Is Microsoft about to make the biggest mistake ever with windows8?

[Infidelus]

As someone who hated Metr-odern UI when I first saw it, and actively ranted about how awful it was to mates (who mostly agree), I have to say, it's not that bad.

I've been playing with the RTM for the last 24 hours, and, although I mostly ignore the new interface, when I do use it, it doesn't bother me as much as it did.

Being able to place the icons where you want in the interface would be nice so you could group similar apps together how you want them, so it's a shame it doesn't work like that.

At the end of the day, the OS itself looks fairly solid, and I can stil pin stuff to the taskbar and use the jumplists (and I do), but apart from a few (so far) minor irritations, I'm starting to like Windows 8, which is something I didn't think I'd hear myself say at all.

 

[thenewoc]

I think where MS may have dropped the ball on this is not thinking out the original concept. It seems a bit like someone at the top conceived it and no one dare challenge it. Interoperability between devices doesn't have to impede a platform by adopting a use case of another. The bit where MS needed to innovate was moving away from boxed software to digital delivery and basically subscription based software that is kept up to date automatically just like hosted software (SaaS). That doesn't necessarily mean that the software has to be provided as a service, it can still be locally installed, as has been the case with Windows and the Windows Update service. Real power comes from locally installed software so the problem lies with application sizes, that full desktop applications are likely to be too large for a tablet and conversely the desktop community would probably baulk at having a tablet version of office on their desktop as their only version of office. Whilst I think each platform needs it's own software that doesn't mean they can't be interoperable, same file formats and an option to use cloud storage so a users files can be stored once in the cloud and accessed by either desktop, tablet or phone. Hopefully in time MS will give up on this Metro folly for the desktop and implement a fix to reintroduce the start menu. If it were to stay around I would prefer to see it as some sort of live background option for the desktop, they could combine desktop gadgets into it then and remove some of this disjointedness.

 

[theheyes]

I think where MS may have dropped the ball on this is not thinking out the original concept. It seems a bit like someone at the top conceived it and no one dare challenge it.

There was/is big internal debate within Microsoft about the direction of Windows 8. It may not come as a surprise to people that some thought that developing Windows Phone would have been a better option and to have two distinct operating systems in parallel.

Interoperability between devices doesn't have to impede a platform by adopting a use case of another. The bit where MS needed to innovate was moving away from boxed software to digital delivery and basically subscription based software that is kept up to date automatically just like hosted software (SaaS). That doesn't necessarily mean that the software has to be provided as a service, it can still be locally installed, as has been the case with Windows and the Windows Update service.

I don't think moving to a subscription model has much to do with the way Windows 8 has been implemented. If anything, it makes more sense to have a single version of Windows to subscribe to.

Real power comes from locally installed software so the problem lies with application sizes, that full desktop applications are likely to be too large for a tablet and conversely the desktop community would probably baulk at having a tablet version of office on their desktop as their only version of office. Whilst I think each platform needs it's own software that doesn't mean they can't be interoperable, same file formats and an option to use cloud storage so a users files can be stored once in the cloud and accessed by either desktop, tablet or phone.

Application size isn't really a big deal on a suitably powerful tablet. The Surface demo showed Lightroom 4 running quite nicely and that's a pig of an application compared to something like Office.

Hopefully in time MS will give up on this Metro folly for the desktop and implement a fix to reintroduce the start menu. If it were to stay around I would prefer to see it as some sort of live background option for the desktop, they could combine desktop gadgets into it then and remove some of this disjointedness.

It's just not going to happen. They will extend the life of Windows 7 before they start ripping the Metro stuff out.

 

[james.miller]

Most if not all their choices are backed up by 100s of million of anonymous user experience stats. That doesn't mean everyone I'll like it. It however does ean they know what the largest groups of people do and use the OS.

Indeed, things like giving us the option to group tiles on the metro screen - that's in there based on 100's of millions of anonymous user experience stats.

I have thanks.
Or isnt my post well before yours clear enough.

lol look, you aren't going to get anywhere telling people to reread posts when you are the one glossing over posts and misinterpreting them.

 

[Raumarik]

ok, thanks for that. It makes me wonder how you are supposed to arrange tiles from the bottom left out, then, given that you cant place tiles at the bottom of the screen. It also makes me wonder if Glaucus has actually tried that himself as he seems to be convinced it's doable.

Touch devices tend to have a majority of icons at the top of the screen, I'm guessing there's a good reason for it (no idea what though) and that's why Windows 8 has gone the same route with the Metro interface forcing it like that.

Hopefully they can patch in options to alter it though.

 

[james.miller]

Touch devices tend to have a majority of icons at the top of the screen, I'm guessing there's a good reason for it (no idea what though) and that's why Windows 8 has gone the same route with the Metro interface forcing it like that.

Hopefully they can patch in options to alter it though.

To be fair, it doesn't bother me where arrangement starts from. I bet most people could activate the metro menu and move the cursor with the mouse to the position of the top left tile before the metro screen fully initializes. I would certainly welcome more flexibility with tile placement however, as it's just annoying that you can't place tiles in certain positions.

 

[Glaucus]

lol look, you aren't going to get anywhere telling people to reread posts when you are the one glossing over posts and misinterpreting them.

What exactly have I glossed over.

What don't you understand that i made your point well before you did. Then you tried saying I don't know what I'm doing.

 

[djshauny1]

yes

 

[james.miller]

What exactly have I glossed over.

What don't you understand that i made your point well before you did. Then you tried saying I don't know what I'm doing.

how about telling me to use jump lists ? how about then deciding i used the start menu too much based on that, even i already said i use jump lists and i only use the start menu for less frequently used applications?

Back in your box, Glaucus, and have one back

 

[Glaucus]

how about telling me to use jump lists when i already said i did? how about then deciding i used the start menu too much based on that?

Back in your back, Glaucus.

lol avoiding the points again.
You do have an over reliance on start menu, something that Microsoft stats show isn't normal. How can you argue that.

How about you saying I didn't organise. Yeah right. How about you come join me in my box. I'll give you a cuddle.
Don't you find it ironic, your so set on tied, yet doing it yourself?

 

[Pigeon_Killer]

TBH I don't know a single person that doesn't use the start menu and those stats have already been called nonsense and purely a reason to justify the new interface.

 

[Glaucus]

TBH I don't know a single person that doesn't use the start menu and those stats have already been called nonsense and purely a reason to justify the new interface.

There's a big difference between using th start menu and using it for certain task.
Thos stats have been called nonsense? By whom? That's right nobody's who don't have access to anything. Clearly dont know how to read statistics and focus on one thing to prove their point. Look at the break downs. Those stats show clearly that opening software and opening files has massively dropped off and that's ignoring that these are drops from vista and didn't even start at 100%

 

[thenewoc]

There was/is big internal debate within Microsoft about the direction of Windows 8.

This does come as a surprise as it does what its always done in the sense of what an OS facilitates.

I don't think moving to a subscription model has much to do with the way Windows 8 has been implemented. If anything, it makes more sense to have a single version of Windows to subscribe to.

I was referring to software in general, not just OS's, you see this move in Office 2013 / 365. They had to do this as it just makes sense in this day and age rather than physically shipping a digital product which is out of date the moment its been pressed onto a DVD. The concept is a throwback to the modem era and prior, not being up to the job of handling large downloads.

Application size isn't really a big deal on a suitably powerful tablet. The Surface demo showed Lightroom 4 running quite nicely and that's a pig of an application compared to something like Office.

I would have thought it wasn't in the users best interest to be buying larger amounts of storage to facilitate this approach, not to mention extra processing power to cope with larger applications must put a strain on battery power resources.

It's just not going to happen. They will extend the life of Windows 7 before they start ripping the Metro stuff out.

Until recently I understand that the option to reinstate the start menu was still in the registry until it was yanked prior to Release Preview? I've no problem with Metro being in the OS but I think it should have a UI option to turn it off. If I had a MS tablet and or phone I would use one of these to use Metro when relaxed and in the mood to consume content. If I'm sat at my desktop why would I need to use Metro, surely I would just pick up the tablet or use a desktop / browser version of an App.

 

[thenewoc]

The most likely reason start menu use stats have dropped off is that computers amongst technically savvy and business types reached saturation and in the past x years the push has been towards the rest of the populous that basically use a computer to surf the internet and do emails. Those programs are most likely opened from shortcuts on their desktops.

 

[Glaucus]

The most likely reason start menu use stats have dropped off is that computers amongst technically savvy and business types reached saturation and in the past x years the push has been towards the rest of the populous that basically use a computer to surf the internet and do emails. Those programs are most likely opened from shortcuts on their desktops.

Not the case, they have corporate and non corporate stats and all show the same trends. The taskbar, jump lists etc have risen and start menu decreased.
Off course people use start menu as things like shutdown are in there, which is why you need to look at the breakdown.

 

[james.miller]

lol avoiding the points again.
You do have an over reliance on start menu, something that Microsoft stats show isn't normal. How can you argue that.

I have't avoided anything, please show me some points i haven't answer and I'll answer them. As for my over reliance, please again tell me how you came to that conclusion? i might use the metro menu once or twice in any given session (not including the initial launching of the desktop). Metro replaced the start menu and in my case pretty much like for like in usage (in terms of launching applications) since i moved from windows 7 and already had established my apps and jump lists pinned to the task bar. so, is that an over reliance or did you jump to a conclusion there ? If anything, it would have been stats like mine that have driven MS to ditch the start menu.

How about you saying I didn't organise. Yeah right.

I didnt say that. I think you must be glossing again, Glaucus? do you mean this?

IT also makes me wonder if Glaucus has actually tried that himself as he seems to be convinced it's doable.

?? That doesn't say you don't organize tiles, rather you seem to be telling people to organize tiles in a way that is fundamentally unachievable in some situations, such as when you dont have a screen full of tiles to organize. This is why I questioned if you have tried it even though you acknowledged that you cant put tiles exactly where you want.

Also I've noticed you like to use MS's 1000's of millions of user stats quite a lot, at least to back up your own opinions. Some of your opinions, however, are at odds with what microsoft seem to be doing with the metro menu. For example: you say don't group icons because it isn't efficient, yet MS have chosen to give us that option. I pointed that out in a previous post deliberately because i want your opinion on that - did they add the option because the stats prove we like to group apps (after all, you did say most if not all of their choices are backed up by the stats), or is it something else? But you chose to ignore it that statment. You have to wonder why? So yes, that's two examples of you glosing/igoring, whatever you want to call it.

How about you come join me in my box. I'll give you a cuddle.

I'm sure you would, but it's not my thing.

 

[Glaucus]

Fine I jumped to conclusions, like you did. Let's move on from that.

Also I've noticed you like to use MS's 1000's of millions of user stats quite a lot, at least to back up your own opinions. Some of your opinions, however, are at odds with what microsoft seem to be doing with the metro menu. For example: you say don't group icons because it isn't efficient, yet MS have chosen to give us that option. I pointed that out in a previous post deliberately because i want your opinion on that - did they add the option because the stats prove we like to group apps (after all, you did say most if not all of their choices are backed up by the stats), or is it something else? But you chose to ignore it that statment. You have to wonder why? So yes, that's two examples of you glosing/igoring, whatever you want to call it.


.

How is it at odds. Lots of things are available. Doesn't make it the most efficient way.
Why did you question me, would it be becuase you didn't read my post that stated that exact issue and is one of many things I'm not happy with.
Not everything is based on stats. If stats showed only 1 % used control panel, would they remove it. Off course they wouldn't. However metro is a new system and is the one they have chosen. It can not exist along side a start button. The stats also show why the start button is getting long in the tooth (by no means the only reason).

Read the design blogs, they state why they have designed most things the way they have, from start screen to everything else. There's load of these detail blogs.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-the-start-menu.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/04/designing-the-start-screen.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx

 

[thenewoc]

I just think it looks ugly having loads pinned to the taskbar. It's only been removed to force people to use Metro, if people weren't using the start menu so much it wouldn't have been such a bad thing to leave it in. There are things in the OS I use less than the start menu and they haven't been yanked out. Hopefully a developer will come up with some hack but is a bit of an embarrassment to MS that people should have to resort to such measures to get a basic function that should be part of the OS IMHO.

 

[Glaucus]

It is well known tat people aurally resit change. You can not leave it in. That would be extremely detrimental to MS future market share. It would not promote Metro app devlopment or the direct of a totaly unified Os, which win8 is the first majour step towards that outcome.

As to basic function, that function is there, just in a format you don't like. So it's not lacking from the Os.

 

[Macro]

Wow, this all got a bit grumpy....

I'm going to duck out of this one now as it's not really going anywhere. As a parting comment though I would say "give it a try for a week, you might like it" in terms of Win8 and metro UI. Sure, some people won't like it the same as some crazy people don't like steak ( )but it's worth a try, especially if you take the time to customise it a little and make it your own, comparing a heavily customised and familiar Win7 install to a bog standard Win8 install/config is never going to compare well until you have some fun with it and customise things to the way that best works for you. If you like Win7 as a OS there really isn't a downside to Win8 unless you really can't get on with metro, and to be honest if you approach it with an open mind I expect the number of people that REALLY can't get in with it to be a fairly low number. Away from the metro stuff there's a bunch of good stuff in Win8 that makes it worth a look. Would I pay £150 for it if I already had Win7, maybe not. Would I pay £40, yeah, especially as a "geek" I love tinkering with new stuff

Hopefully once it releases we can put to bed the hardcore "I hate the metro it's for a touch only machine" twaddle and move on to more useful discussions around Win8. If you can't get past the changes metro brings (and it's never going back to the way things were) then stick with 7 and maybe revisit your OS with W9 or whatever comes next.

I can't see any value in trying to persuade someone who has made their mind up not to like metro to change their mind, it's never going to happen on a forum

Like I say, if you get a chance, can afford the upgrade and are curious, give it a try with an open mind and a week or two to make it your own before you make a decision rather than taking internet sensationalist posts like "it's for touch only, it's gash". I can't help but notice generally when you ask someone who says it categorically does not work on a desktop in what way so you may be able to help there never seems to be much in the way of specifics, james miller excepted who frankly from where I'm sitting has been quite open minded and reasonable around concerns specific to his experience.

It'd be nice to get past the "red vs green" arguments that are never going to lead anywhere and onto something more fun, interesting and productive. After all, it's not every day IT enthusiasts, get a new OS and a change in direction for desktop UI to play with and discuss.