Windows 8 Users to Get Free Upgrade to Windows 9

Blown 89 said:
That doesn't change the fact that the process trees involved in opening apps is exactly the same between both versions. The only difference is the way they look. What it boils down to is that the Win8 haters don't like the way it looks and are passing that hatred off as an excuse to bash the usability of an OS that functions damn near the same way.
Click to expand...

Stock, without modification, the Start Screen is less organized than the Start Screen. Install new programs, and you get a lot of new icons on the Start Screen. It's getting better, and I pin the most used programs to the main section, so it's easy. But, just from a dumb user standpoint, it's less organized.

I can see the frustration, and I see it when people first buy a Windows 8 PC trying to get to use it. They can get frustrated and angry. That's where the hate comes from.

Power users, IT people, smarter users can use it just fine. They just don't like it. Not from a usability standpoint, but from a visual standpoint.

All I know is that it's hard for me to go back to 7 right now, as it is much less efficient and I am a lot slower. I'm used to Windows 8 and Metro (so, I'm wondering how I'll adjust to Win9's desktop start menu). I touch non-touch screens, I right click the start button, I try to access charms that don't exist... :) But, I've been using it for a while. Others that just start out have a much different experience. When I first started, I didn't like the Start Screen. I forced myself to use it. Now, I find it hard to not have it.
 
MavericK96 said:
Having to go through half a dozen button clicks to turn off the machine is annoying,
Click to expand...
Right click on the windows/metro button and hit "shut down" on the popup. Or you can ctrl+q and press shut-down.

Two clicks. The same amount it takes to shut down a Windows 7/Vista machine :rolleyes:


and booting to the Metro screen is annoying.
Click to expand...
Right click on the taskbar, properties, select "Go to the desktop instead of Start when I sign in." Problem solved.

It's amazing that this is a tech website and you guys can't figure this shit out.
 
Ur_Mom said:
When I first started, I didn't like the Start Screen. I forced myself to use it. Now, I find it hard to not have it.
Click to expand...
I was in the same boat so I gave it a few days and once I learned to use it efficiently it's much better than Windows 7.

My hatred of the OS stems from its instability when installing out of date apps I'm forced to use for work. That instability forced me to set restore points before installing any new software. Microsoft has a ton of open tickets on the matter and has refused to address it.
 
Blown 89 said:
How often are you in the metro interface during an 8 hour day though? I've been at my desk 5 hours so far and I've yet to access the metro interface.

Haha. I can't argue with the ugly wife analogy.
Click to expand...

:D

Once you see a face THAT ugly (Metro), you won't want to dance with that fugly girl. :D

Personal preference. I think Windows 8 is ugly as hell, the Metro UI sucks ass, and Microsoft's position to "just learn it, so you can buy our shit (apps) through our store" really pissed me off. I have to install a 3rd party app (Classic Shell) to get my Windows back to how I like it. I had to install that 3rd party app on *nine* of my neighbors' systems because I got so sick of people asking me "I don't like my new Windows 8 laptop, can you fix it?". Sure...Classic Shell....now stop calling me asking how to get to Facebook...

I like Windows 8.1. I think its very fast and slick. I love some of the enhancements. I'll just love Windows 9 like I love Windows 7 because I get my UI (read Start menu) back at stock with the slickness of Windows 8.1. I just wish they'd kept Aero as an option.

:D
 
Blown 89 said:
Right click on the windows/metro button and hit "shut down" on the popup. Or you can ctrl+q and press shut-down.

Two clicks. The same amount it takes to shut down a Windows 7/Vista machine :rolleyes:


Right click on the taskbar, properties, select "Go to the desktop instead of Start when I sign in." Problem solved.

It's amazing that this is a tech website and you guys can't figure this shit out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips (honestly), but I shouldn't have to go online to figure shit like this out. It's no wonder that the average user is frustrated with this because if an advanced user has to go read an online tutorial then you've failed at making a user-friendly product.

My main point is really just, why deviate from the established methodology that has been a staple since what, Windows 95?
 
MavericK96 said:
Thanks for the tips (honestly), but I shouldn't have to go online to figure shit like this out. It's no wonder that the average user is frustrated with this because if an advanced user has to go read an online tutorial then you've failed at making a user-friendly product.

My main point is really just, why deviate from the established methodology that has been a staple since what, Windows 95?
Click to expand...

Deviation from the established methodology is fine... IF the deviation offers something in the way of an improvement over the old method, and in the case of UI design one that is intuitive and compelling and doesn't require retraining with no tangible benefit from the disruption other than to serve as a funnel to get users into a metro app store.

And the Metro UI failed spectacularly at offering any such improvement.
 
MavericK96 said:
My main point is really just, why deviate from te established methodology that has been a staple since what, Windows 95?
Click to expand...
Because the 90's are long gone and Microsoft needs to keep up with current trends to survive. Like it or not operating systems are evolving.

Change is funny. Everyone screams for it but when they get it they complain incessantly about it.
 
MavericK96 said:
Thanks for the tips (honestly), but I shouldn't have to go online to figure shit like this out. It's no wonder that the average user is frustrated with this because if an advanced user has to go read an online tutorial then you've failed at making a user-friendly product.

My main point is really just, why deviate from the established methodology that has been a staple since what, Windows 95?
Click to expand...

It is not just Windows, but computing and the internet in general. Try to set up a Microsoft/Gmail account lately? It takes about 40-50 minutes of fucking around. Fill out multiple passwords, enter your real name (why the fuck?), your gender, who you fucked last week, enter multiple phone numbers, social security numbers, finger prints, blood tests, and then go through the process of setting up an alternate "security" account for your account. Using a different service. Do the same fuck around again.

Then when they force you to do "security checks" every month, they make you switch emails. And then ban you for 30 days. Because they force you change "security" emails, and when you change "security" email addresses they ban your account for 30 days.

All this bullshit for "security" when I have never had an email address taken over in my life. Crap like this is just limiting what we can do with our computers, while making it take much longer. Windows 8/Metro fully embraces this concept and I only see it getting worse. Just about every website is going fucking nuts with tablet layouts.

I fear in the next 5 or so years computing will be at pre-2000 levels in terms of productivity.
 
Blown 89 said:
Because the 90's are long gone and Microsoft needs to keep up with current trends to survive. Like it or not operating systems are evolving.

Change is funny. Everyone screams for it but when they get it they complain incessantly about it.
Click to expand...

"Needing to keep up with current trends" isn't an excuse for bad design. And nobody is telling Microsoft not to develop a UI for mobile and touch devices. But slapping that mobile-first, touch-first UI onto desktop and laptop PC's without touch capability and offering "just deal with it" as the main selling point of Windows 8 wasn't a very good strategy.
 
MavericK96 said:
Thanks for the tips (honestly), but I shouldn't have to go online to figure shit like this out. It's no wonder that the average user is frustrated with this because if an advanced user has to go read an online tutorial then you've failed at making a user-friendly product.

My main point is really just, why deviate from the established methodology that has been a staple since what, Windows 95?
Click to expand...

The standard non-hidden way is still only three clicks. Click on start, click on the icon that looks like a power button, click shutdown.
 
DPI said:
"Needing to keep up with current trends" isn't an excuse for bad design. And nobody is telling Microsoft not to develop a UI for mobile and touch devices. But slapping that mobile-first, touch-first UI onto desktop and laptop PC's without touch capability and offering "just deal with it" as the main selling point of Windows 8 wasn't a very good strategy.
Click to expand...

People use the term "change is good but people hate change" far to often for innovation or technology that's badly designed or nobody wants nor asked for. Change is good if it helps improve your experience or productivity. In this case Microsoft made some severely bad decisions with Windows 8. Lets hope Windows 9 fixes the rest of of what Windows 8.1 still didn't get right.
 
pcjunkie said:
People use the term "change is good but people hate change" far to often for innovation or technology that's badly designed or nobody wants nor asked for. Change is good if it helps improve your experience or productivity. In this case Microsoft made some severely bad decisions with Windows 8. Lets hope Windows 9 fixes the rest of of what Windows 8.1 still didn't get right.
Click to expand...

Some people reject change even when it's better. When the mouse and GUI started to become more wide spread in IBM Compatibles (remember that term?) most people I knew rejected it and called it click and drool.
 
canon.tk said:
Some people reject change even when it's better. When the mouse and GUI started to become more wide spread in IBM Compatibles (remember that term?) most people I knew rejected it and called it click and drool.
Click to expand...

Nobody I know of ever said said ALL change is bad...that's not what my comment was about.
 
So I finally booted Windows 8 on my laptop. When I bought the laptop I pulled the HDD and dropped in another for Linux.

I've played with Windows 8 a bit on my in-laws laptops and I hated it. So I wasn't surprised I was so frustrated with the stupidity that is Windows 8. The 111 updates before I could install 8.1 wasn't pleasing either. Especially when they failed the first time through meaning I had to cherry pick half the updates to get it to update the following morning.

After finally getting 8.1 installed (28 hours after initially starting the updates on 8) my frustration died down. The "start menu" (if you can call it that) is still horrendous and pretty much unusable. I really do hate it that much. It was a horrible design decision and I'm happy seeing the changes they made to it in Windows 9.

Outside the Start menu being utter crap I don't mind the rest of Windows 8.1.
 
Naed said:
It is fairly hilarious that people complain about metro in regards to training and such.

Think about this. If average-person/thingy goes out and buys a new machine, Currently he/she/it will get a machine with (most likely) windows 8.1 on it.

Meaning that he will train himself/herself/itself. Which kinda makes the training part nonrelevant.

furthermore, it could be debated that sticking with the old UI makes it harder for the average user to actually use, because it is something new (compared to their own machine) that they have to learn.

Food for thought :)
Click to expand...

If you deal with users then you know the vast majority of users, when presented with the Metro interface, would likely break their fingers or poke holes in their LCDs thinking they were now "touch-capable".
 
xIronCrossx said:
This. I haven't seen the metro screen since I accidentally pressed the windows key. I always boot straight into the desktop and never see the metro screen. It would be nice to see an option to turn it off on desktops though. There is seriously zero use for it on most desktops.
Click to expand...

I feel the same about the start menu.
 
Vermillion said:
So I finally booted Windows 8 on my laptop. When I bought the laptop I pulled the HDD and dropped in another for Linux.

I've played with Windows 8 a bit on my in-laws laptops and I hated it. So I wasn't surprised I was so frustrated with the stupidity that is Windows 8. The 111 updates before I could install 8.1 wasn't pleasing either. Especially when they failed the first time through meaning I had to cherry pick half the updates to get it to update the following morning.

After finally getting 8.1 installed (28 hours after initially starting the updates on 8) my frustration died down. The "start menu" (if you can call it that) is still horrendous and pretty much unusable. I really do hate it that much. It was a horrible design decision and I'm happy seeing the changes they made to it in Windows 9.

Outside the Start menu being utter crap I don't mind the rest of Windows 8.1.
Click to expand...

The start menu is horrendous and pretty much unusable also. lets see... I need that one program which is.... all programs... scroll down... company name, program name... lets see which of these 3 sub menus.. oh wait it isn't here back out.. scroll back up... lets see if it is here... nope.... um... try here... nope... try here.. there it is. If you want to arrange things in your start menu hope you don't plan on every doing an uninstall otherwise you will have to go play cleanup of all the broken links.
 
Ur_Mom said:
XP sucked before SP2. Vista was bad before the service packs (I lucked out, but I was one of a very few). 7 was good at launch. 8 was good, but they fixed a lot of UI complaints at 8.1, but stability was always great.

With the same basic code as 8/7, Windows 9 should be fine from the get go. Hopefully, we get some good information in the next few days about the under the hood changes alongside the new UI changes.
Click to expand...

XP ran fine before SP 2. I had never saw XP machine crashing or just not working period before SP2. I saw people bitch and moan about the fisher price rounded and colorful fucking bullshit UI that they included that had no place being in a OS (sound familiar?). It had some security issues there that started to make the OS look like swiss cheese, but never saw any real stability issues with the system.

I would even agrue that Vista on new hardware worked fine before SP1. Unless I was like you as I personally never had issues with installing or even upgrading XP to Vista on computer that were only a few years in age at that point in time. I had used Vista through its beta with some issues, however come RTM everything was stable for me, machines with it were faster than XP. The only issue I had noticed with Vista pre SP1 was on very rare occurrences I had a few computers that would lose their domain registration. I think I noticed that maybe twice with one computer and once with another. However we were also using a windows 2000 domain controller at the time, upgraded to server 2008 r2 around the time of sp1 so hard to tell which actually fixed that problem. It normally seemed that people having issues with Vista were trying to install it on really old hardware or on machines with the min specs. However personally I never saw issues either in my personal use, family personal use or in the office use of Vista.
 
Exavior said:
XP ran fine before SP 2. I had never saw XP machine crashing or just not working period before SP2. I saw people bitch and moan about the fisher price rounded and colorful fucking bullshit UI that they included that had no place being in a OS (sound familiar?). It had some security issues there that started to make the OS look like swiss cheese, but never saw any real stability issues with the system.

I would even agrue that Vista on new hardware worked fine before SP1. Unless I was like you as I personally never had issues with installing or even upgrading XP to Vista on computer that were only a few years in age at that point in time. I had used Vista through its beta with some issues, however come RTM everything was stable for me, machines with it were faster than XP. The only issue I had noticed with Vista pre SP1 was on very rare occurrences I had a few computers that would lose their domain registration. I think I noticed that maybe twice with one computer and once with another. However we were also using a windows 2000 domain controller at the time, upgraded to server 2008 r2 around the time of sp1 so hard to tell which actually fixed that problem. It normally seemed that people having issues with Vista were trying to install it on really old hardware or on machines with the min specs. However personally I never saw issues either in my personal use, family personal use or in the office use of Vista.
Click to expand...

I had great success with Vista beta, too. It was a solid OS for me. Funny, no one else remembered the whole "Fisher Price" UI debates from XP when I brought it up with Win8 was first released. They all forgot about it! :) Glad someone else didn't forget.


Unknown-One said:
Resolved in 8.1

Installing a new program no-longer auto-pins it to the Start Screen.
Click to expand...

Go to All Programs.There they are! :) I pin frequently used programs to the main Start Screen. Just because I don't need to see "Visit Java.Com!" or "About iTunes". With the larger icons and everything, it's easier to select with a finger tap, but a lot more in your face than with a start menu. Yea, I delete a lot of those.

Not the end of the world, and I'm not going to bitch that Win8 is the worst thing ever because of it. But, I can name a dozen things I don't like about Windows 7, too. Sometimes, you have to complain about things, even if they are minor. Otherwise, they'll assume things are perfect and never fix them.
 
What a useless clickbait thread.

The title made it sound like it was confirmed information with a valid source.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Go to All Programs.There they are! :) I pin frequently used programs to the main Start Screen. Just because I don't need to see "Visit Java.Com!" or "About iTunes". With the larger icons and everything, it's easier to select with a finger tap, but a lot more in your face than with a start menu. Yea, I delete a lot of those.
Click to expand...

It works pretty much like the Start Menu -> All Programs, what's on the All Apps Screen is what's in the Start Menu folders. On the All Apps screen, you can right click "Open file location" and remove shortcuts that you don't want.
 
Blown 89 said:
Because the 90's are long gone and Microsoft needs to keep up with current trends to survive. Like it or not operating systems are evolving.

Change is funny. Everyone screams for it but when they get it they complain incessantly about it.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that OS X is fundamentally the same and has not had this polarizing effect on its users. I fire up my MBP and it has the same desktop environment it always had. Why is this so difficult for Microsoft to duplicate? Give me the option to keep the existing look and feel to the OS, bring back Aero and continue to improve things under the hood.

From a manageability standpoint windows 8 is terrific, however from an out of the box usability standpoint it's simply a diamond in a goats ass.
 
heatlesssun said:
It works pretty much like the Start Menu -> All Programs, what's on the All Apps Screen is what's in the Start Menu folders. On the All Apps screen, you can right click "Open file location" and remove shortcuts that you don't want.
Click to expand...

It's just not neat and organized. It's just all on the desk at once, rather that contained in folders. I could have the application there, and a subfolder for the Readme and help docs. In Start Screen > All Programs, they are all there, no subfolders. Makes organization more difficult. Excellent for touch, though. Try navigating the Win7 style start menu with touch (no stylus) on a tablet sized PC. It's frustrating. They tried the "all-in-one" approach, and it works for some, but not all. It's the same with Win7 - it's great for desktop but not touch. Metro is great for touch, not as great for desktop non-touch.

I want to play with Windows 9 to see the best of both worlds. I hope it works. I don't mind the tiles on the new start menu. It really seems that it will be the perfect middle ground. For those that don't like tiles, they can remove them. For those of us that do, we'll still have them (and the option for full Start Screen, if needed - which I hope I can create an icon to go to start screen while retaining the normal start menu). Click for start menu, or click other one for Start Screen. That way, I can undock tablet and use it as a tablet UI or dock it and use keyboard and mouse as a desktop style UI. Confusing to some, but excellent for me. :D
 
Top level folders as groups that are easy to see in semantic zoom. And it can be sorted four different way, the "date installed" sort I find extremely useful.
 
Considering Microsoft apparently no longer recognizes the Number 9, I guess we can debunk this story....
 
shyboi said:
I would like to point out that OS X is fundamentally the same and has not had this polarizing effect on its users. I fire up my MBP and it has the same desktop environment it always had. Why is this so difficult for Microsoft to duplicate? Give me the option to keep the existing look and feel to the OS, bring back Aero and continue to improve things under the hood.

From a manageability standpoint windows 8 is terrific, however from an out of the box usability standpoint it's simply a diamond in a goats ass.
Click to expand...
OSX isn't pushing the software envelope though. Their tablets are nothing more than toys so they can get away with a Tonka Toy interface where as Microsoft is trying to make true laptop replacements and has to integrate their OS somehow.

Honestly, a site full of self proclaimed tech experts shouldn't be having such a difficult time resolving such simple issues.
 
100% confirmed!
Now that 9 isn't going to exist, everyone gets a free copy!
 
Ur_Mom said:
Go to All Programs.There they are! :)
Click to expand...
Yes, which agrees with what I said.

Just to reiterate, to be 100% clear:
- Installing new applications on Windows 8.0 = all shortcuts pinned to Start Screen automatically.
- Installing new applications on Windows 8.1 = No shortcuts pinned to Start Screen automatically.

Which makes Windows 8.1 consistent with Windows Phone 8, and fixes the Start Screen automatically cluttering itself.
 
We have done the, love metro / hate metr / meh whatever metro, to death two years ago. This was supposedly a discussion regarding the veracity of the "free win9 for everyone running win8" claims coming out of Indonesia.

Oh, never mind.

I might as well............I still don't like the Metro UI features, but have learned to live with them. It looks like the Win 9 UI will be pretty close to what I and many other Metro haters have wanted. Hurray!!!!!
If it actually turns out to be free to people with a Win 8 licence, double Hurray!!!!!
 
heatlesssun said:
All I am saying is that if Windows 9 pretty much works like Windows 7 on the desktop that the option to use modern apps and tiles in the Start Menu won't be a problem for the average business or consumer customer. And the ability to use modern apps in floating windows with live tile notifications in the familiar Start Menu will have use to some.

There's more choice here. And where there's more choice and options for people to do things like they always have or in new ways, I don't see how that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Modern apps, that's a hell of a description. Exactly what is a modern app to you? Truth is there is nothing modern about any of the modern apps you refer to. They are just apps, they were apps before mobile devices and they are apps today and the only thing that might make them "modern" is that they run on cut down mobile device operating systems and that many gain their usefulness only on a mobile device.

Case in point, I am not going to track my bicycle routes, times and distances by running STRAVA on my laptop strapped to my back as I peddle faster peddle faster.
 
lcpiper said:
Modern apps, that's a hell of a description. Exactly what is a modern app to you? Truth is there is nothing modern about any of the modern apps you refer to. They are just apps, they were apps before mobile devices and they are apps today and the only thing that might make them "modern" is that they run on cut down mobile device operating systems and that many gain their usefulness only on a mobile device.

Case in point, I am not going to track my bicycle routes, times and distances by running STRAVA on my laptop strapped to my back as I peddle faster peddle faster.
Click to expand...

Modern, Metro, Windows Store, Universal Apps, whatever they're called they can be of use to desktop users. A lot of these apps are content apps, video, music, eBooks, social media, those have user on the desktop. Some are better than their website equivalent if that exists. Some are games, some educational. At any rate, I think it makes sense to have a curated store with sandboxed apps on Windows considering that so many Windows security issues revolve around people just downloading any and everything and getting malware or spyware. Sure, store apps aren't impervious to that, but a lot better than the random Win32 apps people install without a clue.
 
Well, the people who install without a clue have a lot in common with the people who fuck whoever without a condom.

Anything that was written for a phone but can be used and is useful on a desktop already has a competitive app written for the desktop. Just because you download some music playing app for a phone doesn't dismiss the last 20+ years of Itunes' existence. Adobe Acrobat can read ebooks just fine and in fact much better then an ebook reader designed for a mobile device.

But most importantly, apps written for mobile devices do not take advantage of the power of desktop systems, they will run on them, but they don't run well as in they do not take advantage of the available resources.
 
lcpiper said:
Anything that was written for a phone but can be used and is useful on a desktop already has a competitive app written for the desktop.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, especially when it comes to social media. Where's a desktop whatsapp client? And the last time I checked, messaging was still a big deal even on PCs. The bottom line is that the world is consuming tons and tons of mobile and lightweight apps. If there's no room for that on the PC, then their no point for many people to even have a PC.

If a PC is all about desktop keyboard and mouse driven apps then while it will remain important for productivity and work tasks it will become the thing that dad uses for work and perhaps higher end gaming.
 
lcpiper said:
Anything that was written for a phone but can be used and is useful on a desktop already has a competitive app written for the desktop.
Click to expand...
Still waiting on a desktop client for Netflix...

The Modern app works great, though... and now it works on the desktop. Problem solved :D

Just because you download some music playing app for a phone doesn't dismiss the last 20+ years of Itunes' existence. Adobe Acrobat can read ebooks just fine and in fact much better then an ebook reader designed for a mobile device.

lcpiper said:
apps written for mobile devices do not take advantage of the power of desktop systems
Click to expand...
Most desktop apps don't use anywhere near the full capability of your computer to do their individual little jobs... that doesn't make them bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top