Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by BluDude, Jul 30, 2013.
windows 8 is the best OS I ever used.
No idea why people dont buy it in droves.
maybe because not everyone wants their desktop to be turned into giant tablets.
Because all of us aren't you...
So in order for Windows to continue to be successful it must forever keep now and for always a currently 20 year old UI convention? And how did Windows 8 make Mac sales drop the last 3 quarters? Even if Windows 8 were considered the greatest desktop OS ever it would still more than likely see a falloff from Windows 7 because fewer people are buying and using desktops than in 2009.
My gaming machine is Windows 8 with Start8 and I love it.
Windows 8 had nothing to do with that. Desktop sales have been dropping considerably since before Windows 8's new UI was ever shown to the public, and if you look at the sales trends, Windows 8 hasn't changed the number of sales in either direction.
The one thing Windows 8 has done, however, is raise the average price users are spending when they do buy a new computer.
As far as corporations not adopting Windows 8 goes, that's simply because corporations are extremely slow at adopting new operating systems, for funding reasons as well as because it's a lot of work. On the other hand, the company I worked for up until late last year was quick at adopting new software, and they moved to Windows 8 in September of 2012 and have stayed on it since.
And if you're in any way even remotely competent at using a computer, that won't happen and you should see no loss in productivity moving to 8.
The 'Windows 8 is tablet optimized' claims are the number one indicator that someone is a hive-mind, media fed drone who hasn't used Windows 8 and isn't willing to form their own opinions.
This is probably where I have the biggest disagreement with some Windows 8 opponents. It's like all anyone ever does with a Windows machine is use the Start Menu and that all of sudden desktop applications stopped working. I understand that there is a learning curve and that full screen apps and utilities and throw some for a loop but after a while it's not like the Start Menu is much more than an app launcher, not anything that most spend a great deal of time in.
windows 8 isn't helping PC sales, in my general area I have Frys, Microcenter and Tigerdirect stores, when I need something quick I often go to one of those stores to pick something up, and been looking at laptops for my girlfriend for a while. Almost every single time when I go to one of those stores I hear 1-3 people asking one of the employees "can I get this PC with windows 7" when they hear the answer no, most of them just keep walking and leave.
Keep telling yourself that windows 8 does not negatively affect PC sales.
And your claim that I haven't used windows 8 is laughable.
Main rig = Windows 7 (and will stay that way)
Server = Server 2012 (unfortunately windows 8 based) with start8 app
HTPC 1 = Windows 8 startisback app
FamilyPC = Windows 8 (will be putting 7 back on it, it annoys everyone)
HTPC 2 = Windows 7 (will stay that way)
Atom based ITX = MacOSX
Atom based ITX = Linux
all those little apps that return start menu, make windows 8 bearable to use.
But metro always finds a way to creep back in, on HTPC when I was trying to add bluetooth device, it was flip-flopping between desktop and metro, its pathetic.
I right click on the bluetooth icon in taskbar and click add scan for devices, and bam metro creeps up, and didn't find anything, so I click on "trouble finding bluetooth device" and flops back to desktop to original normal bluetooth interface and it found the device, then it flops back to metro again.
Implementations of metro is just horrible.
Anecdotes are a worthless way of making an argument, and children are the only people who can get away with using them. In the real world, especially in the technology industry, real, well gathered data is what matters. Empiricism is the only way to make a valid argument about things like sales, and the sales data shows no sharp change in differential of sales rates.
Sorry, but I could make up a story about going to some computer store to buy some computer part and overhearing people say things and try to make an argument based off of that. If I went to the VP I work under and tried to reason based off of things I claim I heard people say at microcenter, he'd probably ask me why I am working here and there would probably be negative consequences.
Keep telling yourself anything at all. It doesn't change the empirical data.
Edit: I'm currently moving into a new house right now, but once I have unpacked my desktop and can get to my bookmarks, I could grab some interesting data and articles for you, if you'd like. Or I can go to best buy with a GoPro and try to record people saying things about Windows 8, if that would get further with you.
I see a lot of very vocal IT users having issues. Yes, a learning curve is there, but depending on the user - it can have a loss of productivity. Regardless of your competence.
It was designed for touch screens. It works fine on desktops, but if it wasn't designed (or optimized) for touchscreens, Microsoft wouldn't have a big push for touch on Surface, tablets, touch screen PC's. Hive-mind? No. Microsoft marketing. Straight from the horses mouth.
From Microsoft site, with a 'compare to iPad link':
You don't create equivalents for the main method of input. You create them for alternatives.
Optimized for tablet would imply compromise elsewhere. If it's not reducing usability for non-tablet users, then they're not optimizing it for tablets, but rather just making it more general.
But, the problem people have is that a tablet is not a desktop PC. Yet, they are treated with the same OS. It suffers the same limitations that the Windows 7 UI had. Great for mouse/keyboard, but just ok (and sometimes frustrating) with touch. Now, you have Windows 8 which is excellent for touch but can be frustrating for mouse/keyboard (and especially laptop with eraser nub mouse). They are trying to make a one OS fits all, and that is where all the complaints come from.
I have Metro on my phone, tablet, desktop PC's, work laptop, home laptop and Xbox 360. I have no problems with it. But, you, I, Heatless are in the minority. All these vocal people out there have legitimate complaints. If these people cannot use the OS efficiently, then the 'simple, elegant, touch OS' from Microsoft is not hitting it's target audience. That's what I would like to see corrected. From all the complaints I have seen, 99% of them have been from Metro. I don't care if there are workarounds. If the user cannot use it after an hour, they will give up... I would like to see Windows 8.1 or future updates get a better reputation and be able to stand up and get praise. To do so, you need to satisfy these users that are having problems. Fix the problems, but in a way where it has a compromise. 8.1 is in the right direction - boot to desktop, start button (at least a visual indicator that something is there, anyway). That will help a lot of people. Integrated Bing search is nice. We'll see how the public takes those.
When I take complaints to Microsoft, even if they are not mine but a general overview of the forum complaints, I get similar responses. They know they are issues, but that is the direction they are taking Windows. Some MSFT employees don't like Metro. They are working to refine it and make it a great OS that everyone can use easily. They are getting input and taking the complaints and making it better. So, hopefully, the complaints and praise get to the right people, and subtle changes are made for the better. Windows is moving into the touch realm, and you can't stop it. But, you can make the transition easier. They are making Windows to appeal to the masses, not the few. So, even if I submit complaints, I'm helping make Windows better for the masses. Even if I don't have a problem, but 10 other people do - I submit it. You can't ignore the people with problems, even if you have none (like me with Vista - perfect OS for me until 7 was released).
its so refreshing seeing a truly intelligent reply from someone that likes windows 8.
even with workarounds there is still no 100% bulletproof way to avoid metro, my example above with bluetooth is just one of them.
only way for them to fix it completely is to have an option that when you are in desktop "mode" to keep it in desktop mode. No more flip-flopping. If I want to enter metro there could be shortcut in start menu and metro would open.
Start8 gets its close, but there are still those instances where metro pops up uninvited.
Perhaps that's a Freudian slip. Despite how often I can point to very clear UX issues in the Start Screen, it's a tractable change. Transitioning from the Start Menu to the Start Screen is a tractable thing.
Thanks for that! I had no idea it was that simple.
Nope, smaller memory footprint because no metro bloat. See for yourself its easy to switch back and forth.
As for things you lose its minor - they are described in that link. Multimonitor taskbar is the only significant one but small price to pay for me anyway. You still retain all under hood improvements, new file copy dialog and improved task manager and memory mgmt, SMB3.0, etc. Its only only a shell switch - a 2.8MB explorer.exe, not replacing the whole o/s. It doesn't change any system files or mess with the registry.
The reason its less popular than start menu replacements is because it requires a Win7 or Server2008R2 ISO to copy explorer.exe from it, it couldn't legally bundle that with the software. So as long as you can get a hold of one you're good, it really is the purest start menu replacement because you're literally running Win7's start menu.
The author realized a start menu replacement would therefore offer less installation resistance for novices and be easier to monetize thus he went on to create StartIsBack.
Metro bloat? Maybe it's because I'm running systems with at least 4 GB (main desktops at 16 & 32), but I've never found Metro to be lagging. Windows 8 is faster at core OS things than Windows 7 was. Unless you are running 1 GB of RAM on an older P4, I don't see dropping Metro to save a few MB of RAM...
Sure there are issues with Windows 8, I like many people like yourself who like Windows 8 have discussed them at length. When you talk about the masses I think of the kids I've seen pick up my Windows 8 tablets and go to town on them. When I saw kids who were thinking of Start Menus or full screen apps or app stores, they just picked up the things and were engaged and delighted.
This kind of experience is critical to the future of Windows as more and more tablets and touch and lightweight apps become available. Yes, the new UI needs to be better with conventional input methods but it doesn't need to just like Windows 7.
Never implied Metro was lagging. Bloat is a figure of speech, not a number. To me bloat is anything running on my system I dont need and won't ever use. So to reverse the argument, I dont see keeping anything I dont need, even if its only 50MB or so (before it's launched anything else). Getting rid of it is also peace of mind that it won't be launching or updating or performing any internal operation or file modifications or store updates I didn't ask for and don't need which fall outside opt-out settings.
I dont think anyone disputes Metro was built for kids. So I'm not sure that's an endorsement, certainly not surprising kids would be "delighted" by an electronic device with big multicolored tiles. FWIW, if you had iPads laying around I'm not sure they'd ignore them in favor of Metro tablets. As for it being critical to the future of Windows, I have my doubts. We'll see.
It needs to evolve. It doesn't need to step back to Windows 7 (although, on an enterprise level, I wouldn't mind seeing a GPO to enable a classic mode). My kids picked it up fast. So did my Dad (62 years old). It needs to keep improving to make it easier for those having problems. 8.1 does help somewhat (even the same background between desktop and Metro helps with the 'feeling' of a similar OS instead of flip flopping).
I know Microsoft has people looking to find out where people are having the issues and how to improve them. Is it the flip flopping? The lack of visual cues (like bringing back the start button)? The interaction using mouse/keyboard vs. touch? Customizing start screen? They have been working on those. I like to hear WHY people have the problems not just that they are. Usually, I try to educate them a bit, but once they get to that point when they are pissed off, they don't want a lesson - they want it fixed....
It wasn't really an argument, just an observation. I haven't had to get rid of Metro for any reason. I usually do trim down what starts at boot and such, but core OS stuff hasn't needed anything trimmed because it works fine... Back in the day, we were stopping services, getting rid of boot items, just to get that 2 FPS more. Even further back, I was trying to get enough free memory to run Doom... memmaker, autoexec (only the necessities!), and config.sys. I think I've finally got a PC that I can run almost anything on. So, when it comes to bloat - I say what bloat?!
Considering that many kids these days are much more technically savvy than adults that's not exactly the zinger you might think it is
Had some experience with different devices floating around in a common setting during the family vacation. Together we had multiple iPads, Android tablets and Windows 8 devices all floating around in the family area when we were assembled, almost a tablet per person. I was playing one of my favorite games for Windows 8 tablets, Shuffle Party, and the next thing everyone wanted to play and wanted it on their device. We just kind of started swapping devices taking a gander at things other people were doing and playing on other devices. One the kids started playing puzzle games on my Ativ and could stop. He had a 7" Galaxy Tab but loved the puzzles on the big screen.
Just not even a year ago a device as thin and light and cheap as the Ativ running Windows 8 with 9+ hour battery life didn't even exist. Now we're about to approach a second wave of the OS and hardware. It is a new world for Windows and it's nice to see it actually evolved, even if some don't like it's finally nice to see something other than cheap plastic crap heavy ass laptops running the same nearly 20 old UI.
That want it back you mean. But yes, making things easier even for people like this is important, but I don't think you have to do everything they say. Even after 6 years there are plenty that don't like the Ribbon in Office and it's hard to imagine at this point Microsoft going back to the classic menus in Office. When it comes to products that have millions and millions of users any change is going to piss off a lot of people, that's how it goes. Even Apple is hearing it from some folks over iOS 7 but in time, I'm sure more people will just go with the flow and not worry about it. Of course that's Apple, Microsoft generally has a harder time with that sort of thing, particularly when people think of Microsoft chasing Apple in the tablet space, which is partially true.
That's a concept known as abstraction, and it's quite powerful. Why make a solution to one problem, and a separate solution to another problem, when you could generalize the first problem so its solution also solves the second problem?
The trouble is, it's only ever helpful if you submit good feedback. If Microsoft receives a flood of complaints saying conflicting things (or saying things which conflict with the core direction in which Windows is moving), Microsoft can't do anything with that, and it simply serves as noise Microsoft must sift through to get to the useful complaints.
Of course, had you the ability to read, you would notice that my anecdote was merely a side note following a completely non-anecdotally supported point. This is different from the other poster, who supported his claims entirely anecdotally. But I'm not at all surprised that you, specifically, failed to make that differentiation.
LOL! And you think that makes any sort of a difference?
Are you aware that none of the actual Metro code is contained in explorer.exe, correct? All you've done is take away the entry point to the UI. It's all still there, except now you just can't use it. So instead of saving memory/resources, what you're actually doing is making it so that those resources are still being used but no longer with any purpose. And even if you were able to ditch metro entirely, the system resources you would save would be inconsequentially small.
Is it now? What a sad world you must live in, surrounded by bloat. If you looked at your system on a technical level, you would hate the amount of 'bloat' you would find. There's lots of stuff you probably don't use (millions of lines of code worth, probably), but since other people might use that stuff, and since leaving it there is of no actual negative, it's all still there.
Most people get carried away in irrelevant details. It'd be as if they made a campaign to stop people from peeing in the ocean because they were worried about the water level being affected. The important details of software performance are far beyond the consumer's control.
what if your "all-in-one" solution causes more problems. And thats what windows 8 with metro does. If it was a true "all-in-one" solution, there wouldn't be a need for this discussion.
What problems does it cause? What can you do in Windows 7 that you can't do in Windows 8?
Please note that "it's different" does not constitute a problem.
"It's different" can be a problem. I can do most of what I can do on a Windows PC on a Mac. But, it's different. Different enough to where I can't do much. Give me a month, and I could probably do it. But, it can be a legitimate problem.
If enough people share that same 'problem', then it is a legitimate problem. Let's rearrange your desk and move all of your things. Once you get used to it, we'll move them around again. If you have 1000 people saying they are having problems using the OS, even just because it's different, and 20 people saying they are having a blast and it's easy - then it needs work. Which is what it's getting.
If "it's different" is the only barrier, that's not a valid reason to criticize something. Maybe the US should never switch to a proper unit system, because everybody already knows United States Customary System, and meters are different from the feet that people are already familiar with. Maybe nobody should have ever bothered switching to RESTful web services, because it's different and required that SOAP developers get used to it. Maybe nobody should ever use a functional programming language, because people who have already been writing code in imperative languages will have to get used to the different style.
Keeping something that's not the best option simply because it's the status quo is stupid. Simply because Windows 8 is different does not mean there is anything wrong with it. People have their chance to get used to the interface now, and legacy users who can't move with progress will be stuck on legacy software (when today's start menu becomes tomorrow's program manager)
Interesting. Help me understand your perspective; Given how fundamental the user interface is, how can you say that changing it isn't a valid reason to criticize?
So your position is that Windows7 interface isn't the "best", with the implication being that Windows 8 comes closer to being "the best", right?
Let's see the evidence to support your position.
How can you say that it is? If anything, the interface is so fundemental that we should be constantly making strides to improve it, rather than keeping a 20 year old interface just because we're used to it. All of the technology underneath the interface has been changing rapidly. The technology is faster and the form factors and methods of input are more diverse. How can one be so closed minded as to think that nobody could ever do better than the interface used by Windows 95-Windows 7?
Most people don't use the interface the same way they did when it was introduced. Most people use just one feature of that interface (that feature being the search), so why have an interface which emphasizes the mechanics that nobody even uses anymore, when we could have an interface that emphasizes the mechanics that are most efficient and most commonly used?
Even simple interfaces that have been around forever--interfaces you would expect would have already been tweaked to perfection--are still constantly undergoing change. Automobiles are constantly changing their controls, and while the most basic ideas are still there, they're always being improved upon. The idea of point and clicking on things and typing is your steering wheel and pedals, and will always be there, but everything else is being refined.
Easy. Someone who is proficient in using the interface can be as productive on Windows 8 on a desktop or laptop as on Windows 7. Meanwhile, Windows 8's interface has been generalized and also supports touch devices well.
Added capability without compromise is clearly an improvement.
Interesting. So first you challenge that the interface is fundamental, then you agree with me.
Which is it? In your mind, is the user interface fundamental, and thus critical, or isn't it?
I see. So you can't provide evidence to support your position. To clarify, I asked for *evidence* to support your position that Windows8+ User Interface is better than previous versions. That means objective metrics.
Take what time you need to find such usage studies.
There's three basic views of incorporating the Modern UI in the desktop that I see:
1. It's the right approach, the old UI was great but it's time to move on considering the shifts in the market. It may not be perfect but it's better to improve this hybrid approach than to simply rely on a 20 year old UI as a fallback.
2. It's okay as an optional approach but there should be a way to turn it off.
3. It's not the right approach at all, a desktop is a desktop and a tablet is a tablet.
The reason why Windows 8 is so controversial I think is because none of these approaches is definitively correct, not at this time. Approach #1 creates a lot of disruption is the use of a very familiar UI. Approach #2 makes it easier to just avoid the new UI thus creating less of a reason for OEMs and software developers to work with the Modern UI. Approach #3, "well Apple didn't do it" is fine if you have less that 10% of the current desktop market. Given Windows' dominance in desktops, Microsoft has many reasons that make sense for it and even consumers. The ability to preserve that investment and move it forward to new form factors does have use for customers, especially on the business side. Small incremental changes to the desktop are not going to reinvigorate the desktop market at this point I believe.
So pick your poison. The bottom line is that the desktop is old, the market is saturated, desktops have a very long lifespan compared to mobile devices and for what desktops do today, most people are simply happy with what they have. It's just a touch situation for a leader in a market that's becoming less relevant to be in with no easy answers. Perhaps is Microsoft had a stronger foothold in mobile it could allow the desktop market to slip and just keep the desktop a desktop. But even then you're talking about a huge investment in Windows desktop to simply let slip into irrelevancy, particularly on the consumer side.
Poor choice of analogy here: functional programming is not unequivocally better than imperative programming, at least with regard to current language implementations.
If a given interface is not unequivocally better than another, you have a situation whereby a person can reasonably and validly argue for the latter given their subjective preferences. If UX was ruthlessly objective, there could be no argument, but it isn't.
Windows 7's interface supports touch.
Nope. Re-evaluate your reading skills if you are going to have a discussion with me.
...to which I replied: "How can you say that it is?"
...As in, 'how can you say that it is a valid reason to criticize an OS'. Please note that through no logic is my statement equivalent to 'The interface is not fundamental'. If you're not going to make a valid attempt to read my posts before you go acting as though I am crazy or stupid, how about you don't bother replying to them at all?
...And if you would have bothered to read the thread before interjecting, you'd have noticed that prior to that I asked for evidence that the Windows 8 UI could not be used to do the same things as the Windows 7. I never stated that the Windows 8 UI is definitively, objectively better at doing the same things as Windows 7's UI. I only stated that the Windows 8 UI can do everything just as the Windows 7 UI can, and offers additional capabilities beyond that. This was in response to the claim that the Windows 8 UI was objectively worse than the Windows 7 UI.
So, 1.) We'll worry about what I asked for first, since I asked first, and 2.) You're asking for me to back up something I didn't say.
Again, if you can't be bothered to actually read, please don't bother wasting space in this thread. It's counter-productive.
You're right! "Supports" is the wrong word. It does not mean the same thing as what I was trying to articulate. In hindsight, I should have selected the word 'enhances' instead.
Not anywhere to the extent of Windows 8 and very few touch aware desktop applications have ever been developed.
I actually thought I might have misread it, but then I realized that meant you were saying that the UI is so fundamental that we NEED to keep changing it, which made even less sense than what I thought you said, so I dismissed it.
So you agree that the UI is fundamental, right? Then why is it above criticism to change it? Does that really make sense to you?
Is your stance that trying to improve something which is important is bad? If not, then by what other reasoning do you believe that change, good or bad, is reason enough to condemn something?
We were actually talking about your position, not mine. Is there a reason you are now trying to redirect the discussion to something else? Don't feel comfortable supporting your position, perhaps?
FWIW, I support attempts to improve software ( including the UI ). However, I do not support forcing changes on users. I support giving users options. If the UI change were actually better, then why not give users the option, comfortable in the knowledge that because it's better that's what they'll choose?
I already explained my position...you just seem to have difficulty with reading my posts, which is why there is so much conversational boilerplate instead of natural discussion. As I mentioned before, because the interface is such an important facet, it is not only good, but desirable to continue making strides towards better interaction. If you're not improving the most important part of the OS, then how much are you really improving the OS?