Paul Allen: Windows 8 'promising' yet 'puzzling' Billionaire investor Paul Allen says he's bullish on Windows 8, but it seems even the co-founder of Microsoft has struggled with what he describes as some of the more "puzzling aspects" of the new OS. In an in-depth review posted to his personal website, Allen says he has been working with a preview release of Windows 8 for a …
Just started playing with Windows 8 in earnest yesterday, and there are some expected issues with software and environmental compatibility, but mostly I love it . . . except for the Modern (TIFKAM) interface. Overall, the OS is much more responsive, and the Explorer tweaks are minimal enough to easily adjust to. The Start screen, though, is a complete nightmare. By default, it's populated with loads of crap, which, fortunately, is easy enough to remove, but grouping applications (excuse me, tiles) is such a PITA as to be a total ordeal, there's no logic in how the tiles are laid out, and getting to many of the system settings takes at least three more actions than in previous Windows versions. It is utterly worthless as a desktop interface, although it might be slightly less awful on a tablet.
Nevertheless, I'm going to press on without using one of the third-party products which brings back the Start menu, just to see how long it takes me to adjust. I've been using the command line a lot more than I used to, since it's now easier to bang out a command to launch a Control Panel applet or other system command than it is to dig the location out of the GUI.
The other thing which leaps out at me about the Notro interface is how hideous and bland it is. Even a novice user would probably be turned off by it if they'd ever been exposed to iOS, Android, or, really, any other touchscreen interface. There are lots of third-party tools out there already to take care of the aesthetic issues, but the usability ones will be harder to overcome.
In short: nice OS, shame about the GUI.
@blackjesus: The point is that you have to individually drag each tile into place, which is a colossal hassle. On a classic desktop, you can select multiple icons and manipulate them, but with Metro, it's a tedious process of dragging and rearranging them, one by one, which is frustrating and inefficient.
"The point is that you have to individually drag each tile into place, which is a colossal hassle. On a classic desktop, you can select multiple icons and manipulate them, but with Metro, it's a tedious process of dragging and rearranging them, one by one, which is frustrating and inefficient."
Well for a start, things default to a set of groups that do have a rationale behind them. For example, all my Office icons fall together. Secondly, it's very easy to drag things to a new position. You just do it and the other tiles arrange themselves accordingly, making space. It's something which if you are unhappy with the default order, you have to spend a minute doing. And maybe update occasionally when you install a program if it pops up somewhere you don't like. It's no more onerous than dragging something in the Win7 Start Menu to pin a program. Seriously if a highly infrequent operation that takes a minute or less is "frustrating and inefficient" then I am quite frankly frightened of how highly strung you must be. This is no reason to reject a desktop environment.
"The W7 Start Menu bubbles to the top commonly-used programs, so if I open my Start Menu on W7, I get the applications I use the most"
And this might be fine if you use a handful of programs, but I am a power user and I may launch twenty different programs in a week quite frequently. It's slightly annoying to wonder whether something will be in the menu today or if I'll have to navigate down through sub-menus. And I don't want twenty different icons pinned to the Start Menu. If you think it's an advantage to have your most commonly used programs "bubble to the top" then logically you should welcome the Start Screen which allows even more of your most commonly used programs to bubble to the top. The Start Screen on my Desktop easily accomodates fifty programs and with column spacing between groups, it's very easy to know immediately where they are. Though I normally just hit the Windows key and type the first couple of letters. A process that is the same on both Win7 and Win8 (though slightly faster on the latter). So objectively, Win8 is better by the criteria you just gave.
"In W7, I have the choice of scrolling through All Programs, *which is alphabetized*, and finding my program *or* typing in the search box"
You can still type and search. Just hit Windows Key and start typing. It's my preferred method and in my experience, faster than Win7. I don't know about your Win7 but it's not alphabetised. It's hierarchical. So you might have to hunt for a program under its company name. And it's twice as many clicks to get "All Programs" as it is to get the Start Screen which has all the normally used programs (space for fifty tiles on the first page, remember?)
"In Windows 8, every single program installed on my computer is shat all over the Start screen in an unorganized mess and to organize them, I have to drag and drop *every single fucking icon* into order."
Firstly, this is not true. Not all programs are placed on the main Start Screen. You have to go into extended mode with an extra click to see all installed programs. Secondly, there is an order. E.g. all my office suite are columned together. All the communication stuff which has updates gets put on the left, etc. Alphabatised - which you praised earler - would be a terrible way to do it. E.g. Excel sits next to Fiddler2, Word is over next to Windows Media Center... Thirdly, re-arranging them should only take you a couple of minutes (unless you are staggeringly less capable at the task than I was) and needs doing only once and then occasionally if you install a program you might drag it somewhere else if you like. And those dozens of tiles will all stay where you put them too, without "bubbling" out of view.
"On top of that, things I might actually like to access by default, like the Control Panel, are hidden."
But 98% of users wont want to. Especially now that all the settings a user typically might need are accessible through the Charms sidebar. So if you're in the 2% that do want to use Control Panel frequently and you object to just hitting the Win key and typing 'co', then drag it onto you main Start Screen. That will take you ten seconds and is a one-time operation, Do you think the rest of the Windows using world should have a rarely used and confusing icon put on the main Start Screen because you wish to avoid that ten seconds of one-time activity?
"Also, the W8 start screen is hideously ugly"
Well the rest of your arguments were things I could objectively refute but this is a matter of taste so all I can say is that I like it. But regarding this:
"on the other, many people prefer a less-cluttered desktop, and Microsoft has basically told all of us to go fuck ourselves"
I just don't understand. With Win7, many people end up with program shortcuts all over their Desktop. In Win8, it's far more likely to be clean and free because program start icons all go onto the Start Screen.
"Well for a start, things default to a set of groups that do have a rationale behind them."
Wrong. Things that *Microsoft already knows about,* such as Office, do so. Most of the programs I have installed, which are *not* Microsoft products do not default to any sort of rational order. Also, it may be an infrequent operation, but it's a crappy implementation, and it ensures that I spend as little time in the Start screen as I can humanly manage.
"The Start Screen on my Desktop easily accomodates fifty programs and with column spacing between groups, it's very easy to know immediately where they are."
That's great if I want to visually sort through 50 totally disorganized icons to find the one that I want. Again, I don't spread fifty different folders across my desk so that I can pull the one out that I want; I have them filed and organized so that I can locate them. Also, why can't I grab a bunch of tiles at once and relocate them? Why do I have to pick through each tile of dozens and relocate it? That's poor UI design, and I defy you to argue otherwise.
"You can still type and search."
That much is true, and it is faster on Windows 8, so kudos for that.
"Not all programs are placed on the main Start Screen. You have to go into extended mode with an extra click to see all installed programs."
That's true. All the useless crap that Microsoft wants me to see, like Shopping and Weather, are on the main screen by default. Things that I might want to use, like the Command Prompt or Control Panel, are hidden away. But, typically, when a program is installed, it puts itself on the main screen in some totally arbitrary location.
"With Win7, many people end up with program shortcuts all over their Desktop. In Win8, it's far more likely to be clean and free because program start icons all go onto the Start Screen."
Again, wrong. I have put *more* stuff on my desktop and taskbar so that I don't have to use the Start screen, and I even wind up using the command line more frequently.
Anyway, I'm glad that Metro works for you. For the majority of desktop users, I suspect it's at best a useless change and at worst a significant impediment to productivity.
Actually, the funny part is that the "tiles" UI bears the greatest resemblance to the Lotus Notes desktop, an interface which is devoutly loved by a few fanatical fanboys and loathed by the majority of users.
"Wrong. Things that *Microsoft already knows about,* such as Office, do so. Most of the programs I have installed, which are *not* Microsoft products do not default to any sort of rational order. Also, it may be an infrequent operation, but it's a crappy implementation, and it ensures that I spend as little time in the Start screen as I can humanly manage."
Hey - you said there was no organization. I just pointed out that when you install the OS and a number of programs you install, do come with organization. If you want to modify your statement to "when I install a new program and if it's not got a category provided for it, it will end up just on the end of the list", then I'm fine with that. What I find very dubious is that you say having to take all of a few seconds to literally drag and drop it into the place you want as a one time operation when you install the program., is "crappy implementation" . Complaining about this and saying it's a reason you avoid "spending time in the Start Screen as little as you can humanly manage" just makes you sound incredibly sensitive. Are those literal five seconds that precious to you or are you just seeking reasons to criticize? And as to spending as little time in the Start Screen as possible, why would you be spending lots of time in the Start Screen? It makes a nice holding screen because it's informational, but for most of us it is a waypoint in launching something. If you think anyone is telling you you have to spend time sitting in the Start Screen then you're building a strawman.
"That's great if I want to visually sort through 50 totally disorganized icons to find the one that I want. "
But why are your icons disorganized? You've already conceded that there is a rationale behind their layout. Are you one of these people that just spreads icons across their desktop with each software install until they can't find anything? If not, why would you become one with the Start Screen. I do not accept that dragging and dropping something instantly to where you want it, is a barrier that causes you to be disorganized. If you are, then the problem is with you. Besides, the human brain rapidly learns where it leaves things. As things don't move around in the Start Screen (unlike the 'last used' approach of the Start Menu), it's very quick to get what you want.
" Also, why can't I grab a bunch of tiles at once and relocate them? Why do I have to pick through each tile of dozens and relocate it? That's poor UI design, and I defy you to argue otherwise."
You can. Just switch to Small View (the minus sign in the lower right, or just hold down Control and scroll-wheel down as you would if you want to change the font size in a web-page). Your icons go smaller and you can grab whole bunches of icons and shift them around as a block.
"All the useless crap that Microsoft wants me to see, like Shopping and Weather, are on the main screen by default. Things that I might want to use, like the Command Prompt or Control Panel, are hidden away"
Well unless you are installing the OS every five minutes, I fail to see the problem. Different people have different needs and MS have put by default things on their that they think people will want. It's customizable so if you're doing corporate installs, you'd have different defaults for example. Besides, you're just repeating the same things you said earlier now, about how Control Panel is "hidden away". Seriously, it should take you less than a minute to remove Shopping and Weather which irritate you so much and about thirty seconds more to put Command Prompt and Control Panel on the initial Start Screen. And thereafter they will always be in the same place just two clicks away from you which is on average faster than the Start Menu in Win7 because that has a lower capacity for how many things you can have just two clicks away from you.
"Again, wrong. I have put *more* stuff on my desktop and taskbar so that I don't have to use the Start screen, and I even wind up using the command line more frequently."
Well with respect, that's as a consequence of you choosing not to use the new interface.
"Anyway, I'm glad that Metro works for you. For the majority of desktop users, I suspect it's at best a useless change and at worst a significant impediment to productivity."
As I've demonstrated in numerous ways, most common operations are the same or faster to launch with Win8. So hopefully long-term, productivity should improve. I know that once I got used to Win8 on my desktop, I found it faster to use. The same principles should apply to other people. But I'm sorry that you find it bad for you. I had a bad reaction to Win8 initially, but decided to try and evaluate it using objective criteria (I actually started comparing mouse moves and clicks to get different tasks done between Win8 and Win7) and I found that despite by initial dislike, I could objectively show that Win8 was faster to use, so I re-evaluated and now I really like it.
Anyway, we're starting to repeat so I think we're probably done. I'm sure we both have other things to do.
I highly recommend classic shell from what i've used so far it's the best start screen replacement. It makes Windows 8 usable again.
Hmmm - Try Start8 from StarDock. Works much better, as some of the start menu functionality in Classic Start is buggered - I mean, not emulated correctly. And you will get a proper Start Orb, not a shonkily-drawn seashell!
Check it out - think it's still available for free in beta and works really, really well.
Likewise, I'm giving it a go and forcing myself to not install s Start menu replacement app. But I do use Launchy (www.launchy.net) which is one of the first things I install on any PC and which I couldn't do without. Much quicker and easier than dropping to a command prompt (which I will admit I often do as well).
What I have found is that TIFKAM is much more acceptable when running on a dual-monitor setup; TIFKAM on one monitor and the standard interface on the other is less jarring - and then hitting the start button isn't quite so intrusive as it's only appearing on one monitor.
WTF is with the tiles on a workstation? I can understand why they might be useful on a tablet, but you'd expect MS to acknowledge that they are not a good fit on an office desktop. Perhaps they could even detect the type of hardware the OS is running on and intelligently configure the default UI accordingly?
IF I am ever forced to use Windows 8 on my desktop at work, the first thing I will do is disable the tiles and go back to the traditional desktop. I agree with Allen that the bimodal UI is confusing, and the hidden gestures required to move between the modes go against everything I was taught about UI design -- mode switching controls should be visible and obvious.
//evaluating Win8 in a VM right now.
But how did things work better on the Windows 7 start menu?
If you go to All Programs, you just see a long list of names, often categorised by company name rather than application name. Even if the Windows 8 start screen looks a bit of a mess, I don't see how things are better?
Of course once upon a time there was the ability to group the start menu into categories, but you had to do that manually yourself which was also rather awkward and time-consuming, as well as not at all obvious to most users, and I believe that ability went away with Windows Vista anyway.
The way I load programs quickly on Windows 7 is either to select it from the recent list, or just type the name to bring it up with search - and Window 8 works exactly the same way.
Seriously - I keep hearing comments about Windows 8's awful start menu, but having used it, I don't see it, and no one's yet explained the issue?
"But how did things work better on the Windows 7 start menu?"
Since you've apparently ignored everything anyone has ever written on the subject, I don't expect that you'll actually read this post either, but here you go:
The W7 Start Menu bubbles to the top commonly-used programs, so if I open my Start Menu on W7, I get the applications I use the most. It is also easy to pin individual program icons so that they permanently live there. In short, it becomes very easy to see at a glance everything I care about most of the time; everything else gets popped behind All Programs. In W7, I have the choice of scrolling through All Programs, *which is alphabetized*, and finding my program *or* typing in the search box.
In Windows 8, every single program installed on my computer is shat all over the Start screen in an unorganized mess, and to organize them, I have to drag and drop *every single fucking icon* into order. Much as I do not spread every single physical document I have in life across my desk, I don't necessarily want every single application displayed at all times. Obviously, it's possible to hide applications, but having some sort of organization would be infinitely preferable to the big pile o' crap that is the Start screen. On top of that, things I might actually like to access by default, like the Control Panel, are hidden.
Also, the W8 start screen is hideously ugly. On the one hand, that a personal judgement based on my dislike of a bunch of bland, giant squares; on the other, many people prefer a less-cluttered desktop, and Microsoft has basically told all of us to go fuck ourselves.
But y'know dude... bookmarks wtf is that man? Der woz a toolbar for dat years ago... know one uses that stuff anymore. An if dey did... it would be in the cloud innit, synced in all da browzers. Word.
(That was really painful to write like that sorry!)
That seems like product rawness of the "iOS 6 maps"-grade, ie why the hell wasn't it sorted out in the beta?
And it seems he concludes that with a bit of effort you can be just as functional as you were on Win7; hardly the stuff of upselling sales pitches...
What I've seen of metro its just reminds me of media centre, and that reminds me why I use boxee. The gui is just horrible, and designed to be used either from a distance by a visually impaired person or on a tablet by someone with deodorant cans for fingers.
I don't know if there is a way to increase the resolution of metro so tile become smaller, almost icons like the Android app drawer, but from what I've seen its like win phone where you get what your given.
I will eventually give it an honest try out of curiosity but I don't see it happening before Christmas, and seeing as my laptop doesn't have touchscreen I'm not overly optimistic about metro. Also, 80% of the boxes I support are still on xp, i can afford to wait.
Most people don't use more than handful of apps regularly.
Only angry techies have their panties up in a bunch over Metro.
Put your most used in the tiles, or live data tiles you want to get reminders of.
I'm not a fanboy, it works, I am just as productive as I am on Win7.
It will make more sense as we get Win tablets or touchscreen notebooks - which over the next couple of years will come as standard. All the current hysteria will die down, and we will wonder what the fuss was all about (just like we did when there were people getting all exercised when the Start Orb was added :) )
The start menu isn't just for frequently used stuff. Its also good for organising stuff you don't need very often, but when you do need you really need. That sort stuff is best tucked out of the way, but with enough organisation you can find it even if you can't quite remember what its called. A bit like putting real stuff you use occasionally into drawers or storage boxes instead of leaving everything out on the floor or coffee table.
IIRC, the tiles do intelligently scale down to fit more in, e.g., if you're searching through all the programs - e.g., see http://us.generation-nt.com/windows-8-start-screen-zoom-1150911,3180811.html .
"What I've seen ... but from what I've seen ... I will eventually give it an honest try"
Have you actually tried it, or are you just passing judgement before doing so?
Every OS and user environment is a learning curve.
MacOS and MacOS X... OS/2... CP/M.... DOS... Linux.... SCO... Minix.... *BSD.... Windows NT.…BeOS... Syllable... Ohh, and in the Linux/Unix land: KDE, Gnome, XFCE, FVWM, OLVWM, TWM, CTWM, Awesome (what I'm currently evaluating), Fluxbox...
And yes, I've used each of the above at some point or another in my not-quite-3-decades existance.
Today I've been setting up a Windows 7 desktop and tried personalising it myself for the first time... basically a work-supplied VM that will be used for testing domain logins and running some Windows-only software.
I also have set up a Windows XP VM (as we need to support that too ... a lot of mining sites use it to run Citect 6, which won't run on anything newer). First thing I did was right click on the Start button, hit Properties, and selected "Classic" start menu. Then I dove into the display settings, turn off the Fischer Price^W^WLuna UI back to classic, set up the themes for something plain and bland (so as to not waste CPU cycles painting it) and turn off all the fancy animated effects.
Ahh... much more bearable... okay "My Network Places" is still a mess compared to "Network Neighbourhood" but at least I can find things.
Got Windows 7 running, tried doing the same thing. Well, I can turn off Aero, thank goodness, I now have some screen real-estate back... but the Start menu.... is next to USELESS. No wonder people kept pinning stuff to the task bar!
Alas it's what I'm stuck with... and what I need to support in my role as assistant network administrator.
One thing I'm learning with Awesome, is that hiding things such as the close button on application windows is not my cup of tea, but at least a simple keystroke achieves the same effect — the alleged rodent groping needed to instruct Windows 8 to perform the most rudimentary of windowing operations will not be welcome in this camp at all. I despise having to switch between several input devices constantly.
As for Windows 8.... it'll possibly be some time before we see any machines running this OS. As with anything, I try to keep an open mind when I come across new interfaces, but to me, a window manager that can only show one application at a time seems a retrograde step compared to, say, Windows 1.01 which could at least *tile* applications.
Seems what is old, is new again. I suppose Windows 9 will come with this new app launcher called "MS-DOS Executive" and the cycle will be complete. In fact, if the modern Start screen doesn't scream "Program Manager", I don't know what does.
Indeed... at least you can install your own shell. You still don't get quite the flexibility of what a Unix and X11 window managers gives you, but it at least meets you some of the way.
Just I need to support the standard environment.
In my case… it turns out that it doesn't like the license key it has, and so will commit ritual seppuku in a couple of days time (activation will time out).
So the exercise was more for the point of testing procedures for adding machines to the domain. I won't have the VM much longer than that. We will be purchasing some new hardware, so I've suggested we can add in some OEM licenses of Windows 7 64-bit to go with the new purchases, and put those on one side for VMs.
May be more like added velvet or felt to the steering wheel and added a trick wheel for steering. Imagine how hard it is for most people to safely use a trick wheel, thus the illegality of their use in vehicles.
An anecdote
Seems ms went too far, too fast trying to differentiate the UI, possibly to not let Mac OS and KDE/Compiz/Plasma outdo win. Just look at that fiasco with vista and 7 and Aero. Heck, ms and the graphics chip makers would have the consumer buy souped up hardware, such as 8 GB of RAM, maybe a 1 GHz CPU, and more, just to get Peek and a few other things. Meanwhile, way back in 2006, or earlier, tho Linux is not mainstream, Metisse, Compiz, and other enhancements i would show off would wow most (except nonplused or irritated devs who would slight or question the utulity or value it it). And, that was translucency, fire, snow, wobbles, animated shring and maximizes, and more -- in 64 MB of graphics RAM and 1 GB of system RAM, and a celery system of around 800 MHz.
OS X was doing hardware compositing a la Aero back in 2002. Before that, back in 1985, the Amega used off screen buffer space for windows and then blitted them in place in the correct Z order. MS are well behind the curve on this one, and to make matters worse in Vista they did most of the work in software and reserved an extra 512MB of RAM to handle the buffer space.
That's "Amiga". Also, the problem with early MacOSX is that it frequently was not hardware compositing, so the performance was utterly horrid on upgraded beige machines. It took some hardware and software upgrades before the interface of OSX stopped feeling like trying to poo through a sieve.
But if it's an operating system upgrade, they will only charge you £13.99 for it, not the £70 + that Microsoft do, and thats the buggered up mickey mouse version that won't even let you swap language support. Having just rejoined the windows world because i need to use Windows software, I am not impressed with the rapacious habits of the Redmond crew.
"And for businesses, where exactly is the ROI for all this?"
You seem to be under the impression that Microsoft is trying to help you, when in fact they are only trying to make money for themselves by selling more stuff and they will do anything to achieve that. If you don't like it, don't buy it until they either tweak their product or reduce the price to overcome the pain.
"... a short period of adjustment" for Paul Allen could well be a FAR longer period of reduced productivity for those who have to use Windows-based computing at work. Figure that out and you've got billions of hours of wasted time worldwide. How much longer can the world afford the continual disruption caused by M$'s need to create discontinuities to sustain its revenue?
They're not going to bother. They are going to - sorry, are already switching to Macs instead. Yes, I have seen an unprecedented switch from PCs to Macs this year by both my business and residential customers despite the recession. The probable cause of this is the love that people have for their iPhones and iPads, followed by an assumption that a Mac will be just as brilliant. A new, difficult to adjust to and aesthetically ugly OS from Microsoft is likely to accelerate this trend IMO.
Whatever you may say about Windows (8, or in general), the idea that the disruption of moving to a new OS is solved by the disruption of switching to an entirely different platform, is odd.
At least pick something open like Linux. You're just jumping from one big company with a closed platform, to a another worse one that's even more closed and far more of a walled garden, not to mention supporting a company that uses patents on rectangles to shut down the competition. I do find it odd people who think they're hip to be against Windows, then you find they support Apple.
"The probable cause of this is the love that people have for their iPhones and iPads, followed by an assumption that a Mac will be just as brilliant."
Good luck with your last year tech, and oversized phone. The vast majority of people are out there buying Android devices. There is no brilliance, no more so than many other devices.
And Macs are PCs. Even if your anecdote were of any truth, I presume you mean switching from Windows to Macs. And I'd find that rather said.
Most the criticisms here are because of Windows trying to do things like touchscreen interfaces - where at least the upcoming tablets are mostly hybrids - and that some software can only be sold through MS.
Yet we're supposed to be happy if people switched to a company that wants us to do everything on dumbed down touch-only no-keyboard/touchpad devices, and wants all software sold only if it allows it? Sorry, that's a far worse situation. The idea that MS get criticised, whilst Apple praised, is mad.
"likely to accelerate this trend IMO."
People will move to ipads, because they don't like touch-optimised UIs? Sorry, makes no sense at all. And we've been hearing predicitons of Apple's dominance for years, and still, they're massively outsold by Windows on the desktop, and Symbian and now Android on mobile. I'm still waiting.
As Paul Allen said it I would assume he knows what he is talking about (though he does mention it was not the final version), but even if it has changed. However the fact you just said if you open from the desktop it opens in the desktop apps, suggest more complexity than is needed for the average user. Far more than I can be bothered with if everything has a split personality before I use it.
"However the fact you just said if you open from the desktop it opens in the desktop apps, suggest more complexity than is needed for the average user."
If I open IE on the Desktop, I expect it to open in the Desktop. It would be far more confusing for "the average user" if it didn't. And as I sometimes need to use a browser on the Desktop in conjunction with other programs on the desktop, then there is reason to keep it.
As it's clear from your post you aren't using Windows 8 yourself, why are you arguing about how something works with someone who is plainly talking from direct experience?
Its a very basic paradigm shift. Let your user become accustomed to and productive on a reasonably friendly interface and then change the whole damned Modus Operandi. It keeps the customer disoriented and a lot more sheeplike.
Never allow a customer to master the interface, its very bad for future sales.
Always add features that hinder productivity, we can use it as an excuse to sell training.
Just give us the option to switch back to the menu buttuon that we know how to use efficiently and everyone will be happy.
Thanks Trevor, I know about the classic shell but I would have loved to have seen MS include it as an option in W8.
I really don't understand their politics in "imposing" such a radical change to an OS. If TIFKAM had not been imposed, and that it was simply given as a choice, I believe that W8 would have recieved nothing but praise.
I can't change Microsoft's mind. I can put my time and effort into helping people get what they want to out of computers. I don't have the programming skills to write a Classic Shell. I do have the schmoozing skills to put those sorts of people in rooms with others, the research skills to hunt that stuff down, and a couple internet soapboxes to publish the info. I hope it helps a few folks; getting the odd attaboy makes up for the effort.
I'd like to say "if enough of us spoke up, it might make a difference." The truth is: it won't. Voting with our wallets won't matter either. If every prole on Earth decided they were going to fight the power on this one, it wouldn't even tickle Microsoft's income. Microsoft gets where they get because they have the ability to take decision makers at large corporations and government institutions out for fancy meals, shower them with perks, discounts and whatever political or personal clout is required to shift SKUs.
They shift those SKUs in the billions. Because these SKUs are forced on the hoi polloi by the powers that be, we all need to be "compatible." If you are a small business, you need to speak the lingua franca of business: Microsoft formats. Choose not to and you don't get a chance to interact with or bid on contracts from the larger entities. If you are an individual, you need to do follow the pack because we have evolved our society into one that is "always on:" the work-life balance is disrupted and we require the ability to work from home.
Couple this with a tame press (tech and otherwise) that daren't speak out for fear of losing ad revenue and anyone who expresses a dissenting opinion is a marked man. To dislike the digital food shovelled onto your plate is to bear the stigma of being "afraid of change." You are a Luddite; someone unwilling to "give X a chance" and unable to comprehend the obvious majesty and importance of the vision which created the product you malign.
For a press that exists only because of sensationalism and the magnanimity of vendors, the best way achieve these is to publicly evangelise The New whilst heaping scorn and derision upon the heathens clinging to The Old. Throw in some fanboys and most people who would even have thought to speak up are sick and tired of the bullshit before the product even hits shelves.
Consider a comment from the illustrious Ed Bott on Twitter: "if you write about Windows, and you take a screenshot using Windows XP, you're doing it wrong."
Really? How interesting. Just who the flaming monkey fuck is he to tell me – or anyone else – what they should or shouldn't be running on their systems? I am "doing it wrong" because I use XP on my personal VM? Really? Why? Detail this explicitly. Where is the incentive to use anything else? Describe the ROI and in moving away from something that has worked Just Fine for over a decade? Don't give me enterprise-level vague security hand waving bullshit: I'm talking about my personal VM here.
I'm not afraid of the new, but statements like Ed Bott's above both upset me and make me realise how futile resistance truly is. Here we have one of the most respected voices in Microsoft punditry telling everyone that if you write about Microsoft it is your job to evangelise Microsoft's latest. In this case the advocacy is subtle; you are to demonstrate that having the latest is "proper" by only showing the latest greatest as the operating system of choice in your screenshots. It is evangelising nonetheless.
It should come as no shock to my readers that I will take a screenshot off any operating system I damned well please. Maybe it'll even be an XP VM remoted into from a Windows XP VM which I am in turn remoting into from a Linux box. It has been known to happen.
If I am discussing something specifically blowing up on Windows 8, maybe I should demonstrate that on Windows 8. If it affects multiple versions of Windows, what does it matter which version has the screenshot?
But…aha! There's the subtle slant of it all. In the same vein as judicial capture (or regulatory capture,) I posit the concept of "press capture." If a pundit covers a topic or vendor for too long, they begin to sympathise, even empathise with them.
Considering the complexity of the topics at hand, how can any journalist rise to the top if they haven't been covering that vendor for ages? There is so much to know, it takes years to absorb it. So you, me…all of us…
…we'd best get used to Windows 8. Our voices are easily shouted down as heretical by the closed-minded echo chamber that has become the only thing vendors choose to listen to.
Use your "non-new" or "non-Microsoft" operating systems if you must. Just don't talk about it unless you are prepared for scorn, marginalisation and other potentially serious repercussions. Be careful to whom you admit not keeping the faith. It could more than your internet reputation on the line. It could be your job.
Freedom of choice my hex-encoded ASCII.
That's all predicated on the fact you think you're right Trevor.
How about consumer don't care as much as you do about the OS.
How about I know plain ol' consumers who like Windows 8!
People will mostly get this as consumers via an OEM license. And business will agonise over the UI training, but do it for support purposes.
If it were really "that bad", people can go get Linux, or OSX on Apples "double-the-price" hardware.
Its all about choice. Truth is, Windows is priced correctly, and not all that bad. Despite whether you like the new UI or not.
There are plenty of ranty poorly formed opinions in Windows 8 all over the Internet. There is no MS conspiracy. No more than Apple only giving out iPhone 5s prior to release to sycophantic reviewers like Walt Mossberg.
My scorn mostly comes from people talking balls about how it works, and them clearly not having used Windows 8. I've heard people say "why not just have an alphabetical list of apps", when in fact, it does!
The only valid thing I've seen people say is they don't like how it looks. If its just that, a subjective appearance thing - that valid. I don't the colour of the office walls. But the functional stuff, people do talk utter dribble about. Its no more difficult to use, its not slower to use, its not harder to use. It just takes a little bit of "adjustment" as Paul Allen has found. Takes a few days. But that will benefit ass touch computing takes a firm hold (and it will).
Anyway, like you - all the whining isn't going to change a thing, Metro is staying for the foreseeable.
How is anything I said predicated on me "being right"? I said only that even if we all spoke out as one, it wouldn't matter. Obviously, we haven't done so; some people like Metro, some don't. Equally obviously, there are quite a few people who don't like Metro one bit.
So it doesn't matter if you like it, or don't. I don't even understand how liking or not liking a user interface can be turned into "right" or "wrong." It's personal preference. Since when is a personal preference right or wrong?
Do you have an island in your kitchen? Do you want one? If the majority of people don't have one, are you wrong? Are you right? What if the majority of people want an island in their kitchen? What if the majority want one, but don't have it? And heaven help you if you choose the wrong colour for your vehicle!
You make a lot of statements backed up by absolutely nothing. Who are you to say Windows is priced correctly? Or designed correctly? Or anything correctly? Who are you to poke at OSX, Linux or anything else? Who are you to tell people what they should believe, desire, or require?
Everyone is part of a minority at some point; everyone's needs are niche eventually. But hey, you know what? I'm okay being "wrong."
And I'm okay with using the microwave, house design, paint colour, cell phone, shoe style, computer operating system and custom-moulded salt shaker that suit my needs. The majority, the minority, the whatever-ority…
…I just don't care about any of them any more.
Sent from my who-gives-a-flaming-monkey-fuck.
--Trevor Pott
> "Windows is priced correctly, and not all that bad"
> Wow, there's a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one. Have Microsoft PR been in touch for their new ad campaign?
I think they used it for the Vista, "I'm too much of a loser to afford a mac" adverts. I don't agree with the sentiment, but that seemed to be what the adverts were trying to say.
Bloody marvellous rant, Trevor. It should be reworked as an article, it's far better than any of the poorly-researched and factually challenged insipid drivel that people like A. Dabbs post in the guise of a proper angry outburst.
I shall be stealing the phrase "flaming monkey fuck", too, thank you. It is a gift beyond measure <3
I have a strong feeling that 'desktop' mode will become a VM like 'XP' mode is in Win 7 by the time Windows 9 comes around. Think about it, why else would Microsoft be so hellbent on making sure you treat it / see it as an an app right now and can't set the desktop to be the default screen you see?
If that happens it will mean no proper hardware acceleration and thus limited performance for your legacy desktop applications and games. Why do you think Valve are really running to Linux and the idea of having their own console? Windows will be signed MS store apps on 'secure' hardware all the way down to the metal, or legacy apps in a performance crippled VM sandbox promoted as a 'security improvement'' because it's a sandbox and you can reset it to default quickly and easily (none store apps aren't to be trusted afterall)
This will bring the PC inline with the Xbox as a secure platform for delivering game content (what the other big name game publishers want to hear), channeling all developers who require any level of performance through the Microsoft channels ($$$).
"If that happens it will mean no proper hardware acceleration and thus limited performance for your legacy desktop applications and games."
I can use hardware accelleration from a VM right now. There's no reason why *if* your supposition about Desktop being treated as a "VM" were true, that you couldn't use hardware accelleration. And thus no impact on older games. Also, there doesn't seem any advantage in running Desktop as a VM seperate to the rest of the OS and a fair bit of added complexity in bridging the two together. Availability of libraries is already constrained in Win8 depending on whether something is Desktop or MUI, so what further advantage of seperation is to be gained by VM'ing it?
"Why do you think Valve are really running to Linux and the idea of having their own console?"
Because the Windows Store renders Steam redundant. Games developers will be able to gain the benefits of DRM, centralized selling, et al. without having to use Steam. That's a direct threat to Valve's business model who make money from selling other people's games for them.
It is a choice - the standard windows UI is still there.
The only forced change is the start menu, and as I say in other comments, it works just as well for keyboard and mouse, and I've yet to see what the actual criticism is? True, I agree it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the option for the older menu, just for people who don't like change or prefer the old version anyway - but that's not the same thing as saying the new version is objectively worse.
I mean yes, I liked that Windows XP had the option to use the 2000 start menu, as I didn't like XP's. But then, Vista/7 changed the menu again, and don't have the option to use any previous start menu (neither 2000 nor XP's). Which was bad (though personally I now like them better than 2000 or XP), but I don't recall people being that bothered about it. Not having the option in 8 seems no worse than that.
The new version is objectively "worse" for some people's work patterns. Don't give me any of that insipid bullshit about "it's just a replacement for the start menu." It's a hell of a lot more than that. File associations are another great example: many files open in Metro-only, even when launched from the desktop. This means context switching from your multi-tasking environment to a mono (or at best a dual)-tasking environment.
Maybe for you, this isn't a problem. Maybe for you it is even superior. If so, congratulations...and I even envy you! I'd love to be the kind of person who simply "didn't have a problem" with the shit being shoved down my throat. I, however, am not you.
Myself and many others do have a problem with Windows 8. It disrupts our workflow and makes us less productive. It provides jarring context switches when we really need to focus and doesn't allow us to properly multitask when we need to be keeping an eye on 10,000 things. This isn't just a start menu, this is the first broken step on the path towards a New Way Of Doing Things. One which goes against a lifetime of education and burned-in habits.
You can proclaim from on high that "the new way is better" all you want, but I have yet to see proof of this claim. I have seen some evidence that for some people in some circumstances the New Way might be better. I have seen zero evidence that it is ideal for all people under all circumstances.
So not including a way to say "fuck off Metro," bringing back a start menu, banishing the hot corners and re-mapping all the file associations to desktop applications as an easy, integrated option? That is Microsoft urinating on anyone who isn't the middle of the bell curve on the world they are trying to create. For that matter, there's no guarantee that Microsoft are going to keep the desktop around for much longer, anyways.
So why should those of us who find the new regime suboptimal gamble that Microsoft will even still leave us the option of doing things the more optimal way? Right now Microsoft make it a pain in the ass. Soon, it may well not be available at all.
Even if you believed that only "the majority" matters. Even if you believed that Microsoft is good and pure, and those who can't adapt (or are different) simply shouldn't be allowed to use computers…Microsoft's handling of the entire situation has been piss poor. Their engagement with the community on these issues has been rife with arrogance and dismissal.
But hey, if that's the company you want to worship, that's entirely up to you. Me, I will continue to exercise my options to find and use alternatives until they pry sourceforge from the grip of my mouse and keyboard.
"many files open in Metro-only, even when launched from the desktop."
Do you have an example? I'm not disagreeing, I'm genuinely curious - it's difficult trying to extract any actual criticisms from the noise of people disliking any change.
In Windows 7 and earlier, there are some default associations set up, but typically when you install new programs, these give the option to override (and if there isn't an association, it's done anyway - and the option to override is often done as default anyway, so less-techy users will go with that). So if you're someone who installs programs that work with the standard windowed UI, then you'll get the experience you are used to.
But is there an example of a file extension that can't be changed? Or something that works okay with a standard Windows program currently, but would now be changed to the full screen version? I guess an obvious example would be IE - I agree it'd be annoying if the default extension for html files is for the Metro version of IE, and ideally it would select intelligently based on what UI you're currently using. But then, it's irrelevant when you install a new browser anyway...
The things that I stick with the default Windows programs for would be viewing photos, videos and playing music, and I don't see that running full screen for displaying them is a problem (and for music, I believe the modern style music application runs in a sidebar).
I mean, right now, today, if I double click on an image, it opens up in the Windows view *full screen*. Is that jarring? Is that dragging me out of my "multitasking experience"?
I'm not saying it's perfect - I think it's a shame there isn't a way to get the same programs to work with both UIs. I'm just not convinced it's a step backwards.
"You can proclaim from on high that "the new way is better" all you want"
Good thing I didn't say that.
"So not including a way to say "fuck off Metro," bringing back a start menu, banishing the hot corners and re-mapping all the file associations to desktop applications as an easy, integrated option?"
It would be nice to have options to keep the old ways. But then, you don't get that with any new OS, AFAIK.
"But hey, if that's the company you want to worship, that's entirely up to you."
A straw man. I use Linux too, which has had its own share of odd UI decisions (the way Ubuntu changes stuff *every six months*, and no there's not an option to switch it back, or if there is, it involves editing config files and who knows what).
"I, however, am not you."
Exactly, and I am not you, and we all have different opinions. It is not objectively worse for everyone, just as it isn't better for everyone - as with any change, made by any OS.
Perhaps I'm just not as opposed to it, because I've worked this way before - from workspaces in Linux, to "screens" years ago on the Amiga, the idea of having apps on different screens does have some advantages. The idea of having millions of windows all in one screen has really only been a Windows-only thing for the most part.
"pry sourceforge from the grip of my mouse and keyboard."
I use Sourceforge, and I'm a strong believe in the mouse/touchpad and keyboard over touchscreens, see my comments elsewhere in this. Direct your criticisms at Apple, they're the ones who want to do away with such things.
This post has been deleted by its author
You detail how you use a PC, and champion your ability to adapt while simultainiously writing off anyone who might want to use a PC in a different fashion. I will direct my criticisms at who I damned well please; and frequently do. It's interesting to me that you claim such breadth of experience, and yet conflate "Linux" with Ubuntu.
Your argument is entirely anecdotal, based of your experiences and your experiences alone while simultainiously discarding the experiences and preferences of others. Does Windows' launching of an app full screen serve as a context switch? For me, it does. For others I know, it does.
Maybe we are the only ones on the planet for whom this is true; even if this is in fact so, by what right do you chastise us for seeking an alternative? By what right do you demean and belittle us for seeking to have Microsoft incorporate into their operating system options that accommodate how we work, how our minds have been trained to function?
If you like Metro, fine. Good on you. Go frolic and be merry. I don't; despite having given it several honest tries, and working with it for months.
Beyond that: get off your fucking high horse and look at the complaints being levelled and by whom. I resent the implication that I am singling Microsoft out for criticism. I loathe Unity and Gnome 3 and I could go on for quite some time about the "little things" in OSX that detract from usability. (Though, frankly, Mountain Lion cleaned up a lot of the mess Lion made.)
Apple isn't "trying to kill the mouse and keyboard." Quite the opposite, they are committed to keeping them as first-class devices, expanding their usability with the new interfaces whilst adding touch as an equal partner. Touch is non-requisite, but the keyboard/mouse are not either. In my opinion, Apple have managed the transition better than Microsoft has. The Linux teams aren't even close.
Does that mean that I rush out to embrace Apple? No. I may love OSX, but…I can't stand their keyboards. I just can't use them. My brain has used a PC-standard keyboard for nearly 30 years, and as a writer and programmer I require both a delete and a backspace button as separate keys. That "little thing," a design choice by Apple, is why I can't use their notebooks for prolonged periods.
I don't use Windows Phone or iOS; I eschew both for Android. Why? Because for me, the smartphone isn't just an appliance. It's a pocket computer that I use for many things. It is a USB drive, a mobile hotspot, a full-featured browser, an RDP client and a penetration testing tool. Things I simply can't accomplish without access to the file system, a promiscuous-mode networking stack and root on the file system.
The same goes for my PCs. I choose Windows XP SP3, Windows 7 SP1 (with classic shell) and RHEL/CentOS 6.2 (with the Cinnamon GUI) because they meet my needs. Nothing else does. I need to multitask heavily; it's how I get paid. I also need a comfortable and familiar environment where everything that I need to use is easy to get at and doesn't require me to context-switch in order to get there.
Maybe I'll be the last person on earth using a desktop-metaphor GUI for my computing needs. Maybe I'll be the last person on earth to use a computer where I can install any application I want, get complete control of the operating system, and live outside the walled garden of a vendor-provided store. I'm okay with that. I don't need to defend my choices to you or anyone else.
More importantly, I don't need to attack those who choose differently. That is the behaviour of one who has backed the wrong horse, or who is unsure of their faith. I don't believe in faith. I don't have faith in a god, I find it silly to have faith in a corporation.
What I will do is conduct business. Business in this case means using whatever means I have at my disposal to attempt to convince Microsoft to support my use cases. As my previous comments stated, I don't believe for a second that Microsoft will acquiesce. That isn't the point; the point is to join the chorus of the disenfranchised and make our voices heard: not by Microsoft, but by those who would compete with them. It is the corporation that provides me a computing experience that I want which will ultimately receive my investment, not a corporation that tells me I must adapt to them.
I'd also like to point out that I do not qualify as someone who simply "dislikes change." I like change just fine...so long as that change is of benefit to me. More to the point, it is not incumbent upon me to go looking for reasons to embrace change. No money greases my palm to do so. Quite the opposite: I have a vested interest in getting the maximum possible return on investment from what I already own, and what I already know.
If you, Microsoft, Apple or anyone else what to impose change then you have to sell me on it. Convince me of the ROI in buying something new, in learning something new and in retraining the habits of a lifetime. Give me a reason to embrace a given change, one that can be objectively seen to benefit me, and I'll be all over that.
As one example related to Windows 8: I like Metro Start...I just don't believe it is an appropriate replacement for my Start Menu. I think it's a fantastic little launcher, and I truly adore live tiles. They are like widgets on my Android phone, but – if coded well – contain a higher information density. I would like to fullscreen the Metro Start application on it's on screen, where it could enhance my desktop experience by providing me more information at a glance without having to context switch.
The extant implementation of this technology however is non-optimal, thus I refuse to invest in it and I call for change. Interesting that; at least some of the people you label as "afraid of change" are in fact calling for change. Not for a return to what was, but for a modification of what is in order to better suit our requirements.
I'm not afraid of change, Mark. I'm just someone without an excess of it in my pockets.
If Microsoft had a desire to shut me up, my "demands" are thus:
1) A switch in the operating system to restore the classic start menu and remove the hot corners. Simply licensing Classic Shell would do fine. Alternately, a legally binding commitment from Microsoft not to block Classic Shell from working at any point in the future (and ensuring the relevant libraries that Classic Shell relies upon are always present) is acceptable.
2) Either context-aware file extensions, or a simple setting that you can toggle which prevents any Metro application from binding associations without explicit permission. The goal is to have a "nothing jumps to Metro without my express permission" setting.
3) A legally binding commitment from Microsoft to maintain the Desktop in all future versions of Windows for a minimum of the next 15 years.
4) A legally binding commitment from Microsoft to produce a Desktop version of any primary software they produce for Metro. (Nobody cares about $widgety application. I mean things like Office, Lync, RSAT, etc.)
5) RDP support for Metro to be taken into consideration. Using Metro from RDP, Teamviewer, or any other remote-access or support application is horrific. Metro is a burden on support desk staff.
6) Revisiting touch queues to make them more obvious, or incorporating a "how to use Windows Touch" tour. "How to use Metro with a keyboard and mouse without going mad" would be great too.
7) Revisit how you "throw away" Metro applications with a mouse. It is counter intuitive and difficult for some people. (Older folks, those using trackpads who have motor control issues, etc.)
8) Fix Stylus support for Metro; it's pants. Specifically, I have an issue with the fact that you cannot drag the Metro screen around. Instead, you have to drag the magic, disappearing slider, and that doesn’t work well.
9) Provide a setting to make the Charms Bar a textual overlay with a transparent background. Big Black Bar causes context switching.
10) Let me "Pop Out" tiles and affix them permanently on the desktop, like widgets or active desktop items. Alternately, I would love the ability to assign Metro to a monitor as a FULL TIME application. Metro is a great launcher in a multi-monitor scenario, but Metro should be a desktop application, the desktop should not be a metro application.
11) Allow me to "Window" Metro applications. I don't care if they aren't resizable, but if I am eschewing Microsoft's "only 33/66 two things at a time" philosophy, I need a way to get at the soon-to-be-mandatory Metro applications in a manner that suits my workflow, not Microsoft's desire to sell more Smartphones through forced acclimation to a new UI.
12) Allow anyone willing to pay the fee to sign their application (because, frankly, if you are forcing a new walled garden UI on everyone, Metro apps should damned well all be signed!) to create a Metro app. That includes browsers and "applications which replicate core functionality." I don't care if you are Microsoft, Apple or Bob the Baker. Shut up and stop trying to restrict competition by turning away people who make a better mousetrap.
13) Alter downgrade rights to include downgrade all the way to XP. Application compatibility is still an issue for some of us. Many are dependant on applications from companies that have gone out of business, or don't have the wonga to re-purchase some $50,000 application that nearly broke the bank the first time. Alternately, take advantage of Windows 8's hyper-v to offer both "XP-mode" and "Windows 7 mode."
14) As per 13, if you don't want to offer downgrade rights all the way to XP, then allow the operating system to be booted directly into either the "XP-mode" or "Windows 7-mode" VMs that should be shipping as options with Windows 8.
15) Let me log on in a manner that bypasses Metro. Just dump me directly to the desktop if that is what I choose. I shouldn't have to see Metro if I don't want to. It should be something I choose to use. Frankly, if you do the things I've said above – like allow me to "pin" metro to a monitor, just as if it were a Desktop application – then I will use Metro. And I will use the start menu. Each has different uses for me.
There's more, but these are the big asks. You can now begin crapping on all of the above with your nose high in the air.
Commentards, attack!
Desktop is dead (bar us hard core gaming addicts ;))
Personal computing will be just that, personal. The days of big black boxes under the desk are slowly disappearing my friend.
Intel have just invested squillions in touch screen tech firms. Touch is the next phase of computing.
It will then be augmented computing (Google Glasses and Valves version, I forget the name)
Then eventually natural language input <- years away. Go Google the ex Microsoft bloke who was working at Microsoft then left to join Valve to work on glasses, as natural language wouldn't happen in his lifetime he said.
So to recap for you:
now -> touch -> glasses -> natural language
;)
Aside from a couple of trips to the emperor's new wardrobe, you end up at the correct point.
To recap for you - we stopped programming computers by wire and began using switches because it was easier. We miniaturised the switches into punch cards and tape because it was more convenient. We started using keyboards (in the modern sense) because it meant we could go direct to the machine. We used GUI's because they make computing more accessible to those previously disinclined to it.
We arrive at your 'now' point.
Touch (which is already here) serves only to eliminate the mouse (or move the touchpad..). Glasses (tried before and failed to catch on) serve only to take the display off the desk. They are tiny, tiny steps where the only uses are to make it look like the computing industry hasn't hit a wall and to keep people ordering 'upgrades'.
I agree that natural language is the next logical revolution in computing simply because speaking is faster than typing - when my computer can understand what I am on about most of the time and otherwise successfully prompt me for corrections, it will simultaneously be a more productive and accessible device and, importantly, on a very general basis.
After that you would have to look to holographic displays allowing people to manipulate a computing environment by moving around within it and also the possibility of responding to mental commands. And who knows what may seem like a good idea after that or what newcomers may join the game?
Last night I spent 4 hours coming up with a way to fingerprint and crossreference two data sets, one of which contained data almost, but not readily identical information. It also needed to explainable/demonstrable/defensible up to VP level so it all had to be done in Excel. If I had needed to use a touchscreen to do that I'd still be poking and swiping.
Efficiency of an interface has to be evaluated on a task by task basis. Options are great (maybe not Win8's schizophrenic approach) and all, but the keyboard and mouse - those trusty old dinosaurs - aren't going away anytime soon.
Never thought of it like that. Touch screens as a mitigation for the bidder's remorse being experienced by the network providers who regret those pesky 3G operating costs. Each one contributing little to the solution individually, but millions upon millions in use 24/7/365. Hmm!
I also find that touch worse than a mouse/touchpad or keyboard as soon as the screen is more than a few inches. It works on a phone as the screen size is pretty much the same size as a touchpad would be anyway, but on a larger screen, you're having to move your arm over a wider area - more effort, slower. That's before we consider laptops and desktops, where having to hold up your arm all day will quickly become painful. (Alternatively, you have the display closer to you or flat on the desk, but then it's a disaster for neck and back problems when you're looking down all day long.)
Despite the Windows 8 hate here, this is a world that offers touch, mouse and keyboard (look at how many of the upcoming "tablets" are actually hybrids, complete with keyboard and touchpad). It's only Apple that wants a world where computing is down on touch-only devices.
The bonus is it's probably more intuitive for someone who's never used a computer before - but once you've got past the one minute learning curve of the mouse/pointer (which is no worse, and probably better, than the learning curve for all the multitouch gestures). And I say probably, because nothing is obvious here - I remember my mum saying she was confused by a touchscreen phone, and preferred having actual keys to press.
The big problem with voice recognition is it's a pain for more than one person in a room (or perhaps privacy issues when in public).
Really? In a world where most business PC use is performed by someone sitting at a desk, there is no compelling argument to pay *more* for a system with a smaller screen and RSI-inducing keyboard.
So, what you are really asserting is that the days of the desk job are numbered and our children and grandchildren will work standing up, or wandering about putting in face-time with colleagues. That would probably be very good for the population's general health, but I don't see it as a productivity boost.
My own guess? In the future, the cost of a PC will cease to matter. Everyone who wants a portable device will have one. Every location that would benefit from a larger-but-fixed device will have one. Ergo, sales of "desktop" PCs will fall to about 50% and portables will rise to about 50% and there they will stick.
Yes - a common assumption is that in ten years' time, everyone's computer will just be their phone, which will then plug or dock into everything else.
But I think that as costs fall, it'll be more likely that people will have multiple devices for every purpose, and information will be transferred across the network. The idea that I should have to faff about with "docking" seems absurd really. Plus more and more non-computer devices will turn into computers, e.g., as we're now seeing with TVs. The PC is not dead - rather lots of other things will turn into personal computers.
Also the media love to twist stats - even if sales of desktop and laptops remain constant (or increase), the effect of tablets and phones rising to that level with mean the share of desktops and laptops will fall. This will be spun as if the absolute sales were falling. (Nokia got criticised for years for "falling market share", even though their sales were actually increasing, and it was just new companies entering the market.)
> now -> touch -> glasses -> natural language
Haha! Natural language is works using a massive amount of heuristics (aka guessing) which is pretty much the last thing you want from a computer when you are ordering some new servers.
This is why written language is normally more formal and we usually even ditch that and use forms and codes with very precise meanings.
Agreed. Touch is fine for mobile devices that don't want kbs/mausen etc., but such an interface is terribly imprecise, and requires enormous clown-sized buttons to work comfortably. Hell, just look at how clunky text eiditing using only the on-screen keyboard can be on an iPad.
Touch feels like shaving with a wardrobe on occasions- when you want precision, it is necessary to resort to either a stylus or some mouse/trackpad etc. to steer a pointer- until someone comes up with some sort of <idea redacted as I just realised that it might be novel, and my employer might prefer to keep it :P >.
Touch is shiny and scifi for the middle management nincompoops who like to feel that they're living in the future, and use their desktop for a few minutes each day. However, it's no way to drive a workhorse machine. Yet.
Bearing in mind how value the guy could knock off MS shares by saying "its broke for the desktop" I think he went pretty close.
With Classic start menu I can actually use it but it should not need an add on, if you are selling "New" trying "New with an ounce of thought for desktop users" too eh.
Not 100% old style, not wetro somewhere in the middle, like a pop up Touch/Mouse capable area but only the equivalent to 20% of screen or even representative of a tablet (you chose the diagonal size). Any assumption where a 24"+ high resolution screen is treated the same way as a small tablet is wrong.
I look at GSD (Getting Stuff Done) any new OS may hit the GSD while you are re learning the shortcuts and locations of required items but for me wetro just screams distraction at every INYOURFACE WANTALLYOURSCREEN!!!!! interjection, go a f*****g way!
So here come the snarly shills with the insults, how about spending a bit less time on here telling intelligent people they are wrong and a bit more in the design and programming seat.
Do better and the constant stream of criticism about that interface may just go away kapeesh?
This post has been deleted by its author
Paul Allen says "Users can avoid some of these sudden transitions by adjusting Windows' file type associations, and he explains how with detailed instructions."
I say you can avoid them by not installing this OS......
However for myself I just learned how to use the new OS and only see the "Start Screen" on startup before I get to desktop. All my work and stuff is done on desktop and then I have a shortcut to do shutdown. I love the OS start speed and shutdown speed plus it is quicker loadin my programs etc so I for one will stay with it, however if MS offer to give me back the start button I wouldn't say no but I don't miss it that much anyway as thats what the windows button on the keyboard is for.
...it has become increasingly apparent that I am a super-genius. I was not aware of this previously, but since the release of Windows 8 and the difficulties many El Reg posters are having with a Start Screen instead of a Start Menu, with moving the mouse cursor to the lower left when there is no longer a Start button there or how much disorientation is caused to them by having larger program icons with information in them, rather than a small menu item, it has become obvious to me that I must be an exceptionally gifted human being. Not only this, but reports are coming in that children who have been given it to play around with by their parents are able to quickly learn how to find and launch programs the programs that they want. I wonder perhaps if we are seeing a new dawn of human brilliance, some mutant gene now expressing itself.
The alternate view would be that many posters on the Reg are intellectually sub-normal in finding these changes difficult to work with or holding them up, or that they are seeking ways to criticize due to some a priori grudge against Microsoft. But as open-minded and IT literate people, I am quite utterly certain that this is not the case. So I count myself blessed that I was granted these intellectual abilities.
LOL H4rm0ny, great post. The whiney vocal minority.
You should see Windows Phone 8 threads on websites, and how much hate is poured on that by Angry Android fans (even though IMHO WP is smooth as butter like iPhone - and far superior to Droidphones)
Angry techies. We shouldn't be surprised there are a ton of 'em on el reg comments :)
Apparently you've repeatedly completely missed the point made by every even semi-sane and semi-rational person I know that's actually tried Windows 8 (and even Paul Allen apparently!)... IT HAS NEEDLESSLY AND ILLOGICALY AND HIDDEN IMPORTANT CONTROLS AWAY.
So you (and I) managed eventually to work it out by trial and error... that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't HAVE to blindly guess at how things work, you should be able to use some basic previous experience and some common sense / logic to follow cues on the screen to achieve what you want. This is entirely different from waving your mouse around like Sooty's wand, hoping for magic to happen!
"Apparently you've repeatedly completely missed the point made by every even semi-sane and semi-rational person I know that's actually tried Windows 8 (and even Paul Allen apparently!)... IT HAS NEEDLESSLY AND ILLOGICALY AND HIDDEN IMPORTANT CONTROLS AWAY."
I like the No True Scotsman hiding in the above. Anyone who has tried Win8 and doesn't agree with you, is not even semi-sane or semi-rational. The difference between your post and mine is that I will back my opinion up with objective facts. For example, you get rather excitable about how "important controls" have been "hidden away." Pretty much any control that a normal user will need at all frequently, is quickly accessible by the Charms menu at the right hand side of the screen. Once you know it's there (and it's pretty easy to discover even if you didn't know about it, which you must do), you can manage network connections, displays, volume, syncing, updates, connected devices and a tonne of other things via this menu - usually just requiring two or three clicks to get what you want. And Control Panel is still there. Hit the Windows key, type 'co' and you're in Control Panel. I honestly have trouble believing that you would have trouble getting into that. The only thing I've found that takes longer is connecting or disconnecting to a VPN manually.
Honest question - what are you having trouble finding? Maybe I can help.
"This is entirely different from waving your mouse around like Sooty's wand, hoping for magic to happen!"
You can learn where the different menus and controls are in five minutes - your screen only has four corners and four edges! My jokes in my last post about people being intellectually sub-normal, I actually was joking. You can't seriously expect me to believe that you're having trouble learning the handful of ways to bring these menus up or having trouble navigating through them?
This post has been deleted by its author
Charms menus, Windowskey... magic. At least, it would appear that way to most people, and it might as well be - because there're no clues as to where to even start to find these things. I can safely say that nobody, and I mean nobody, of the many users I've supported over the years has ever used the Windows key in my presence - it's been there on most keyboards for a decade and a half but just almost universally ignored by normal people. Why would people start to pay attention to it now? The screen is where they're looking, where their attention is (correctly) focussed. (And yes, I use the windows key all the time but I'm not classifying myself as "normal"!)
That hidden menu that pops up from the very bottom right corner of the screen is just deliberate inconsistent change for the sake of inconsistent change; why not have it pop up from where the start menu has been for years?
I'm not saying _I_ personally have a problem using this, as I'm not really a "normal" user in many ways and in any case ditched Windows on my own desktops nearly 15 years ago, but since most of the users I support are using Windows I have to keep up to date with that world. I can assure you, there are an awful lot of needlessly irritated "normal" people who resent the fact that their time is pointlessly wasted when things like this are changed for no good reason, for no benefit to them or their daily workflow.
This post has been deleted by its author
This is not a troll, a wind up or sarcasm, but why do people put up with this?
When you buy a PC with MS Windows on it you are paying for the privilege, so how come MS gets away with forcing you to change the work patterns that you have developed over the years, thus making it more difficult to get the job done. After all, the PC is a tool. It may be a thing of deep interest to some and a means of making a living for others but not everyone is that committed and just want to use it as a means and not an end.
As some have said before if the touch based part was an optional extra and defaulted to a desktop if that's the way you wanted to run the OS then no-one would have any complaints but to force this down everyones' throat is not the sign of a company that takes the needs of its customers into account.
Is it inertia, vendor lock-in or just the fear of the unknown? I don't know.
All I do know that when I was a sys admin I opted out and went over to Linux and I've never regretted it.
And to anyone saying that it was easy for me, being in the trade as it were, things are a lot easier now. Most things just work.
"This is not a troll, a wind up or sarcasm, but why do people put up with this?"
Because what for you is something you have to "put up with" is for another person, a good new feature. Your post talks about having to re-learn things, but it took me about half an hour to figure out how to work Windows 8 and after the first week, I was doing things faster with it than I could on Windows 7. Basically, you've started with an assumption - that the difference between you and other people is that you don't put up with something and they do. That assumption is only an assumption. For many of us, we don't find it onerous to spend a very short time familiarizing ourselves with the new OS and we actually like it. Assuming that you question is honest as you say, and not trolling or sarcasm, that's my honest answer.
As to your comment about it being easier to learn something because you're "in the trade", that's true. But I'd say several things about Win8 make it easier for the non-technical to use. Flat, non-hierarchical Start menu that shuffles a lot of the more obscure stuff off into an Expanded section, commonly adjust settings being accessible outside of Control Panel and obscure icons. All good stuff. Now when I'm explaining to someone over the phone how to get their network working, I don't have to say: "see the little computer and cable icon in the bottom right, it will look like a little monitor with a cable on the left. It might be next to a little flag. Yes, click on that. No Right Click. Select Open Network and Sharing Centre..." etc. I can just say "Open the Charms menu and tap Settings. Tap Network down the bottom. What networks do you see? Good tap that one." It's objectively simpler.
"Now when I'm explaining to someone over the phone how to get their network working, I don't have to say: "see the little computer and cable icon in the bottom right, it will look like a little monitor with a cable on the left"
+1
Explaining how to get things done in Windows 8 is immeasurably easier than in previous versions of Windows. Sure, you have to learn some new ways first, which might initially seem less intuitive (precisely because you're used to the old way) but once you've grasped it it's al fairly simple. If we'd left things the same because we knew the old way, you'd still be spending days tweaking autoexec.bat every time you wanted to get a new app running.
Touch is an optional extra. The new start menu is different, and perhaps some prefer the older one, and perhaps it would have been nice to offer an option for the older one, but it is just as much a mouse/keyboard based menu as earlier start menus. They didn't offer an option for the older menus when they were changed in Vista/7 either.
"went over to Linux and I've never regretted it."
But as someone who also uses Linux, I have exactly the same question: how do they get away with changing things all the time? Whether it's the scrollbars, the taskbar, the new Unity start menu (which has a lot in common with Windows 8's), the position of the menus, the way the folder hierarchy/path is displayed in file windows, or even the position of the god damn window close button!
Moreover, in Ubuntu at least, things seem to change every six months, rather than every few years. And the much shorter support cycle means you're forced to upgrade more often.
Sure, it's free, but the principle still exists. I acknowledge Linux has the advantage that you can choose different distributions with different UIs, but then you can install a 3rd party program for Windows to get your classic start menu back anyway, which is easier than changing to a different Linux distribution.
Whatever the reasons why software developers change things around, it is not unique to Windows, and I see it on Linux at least as much.
I do agree, to an extent - this "change for change's sake" disease does also affect the Linux desktop to a degree. The main difference there is that there we really can choose _exactly_ how things work - my own desktop is probably less intuitive even than standard Win8, but I made it that way to suit the things I do; no matter how much I might try, I can't make Win8 work _exactly_ as I want it to, it just won't allow it, isn't flexible enough.
Pointless change within application UIs is harder to work around unfortunately...
Paul Allen, like Bill Gates is clearly a perceptive man. Shame Ballmer is such a W*nker.
The Bimodal / Bipolar / schizophrenic modes of NT 6.2 (Sorry Windows 8) would easily be sorted out if only Bill or Paul were in charge.
However, what an opportunity for 3rd parties to write new shells. The START8 utility is, well, (cough!) a very good start.
Paul Allen is incorrect regarding IE, the tile and the desktop version both share bookmarks, or "favorites" as IE calls them.
If anyone wants a Start Menu replacement, try Stardock Start8, Classic shell is okay, but Start8 actually gives you the choice of Windows 7 style start menu or something that's sort of a halfway house between the new tiles and the old Start Menu.
Also I'd like to say that the notion that touch will replace the desktop is utterly absurd. Anyone who's used both will tell you where they are faster and more productive and it's not prodding an on-screen keyboard that's for sure. The quicker we can get over this fad of calling the desktop "legacy" and accept touch is useful for tablets and phones but not for laptops and desktops the better.
Paul Allen is incorrect regarding IE, the tile and the desktop version both share bookmarks, or "favorites" as IE calls them.
Not incorrect, per se, just that he was using an older pre-release version in which some of the little niggles like IE's favourites hadn't been sorted out. Which is worth bearing in mind with all the little bits and pieces he mentions.
>Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-7329.
Microsoft's address says it all. One Microsoft way, no matter how little it makes sense. I think the saying goes Jack of all trades, master of none.
I consult for many businesses that use tablets in their shops. The applications we use on the tablets are not the same as the desktop version. They've been steamlined for touch, designed to use on the warehouse floor or in autos, where they do a job more quickly then a laptop and less expensively then proprietary solutions. In the businesses that push it out correctly it's been a great time saver and the employees love them. When the tablet apps are designed as full feature replacements of the desktop version it generally fails. Too much time is spent on getting edge cases to work that aren't in the normal workflow.
Its good to see the reg being fair handed .. this is Paul Allen's conclusion.
Windows 8 does certainly require a brief adjustment period before users become familiar and comfortable with the new bimodal operating system.
Desktop PC users, with only minor tweaks and adjustments, should be able to pick things up without much trouble. I am sure most the minor issues I pointed out will be addressed in the next release of the operating system. And it won't be long until third party developers become more familiar with Windows 8 and begin to create and distribute applications that help smooth out many of remaining rough edges. In fact, I noticed that a clock application has already been developed that places a live tile with the current time directly on the Start screen. I'm sure that we can expect many exciting apps soon that take advantage of these live Start screen tiles.
I'm particularly excited about the prospects for Windows 8 on a tablet. The tablet interface is elegant, responsive, and stacks up nicely with other tablets on the market. And with its capability to optionally switch to desktop view right on the tablet, Windows 8 extends to mobile users the flexibility to run traditional applications and become more efficient and productive while on the go.
Touch seems a natural progression in the evolution of operating systems, and I'm confident that Windows 8 offers the best of legacy Windows features with an eye toward a very promising future.
I hope this helps,
Paul
>> "Remind me, why did they drop the 'Metro UI' name ?"
> The Metro grocery chain in Europe threatened a possible lawsuit. MS are using "Modern UI" at the moment.
What about the Paris Métro, maybe if they spelled it with an accent mark it would have been acceptable ...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
