Will U buy Windows 8?

[c3141hf]

What you've described was my experience. I simply have no idea what others are saying sometimes about their experiences in Windows 8 because it simply doesn't line up with how things work for me.

It's bizarre given the incredible advancement and changes in technology in just the last five years, smart phones, tablets, social networks, that a new UI is considered such an impossible thing for people to pick up. Millions of people seem to have adapted to much more change than this in recent years in the tech world.

It is bizzare that Microsoft simply couldn't have left the start menu in place and made an option to bypass Metro. What exactly is gained by forcing Metro? Why not let the user choose how they want to use their own computer? There is obviously a demand for it.

I've been doing business software development for 20 years and while I've seen and heard plenty of complaints about IT changes (introducing change is what I do for living) I can't think of a single person I've worked with over the years, no matter how resistant to change they might have been, is as brittle to it as you're describing.

I work for a big bank and right now the amount of change businesses here are having to deal with is staggering. The Start Menu would be the least of it.

The people you are describing sound like they'd have a stroke if the roll of toilet paper changed.

I think every programmer should be forced to spend a few days a month doing desktop support on their own products (and I say this as someone who has been programming computers since the DOS days).

Surely you are familiar with the principle of least astonishment? Clicking a button and being suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into a foreign and unfamiliar full screen environment violates that principle.

It is also a generally recognized principle in UI design that moded interfaces are bad for the average user. Moded interfaces can be useful for the power user, when designed properly but for the average user, it just introduces the opportunity for mode error. What Microsoft has done is turn Windows into the graphical equivalent of VI except with none of the benefits. Users must constantly switch between two completely different modes of operation.

Frankly, I think Microsoft would do well to make this required reading material for all of their programmers.

 

[heatlesssun]

It is bizzare that Microsoft simply couldn't have left the start menu in place and made an option to bypass Metro. What exactly is gained by forcing Metro? Why not let the user choose how they want to use their own computer? There is obviously a demand for it.

Really? Make Windows 8 just like the Windows 7 I already have and I'll buy Windows 8? Even Microsoft with it's blocks UI isn't that stupid.

Whether or not you agree, every professional analyst on the planet sees tablets overtaking desktops this year or next and tablets even over taking laptops in the next 4 to 5 years. And the answer Windows 8 haters is, well my users can't tolerate any change and if they have to tolerate any change they start using Macs which are going to be totally eclipsed by iPads if these predictions by so many are true?

Hate Windows 8 all you want, the world is going to change in spite of you even if Microsoft is out of business, which it may very well be if people are this resistant to change in Windows,

 

[heatlesssun]

ISurely you are familiar with the principle of least astonishment? Clicking a button and being suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into a foreign and unfamiliar full screen environment violates that principle..

Certainly you are familiar with the principle of who gives a fuck? I work for a big bank, if you cannot adapt, no one give a fuck and find an offshore resource thus the name of the principle. You guys act like there's not a zillion people in line willing to figure out the thing you claim some will rebel against.

 

[Q1DM6]

And the answer Windows 8 haters is, well my users can't tolerate any change and if they have to tolerate any change they start using Macs which are going to be totally eclipsed by iPads if these predictions by so many are true?

The difference? Macs will still be using OSX, not iOS, because Apple already determined what MS is doing to be a losing proposition.

 

[Gorankar]

Really? Make Windows 8 just like the Windows 7 I already have and I'll buy Windows 8? Even Microsoft with it's blocks UI isn't that stupid.

Whether or not you agree, every professional analyst on the planet sees tablets overtaking desktops this year or next and tablets even over taking laptops in the next 4 to 5 years. And the answer Windows 8 haters is, well my users can't tolerate any change and if they have to tolerate any change they start using Macs which are going to be totally eclipsed by iPads if these predictions by so many are true?

Hate Windows 8 all you want, the world is going to change in spite of you even if Microsoft is out of business, which it may very well be if people are this resistant to change in Windows,

You continue to scream about tablets taking over. You may be correct, but what the hell does that have to do with non touch devices that are here now and will continue to be for the foreseeable future? There is no need for 100% gui consistency between tablets and PC's. People have been doing fine using android/win, win/iOS, android/iOS, iOS/OSX, OSX/android, etc., for quite some time now.
Metro is a bust on the desktop. Some, that seem to have a vested interest in the UI, have retrained themselves to use Metro without touch, but that does not mean the rest of us desire to, need to, or have anything to gain by doing so.

Few are going to upgrade to the OS outside of buying a new device anyway. Acting like it is some big deal that Win8 is like Win7 without Metro is silly. Besides, we are not asking for Metro to be removed, we are asking for the start menu back, some would like Aero back, some would prefer not to bother with full screen only Metro apps, and we would also prefer it if we were not treated like we are some how halting progress by wanting those things.

MS does not need to remove things I use daily, and plaster some UI I will likely have little use for, for me to consider Win8 a worthy successor to Win7 on the desktop. It has plenty going for it without the BS.

But tablets are taking over, blah, blah, blah, then market the OS on tablets, and don't bother with a desktop version.

 

[Numan]

You continue to scream about tablets taking over. You may be correct, but what the hell does that have to do with non touch devices that are here now and will continue to be for the foreseeable future? There is no need for 100% gui consistency between tablets and PC's. People have been doing fine using android/win, win/iOS, android/iOS, iOS/OSX, OSX/android, etc., for quite some time now.
Metro is a bust on the desktop. Some, that seem to have a vested interest in the UI, have retrained themselves to use Metro without touch, but that does not mean the rest of us desire to, need to, or have anything to gain by doing so.

I think this is the breakdown between Pro Metro on Desktop (even 'Meh Metro) and Hate Metro on Desktop (even 'Metro killed my firstborn'); some people after using it find that the mouse controls for navigating isn't anything really different than moving around clicking icons replaced with larger tiles and other people find after using it that it's completely unusable like the Power Glove for the old NES. Some like myself don't have an issue maneuvering the mouse on this Start menu because to me the mouse is as fluent as it's been forever while some others say it's just so bad it's intolerable.

I cannot 'see' the side of it being completely useless on the desktop because I have no issues at all with the mouse, the tiles and horizontal scrolling. Even without a mousewheel I don't really use so many programs/apps that I can't arrange them on the main screen or pinned to the taskbar. Hence why I get all, "What are you retarded?" with my tone reading how it's completely unusable. Probably not the way to do it but I guess on a forum such as this if you can figure out how to OC with extreme fans or water cooling and run server PCs then you shouldn't be freaking out to use, "the new AOL."

And I almost spat out some coffee reading about having a stroke if the toilet paper was changed.

 

[heatlesssun]

The difference? Macs will still be using OSX, not iOS, because Apple already determined what MS is doing to be a losing proposition.

Apple HOPES Windows 8 is a losing proposition. I can like Metro and you can dislike it all we want but we've not seen all the of pieces and we have no idea how Windows 8is going to play out in the market.

 

[heatlesssun]

You continue to scream about tablets taking over. You may be correct, but what the hell does that have to do with non touch devices that are here now and will continue to be for the foreseeable future? There is no need for 100% gui consistency between tablets and PC's. People have been doing fine using android/win, win/iOS, android/iOS, iOS/OSX, OSX/android, etc., for quite some time now.
Metro is a bust on the desktop. Some, that seem to have a vested interest in the UI, have retrained themselves to use Metro without touch, but that does not mean the rest of us desire to, need to, or have anything to gain by doing so.

But here's the thing, aren't tablets becoming more like PCs and trying to mimic PC capabilities? Apple is certainly promoting the idea that iPads can replace PCs in this post-PC era whether one agrees with that notion or not. In 10 years won't the iPad become more capable and powerful that it is today even to the point that it's more powerful than even PCs of today?

Technology and devices converge constantly. Tablets are converging into PCs and PCs have actually been tablets years before the iPad. All of this stuff is overlapping and becoming the same thing regardless of Windows 8.

 

[c3141hf]

Really? Make Windows 8 just like the Windows 7 I already have and I'll buy Windows 8? Even Microsoft with it's blocks UI isn't that stupid.

It is not making Windows 8 like Windows 7, it is giving the user a choice.

Whether or not you agree, every professional analyst on the planet sees tablets overtaking desktops this year or next and tablets even over taking laptops in the next 4 to 5 years. And the answer Windows 8 haters is, well my users can't tolerate any change and if they have to tolerate any change they start using Macs which are going to be totally eclipsed by iPads if these predictions by so many are true?

Hate Windows 8 all you want, the world is going to change in spite of you even if Microsoft is out of business, which it may very well be if people are this resistant to change in Windows,

"Professional analysts" are nothing more than professional sophists. They are in the business of "selling" statistics; any company can come to them and pay them to come up with a "report" that is favorable to that company's position. These are the same people who predicted that no one would want to use a mouse and that computers would continue to be keyboard only.

I'm also confused by your statement. If "the world is going to change" to all tablets, how can there be enough Windows 8 haters to put Microsoft out of business? It seems to me that they are mutually exclusive; obviously if there are enough people who hate Windows 8 to put Microsoft out of business (ostensibly due to lack of sales) then the entire world is not "changing".

But here's the thing, aren't tablets becoming more like PCs and trying to mimic PC capabilities? Apple is certainly promoting the idea that iPads can replace PCs in this post-PC era whether one agrees with that notion or not. In 10 years won't the iPad become more capable and powerful that it is today even to the point that it's more powerful than even PCs of today?

Technology and devices converge constantly. Tablets are converging into PCs and PCs have actually been tablets years before the iPad. All of this stuff is overlapping and becoming the same thing regardless of Windows 8.

"Post-PC" is marketing doublespeak. As I have already stated, the tablet is a both a computer and a device designed for personal (use by one person at a time) use. Thus it meets the definition of a personal computer; albeit a very limited one.

Even in ten years, the iPad will never have as much functionality as my computer today has. My laptop allows me to install whatever software I want on it. GNU/Linux allows me to install the desktop environment of my choice and to customize it as I see fit. If I don't like the way the developers of one desktop environment are going, I can switch to another desktop environment while retaining compatibility with existing and future applications. I can also fork the code of the desktop environment and develop it in a way that I want. I can choose to make as many or as few customizations as I want; I can use a distro like Ubuntu that holds my hand and does everything under the hood or I can use a distro like Arch which lets me build-up a customized system from scratch. My computer does what I want it to, not what Apple or Microsoft wants to and it performs the functions that I need. Right now, I only use Windows on my gaming system (I call it a Wintendo) because GNU/Linux does everything else I need and my interface is more productive than anything Windows has ever offered.

 

[Veilrap]

It is not making Windows 8 like Windows 7, it is giving the user a choice.

At some point you have to draw the line at choice. Microsoft doesn't offer you the choice to change the width of a horizontal task bar, but I don't see people complaining about the lack of choice. Microsoft has pushed new versions of the start menu since Win95 and Metro is really just another step in the direction they've been going for a long time. Quicker access to programs you run, easier to search and navigate shortcuts.

 

[c3141hf]

At some point you have to draw the line at choice. Microsoft doesn't offer you the choice to change the width of a horizontal task bar, but I don't see people complaining about the lack of choice. Microsoft has pushed new versions of the start menu since Win95 and Metro is really just another step in the direction they've been going for a long time. Quicker access to programs you run, easier to search and navigate shortcuts.

How many people have asked for the ability to change the width of the task bar? There is a difference between giving a choice due to high demand for that choice and implementing something that very few people have asked for.

 

[heatlesssun]

It is not making Windows 8 like Windows 7, it is giving the user a choice.

I thought about this subject a lot, and while I can understand the idea to give people an option to disable Metro, it really makes no sense for Microsoft to have spent all this effort on Metro and then put in an off switch if one doesn't like it, even for keyboards and mice. The point of Metro is to work and work well with keyboards and mice though it is different from the traditional Windows UI. And what about going forward? The option to use the old UI should forever and always be in Windows? Even when the next version of Metro comes out?

This is just a problem that Microsoft will always face with Windows and Office as long as they remain as widely deployed are they are. You can't satisfy everyone and then move the product forward unless you always keep the legacy stuff and at some point that's just going to make the product too complex and brittle.

"Professional analysts" are nothing more than professional sophists. They are in the business of "selling" statistics; any company can come to them and pay them to come up with a "report" that is favorable to that company's position.

Sure, but still though when you look at the what's going on its hard to say the PC is doing great. Yes, it is a mature market but it's so quickly being rivaled in numbers by phones and now tablets that it's hard to so that this is all being made up.

These are the same people who predicted that no one would want to use a mouse and that computers would continue to be keyboard only.

And this is very much now the kind of conversation that we are having with touch on the PC.

Even in ten years, the iPad will never have as much functionality as my computer today has. My laptop allows me to install whatever software I want on it. GNU/Linux allows me to install the desktop environment of my choice and to customize it as I see fit. If I don't like the way the developers of one desktop environment are going, I can switch to another desktop environment while retaining compatibility with existing and future applications. I can also fork the code of the desktop environment and develop it in a way that I want. I can choose to make as many or as few customizations as I want; I can use a distro like Ubuntu that holds my hand and does everything under the hood or I can use a distro like Arch which lets me build-up a customized system from scratch. My computer does what I want it to, not what Apple or Microsoft wants to and it performs the functions that I need. Right now, I only use Windows on my gaming system (I call it a Wintendo) because GNU/Linux does everything else I need and my interface is more productive than anything Windows has ever offered.

But still as time moves forward tablets like anything else are going to become more capable and unless there is something that comes along that average people will want that require all the functionality and configurability of a PC, there's just less reason for average people to buy PCs.

All of this stuff is going to converge anyway, it's just how things work with technology.

 

[DragonFyr]

the interface is a joke for a Desktop PC

I am with Kookthulu, Hoping Windows will be a real OS again

 

[Gorankar]

Ah, convergence, bleh. Convergence is not a likely scenario in this case. Not any time soon, certainly not b4 Win 9 and Win 10 release. Maybe never. Tablets are a companion, or supplemental device to standard laptops and PCs. Yes, many people can get away with using nothing but a tablet for the limited things they do online. However, I don't know anyone that has just a tablet. Except older people that were given one as a gift, everyone has a tablet and access to a laptop/PC.

The reasons tablets and true PC's will continue to be separate devices, is power, and screen size. No matter how powerful the tablet, there will be many out there that need more, a lot more, and they will turn to devices too big to use as a tablet. Regardless of how powerful a desktop is, we manage to use all of that power, and ask for more the following year. The tablet form factor will simply not allow them to keep up with desktops of the same time frame when it comes to power.
Screen size is another issue. Make a tablet with a screen much bigger than 10-12" would just lead to a very cumbersome device. Even if you were able to keep the weight down, the size would make it difficult to carry around and use. That leaves you having to have a docking solution with a much larger display, to turn your tablet into an approximation of a real PC for heavy creation work or simply the joy of using a large screen.

Which brings me back to "there is no need for convergence for tablet and desktop UI's.", argument I have held for a while now. Is Metro useless and unusable? No, it just serves little purpose, for a great many on non touch devices. I found it inferior to the start menu, and Metro apps sort of kill why Windows is called Windows in the first place.

Nobody ever seems to tell us why Metro is better. Yes we hear all about how Win8 is better, and under the hood, it certainly is better. But when we talk about the benefits to the PC user of Metro, we sort of get silence. The question is ignored, edited out of replies, or Win8's benefits get listed. We all know Win8 is better, but what about Metro is better for the desktop? Consistency between my PC, and a tablet UI I may never use extensively considering how deeply entrenched iOS, and Android are, is not much of a reason.

 

[Wrench00]

Ah, convergence, bleh. Convergence is not a likely scenario in this case. Not any time soon, certainly not b4 Win 9 and Win 10 release. Maybe never. Tablets are a companion, or supplemental device to standard laptops and PCs. Yes, many people can get away with using nothing but a tablet for the limited things they do online. However, I don't know anyone that has just a tablet. Except older people that were given one as a gift, everyone has a tablet and access to a laptop/PC.

The reasons tablets and true PC's will continue to be separate devices, is power, and screen size. No matter how powerful the tablet, there will be many out there that need more, a lot more, and they will turn to devices too big to use as a tablet. Regardless of how powerful a desktop is, we manage to use all of that power, and ask for more the following year. The tablet form factor will simply not allow them to keep up with desktops of the same time frame when it comes to power.
Screen size is another issue. Make a tablet with a screen much bigger than 10-12" would just lead to a very cumbersome device. Even if you were able to keep the weight down, the size would make it difficult to carry around and use. That leaves you having to have a docking solution with a much larger display, to turn your tablet into an approximation of a real PC for heavy creation work or simply the joy of using a large screen.

Which brings me back to "there is no need for convergence for tablet and desktop UI's.", argument I have held for a while now. Is Metro useless and unusable? No, it just serves little purpose, for a great many on non touch devices. I found it inferior to the start menu, and Metro apps sort of kill why Windows is called Windows in the first place.

Nobody ever seems to tell us why Metro is better. Yes we hear all about how Win8 is better, and under the hood, it certainly is better. But when we talk about the benefits to the PC user of Metro, we sort of get silence. The question is ignored, edited out of replies, or Win8's benefits get listed. We all know Win8 is better, but what about Metro is better for the desktop? Consistency between my PC, and a tablet UI I may never use extensively considering how deeply entrenched iOS, and Android are, is not much of a reason.

+1

There is no need for convergence.. Unless we have like neural interfaces.

 

[heatlesssun]

Nobody ever seems to tell us why Metro is better.

I've said this many times, you may not agree but from my perspective it's very clear.

I can use the same UI and the same programs with 4 different input methods across multiple form factors. Metro is better because it better supports more form factors and input methods. I can take the same machine that I was writing code on and then play Angry Birds via touch. I could also play that same game on a Full HD monitor on the same machine with a mouse.

I have said this repeatedly. One cannot understand the true nature of Metro and its advantages solely with a keyboard and mouse driven machine. And I perfectly understand that the overwhelming majority of people that use Windows today, even Windows 8, have only used it with a keyboard and mouse. But by this time next year that will have changed dramatically.

 

[Gorankar]

I've said this many times, you may not agree but from my perspective it's very clear.

I can use the same UI and the same programs with 4 different input methods across multiple form factors. Metro is better because it better supports more form factors and input methods. I can take the same machine that I was writing code on and then play Angry Birds via touch. I could also play that same game on a Full HD monitor on the same machine with a mouse.

I have said this repeatedly. One cannot understand the true nature of Metro and its advantages solely with a keyboard and mouse driven machine. And I perfectly understand that the overwhelming majority of people that use Windows today, even Windows 8, have only used it with a keyboard and mouse. But by this time next year that will have changed dramatically.

All that, and you still did not answer my question about how Metro is better on a desktop, and quoted just the one part without the full context. Instead you bring up, alternate form factors that are not the desktop, input methods not commonly used on the desktop, and the "same UI across multiple devices" spiel. People have been using multiple different UI on different devices for quite a while. I want to know how it is better on the desktop. I have already granted that Metro on touch devices is a totally different experience. How is it better on the desktop?

 

[heatlesssun]

All that, and you still did not answer my question about how Metro is better on a desktop, and quoted just the one part without the full context. Instead you bring up, alternate form factors that are not the desktop, input methods not commonly used on the desktop, and the "same UI across multiple devices" spiel. People have been using multiple different UI on different devices for quite a while. I want to know how it is better on the desktop. I have already granted that Metro on touch devices is a totally different experience. How is it better on the desktop?

Your post prior...

Nobody ever seems to tell us why Metro is better. Yes we hear all about how Win8 is better, and under the hood, it certainly is better. But when we talk about the benefits to the PC user of Metro, we sort of get silence.

If you had specifically mentioned desktops in the your post, which you didn't, I would have answered specifically . But I did say this:

I have said this repeatedly. One cannot understand the true nature of Metro and its advantages solely with a keyboard and mouse driven machine.

I have never once said that Metro brings a lot to desktops. Clearly that's not where Microsoft placed emphasis in Windows 8, and why should they have? It's a mature market and everyone that has a five year old PC is perfectly happy, there's no reason to upgrade no matter how many improvements Microsoft brings to the desktop. As much as you and I would like to move beyond Windows XP, even Windows 7 hasn't been compelling enough for a lot of people to upgrade. What does Windows 7 bring to the desktop over Windows XP after all?

I was simply saying that I use Windows machines that aren't to keyboards and mice. That's where Metro offers advantages. If you want dismiss Windows 8 for lack of improvements on the desktop, be my guest, I would overall agree. But the desktop is a mature market that's simple dead in the water and it doesn't make a lot of sense for Microsoft to spend a lot of effort on a stagnant market full of people that are happy with five old PCs. As Metro opponents point out constantly, Microsoft can't change much in Windows anyway on the desktop as no one long time Windows user can deal with change anyway.

 

[c3141hf]

I have never once said that Metro brings a lot to desktops. Clearly that's not where Microsoft placed emphasis in Windows 8, and why should they have? It's a mature market and everyone that has a five year old PC is perfectly happy, there's no reason to upgrade no matter how many improvements Microsoft brings to the desktop. As much as you and I would like to move beyond Windows XP, even Windows 7 hasn't been compelling enough for a lot of people to upgrade. What does Windows 7 bring to the desktop over Windows XP after all?

A lot.

Most people are unfamiliar with just how much code was rewritten in Vista (which carried over to 7). I actually defended Vista and still do; the majority of the stability problems were the result of lousy drivers by Intel, NVIDIA, and ATI (another reason why drivers should be open source).

Among other things, Windows Vista (and by extension 7) introduced a :

1.Brand new, user-mode graphics stack (WDDM).
2.Brand new compositing window manager (DWM).
3.Completely rewritten network stack
4.Completely rewritten print stack
5.Completely rewritten audio stack
6.Integrated indexed desktop search with instant access via the start menu.
7.Significantly re-factored I/O elevator.
8.User account control, which finally allowed Windows users to do what UNIX users have been doing for decades; running as a regular user and elevating to privileged when needed. This forced incompetent programmers to actually write their programs properly (the number of programs requiring administrator access to the system was ridiculous with Windows XP).
9.Numerous other security features such as ASLR, process isolation, and SafeSEH.

Vista was almost a complete rewrite. By extension, going from XP to 7 includes all of what was included in Vista. All of these features benefit the desktop. And it is faster to boot.

I was simply saying that I use Windows machines that aren't to keyboards and mice. That's where Metro offers advantages. If you want dismiss Windows 8 for lack of improvements on the desktop, be my guest, I would overall agree. But the desktop is a mature market that's simple dead in the water and it doesn't make a lot of sense for Microsoft to spend a lot of effort on a stagnant market full of people that are happy with five old PCs. As Metro opponents point out constantly, Microsoft can't change much in Windows anyway on the desktop as no one long time Windows user can deal with change anyway.

There are plenty of areas for improvement in Windows that would benefit desktop users :

1.I shouldn't have to reboot to install every insignificant software update that comes along. In fact, I shouldn't have to reboot to install or update software, period. UNIX got this down 40 years ago, why is it still such a problem on Windows?

2.I should be able to do proper partition management. Pretty much anytime I have to do anything more than the most basic of partition management on a Windows computer, I just end up popping in Knoppix or another GNU/Linux Live CD because the built-in partitioning tools are woefully lacking and I'm not about to pay for commercial partitioning software.

3.Windows needs to stop being so possessive of my hardware and of the files on the disk and let me decide how my computer operates. At the very least, have the option to turn the training wheels off. I have an external USB driver enclosure with two bays. Just the other week, I was trying to do a block level copy from one bay to another and I ended up having to boot into GNU/Linux in order to do it. Windows doesn't let you access the hard drive if it isn't mounted and mounting it locks the drive and prevents block level access. (You can get around this if you have drivers but this shouldn't be needed).

In another instance, I was trying to replace a corrupted Windows system file due to a transient bad sector (unlucky timing for a power outage). In order to repair that sector, I needed to overwrite it. Windows being Windows, it wouldn't let me overwrite the corrupt file with a clean copy from the installation media because it contained a "protected" system file; I ended up having to dig through layers of security settings before it would finally release it (and SFC, of course, didn't work because it lacks error handling code for bad sectors).

I've observed that a lot of Windows power-users have GNU/Linux live-cds like Knoppix on hand for precisely these kinds of tasks because it is so difficult to do them from within Windows.

4.Microsoft needs to fix Window's abysmal window management. One thing I've observed about Windows users is that they tend to run everything maximized whereas Mac and GNU/Linux users don't.

My primary non-gaming computer runs KDE (which actually allows you to have choices in how you configure your computer; you can have a full-screen smartphone/tablet like environment, a desktop, or anything in between). I have my computer configured so that focus follows mouse. What this means is that the active window is the window that the mouse is currently over. In addition, clicking on a window does not bring it to the front of the screen; you must click on the titlebar to do that. While it takes a period of adjustment, the boost in productivity is great; if I am say, copying data from a website and I am not at my desk (with my second monitor), I can overlay the browser on top of the application I am entering data into and not have the browser disappear into the background every time I click that application's window. In addition, I can easily copy and paste data using the middle mouse button: click it while something is selected and it copies; click it while nothing is selected and it pastes.

I can easily pin any window to the screen so that it cannot be obscured and I can easily set any window to always be underneath the other windows. I can make windows transparent. I can group windows so that clicking on any one of them on the taskbar brings them all up to the front. I can assign different shortcut keys to individual windows or applications to bring them to the front. KDE's equivalent of the start menu search allows me to even search open windows. And all of this functionality is implemented in such a way that the novice user can use sensible defaults while the more advanced users can have complete control.

If you have ever used nView, then you've had a taste of what I am talking about. Fundamentally, window management hasn't changed since Windows 2.0. 7 added a few things like the ability to drag windows to the top or the sides to maximize or tile but those are minor additions. I would be grateful if Microsoft would implement just a fraction of the features I described above.

The desktop market is not dead. The desktop is not going away. The metaphor has been around for as long as it has because it works. If Microsoft is unwilling to provide proper support for the desktop, then people will just switch to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X. I can already see Apple having a field day with Windows 8.

 

[Gorankar]

If you had specifically mentioned desktops in the your post, which you didn't, I would have answered specifically . But I did say this:
.

LOL, I guess reading the sentence you quoted was too much for you. It is certainly there. let me point it out for you. I understand you have a financial interest in the success of the app store, and MS's pricing on Win 8 tells me they expect to make bank on the app store, rather than OS sales.

Nobody ever seems to tell us why Metro is better. Yes we hear all about how Win8 is better, and under the hood, it certainly is better. But when we talk about the benefits to the PC user of Metro, we sort of get silence.

I am not even a hater, Win 8 is a good OS, and Metro definitely serves a purpose on touch enabled devices. The start menu is simply better on the desktop, apps that can be run in windows are more useful on a desktop, and letting us have that choice is hardly some huge undertaking. In fact they are had to remove the things so many of us wanted.

 

[Epicness]

Would I buy it? no. looks more like a damn phone OS.

You must be one of those extremely shallow Apple fans that only buys based on looks.

 

[Epicness]

1.I shouldn't have to reboot to install every insignificant software update that comes along. In fact, I shouldn't have to reboot to install or update software, period. UNIX got this down 40 years ago, why is it still such a problem on Windows?

Much of that is just crappy programming. "I've added something to startup, instead of my installer telling it to freaking START... I'm just going to make the user reboot"

I would assume that Microsoft isn't needlessly rebooting for Windows Updates, though. Alot of them don't need reboots. The issue is that you usually patch 20+ at a time, and you just always happen to get one that requires it.

I've observed that a lot of Windows power-users have GNU/Linux live-cds like Knoppix on hand for precisely these kinds of tasks because it is so difficult to do them from within Windows.

Therein is exactly why some of these things will never happen. You're talking about a very niche, small crowd that does what you describe. And when that small crowd already has alternate means to partition a drive for free, why would Microsoft spend $$$$ on developing their own tool for these other people that already know how to do it outside of Windows?

4.Microsoft needs to fix Window's abysmal window management. One thing I've observed about Windows users is that they tend to run everything maximized whereas Mac and GNU/Linux users don't.

With this, I'd add that... Windows needs an option to prevent windows from stealing focus. PERIOD.
You are typing away on this post and your AV program is allowed to steal it, woops...You've just now typed who-knows-what command into your AV program. Or Windows Updates. Or anything.

 

[heatlesssun]

If you have ever used nView, then you've had a taste of what I am talking about. Fundamentally, window management hasn't changed since Windows 2.0. 7 added a few things like the ability to drag windows to the top or the sides to maximize or tile but those are minor additions. I would be grateful if Microsoft would implement just a fraction of the features I described above.

Yeah, I use nView on my work laptop. All of these changes are great but pretty low level and on the niche side. These things certainly wouldn't drive a lot of people to upgrade or by new hardware.

The desktop market is not dead. The desktop is not going away. The metaphor has been around for as long as it has because it works.

No it's not dead, but it's not really growing either and that's the problem

I can already see Apple having a field day with Windows 8.

Just like they did with Vista. As long as Apple's prices stay like they are, Apple really can't compete with Windows across the board. And as for Linux, well Windows 8 is essentially 100% compatible will all that desktop software that works with Windows 7. If people don't like Windows 8 most will just stick with 7.

 

[rflcptr]

No it's not dead, but it's not really growing either and that's the problem

Define "growing."

 

[heatlesssun]

LOL, I guess reading the sentence you quoted was too much for you. It is certainly there. let me point it out for you. I understand you have a financial interest in the success of the app store, and MS's pricing on Win 8 tells me they expect to make bank on the app store, rather than OS sales.

I have no idea how one individual could have a financial interest in an entire app store. I earn a living with Microsoft technology and I think it would behoove me to learn Metro beyond any interest I have in developing Metro apps for the store. Business can develop their own Metro apps without the Store so in time I would expect Metro app development to be widely done in the enterprise which is my bread and butter.

I am not even a hater, Win 8 is a good OS, and Metro definitely serves a purpose on touch enabled devices. The start menu is simply better on the desktop, apps that can be run in windows are more useful on a desktop, and letting us have that choice is hardly some huge undertaking. In fact they are had to remove the things so many of us wanted.

I've longed believed in tablets and always wanted Windows to work well on them and being a long time Tablet PC user I love the idea of convergence. I understand that people are used to Start Menu and want to keep it. But I see this more as an issue of familiarity than one of true superiority of the Start Menu with keyboard and mouse driven machines compared to the Start Screen.

This is Metro 1.0 on desktops and sure it has plenty of room for improvement. Even if Microsoft kept the Start Menu and traditional desktop, people wanting that old UI would certainly want Microsoft to continue to develop and improve on that and at the same time they would doing Metro 2.0 and just seems like they need to pick on work on that rather maintaining separate UIs.

 

[heatlesssun]

Define "growing."

growing - becoming greater in quantity, size, extent, or intensity:

 

[Epicness]

No it's not dead, but it's not really growing either and that's the problem

The problem is that "sales" don't equate to "growth in the market".
Do you think if we added up all PC sales over the last 10 years it would equate to the total number of PCs in existence? Heck no. Stuff gets replaced. Do you really suppose the worldwide cellular market is growing by almost half a billion a year? Nope... It's simply that stuff gets replaced with newer stuff. Not that the market (IE, actual number of users) is growing at the same rate.


There's simply so many PCs out there that the market is shifting from a "buy one for the first time" to a "replace what we have". Of course PC numbers will slip slightly. If it wasn't for the short life of cell phones, we'd be seeing the same thing there.

Let's not forget the fact that the vast majority of tablet users also have a PC. The tablet is an accessory TO the PC, not a replacement. Not yet. Tablet PC numbers shoot up simply because there's none in the market. It's a new, cool thing. There's billions of customers to sell to.
How many customers don't have a PC? Not many. Almost everyone does. The PCs being sold are mostly REPLACING older stuff out there, IMO... I can't name anyone that does not have a PC that is buying one net-new.


If you love the tablet interface, that's cool. But I mostly agree with him. There will always be differing devices and the same UI running on both is a flawed concept. Keyboard/Mouse will have different usage than finger.

 

[heatlesssun]

If you love the tablet interface, that's cool. But I mostly agree with him. There will always be differing devices and the same UI running on both is a flawed concept. Keyboard/Mouse will have different usage than finger.

But there are plenty of apps that can work equally well with touch and keyboards and mice. Web browsers, media players, document readers and editors, etc.

 

[rflcptr]

growing - becoming greater in quantity, size, extent, or intensity:

How did you measure it?

 

[heatlesssun]

How did you measure it?

I don't, the PC market analysts do and they are the ones saying that the PC market isn't growing at the moment and has experienced sluggish growth for several years now.

 

[Epicness]

But there are plenty of apps that can work equally well with touch and keyboards and mice. Web browsers, media players, document readers and editors, etc.

It's not that "Can it open a webpage?"

Does it support ActiveX?
Can it support the plugins I want?

Most of the time the answer is no.

A touch-tuned browser will have a different UI than will a desktop browser, this is proven in Windows Phone with IE9. As it should be, different UIs optimized for different input methods.

 

[heatlesssun]

It's not that "Can it open a webpage?"

Does it support ActiveX?
Can it support the plugins I want?

Most of the time the answer is no.

A touch-tuned browser will have a different UI than will a desktop browser, this is proven in Windows Phone with IE9. As it should be, different UIs optimized for different input methods.

In the case of browser though the UI differences are pretty superficial. The desktop IE 10 browser is actually very touch capable.

 

[rflcptr]

I don't, the PC market analysts do and they are the ones saying that the PC market isn't growing at the moment and has experienced sluggish growth for several years now.

Linkage? Several years? Wasn't Windows 7, by your words, the most successful commercial OS ever?

 

[c3141hf]

Much of that is just crappy programming. "I've added something to startup, instead of my installer telling it to freaking START... I'm just going to make the user reboot"

I would assume that Microsoft isn't needlessly rebooting for Windows Updates, though. Alot of them don't need reboots. The issue is that you usually patch 20+ at a time, and you just always happen to get one that requires it.

You should never have to reboot for any kind of update. On my GNU/Linux installation, I can apply updates (even major updates) without rebooting the computer. Only the affected subsystems need to be shut down and restart and that can be done in a matter of seconds (you only have to shut it down after the patching is done, not while it is patching). The technology even exists now to update the kernel without a reboot.

Therein is exactly why some of these things will never happen. You're talking about a very niche, small crowd that does what you describe. And when that small crowd already has alternate means to partition a drive for free, why would Microsoft spend $$$$ on developing their own tool for these other people that already know how to do it outside of Windows?

You mean like every company that has ever had to manage partitions on a computer before?

 

[heatlesssun]

Linkage? Several years? Wasn't Windows 7, by your words, the most successful commercial OS ever?

It's all there if you want to look for it and common knowledge. If you want to debate why don't you provide the linkage. Microsoft last week announced that they have sold 630 million licenses of Windows 7. If you have better information then you're free to provide it.

 

[MrGuvernment]

No. Not when XP is still perfectly usable. There has not been a single feature in Vista, Windows 7, let alone Windows 8 that would come close for me wanting to buy that version.

security....

 

[rflcptr]

It's all there if you want to look for it and common knowledge. If you want to debate why don't you provide the linkage. Microsoft last week announced that they have sold 630 million licenses of Windows 7. If you have better information then you're free to provide it.

You made the claims, don't cop out.

 

[heatlesssun]

You made the claims, don't cop out.

Everything I've stated is common knowledge from the most reputable of sources, question all that you wish, you are the one who needs to provide counter evidence and I leave you to the fool's errand.

 

[rflcptr]

Everything I've stated is common knowledge from the most reputable of sources, question all that you wish, you are the one who needs to provide counter evidence and I leave you to the fool's errand.

You've refused to reveal the source of your 'common knowledge' twice now, at this point labeling me a 'fool.'

Why do you think I need to provide counter evidence? Do you even know where I stand? What sort of rebuttal do you expect to unfold from your pseudo-concrete data and 'common knowledge?'

If you don't care to further meaningful discussion (and drop the condescending attitude) let me know so I won't waste my time with you, again.

 

[heatlesssun]

You've refused to reveal the source of your 'common knowledge' twice now, at this point labeling me a 'fool.'

Why do you think I need to provide counter evidence? Do you even know where I stand? What sort of rebuttal do you expect to unfold from your pseudo-concrete data and 'common knowledge?'

If you don't care to further meaningful discussion (and drop the condescending attitude) let me know so I won't waste my time with you, again.

In our debates you obviously claim yourself as the superior. The web is full of hits that mention the same information regarding PC and Windows 7 licenses sales that I've stated. There's no need for me to mention to someone of superior capability like yourself the obvious. Unless the debate that you start has nothing to do with truth or reality,