Final thoughts on Windows 8: A design disaster

http://zdnet.com/blog/hardware/final-thoughts-on-windows-8-a-design-disaster/20706

by mtgx • 14 years ago

162 203 14 years ago

agreed

Karunamon3• 14 years ago

In my (limited) experience, ZDNet has always been very friendly of Microsoft. The fact that even they are throwing around words like "disaster" doesn't bode well in my mind.

simonsarris2• 14 years ago

> I’m going to avoid commenting on Metro on touch-based systems for now because Windows 8 is too far off in the future to know what the hardware is going to be like. Instead, I’m going to limit my discussion to using the operating system on desktop and notebook systems.

I think he roundly missed the point.

Yes you scan over the screen and it might be hard to find the things you want on day one. That's how it was with our iPhone and Androids too on the first day we got them.

You all know what happens. People rearrange to their taste or memorize the locations of the less-than-five applications that they commonly use. It's not as if the "where's waldo" game goes on indefinitely.

I think he's being intentionally obtuse about this. Windows is trying to unify their UI among the XBox, Phones, Tablets and Desktops and he wants to focus on the one where it will be less useful than the others by complaining about a problem that literally every smartphone user has already solved by day three.

Typing the name of the app you want is clumsy, you say? More clumsy than eyeballing a list that gets rather large?

http://i.imgur.com/Z0pCc.png

If you know what you want, typing is vastly easier than scanning a long startmenu list of items.

jrockway3• 14 years ago

I disagree that he missed the point. People use Windows because they already use Windows. If a new version of Windows is as hard to learn as OS X or Linux, then there's not much point in continuing to use Windows. (The same goes for Office. People use Word and Excel because they know how to use Word and Excel. Otherwise, they'd be saving themselves the license fee and be using Libre Office or Google Docs.)

rlu5• 14 years ago

Your Office point kind of loses traction since I'd say the Office 2007 was a bigger change from Office 2003 than Windows 8 is to Windows 7.

Honestly Windows 8 doesn't change how people use computers that much. Most people use the start menu to ~search~ for a program. I.E. they hit start and begin typing. You can do the same exact thing with the Start screen.

Aside from the start screen, Windows continues to work in basically the same way it always has.

jmpeax• 14 years ago

People use Windows because it comes installed with the computers they buy.

Me1000• 14 years ago

The customer market for Windows is already slowly transitioning away from Windows. I think it's logically to say that if the consumer market goes, the corporate market will fall soon after that. Microsoft could have either ignore this, as Apple continues to sell more and more Macs and iPads or they respond with something to take on what Apple see's as the future of their consumer facing business: the iPad. Microsoft chose the action that might have a chance to actually turn this trend around… Time will tell if it works.

ryanwaggoner2• 14 years ago

I'm no Windows fan (I can't imagine ever going back to Windows), but you've got to be kidding me if you think people only use it because they already use it. How about because it's far easier to use and less fiddly than Linux? How about because the software selection is vastly superior to both Linux and OS X? How about because almost any computer (including Apple's) can run Windows AND all your hardware will work just fine with it, while if you want to run OS X, you'll have to buy an expensive machine from Apple, and if you want to run Linux, you better pray there's decent driver support for your peripherals.

The situation has gotten a lot better over the last decade for OS X and Linux users (though Windows has also improved a lot), but we're a FAR cry from a world in which the only valid reason to use Windows is momentum.

I won't even bother trying to list all the reasons to use Word and Excel (especially Excel) over Libre and Google Docs. Google Docs is a child's toy compared to Excel.

makecheck3• 14 years ago

When the Ribbon first appeared (in a radical redesign of Office) I heard relatives and friends say they "didn't like the new Windows". They didn't even realize at the time that only Office had changed, not Windows. The upgrade was being forced on them by their workplace IT departments.

That's what it boils down to: people don't like it when change is forced on them. It's one thing if you see a cool new product on a shelf, choose to buy it and are happy to try something new; it's quite another to have your existing products keep changing.

This is human nature. And that's why Microsoft is insane to radically change Windows; they're going all "new Coke" on their cash cow. If they really wanted a new product then they should have created a new product: new name, new marketing, new everything, leaving the existing product alone!

This problem isn't limited to Microsoft. I've been disappointed by several iPhone app purchases for instance, as companies keep "improving" their apps with updates and occasionally destroy the essence of the original that I liked so much (e.g. maybe they mess up the UI so it's not as good, or they add in-app-purchasing crap). That's not the way to treat existing customers. Sometimes products should just be left alone.

w1ntermute• 14 years ago

> (The same goes for Office. People use Word and Excel because they know how to use Word and Excel. Otherwise, they'd be saving themselves the license fee and be using Libre Office or Google Docs.) reply

I can tell you that this is definitely not the case. I've used Word a lot in (non-software) engineering setting, and there are a large number of features used on a regular basis that simply are not available in LibreOffice or Google Docs. Things like citation support, text wrapping for images, and a good equation editor.

bgilroy26• 14 years ago

People will be skipping windows 8 just like they skipped Vista.

Microsoft operates on an unspoken major version -- development version -- major version cycle that users are accustomed to.

rbanffy4• 14 years ago

Don't forget people use Windows because that's what comes with their new computers. Almost nobody installs a fresh OS.

old-gregg• 14 years ago

But what stops you from re-arranging and placing the most often used application shortcuts on your desktop in Windows 95? And indeed, most users do just that. The reviewer correctly points out that this new UI doesn't really add anything, only takes things away. Shortcuts+search have been around for a while.

Actually I have no opinion on Windows 8 because I have not seen it myself, but this review fits both Gnome Shell and Unity very well: it's like they all suddenly joined the iphone-as-a-desktop cult.

Typing the application titles does not work for me. Because for frequently used apps I already have hotkeys or sidebar icons, but I never remember the names of rarely used apps: should I be typing "Monitor settings" or "Display" or "Desktop" or whatever, if I need to change the background or a screen resolution?

Lastly, is that really the biggest problem with the modern desktops: finding apps? Seriously, of all things that could possibly be made better, why are they all trying to re-invent how we're launching applications?

simonsarris2• 14 years ago

> but I never remember the names of rarely used apps: should I be typing "Monitor settings" or "Display" or "Desktop" or whatever, if I need to change the background or a screen resolution?

Windows Vista and up automatically help you with this. Even typing things like "DPI" or "wheel" into control panel come up with a list of all possible relevant actions that could be taken, as opposed to just different panel screens. Here are a few examples of that in action:

http://i.imgur.com/c9uN1.png

http://i.imgur.com/hZStY.png

http://i.imgur.com/dQR9U.png

> why are they all trying to re-invent how we're launching applications?

My comment said why! It's not a re-invention, just a unification of the look and feel with the rest of Microsoft's ecosystem (xbox, phones, tablets, PCs will all have the same "start" screens).

nhebb2• 14 years ago

> why are they all trying to re-invent how we're launching applications?

I understand that they want to grow the tablet and mobile market, but forcing a tablet interface on desktop users seems like a serious strategic error on their part.

Microsoft has lost their sense of identity. IBM is not a sexy company. IBM is not in the news. But IBM knows who they are - a mature company that quietly goes about making a solid profits. Instead of embracing who they are, Microsoft seems to be chasing everyone else.

Edit: removed unsubstantiated rumor.

bztzt8• 14 years ago

I prefer the start screen to desktop shortcuts because, since it’s really a popup menu of sorts, you can bring it up and (single-)click to open up a window on top of your existing window configuration without disturbing that. With desktop shortcuts, even if you use the Win-D shortcut, when you double-click on an icon it forgets your previous window configuration, so you have to manually restore everything. Another thing I like to do with the start screen is keep groups of shortcuts to folders and apps associated with activities or projects I’m working on. I can keep those groups off to the right most of the time, then easily move a whole group to the first page when I know I’ll be working on that for a while.

ohwellthen• 14 years ago

Yeah.. they all lost the plot. Looks like going forward, it's OpenSuse + KDE for me.

brudgers• 14 years ago

>"But what stops you from re-arranging and placing the most often used application shortcuts on your desktop in Windows 95?"

Nothing. Lots of people did it that way...even back in the Windows 3.1 days. And I suspect that Microsoft has mountains of data showing that lots of people still do.

This is vastly different from the wild speculation and design dogma that went into Unity's design.

altrego99• 14 years ago

They should have kept the main interface same as Windows 7, and the whole Unity-like interface thing (which they call Metro), should have been an application which you would run to make it more friendly to touch - if you need.

azernik• 14 years ago

I don't know about Windows 8, but Unity's applications are well-tagged with appropriate search terms. For example, typing either "monitor" or "display" brings the Display shortcut (which includes screen resolution settings) to the top, while typing either "background" or "desktop" will bring the "Appearance" shortcut (which lets you change desktop background) to the top.

redthrowaway2• 14 years ago

I haven't played with Unity much, but I'm running F17 and I have to say, as much as I despised Gnome 3 when I first encountered it, Gnome Shell extensions[1] have taken it from an unusable pile of excrement to a legitimate improvement on Gnome 2. Gnome Shell, for all of its design faux pas, is built on an incredibly modifiable foundation that allows you to reconfigure just about everything. Moreover, these modifications are dead simple to share (easier than adding an extension to Chrome).

Sure, it's worse than just getting the damned thing right in the first place, but it's much better to get things wrong and make them easy to fix, as Gnome has done, than get them wrong and make them unfixable, as Microsoft has. For that reason, I resent the comparison of Metro to Gnome Shell, although I get where it comes from. There's nothing wrong with Gnome that can't be fixed with some some js and CSS. Your UI is essentially a web app that you can modify arbitrarily, which is an incredibly powerful idea. Metro may have some themes, but there'll likely be no way to fix its underlying issues.

[1]https://extensions.gnome.org

debacle2• 14 years ago

> I never remember the names of rarely used apps:

On the same token, I never remember how to update the PATH variable in Windows, but in Windows 7 if you type 'PATH' in the search box on the start menu, it pulls up the 'Edit environment variables' screen as a search result.

MS has done their research, and is making slow, incremental progress on making their OS easier to use.

fpgeek3• 14 years ago

From the article:

"I’ve been following Windows 8 closely over the past few months, spending a lot of time not only with the official releases but also with a number of leaked builds, and I’ve had the chance to install the operating system on a variety of hardware platforms, both old and new."

"You may think that after a while you will become immune to these annoyances the more you use Windows 8. I don’t know. All I can say is that I haven’t come to that point yet, and the depressing thing is that I don’t think I will."

I don't know about you, but if I'd felt this way about the usability of anything (desktop, smartphone, whatever) after a few months, I'd have chucked it and moved on to something else (or gone back to whatever I'd been using before). Exactly how long should he keep beating his head against the wall until he's allowed to complain?

suby2• 14 years ago

I've been using Windows 8 since they released the consumer preview. I hated it with a passion at first, but I wanted to see if it was just because it was different, or just because it was bad, so I kept using it.

You definitely can get past most of the annoyances without too much trouble. For example, there's a start screen when you first load up the computer, a screen that comes before the screen where you type in your password. You have to hold down left click and flick your mouse up to get rid of it, which is annoying on a laptop without a mouse, which is what I'm using it on. That annoyed me for a good week or two before I figured out that you can press a key to get by that screen without the mouse gesture.

There are still some things that make me curse, though. Anytime metro goes full screen because I hovered my mouse near the top left of my screen (I'll occasionally try to click on the options in firefox and go to metro instead), any time it reminds me that I can use an annoying full screen metro app to play videos when I open videos with VLC, anytime the charm bar appears (I've never used that thing once). I also wish there was an easier way to go to my computer, because that's what I use the start menu for 50% of the time, and now I have to right click where the start menu was and spend 10 seconds looking for 'windows explorer' on a small menu every time I want to do this.

It's just a lot of little annoyances. I can live with it, but I really do hope that Windows 8 crashes and burns.

sliverstorm• 14 years ago

Typing the name of the app you want is clumsy, you say?

It's a good thing nobody told me that, 'cause I've been using the search box in Win7's start menu heavily for years and I would never go back now.

protolif• 14 years ago

They've unified their UI by making it suck everywhere. I'm still upset over the Xbox UI change. It's just terrible.

CamperBob23• 14 years ago

That's how it was with our iPhone and Androids too on the first day we got them

Well, no, not really... not in the iPhone's case.

guynamedloren• 14 years ago

Oh really? You knew exactly where each app icon was located the moment you got your iPhone? And the settings, notifications, and everything else? There was zero learning curve? Come on. Sick of this Apple superiority fanboy bullshit.

malkia3• 14 years ago

I think he talks about something else. When I installed Win8, and then cygwin, and all other tools that I use - then the Metro screen became full with lots of icons that you can't read the whole names easily, and all of them were the same. I don't even see some of these names in the Start Menu (or maybe i did not check, because I don't go for example to the menu for them).

So the problem is that it flattens out the whole tree structure, and while I think this is good idea (I like the OSX dock), it's good idea only if you have few important things there. If it's get too cluttered easily, then it's not.

gurkendoktor2• 14 years ago

> Yes you scan over the screen and it might be hard to find the things you want on day one. That's how it was with our iPhone and Androids too on the first day we got them.

Most of my friends who use Windows haven't even bothered learning how to use a smartphone. Those who like to play around with gadgets have long left Microsoft land.

There certainly are Windows power users out there, but most of this thread seems to skip over the rest: those who use Windows because they grew up on it, or because they've actually attended paid courses on how to use it. There's no way they will do it a second time. I think Windows 7 will become the new XP.

barrkel2• 14 years ago

You know what they say about foolish consistency.

Unification of UI makes sense where modalities are similar. But touch vs keyboard vs mouse are very different modalities. The first demands a few large areas with gestures; the second demands something very much like a terminal; the third, much more densely packed areas without gestures (because large mouse moves are far more imprecise).

I have Windows 7. But I never use the start menu's search functionality, because I have a terminal; if I want to start an app by typing, I'll do it from the terminal. That way, I get completion for application arguments, I can write scripts to shorten more complicated launch sequences, etc. That's because the terminal (+ shell + friends) is set up for typing; a search box is laughably primitive in comparison.

Meanwhile, my start menu doesn't look anything like yours. I'm running Classic Start Menu, with programs classified by function: Development, Work, Games, etc., just containing the main icon. I use these menu items when I'm being goal directed, but more importantly, it saves me the effort of having to remember any names at all. Menus are optimized for scanning lists of text; in this way, they're far superior to ribbons when looking for an unfamiliar command.

bztzt8• 14 years ago

? If I want to start Google Chrome, I can open the start menu, type "go" or "ch", wait half a second to see that it's the first result, and hit return. To do this from the terminal I need to switch to a terminal, know the name of the executable (not just the display name of the program), know what directory it's in (or make sure to put it in my PATH), etc.

I don't agree with your characterizations. The mouse allows density but doesn't demand it - both more and less dense layouts have pros and cons for mouse and are appropriate in different contexts. A terminal is good for input but limiting for output - I would like to see a command shell that took a text command language, but produced graphical output.

periferral• 14 years ago

disagree with you on all point here.

Yes you can arrange the icons on your phone the way you like it and yes you can do this on your laptop too. But when I dock my laptop, the screen resolution changes and now I have to find something.

On the desktop, I use launchy. A simple keyboard shortcut, type and run. Simple.

Overall I agree with most of the authors point. I do mainly agree on the point that users should have an option to have their standard desktop back as the default screen rather than metro.

T-Winsnes• 14 years ago

On a desktop, I use windows. Hit windows key, type and run. Simple :)

I'm sure launchy has more functionality, but both the windows7 start menu and metro lets you press the windows key and type in partial names to open an application. I find it a lot quicker than using the mouse, and it's already built in.

jpswade2• 14 years ago

> These Ribbon toolbars are packed with small user elements and are fiddly to use with a mouse, and even more fiddly — at times bordering on impossible to use — when driven with a finger.

He contradicts himself, I stopped reading.

phaemon• 14 years ago

Where is the contradiction? He says they're difficult to use with a mouse and even more difficult to use on a touchscreen. Makes sense to me.

bconway• 14 years ago

Yes you scan over the screen and it might be hard to find the things you want on day one. That's how it was with our iPhone and Androids too on the first day we got them.

When the iPhone was released, there was a single home screen. Everything that was available to you was visible from the start. What you see is what you get.

FigBug2• 14 years ago

I don't know if Windows 8 is good or bad, but I do know the perception of it is bad. Perception is reality. If Microsoft doesn't get control of Windows 8 image ASAP then it's going to bomb.

phene• 14 years ago

When was the last time Microsoft had control of the image of any of its products?

nhebb2• 14 years ago

The difference this time is that many of the bad reviews are coming from historically pro-Windows sources.

FigBug2• 14 years ago

It's been a long time, but now there is more viable competition as well as less need to upgrade from older versions.

I think Microsoft would be far better off doing more frequent OS updates with smaller changes.

waivej• 14 years ago

I remember Microsoft being called a "perception engine" by my boss around 1998.

ams61102• 14 years ago

It sounds like it's going to be the "Ribbon" debacle part deux.

The debut of the Ribbon UI in Office 2007 was the tipping point where I started to look at other platforms and other productivity suites. It made no sense at all to me to switch from literally decades of convention in the UI to something that to this day leaves me frustrated every time I use it (probably because it's not often).

The Ribbon is why I now use a Mac, and don't use Outlook or any Office products.

Windows 8/Metro is going to be another such pivotal moment. It's so different, I wonder how many people are going to say "wow, maybe I ought to look at a Mac / Linux if I have to relearn everything anyway."

AlexDanger• 14 years ago

I really like the Ribbon. Just like everyone else I found it a pain to begin with but it didnt take long to adjust and now I much prefer it to digging through menus. The customisation options are also really great.

Is there any research or evidence to suggest that the Ribbon is a UI failure? Office 2012 will use the Ribbon (restyled to look all metro-y).

fellowniusmonk• 14 years ago

Pretty sure the ribbon is a brilliant piece of well researched UI work. Definitely a case of people just not wanting to break from the familiar.

makecheck3• 14 years ago

The Ribbon is too big. It often looks stupidly redundant (section titles matching action button titles, like Find/Find and Exit/Exit). Icons are overused; it shouldn't be a sin to let "only" a word be the label for something. Mostly it looks like somebody emptied all the drawers onto the top of my desk, forcing me to stare at a pile of junk all day long even though 90% of the time all I need from the pile is my pen.

chewxy• 14 years ago

I tried moving away to other office productivity tools. I found out I can't. Excel is still way too full featured compared to Open/LibreOffice. The UX in Excel is waay superior to LibreOffice.

And kids, that's why I have virtualbox on my machine. Just for Excel.

s_tec• 14 years ago

It will definitely be that way for me. I have been using Windows since version 3.1, but Windows 8 marks the end of the road. I basically have no choice but to switch to Linux full-time at this point. Half the Linux desktops have recently gone insane as well, but at least there are still things like XFCE.

prophetjohn2• 14 years ago

I can't imagine how typing the name of the app you want to open is a design failure. I use Windows 7 and OS X Lion about equally and Alfred on OS X and the Start search box on Windows 7 are the only way that I find apps that I want to open. It's largely the same way with finding files I want. It's my preferred way navigate the operating system.

glesica2• 14 years ago

I agree with you. In fact before I discovered that feature on a Mac I was absolutely baffled trying to figure out how people used Macs for real work.

On the other hand, I do a decent amount of desktop support in my job and I have yet to find a user who knew it was possible to hit the Windows key and start typing. There's a huge difference in usage patterns between the "power users" and "everyone else".

Tyrant5052• 14 years ago

I too have used windows since v.3 and didn't know about this... One of the reason's I love OSX is using quicksilver.

emehrkay• 14 years ago

First thing that I did when I got a mac was drag the applications folder to the dock and make it a list view. Instant start (menu on the side of the screen. I still use it from time to time, sometimes you just need to see the app icon. But command + space changed the way I compute. I understand why type searching was given focus in Unity and now Win 8.

lovskogen2• 14 years ago

The Dock. Is it baffling how people can do real work via the Dock? I myself use QuickSilver, but I don't ponder over how people do real work without it.

makecheck3• 14 years ago

Definitely. I'm surprised that keyboards don't have a "magnifying glass" key since search is entirely keyboard-oriented. (A Windows key doesn't count because it's not an intuitive search indicator. The Mac Spotlight's command-space is also unintuitive.)

I recommend Alfred too, as well as Dash (similar but targeted to programming). Both tools come up instantaneously compared to Spotlight, they're more configurable and they seem to stay out of the way better. Even though they cost money they are well worth it because of the productivity gain.

prophetjohn2• 14 years ago

Alfred is free.

wvenable5• 14 years ago

I feel like I was the only person on the entire planet who actually organized their start menu and deleted all the crud. Even now, I use ClassicShell on Windows 7 and I launch apps by category and muscle-memory.

But I've seen enough people's machines to know I'm in the minority, even among power users.

lmm2• 14 years ago

If you delete things from the start menu there's no way left to find them (other than rummaging through your whole hard drive for executables). Things I want to launch often go in quick launch or on the desktop; the start menu is always the interface of last resort.

conradfr• 14 years ago

Basically I almost never use the Start menu for launching apps. All my day-to-day softwares are pinned or in the Quick Launch. If not the case typing is usually quicker than looking in the start menu.

But as I said : I "ALMOST" never use it. I don't want it to disappear.

gizzlon2• 14 years ago

> I can't imagine how typing the name of the app you want to open is a design failure.

It's nice to have, but something is wrong if that's the fastest way to start a program. Even if you're a fast typer (most people are not btw), it's way to slow to use with commonly used applications.

My favorite ways to launch the apps I use all the time are:

- Keyboard shortcuts! Seriously, try it :) available on most linux/unix gui's.

- The launcher in Mac OS X, or "pin" in Win7: After logging in to my windows desktop I often start 3-5 programs in 3-5 clicks. Would be a pain to have to type the name of them all one-by-one >(

- Customized menus. Works ok, but still find it slower than the others. Never use the menus in fluxbox, I just use keyboard shortcuts for the common ones, or a terminal for the others (almost as fast as typing the name in gnome3)

- Typing the name. Use it on gnome 3 and kde sometimes. Mostely becuase I haven't bothered to set up keyboard shortcuts.

MartinodF• 14 years ago

"Pinning" to the taskbar also allows you to launch the first 9 (i think) programs by pressing Win+{1,9}

tintin• 14 years ago

I can open a program in my quick-launch-bar with one click before you even typed the first letter of that program. Maybe it's not a design feature, but it gets in the way.

(And yes: I'm using Windows 7 with the Windows Classic theme.)

b3mus3d• 14 years ago

I have a bunch of programs in my dock and I still prefer to open them with Alfred a lot of the time. If using 'CMD+space, ph, Enter' for Photoshop takes any longer than using quick launch then it's only by a minute amount.

rplnt• 14 years ago

You can still do that in Windows 8 as it still has the same merged quick-launch/task-bar.

anaheim• 14 years ago

Dammit, this is going to lead to a whole new set of questions from confused family members.

"How do I get to Start > Programs > [Some app which was made for usage on Windows XP]? I can't find the Start button, this new Windows is no good. grumble"

kristofferR• 14 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU

peterkelly2• 14 years ago

This video is truly amazing

rlu5• 14 years ago

Once the new form factors come out I think Windows 8 will do very, very well.

But we'll see!

aggronn• 14 years ago

It sounds to me like he loves windows 8, but doesn't like the metro UI. Literally, despite how he repeatedly said "Windows 8 is a totally failure", his only complaint was with the ribbons. Everything else was about metro.

What does he even do in metro? Why does he keep returning to it? I've been working in windows 8 for months, and I'm only on the start screen after my computer boots up.

I can't help but wonder if he actually hates windows 8 as much as he sounds like he does, or if he's using link bait for page views.

The only noteworthy comment he made was this one:

> The biggest problem with Windows 8 is that it wasn’t born out of a need or demand.

Too bad that has little to do with what the rest of the article is actually about.

rlu5• 14 years ago

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone is moaning about. How often do people sit on their computers, open the start menu and just stay there?

Never. That means you don't have to do so in Windows 8 with the start screen either. Except the Start Screen does provide more functionality than the start menu but that's a discussion for another day.

In Windows 8 your work flow is all in all almost identical to your work flow in Windows 7. You can still pin your most used programs to the taskbar meaning you can largely avoid even opening the start screen for launching apps since 99% of the time you can just click the ones you've pinned to the taskbar.

Also, multi-monitor support in win8 is so much better than on win7. There are plenty of non-metro feature additions or improvements in win8 that make using it a better experience.

petitmiam• 14 years ago

I'm glad to hear this.

I felt like I was using Windows 8 "wrong" because I was throwing away the start screen after boot and not coming back to it.

rlu5• 14 years ago

I think the power of windows 8 comes from the new form factors that will become common place. Imagine having a laptop where the screen detaches and becomes a tablet. Imagine carrying that around with you to do "tablet-y" things. You'll obviously use the start screen and metro apps. You can still use "classic Windows" but the majority of your time will likely be in metro since it is so much more convenient.

But then, you get home and decide you need to get some real work done so you plop that "tablet" back into the laptop and you have a full fledged laptop again. You can even hook it up into a multi monitor setup or whatever you want. Now get to work!

I think that will be really cool. One computer for both fun and work.

wvenable5• 14 years ago

If you're not using the start screen / Metro then isn't Windows 8 basically just Windows 7? Is there any compelling reason to upgrade at all?

LinXitoW• 14 years ago

One thing that is pretty useful is the multi-monitor support. You get a taskbar for every monitor. Apart from that, though, Windows 8 has added absolutely nothing to my experience.

freehunter12• 14 years ago

Under the hood improvements: security, UI responsiveness, etc.

stcredzero• 14 years ago

Windows 8 wasn’t born out of a need or demand; it was born out of a desire on Microsoft’s part to exert its will on the PC industry and decide to shape it in a direction — touch and tablets — that allows it to compete against, and remain relevant in the face of Apple’s iPad.

Early relational DB pioneer Michael Stonebraker once said: A company produces software architecture that resembles its org chart.

Maybe this is indicative on how well Microsoft can execute at this point. (Though, the overall trend seems positive for them.)

gruseom• 14 years ago

That's Conway's Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

forbes• 14 years ago

I've been using Windows since 3.11 and when I first booted up Windows 8 I clicked the Windows Explorer button in 'Metro' and was taken to the 'Classic' desktop. No Start menu. It took me a good fifteen minutes of clicking around to discover how to get back to Metro so I could launch any program.

In short it made a programmer feel like an idiot. I can't imagine how many grandads are going to be furious with it if they upgrade. I have no idea why removing the Start menu is a good idea.

I use OS X, Ubuntu (headless servers) and Windows 7 daily and I will definitely wait until Windows 9 before I upgrade my Windows VM. They are definitely sticking to the 'every second release sucks' cycle, like Star Trek.

bztzt8• 14 years ago

"I have no idea why removing the Start menu is a good idea."

Because it wasn't removed, it was changed and given a new presentation. The alternative would have been to have two redundant start menus.

pbz2• 14 years ago

Even keeping the icon where the old one was which when clicked would take you to the new "start menu" would have helped...

cubicle67• 14 years ago

My experience with the Win8 preview

looks ok. click on something, which launches an app. cool, but now how do I get back.

spent probably 10 minuted getting increasingly frustrated at not being able to exit back to the home screen (or whatever it's called. it's obviously not the desktop, because there's a tile called "desktop" that should be called "normal windows"). In the end I gave up and gave it to my wife, who did manage to figure it out (hint: you have to move the mouse to the very bottom left hand pixel)

Also - it appears I'm unable to use the email client at all unless I sign up for a live account. What's up with this?

inoop• 14 years ago

> It took me a good fifteen minutes of clicking around to discover how to get back to Metro so I could launch any program.

Have you tried pressing the windows key? :)

Seriously, this whole metro thing is just the new start menu.

jakeonthemove2• 14 years ago

Well, I always click the Win key for the win :-D, but it gets really annoying to have the whole screen change to a stupid looking menu in order to open another app. An alternative is to use the desktop, but I've given up on desktop icons a long time ago...

redcircle• 14 years ago

I'm excited about Metro. I've hated every one of my Windows experiences to date. So I'm in a different boat from most people, who are probably upset about the changes, which will require learning something new with dubious benefits. But for me, I might actually find Windows useable for the first time (where the payoff of using it exceeds the effort to use it).

Ygg22• 14 years ago

Interesting, you might be an outlier. What UI experience did you enjoy then?

nemo1618• 14 years ago

I think more people would be fine with Windows 8 if people stopped telling them that they should hate it.

Same for Vista; personally, I never encountered problems with drivers/sluggishness that people told me were bound to happen. It wasn't a spectacular upgrade from XP but I think most people avoided it because people were very outspoken about how supposedly awful it was.

malkia3• 14 years ago

We had slowdowns, graphically, since most of the people moved to 7 it's all good. Not sure exactly what, but it feels better.

7 feels very solid, like XP and 2000. (Man, I still miss Windows 2000).

fpgeek3• 14 years ago

Oh, if only the problems were just drivers and sluggishness (both of which my wife saw). Nevertheless, she stuck with it for almost 9 months until Vista, while trying to repair a routine unclean shutdown, managed to render itself completely unbootable. Given that we had to start over anyway, I ended up buying an OEM copy of XP Home for her. She was shocked at how well her laptop actually worked (since we'd bought it with Vista in the first place).

einhverfr3• 14 years ago

With Vista nobody told my wife she should hate it but the version that came pre-installed on her laptop never worked right and so she told me to return the laptop or put something on it that worked, so I installed Linux.

The problem with Windows 8 seems to be a general issue going on with UI design generally. If you look at Unity and GNOME-3 for example, these also break settled user expectations. It's like there is a rush to tell the users they are stupid and don't know what a usable UI is. I don't get that.

einhverfr3• 14 years ago

I kept reading this and going "wow, he's describing GNOME 3!"

thetabyte• 14 years ago

It comes down to this: Microsoft doesn't care about the desktop market. They don't have to. People will keep buying Windows. It doesn't matter how bad the experience gets, the average consumer will still buy it, and the manufacturers will still ship it. Not to mention the desktop market isn't growing. The tablet market is a different story. This is a young market with lots of potential and people are still making decisions. Steve Ballmer is a businessman. He knows desktop windows can be as bad as he wants, and nothing will change. But if Windows 8 works well on tablets, Microsoft might have a new revenue stream. From a business perspective, the desktop Windows experience does not matter, and so it will be designed for the tablet.

fpgeek3• 14 years ago

> He knows desktop windows can be as bad as he wants, and nothing will change.

If that's the plan, he's in for a rude shock. Given the Vista experience, Microsoft has probably room for a mulligan. They'll bleed a few users, but it will be a flesh wound. Most people who really care won't have trouble skipping a release cycle like they did before (plenty of them haven't upgraded to Windows 7 after all). But if two versions in a row suck, if there's no light at the end of the tunnel... people will have plenty of places to go, and they will.

nchlswu• 14 years ago

OS X's yearly release cycle highlights a key problem that Windows 8 highlights. Making changes that are anything more than miniscule can happen over a long period of time that users can adapt to.

Microsoft is stuck trying to cater to two fundamentally different interaction paradigms in one gigantic release, which is very difficult.

I think if anything, the author's article highlights some common perceptions many consumers will hold with Windows 8. While I haven't used Win8, a lot of the authors complaints seem like he wasn't willing to embrace something new and wasn't willing to learn. They don't seem like design failures per se; but if 8 wasn't designed well enough to appease these types of criticism, then I guess it is a design failure

damian2000• 14 years ago

There’s a palpable fear that Windows 8 will stumble out of the door.

If push comes to shove, you'd think MS could easily make the Windows 7 desktop the "default" look and feel, and let you turn on the Win 8 look via a setting. But then again, isn't the whole Windows 7 desktop just one click away anyway? This whole article seems like its vastly exaggerating the issue.

There's a good article here comparing Win8 to Apple's first release of OS X (with its built in MacOS 9 classic mode) ... http://www.osnews.com/story/25691/Windows_8_s_desktop_mode_M...

cageface2• 14 years ago

I just can’t shake the feeling that Windows 8 would be better off as two separate operating systems.

Bingo. Apple succeeded in mobile because they were forced to break entirely new ground. Frankensteining Metro and the old desktop UIs together makes about as much sense as WIMPing the XBox.

freehunter12• 14 years ago

The desktop is a fallback. Same as 16-bit mode, low graphics mode, XP mode, or the Classic Mac emulator in early versions of OSX. It's not going to be in Windows RT, and it won't be in Windows 9.

Microsoft can't just up and cut all support for programs designed for the previous versions of their OS.

pohl2• 14 years ago

Microsoft can't just up and cut all support for programs designed for the previous versions of their OS.

Why not? Apple managed just fine.

cageface2• 14 years ago

Microsoft can't just up and cut all support for programs designed for the previous versions of their OS.

I'd go further: they should leave Windows pretty much as it is for the foreseeable future and treat mobile like the separate market that it is.

They shouldn't even think about deprecating the Windows WIMP UI until they've got something inarguably better for the average desktop/laptop user. Not even Apple is that reckless.

josteink• 14 years ago

I'm probably not the norm here, but after installing Windows 8, getting the apps I care about pinned on the desktop taskbar I really, really like Windows 8.

It mostly feels like a cleaned up version of Windows 7, and it is much, much snappier. Whatever you do happens now. Even when you wake it up from cold hibernation it boots in less than 10 seconds. When it's only suspended it's ready just like that. Instantly.

It's as close to instant as my laptop has ever been. All the animations are silk smooth. Everything is fluid. This thing has been optimized to hell.

There can be no doubt that Windows 8 contains a multitude of technological improvements. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they seem to insist on literally taking the Windows out of Windows and forcing Metro on everyone. Even those who don't want it.

Every now and then (like when connecting to a new network) you have (Metro) infobars sliding in from the side and you can just tell that they come from a different world somehow. They don't belong in your desktop. And that makes the entire experience feel a bit less coherent.

But all in all, I may be the exception, but I love Windows 8 so far. But to Microsoft's dismay, I love it not because of Metro, but despite it.

They've done this before though. Remember the Ribbon? I used to hate it and now I can't live without it. We'll see if Metro fares as good, although deep down inside, I doubt it.

megaman821• 14 years ago

I am with you. I am wondering when exactly these desktop power users will even see Metro. Nearly all the apps I use day-to-day are pinned to my task-bar.

jinushaun• 14 years ago

I haven't run the Consumer Preview yet, but in the Developer Preview, I kept getting kicked out of Desktop and into Metro when requesting a lot tasks that were initiated from the Desktop. The fullscreen transition was very jarring when I expected to stay in Desktop.

joelthelion• 14 years ago

>And if nothing else, I want to like Windows 8 because I know that I’ll be spending a lot of time using it over the coming years.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. If you don't like windows, there are plenty of alternatives, except maybe for very nichy work.

lmm2• 14 years ago

Not for those of us with conventional jobs.

stefanve• 14 years ago

I hope MS will up there release schedule just like Apple and Ubuntu. When OSX first landed most people didn't like it at all. But every year it was a bit better and at least since 10.4 one of the best if not the best desktop OS. Same thing go's for Ubuntu, the first incarnation of Unity was not good . But 12.04 is a really usable OS and for me (since I don't use OSX specific software) perfectly fine replacement for OSX. I'm really excited to see where they are going with it. So if MS is serious about there new desktop they should release a new version at least once a year. Perhaps they will need a LTS strategy for the Enterprise starting with windows 7. So by the time windows 8.4 comes a long Metro is matured and most workers will know how to use is.

zvrba• 14 years ago

Who the hell reads these "professional" reviews? And why aren't people able to make their own opinion? It must be a dream-job (for some at least), get paid for playing prohpet and writing shit about other's (yet unfinished) products.

Personally, I bought my laptop a few years ago with XP preinstalled and Vista CDs alongside. I installed Vista out of curiosity, mostly because people almost unanimously said it was crap, and, wouldn't you believe it, I liked it. I got a rock-solid, capable OS that was way ahead of the clunkiness that I remembered from the XP days and way better than crappines I was starting to experience with Linux.

So a message to all you schadenfreude-review writers: go to f*ing hell.

Mordor• 14 years ago

Well, this is just another Visa - hardly a huge problem while Windows 7 is still available. Just wait for Windows 9.

jakeonthemove2• 14 years ago

I really hope they let users disable Metro UI - while it seemed pretty at first, having to switch to a full screen Start Menu 5-10 times to open all the programs I need is a bit tiring - the old Start Menu was much more inconspicuous. There are plenty of things to love about 8, but Metro just screws everything up, it seems.

amatheus• 14 years ago

The thing I keep thinking when I hear about windows 8 is: how should a new windows application be developed? I think it's very confusing. If I were to start an application now, would I do it for desktop or windows RT? If I create for desktop then it will look bad with windows 8, with all the start screen swapping.

krschultz• 14 years ago

It's hard for me to say much about how the UX feels without having used it. However, one thing sticks out to me as a concrete example of Microsoft's failings.

"Another annoyance with the Metro Start Screen is that all roads lead to it. Almost everything you do ends up throwing you into the Start Screen. I find it utterly crazy that I can go from clicking on a tile on the Start Screen and then be unceremoniously dumped into things like a Classic Control Panel applet or Windows Explorer. Then, to do the next thing, you’re back to the Start Screen again."

Microsoft effectively has unlimited resources (cash and people). There is no excuse for not updating all of the applications to match the new UI toolkit.

This sounds exactly like happened with Vista. They updated the OS, but not the 1st party applications. Windows 7 updated many of them (Paint, Movie Maker, etc), but even then not 100%. I guess the issue was that the 'Ribbon UI' was an Office team invention, not a Windows team invention, but as a user I don't really care about the office politics behind it.

Now they're adding a Metro layer and they made the same mistake? It makes the OS so inconsistent. They can't do much about it for 3rd party apps, but the 1st party apps should be consistent. The cost of rewriting the presentation layer across all of those utilities has to be a small amount compared to the overall budget.

debacle2• 14 years ago

I disagree completely. I tried the RC a few months ago, and it was abhorrent, but the image from just a few weeks ago was very usable.

I somewhat dislike the 'chrome' of the UI (I think it's hard to determine what is a button and what is just flair), but I've been running in 'Windows Classic' mode since XP so I may be an outlier.

They made that tile menu more transparent, to the point where you don't have to ever see it again if you don't want to, and many of the components that were Vista-y in the older RC have been polished for the newer image.

I'm not going to go out of my way to upgrade to Windows 8 like I did for Windows 7, but I also wont be downgrading to Windows 7 like I did with Vista (to XP).

flebber• 14 years ago

Clearly the author is to old in body or mind or both. Yes I agree us old folk get stuck in our ways. But it's my kids that are going to love it, they already try and touch the monitor and TV like it was a smartphone, my 6 year old operates an iPhone perfectly.

Yes an article about old people worried about new ways isn't surprising at all heard the same tired tunes with regards unity which after a few release is starting to humm and now feels intuitive.

You can wait for windows9 all you like it will just be a more refined 8.

Final thoughts on Windows 8: A design disaster

Related Stories