Do you actually think Windows 9 will be different?

[MacLeod]

Yeah I think it will. Microsoft seems to listen to our gripes. Every other OS is really good. XP fixed the problems with Me, Win7 fixed the gripes with Vista and I'll bet Win9 will fix the gripes with Win8.

 

[ochadd]

My mouse and keyboard work well. Ctrl+ scroll wheel zooms and my scroll wheel can go both vertical and horizontal. Why do I need to touch my screen or a separate track pad? My monitor is 2560x1600 and I squeeze a massive amount of information onto it. My cursor + mouse is the only way currently possible that allow the finite control needed to navigate that amount of data without spazmatically zooming here and there.
Navigating Windows 8 metro vs. Windows 7 desktop is like switching from PC to Xbox/console on a first person shooter or driving while drunk and/or high. You can make it work but you're abilities have been retarded and you're a jackass.

Windows 8 Metro. If you enjoy driving drunk this is the UI for you.

 

[pxc]

XP fixed the problems with Me

Me was the end of the Win9x codebase, which was separate from the NT codebase behind NT 3.x, NT 4 and Windows 2000. What XP did was fix the problems with Windows 2000, in order to make it more consumer friendly (primarily app compatibility, and UI tweaks).

If you like Metro, I'm sure there will be plenty of things improved or fixed. There was a shift in the development of Windows 8 that differs from Win7 and before: feedback from customers before release. The broad and early consumer previews made consumer input much more important during development.

MS knew it would be foisting Metro on users who would not need it or immediately see value in the change. That's why MS wouldn't ask for feedback in this case. Metro, at least as MS sees it, was a necessary shift for the long term strategy of moving to new devices, especially in fast-growing areas where MS has close to no market share. I don't think the UI change was behind the shrinking desktop/laptop market, regardless of how much blame Win8 gets by lay people (desktop/laptop segments have been shrinking for 24 months, Win8 has been out for a small fraction of that time and Win7 is still available to satisfy demand). Feedback from most regular Win8 users is positive. There may be nothing significant for MS to "fix", despite the grumbling some users have over Metro.

MS's promotion of the force behind Metro/Ribbon UI "successes" to lead Windows development does paint a picture of a MS that is doubling down on Metro, despite the near total lack of developer interest (lol @ MS App Store failure... those virtually always succeed) and how Metro fails to integrate into the computer industry's bread and butter business sales.

(BTW, I think Metro is a fine UI for resolution and resource limited devices. Windows Phone and possible small form factor RT devices are or could be very usable with such a UI. On a non-touch screen enabled device, or one with a high resolution screen, Metro is nothing but complete frustration. On regular PCs, desktops or laptops, breaking decades old conventions for no good reason makes absolutely no sense at all.)

 

[octoberasian]

Better integration:

1. All settings options available in both settings menus, not just some here and some there. That way, whether you're using the Metro environment or desktop, you have full access to all settings.

2. Ability to keep the Start Screen permanently up on a monitor for multimonitor setups for easy access and viewing of live tiles.

That's the one thing I like about Windows 8 is that the Start Screen looks good on my HDTV than the dinky Start Menu. No eye squinting.

It makes launching Netflix easier even.

But, it would be nice if the Start Screen can be setup to show up there on that HDTV permanently and I can just minimize or hide it when I need it.

On my primary monitor, I'd rather have the Start menu given that the screen is closer to my eyes than my HDTV. I find having access to all menu items within the Start menu more useful than the Start screen as I am little more faster than that. Then again, I still end up using the Search button or Search charm.

 

[H-street]

I totally disagree. If there was touch on my desktop monitors, I would certainly get use out of them. Even if it was just for web browsing purposes. Especially on laptops I'm saddened when I can't just swipe scroll and pinch zoom.

i have one on my desk, you can have it..

its just not practical for desk work.. for in the palm of your hand type work, touch works great..

just try this, goto work and see how long you can hold your finger up to your monitor.. do that for 8 hours and tell me how tired your arm/hand is ..

i've tried this and let me tell you it isn't fun - some work it works well for like point of sales etc.. but for data/productivity it is just a square peg for the round hole..

 

[heatlesssun]

MS knew it would be foisting Metro on users who would not need it or immediately see value in the change. That's why MS wouldn't ask for feedback in this case. Metro, at least as MS sees it, was a necessary shift for the long term strategy of moving to new devices, especially in fast-growing areas where MS has close to no market share. I don't think the UI change was behind the shrinking desktop/laptop market, regardless of how much blame Win8 gets by lay people (desktop/laptop segments have been shrinking for 24 months, Win8 has been out for a small fraction of that time and Win7 is still available to satisfy demand). Feedback from most regular Win8 users is positive. There may be nothing significant for MS to "fix", despite the grumbling some users have over Metro.

MS's promotion of the force behind Metro/Ribbon UI "successes" to lead Windows development does paint a picture of a MS that is doubling down on Metro, despite the near total lack of developer interest (lol @ MS App Store failure... those virtually always succeed) and how Metro fails to integrate into the computer industry's bread and butter business sales.

(BTW, I think Metro is a fine UI for resolution and resource limited devices. Windows Phone and possible small form factor RT devices are or could be very usable with such a UI. On a non-touch screen enabled device, or one with a high resolution screen, Metro is nothing but complete frustration. On regular PCs, desktops or laptops, breaking decades old conventions for no good reason makes absolutely no sense at all.)

I agree with most of what you're saying here but Metro is definitely capable of being used across devices of all screen sizes, that's one of the great things about it. There are a number of Future Vision demo videos on YouTube from Microsoft that show some very beautiful UI concepts that are clearly based on Metro with devices of all shapes, sizes, form factors and input methods.

What I've found most interesting in the great Windows 8 debate is the fact that probably the bulk of people who have complained about 8 have something like "Give me a Metro off switch and the old UI and I'd love Windows 8 and would upgrade immediately." While there's plenty to be critical of Microsoft about, maybe they should have provide such as switch and listened to customers and so forth, what's got to be troubling to Microsoft as much as anything is that so many people seem to just want the same 20 year old thing and that 20 year old thing isn't growing these days.

The classic desktop is a mature market with much more competition than ever and it's not growing. If Microsoft can't transition Windows to other devices it's simply going to become more and more legacy delegated to more and more mundane tasks with less and less interest in it especially on the consumer side. As much as people want to say that Microsoft isn't listening to customers and being arrogant they simply can't ignore the market and what an ever increasing number of people are spending their time and money on. This is not to say that Microsoft isn't making mistakes or Windows 8 doesn't have flaws but I think it would also be a mistake for Microsoft to just accept as gospel people who just want the same old desktop forever.

 

[Tsumi]

i have one on my desk, you can have it..

its just not practical for desk work.. for in the palm of your hand type work, touch works great..

just try this, goto work and see how long you can hold your finger up to your monitor.. do that for 8 hours and tell me how tired your arm/hand is ..

i've tried this and let me tell you it isn't fun - some work it works well for like point of sales etc.. but for data/productivity it is just a square peg for the round hole..

I would use the touchscreen when it's convenient/useful and the mouse and keyboard when it's convenient/useful... not restrict myself to one or the other the entire time.

 

[maw]

They seem to be moving farther away from the keyboard/mouse paradigm.

I HATE fingerprints on my screen.
Expecting me to interact with complex image editing applications and IDEs with my finger is just plain stupid.
Expecting me to spend all day poking at a vertical screen with my finger is just plain stupid as well.

Why not just split them off into Windows for Desktops and Windows for Tablets? Each side of Windows 8 works beautifully when used on their intended devices, why continue to force the different paradigms to work together?

 

[MrCrispy]

There have been a number of mockups of how the desktop could be styled to look like Metro. All of them much better than what we have in Win 8. They made some tiny changes to make it more flat, that's it, and removed all customization options.

Why do Metro apps not share the same task switcher as taskbar? Yet they show up in Alt-tab. Could it be any more confusing? Of course the reason is the entire desktop runs as just another app which is why it appears in the Metro task list. And you can easily kill the entire desktop with one bad mouse click.

It's not a good design, architecturally or visually.

 

[Wrench00]

Me was the end of the Win9x codebase, which was separate from the NT codebase behind NT 3.x, NT 4 and Windows 2000. What XP did was fix the problems with Windows 2000, in order to make it more consumer friendly (primarily app compatibility, and UI tweaks).

If you like Metro, I'm sure there will be plenty of things improved or fixed. There was a shift in the development of Windows 8 that differs from Win7 and before: feedback from customers before release. The broad and early consumer previews made consumer input much more important during development.

MS knew it would be foisting Metro on users who would not need it or immediately see value in the change. That's why MS wouldn't ask for feedback in this case. Metro, at least as MS sees it, was a necessary shift for the long term strategy of moving to new devices, especially in fast-growing areas where MS has close to no market share. I don't think the UI change was behind the shrinking desktop/laptop market, regardless of how much blame Win8 gets by lay people (desktop/laptop segments have been shrinking for 24 months, Win8 has been out for a small fraction of that time and Win7 is still available to satisfy demand). Feedback from most regular Win8 users is positive. There may be nothing significant for MS to "fix", despite the grumbling some users have over Metro.

MS's promotion of the force behind Metro/Ribbon UI "successes" to lead Windows development does paint a picture of a MS that is doubling down on Metro, despite the near total lack of developer interest (lol @ MS App Store failure... those virtually always succeed) and how Metro fails to integrate into the computer industry's bread and butter business sales.

(BTW, I think Metro is a fine UI for resolution and resource limited devices. Windows Phone and possible small form factor RT devices are or could be very usable with such a UI. On a non-touch screen enabled device, or one with a high resolution screen, Metro is nothing but complete frustration. On regular PCs, desktops or laptops, breaking decades old conventions for no good reason makes absolutely no sense at all.)

You know I understand the strategy but then do you see people flocking to winmo/xbox to 8 or 8 to winmo/xbox.
People don't really give a shit about ms products anymore consumer level.

 

[heatlesssun]

Why do Metro apps not share the same task switcher as taskbar? Yet they show up in Alt-tab. Could it be any more confusing?

It does make sense in that Metro apps can't be full screen and the task bar work unless Metro apps weren't truly be full screen. Just as how the task bar becomes inaccessible in a full screen game.

Of course the reason is the entire desktop runs as just another app which is why it appears in the Metro task list. And you can easily kill the entire desktop with one bad mouse click.

It's not a good design, architecturally or visually.

You can remove the desktop thumbnail from the Metro app bar by dragging down the desktop on a tablet or right clicking and selecting close on the desktop thumbnail but the desktop is still there, nothing actually gets closed or shutdown on the desktop. Win+D or click on the desktop tile to get back. It actually does make sense if you want to "tuck" the desktop away particularly on a tablet and be able to get back to it quickly.

 

[MrCrispy]

It does make sense in that Metro apps can't be full screen and the task bar work unless Metro apps weren't truly be full screen. Just as how the task bar becomes inaccessible in a full screen game.

What I meant was that Metro apps should be shown in the regular taskbar, and desktop apps should be in the task switcher. After all both are combined in alt-tab.

For a fullscreen app like Metro or a game, everything gets hidden so there's no issue. So any Metro app gets treated like that. Of course there's no reason for them to be FS in the first place, but that's another thing.

 

[lord_emperor]

Don't much care. Windows 7 will be good for 8 years at least, by then I'm hoping Linux will be mainstream enough that software publishers release for it.