Poll: Hands up those who like the "Modern UI"?
- Thread starter Gimpymoo
- Start date
+1
From reading and discussing peoples thoughts on windows 8 it seems like they want exactly what they had in windows 7 but with a new logo
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 430
Why not?
As previously said, why couldn't they have a classic mode or something?
Then you have the option
My experience with Win 8 has been great so far, I'm just not feeling the start menu imo
Worked for Vista, 2000, XP, ME, 98, NT, 95 etc.
I don't think all the hate is from the "change is bad" brigade, but more that some just doesn't feel it works very well. Depends how you use a computer though and what you get used to/expect. Personally I don't find the screen itself the problem and it's layout, more so how it interacts (or doesn't) with the rest of the OS. Jumping in and out of the 2 different environments all the time seems silly and pointless.
They should have included something like Start8 out of the box so the user could choose, although I can see why they wouldn't from a marketing point of view, and there's no doubt including the new Start Screen for server versions is ridiculous. Our guys won't even entertain installing it right now.
Last edited:
+1
From reading and discussing peoples thoughts on windows 8 it seems like they want exactly what they had in windows 7 but with a new logo
I totally agree...
people want every new OS to be the same as previous OS's but just with afew added features..
it's crazy...
also has I said above, nobody is saying everybody must upgrade to every new OS. some people are still on xp because they prefer that and don't have any benefits from vista/7
people need to carm down tbh it's only a OS, stop moaning over little things
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Even if Metro was a good experience on a desktop (some may agree with this, some may not), such a huge change in UI will alienate users without some way of phasing the process. Have metro as default, but don't make it the only option.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
From a business point of view, there are loads of features in 8 and Server 2012 that I would like to take advantage of, but the UI makes this migration much, much harder.
I don't get how its much harder, once you've learnt where things are and find little shortcuts, you'll find it, it isn't harder
but it's like windows 3.11 to 95 it was a huge change in UI and no option to change it.
so this isn't the first time people need to lean a new UI
Last edited:
Staff training, reproduction of training resources etc. spring to mind as an immediate issue for any moderately sized company. Some of our staff struggle with getting to grips with Windows as it was/is, something totally new would tip them over the edge
And I'm guessing there were a lot less people using computers as part of their job when 3.1 changed to 95, so not the same in terms of scale at all. The Start menu is now engrained pretty much.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Looks like Nismo took the words out of my mouth.
i dont see it as that much of a change tbh, replace start menu with an easily customizable start screen and move the shutdown from bottom left to bottom right and your done.
I dont see it as a seperate enviroment to the desktop either, if you use the apps then sure it will pull you away from the desktop but you dont need to use the apps at all just get rid of them of the start screen and sort the file associations and then its just a start screen rather than start menu, personally i much prefer this to the old start menu as its easier to fine tune it to just the things i want on there and i find it much quicker and easier to use as its just either windows key or into the corner and i can launch whatever i need, and if its not there, its only at most 2 more clicks away.
I dont really want to question those who feel they need the start menu back as its up to them but i am surprised at the numbers of people having difficulty adjusting as i really dont find it the massive change some make it out to be, its a little disoirientating at first till you relearn how to find things, but once adjusted its not massivly different imo.
I also dont think the start menu is as relied upon as many think, isnt it after all the whole reason its been ditched is because usage stats showed it wasnt being used much. Where i work we have around 4500 desktops and right across the board people use the machines differently but by far and away the biggest percentage rely on shortcuts on the desktop, with the majority not even thinking to look in the start menu for stuff, its not going to be the same everywhere either. we wont be rolling out windows 8 to them for sure as there is no need to move from 7 but we'll have instances where its used as some places just need a machine with a web browser and others need touch screen interfaces and it'll have its place.
I dont see it as a seperate enviroment to the desktop either, if you use the apps then sure it will pull you away from the desktop but you dont need to use the apps at all just get rid of them of the start screen and sort the file associations and then its just a start screen rather than start menu, personally i much prefer this to the old start menu as its easier to fine tune it to just the things i want on there and i find it much quicker and easier to use as its just either windows key or into the corner and i can launch whatever i need, and if its not there, its only at most 2 more clicks away.
I dont really want to question those who feel they need the start menu back as its up to them but i am surprised at the numbers of people having difficulty adjusting as i really dont find it the massive change some make it out to be, its a little disoirientating at first till you relearn how to find things, but once adjusted its not massivly different imo.
I also dont think the start menu is as relied upon as many think, isnt it after all the whole reason its been ditched is because usage stats showed it wasnt being used much. Where i work we have around 4500 desktops and right across the board people use the machines differently but by far and away the biggest percentage rely on shortcuts on the desktop, with the majority not even thinking to look in the start menu for stuff, its not going to be the same everywhere either. we wont be rolling out windows 8 to them for sure as there is no need to move from 7 but we'll have instances where its used as some places just need a machine with a web browser and others need touch screen interfaces and it'll have its place.
Last edited:
You are so wrong.
With Windows 95 (and 98 for that matter) you could still run progman.exe, giving users the option of utilising the old Program Manager and File Manager (winfile.exe) that they were used to. This gave the nice, gradual transition that die-hard Windows legacy users were expecting. They certainly didn't "force" a change.
http://toastytech.com/guis/win953.html said:
Windows 95 still includes the Program Manager and File Manager applications for anyone who enjoys wading through endless windows to find the application they want. These are both still 16-bit applications, and as such only support short file names.
It is also technically possible to run Windows 95 without the Explorer desktop, although this would be very uncommon. It is interesting to see that without the Task Bar, minimized programs appear as small windows instead of icons.
Last edited:
im not wrong. read what I said . there was no option setting.
if u wanted to use the old style on boot up you'd have to change reg keys or add it to the startup ect...
Why would ms offer an option, metro and the store is the future for ms profit. It has to be pushed and actually most people like it once they get used to it.
Spend a bit of time with it and get your muscle memory to the new OS and its great. Metro is a fantastic addition which adds a lot of useful features.
Spend a bit of time with it and get your muscle memory to the new OS and its great. Metro is a fantastic addition which adds a lot of useful features.
if that's the case why would they want to upgrade anywayStaff training, reproduction of training resources etc. spring to mind as an immediate issue for any moderately sized company. Some of our staff struggle with getting to grips with Windows as it was/is, something totally new would tip them over the edge
And I'm guessing there were a lot less people using computers as part of their job when 3.1 changed to 95, so not the same in terms of scale at all. The Start menu is now engrained pretty much.
im talking about about within windows. hence if it was preinstalled the user as no option setting to change it
Last edited:
Yeah, you keep moving the yardstick. At the end of the day I've already admitted that I like Windows 8 on the right device, and I've explained my reasoning for leaving a fallback "classic" shell in Windows 8 (and more importantly Server 2012).
If you fail to see why that simply wasn't the same scenario with Windows 95 then more fool you.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 1,222
- Location
- Earth Mostly
Having used Windows 8 since RTM, I had to do a reinstall of windows (new MB), and I opted for 7 pro x64, which I have used for the last 3 years and you know what it was so much more natural to use, don't get me wrong I thought win 8 was good, it's stable and fast, but by god it was like taking a monkey off my back using 7 again, I realise I was just putting up with the Metro UI.I'll be sticking to win 7 full stop. the metro UI is just not for desktops IMO.