

I find your comment to be absurd.
Those that complain about Metro on Xbox seem to have the common trait that they don't know that the secondary trigger buttons cycle through each tile grouping. Once you know that, it blows away the "blades" (which was the epitome of style over substance). Even without using the secondary triggers, Metro blows away the "blades".


I got my Xbox right when Blades was replaced with New Xbox Experience, so I can't comment on that one. Metro's a pretty big step back from NXE though.

The trigger button comment is a red herring - that's incredibly obvious. It also doesn't change the fact that menus are nested much deeper than they were before, and there's a lot of fluff added. Basic things like getting to the Games Marketplace take about 12 button presses now when they took about 5 in the old UI. It's similar for getting to your full list of games.

And your comment doesn't change the fact that the "Windows Sucks" troll said that there was no successful product with Metro, which is false. Metro is here to stay. Deal with it.


You were trying to tie the Xbox success + Metro together. It's highly deceiving, as 95%+ of all Xboxes were sold without Metro.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not for business use.
by Morgan on Mon 18th Jun 2012 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Not for business use. "
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

MollyC, you and I tend to disagree quite a lot but on this point, I'm right there with you.

The Zune didn't "fail", it was phased out in favor of Windows Phone devices which happen to also be Zune players*. My sister has one of the last Zune devices made, and she absolutely loves my phone because of the similar UI. I also greatly prefer the Zune devices to classic iPods, and find it comparable to the iPod touch as a media player.

Windows Phone is here to stay in my opinion, as long as Nokia doesn't screw it up. I think that's the only real danger the platform might run into; that company has gone batshit crazy. The OS itself is simply stunning. It needs maybe one or two tweaks to be a workflow-centric dream. That's far better than iOS and Android are at this point; using iOS for more than one task at a time is an exercise in futility and opening too many apps on an Android device causes instability and lost work. Nearly a year of fighting it on three phones and a Nook taught me that, though it ran better by far on the tablet than the phones.

And I certainly am enjoying Metro on the Xbox too! In fact I'd say the ONLY thing I don't like Metro on is non-touchscreen desktop and laptop computers.

*A quote for those who don't believe me:

Here’s what you should know – ALL consumer electronics products have a lifespan, and the Zune HD is 18mo old. We were completely frank about this year’s Zune hardware being the WP7 phones, and we continue to both sell and fully support the Zune HD line of products. And as I’ve promised – we continue to bring new apps and games to the platform.
-- Dave McLauchlan, Senior Business Development Manager for Zune

Source: http://anythingbutipod.com/2011/03/zune-is-not-dead/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not for business use.
by adkilla on Mon 18th Jun 2012 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not for business use. "
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

I think the major rejection of WP is due to the fact that it is very restrictive. While many users could deal with the UI straightjacket on WP, the restrictions with using the Zune client and hardware options are putting users off.

MS is doing a bad job of shoehorning Apple's model into WP. Apple targets its devices as premium/high-end and with high profit margins. Something that does not work with WP because the brand image is not the same, they are also targeting developing markets and are dependent on manufacturers that need differentiation to be competitive.

In the case of Nokia, it boggles my mind with their WP or nothing strategy. It is like they are a subsidiary of MS. The rating agencies have rated their debts as junk. They won't be around long enough if they continue with this do or die strategy. It would have been wiser if they still continued with Symbian/Harmattan while giving MS time to get their act together. Unless part of their strategy is to make Nokia cheap enough for a MS take over with all the rich patent portfolio.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not for business use.
by zima on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "Not for business use. "
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But remember when Apple did this the Mac was a blip on the user radar, they didn't have a billion users to deal with and the change actually made the Mac OS way more popular to the regular user

Mac is still a blip on the radar - just not in few atypical places (where it was similarly sort-of-popular already back then). Look at global Statcounter percentages... (even better: while filtering out Canada, US, Autralia, NZ, and few EU countries)

Ms waits till their most popular version of Windows ever, the comeback from Vista

That "most popular version of Windows" is just VistaSE... people might yet praise Win9, even if it'll be just Win8SE/Metro 2.0.

Edited 2012-06-23 23:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Sat 16th Jun 2012 23:38 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

? If you didn't notice, KDE is quite mature and stable now.

I have trouble believing that somethig that most of the time runs on top of X.org and PulseAudio is either mature or stable. And before you call me a troll, why X.org and PulseAudio still have issues like tearing and volume control accordingly? Plus, KDE has a tendencyto crashing a lot since forever, not just with 4.0

Or you were refering running KDE over Windows? Can this still be done, and do "Linux" apps work with it?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by Luke McCarthy on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
Luke McCarthy Member since:
2005-07-06

KDE 4 does not require PulseAudio, Phonon can use any audio backend. Currently I'm using GStreamer and it works fine.

X still sucks but what can you do? KDE apps will work on Wayland when it's released, so maybe things will be a lot better then.

Edited 2012-06-17 00:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by v_bobok
by v_bobok on Sat 16th Jun 2012 23:47 UTC
v_bobok
Member since:
2008-08-01

If I could turn all the things Metro off I'd be okay.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by v_bobok
by Lion on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by v_bobok"
Lion Member since:
2007-03-22

The only part you ever need to see is the start screen. Even then you only need to pin the "show desktop" item and the rest of your apps can be pinned to the taskbar, shortcuts on your desktop, or a custom toolbar folder.
I'm using it fulltime as my home OS now and rarely interact with any metro components at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by v_bobok
by thavith_osn on Sun 17th Jun 2012 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by v_bobok"
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

What I don't like is certain apps jump you from Metro back into "classic". Some of the admin tools do that for instance. Users will all of a sudden be in a completely different environment without too much warning. No biggy for me, but it is a little jarring at times :-) I'm not sure how many apps do that, so maybe a mountain out of a mole hill. I wonder if some apps on the "classic" side drop you back into Metro?

I have tried for a couple of days to use WIn 8 as my primary OS while working at home, mostly to see if I could start to like it at least. But I found it less than nice to use. I don't have a touch screen, or even a touch pad, so maybe my experience could have been nicer with them (kind of like using the Win 7 without a mouse maybe, doable, but not a good idea).

I am using Mountain Lion (latest preview) and must say, Apple is providing (for me at least) a much nicer environment to work and do my web dev (even with Web Sharing missing in Sys Prefs). It could be due to the fact that I know OS X better, so read my comments with that in mind.

I don't mind Win 7 if that helps and I like a lot of things about Metro in and of itself. If Win 8 was pure Metro, but you could have the same functionality (or close) as Win 7, then I would say "hats off" :-)

Maybe in time I'll like it more, but in it's current state, I kind of doubt it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by v_bobok
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by v_bobok"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Well, that's because you're using an "admin tool".
That's like complaining that there are some settings that require the command line to manipulate. If you're going into those low-level settings, then you're going to have to use low-level utilities. Microsoft doesn't want a bunch of esoteric control panel settings to pollute Metro interface. Anyone that needs to manipulate those settings will have to get their hands dirty and drop down the lower-level interfaces.

Reply Score: 2

KDE 4.0 is *your own fault*
by DDevine on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:21 UTC
DDevine
Member since:
2011-12-28

People slagging off on KDE 4.0 gets really old. The KDE devs were clearly saying that 4.0 was *not* a consumer release but rather a development release to allow a wider audience of developers to get their hands dirty working on it. It was just a release to mark the direction of the product so that it was clear to developers what KDE 4 actually was.

It wasn't a Gnome 3.0 release where the developers were just stubborn and refusing to attempt to implement older functionality... Surprise! This is now your desktop! We heard you like paradigm changes so we put a usage paradigm in your usage paradigm so you can use your paradigm while you paradigm.

Reply Score: 2

RE: KDE 4.0 is *your own fault*
by bert64 on Sun 17th Jun 2012 10:33 UTC in reply to "KDE 4.0 is *your own fault*"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Well then they shouldn't have called it 4.0, as that implies a stable mature release for users...
It should have been called 3.9, or 4.0 beta, or 4.0 developer preview etc.

Reply Score: 2

Awful +11
by nt_jerkface on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:21 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

What's telling about Windows 8 is how many Windows bloggers hate it. You can't write off all the hatred to Linux trolls or "fear of change'. The harsh reality is that there is a Mac lover in charge of Windows and is trying to turn a working system into some bastardized half-tablet/half-desktop "frankenOS" (thurrott's words) as part of a lame duck strategy to compete with the ipad.

It's going to piss of enterprise and people will keep buying ipads. That's what will happen.

I just want this disaster to hurry up and get over with so shareholders can start the process of voting out Ballmer (with Sinofsky). So freaking stupid, this is going to be one of the biggest tech blunders of all time.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Awful +11
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "Awful +11"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I begin to agree with the notion that Microsoft should "cave" and just put back in the damn start menu and an option to boot straight to the desktop, even if it goes against their research which they believe shows that their current plans are better. Just to shut up the whiners and the thech media that is already biased against Microsoft anyway. Otherwise that tech media will do all in their power to trash W8 and make sure it fails, if they can. It may be best to give in to their demands and shut them up.

Edited 2012-06-17 20:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by krnlpanic
by krnlpanic on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:21 UTC
krnlpanic
Member since:
2012-06-16

I've been using it since early partner releases. The interface has changed a couple times, but overall once I committed to using the interface I found it better than Win7. I would change some things to suit myself, but I would still say overall its a better OS than all prior.

Reply Score: 1

v A rare second chance for desktop Linux
by tuaris on Sun 17th Jun 2012 00:42 UTC
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

> text mode should become a second class citizen [on Linux]

That may be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on OSNews.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Okay, listen very carefully Linux developers... So a few years ago you missed out during Microsoft's Vista disaster due to religion, stubbornness, ideologies, lack of effort, and stupidity. Now it appears that you will be given a extremely rare second chance to achieve the desktop Linux dream. Drop all your stupid ideologies and start designing a SINGLE complete and integrated graphical operating system that works. Your focus should be primarily GUI ONLY no text mode. Text mode should become a second class citizen.

Second chances in this industry are un-heard of, I suggest you take maximum advantage of it. Otherwise we will be at the mercy of Apple and Microsoft forever.

So... Chrome & Chromium OS?

(and yeah, quoting in full a post down-voted not really deservedly - how many times we've heard, from Linux advocates, that Vista would be this great chance? How often do we hear it again about Win8?)

Edited 2012-06-20 06:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

My personal review of Windows 8
by Lion on Sun 17th Jun 2012 01:04 UTC
Lion
Member since:
2007-03-22

I originally wrote this up as a Google+ post...

I've been using Windows 8 Release Preview at home to learn to come to grips with the new interface, the following are my impressions:

Many of the reviews I have read have described the experience entirely incorrectly

• Metro seems to have been mostly discussed as a desktop replacement. My experience points to this being quite different to the reality of using it. Metro is a widget platform and is designed for tablets and phones. It's far more of a replacement for the sidebar than for the desktop.

• The desktop does not feel like a second class citizen as has been mentioned in many articles that I have seen. My experience points to the desktop experience remaining largely unchanged from Windows 7 to the extent that I have no desire to reboot into win7 to go back to "normal"

The start page is not the new desktop. The start page is just the new start menu. This is not immediately obvious and while the transitions between start page and desktop look odd at first, once you start actually using it, this becomes the way you use the PC. How much time do you spend looking at your start menu these days on Windows 7? Not much. Once the apps you are working with are open, you are probably just going to work with those apps. The experience of working with your apps is 99 percent the same.

You don't have to use metro apps for anything. I tried to find metro app versions of most of the tools I use. The one (evernote) that currently exists feels like a cellphone app. I am likely to remove it and switch to the desktop version. (these need to be unified, like chrome). At least on a regular desktop PC it makes better sense to stick with regular windowable apps.

• The new emphasis on touch and gesture based controls is not without its penalties. Certain behaviours involving screen corners and edges will no longer work in the way to which you have become accustomed. I got used to dragging windows against the top of my screen to maximize in windows 7. this still works, but I now have to aim for the title bar to drag back down and un-maximize as dragging from the top edge will hide the desktop and show the start screen. Likewise, throwing the mouse into the top right corner to close a maximized window will sometimes not work as expected because the charms will appear.

• The retraining costs will probably not be nearly as high as there is concern that it might be. The above pretty much covers the similarities and differences. A half-hour workshop or so is probably all that's needed to get past the initial fright at it looking like a different way to interact with the PC and make it clear to users that they can still work with their machine the same way as they always have.

Overall:
Metro is not as big a deal on the desktop as everyone seems to think. I get the impression in using it that it's there to allow for easier movement between desktop, tablet, and phone. but each is likely to still have a unique experience that can be (at least partially) tied together by the same visual language. This seems like a sensible approach to me, and letting people think for the moment that everything is moving to metro encourages development of applications that take advantage of it, even if users don't wind up using metro apps much on their PCs.

Reply Score: 3

Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

this reads like fan fiction

Reply Score: 0

RE: My personal review of Windows 8
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:37 UTC in reply to "My personal review of Windows 8"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

That's fine and dandy, but unless Microsoft provides a setting to totally turn Metro off, the tech media and the blogs will rip W8 to shreds and it will fail. That's just the way it is, IMO.

Reply Score: 2

tomchr
Member since:
2009-02-01

Unfortunately, Microsoft raised the requirements for Windows 8 Release Preview. Older CPUs such as Pentium Ms are no longer supported, since they don't have "Physical Address Extension" and "Execute Disable Bit". You would think that these abilities largely only concerned the 64-bit version, but no. Idiotically, this includes the 32-bit version as well, instead of being optional.

Guess, Windows 8 just isn't "allowed" to run on old hardware anymore.

Reply Score: 3

anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

You would think that these abilities largely only concerned the 64-bit version, but no. Idiotically, this includes the 32-bit version as well, instead of being optional.


Requiring NX nowadays actually makes sense regardless of 32 vs 64bit, since it allows one to mitigate quite a few common exploit attack vectors. Given that NX is only available in the PAE format page table, the latter is implicitly required. Furthermore, considering that those features started appearing in x86 CPUs ~8 years ago, and x86-64 even before that, I don't see the requirement as being unreasonable.

Edited 2012-06-17 01:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I don't think you understand what PAE is if you think it makes sense on a 64bit machine.

Reply Score: 3

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Guess, Windows 8 just isn't "allowed" to run on old hardware anymore.


To be fair, many recent Linux distributions won't work (at least without tweaking) on a pre-2005 Pentium M either.

For example, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 is the newest version that'll run on my trusty 2Ghz Pentium M Thinkpad (7 years old and still going strong). RHEL 6 and recent desktop distributions like Ubuntu 12.04 won't install on it at all.

Windows 7 works fine, and surprisingly even has drivers for all the outdated hardware. I can't say I'm either surprised or upset that I won't be able to run Windows 8 on it.

Reply Score: 3

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Good. Having too lax requirements is what hurt Vista more thatn anything else.

Reply Score: 2

tomchr Member since:
2009-02-01

Good. Having too lax requirements is what hurt Vista more that anything else.


Too lax requirements wasn't what hurt Vista. It was that there was no aparrent or perceived benefits from upgrading from XP to Vista. What you were perfectly able to accomplish on XP, suddenly required a hardware upgrade to run adequately under Vista.

PAE & NX/XD under 32-bit Windows 8 should have been optional, since you're not addressing more than max. 4GB anyway + backward compatibility.

Edited 2012-06-18 18:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Thank Intel for that, their efforts with artificial segmentation - PAE was generally introduced with Pentium Pro.

And NX makes many security features much more straightforward or practical; or at least, avoids bloating the code (and a crucial part of it, security-wise). Also, forced PAE might finally lift that 4 GiB limit in consumer 32bit Windows; that's generally one of its points.

Anyway, while non-trivial numbers of people certainly keep & use such old machines, a minuscule portion of them cares about major OS upgrades.

Reply Score: 2

Kingsley-Hughs refuses to get that
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 02:30 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

the "desktop" paradigm is a very low-level paradigm, and it is going the way of the dodo, except for low-level tasks (just like command line console UIs, except those are even lower-level than the desktop paradign).

In fact, I think eventually it will only be used for IDEs, direct file manipulation (a low-level task), and the very detailed Control Panel (a very low-level thing; the higher level settings that most users care about are readily available in the Metro Charms bar). I think everything else, both consumption and production, will be handled by the higher-level UIs (like Metro).

And no, I don't think Metro is perfect at all. I think a 50/50 snap setting is definitely needed. As is a less rigid background-processing model.

Edited 2012-06-17 02:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Why? How does adding further layers of abstraction help at this point?

Reply Score: 2

Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

there are some good points here. except the prognostication that the desktop is dead. I dont get that.

let the desktop be a screen of application launchers, informative widgets, and movable application windows. it seems to me that android, iphone, osx, windows 7, and windows 8 all still have the desktop... except for the movable windows. only the traditional osx and windows desktops have the movable windows.

so what are we really talking about here, the death of movable windows? the death of multitasking?

metro and the mobile platforms surely have poor multitasking ability, but originally this was because of limited hardware resources. does microsoft attempting to apply that design to high-performance devices prove that movable windows and multitasking are dead for good?

I think this is not the case. I see no trend yet. I see no people with big screen devices demanding they have less functionality. if windows 8 metro is a huge success on laptops and desktops, then I will see the beginning of a trend.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Metro multitasking is fine.

With Metro I get:

- Custom tailored snap view states which take full advantage of screen real estate
- Push and Local toast notifications
- Lock Screen notifications in badge and detailed form
- Live Tile updates showing a plethora of data
- Connected Standby (Ultra low power state) notification updates while my device is out of my view
- Fast application switching with simple gestures. Swiping in from the side either with the mouse or a finger is easier than Alt+Tabing through a list.
- Contract based App to App communication.

To name a few.

Reply Score: 2

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

- Custom tailored snap view states which take full advantage of screen real estate


Multiple moveable and resizable windows allow full use of screen real estate. Being restricted to one full screen app, with another compacted into a sidebar, is so crippled and restrictive that it's a joke in comparison.

On a larger monitor, controlled by a keyboard and mouse, Metro is a massive waster of screen space. That's not surprising considering that it's designed for little touchscreen tablets.

- Fast application switching with simple gestures. Swiping in from the side either with the mouse or a finger is easier than Alt+Tabing through a list.


Compared with alt-tab this is a slow way of switching between multiple applications, especially if a large number are open. It's another thing that works on a tablet, but is pretty worthless on a desktop PC.

The fastest and most efficient way of working with multiple applications is to arrange them all on screen. That way a quick glance between them updates you on their status, and switching between them simply means moving the mouse from one window to another.

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Multiple moveable and resizable windows allow full use of screen real estate. Being restricted to one full screen app, with another compacted into a sidebar, is so crippled and restrictive that it's a joke in comparison.


I'm not often doing 10 things at the VERY SAME time to necessitate having them all on screen at once.

I'm often doing "sets" of multitasking. Eg. writing an email based off of something I opened in a browser.

Metro does this very well. From the browser I can directly hit the share charm which allows me to select which app to continue my work flow with. I can chose the email app or any other app which implements the Share contract.

Same thing with saving files. I can save files to my file system, to SkyDrive or _any_ other app which implements the appropriate contract.

These kind of work flows are what is enabled richly by Metro, and it's a lot smarter than just throwing a bunch of Windows on a screen.

Windows 8 tries to understand you work flow, Windows 7 and below simply offload that responsibility to you, which isnt good UX design.

Users shouldn't really have to worry about managing Windows, and it quickly gets unwieldly with any large amount of windows open.


On a larger monitor, controlled by a keyboard and mouse, Metro is a massive waster of screen space. That's not surprising considering that it's designed for little touchscreen tablets.


I don't think so, well written Metro apps can take advantage of the added screen real estate. We're in Metro's infancy, it'll take a while for designers to grasp the power they have.

Though, I echo MollyC's sentiment that a 50/50 split option for higher resolutions would be awesome.


Compared with alt-tab this is a slow way of switching between multiple applications, especially if a large number are open. It's another thing that works on a tablet, but is pretty worthless on a desktop PC.


I've found the exact opposite to be true. In fact, WinKey+Tab also brings up the Metro App switcher, and it can be cycled through just like Alt+Tab can..but I repeatedly just hit WinKey+Tab to cycle through my my open Metro apps instead of WinKey+Tab and Tab Tab Tab.

Plus Metro App Switcher is more adherent to Fitts Law by using hot corners. Its simply easier to bring up , no matter how you slice it.


The fastest and most efficient way of working with multiple applications is to arrange them all on screen. That way a quick glance between them updates you on their status, and switching between them simply means moving the mouse from one window to another.


Moving the mouse across a "larger monitor" is not what you'd call "efficient" actually. Its very inefficient.

Speaking of "at a glance", the Metro Start Screen surfaces more glanceable information about your apps than Windows ever did.

Reply Score: 2

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I'm not often doing 10 things at the VERY SAME time to necessitate having them all on screen at once.


I'm not either, but I do often work with 2-5 different applications/windows, for example multiple sources used in the production of a DTP document. None of them need to take up the whole screen, and none of them are typically suitable to be displayed in a sidebar.

Having them all on screen is much more efficient than repeatedly switching between full screen apps.

I don't think so, well written Metro apps can take advantage of the added screen real estate.


The amount of screen real estate required by an application depends on the content it's displaying. It doesn't matter how well written an app is, if its content doesn't fill the screen then running it full screen is wasting space.

Though, I echo MollyC's sentiment that a 50/50 split option for higher resolutions would be awesome.


You can call it awesome, I'd call it moderately less crippled and restrictive, but still vastly inferior to flexible window management.

Plus Metro App Switcher is more adherent to Fitts Law by using hot corners. Its simply easier to bring up , no matter how you slice it.


Fitts Law doesn't really apply when my hands are on the keyboard. I could begin alt-tabbing before I've even moved my hand back to the mouse.

But I agree that there's nothing particularly wrong with Metro's app switching. It's swiping from the side (the specific gesture that you listed as an advantage of Metro) that I consider to be inferior to alt-tabbing, especially when using a mouse rather than a touch screen.

Moving the mouse across a "larger monitor" is not what you'd call "efficient" actually. Its very inefficient.


You're making no sense whatsoever here. If you're using a large monitor then you'll inevitably be moving the mouse across it as you interact with applications. That's true whether those applications are full screen or windowed.

If an application window is visible on screen then it cuts out the app switching process. I can directly click on whatever I want to interact with, rather than having to first use the app switcher to select the relevant application, before moving the mouse to its content.

You mentioned Fitts Law earlier. An application window on screen is a much larger target than an icon in a task switcher. Even with hot corners, clicking on a window is much faster than displaying the task switcher and selecting a specific app within it.

Of course it isn't necessary to interact with the UI at all if I just want to look at the content of different on screen windows. That's as quick and easy as moving my eyes, while in Metro I'd have to waste time switching backwards and forwards between them. Surely even you can see how much less efficient that is?

Reply Score: 1

Win 8 blows
by SonicMetalMan on Sun 17th Jun 2012 04:05 UTC
SonicMetalMan
Member since:
2009-05-25

The criticism may sound harsh but agree with everything the author says. The architects of Win 8 changed stuff merely for the sake of change, in much the same way that KDE 4 /Gnome 3 "devolved". Linux users have alternatives to these window managers like XFCE and LXDE whereas Windows users are stuck an upgrade path they may not want. As a consumer I should be able to choose which desktop model I prefer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Win 8 blows
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:49 UTC in reply to "Win 8 blows"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

The criticism may sound harsh but agree with everything the author says. The architects of Win 8 changed stuff merely for the sake of change, in much the same way that KDE 4 /Gnome 3 "devolved". Linux users have alternatives to these window managers like XFCE and LXDE whereas Windows users are stuck an upgrade path they may not want. As a consumer I should be able to choose which desktop model I prefer.


Microsoft's "Building Windows 8" blog has detailed analysis of user behavior that indicatest that the changes are NOT "merely fo rthe sake of change". I've yet to see ANY of the bashers address any of Microsoft's very detailed research, instead you just throw out your opinions as if they are axioms. Tell me where Microsoft's research is wrong. Give me an analysis as detailed as what Microsoft has provided in the "Building Windows 8" blog in numerous blog entries.

Reply Score: 2

v Not again
by scrtyfrk on Sun 17th Jun 2012 06:01 UTC
RE: Not again
by Luminair on Sun 17th Jun 2012 07:27 UTC in reply to "Not again"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

you hope? this article is about someone who walked the walk. he doesnt hope windows 8 is good, he knows it sucks. he hoped before he used it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not again
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Not again"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

No, this is about some guy that tried to use the old ways to use a new system. Rather than adopt the new ways, he fought the system to use the old ways. Also, the guy works for Zdnet - not excatly a Microsoft-friendly site.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not again
by Luminair on Tue 19th Jun 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not again"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

you sound crazy. he used it and didnt like it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not again
by gregthecanuck on Sun 17th Jun 2012 07:29 UTC in reply to "Not again"
gregthecanuck Member since:
2006-05-30

Hooray! Somebody here gets it!

This release of Windows 8 isn't intended for:
- geeks
- business users

That seems obvious, doesn't it?

Geeks are a small part of the overall market - and shrinking!

Businesses are slow adopters. Heck many are still on Windows XP/Server 2003. I just dealt with one the other day. Ugh.

Microsoft is going after the 90% consumer market. They need market share. They need an ecosystem where someone buys into the whole Windows 8/Xbox/Phone 8 ecosystem. It has to be consistent, have the same basic runtime support, etc...

I can't believe we have so many short-sighted commenters here. Remember how the iPhone was poo-pooed as a toy? Then the iPad?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not again
by Dave_K on Sun 17th Jun 2012 12:47 UTC in reply to "Not again"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I sincerely hope that Microsoft breaks every single paradigm from the start menu to the desktop to the files and folders metaphor. We need something new and fresh.


Touch optimised phone/tablet interfaces with limited features aren't a particularly new and fresh idea. The iPhone was released over 5 years ago, and in all that time I don't think I've seen anyone clamouring to have its interface replace the GUI on their desktop PC.

We need systems that can handle the large amount of data that goes through our inboxes, rss feeds and phones.


How does a crippleware tablet GUI running space wasting full screen apps help people handle large amounts on data on their desktop PC?

A system that quickly lets us see the important things in a glance not having to dig through virtual filing cabinets, folders and documents.


What are you talking about? I don't need to dig through the file system to see my Twitter timeline, email inbox, online forums, RSS feeds, or any other things that I monitor regularly.

Existing apps can generally provide notifications, and if I want to see things at a glance on my Windows desktop then I can keep the windows open and arranged on screen.

In Metro I'm limited to one main app and another as a sidebar regardless of how much screen space I have to play with. On a tablet that's to be expected, on a desktop PC it's a huge step backward.

Of course the limitations of Metro are relatively minor when its just used to consume online information. It'd often be a productivity crippling disaster if it was used to replace the desktop for creative work.

Having multiple windows on screen is essential for my workflow, especially when working on DTP projects. I'm not "afraid of change" or "unable to grasp new concepts", I'm just able to see how much Metro would slow me down, and not content for my computer to be crippled.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not again
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Not again"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

IF multiple windows is essential for your workflow, then use the desktop. What's your problem? And don't whine to me about the Start Menu, as that has nothing to do with whether there are multiple windows or not. Windows 8 provides an environment for multiple windows. I tire of those who pretend that it does not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not again
by Dave_K on Mon 18th Jun 2012 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not again"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

IF multiple windows is essential for your workflow, then use the desktop. What's your problem?


I was responding to a comment praising Metro as the future of the Windows user interface, stating that it was more efficient at dealing with information, and calling on Microsoft to break the desktop paradigm.

I did actually quote from the post I was responding to, so I'm not sure how you missed that context.

Also, you're assuming that the desktop will always be around on Windows. There's some indication that Microsoft see it as a legacy component to eventually be replaced with Metro and its apps. Obviously that's a concern for those of us who use Windows and value the traditional desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not again
by Nelson on Mon 18th Jun 2012 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not again"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

So you can be forward thinking on the Desktop but not on Metro?

You say that in the future the Desktop will be depreciated.

Don't you think that'd coincide with improvements to Metro? Its not this static thing that is set in stone. I imagine there will be a host of well thought out improvements.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not again
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:52 UTC in reply to "Not again"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I would agree with you, but it's not just a few morons, it's over half of the tech media, and they have the power to manipulate the public perception of a product. Which is why I'm am coming to the conclusion that Microsoft should bite the bullet, and add a setting to put back the Start Menu and allow booting straight to the desktop. The tech media will trash W8 to no end if they don't do that, and that trashing will indeed seep into the public conscience.

Reply Score: 2

Who's buying tablets?
by IndigoJo on Sun 17th Jun 2012 07:18 UTC
IndigoJo
Member since:
2005-07-06

The remodelling of dekstop UIs to run on tablets seems pointless - the majority of computers that run Windows still have the old keyboard/mouse/screen format, not a single touch screen. A trip to any computer shop will demonstrate that. There are a lot of cheap laptops being sold for the same price as an iPad, they have bigger hard drives and memory and a proper keyboard with a trackpad, and they run Windows 7. I've seen the Linux desktop environment people adapt their systems for touch screens for years, much to the detriment of keyboard/mouse/screen users, and haven't seen any tablets in the shops that use KDE or GNOME 3. Nor have I seen Android running on laptops (although it's possible to install it on some netbooks). Why would anyone want to run a Windows tablet OS on a laptop or desktop?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who's buying tablets?
by Nelson on Sun 17th Jun 2012 21:45 UTC in reply to "Who's buying tablets?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

1. Windows still has Desktop Mode.
2. A great majority of Windows sales are preinstalled on new devices. If you look at Computex 2012, there were dozens (literally, dozens) of devices shown. From tablets, to laptops with touchscreens, to touchscreen all in ones, to convertible tablet hybrids.

3. Making design decisions today using statistics that may not hold true a few years in is foolish. Maybe TODAY tablets haven't surpassed general purpose PC sales but what do the trends look like?

Reply Score: 2

Crazy comparison
by laffer1 on Sun 17th Jun 2012 15:16 UTC
laffer1
Member since:
2007-11-09

KDE is a desktop environment. It is not a whole operating system like Windows 8 or Mac OS X. Then, Windows 8 is most a new shell on top of Windows 7. It's building on previous versions of windows. Mac OS X was an operating system from another company acquired by apple and had to be converted to the "Mac" way of doing things. I think OS X was a lot more work than simply building a new shell and adding a secure boot loader. Granted, both Microsoft and Apple had to work on new APIs (cocoa was already there effectively, but they had to bridge carbon from os 9 and rewrite many apps).

Now if microsoft bought SCO back (@see XENIX) or something and then threw KDE on top of it and made GUI changes and sold it as windows 8, we could talk about Mac OS X vs Windows 8.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Crazy comparison
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 17th Jun 2012 16:09 UTC in reply to "Crazy comparison"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think OS X was a lot more work than simply building a new shell and adding a secure boot loader.


You clearly have no idea what's been going on under the hood with Windows these past few years.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Crazy comparison
by laffer1 on Sun 17th Jun 2012 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy comparison"
laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

I've been trying Windows 8 on two systems. It's not terrible, but I don't see much improvement over Windows 7 outside of the obvious user interface changes. I'll admit the new interface is useful for consuming content, but I don't like it for getting real work done. Most of the documentation i've seen has been on the user interface and the metro toolkit stuff. If you have a reference that explains any changes they've made under the hood, I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise, I stand behind what i've said.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Crazy comparison
by leos on Sun 17th Jun 2012 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy comparison"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

You clearly have no idea what's been going on under the hood with Windows these past few years.


If you think the change between the Windows 7 kernel and the Windows 8 is anywhere near as massive of a change as that between OS9 and 10, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Win8 has some incremental changes under the hood. OS10 was a complete break from OS9. No comparison.

And surprise surprise, you can see it in the end result. Win8 is not bad because it's slow or unstable (it isn't), it's bad because the design is trying to be the best for both desktops and tablets, which is likely impossible.

Edited 2012-06-17 21:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy comparison
by Nelson on Sun 17th Jun 2012 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy comparison"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It may not be major from a kernel point of view, but a lot of the subsystems in Windows 8 have been reengineered.

Hell, they reinvented COM (Introduced class level inheritance, modernized it) and had it underpin the WinRT framework. Then they subsequently created an entirely new, highly asynchronous API set to replace (and for the pedants, in some place supplement) the old Win32 API.

That's significant.

They redid their underlying Graphics stack to be powered by Direct2D, even GDI is underpinned by it now.

If there is no hardware available, the Direct2D renderer uses WARP (a highly efficient CPU rasterizer) to render the UI.

They made serious, significant investments in their networking stack with regards to mobile networking, data consumption, etc.

That's just a few things. So no, maybe it wasn't a completely radical change like OS9 to OSX, but it is significant nonetheless. Very significant.

Reply Score: 2

no clock
by Adurbe on Sun 17th Jun 2012 15:32 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

the single most annoying thing about Win 8 is no clock!!

you seem to have to go t the desktop to see the time. This will never work in an office. I need to know Exactly how long I have before I go home :-p

Reply Score: 3

RE: no clock
by n4cer on Sun 17th Jun 2012 18:13 UTC in reply to "no clock"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Open the Charms bar (Win+C) and a clock will appear. I guess this would be a good app to build (maybe a world clock / multi-clock) so it's tile could be pinned to the Start screen.

Reply Score: 3

I can't believe
by BluenoseJake on Sun 17th Jun 2012 18:23 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

How the comment voting system is being misused in this thread. Come on people, you shouldn't be voting people up for spreading bullshit, and you shouldn't be voting people down for speaking the truth.

The people on here used to be a bit more balanced, I guess those days are over.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I can't believe
by MollyC on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:57 UTC in reply to "I can't believe"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

hehe, you should check out the voting system in the Zdnet article in question. Almost any post that disagrees with the author has been voted down into oblivion.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I can't believe
by Nelson on Sun 17th Jun 2012 21:38 UTC in reply to "I can't believe"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Basically:

Any pro Windows 8 comment gets downvoted to oblivion.
Any sky is falling, general purpose computing, metro sucks for productivity comment is upvoted to the sky.

This site, and most people who comment here, are almost uniquely incompatible with Windows 8. It goes against everything they stand for and believe in.

A lot of it is wildly fanatical and hyperbolic, which is a shame, because others are actually pretty insightful. Thom is more moderated in his criticism and its appreciated, but others go completely off the scale.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I can't believe
by zima on Wed 20th Jun 2012 06:00 UTC in reply to "I can't believe"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Wasn't "Operating Systems News" more prominent in the old OSNews themes? Perhaps now we largely have a crows who gathered here thinking it's about open source, so everything else needs to be suppressed...
It's kinda even more sad in contemporary Nokia threads.

(but, whoa, somehow you didn't get modded into oblivion...)

Reply Score: 2

Metro as a seperate OS
by Chrispynutt on Mon 18th Jun 2012 09:25 UTC
Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

I think the shoehorning in of Metro and the lack of confidence in it as a brand that somehow needs 'Windows' attached to it is the key flaw in all this.

Back when MS started down the Windows path, they didn't brand it as DOS NG or DOS for Desktops, no it was called Windows.

On it's own and as a stand alone brand I feel that Metro or what ever the OS brand would be far better. You wouldn't get the half assed Windows/Metro mashups or the negative baggage attached to the phone brand.

To me this is where Balmer and the current management have shown their stripes. They just don't have the guts to launch a truely new OS and interface. They have to tether it to another perfectly good older OS and ending up to be to the detriment of both of them.

Reply Score: 2

Win 8 - no disaster, no saviour
by benali72 on Mon 18th Jun 2012 16:53 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

I don't think Win 8 is a disaster, but when I use it it does make me sad that it has so many drawbacks and inconsistencies that could have easily been fixed. Not much attention to detail in this UI!

Reply Score: 2

Just like GNOME Shell
by Jason Bourne on Mon 18th Jun 2012 18:47 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

Just like GNOME Shell, a design disaster that continues to push away newcomers & veterans every day.

Reply Score: 2