“After acknowledging its Windows Blue codename publicly in March, Microsoft is getting closer to revealing all about the upcoming Windows 8 update. In an interview with The Verge this week, Microsoft’s Windows CFO Tami Reller provided some details on where the company is heading with its Blue project.”
Despite all the criticism about Windows 8, I want to point out some virtues it has, I feel it faster and liter than Windows 7, I never had a problem with metro, I just learned to ignore it.
It is faster, you’re right on that, but it’s impossible to ignore that damn “charms” bar. Obnoxious thing. And that massive pop-up clock.
Actually, it isn’t. Sometimes I see it when I close a window, but I don’t even consciously see it anymore.
When it comes to Windows 8 and the missing Start button, I honestly do not understand what the problem is, even if you don’t use Metro. To me, it’s just a bunch of irrational hate. I think most people spent much more time bitching about the missing start menu than they would’ve just installing a free replacement and getting on with their lives.
At any rate, if you’re still using the Start menu in 2013, you really are doing it the hard way. What I have been doing for years is to pin my most frequently launched apps on the quick launch toolbar (most people will use that shitty Win7 taskbar), and for everything else, I just hit Winkey and start typing, and it’s selected in a second or two. And this is actually faster to do in Windows 8 than it was in 7. There’s absolutely no reason to bring up the Start menu or the Metro start screen and manually start scanning for apps.
Edited 2013-05-08 00:39 UTC
That’s your preference, but many people find it simply quite jarring for the Start screen to take over the whole desktop every single time you just want to open an app — the old Start menu only covers a small portion of the screen and is quite a bit less jarring an experience. Also, searching for what you want to launch only works if you already know what it’s called; the old Start menu is much more discoverable if you do not know or remember what to specifically search for.
It sounds like your needs are fairly simple. I’ve got my most frequently used things pinned to the task bar, with some common but less frequently used stuff pinned to the Start Menu.
The left side of the Start Menu is also great for things I don’t use very often, but tend to go to a lot on the days I do need them.
The right side of the Start Menu is great for quick access to frequently access locations.
Start -> Switch User is great for shared computers.
For rarely used thing I don’t know the exact name of, the Win 7 Start Menu is much faster to browse than the Metro Start Screen.
Ultimately, Win8 isn’t completely broken. It does the job and I could work with it if necessary. The big problem is that it just doesn’t do anything better than Win7, but does a lot of things worse.
Also, yes, I’ve heard people say Win8 is faster. If it is, it’s not perceptibly so on a recent computer. If anything, to me, a fresh Win7 install feels faster than a fresh Win8 install. I suspect most of the supposed speed improvements are comparing a fresh install of Win8 to a several year old Win7 install.
Actually, it does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_8
As for the start menu, maybe I’m in the minority, but I’ve never been in there hunting for an app I didn’t know the name of. And I’ve got 40+ apps installed. *shrug* At any rate, in the Windows 8 start screen, you can remove the metro crap, reorder the icons in any way you like, and you can even separate apps into groups if you want.
IDK, even if it’s a little more inconvenient than the old start menu, seems like a whole lot of bitching about nothing. With the amount of nerd rage being spewed over the issue, you’d think they removed the fucking task bar completely
You’re right. People just need a wedge issue to beat Microsoft over the head with. This start menu fiasco has never been about genuine user difficulty. Its been about finding an effective way to turn Windows 8 into a whipping boy.
If you find yourself reading these long, passionate, drawn out posts by the usual suspects — you’d almost scratch your head at the silliness of what they’re complaining about. You’d think that they run Windows 8 daily or something.
Try to tell that to a user that has no idea how to simply shut their computer off anymore.
CTRL+ALT+DEL – look on the bottom/right. Same thing was possible on Windows 7.
Edited 2013-05-08 21:01 UTC
This is not a solution for everyone. Saying that “shutdown” is “possible” via CTRL+ALT+DEL isn’t a defense; it’s pointing out the massive glaring problem.
Perhaps it might suck if you only have one hand, but I figure it works okay for everyone else
The majority of users know zero to a few shortcuts. You can spend a half hour teaching them one keyboard shortcut and fifteen minutes later it will be forgotten (and this is with easy ones like Open, Print, Copy). There is no way to discover this without thinking to enact a keyboard shortcut specifically crafted to be used by professionals.
I’ve watched power users and people who researched Win 8 hunt for 15-20 minutes for a way to shut down the computer or close on app. There is no reason for this to be happening. No matter if there are 30 keyboard shortcuts to invoke it.
But these are probably not the people who are yelling and screaming about it on tech blogs either. I’m guessing that in 8.1, they’ll make some adjustments, like putting a shutdown/restart button on the Start screen to make it easier on the tech tards.
For the rest of us, I understand there are a few adjustments (like CTRL+ALT+DEL to shut down) that need to be made, but the nerd rage has been blown completely out of proportion. I’m not exactly a Windows 8 Evangelist, but I don’t really miss the Start button either. After a few days in the new environment and learning where everything was, I was fine.
And to be honest, I was more pissed off upgrading from XP to Windows 7, only to find out they re-arranged the entire control panel and settings dialogs for no discernible reason. That was a bigger pain in the ass than Windows 8 IMO, but I eventually got used to it. Still prefer XP as a whole to either 7 or 8 though, but hey… we have to move on.
People literally don’t know how to shut their computers off because of Windows 8. That’s a pretty fundamental and rage-worthy problem.
Why? A quick Google search gives you the answer in about 30 seconds. Longer than it would take for you to bitch about it
I don’t know why you keep responding as if I’m an idiot. I’m talking about average users. I’ve seen this occur on literally 100% of new Windows 8 purchases. People don’t know how to shut the computer down, get frustrated, hunt around for several minutes, and on and on… some people are smart enough to then consult me or other knowledgeable people or google it, sometimes they then forget it and need to do it again… It is absurd that shutting down a computer is not an obvious thing in an easy to find location. That your response is to search Google for it is insane; we are talking about Shut Down. That you keep responding to me as if I don’t know 4 ways to shut the computer is pointless; I know — I’m talking about average and even the majority of power users using 8 for the first number of times.
You can nerd it out all day, respond to me 50 times if you like… I see users immediately getting frustrated and disgusted by 8 on a daily basis. Recommending that they hunt around looking for an answer to a question that was answered for them previously and shouldn’t need to be asked is not an answer.
Edited 2013-05-09 18:32 UTC
Right, I understand, and I’m not talking to average users here. Average users aren’t the ones on sites like this, crying like titty babies because Windows 8 is too hard to use, and demanding that the Start menu be brought back.
As I said before, it’s nothing but irrational hate. Anybody knowledgeable enough about tech in general to be reading sites like this and bitching about something being too hard to discover, where the solution is just a Google search away, should be dragged into the deep end of a forest and disemboweled with a wooden cooking spoon.
As for average users, trust me… I’ve seen them try and operate prior versions of Windows, and it really ain’t much better. Clueless users are going to be clueless… I don’t care if you put a fucking etch-a-sketch in front of them. Of course, that doesn’t excuse the fact that the shutdown option is as hard to find as it is in Win8, and I’m guessing they’ll fix it in the next release. It’s not a justification for bringing the start menu back.
If average users don’t know how to shut off a computer, I don’t see how this is irrational hate. It’s a massive stepback and a clusterfuck of a product.
Well, it’s like this:
Me: Why do you hate the Windows 8 start screen?
Win8Hater: It’s too hard to shut down the computer.
Me: Just press CTRL+ALT+DEL?
Win8Hater: How’s an average user supposed to know that?
Me: Are YOU an average user?
Win8Hater: Well, no …
Me: *facepalm*
Win8Hater: But I must recommend, purchase, support, and advise normal users. Therefore, I hate it for the problems that will be very real to normal users. I also do in fact find it for less efficient even if I can use Google to search for keyboard shortcuts.
NOT F’IN’ IRRATIONAL!
Edited 2013-05-09 21:35 UTC
WorknMan,
“Average users aren’t the ones on sites like this, crying like titty babies because Windows 8 is too hard to use, and demanding that the Start menu be brought back.”
Well, many people did learn and still don’t like it. At least third parties like stardock might be able to fill the gap and provide the features MS is withholding until MS blocks it (http://www.stardock.com/products/modernmix/features.asp), but that doesn’t change my opinion that the metro-desktop integration feels like a hack.
“As I said before, it’s nothing but irrational hate.”
Whether we are savvy or not, it’s only an opinion, it’s neither wrong nor irrational. We cannot assume that every person of rational state of mind has to come to the same conclusions about metro. Metro has it’s place, but in my opinion the design was compromised by microsoft’s agenda. IMHO both metro and the desktop could have been better products if they were separate and not trying to pretend that the former is a good substitute for the later.
Edit: Sorry if this is a tad misdirected, I know you were talking more about discover-ability, than overall integration issues.
Edited 2013-05-09 21:02 UTC
Well, that depends. For example, one thing that the Win8 start screen doesn’t have that the start menu did (AFAIK) is the recent documents menu. If you said you missed that feature and wanted the start menu back for that reason, that is a rational response that makes sense. However, I’ve never heard anyone give that specific reason for wanting it back.
Usually, if you ask someone why they want the start menu back, and they say it’s because the start screen can’t do x, and you show them how to do x with the start screen, they will continue to fuss and bitch that they want the start menu back. THAT is the irrational part. And what I mean by that is insisting that we bring back this other thing, without really having a concrete reason other than ‘the new way sucks.’ Is it wrong? Of course not. It’s just illogical. To me, it’s actually fascinating to see how completely illogical humans can be about things like this. It just goes to show you that I really don’t understand how a lot of people think.
To me, this is more of a look into human psychology than anything else; I really don’t give a shit if they bring the start menu back or not. And for the record, I don’t like Metro either. I’m speaking in terms of the start screen only.
Virtually everything is LESS EFFICIENT. It is not irrational to want the familiar (if it works) in the first place. It certainly isn’t irrational to be displeased that you are doing the SAME things in a DIFFERENT AND LESS EFFICIENT manner.
Edited 2013-05-09 21:34 UTC
Actually, when speaking of the Start screen, it isn’t less efficient. It’s just different. There’s definitely some things they could improve upon, but there’s no reason to go back to the old. Even if they decide that Metro wasn’t the best course of action, there’s still no reason to go back to the old. What’s old is based on an API built sometime in the 80’s, that is now composed of framework on top of framework, and needs a massive overhaul.
Disagree entirely.
WorknMan,
“Well, that depends. For example, one thing that the Win8 start screen doesn’t have that the start menu did (AFAIK) is the recent documents menu. If you said you missed that feature and wanted the start menu back for that reason, that is a rational response that makes sense. However, I’ve never heard anyone give that specific reason for wanting it back.”
That illustrates a real difference with how people think. For me it’s not a matter of adding features and discover-ability back to the metro screen (although those of course would solve certain usability problems). Personally I don’t dislike metro because it’s missing features but rather because I don’t like being bumped around between the desktop and metro interfaces, I find it to be a jarring hack regardless of what MS does to “fix metro”. Metro just isn’t for me because I really do want to stay within the windowed desktop. Metro can have it’s uses, but I resent how MS isn’t making it configurable.
“Usually, if you ask someone why they want the start menu back, and they say it’s because the start screen can’t do x, and you show them how to do x with the start screen, they will continue to fuss and bitch that they want the start menu back. THAT is the irrational part.”
But it’s not irrational to have a different opinion about the best solution for oneself regardless of features. It’s my opinion that the desktop should be the desktop, and metro should be metro, and that they shouldn’t be forcefully intertwined.
Edited 2013-05-10 00:34 UTC
So it’s not about, and never has been about, bringing the start menu back. It’s more about that you want Metro gone entirely, or else you want desktop/metro integration to make more sense. In that case, why not say so? If the start menu comes back but metro is still there (along with the charms bar), have you really accomplished anything? Probably not anything that a start menu replacement can’t already do in Windows 8.
Edited 2013-05-10 01:22 UTC
WorknMan,
“So it’s not about, and never has been about, bringing the start menu back. It’s more about that you want Metro gone entirely, or else you want desktop/metro integration to make more sense.”
Not exactly, you’d still need the start menu on the desktop side if you eliminated the bounce to metro’s start screen. It’d be illogical to get rid of metro AND then not get the start menu back.
Hypothetically if metro had a start menu, then it might actually make sense to use that same start menu between both metro and the desktop. But once they decided to do away with all the menus and context and task bars, etc, they were intentionally going for something altogether different from the desktop both aesthetically and functionally. With so little in common, I feel they shouldn’t have attempted to impose a metro UI on desktop users without at least making it configurable.
“If the start menu comes back but metro is still there (along with the charms bar), have you really accomplished anything?”
You make it sound bad, but that’s in fact pretty close to what many of us are asking for. I’d really have preferred for windows 8 and metro not to have been bundled as they are, but take what you can get right?
“Probably not anything that a start menu replacement can’t already do in Windows 8.”
I already mentioned stardock. However just because we could install a sirius radio doesn’t make it irrational to call out the shortcomings of the manufacturer’s stock radio. Of course I understand why you are tired of hearing the “bitching”, and want us to just buy stardock and get on with it, but at the same time MS deserves it’s share of blame for dragging it’s feet and NOT making the start menu configurable.
Anyways, it’s not my intention to convince you my opinions are better than any other opinions, only to convince you that they’re not irrational, which I hope is a low enough bar that we can agree on that
Edited 2013-05-10 03:25 UTC
I’m just not sure what it is that you guys are asking for …
So you want a start menu that works BOTH in metro and desktop? Isn’t that what the start screen is? If you went the other way around and made the start menu on the desktop, wouldn’t it be just as jarring to people who mostly live in metro?
I’m not sure there’s a really happy medium here, as it’s either going to be one or the other. And considering that MS considers desktop to be ‘legacy’ (as do I), it makes logical sense to do it in metro. Of course, metro is a good ways away from being ready for ‘prime time’, but if you go back and look at Windows versions from in the 80’s, you can see that they’ve made significant improvements to the desktop side, as they will for metro. Unless they get cold feet and ditch metro altogether, and then ‘bet the company’ on yet another new something-something, and then we’ll have to start all over again
One way or the other, the ‘classic’ Windows desktop’s days are numbered, and MS knows it.
WorknMan,
“I’m just not sure what it is that you guys are asking for …”
Really?? But it’s been said so many times. Bring the start menu back and make it configurable.
“I’m not sure there’s a really happy medium here, as it’s either going to be one or the other.”
Whoever said it had to be just one or the other?? Make it a configuration option and EVERYONE wins. If MS were to add a configuration options for desktop users today, tell me what harm there is in it for metro users who don’t override the defaults?
“And considering that MS considers desktop to be ‘legacy’ (as do I), it makes logical sense to do it in metro. Of course, metro is a good ways away from being ready for ‘prime time’, but if you go back and look at Windows versions from in the 80’s, you can see that they’ve made significant improvements to the desktop side, as they will for metro.”
That’s a fair opinion, but it still doesn’t make opposing opinions any less valid. Metro’s window management is extremely basic, for some that’s a pro, for others like me that’s a con. It’s easy to hand-waive the issues by saying metro will get better for everyone over time, but it’s not going to be able to evolve much without incorporating many of the mature features they threw out in the first place.
“One way or the other, the ‘classic’ Windows desktop’s days are numbered, and MS knows it.”
MS may be trying to sabotage the classic desktop to help convert customers to metro. But that only goes so far and I think MS realizes that if they want to keep most of their windows customers that they’ll have to offer more than metro. So I don’t think the desktop will go away.
Let’s not forget that for MS, this has nothing to do with UI principals. It’s about metro being a software ecosystem that MS controls as it’s gatekeepers whereas with the desktop they are not.
Okay, so you just want an option to configure the start menu to be the classic start menu or the metro start screen, like the registry entry that existed in the consumer preview?
But then we’re right back to square one, in that if all you want is the old start menu back, you could just install the Classic Shell app and be done with it. A solution has already been provided, so it sounds like people just want to bitch and moan about it.
Do I think MS should put in that configuration option? Definitely. But even if I detested the metro start screen, as long as there was an easy alternative that gave me what I wanted, I wouldn’t give two shits whether they put it back in or not. There’s a laundry list of other things I’d rather see MS do, chief among them would be adding tabs to the file explorer, and give users the ability to slipstream service packs and hotfixes into the install disc. Those are harder to get via 3rd party means
WorknMan,
“Do I think MS should put in that configuration option? Definitely.”
This is really all that we’re saying.
“But even if I detested the metro start screen, as long as there was an easy alternative that gave me what I wanted, I wouldn’t give two shits whether they put it back in or not.”
It’s still fair to criticize MS for it and expect a genuine response. However the main reason I replied at all was to counter the notion that disliking the metro start screen is somehow irrational or that asking MS to return that functionality was somehow unreasonable. Many people who don’t want metro, don’t want the metro start screen either. It’s all just a matter of opinion – nothing wrong with anyone’s opinion either way.
“There’s a laundry list of other things I’d rather see MS do…”
I definitely understand that, but in this case it’s just a shame because it was already there.
Fair, but seems like a waste of time. Personally, I wouldn’t expend the energy, when a free solution is readily available. To me, that is the irrational part.
If you look in Wikipedia, there is a huge list of features MS has removed from every Windows release. But for some reason, people have latched onto this start menu thing and simply won’t let it go. And as much as we have discussed it, I don’t think I’m any closer to understanding the reasons why than when we first began.
It’s interesting to note that Classic Shell first got its start because when Windows 7 came out, people hated the fact that MS had removed the ‘classic’ version of the start menu, so it doesn’t appear that people were particularly happy with Windows 7’s implementation either. But I guess they eventually got used to it, because I stopped hearing about it.
WorknMan,
I think galvanash’s posts were insightful here. The changes between windows versions were always incremental. But with windows 8 for the first time microsoft’s actions represent their intention to phase out the “windows” desktop and phase in metro. Many desktop users feel forsakened.
Right, which is why I said that this was more than just about the start menu. But you didn’t seem to agree with me
I think it’s the fact that they removed it is what pisses people off more than actually not having it. It’s like a 3yo who starts crying when you take away his toy. He just wants his toy back, even if he wasn’t really playing with it before you took it and/or he has another one just like it in his toy box. It’s more about the fact that you took it away, vs whatever tangible benefits it might’ve had.
Edited 2013-05-12 19:13 UTC
Do I think Windows 8 is fundamentally, horribly flawed? Yes. I think Microsoft has made innumerable horrible UI/UX decisions over the entire history of their business and products.
Do I still think that bringing back a persistent, always-visible, always-accessible, not-obscured-by-hot-corner-targeting-or-some-other gesture button/target that every Windows user is already familiar with and provides access to frequent apps, the web, email, windows updates, control panels and/or other settings, search, and power state settings without obscuring the desktop or open apps or jumping to an entirely different screen or UI is a good idea that will at least mitigate some of the most braindead problems without altering Windows 8 in any significant manner? Absolutely.
Yes. It certainly wouldn’t be getting worse or be completely pointless.
You keep saying this. You seem to acknowledge that a start menu replacement is necessary. Don’t you think it’s absolutely ridiculous that Microsoft isn’t providing this themselves? That users are expected to know their are alternatives, evaluate each of the alternatives, download an appropriate alternative (while avoiding add-on software and/or malware) just to be able to shut off their computer in a comprehendible, familiar manner or to be able to open an app without jumping back and forth between two completely different UIs? What harm would it do (other than to Microsoft’s reputation for backtracking on bad decisions — which they’ve done innumerable times anyway)?
I acknowledged no such thing. The start menu isn’t even the issue. The REAL issue is that you want metro gone entirely and a return back to Windows 7. And that’s fine if you feel that way. But for whatever reason, you won’t come out and say it, and so you just insist that the start menu be brought back. In the end, this is not, and never has been about the start menu. If it was, you would install Classic Shell and move on with your life, esp since the start menu replacements can also disable the hot tracking, which people seem to hate so much.
I don’t LOVE the metro start screen. To me, it’s basically the start menu with a different UI. I’m pretty much indifferent about it. I had to get used to it, just like I had to get used to all the shit they moved around in Vista/7.
I don’t know, and I really don’t care. I got accustomed to the new start screen pretty quickly, but even if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t lose sleep over something when the solution takes less than 5 minutes to implement. To be honest, I was much more bummed about the removal of the Win32 ‘classic’ theme than I was the missing start menu. They’re always removing stuff that I find useful, like how they removed the Vista calendar app in Windows 7, which I was quite fond of. Vista also had a decent startup manager that got nuked in Windows 7. (Which thankfully returned in Windows 8.) It happens just about every Windows release.
Edited 2013-05-10 23:33 UTC
No, they’re probably the poor sods supporting Windows 8 and an army of frustrated users.
You’re right, the placement of the shut down button is stupid and confusing. The same goes for a lot of other things, and I think a reasonable discussion can be had there.
To me though there’s a difference between a discussion in which both sides are actively listening, and me hearing regurgitated Metro hate from someone who hasn’t used it before.
I’m glad to talk about legitimate issues, and the shut down thing is getting better with Blue, but it is unacceptable that it was this hard in the first place.
Other things like the discoverability of the Charms bar are concrete issues. I’ve also heard great feed back around being able to quickly collapse and filter through groups of apps in the “All Apps” menu.
I think that even if people hate Metro, they can appreciate Microsoft moving to a yearly release cadence for Windows. Previously, we would’ve had to sit tight for three years until the next major version of Windows to get concrete changes based off of feedback.
I really think that an improved Metro shell + Boot to Desktop and a Start Button anchor (Along with obvious usability fixes mentioned above, and the Search Charm not going full screen anymore) should help solve a lot of the learning curve that users experienced.
I want to write a program, and they how-to’s in a pdf. I’ve metro pdf reader and non metro notepad++. My monitor is 1920×1080. I want to open the pdf side-by-side with my notepad++. Can you teach me how?
Edited 2013-05-09 00:59 UTC
Oh, trust me, I used to use the Quick Launch bar myself. But true to its name, it’s good as a quick program launcher… and I don’t need such immediate and frequent access to, for example, CCleaner or a disk defragmenter. I tended to keep my QL toolbar pretty minimal, typically housing only my five or six top-used programs, maybe eight at times. The rest were easily and still quite quickly started from the Start menu.
I have experimented here and there with cleaning out the menu (removing links to web pages, documentation, etc. and getting rid of extra directories in the menu tree) after seeing Linux’s comparatively clean application menus. The Start menu worked just fine–I would hardly call it the “hard way.” It works, and IMO it works well. Sure, it would be nice if it was cleaner by default (all that crap I mentioned removing, there is no need for every single software installer to create its own cascading menu entry for example), but still.
Similarly, I actually *liked* Windows 7’s implementation of the taskbar, but I never considered it a real alternative or replacement of the Start menu. I would never have the entire thing lined from left to right full of program icons, that’s just clutter. It’s bad enough so many people seem to do that on their desktops with icons all over the place, the taskbar is not a good place to just shove everything either.
Edited 2013-05-08 06:59 UTC
Heaven forbid some people desire to operate their machine with a mouse and not use the keyboard for anything other than typing.
You don’t get what’s so hard? Fine here are a few tidbits:
1) want to use the default OS supplied email client? Fullscreen app in your face
2) Want to view a PDF file? Another fullscreen app in your face
3) The same for calendar and web search.
These are just a few that popped in my face just in the first 10 minutes of using the “wonder OS”. It is annoying. No, scratch that. It is pissing me off. Makes me scream. I do not want that on my friggin desktop. Nor do I want to install other applications to do the above when there are already programs with the same functionality on my system. There is no good reason why the PDF viewer and an email program and an IDE can’t stand side by side on the same screen (provided the screen is big enough and it usually is for desktops)
All this so that MS can push their idiotic agenda. The “pie in the sky OS” to magically solve all their problems (like Ballmer being a moron).
They (MS) have not learned anything. In a NYT interview Mrs whatshername even insults desktop users by saying “we need to learn faster”. WTF? It’s not me that made Windows 8 a retarded OS, it’s them. Don’t shift your problems on to us.
Please MS, less marketing talk and more work fixing the mess you’ve made.
Sure, you have to re-associate a few programs, but I had to do that in Windows 7 anyway, esp since Win7 didn’t have defaults for a lot of these apps, and the ones it did have defaults for sucked ass. So in this regard, nothing really has changed.
They had the chance to do things right so… they went for the “even more retarded” option because “Metro iz da shizzle”.
Meh.
Personally, I think it has less to do with the start button being missing and more to do with WHY the start button is missing…
It wasn’t done for technical reasons, it wasn’t done to solve a problem, and it wasn’t done to make users happy… It was done as a way to force users to adopt a new feature.
The problem is if you are going to force your users into doing something a different way, you better be damn sure most of them are going to like it…
They could have, from day one, made the start button, the charms bar, and everything that goes with it optional – that is patently obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together. They didn’t because they wanted to force user adoption…
Consumers know that most companies treat them like sheep. But they don’t like it being made so blatantly obvious when they are being herded…
galvanash,
“Personally, I think it has less to do with the start button being missing and more to do with WHY the start button is missing…”
I’d +1 your whole post if I could.
“They could have, from day one, made the start button, the charms bar, and everything that goes with it optional – that is patently obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together. They didn’t because they wanted to force user adoption…”
Yea, just listen to the lawyer-speak here:
Wow, how dumb do they want us to think they are that they cannot understand what people want when they ask for the start button back? Regardless of whether one likes metro or not, anyone with a brain who’s used windows in the past decade should at least understand what they’re asking for even if they disagree with it.
It’d almost be better if they were honest and said “look guys, we KNOW what you want, but it goes against our new business model that we want you to buy into, so shut your traps because you are not getting your previous start button back”.
Edited 2013-05-09 02:04 UTC
Exactly. Im actually a fan of metro, at least in certain usage scenarios. Its a good attempt at UI simplification, and for inexperienced users or users who are primarily interested in performing simple tasks, playing a game now and then, or media viewing I think it hits a bullseye. I actually do hope it catches on. I never saw it as a replacement for a conventional desktop UI for keyboard/mouse users though – augmenting it for certain use cases yes, replacing it… no (at least not in its current state).
That said, Microsoft never really tried to sell it on their userbase – they just shoved it down everyones throat… That pissed me off too, because I thought it was actually pretty good and I was hoping they would have taken more time trying to convince their users it was good (by giving them some time to get to know it). How can anyone like something when they know from day one they have no choice in the matter? Sure, after a while you might learn to like it – but initially you will automatically hate it because it is being forced on you.
They completely ignored 20 years of learned behavior in their userbase, threw away the most intrinsic UI element in their OS – really its most identifiable feature, and they did it brutally with no reverence for their own product… All that just to (imo) prop up a new revenue model and to help sell some new gadgets (surface).
I’m not mad at the people who hate metro – I’m mad at Microsoft for f*cking up its launch…
Edited 2013-05-09 02:44 UTC
lol I gave up the start menu in 2012. i use a dock and finder
You mean “litter.”
It feels faster, but needs more memory to run than Windows 7.
This is not rocket science; there is no deeper meaning to it. When people say they want their “Start button” back it’s really quite simple. They want their fucking Start menu back, accessible in the same way it has been for over 15 years, by clicking a button in the corner. There is no deeper meaning to it than that, so quit trying to search for one, because you’ll just come up with yet another *new* concept that will just piss even more people off and cause even more confusion.
Just admit you were wrong and bring the god damn thing back already.
http://cavdar.net/uploads/2011/10/requirements_accavdar.jpg
Edited 2013-05-07 23:34 UTC
+1, that’s hilarious!
And true.
Yeah, that was a pretty good one actually. What’s bad is that Microsoft themselves pretty much “invented” the Start button (not literally, but no one else labeled theirs “Start”
)… and now, they’re talking as if they’re so ignorant that they don’t even know what the thing is when people ask for it back. I mean, seriously–that quote just reeks of WTF. It sounds like she’s completely out of touch with reality. All she has to do is a quick Google (okay, Bing) search on Windows 8 and see all the complaints regarding the Start button/menu/screen.
I think you really didn’t get the point the cartoon was talking about.
Customers are rarely right when it comes to actually specifying requirements and this is why Business Analysts Exist. There is a mis-match between what people optimally need and what they specify.
Edited 2013-05-08 07:12 UTC
Well, I think the biggest problem is that there isn’t a definition for optimal. Pretend for a second that it could be mathematically proved that Vim was the most efficient way to edit text possible. However, most people when first using it get stuck trying to figure out how to actually edit text… There is a certain amount of learning that has to take place ( in our scenario) to learn how to use it in the most efficient manner. So part of the argument of efficiency has to be the learning curve. There could be many more factors as well, such as document compatibility, maintenance, and so forth.
So the truth in that cartoon, is really reflecting that. The customer doesn’t always even know what requirements for retraining they have for a new system. I think Microsofts error here ( assuming that they are 100% correct, and have designed a perfect UI), is that many vocal people don’t want to accept any retraining. Of course, this argument is also used by developers of new systems in cases where even after retraining the new system is much worse than the previous.
I think that is down to designers not developers how users interact with the system.
Vim and developer tools are a special exception because they are used by those that usually have an advanced understand of how the system works.
Anyway I would leave this here:
http://ontwik.com/ui/design-processes-not-interfaces-tiffany-conroy…
Not sure if you understood the argument I was presenting, but it was a good video anyways. Thanks for sharing it.
It’s equally true to say microsoft wants to deliver something other than what customers want… think about how much easier things would be for everyone if microsoft just listened without trying to spin everything into customers demanding metro. MS is being completely disingenuous.
Except most customers don’t know what they want. As another said we would still have blackberry’s with keyboards if that was true.
Sorry a lot of products have come out recently that wouldn’t have succeeded if we actually took customers literally.
Also this is the first version of Windows with a new paradigm … how many complaints were there about the iPhone and Android at version 1?
Edited 2013-05-08 19:02 UTC
lucas_maximus,
“Except most customers don’t know what they want.”
This is one of the most pathetic excuses I’ve ever heard. The exact same logic could be used to justify dictatorships.
Well we know you didn’t study software engineering. Please go away and read a requirement engineering book please … because you are a fucking moron if you think that I am wrong.
lucas_maximus,
“Well we know you didn’t study software engineering. Please go away and read a requirement engineering book please … because you are a f–king moron if you think that I am wrong.”
I don’t have a monopoly, so I don’t have the luxury of not listening to my users. Also, there’s no reason to attack me as a software engineer.
Edited 2013-05-08 19:39 UTC
Well you should know basic elicitation and requirements engineering then and you would accept what I said as a kind of truth.
Sorry if you don’t know this stuff by now, you should do.
lucas_maximus,
Well, the thread’s been reduced to an ad hominem attack. Maybe we should just stick to the good humoured agreement we had with your first post.
http://cavdar.net/uploads/2011/10/requirements_accavdar.jpg
(still hilarious)
It wasn’t an ad-hominem attack. Don’t play the innocent victim. It was an argument.
You can either man-up and have a proper discussion with me about requirements engineering and elicitation … which I complained about or you can claim the victim.
lucas_maximus,
This was a textbook Ad Hominem attack.
“Well we know you didn’t study software engineering. Please go away and read a requirement engineering book please … because you are a fucking moron if you think that I am wrong.”
I won’t hold any grudge over it, I figured you just got upset, we can get over it. But if this is seriously your defence for microsoft, “most customers don’t know what they want”, it’s a weak argument IMHO. If you still want to stick with it, well then so be it, it’s just an opinion.
Sorry it was basic software engineering. The customer doesn’t know how to tell you what they actually want.
Thus the image before hand.
lucas_maximus,
“Sorry a lot of products have come out recently that wouldn’t have succeeded if we actually took customers literally.”
Do you have any examples and evidence? There’s a difference between listening “literally” and listening for “intent”, but in this case they are one in the same.
“Also this is the first version of Windows with a new paradigm … how many complaints were there about the iPhone and Android at version 1?”
It’s true that many of the complaints & limitations were addressed in subsequent versions, but neither apple nor google gave their customers the attitude of “we hear you, but we’re not going to listen to what your asking for”. Unless your hinting that microsoft will _eventually_ listen, it sounds like your ok with having monopolies that don’t care about what consumers want.
Edited 2013-05-08 19:41 UTC
I disagree. If a customer has used X in the past and it was in product Y he knows what he wants. Now a new product Y is released but X is nowhere to be found. The customer complains that this was the reason why he bought product Y. If he couldn’t get X why wouldn’t he just go to a competitor Z? Maybe competitor Z will listen to the customer.
To create irrational hype that it’s impossible to live up to?
Often, people don’t know what they want or don’t want what they think they want.
Customer feedback is definitely an important part of the loop, but far from the only consideration.
I wish companies took hard stances more often, we need principled vision and direction.
If we listened to customers 100%, the iPhone would have a physical keyboard.
I don’t see a downside to that. My Android phone has a physical keyboard as well as a full touchscreen and it’s great.
Nelson,
“If we listened to customers 100%, the iPhone would have a physical keyboard.”
Why is it always made out to be all or nothing? Some customers want keyboards, others don’t. It’s best for all users to make the choice for themselves. When we’re talking about hardware, that can be genuinely difficult to accommodate. But here MS has no excuses, we’re talking about something that’s not only so simple and trivial to do, but was actually present in the registry of the first public beta of windows 8 before they removed it.
Giving users the option to configure their desktop is a good thing and doesn’t make windows 8 worse for metro users. MS revoked that because their long term vision is to make the desktop legacy (which they openly admit) and push users into metro where MS becomes the gatekeeper through which all software must be purchased. Making users use metro for launching applications is the first step in that plan.
I agree with you here, and I’ll admit I’ve evolved a little on this issue. Microsoft was surprisingly absolute about their direction with Windows 8. In retrospect and put into historical context, its out of character for them.
That said, there is an opposing point of view in that new features introduce new complexities and feature creep is a very real danger. I think Microsoft wouldn’t be hurt by adding opt-out support to some of the features of Windows 8.
Boot to Desktop is something I’d be in favor of so long as it was mandated that it be a user choice, not a flag that OEMs could toggle and ship as-is. That way the power users retain the ability to turn it off, and enterprises can turn it off using a group policy until they roll out Windows Store enterprise stuff.
The Start Menu I’m less enthusiastic about bringing back. The Desktop is an obvious paradigm shift that won’t match 1:1 with Metro, so it makes sense to offer a toggle there.
However the Start Menu serves a purpose that could be provided by the Start Screen. If it doesn’t work as well as users want, make it incorporate what users like about the Start Menu.
Do people want the Start Menu for the Instant Search that’s not full screen? Because Search results in Blue are now inline instead of full screen. Do they miss collapsable menus?
Why can’t Metro apps be pinned to the Taskbar? That’s another huge miss. Windows 8 is a transitional release with few transitional features, and that’s the biggest issue with it at the moment. If Microsoft can smooth over the rough spots in Blue they can go along way towards fixing what’s wrong.
Well I’m biased because I’m a Windows Store developer, so this is a huge issue for me and why I was against Boot to Desktop in the first place.
They’ll kill the Windows Store before it gets a chance to grow if they take enough eyeballs off of it.
This could be fixed by having a “Windows Store” shortcut pinned to the Taskbar, no?
And for crying out loud, we need a more extensive “First Run” tutorial. Something way more than a 15 second video shown exactly once.
Companies exist to make money, and part of making money is listening to your consumers and not treating them like they’re stupid. Principled vision and direction is good when it aligns with consumers’ interests (like the iPhone), but not so when consumers don’t want or need your products like with Windows Phone and Windows 8. Trying to stick with your vision when it’s clearly clashing with what your customers want (e.g. “not an innefficient Metro UI on the desktop”) is foolish.
The iPhone won not due to Apple pursuing its vision without any regard to customers’ demands. It won because it offered simply a stellar touch experience with a full web browser and connectivity and an integrated iPod, unlike any other phone on the market in 2007. Along the way Apple kept improving the design and tweaking the OS to incorporate consumer feedback in a sensible and reasonable way.
Microsoft on the other hand comes out with an OS that doesn’t improve the state of desktop OSes by much, tries to force a tablet UI on it without any regard to usability and efficiency on big screens and powerful CPUs, and is surprised that users reject it. They should listen to their users like they did with Windows 7 and then everybody would be happy.
Now you and Microsoft might see things differently, since both of you want Metro to succeed and the Store to be profitable, but keep in mind that most users don’t have this vested interest and don’t care for Metro. They want their efficient tools back, not help Microsoft in its attempts to overtake Apple.
I would actually line up to purchase an iPhone with a physical keyboard.
Or any kind of Android “flagship” phone with a physical keyboard.
Heck, I’d even consider a Windows Phone if there was one with a physical keyboard.
🙂
That’s great, except it doesn’t really apply to Windows 8 & the start screen. It’s a an attempt to artificially create a halo effect – with the goal of making Windows Phone/RT successful on the coattails of desktop Windows’ dominance. And as far as motivations for UI design decisions go, that’s one of the worst I can think of. That’s not principled, it’s just heavy-handed.
And that’s the most generous explanation I can think of. I have a hard time believing that anyone working at Microsoft is genuinely stupid enough to think that a touch-centric phone/tablet UI is the best/most appropriate interface to use as the primary task launcher for a desktop OS. From a basic UI consistency standpoint, it makes as much sense as the Start button launching a fullscreen DOS prompt with an arrow key-driven text menu to launch applications – that wouldn’t make it seem any less unpolished.
The hell of it is, I wouldn’t mind metro on desktop versions of Windows if only Microsoft weren’t so obviously trying to cram it down users’ throats. The lack of any built-in option to revert to the Win7 start menu is largely unprecedented for Window releases – every version since 95 has had the option to make the start menu work like the previous versions, ditto for most other major UI changes over the years.
If they’d just made Metro optional, I would have been perfectly fine with that (and I think many others are in the same camp). Make it smart enough to detect when the screen has been removed from the dock on Transformer-like devices, and automatically switch into Metro/tablet mode? Great, fine by me. Use Metro on the destkop as an optional widget layer, a la Dashboard on OS X? Also great, hell I’d probably use it for that purpose – a nice fullscreen, distraction free environment for writing and such.
But as the primary task-launching interface – why? Really, what was wrong with the Windows 7 start menu that warranted replacing it outright? Or at the very least, what warranted completely excising it, to the point of having no first-party option to revert to the old start menu? The thing that makes it particularly galling for me is that, IMO, Windows 7 was the first time MS actually got the start menu right… and then they immediately proceeded to throw out most of it with the next release.
And if we didn’t listen to customers, then DivX would have supplanted DVD.
I’m going to also address another comment that you made in this thread:
I think that’s part of it, yes, but far from being the entire story. For example, before Windows 7 came out, the taskbar changes were similarly controversial. But that largely died down after people actually used the new taskbar and found it to be an improvement – or at least not a significant step backwards.
Painting all critics of the start screen with the same broad brush is no different from claiming that everyone hates the start screen. Both are over-broad, absolutist generalisations that don’t stand up to even the most basic tests of intellectual rigour. Statistical analysis has value, certainly – but it’s the height of arrogant presumption to leap from that to acting as if Microsoft, or you, know how everyone ought to use their computer better than they do.
Prior to Windows 8, that’s probably the best thing I could say about Microsoft: whatever other problems existed with their software, they were always good about providing users with options and multiple ways to accomplish most tasks. Which I always found to be in stark contrast to the more paternalistic attitude behind Apple software (we have decreed that this is the best way to perform this particular task, so we’re not going to give you any other way to do it). Lately, though, Microsoft seems hellbent on copying every bad idea that Apple ever had.
My coworker has that on her cubicle wall
… we work at a government contractor of couse 
Gotta love pr speak, eh? Translation: yeah we hear it, but we don’t give a shit what you want, so we’re going to do what we want anyway and act like we give a damn. Hmm, come to think of it, these PR people would make good politicians and probably get paid more.
We are the Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. We know what’s best for you. We are never wrong.
Very true… the old “act dumb yet sincerely concerned” trick.
People don’t like <dramatic> change.
Cue the whole ubuntu/unity mess.
2 cents ahead …
I’m not a fan of windows 8. I think they should just strip the whole metro/modern/whatever monstrosity and call the release “We’re really sorry, but this is what windows 7 should have been – ultimate”.
Windows 8 has some nice performance improvements. It’s memory footprint is better.
I like metro on windows phone. I think it looks nice, and it’s easy to use.
Pure metro on a tablet would also be nice (what windows RT should have been).
BUT …
They’re sort of trying to converge the two … and it’s not working.
People don’t want tablet stuff on their desktop, nor do they want desktop stuff on their tablet.
Give it up already, microsoft.
You’ve built your entire market share on backwards compatibility and familiarity. Stop trying to be relevant in ways you cannot.
Stop trying to “innovate” where people just expect things to work. Look at what Apple gets right most of the time. They -mostly- try to stay out of their users’ ways. (Horrible, evil DRM-Appstore walled garden and stuff let aside)
-Kevin
Edited 2013-05-08 07:04 UTC
“It’s memory footprint is better”
Maybe with running applications, but not with just a base install. At least that’s what I’ve seen.
there is a difference between storage (the install) and memory.
Sorry, I was unclear.
With base install, I meant the memory usage of a running Windows installation, after having been installed with the default applications.
In that case Windows 8 needs more memory to run than Windows 7.
Some people may claim Windows 8 runs better on the same amount of memory.
This might be true, I don’t know, maybe Windows 8 does something smarter with the memory of running applications. I wouldn’t know.
All I know is, Windows 7 needs less memory to run without applications.
Starting to draw parallels between this and the Mass Effect 3 ending. Bioware said all the right things; “we are listening”, “we understand your concerns”, etc.
What did we get, expanded versions of the same stupid ending and the ability to lose the game.
I will be very surprised in MS does ‘fix’ Windows 8. The real start menu won’t return, just a shortcut to it and the ability to load directly into the desktop.
This is not the same as having the Metro stuff ignorable like Windows Media Centre.
I can’t help but wonder why the CFO is the one talking about the technical direction of Blue.