Windows 8 Consumer Preview to be released 02/29/2012

With all that void of a space around the tiles, you'd think there'd be a clock somewhere in there, without having to reach for it.
 
Tudz said:
I'm mildly interested, what is easier (from a UI perspective on a desktop computer) with touch than with a mouse/keyboard?

Personally when I've used touch screens in the past (other than on phones) the only thing I've actually used them for was for writing lecture slides, and that's simply because its easier to draw diagrams and write equations by hand than it is to photoshop images or use an equation editor like latex. Even then I would have to be using a stylus, as a finger-touch would be too imprecise for me.

I honestly don't understand the touch screen craze. I love the touch screen on my phone, because its impractically small to use a keyboard. But anything bigger than that it doesn't make sense to me other than an "oh wow that's cool!" perspective, but for day to day use, give me a keyboard and mouse thanks.
Click to expand...

to move up and down a page, instead of scrolling with a mouse wheel and scrolling scrolling... I can use my finger, give it a little push up or down and have the page move in the direction i want. I can scroll normal, if i know i need to get a ways down the page give it a fasher push and have it quickly start scrolling and tap it to stop. when using maps, it is much faster to move around via touch instead of a mouse using touch. I can zoom and rotate faster with touch.

to click through stuff, i find it much faster to just reach up and touch the screen instead of having to use the track pad, find where the cursor is and move it there to click. On both my laptop and desktop with my mouse speed i can't get accross the screen in one motion, i have to pickup my mouse or hand move it back all the way to the left or right and start the process of scrolling over again.

swipe left or right to go forwards or backwards in a web browser.

even something like copy and paste i find to be faster with touch.

There are still times though where i find the touch to be lacking and go back to the mouse. but I do like having the mix of input methods. it does all depend on what you are doing on the computer. i wouldn't try using touch to play all types of games. think it would work nice for a rts maybe, that would be about it.

Tudz said:
I was under the impression we were forced to use the metro interface as it was replacing the start menu? (not the apps, but the interface)
Click to expand...

only for the strart menu replacement yes. you still have your desktop and all that stuff there. if you don't want to use the Metro version of an app you don't need to, just use the desktop version. I rarely use the Metro version of IE 10. Have played with it some but since IE 10 doesn't like to work with all site normally just stay with the desktop "normal" version for swtiching compatiblity off and on.

rflcptr said:
With all that void of a space around the tiles, you'd think there'd be a clock somewhere in there, without having to reach for it.
Click to expand...

You get lost trying to find an app? never noticed that it doesn't have a clock, but i'm only on that screen for a few seconds at a time. If you are planning on being there that much i'm sure that there will be a app for some clock if you really want one. Still makes me think you are doing something wrong if you need a clock there.
 
Metro hides the status bar, along with a lot of useful information like network state, new emails etc. With regular windows you can easily make it non-fullscreen and multitask - e.g. I'm writing this while watching video and an rss ticker and the status of my compile. Metro apps have a very limited side mode, and you definitely can't multitask with a non-metro app.
 
I think I might be hardcore and reformat over to this once it hits, desperately craving the freshness of a reformat so I think I'll live on the edge while I'm at it.
 
Exavior said:
You get lost trying to find an app? never noticed that it doesn't have a clock, but i'm only on that screen for a few seconds at a time. If you are planning on being there that much i'm sure that there will be a app for some clock if you really want one. Still makes me think you are doing something wrong if you need a clock there.
Click to expand...

Huh? Having the time visible is useful.
 
socK said:
I think I might be hardcore and reformat over to this once it hits, desperately craving the freshness of a reformat so I think I'll live on the edge while I'm at it.
Click to expand...

Just make sure to backup. One thing that screws people up is trying to to an upgrade from a beta version, then upgrade to the final version..

if you are going to use 8 as your main OS just make sure that you can wipe it out and start over again for the new builds until it goes final.
 
I don't keep anything important on my computer, if it is, it floats up in the cloud and / or on the one downstairs so wiping shit isn't a problem
 
rflcptr said:
With all that void of a space around the tiles, you'd think there'd be a clock somewhere in there, without having to reach for it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's little things like this that make me think maybe they haven't really gotten it all figured out this time around.

I understand (and agree) with the need to make Windows more touch-screen friendly. But why automatically force normal desktop users (keyboard/mouse) to start in non-desktop mode? If there was a simple option to do that, then I'd be happy.


armandh01 said:
While I agree that there were a few major differences for the general populace (me), XP -> Win 7 had jack shit difference other than UI differences, hardware optimizations and DX11. Maybe some behind the scenes shit for people who love networking etc.
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? XP has been a dinosaur even when Vista SP1 first came out. 7 is a stupidly massive leap in terms of improvement over XP.


Tudz said:
I honestly don't understand the touch screen craze. I love the touch screen on my phone, because its impractically small to use a keyboard. But anything bigger than that it doesn't make sense to me other than an "oh wow that's cool!" perspective, but for day to day use, give me a keyboard and mouse thanks.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
Last edited:
Exavior said:
to move up and down a page, instead of scrolling with a mouse wheel and scrolling scrolling... I can use my finger, give it a little push up or down and have the page move in the direction i want. I can scroll normal, if i know i need to get a ways down the page give it a fasher push and have it quickly start scrolling and tap it to stop. when using maps, it is much faster to move around via touch instead of a mouse using touch. I can zoom and rotate faster with touch.

to click through stuff, i find it much faster to just reach up and touch the screen instead of having to use the track pad, find where the cursor is and move it there to click. On both my laptop and desktop with my mouse speed i can't get accross the screen in one motion, i have to pickup my mouse or hand move it back all the way to the left or right and start the process of scrolling over again.

swipe left or right to go forwards or backwards in a web browser.

even something like copy and paste i find to be faster with touch.
Click to expand...
Honestly, most of that stuff sounds like stuff I'd personally find either just as quick and efficient or quicker and more efficiently done with a mouse :p I'm no graphic designer, but I do a lot of CAD and I'm constantly panning, rotating, zooming, I can't imagine it ever being more efficient with touch.

Though you say you can't get across the screen in one motion? You must have sensitivity pretty low. My sensitivity isn't high by any standards and it takes me 2 and a half inches to get across my screen, even with a dual screen I find myself rarely lifting my mouse.

Honestly I still think touch is mostly over rated. For me, I can move my mouse a few inches and cover 27" worth of screen space with a cursor that is more accurate than my chunky fingers.

That's why I don't want to have to deal with an interface designed around touch, I just don't see it as "the way of the future". I also don't see a universal interface as a step forward, different input methods have different strengths and to make a universal interface which has to cater to the lowest common denominator is just silly.
 
armandh01 said:
While I agree that there were a few major differences for the general populace (me), XP -> Win 7 had jack shit difference other than UI differences, hardware optimizations and DX11. Maybe some behind the scenes shit for people who love networking etc.

I'm looking forward to Windows 8 because it is in fact very different, even to us general people.
Click to expand...

That's every UI, regardless of developer.
 
MrCrispy said:
Look at this screenshot -

2818.4_2D00_SkyDrive_2D00_mail_5F00_7891AF07.png


Do you really want this simple dialog taking up the entire screen on your 30" monitor? There's NO reason why this couldn't be a normal dialog, or why Metro apps couldn't run in a window. This is forcing a phone interface on a desktop OS.

I like Metro, its a very fresh design language that's consistent. What MS should have done is allow Metro apps to run side by side with Win32/.NET, and update the standard controls to look like Metro. Instead they've created a new ecosystem for Metro which is completely separate from the classic desktop.
Click to expand...

I get your point about the separation between classic and metro interfaces - and I agree with bridging the two into one.

It's possible, and very likely, that the next iteration of Windows after 8 will contain the system controls refresh with the Metro design. I'd imagine MS kept Metro as a self contain application so to: A) test user interaction/feeback with this release, and more importantly B) temper the waters before cutting everyone over into a vastly different UI that what users can expect.

Windows 8 will still contain pieces of the ol' Win32 desktop, which is comforting to users, yet Metro offers a new enough experience to make it alluring. I say Win 9 will be the complete overhall to the MS desktop as we know it.
 
MrCrispy said:
Look at this screenshot -

Do you really want this simple dialog taking up the entire screen on your 30" monitor? There's NO reason why this couldn't be a normal dialog, or why Metro apps couldn't run in a window. This is forcing a phone interface on a desktop OS.

I like Metro, its a very fresh design language that's consistent. What MS should have done is allow Metro apps to run side by side with Win32/.NET, and update the standard controls to look like Metro. Instead they've created a new ecosystem for Metro which is completely separate from the classic desktop.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Why would someone want their screen to look just like their phone...isn't that what their phone is for?

I really don't get the whole phone interface to desktop convergence (MS and Apple are both doing it). It's one thing to easily have your "data" between the two in sync (or 3, or 4 etc..), but why does the interface have to be that way? The whole thing seems very non-intuitive and just looks out of place.

Anyone tried the Metro UI on a multi-screen setup yet? (or does it even work)
 
Steelgrave said:
Anyone tried the Metro UI on a multi-screen setup yet? (or does it even work)
Click to expand...

My dedicated Windows 8 desktop is dual-screen and it works great. The Start Screen runs on only run screen, the same screen as Metro apps run on. You can't run Metro apps on two screens simultaneously at least in the Developer Preview.
 
MrCrispy said:
Metro hides the status bar, along with a lot of useful information like network state, new emails etc. With regular windows you can easily make it non-fullscreen and multitask - e.g. I'm writing this while watching video and an rss ticker and the status of my compile. Metro apps have a very limited side mode, and you definitely can't multitask with a non-metro app.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "can't multitask with a non-metro app". You can definitely multitask side-by-side with Traditional app and Traditional app, AND with Traditional app and Metro app. You can dock Metro Apps to the side of the screen and have the desktop take up the rest. And this was even in the developer preview. I'm sure it's been improved since then. Of course this is not even mentioning the fact that you can still flip between apps of either variety pretty easily - aka multitasking.
 
wonderfield said:
Can you, say, drag files from the desktop to a Metro app or vice-versa?
Click to expand...

I had thought i seen them do that in a video. can't say for sure. but though i seen them drag something from a Metro App to an non metro app.

Don't have a large number of choices of apps in the preview version to be able to test that with anything.
 
I sort of like the first one - seems like it'd be a neat idea to have metro running as the desktop. Reminds me alot of the old active desktop tbh.
 
My main thing about that first link...what purpose does that serve? Those are just Metro-themed desktop gadgets. If that is what he was going for than I guess I could get behind that, but I have never used a single gadget since they were introduced as a "core" feature in Vista. But other than that, how is it any different? Heavy users of the desktop will sparingly use Metro apps, and vice versa.
 
guess ill have to test drive this on my 2nd 2740p before maybe putting it on the main one (had wayyyy too many issues with Dev. Preview)
 
There is no technical reason why Metro apps are limited to fullscreen only, it's purely a design decision that ends up hurting the usability.

Those are just Metro-themed desktop gadgets
Click to expand...

Not gadgets, those are Metro apps running in a window like normal apps. It makes total sense.

Oh well, less than 20hrs left now, I plan to use it as my main OS on at least 1 pc, and maybe the laptop too. I hope there are no driver issues.
 
MrCrispy said:
Mockups of what Win 8 should've looked like -

Integrate Metro and Win32 apps - http://www.windowsitpro.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/windows8/doesnt-windows-8-141886

Full Metro redesign - http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/24/2822891/windows-desktop-ui-concept

Both of these look amazing. The 1st one in particular would solve a lot of issues and is easily doable.
Click to expand...

I believe MS is heading towards item #1. They just cannot give users that kind of jump though. It's too much of a change for standards users (not us of course :p) That's why I think they'll dabble with Metro apps now, and then do a full reskin in Win9.
 
Maybe the hype is greater than the reality but the future of the desktop is bleak in terms of regular consumer excitement. Apple announces today (odd, I would have thought they would have made the announcement tomorrow) the launch of the iPad 3 next week which should have that great display but will probably be a fairly incremental upgrade otherwise but the consumer world wants iPads. For now many consumers still need a desktop or a laptop but for how long?

Windowed Metro apps would be perceived as nothing more than another touch unfriendly version of Windows still tied to the keyboard and mouse. Metro was intentionally to be different and jarring to an extent because perception is reality. Metro HAD to break from the Windows desktop and Metro HAS to be front and center with no way to disable it.

Microsoft has to get into tablets, the desktop simply isn't as important these days even if it's not dying tomorrow.
 
heatlesssun said:
Maybe the hype is greater than the reality but the future of the desktop is bleak in terms of regular consumer excitement. Apple announces today (odd, I would have thought they would have made the announcement tomorrow) the launch of the iPad 3 next week which should have that great display but will probably be a fairly incremental upgrade otherwise but the consumer world wants iPads. For now many consumers still need a desktop or a laptop but for how long?

Windowed Metro apps would be perceived as nothing more than another touch unfriendly version of Windows still tied to the keyboard and mouse. Metro was intentionally to be different and jarring to an extent because perception is reality. Metro HAD to break from the Windows desktop and Metro HAS to be front and center with no way to disable it.

Microsoft has to get into tablets, the desktop simply isn't as important these days even if it's not dying tomorrow.
Click to expand...

While true, take IBM for example. They somewhat re-invented themselves to solely enterprise based products and I think they have a higher market cap than Microsoft does now. There is a huge market outside of the consumer world that will keep the demand for desktop systems for a long time.
 
Microsoft has the right formula with windows 8.... If they manage their OEMs right, and Intel delivers with Medfield, consumers will definitely see Win 8 as a good alternative to Apple's locked down, inflexible iOS...
 
chinesepiratefood said:
While true, take IBM for example. They somewhat re-invented themselves to solely enterprise based products and I think they have a higher market cap than Microsoft does now. There is a huge market outside of the consumer world that will keep the demand for desktop systems for a long time.
Click to expand...

I agree. But if you think about it, Microsoft's true origins are in low cost mass market CONSUMER software, the home PC. Microsoft got big in business because their products simply addressed needs there. Of course they started to focus on business when they got into servers and iPads simply can't replace Windows in business except as terminals, but even that is a threat to Windows. And it is very much driven by people bringing iPads to work with formal IT sign off.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Microsoft has the right formula with windows 8.... If they manage their OEMs right, and Intel delivers with Medfield, consumers will definitely see Win 8 as a good alternative to Apple's locked down, inflexible iOS...
Click to expand...

Trolling? iOS is mobile. I mean I guess technically Windows 8 is mobile too, but they're both pretty different and built to do different things.

Anyway, can't wait to see the consumer preview.


chinesepiratefood said:
This looks very good: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/improvements-mouse-keyboard-navigation-142337
Click to expand...

Whoa, now that's what I'm talking about. Windows 8 is looking much better. Can't wait to try this out.
 
Last edited:
My mind is blown. This is quite possibly the worse thing Microsoft has ever done to windows bar none. Microsoft Bob is a triumph of creativity compared to Windows 8.

I will lay hard money down to all takers, this will go down as an even bigger flop than Vista.

The Microsoft board meeting went like this.

Steve Ballmer
Apple and Google are making bank on their marketplaces. Dammit why cant we do this?

Board Member #1
Because nobody will buy our phones.

Steve Ballmer
Oh SNAP, I know how we can force everybody to use our Marketplace!!!

Your forced to tie your login with Windows Live, NOT BECAUSE ITS A BETA, ITS BECAUSE THEY WANT YOU TO USE WINDOWS MARKETPLACE.
 
So just installed it. Can switch between desktop and tile view, but in tile view nothing is working?..Tiles just expand but dont "run"...anyone else?

Ok some tiles are working. To bad you have to have a microsoft "account" to use mail, contacts ect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top