The typical Windows user has 100's of shortcuts on their desktop. They don't use the start menu, they don't use search. They know what the icon looks like, where it is, and they double click it. These people will either upgrade to Win 8 (and have the same desktop) or get a new Win 8 pc and the first thing they'll do is install their familiar apps.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
If Windows 8 fails...
- Thread starter AndreRio
- Start date
Do they have any more crystal balls where you bought yours? I want one to put next to my lava lamp.
At least the app store provides a safe alternative, if people are going to drive without seatbelts, doesn't mean the seatbelt is faulty. Anyway, I'm using the mail app, and I used gmail for years before that. Also been programming since DOS days, so I think if I can use it, most average users will manage.
I never said the App store is a bad thing. And you're a programmer, and a [H] poster - you're far from the average user, and you know this.
Strange, because I interpreted your argument as Metro Mail being too simple for the average user that uses gmail. So in that context, I would say no, because I'm quite fine with it. I'm not sure why you'd need to be a programmer and enthusiast (or toward that end of the spectrum) to use the metro mail app however..
Eman D. Rahym
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 424
You too are far from being an average user, and you too know that. Still, I don't see that keeping you from trying to tell us what the average user does or wants.
Why do you object to someone else doing the very same thing you do? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? You too are far from being an average user, and you too know that. Still, I don't see that keeping you from trying to tell us what the average user does or wants.
Well, wouldn't be the first time someone tried to act like my intelligence was a handicapping disease. :-\ Dont'cha love earth?
What I meant is that people won't -
1. configure Mail to use gmail when they can just keep using gmail instead
2. switch over from gmail to outlook.com
The most likely users will be people who use hotmail as their primary mail and sign in with their existing Live account, as it will already be configured. That's still a lot of people, but I just don't see Mail becoming the primary mail app for other services.
Most of the webmail services now provide a lot more than just email, the same webpage has builtin chat, search etc. Its not a question of simpler or not, its about what people are familiar with and how they adapt.
I have the same opinion about most standalone mail programs btw, including Live Mail.
Well, I'm certain we are going to see some gmail metro apps soon-ish, possibly with all those features eventually (don't know exactly if they fit within the metro app feature set though). If/when that happens, those gmail users would have another potentially interesting option. Now if a lot of people will switch from the web gmail to a metro gmail app, who can say, depends on many variables that are not yet known.. basically we just have to wait and see.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,393
I have no need to upgrade to windows 8 after previewing it. Windows 7 for the forseeable future
Do you operate under the assumption that if you don't post reasons for your actions, those reasons can't be assailed?
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,393
^not going to waste my time as all of the MS nut swingers will say [insert stupid comment here]...
Eman D. Rahym
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 424
Aw, c'mon! This is supposed to be a debate! It's all in fun. I'm guessing that however heated the debate may get that no one here means any harm to anyone else here.
By the way, I agree with you that you have no need to upgrade to Windows 8. I don't think anyone who is running Windows 7 needs to upgrade to anything right now. Windows 7 is a fine OS. You'll be able to get years more use out of it. Be happy that suckers like me who can't wait to install Windows 8 will be out there barking our shins on the little issues that always pop up in any new version of Windows and smoothing the path for those who come later.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,393
The UI is meant for a touch device and since I have none and do not want a touch interface, windows 7 it is. Maybe MS will correct the desktop in a later version of 8.....
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,794
So... the generic "It's a touch interface" response again? What exactly did you not like about it?
P.S. The "It's different." is both a valid and invalid argument. Invalid if you didn't give it a fair chance at getting used to it, valid if you did give it a fair chance and still didn't like it. By fair chance, I mean using it for a few days with the intent of trying to like it, instead of trying to find every flaw.
In some ways, yes. However, the only "feature" of Windows that they'll be missing out on, should they all decide to adopt Linux with me, (currently dual-booting, so they can still run Windows, if they want) are things like "browser toolbars" that start on boot, and bloat your system badly. There simply aren't many dangerous Linux viruses or adware floating around, and since most of the software my family and I will be using is from the official Ubuntu repos, there will be very little chance of viruses ever becoming a problem for us.
Indeed, software bloat is caused by user error.
I don't ever recall criticizing the app store. As a matter of fact, I like centralized app stores, so long as there are other ways of loading executables onto the system.
What I am criticizing, is the UI, which is obviously far better-off on a tablet, and I think will hurt productivity.
The only things I didn't like my family doing on Windows was installing viruses. I don't want the added bloat of a full-blown firewall/AV suite, and I don't want to have to remind them to not install programs that should obviously be malware. Furthermore, my mom wouldn't like it if I locked the system down, and made it that only I was able to install software, etc. (She did chip in on the build, after all)
Note that I'm not forcing them to switch. I'm just using Linux, and they usually don't bother to reboot into Windows when I leave GNOME running. As a matter of fact, my mom is starting to like some things about it more than Windows.
To sum it up, I'm tired of maintaining a bloated system, and really don't want to deal with the bloat of an antivirus suite. (Which is largely unnecessary in Linux)
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,393
see what I mean about the MS nutsac swingers?
I had it installed on my PC since release and yeah I just removed it last night, The desktop sucks compared to 7.. Click start all programs and everything that I have installed is listed there in a nice neat order, ready for me to choose from. No such structure in 8
Windows 8 is going to make Vista launch look good by comparison...
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,794
Starting off with a personal attack? That's going to lend you a lot of credibility. I just told you, that is a generic response many people have, especially people that don't know anything about the new UI. Also, saying that your experience with the new UI = 99% of the public's experience just shows your immaturity.
So... you couldn't be bothered to adjust the start screen to your liking? What's so hard about arranging the tile shortcuts on the start screen? I have all my most commonly accessed programs on the left side, with less commonly accessed towards the right side. Programs I almost never access are removed from the start screen, but I can still easily access them by right clicking on the start screen and selecting all apps.
The layout of the "All Apps" screen is one that I have issue with, as it is a bit harder to find things since it's like all folders open at once.
Like I said, "It's different" is a legitimate reason. You want to be able to see all your installed programs all the time whenever you open the start menu? That's your preference, and I'm not going to argue with that. Edit: I'm just suggesting things that can/might improve your experience with Windows 8.
Arthur Hucksake
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 373
I've been wanting a less fuss Windows for quite sometime. I just do not have the time to mess around with things these days.
I want everything laid out infront of me, integrated social networking and a more closed structure.
It frees up more time to concentrate on my flying pigs collection.
Any idea of pricing for the full disc / download version and not an upgrade?
I want everything laid out infront of me, integrated social networking and a more closed structure.
It frees up more time to concentrate on my flying pigs collection.
Any idea of pricing for the full disc / download version and not an upgrade?
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Much love for Win7 and no love at all for Win8, I see no reason to "upgrade" to Win8 at all.
I'm usually the first person to jump on new OS's, I ran Win Vista and Win7 beta's throughout their entire lifespan and jumped on the RTM releases on day 1, but with Win8 I just couldn't give a fuck, Microsofts move to merge the mobile and desktop platforms in some unified way is just dumb.
I'm usually the first person to jump on new OS's, I ran Win Vista and Win7 beta's throughout their entire lifespan and jumped on the RTM releases on day 1, but with Win8 I just couldn't give a fuck, Microsofts move to merge the mobile and desktop platforms in some unified way is just dumb.
Not doing so would have been dumber. I don't see a down side, you give people the good things about a tablet on the desktop (security, ease of use, etc.) that really excites many people these days, while making the desktop use more efficient (usually fewer clicks to open programs in the start screen than the start menu.) It pretty much perfectly melds together into a seamless whole, imo. Add the many under the hood improvements, and well, seems like a decent upgrade to me.
I'm curious, what does this mean, are you running a non-activated RTM?
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,457
My start screen is very customized & I like it (mostly...).
Features I want with the Start Screen that MS has yet to acknowledge from anyone:
- Customizable background
- Renameable shortcuts
- Shortcut icon changing
- Shortcut icon sizing
- Shortcut tile sizing
- Ability to pin URL links like Steam game shortcuts
- Customizable transparency with desktop
- Complete color palette to choose from
You can rename the shortcuts, and change the icons, assuming that means what I think it means. Right click an icon in the start screen, then select open file location at the bottom, it will take you to "C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs" Where all your start screen icon shortcuts are located, then you can rename them, and change the icon through the usual shortcut property sheets. The others seem interesting, but less vital. Have you tried searching google/bing, I've seen people with customized backgrounds using some hack or tool..
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,457
That's the round about way that does work. I found that out, but I'd like fully integrated options. I'll have to look into the hacked-in backgrounds though.
They aren't necessarily vital but I like to use apps/features that are robust.
I understand, but there is an argument for keeping things simple to a degree. Less bugs, testing, development, and UI complexity. Not everyone agrees of course, power users usually like as many options as possible.
And I found a solution for steam game shortcuts, I'll spell it out for anyone else that may need more detail:
1. create a desktop shortcut to the game, by right clicking the game in steam, and select 'create desktop shortcut'
2. right click the game shortcut on the desktop, and select 'properties'
3. go to the 'web document tab' if not already there.
4. note the number in the URL, i.e.: steam://rungameid/72850 <- you want the "72850" from this example that does Skyrim.
5. right click desktop, and select create new shortcut.
6. when prompted for a location, type: 'C:\steam\Steam.exe -applaunch 72850' <- substituting the path to steam, and the number from #4 into the location.
7. click next, then when prompted for a name, type the name of the game.
8. now you can change the icon, and pin it to the start screen, it will open steam if necessary, then launch the game. Tested it on Skyrim, and worked fine.
And I found a solution for steam game shortcuts, I'll spell it out for anyone else that may need more detail:
1. create a desktop shortcut to the game, by right clicking the game in steam, and select 'create desktop shortcut'
2. right click the game shortcut on the desktop, and select 'properties'
3. go to the 'web document tab' if not already there.
4. note the number in the URL, i.e.: steam://rungameid/72850 <- you want the "72850" from this example that does Skyrim.
5. right click desktop, and select create new shortcut.
6. when prompted for a location, type: 'C:\steam\Steam.exe -applaunch 72850' <- substituting the path to steam, and the number from #4 into the location.
7. click next, then when prompted for a name, type the name of the game.
8. now you can change the icon, and pin it to the start screen, it will open steam if necessary, then launch the game. Tested it on Skyrim, and worked fine.
Last edited:
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,457
Thanks for the tip.
What's wrong with 'UI designed for a touch interface' as a negative? If tomorrow an OS came out with a UI designed to be operated by a pair of sticks, and someone listed that as a bad thing, would you have an issue with it too?
Majority of pc's today don't have touch. They won't have touch for the next 2-3 years as well (remember, we're talking about pc's not tablets, and not everyone can afford or will upgrade to a fancy touchscreen ultrabook). Win 8 is designed to work best with touch, they've been very specific about that design goal. That's reason enough.
The details have been hashed over in countless threads. For every issue someone will list an alternative or simply say 'its not that different, you just don't like change, MS had to do it' etc. That's not productive.
Majority of pc's today don't have touch. They won't have touch for the next 2-3 years as well (remember, we're talking about pc's not tablets, and not everyone can afford or will upgrade to a fancy touchscreen ultrabook). Win 8 is designed to work best with touch, they've been very specific about that design goal. That's reason enough.
The details have been hashed over in countless threads. For every issue someone will list an alternative or simply say 'its not that different, you just don't like change, MS had to do it' etc. That's not productive.
I doubt we'll see a huge influx of touch PCs over the next 3 years.
Reason being that touch is woefully inefficient when compared to the ol' mouse and keyboard. Which is not to say it's a horrible interface option. Rather, it's merely an interface option that best fits a different set of constraints than are present in the PC world.
Tablets, phones? Gimme touch ( with a swype keyboard option ). PC? A full blown keyboard and mouse allow for more precise input.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Virtual touch (ala Minority Report), without putting our grubby, greasy fingerprints all over our pretty screens would be nice, but until then, I dont see the PC being the right place for it. Tablets, sure, phones, sure.
I agree. People keep repeating that the sales of touch devices are growing and 'touch is the future', and that's nonsense. There are hundreds of millions of current pc's and that number will double or triple soon, with no touch.
Actually, I feel we've hit optimal market penetration with PCs; the wild growth we saw for 10-15 years is over. Now we're in the "maintenance" phase.
Which of course doesn't mean the PC is going away, as some might suggest. It simply means people aren't adding PCs to the household anymore; they are replacing. However, because of the slow down some foolishly panic themselves into believing that the PC is dying.
Tablets have a niche, as do cells. Just because we're in an expansion phase with tablets and phones does not mean the PC market is evaporating.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
Microsoft most foolishly, it seems.
Actually, I suspect that it's not so much that they think the PC is dying, but that they are trying to really make a splash in the mobile market. The mobile market is still in the expansion phase, they want in on that. Tying environments together would let them leverage their desktop market penetration, something no other vendor can exploit.
And as I've said, I really like the idea of a unified environment. Their implementation leaves a lot to be desired.
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,457
Yeah, every demo of Windows 8 that MS does involves a tablet or a touchscreen monitor. They've become obsessed with it & have deemed the tablet the absolute next phase for technology. They really did forget about the millions of PCs that Windows 7, Vista & XP are currently installed on. I do like Windows 8 but I use the desktop far more than anything & rarely use Modern UI apps. If they wind up doing apps & UI stats, they'll find that many people will fall in this range regardless of knowledge & skill level. Ballmer needs to go... He's now thinking about making MS even more of a hardware company than not. Has life flashed by him while he's been CEO in his shiny ivory tower?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Not at all. Everyone has seen Windows on desktops and laptops for the better part of generation. Few people have seen Windows on tablets or the new UI. It's simply a matter of Microsoft bringing attention to the new stuff since the old stuff if so well known.
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,457
Since its supposed to be transitory, Desktop <-> Modern UI switching is not as smooth as I would expect of such an in-between product. This does bring considerable attention to the touch screen arena but I feel that I use the desktop & classic UI apps over the Modern UI apps, with the exception the Start Screen which does what I want fairly well. Did MS "playtest" either UI as a separate entity with any testing of transition to either one? I'm really not sure if they asked the right people about what they thought even if the Modern UI had no slights against it. Maybe the lack of choice of what UI a person really wants also limits the capacity to a smooth transition of either.
More than 1 year of MS demos and events, and they never once showed how their new UI is usable without touch, like they claim it is. No one had seen how the new Windows would work on the pc's they already had. And trust me, if the new UI had in fact been more usable or efficient, they definitely would have shown it with a kb+m.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,794
Not to mention Microsoft is trying to penetrate a market where iOS and Android are firmly entrenched, as well as trying to create a new market. Of course they're going to focus on those, why should they focus on the desktop when people already know how the desktop works?