Associate
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,260
- Location
- Swindon
Excellent news. Might just Convince me to buy and try windows 8 now.
Windows 8 - Classic Shell (Windows 7 Style)
- Thread starter Angelos_n
- Start date
I will tell people that have win 8 installed but hate marmite aka win 8 ui 
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2008
- Posts
- 2,579
- Location
- Bristol
Agreed
I'm too young to remember but, was there the same reaction to the introduction of the start menu in win95?
Yep. And they're freakishly similar. Almost word for word the same.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,260
- Location
- Swindon
After using windows 3.0 the release of windows 95 was a major upgrade both in looks and functionality.
I remember everyone i knew into computers and people using computers at work raving about it.
Also, MS introduced a load of stuff in Vista and Win7 to make the start menu redundant. If they've passed you by then you've missed the best features of Win7. Clearly they've been planning on ditching the start menu for a long time. This short sighted, stuck in their ways reaction is exactly why they've introduced these things gradually IMO.
See this is what, in my opinion, is skewing the opinion of Metro. We are all "into" computers, most of us use them heavily for work. But this incarnation isn't really aimed at us. Its more aimed at the average consumer where PC, tablet, phone, console all having the same interface is just a lot simpler for people.
I dont actually click anything in there anymore. I just hit the win key and start typing the name of what I want. In that sense Metro is an improvement for me. Live tiles will just add extra information for me when I hit it.
How is Metro encroaching on a blank desktop though? Day to day I only see the Metro stuff when I search or shut down. The rest of the time it's running my own stuff - Word, Lightroom, Outlook, Chrome, Visual Basic yadda yadda - all launched from pinned taskbar icons
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,344
- Location
- Eltham
Well yes for people using their computers inefficiently they won't notice the difference but is that really the kind of behaviour to be encouraged?
The argument also falls flat when you consider they've made concessions for multitasking by allowing users to drag a metro app to the side but it only works reasonably well for a tiny number of programs. No doubt this will be improved on over time but they could have dealt with it easily by just letting us have more than 1 on a large display or being able to choose how much room it uses rather than forcing it to only be 20% of the screen. Just take a look at IE locked to the side, any web page is too small to read/use, even ignoring the above suggestion they could have made it work like a mobile version and let the websites render up a version that would work at that size instead of a feature that doesn't work well.
Thats not my memory of it. I was worked on testing in Microsoft at that time (Windows 95 was something like 40+ floppy disks at the time). I can't remember anyone complaining about changing from Windows for Workgroups 3.11 to Win95. Other than most people needed to upgrade their hardware to run it. But most couldn't install it quick enough.
Other than the Apple crowd, system 7 had been out for a few years before Win95 (Chicago), they kinda weren't impressed by it. Apple stuff was a lot slicker though.
Thats what I remember too.
I can tell you that there definitely was resistence to Windows 95.
At the time of Win95 release I was working for a computer firm called Evesham Micros. Although we had Microsoft in to run demos and the like I'd say initial uptake on Win95 was around 35%, with 65% of new computers still leaving with WFWG 3.11
Sure over time this shifted, but a very large crowd of people, include corporate customers did not want the new interface that Win95 introduced.
At the time of Win95 release I was working for a computer firm called Evesham Micros. Although we had Microsoft in to run demos and the like I'd say initial uptake on Win95 was around 35%, with 65% of new computers still leaving with WFWG 3.11
Sure over time this shifted, but a very large crowd of people, include corporate customers did not want the new interface that Win95 introduced.
Last edited:
Your making a lot of assumptions here. The first one, and its a big-un is "using their computers inefficiently". What is efficient for you, may not be for someone else.
The most my dad ever uses his laptop for is car insurance and placing the odd bet, Metro is fine.
My sister-in-law uses hers as a facebook-machine and music player 90% of the time, Metro is perfect.
With live tiles for emails, facebook messages, music app. To me, that sounds a lot more efficient than win7 which dumps a fair chunk of stuff on the desktop that they rarely use. It isn't perfect but what OS is? What piece of software full stop?
I kinda agree. I've W8 on a laptop and anyone using found what they wanted and just worked away no hassle. Well for basic stuff.
If you work at PC's and use a lot of apps, or development, metro doesn't work at all. But even for me I use the same few apps about 90% of the time. I rarely need to use lots of different apps.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,344
- Location
- Eltham
Are you seriously arguing that it's efficient use of a desktop computer to always run your programs full screen? You might find it more comfortable to work hopping on 1 foot while blind folded but it still won't be efficient.
On this I largely agree, once programs are better designed for Metro I think it will be a nice system for the 'average' user as there's only so much you can focus on and Metro will encourage designs which work both on the small and large views.
OK? As I've said elsewhere I like the start screen but my concerns are with the Metro app interface in a desktop environment, right now it doesn't really matter as it's all optional but if/when it becomes the main approach for windows development these rough edges will make it a worse experience over the existing desktop.
..
I remember Evesham Microsm, Evesham and Viglen had ads everywhere those days magazines were full of their ads. Also Elonex and Digital.
Most business don't drop stable and test gear for new stuff, they wait a while. The issues back them were lack of drivers, and incompatible software. There was also a lot other corporate OS, and also a lot of software still on DOS and then you had other OS'es around, Windows NT, OS/2, NEXT, and other platforms like Dec Alpha's etc.
Windows95 was very much a consumer OS rather than a business one.
But issues about the GUI itself? Maybe there was, but I don't think it was anything like the fuss about metro. You still had File Manager in Windows95, icons, shortcuts and folders.
I remember Evesham Microsm, Evesham and Viglen had ads everywhere those days magazines were full of their ads. Also Elonex and Digital.
Most business don't drop stable and test gear for new stuff, they wait a while. The issues back them were lack of drivers, and incompatible software. There was also a lot other corporate OS, and also a lot of software still on DOS and then you had other OS'es around, Windows NT, OS/2, NEXT, and other platforms like Dec Alpha's etc.
Windows95 was very much a consumer OS rather than a business one.
But issues about the GUI itself? Maybe there was, but I don't think it was anything like the fuss about metro. You still had File Manager in Windows95, icons, shortcuts and folders.