Windows 8 helping me sell sell sell.

[heatlesssun]

The market is flowing in another direction and MS like most big companies better answer and go with the flow if they can't control it. Someone at MS has figured out that they need to reinvent themselves and go a different path. I applaud what MS has created and think it will be more of a hit then most [H]er's think it will be.

Well stated and I agree with everything you said here. But this is the point that's most important in all of it. The desktop in the consumer space has simply flat lined and where else can Microsoft or anyone else take the desktop that would actually make it more appealing to consumers?

The desktop is great, it's not going anywhere but it's a mature market that's just not going to grow like smart phones and tablets. If Windows can't make the transition to mobile and touch it will simply become irrelevant and uninteresting to consumers.

 

[XOR != OR]

Well stated and I agree with everything you said here. But this is the point that's most important in all of it. The desktop in the consumer space has simply flat lined and where else can Microsoft or anyone else take the desktop that would actually make it more appealing to consumers?

The desktop is great, it's not going anywhere but it's a mature market that's just not going to grow like smart phones and tablets. If Windows can't make the transition to mobile and touch it will simply become irrelevant and uninteresting to consumers.

It's disingenuous to say they need to change the desktop to attract users to their mobile strategy.

I do agree that they need to unify their architectures, so apps have the options of running on the various MS platforms, but I disagree this means a radical modification of the desktop.

As I've said prior; these are, essentially, three different platforms ( phone, tablet, desktop ) with three distinct usage profiles. You can't shoehorn one product to fit all three profiles; you will inevitably alienate different market segments. Which is why I have issue with Windows 8. Well, partially. The only part is I'm going to have to develop all NEW support procedures....again...because of another "change the GUI for no good reason". My users don't really care about the GUI, they care about getting their work done. No gui change since 2000 ( at least ) has enabled them to be more productive. Rather, all they've done is introduce a "relearning" period, where productivity goes down.

 

[heatlesssun]

I'll never use touch on the desktop its physically impossible. I never ever touch my screen cause I don't like to see finger prints when I use my computer. Also holding your arm out for long periods of time is just not comfortable and can lead to back issues. Touch has uses outside of business, but I would quit a job that told me here's the screen you have to touch all day. People talk of post PC like touch is going to replace the mouse. Totally crazy stuff like that.

My screen is not even in touch distance and if I had a larger screen it would be even further away.

Windows 8 brings nothing radical to the desktop, it does for tablets but that's it. And you wonder why so many are complaining.

Even today most devices running Windows are laptops, those screens are easily touched and you don't have to touch exclusively, touch can be used with keyboards, mice and pens simultaneously. I often find it easier to just tap a button than reposition the mouse on my convertible tablets.

And when it comes to desktops size screens, we don't have to always be thinking of a conventional PC setting with up upright monitor. Kiosks, work and game table surfaces like Windows Surface are possible.

As for bringing radical change to the desktop. Well if people can't handle Metro I don't think that radical change to the desktop would be any better received.

 

[heatlesssun]

It's disingenuous to say they need to change the desktop to attract users to their mobile strategy.

Why is that disingenuous? Clearly Apple and Google have a huge, possible overwhelming lead in the mobile space. Microsoft needs an angle and again the desktop market has flat lined.

 

[Galvin]

No...just no. When you install acronis (or any other program) it will have a shortcut (or perhaps 29 shortcuts, one thing that I dislike) already pinned to the start screen, making it accessible in 2 clicks. If you remove its tile then its an additional 2 clicks to get the all apps, or you could simply search for it (far superior). And navigating through the All programs structure in Windows 7 is very clunky at best.

Start - > right click some place on screen -> Click all apps -> click button on bottom right.
Thats 4 clicks and ton more mouse movement than getting to the start menu in windows 7. The mouse movement just makes it more uncomfortable.

Now maybe just maybe if I could do start -> click util -> click acronis -> click true image home it would be better. Like I said I have too many programs to keep them all on one screen to click.

I have around 600 shortcuts, I just have too many utility programs to pin them to somebar and I don't use all of them everyday. The all apps is just a mess. The windows 8 I'm running in a VM has around 59 shortcuts that's 1/10th how many shortcuts I have, its harder to visually navigate. How on earth do you think that mess is easier to navigate than using a folder structure.

Sure you can create groups on the main start, and slide left and right, but still way more navigational work.

heres a pic of my util start menu. Its small easy to navigate, don't have to move my mouse just wheel down/up and click. In metro start that would be spread across 90 shortcuts.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc28/Teyasio/Win7Start_Util.jpg

 

[XOR != OR]

Why is that disingenuous? Clearly Apple and Google have a huge, possible overwhelming lead in the mobile space. Microsoft needs an angle and again the desktop market has flat lined.

Because...

As I've said prior; these are, essentially, three different platforms ( phone, tablet, desktop ) with three distinct usage profiles. You can't shoehorn one product to fit all three profiles; you will inevitably alienate different market segments. Which is why I have issue with Windows 8. Well, partially. The only part is I'm going to have to develop all NEW support procedures....again...because of another "change the GUI for no good reason". My users don't really care about the GUI, they care about getting their work done. No gui change since 2000 ( at least ) has enabled them to be more productive. Rather, all they've done is introduce a "relearning" period, where productivity goes down.

I'm not arguing that MS doesn't need a viable mobile strategy. Nor am I arguing that Windows8 for mobile devices is a bad move. Where I have issues is the forcing of the gui on the desktop. That is not necessary for a successful mobile strategy, and in fact they risk upsetting their desktop stability with the attempt. But even that wouldn't bother me, except I have to support end users ( or rather, any more, develop the policies to support end users ). The gui changes don't add anything to the user experience as relevant to any business I know of. Like Office2007, users perceive these GUI changes to be changes "just because", and thus resist them. And I've got nothing to offer them beyond "well, you might think it's prettier".

 

[zero2dash]

Even though tablets are proving to be more than the fad net books were, traditional desktop apps are not really going to go anywhere in the near future. Metro or no metro. I think that tablets are here to stay, however their use is going to remain limited for some time simply due to lack of power for more than the most rudimentary creation.

Agreed.

Using a tablet with stylus as an input device for a real PC makes all kind of sense for photo shop and the like.

WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree.
Until someone crams a quad core processor (or higher) and 8GB+ of allocatable (?) useful memory into a tablet running a variant of Windows, then I'll keep on keeping my Kindle Fire tablet and my desktop Windows & Photoshop experiences separate.

Input tablets are great. I love using our Wacom Graphire4 in Photoshop. However, the fact is - it's still connected to my desktop computer running Windows on a glorious 27" LCD. I'm not looking for an all in one. Our Kindle Fire has it's uses, but Photoshop is not and will never be (IMHO) one of them.

Tablet devices (such as the Fire, the iPads, the Tab etc) all have uses, however they'll never replace a desktop, at least not to anyone who is a serious user. They're ok for firing off a quick email or updating Facebook, but I'll be damned if I ever try to do anything out of Creative Suite on a tablet. Not anything with a mouse, not anything with massive amounts of type like a 16pg InDesign spread.

The fact that the real computer could, and likely will, eventually exist only in the cloud makes it even more likely that tablets will stick around.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with this.
Until ISP downtime is at 0%, I still see nothing but novelty in anything cloud related.
Granted, my scope is narrow....but I don't see any desktop users ditching their fully working MSO2k7 or MSO2k10 just to fart around with Office Live (or whatever the hell they're calling it now)....just because. The cloud idea still has the same problems it always has.....if your internet access is interrupted in any capacity, your access to the cloud no longer exists. ISP's and broadband outages have come a long way since I first got DSL using TCP/IP (before PPPoE)....but the fact is, shit still goes down from time to time. In that regard - I will continue seeing cloud "solutions" as nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[heatlesssun]

Because...

I'm not arguing that MS doesn't need a viable mobile strategy. Nor am I arguing that Windows8 for mobile devices is a bad move. Where I have issues is the forcing of the gui on the desktop. That is not necessary for a successful mobile strategy, and in fact they risk upsetting their desktop stability with the attempt. But even that wouldn't bother me, except I have to support end users ( or rather, any more, develop the policies to support end users ). The gui changes don't add anything to the user experience as relevant to any business I know of. Like Office2007, users perceive these GUI changes to be changes "just because", and thus resist them. And I've got nothing to offer them beyond "well, you might think it's prettier".

If the desktop market weren't flat lining you'd have more of a point, but the bottom line is that Windows is headed for irrelevancy in the consumer space. As for forcing the change, Windows has never been about different core UIs out of the box. I would imagine that 3rd party tools will become popular with some folks be as with Office 2007 I think most users will adapt and some will appreciate the changes in Windows 8 and those will balance out the ones that don't like it, everyone else will just accept it and then Windows has a way to move forward on platforms it couldn't before.

And at another level a controversial change is something that Windows probably needs. The Windows desktop old and boring to most folks. Everyone's talking about the iPad and smart phones and stupid little apps. Microsoft needed to find something to at least get Windows back into the tech conversation as much as anything.

It's not change for the sake of change, it's change for the sake of Windows' survival and relevancy in a world that now has more options for computing that it did just a few years ago.

 

[marcusj3000]

I'll never use touch on the desktop its physically impossible. I never ever touch my screen cause I don't like to see finger prints when I use my computer. Also holding your arm out for long periods of time is just not comfortable and can lead to back issues. Touch has uses outside of business, but I would quit a job that told me here's the screen you have to touch all day. People talk of post PC like touch is going to replace the mouse. Totally crazy stuff like that.

My screen is not even in touch distance and if I had a larger screen it would be even further away.

Windows 8 brings nothing radical to the desktop, it does for tablets but that's it. And you wonder why so many are complaining.

You fail to see what MS is doing they are creative a unified OS that works across multiple devices and ecosystems. I thought touch on a desktop was physically impossible, but the fact is you don't use touch all the time on the desktop unless it's your choice too. A lot of the complains you listed is a direct fault of how your set up your computer space. I don't lean forward and have to do all these manipulations just to get stuff done in my computer room at home.

If you look in my sig I have a touchscreen desktop monitor. I don't hold my arm's up all day touching it, it just cuts half the things I do with the mouse out. I don't have to hold the mouse and click, click , click anymore. I surf the web I want to go to the previous screen I don't grab the mouse, drag cursor to back button, and click to go back. Nope I just take one finger and slide it to the right and I'm back to the previous web page. Just the opposite to go forward.

Double click to open....nope I just tap one time. The keyboard is still a top notch handy device so I use it. But the mouse just doesn't get much use unless it's a game now. For the regular consumer that just doesn't play PC games and just surfs playing click games on Facebook which is a lot, a touch screen monitor could replace the mouse sorry to say.

Just because people might have a touchscreen monitor doesn't mean people will just ditch the keyboard and mouse all together. I say the keyboard will stay but the mouse might go if it goes mainstream. [H]er's Windows 8 is what Microsoft had to deliver to this new market which is something simple that just works for consumers.

Yeah consumers are going to be mad and throw fits like some here that Microsoft has went away from the classic UI but after some use they will figure out it is simply simple to use and navigate. Most will forget that the desktop is still there behind the metro UI. They will pin apps, programs on metro and treat it just like a android or apple smartphone I bet.

 

[zero2dash]

If the desktop market weren't flat lining you'd have more of a point, but the bottom line is that Windows is headed for irrelevancy in the consumer space.

Granted, I would estimate that portable computing devices (namely tablets, but also laptops) are probably selling more than desktops at this point in time.....however I don't think I'd say that "the desktop market is flat lining". Flatlining implies no pulse; in this regard, no sales. Again - portables may sell better now, but that doesn't mean that sales of desktops have ceased to exist. As for "heading for irrelevancy", couldn't the same be said for any desktop OS at this point? Who really stands around the watercooler talking about an OS anymore, let alone a desktop-level one? I can see some chatter maybe about ICS, but otherwise - who's talking about OS's and why do you think they should be?

Seems like most people are comfortable with their computers as they are. Why change that? I remember all the chatter about how Macs "just work" and how that was the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet all the sudden, now that's unacceptable? Huh?

My computers are fairly reliable, at least as reliable as anything connected to the internet. Just like our cars. Reliable. But now there's an idea, somewhere, that.....forget the reliability, let's start reinventing the wheel and making unnecessary changes, just because? Sorry.....I'm not joining that party anytime soon. When I want to fuck around on the computer, I do it in a virtual machine. I'm not about to start doing reformats and clean installs just to tinker with the new version of a desktop GUI.

And at another level a controversial change is something that Windows probably needs. The Windows desktop old and boring to most folks.

Wasn't that Vista? Or hell, 7? Explorer was stagnant from 95 to XP; now they've tweaked that twice.

 

[XOR != OR]

If the desktop market weren't flat lining you'd have more of a point, but the bottom line is that Windows is headed for irrelevancy in the consumer space. As for forcing the change, Windows has never been about different core UIs out of the box. I would imagine that 3rd party tools will become popular with some folks be as with Office 2007 I think most users will adapt and some will appreciate the changes in Windows 8 and those will balance out the ones that don't like it, everyone else will just accept it and then Windows has a way to move forward on platforms it couldn't before.

And at another level a controversial change is something that Windows probably needs. The Windows desktop old and boring to most folks. Everyone's talking about the iPad and smart phones and stupid little apps. Microsoft needed to find something to at least get Windows back into the tech conversation as much as anything.

It's not change for the sake of change, it's change for the sake of Windows' survival and relevancy in a world that now has more options for computing that it did just a few years ago.

You're doing it again; Desktop and mobile experiences are not linked. There is no inherent requirement that they be connected. I agree that you make the same core, but then you build out the GUI to match your usage profiles for specific devices.

Not tell everyone that they really only want one GUI (or pay people to tell others for them ).

 

[marcusj3000]

You're doing it again; Desktop and mobile experiences are not linked. There is no inherent requirement that they be connected. I agree that you make the same core, but then you build out the GUI to match your usage profiles for specific devices.

Not tell everyone that they really only want one GUI (or pay people to tell others for them ).

Your wrong they are all linked. As time has shown computing has gotten smaller and more mobile. If their wasn't linked what was the purpose of the laptop or the tablet. To provide a mobile computing experience away from the desktop. Desktop was created and then people saw a need to be able to do the same work but not be tied to a desktop...hence the laptop was born.

Just like the desktop but smaller and mobile. Then the laptop was too big in some instances and the tablet was born to shrink the same concept down to a smaller even more mobile version.

It is technological evolution of the PC right before your eyes. MS is making a one size fits all OS just like they should. They don't have to tailor it to an single individuals liking. They make it to appeal to the broader consumer base...which [H]er's seem to not get that it is not them.

Some of you don't get it at all. They are making this and here is your choice....to buy it or not to buy it....there it is. Don't act spoiled, try to trash it, and ruin the experience of it for others because it doesn't suit your needs and others like it. I'll reserve how well it does when it comes out, sold for about a month or two, and the devices that go with it.

 

[XOR != OR]

Your wrong they are all linked. As time has shown computing has gotten smaller and more mobile. If their wasn't linked what was the purpose of the laptop or the tablet. To provide a mobile computing experience away from the desktop. Desktop was created and then people saw a need to be able to do the same work but not be tied to a desktop...hence the laptop was born.

Just like the desktop but smaller and mobile. Then the laptop was too big in some instances and the tablet was born to shrink the same concept down to a smaller even more mobile version.

It is technological evolution of the PC right before your eyes. MS is making a one size fits all OS just like they should. They don't have to tailor it to an single individuals liking. They make it to appeal to the broader consumer base...which [H]er's seem to not get that it is not them.

Some of you don't get it at all. They are making this and here is your choice....to buy it or not to buy it....there it is. Don't act spoiled, try to trash it, and ruin the experience of it for others because it doesn't suit your needs and others like it. I'll reserve how well it does when it comes out, sold for about a month or two, and the devices that go with it.

Your post completely ignores a critical component of my argument ( which everyone pro-8 seems to be ignoring. Which is telling ): The different devices have different usage profiles. I don't use my phone in the same way I use my laptop/desktop. I don't use my tablet the same way I use my phone, and certainly not in the same way I use my desktop.

Each device is used differently. You can't force feed the same interface on all three and get desirable results.

Yes, mobile devices are the new hotness. I get that. Microsoft needs to address this new hotness. I get that too. Where that argument falls apart is where MS dictates that I will use my desktop like my phone. Or, more accurately, where they tell my end users that. As I said earlier; I don't really care for myself. I'm flexible and can ( and have ) use whatever. But I do have to support end users, and that's where my complaints stem from.

 

[heatlesssun]

You're doing it again; Desktop and mobile experiences are not linked.

And to me there's no reason why they can't if applications are designed with both in mind. Not all applications would lend themselves to this most most can. One very simple but interesting example of how applications can be smart is Angry Birds. I just got Space for the PC and that is an game that scales and adapts very well to different hardware and input devices. Works with a mouse, touch and even a pen and even scales across three monitors and it's not even a Metro app, just a plain old Windows desktop app.

The notion that a UI or program can only work with keyboards and mice and can only work with touch is simply the way people have been trained. When Windows 8 launches with Office 15 you should see an excellent example of a complex productivity suite that works will across devices and yes, still a desktop app. But Metro will provide the same capabilities to write multi-form factor applications that work with different input devices.

 

[Galvin]

If microsoft is so bent on people using metro. Then how come they didn't make metro start so when you right click a tile it pops up a menu at the mouse cursor. Why does it make you have to move the mouse all the way to the bottom of the screen and click there. Why didn't they allow folder tiles on the start menu so you don't have to have your many apps spread across several screens of tiles. If you're screen is small this isn't an issue. I use a 24" screen, and some use even larger than that which leads to more mouse movement.

And the answer is touch support is 99% and mouse support is an after thought. Maybe third party can hack the metro start to add these things I mentioned. I like my stuff organized I don't want all my stuff spread across many screens it just makes it harder to find stuff you don't use all the time. And search isn't always an option cause you may not remember the exact spelling.

Also there is no reason for start to waste a 24" screen in space when using a mouse. It could be 1/2 the size of your screen and still be fully functional. But there is no option to change the size of metro.

People that have no issues with start are probably people that use nothing but 10 different programs and that's it. For those people having 10 links on start is comfortable. But for people like my self I don't just consume, I do create.

There's things MS could change to metro start without requiring them to spend 100s of hours to make it work better for the mouse.

 

[heatlesssun]

Why does it make you have to move the mouse all the way to the bottom of the screen and click there.

But isn't this EXACTLY how the Start Menu works today?

 

[Galvin]

But isn't this EXACTLY how the Start Menu works today?

Yup but once you move the mouse down to the corner, you rarely have to move it much after that to launch a program.

When I was working in metro start organizing stuff trying to use it to get a feel for it. One frustrating thing was having to keep moving to the bottom of the screen to access a menu. I think a lot of people will modify metro start thru explorer cause its just slower to do it thru metro directly.

 

[marcusj3000]

Your post completely ignores a critical component of my argument ( which everyone pro-8 seems to be ignoring. Which is telling ): The different devices have different usage profiles. I don't use my phone in the same way I use my laptop/desktop. I don't use my tablet the same way I use my phone, and certainly not in the same way I use my desktop.

Each device is used differently. You can't force feed the same interface on all three and get desirable results.

Yes, mobile devices are the new hotness. I get that. Microsoft needs to address this new hotness. I get that too. Where that argument falls apart is where MS dictates that I will use my desktop like my phone. Or, more accurately, where they tell my end users that. As I said earlier; I don't really care for myself. I'm flexible and can ( and have ) use whatever. But I do have to support end users, and that's where my complaints stem from.

The overall build / foundation of the OS will remain the same across the devices. The functionality / capabilities of the OS will be different because of the devices limitations most here should know that. You get what I'm saying...the look and feel should be know different across the devices, the capabilities will be defined by the devices itself the OS is installed on.

You are getting look and feel mixed up with functionality. The desktop will not be a phone or vice versa. It may have some of the capabilities a phone (like to run the apps made for phones) has but it will not be one.

Some of you have bashed it so much that you fail to see the difference and from a lack of use don't know that the other weird innovations was just Microsoft bridging the digital divided of devices.

If you really know your end users you would know that they would have problems regardless if it was metro or not. So end user support will remain the same, you will answer the same problems and teach them how to use a computer once again.

Yes each devices has a different user profile but does it matter to the OS? Nope. Desktop it acts like an OS. Laptop acts like OS. If you have a touchscreen like me it still acts like a desktop nothing changes except I can tap the screen and you can't.

I have read the complaints about the tiles but what do others see that I don't? I see a desktop with icons.... yeah it doesn't have the start menu but I didn't like the start button that much anyway. When I click the tile it acts like an icon and launches the program so to me they are icons.

The fascination with the start button is weird to me, so I'll just let people stay infatuated with it.

Once again just because it will have the same build quality doesn't mean the functionality be the same on every device.

 

[marcusj3000]

If microsoft is so bent on people using metro. Then how come they didn't make metro start so when you right click a tile it pops up a menu at the mouse cursor. Why does it make you have to move the mouse all the way to the bottom of the screen and click there. Why didn't they allow folder tiles on the start menu so you don't have to have your many apps spread across several screens of tiles. If you're screen is small this isn't an issue. I use a 24" screen, and some use even larger than that which leads to more mouse movement.

And the answer is touch support is 99% and mouse support is an after thought. Maybe third party can hack the metro start to add these things I mentioned. I like my stuff organized I don't want all my stuff spread across many screens it just makes it harder to find stuff you don't use all the time. And search isn't always an option cause you may not remember the exact spelling.

Also there is no reason for start to waste a 24" screen in space when using a mouse. It could be 1/2 the size of your screen and still be fully functional. But there is no option to change the size of metro.

People that have no issues with start are probably people that use nothing but 10 different programs and that's it. For those people having 10 links on start is comfortable. But for people like my self I don't just consume, I do create.

There's things MS could change to metro start without requiring them to spend 100s of hours to make it work better for the mouse.

I bolded the part you need to read back to yourself. [H]er's you are not the mainstream consumer. Ask yourself what is the typical screen size of a PC someone buys from a store? Does the mainstream consumer build there own PC? Most consumers don't have 24" and above screens. Most don't have tri-screen setups.

You screen size is your preference and everybody knows the bigger the screen the more real estate your mouse has to travel. Most of you here try your best to act like the average consumer but it's fail because you can't. The average consumer requirements are well lower that what most on here do. And there have been some content creators that have already posted that have said they don't see what the big deal is on some of these complaints and I'm one of them.

 

[heatlesssun]

Yup but once you move the mouse down to the corner, you rarely have to move it much after that to launch a program.

If you do have a lot of programs installed the Start Menu isn't necessarily faster though, there's a lot a scrolling and clicking in folders. Really it's much faster to just use the keyboard and type. If this is how one launched not so common stuff there's really zero difference in speed between the Start Screen and Start Menu.

One thing I do agree with though are folders however folders are eschewed be design in Metro and this is a case where I can see touch considerations taking the lead over keyboards and mice. And the Start Screen does need a lot of manual management though I really don't know how that really can be solved. One thing that it's actually very nice about the Start Screen is that an app can add tiles to the Start Screen and pointers back into the app. The Kindle app for instance will put a tile on the Start Screen as a bookmark for every book one is reading. It would be cool if somehow a tile could be assigned to go into a specific group so any Kindle bookmarks go in the Kindle group, Office documents go in the Office Document group, etc. Desktop apps would at the very least build a top level group that corresponds to the folder that they put on the Start Menu. These changes would address the biggest issue I have with the Start Screen.

But this is still a beta and while I don't expect drastic changes there will be more tweaks for mice and keyboards, much of the focus from the DP to CP did actually add a good deal of usability to keyboards and mice.

 

[Galvin]

Larger screens are really cheap now. So I see more and more people getting larger ones. Its also easier on the eyes using a 24" vs a 12". Tablets are good for mobility you're on the train to work. But when at home who would want to strain their eyes on an 8" or 12" screen when you could use a 24" or larger screen.

Problem with metro unlike the desktop is you can't customize it at all except maybe change some color and stuff. If you could customize it to the way you use your computer there be less issues.

Anyway we'll never agree, I just find metro takes more mouse movement to navigate and wastes screen space. And I think third party apps will address these issues. If a win7 start menu can be hacked into win8 I'm sure metro can be hacked just as easy to add features to it make it more desktop friendly.

 

[heatlesssun]

It's pretty clear that no matter what kinds of changes Microsoft makes to Windows, there's always going to those who will hate them and those who will love them and historically those two groups have tended to cancel each other out and the average person just adapts with not a lot of trouble. I have no idea if this will be the case with Windows 8 but as much as people say that Microsoft isn't listening, you can bet that they are listening very intently and that internally Microsoft debated and argued over Metro in Windows as much as we see on the Internet, perhaps more so as there's a LOT at stake for Microsoft as a company and as individuals. There isn't a person on the planet that isn't more heavily invested in the success of Windows 8 than Steven Sinofsky, even more so than Ballmer. If Windows 8 is a hit it's more than likely that Sinofsky will be the next Microsoft CEO. If Windows 8 is a flop, well both he and Ballmer are done. They are not doing Metro capriciously and without a lot thought and soul searching.

If Windows 8 is a flop, Microsoft is headed for a long and slow decline. The desktop has simply past it's prime as that market is already in decline. The desktop is great, keyboards and mice are great, but they are simply old things. The consumer world is now obsessed with devices like the iPad. No one waits in line to buy a laptop unless it's on sale for cheap. Who talks about desktop programs anymore? It's all about tablets and apps. Microsoft has no choice but to get into this market and it's most powerful means of doing so is Windows and indeed if Windows doesn't adapt to new form factors and input devices it's days will be numbered and while still widely used it will simply become the things than moms and dads use for work. Yes, work is important, but that doesn't excite consumers.

And everyday there's more and more about tablets being used for work, just saw an article about doing taxes on the iPad. Yeah, why the hell would someone want to do that? But, yet there it is, people want to do more and more mundane and work related stuff on tablets, devices that really aren't well suited for the task but yet it excites and interests people.

So yes, we will disagree but it's hard to ignore the just how enamored the world is with tablets and smart phones in general and the iPad in particular and the desktop continues to be of practically no interest to the general public. Consumers simply have no passion for keyboards and mice and they want something else now. If Microsoft turns off some users and at the same time can turn on more and generate excitement and interest in Windows again, that's an excellent trade and one that Sinofsky and Ballmer are betting their careers, legacy and the future of Microsoft on.

 

[Monkey34]

There is nothing in Windows 8 that yells "I have to have this!". The sad truth is, the masses will use it because it will come pre-installed on the OEM they buy, and that's the only reason. Period.

 

[Gorankar]

lol at desktop/laptop market in decline. Reached saturation, with the majority of sales being replacements, yes. Decline, no.

Tablets are primarily a supplimental device to the laptop/pc. Not a replacement. More people will own PC/laptops for the concievable future than will own tablets. An order of magnatude more than will own them over Win 8 tablets.

It is laughable that a touch interface is somehow required on a non touch device. Using the lame excuse that the tablet market is growing faster than the saturated PC/laptop market strains belief even though the faster growth part is true. There is some crossover, but these are two seperate markets. Two separate devices, withe two separate ways of doing things. There is no benefit to the pc user by trying to force the lopsided oval peg of Metro into the square hole that is the pc.

 

[Veilrap]

There is nothing in Windows 8 that yells "I have to have this!". The sad truth is, the masses will use it because it will come pre-installed on the OEM they buy, and that's the only reason. Period.

What about all the [H] users who have it installed already? Did they get it pre-installed on their new machines?

 

[heatlesssun]

lol at desktop/laptop market in decline. Reached saturation, with the majority of sales being replacements, yes. Decline, no.

Tablets are primarily a supplimental device to the laptop/pc. Not a replacement. More people will own PC/laptops for the concievable future than will own tablets. An order of magnatude more than will own them over Win 8 tablets.

It is laughable that a touch interface is somehow required on a non touch device. Using the lame excuse that the tablet market is growing faster than the saturated PC/laptop market strains belief even though the faster growth part is true. There is some crossover, but these are two seperate markets. Two separate devices, withe two separate ways of doing things. There is no benefit to the pc user by trying to force the lopsided oval peg of Metro into the square hole that is the pc.

Well if you look at most PC makers and their profit margins on PCs and unit growth, flat and/or declining.

As for the mix of form factors, there are going to tons of Windows 8 laptops with touch screens. The thing that many people are missing with Windows 8 is that this is perhaps of the first release of Windows that has new hardware in mind. Much of the point of Windows is for people to buy new hardware and help out struggling OEMs..

As for tablets and desktop/laptops being different markets, it certainly seems like plenty of people are either eschewing desktops and laptops in favor of tablets and are trying to do more and more content creation and work on them. These markets aren't nearly as different as you make them out to be especially from an average consumer standpoint.

 

[mrjones]

One would think that the OS would be smart enough to differentiate between a touch based device and not , so it would automatically choose the proper (UI or GUI ?) interface at start up.
Giant square boxes compared to one inch icons ? (pretty funny)
I have no problem with Win8 especially that it's free right now (used the Vista and Win7 beta forever) just waiting for Radeon 7850 drivers.
Will M$/Windows please let me make my own icons like in OSX ....... please.

 

[heatlesssun]

One would think that the OS would be smart enough to differentiate between a touch based device and not , so it would automatically choose the proper (UI or GUI ?) interface at start up.

It's not as straightforward as this. Touch, pen, keyboard and mouse aren't mutually exclusive, all can be used simultaneously on devices that support these input devices and there's going to a ton of new Windows 8 hardware with touch devices.

Touch is now a core part of Windows which is as it has to be.

 

[mrjones]

"It's not as straightforward as this. Touch, pen, keyboard and mouse aren't mutually exclusive"

It couldn't just detect what kind of screen one is using ?

 

[Arainach]

"It's not as straightforward as this. Touch, pen, keyboard and mouse aren't mutually exclusive"

It couldn't just detect what kind of screen one is using ?

Where does a Wacom tablet fit in here? How about an external touch device like Apple's Magic Mouse?

Besides: Having a different UI show up depending on factors is an awful idea. It will confuse users to no end and dramatically complicate support.

 

[Gorankar]

Touch interfaces are here to stay. Not denying that. But the Metro UI is NOT a good match for KB&M. Eliminating the Start menu in the hopes that it will get people used to the Metro UI, and that being used to that UI, people will gravitate towards Win 8 tablets, is not doing the user base that will actually being using Win8 any service. The fantasy that tablets will be the replacement for desktops and laptops this generation not withstanding. Oh, and Win8 will never be the top tablet OS. Maybe Win9 or 10 have a slim chance, but not Win8. There is simply not that much on an ARM tablet that Win 8 is likely to do better than iOS, or Android. OO for Android works fine for consumption purposes, and there are numerous good, and getting better options for RDP on Android as well. The entrenchment that has all but sealed desktop linux's fate, and ensure MS dominance on the PC, is already present, and in Android and iOS's favor. Google purchased Motorola to insure MS and Apple could not just force them out as well.

Just like Turbo tax or some other software not working on nix makes people avoid it, people that buy a Win8 phone, and then try to get their paid Android apps on it, will likely toss a fit, and take the thing back for an Android, because the Wobble Boobies software that they paid $.99 for does not work on Win8.

 

[heatlesssun]

One thing you're not taking into account is new non-tablet Windows 8 hardware that will have touch screens. I'd bet easily half of all new Windows 8 laptops and even desktops will have touch screens. Right now in retail this almost already the case with Windows 8 all in one desktop computers, many if most of those Windows 7 devices have touch screens today.

And then there are Intel Atom tablets and while Atom devices, especially Atom tablets historically have chugged the new ones I think are going to surprise most people. Here's Intel's general specs on them: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-5...et-checklist-goes-public/?tag=mncol;cnetRiver

Some very interesting stuff here, we're looking very much a devices that fall in line physically and in terms of battery life to the iPad, not current Windows Atom tablets. And with so much attention paid to Metro few people are actually looking at the numbers and performance characteristics of Windows 8 and from what I'm hearing it is much faster on Atom tablets than Windows 7, even in the desktop. And most Metro apps will run just fine on Atom devices.

I just don't think people are understanding the hardware aspect to Windows 8. New hardware is perhaps the most critical ingredient to the success of Windows 8. I've never seen Microsoft or OEMs put so much attention on the subject of hardware and that's a direct result of the pressure of the iPad on PC OEMs and the flat lining of PC sales. OEMs desperately need to get people to buy more PCs and it's not just about faster CPUs and bigger hard drives this time but touch screens, something that relatively few Windows devices have today.

So this notion that touch is only for Windows 8 tablets really won't be the case, most new Windows 8 devices will have touch screens and much improved trackpads that will make them more Mac like.

 

[Gorankar]

The notion that touch will be used on regular PC's as much as it is used on tablets and phones is likely erroneous. Yes, touch screens are becoming more common, but I believe touch will remain a secondary interface to the mouse. None of this stuff is really new either. Touch never took off b4 because it was inferior in more ways than it was superior to the mouse, as well as the mouse being considerably cheaper. Now that the price is more reasonable, it will become a supplement to the mouse, in the same way tablets are becoming a supplement to the PC/laptop.
A lot of people are going to prefer to use the traditional interface, and Metro offers zero benefit when used with a mouse. None of the new WinRT apps will require Metro outside of MS forced requirements to push the UI. Many, if not most, people will not use touch as their primary method of controlling the PC during the 2 - 4 years that Win8 is the primary MS OS. Besides, it hurts nothing to give us the ability to turn off something we have no use for.

What is really screwed up, is that Win8 actually has a bunch of, imho, beneficial changes compared to Win7. Almost nobody is talking about them, because of the bone head move of forcing Metro and removal of the start menu. I really have little bad to say about Win8, except for MS attempting to force Metro, and a few other niggles that may be worked out prior to launch. I am fine with them including Metro, but let me have a start menu, and the option of a traditional log on. I have little interest in all of the touch centric stuff that I will not likely use until such a time that they make a touch monitor that does not show prints, and is better than my current ZR24w monitors, for a similar price.

There is a difference between Metro detractors, and defenders.
The detractors don't mind if the defenders have Metro, but the defenders seem dead set against the detractors having a start menu.

 

[Eman D. Rahym]

I don't think anyone is arguing that touch will be the sole way of interacting with a PC, but that touch will certainly become another way of interacting with PCs. Already I'm seeing AIOs in stores that have touch screens on them. I would be astonished if there isn't a wave of touch screen laptops as well after Windows 8 ships.

While Metro may not be beneficial to you, that doesn't mean it's not beneficial at all. I have relatives (some, not all) who actively avoid the Start Menu because mousing through it is such a chore for them. They simply lack the fine motor control to move a mouse through the motions needed to navigate it. They also lack the patience and dedication to bother learning. They have all thought the Start Screen an improvement.

I disagree that defenders of Metro are dead set against a Start Menu. I just think that the lack of a Start Menu is not a sufficient reason to dismiss the rest of Windows 8. There are third party apps that restore the Start Menu functionality to Windows 8. Why not try one of those? In a different thread I've posted a way to create a toolbar that points to your Start Menu folder so that you can have a hierarchical menu to access the programs in it. It's not a Start Menu, but it's better than nothing.

I think Windows 8 has a lot of cool stuff in it that no one is talking about. To me it seems that the detractors are only posting to say they will never use Windows 8 because there is no Start Menu. Full stop. End of discussion. It's pretty hard to discuss Windows 8 with folks who say they will never use it and will buy a Mac instead.

It's too bad that so many folks have such negative feelings about Windows 8. On the other hand, it is what it is. Microsoft has been clear for months now that this is the next version of Windows. The Start Menu is gone. Holding our collective breath isn't going to bring it back. Maybe folks could start talking about ways they've adapted their work flows to meet the new reality?

 

[Arainach]

The notion that touch will be used on regular PC's as much as it is used on tablets and phones is likely erroneous. Yes, touch screens are becoming more common, but I believe touch will remain a secondary interface to the mouse. None of this stuff is really new either. Touch never took off b4 because it was inferior in more ways than it was superior to the mouse, as well as the mouse being considerably cheaper. Now that the price is more reasonable, it will become a supplement to the mouse, in the same way tablets are becoming a supplement to the PC/laptop.
A lot of people are going to prefer to use the traditional interface, and Metro offers zero benefit when used with a mouse. None of the new WinRT apps will require Metro outside of MS forced requirements to push the UI. Many, if not most, people will not use touch as their primary method of controlling the PC during the 2 - 4 years that Win8 is the primary MS OS. Besides, it hurts nothing to give us the ability to turn off something we have no use for.

What is really screwed up, is that Win8 actually has a bunch of, imho, beneficial changes compared to Win7. Almost nobody is talking about them, because of the bone head move of forcing Metro and removal of the start menu. I really have little bad to say about Win8, except for MS attempting to force Metro, and a few other niggles that may be worked out prior to launch. I am fine with them including Metro, but let me have a start menu, and the option of a traditional log on. I have little interest in all of the touch centric stuff that I will not likely use until such a time that they make a touch monitor that does not show prints, and is better than my current ZR24w monitors, for a similar price.

There is a difference between Metro detractors, and defenders.
The detractors don't mind if the defenders have Metro, but the defenders seem dead set against the detractors having a start menu.

This is so reminiscent of the keyboard/mouse debate that it's terribly amusing. And we all know how that turned out.

The new UI has plenty of functionality with the mouse - the edge UI is accessible from all apps universally and provides consistent ways of getting to things. Getting the the start screen from the desktop is the same way it's always been - click in the corner. The changes are all necessary to enable entirely new classes of apps that are easier to develop and deploy than ever.

Also, anyone who complains about "fingerprints" on a touchscreen has never used one. I've used a variety of touch devices over the past decade, and none of them have ever had fingerprints visible while the monitor is on. When the monitor is off, who cares?

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

This is so reminiscent of the keyboard/mouse debate that it's terribly amusing. And we all know how that turned out.

The new UI has plenty of functionality with the mouse - the edge UI is accessible from all apps universally and provides consistent ways of getting to things. Getting the the start screen from the desktop is the same way it's always been - click in the corner. The changes are all necessary to enable entirely new classes of apps that are easier to develop and deploy than ever.

Also, anyone who complains about "fingerprints" on a touchscreen has never used one. I've used a variety of touch devices over the past decade, and none of them have ever had fingerprints visible while the monitor is on. When the monitor is off, who cares?

depends upon viewing angle

 

[zod96]

If their is no start menu or classic look I will be on Window 7 until it dies

 

[Gorankar]

This is so reminiscent of the keyboard/mouse debate that it's terribly amusing. And we all know how that turned out.

The new UI has plenty of functionality with the mouse - the edge UI is accessible from all apps universally and provides consistent ways of getting to things. Getting the the start screen from the desktop is the same way it's always been - click in the corner. The changes are all necessary to enable entirely new classes of apps that are easier to develop and deploy than ever.

Also, anyone who complains about "fingerprints" on a touchscreen has never used one. I've used a variety of touch devices over the past decade, and none of them have ever had fingerprints visible while the monitor is on. When the monitor is off, who cares?

Put a button there, my complaint goes away.
Why again is is required? Ease of development and deployment? Not sure what to even say about that. Should the top left file menu that everybody currently uses go away as well? None of that is required for easy development or deployment. The current way is already easy.

Yes, I have used a touch screen, and no, you can not see prints when the screen is white or any other light bright color, but darker colors, like the default Metro colors for instance, show fingerprints.

I am all for trying new things. Not all change is good. I gave Metro a shot, it really just is not for me on non touch devices. YMMV.

 

[heatlesssun]

I am all for trying new things. Not all change is good. I gave Metro a shot, it really just is not for me on non touch devices. YMMV.

Indeed YMMV. I'm just not having any problems with Metro on my dual screen desktop keyboard and mouse Windows 8 machine doing the same things that I do on my Windows 7 desktops.

And again, Windows 8 is about a new generation of hardware far more so than any prior version of Windows. A very large percentage of devices that come with Windows 8 will be touch enabled, desktops, laptops and tablets. And the funny thing is that even with Windows 7 today you can get touch enabled desktops, laptops and tablets.

 

[wonderfield]

depends upon viewing angle

And lighting conditions. In certain lighting conditions, the extent of fingerprints can mean the difference between "usable" and "unusable".