If Windows 8 fails...

[TechLarry]

jkr266 obviously isn't looking forward to the necessity of re-training 25,000 staff members.

Underneath Metro is a solid OS (well, mine crashed today but we'll let that go for now).

The major interface change was un-needed, from what I can tell by most unwanted, and totally un-necessary. It was, IMHO, lazyness on Microsoft's part so they didn't have to develop a totally separate tablet OS.

MS amazes me in how well it can continue to screw up when it comes to tablets. Then they finally get it right (maybe - we'll have to see) and then they fuck it up all over again by foisting the same OS on desktop users.

Ok, so some like shiny and new. I prefer established and solid. And _I_ sure as hell ain't looking forward to the inevitable re-training of 25,000 users.

I don't understand how so many otherwise intelligent and rational people can have such an irrational hate on for something that is so obviously a huge step forward over what came before it. There are legitimate problems with the design of windows 8, but start screen isn't one of them. Take the current start menu, I have a screen that for the time it was initially designed would be considered enormous, both in size and resolution (27" 1920/1200) at that time the size and shape of the start menu made a lot of sense. But on modern screens it takes up well under 15% of your typical monitors screen space, because of that if I need something that isn't in the top "10" list or one of the pinned things I have to do a substantial amount of scrolling to find it. The start screen on the other hand, requires substantially less scrolling because it shows many more things on screen at once. The only even remote downside to the start screen is the fact you can't see what underneath it, but I can't for the life of me think of a time where that would even matter.

Now like I said there are some legitimate bad parts to Windows 8, hot corners work really well for a single monitor but they fall apart pretty quickly with multi monitor setups because it can be hard to hit them without overshooting. Not an unsolvable problem though. Metro apps is another sore point for me, I love the idea of compatibility with rt and wp8 apps, but there just aren't that many apps i use that i deem being worthy of fullscreen, or even split screen, not to mention that again they don't play well with multi monitors. But then metro apps aren't even remotely a requirement, I can happily live my life never having the need to use them, if i find some cool ones that don't bother me too much then all the better if not, that's cool too.

 

[Eman D. Rahym]

I'll never understand the mentality of the IT guys who piss and moan about being expected to do the work they are getting paid to do.

 

[wonderfield]

Everything in information technology happens at the expense of something else, Eman. Unless the amount of human resource engulfs the amount of work needed to be done, but that's a pretty rare scenario in that industry.

 

[Tsumi]

And again, it's better for Microsoft to try a new UI design and let it slowly be familiarized with over time when companies have just finished upgrading than to release a new UI when companies are looking to upgrade their OS.

 

[Eman D. Rahym]

Everything in information technology happens at the expense of something else, Eman. Unless the amount of human resource engulfs the amount of work needed to be done, but that's a pretty rare scenario in that industry.

It's not just in IT that everything happens at the expense of something else. That's why we speak in terms of "economies" and listen to "economists." Whether we're aware of it or not, everyone of us, every day, has to make decisions on how best to allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses, even if it's only for something as trivial as which candy bar we want from the vending machine.

So, yes, wonderfield, I understand that training thousands of people on a new OS will necessarily cause a shortfall in IT resources that could be applied elsewhere. Management understands that too. So does IT, who will doubtless point out in lurid detail the scope and impact of those shortfalls. If after all that back and forth the decision is made to conduct the training then who else but IT should be expected to do it?

There is a reason we call jobs "work." Sometimes you have to do things you do not want to do. Sometimes you have to exert yourself over and above your normal routine. Who here hasn't experienced a full on panic stations where you worked extra hours on nights and weekends, likely uncompensated, in order to meet a goal or deadline? If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

I have no sympathy when someone who is getting paid to do a job complains that management expects them to know what they are doing and to do it when asked.

 

[MrCrispy]

It's not really about the IT admins. If they are told to retrain users, deploy new images across the enterprise etc, that's their job. The real decision is to be made by management, who usually make it based on advice by the CIO/head of IT. And the decision is whether the cost (which is the training and deployment more than procurement) is going to be worth it. Many companies have site licenses which make it cheap to get a new Windows but still decide to delay upgrades due to these issues.

A lot of admins do in fact misrepresent this to management. But the really smart ones will also factor in the reduced support costs and increased uptime due to the new management capabilities and just better OS in general, and that has to be factored in vs any decrease/increase in productivity.

 

[nekrosoft13]

 

[Klrgoten]

I'll never understand the mentality of the IT guys who piss and moan about being expected to do the work they are getting paid to do.

Hahaha amen

 

[jkr266]

jkr266 obviously isn't looking forward to the necessity of re-training 25,000 staff members.

Underneath Metro is a solid OS (well, mine crashed today but we'll let that go for now).

The major interface change was un-needed, from what I can tell by most unwanted, and totally un-necessary. It was, IMHO, lazyness on Microsoft's part so they didn't have to develop a totally separate tablet OS.

MS amazes me in how well it can continue to screw up when it comes to tablets. Then they finally get it right (maybe - we'll have to see) and then they fuck it up all over again by foisting the same OS on desktop users.

Ok, so some like shiny and new. I prefer established and solid. And _I_ sure as hell ain't looking forward to the inevitable re-training of 25,000 users.

So, basically what you are telling me is that Windows can have no substantial changes in it's interface from now until eternity because it might cost businesses a bit more to make the upgrade. Also what the hell was lazy about what they did here? They did create an entire tablet UI, then instead of taking what would have been the easier path, they used a number of those elements in the desktop ui. Sure the implementation isn't perfect but first tries almost never are, it will almost certainly get better, and probably quickly.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of businesses skip Win8, but more because so many have or are in the near future just upgrading to Win7, and b the time a significant portion of businesses start their os upgrade cycles again Win9 will be out with a most likely noticeably more polished version of the interface. Not to mention less training necessary as a good portion of their users will have been using the new ui for a couple of years at home.

 

[Valnar]

Saying that we will all eventually succumb to the Metro interface in Windows 8, 9 or 10 is like saying we will all eventually die. It's not really a choice, nor is it a reflection of Microsoft's wonderful intuition.

Just because we'll get used to it doesn't mean it was ever a good design decision. I have no problem with companies fighting the upgrade until they have to, waiting to see if Microsoft changes course in the next version or two.

One of two things will happen.
1) Microsoft will realize their mistake based on user input and change it for the next version
2) Microsoft will polish it up and make it somewhat more suitable for desktop users

In either case, it makes sense for business to standardize on Win7 and wait.

 

[TechLarry]

And again, it's better for Microsoft to try a new UI design and let it slowly be familiarized with over time when companies have just finished upgrading than to release a new UI when companies are looking to upgrade their OS.

My point remains. No one asked for it. It's a solution without a problem on the desktop.

 

[TechLarry]

I said what I said. No basically about it (nice try though).

There is a major difference in the types of changes we saw between win xp/win7 and the change between win7/win8. No retraining was needed in the xp to 7 migration. Win7 to win8 is going I be a totally different story.

Carefully planned, well executed updates to a u are smart and effective. Major paradigm shifts in an established product used by millions and millions of corporate users worldwide is both disuptive and totally unneccessary. Especially when, as best I can tell, was never asked or. This albatross called Metro is all on Microsofts shoulder.

What is even more frustrating is it didn't have to be like this. It could have been an option. Problem resolved.

But no. Microsoft wanted its way, customers be damned, and here we are. And the whole removing the code part, to me, was Microsoft's way of thumping its chest to people and saying "There, no going back now. Deal with it and do as we say!"

One simple radio button group. "Classic Interface" or "Metro Interface" is all it would have taken to remove this whole fiasco from the table.

So, basically what you are telling me is that Windows can have no substantial changes in it's interface from now until eternity because it might cost businesses a bit more to make the upgrade. Also what the hell was lazy about what they did here? They did create an entire tablet UI, then instead of taking what would have been the easier path, they used a number of those elements in the desktop ui. Sure the implementation isn't perfect but first tries almost never are, it will almost certainly get better, and probably quickly.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of businesses skip Win8, but more because so many have or are in the near future just upgrading to Win7, and b the time a significant portion of businesses start their os upgrade cycles again Win9 will be out with a most likely noticeably more polished version of the interface. Not to mention less training necessary as a good portion of their users will have been using the new ui for a couple of years at home.

 

[wonderfield]

There is a reason we call jobs "work." Sometimes you have to do things you do not want to do.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Tsumi]

It took my mom and sister (neither of whom are technically inclined) 5 minutes to figure out how to use Windows 8. All I had to do was show them where the start screen button and the power menu is.

It's not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.

 

[devil22]

It took my mom and sister (neither of whom are technically inclined) 5 minutes to figure out how to use Windows 8. All I had to do was show them where the start screen button and the power menu is.

It's not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.

Yea they can't help but to abstract away the fact that it's really a minor change with exaggerated generic terms, by calling it things like 'paradigm shift'. I guess saying 'it sucks because now you open a start screen and click your app instead of clicking a start menu and navigating folders then clicking your app' would not get across their 'point' too well. I also like how in that '3 year old uses Windows 8' thread, everybody was saying that the whole problem is it's too simple, but in this thread, it's too hard and will cost bazillions in IT training.

 

[MrCrispy]

I said what I said. No basically about it (nice try though).

There is a major difference in the types of changes we saw between win xp/win7 and the change between win7/win8. No retraining was needed in the xp to 7 migration. Win7 to win8 is going I be a totally different story.

Carefully planned, well executed updates to a u are smart and effective. Major paradigm shifts in an established product used by millions and millions of corporate users worldwide is both disuptive and totally unneccessary. Especially when, as best I can tell, was never asked or. This albatross called Metro is all on Microsofts shoulder.

What is even more frustrating is it didn't have to be like this. It could have been an option. Problem resolved.

But no. Microsoft wanted its way, customers be damned, and here we are. And the whole removing the code part, to me, was Microsoft's way of thumping its chest to people and saying "There, no going back now. Deal with it and do as we say!"

One simple radio button group. "Classic Interface" or "Metro Interface" is all it would have taken to remove this whole fiasco from the table.

Totally agree. It seems a lot of people like to defend Win 8 with the same old bs argument - "Microsoft had to change the interface. Do you want Windows to stay the same forever? Why do you hate change?".

The whole OS is designed for tablet users, desktop be damned. They know there's no option for most Windows customers, so instead of designing a UI that works for touch and non-touch, they simply added a few basic hacks to make it work with a mouse. There's no rhyme or reason for the way a lot of things work, settings strewn all over the place, Metro showing up on the desktop in unexpected places, total disregard for classic apps.

Then of course there's the 'they will get it right the next time' argument. So now its not ok to criticize a major UI redesign that reduces productivity because its a first try. After a year of lengthy blog posts in which every design decision the Windows team made was detailed, and during which time they completely ignored all external feedback.

I think it's great many people are able to figure out the new UI and enjoy it (I'm talking about non-techie users). But you have to realize there are just as many who feel totally frustrated and helpless. This is a radical departure for MS and they are counting on selling a ton of Surface/touchscreen laptops to make Win 8 popular. It's a great OS hampered by a very unintuitive UI.

 

[Kaos]

My usage of windows is limited these days. I use linux systems at work and the only reason we have windows is because that's what they give us for laptops. I spend most of my day on linux boxes either by SSH or VNC.

The more familiar I became with linux the less I used windows at home and now we're at the point where the only windows machine is my wife's laptop and she only uses that when her ipad won't suffice.

I have linux machines that I use for most everything else.

My main uses within windows that I haven't been able to neatly recreate in linux are mainly around Outlook/Exchange. Everything else I do I can get along in linux just fine (please note - I don't game on computers).

 

[heatlesssun]

Totally agree. It seems a lot of people like to defend Win 8 with the same old bs argument - "Microsoft had to change the interface. Do you want Windows to stay the same forever? Why do you hate change?".

The computing space is almost completely different from even when Windows 7 was launched just three years ago. New devices, the emergence of apps and lots of interest and excitement focused on devices that until now were outside the realm of Windows. With a product as old as Windows, though historically successful, you have to ask where's the future? At this time I have no idea how anyone can conclude that the future of consumer computing in on the desktop. The Windows desktop isn't going away anytime soon but is certainly in relative decline with many more option available to people. So it's more than simply a matter of change for changes sake, it's about the future of Windows and what its capabilities need to be going forward.

The whole OS is designed for tablet users, desktop be damned. They know there's no option for most Windows customers, so instead of designing a UI that works for touch and non-touch, they simply added a few basic hacks to make it work with a mouse. There's no rhyme or reason for the way a lot of things work, settings strewn all over the place, Metro showing up on the desktop in unexpected places, total disregard for classic apps.

But this UI DOES work for touch and non-touch devices, I use Windows 8 on both kinds of devices EVERY DAY. Windows 7 doesn't do anything more on the desktop than Windows 8. I can do the same work just as quickly with the desktop in Windows 8 overall. But when it comes to my tablets, they are MUCH more usable. I can do many things much more easily now on tablets. Of course the focus of the Windows 8 was touch and tablets but there are some nice desktop improvements. I'm benefitting from new task bar. My tablet was copying some large files over the other day when the battery died, the new copy capabilities picked up right where it left off with missing a beat.

Again, and most of the Windows 8 proponents around here have said this repeatedly, yes there are valid criticisms and yes there's still work to be done, but to characterize the Windows 8 desktop as something that's shoddy as you and others make it out to be is simply not in our realm of experience. We're not have issues, things are working well and it just took a little time to get acquainted with the UI.

Then of course there's the 'they will get it right the next time' argument. So now its not ok to criticize a major UI redesign that reduces productivity because its a first try. After a year of lengthy blog posts in which every design decision the Windows team made was detailed, and during which time they completely ignored all external feedback.

Of course you can criticize, but when people make criticism that fly in the face of others actual experiences sure there's going to be disagreement. Again, if you slam the desktop and yet it seems to work just fine for folks, well their own experience disagrees with the assessment. Of course this goes both ways. If for some reason the desktop is hard for one to navigate or other problems, ok, that's fair. But I think a lot of that comes from trying to make Windows 8 into Windows 7 and not actually trying to use what is there effectively. If you want to make Windows 8 into Windows 7 you'd probably be better served by Windows 7.

I think it's great many people are able to figure out the new UI and enjoy it (I'm talking about non-techie users). But you have to realize there are just as many who feel totally frustrated and helpless. This is a radical departure for MS and they are counting on selling a ton of Surface/touchscreen laptops to make Win 8 popular. It's a great OS hampered by a very unintuitive UI.

As though people aren't already helpless on a Windows 7 desktop. I think a lot of Windows 8 opponents think that average people just know the Windows desktop like nobody's business. I think most people just need a little instruction and simply have no vested interest and don't really know the Windows UI all that well to begin with. Sure, there's disruptive elements but something can't be disruptive forever. Microsoft could have provided a Metro off switch or just developed a standalone tablet OS. But that would simply put Windows further behind the emerging tablet market and just another so what Windows release to consumers.

 

[Eman D. Rahym]

Man it doesn't take much to get some folks riled up, does it? Windows 8 has a five, perhaps ten minute long learning curve at the end of which you have a superior program launcher from what Windows offered before, access to an entirely new world of apps, all while still being able to run your favorite programs from earlier versions of Windows.

What's not to like?

Yet somehow we have an entire flock of Chicken Littles running around screaming that the sky is falling. Incredible.

I'm no psychologist, is screaming and yelling at imaginary threats a coping mechanism to help some people deal with change? If so I guess the grown ups should just watch with an indulgent smile as our Chicken Littles run squawking around the yard. Eventually they'll get tired. Eventually they'll realize that the sky isn't falling. Eventually they'll smooth their ruffled feathers and calm down again. More importantly they'll stop getting in people's way and quit making so much noise so we can all get back to the routine of our lives again, only now we'll have the best edition of Windows yet to work with!

 

[TechLarry]

 

[dr.stevil]

lmao

agreed

 

[Eman D. Rahym]

I agree. That is pretty much what they look like. But you watch. If we're just patient the Chicken Littles will finally calm down.

 

[Baxter299]

that gifs older then the hills

 

[Wirth'sLaw]

Win 8 is a different beast, but it doesn't mean droves of people will dislike it.

People tend to throw stuff on the desktop and use items from the taskbar. Win 8 doesn't function any differently there. If a users prefers the start screen W8 allows one to set only apps on it that people use - I can imagine normal users would like only seeing Outlook, QuickBooks, etc. The endless list of folders and apps on 7 and XP start menus are fine, but it is possible for an admin to customize the 8 start screen nicely.

If nothing else admins should be happy about the features added via GPO. Any new OS is going to pose SOME kind of problem for admins and users alike, but MS manages to add back end stuff to really make an admin's life easier. Look at the admin features present in XP/2k3 vs. what is in 7/2k8R2 - 8/2k12 only adds more.

I understand the admin/help desk guy who has to migrate folks to new workstations. It's boring, repetitive crap, but ultimately spending the time to do it right will save time down the road.

 

[TechLarry]

that gifs older then the hills

Actually, it's older than that but it's still a classic.

 

[Lyric Suite]

at the end of which you have a superior program launcher from what Windows offered before

Actually, no. You don't. That's just your opinion about it.

The question of course is not whether Windows 8 is difficult to use, my dear fallacious friend, but whether it is more or less efficient then the old system, which I and the entire IT crowd apparently think it isn't. Not to say Windows 7 was that great of a system either, mind you.

Its obvious at this point that some people like the new system merely because it is new and for no other reason, and no argument can sway them away from their fixation. Those threads have basically become pointless.

 

[Wrench00]

Actually, no. You don't. That's just your opinion about it.

The question of course is not whether Windows 8 is difficult to use, my dear fallacious friend, but whether it is more or less efficient then the old system, which I and the entire IT crowd apparently think it isn't. Not to say Windows 7 was that great of a system either, mind you.

Its obvious at this point that some people like the new system merely because it is new and for no other reason, and no argument can sway them away from their fixation. Those threads have basically become pointless.

+1

Give the man a gold medal.

 

[dremic]

Actually, no. You don't. That's just your opinion about it.

The question of course is not whether Windows 8 is difficult to use, my dear fallacious friend, but whether it is more or less efficient then the old system, which I and the entire IT crowd apparently think it isn't. Not to say Windows 7 was that great of a system either, mind you.

Its obvious at this point that some people like the new system merely because it is new and for no other reason, and no argument can sway them away from their fixation. Those threads have basically become pointless.

+1

ding ding ding

its about efficiency. everything i have seen has shown it to be as good if not better then windows 7.