News - Windows 8 promotional pricing will end on 1st February

[aidanjt]

I agree I don't think Vista was as bad as a lot of people were making out, and about developers complaining for reasons Splash mentioned - I originally tried it apprehensively, but quickly realised it improved a lot of things over XP. However, I think UAC was too in-your-face for a lot of people, so it ended up having the opposite effect of what it was intended for because of idiot 'experts' posting guides on every other website about how to disable it. Windows 7 fixed that problem, and most of the other annoyances with Vista IMHO.

However I don't feel the same about 8 - I tried the various trial versions and simply didn't like it. I'm not 'stuck in the past' for not wanting to use a UI which simply doesn't suit my usage model as well as 7, and I'm tired of seeing condescending comments calling people Luddites or whatever for not wanting to inconvenience themselves with a pointless upgrade/downgrade.

As above, PR are the ones claiming it's all better/shiny/new, it's up to individual users to think for themselves and decide whether it will be useful to them or not.

For £25 though, it might be worth having in case 7-8-9 is cheaper than 7-9, and for the longer support period than 7.

This guy agrees with you:

[Saracen]

I'm not sure what the problem are with using Metro as a start menu replacement? What are the actual difficulties here?

With the greatest respect .... not the point. Nice try at changing the subject though.

Whether getting used to doing things a different way is much of a problem, or whether it's better or not, is not the point. My point was that MS are seeking to foist it on us, whether we want it or not, for their strategic reasons. Those reasons, by the way, seem to me to be to try to leverage tablet and/or smartphones by getting a common platform across them and desktops, so as to use the mass-market uptake of their desktop o/s to shortcut the catch-up game with Apple and Android in the phone/tablet market segments.

This, of course, ignores the stunningly obvious point that people uses desktop systems in a different way, and in different circumstances, and for different purposes, to the way they use phones and tablets.

So the real question isn't what's so wrong with Metro, but why we should all be forced to use a different UI on our desktops, just because MS dropped the ball (several times) in the dynamic and growing phone and tablet sectors, and want to catch up.

Which brings me back to the point I made a few posts back -if MS had had the decency to offer the option, preferably at installation but at least as a config option, of "Metro or Win 7 interface" we wouldn't be having this discussion. You could use Metro if you you really like it, and the huge numbers of people that don't like it could revert to Win 7 i/face. It would be a non-issue.

And the mere fact that we can get 3rd party products to more or less do it proves MS could have offered it out of the box, and we wouldn't then have to go hunting for ClassicShell or buying Start8.

Hence, they could have left the choice to users, but didn't, and the reason they didn't is they're trying to leverage their way in to the mobile o/s market. Well, sorry MS but that's not a good reason for me to get used to a new way of working, or a UI I find clunky and, to put it bluntly, bleeping ugly.

.....

I don't really see the problem with charms either, I'm sure Win95 used to have pop-up menus docked to the side didn't it?

Not as I remember it, though you've been able to get 3rd party add-ons for a long time. Some versions might have offered it. I bypassed ME, for instance, pretty much entirely.

I certainly have no problem with dockable toolbars, like RocketDock or StarDock. But they are, of course, extras that users can add, if they wish.

My main issue with the W8 UI is that it is clearly designed for, and optimised for, touchscreen use, and at least for me, a touchscreen is of almost no use or interest to me at all on a desktop machine. Phone, yes. Tablet, yes. And full-size touch monitor in certain embedded environments, like supermarket checkouts, yes. But my desktop? Hell will freeze over first.

[MrJim]

Whether getting used to doing things a different way is much of a problem, or whether it's better or not, is not the point. My point was that MS are seeking to foist it on us, whether we want it or not, for their strategic reasons. Those reasons, by the way, seem to me to be to try to leverage tablet and/or smartphones by getting a common platform across them and desktops, so as to use the mass-market uptake of their desktop o/s to shortcut the catch-up game with Apple and Android in the phone/tablet market segments.

This to me, is the crux of the matter. What will be interesting to see, will be whether businesses will be willing to live with MUI, or whether Windows 8 will be treated as the pariah that was Vista. Home users might come to accept MUI in time, but I doubt business users will be quite so obliging.

[Gunbuster]

Have to echo that I to will not be moving to windows 8.

[Willzzz]

With the greatest respect .... not the point. Nice try at changing the subject though.

I really don't see that it is changing the subject.

If Metro does a good job of replacing the start menu then there really is no downside to Win8.
If you treat Metro as simply a start menu replacement then there is barely any difference with Win7.

[Noxvayl]

I really don't see that it is changing the subject.

If Metro does a good job of replacing the start menu then there really is no downside to Win8.
If you treat Metro as simply a start menu replacement then there is barely any difference with Win7.

Then you don't know what the subject is...

[watercooled]

This guy agrees with you:

That video is brilliant.

He's definitely right about 8 basically being a touch UI stapled onto the existing Windows UI, both with their own completely different usage models and lack of continuity between the two.

A lot of people seem to be overlooking something fairly obvious IMO, equal or usable with some bodges/workarounds does not mean better, and neither does it mean it's reason enough for everyone to ignore their own judgement and opinions just because it's something new. Not wanting to take the path of least resistance and jump on the bandwagon does NOT make people silly, stupid, or whatever else.

[Willzzz]

Well the subject was the start screen/start menu, you can read back in the thread if you like.

Perhaps the real subject is simply that it is 'cool' to hate Win8.
People who think they are so intelligent because they aren't being 'taken in' by Microsoft's evil plot.

If it's a choice between being cool and saving £80 while getting a more efficient, more secure system then forgive me if I choose the latter.

[Saracen]

I really don't see that it is changing the subject.

If Metro does a good job of replacing the start menu then there really is no downside to Win8.
If you treat Metro as simply a start menu replacement then there is barely any difference with Win7.

It's changing the subject because I said MS were seeking to force us to use a different UI for ther strategic reasons. You said they weren't forcing us, and then switched to "not sure what the problems are with Metro UI".

The subject isn't why I (or a LOT of others) don't want Metro. The subject is that we don't want it, and MS is seeking to force it on us, by not giving us the choice.

As I said (twice), they could have simply given users the choice. After all, if several 3rd party developers can manage it, MS could have. But didn't. Or rather .... wouldn't.

[Willzzz]

For me there is a complete difference between 'Metro UI' and simply using Metro as a 'start screen'.

If you just use it as a start screen, it doesn't act like a different UI, it acts in a very simple, straightforward, intuitive way. You just click on it, it opens the thing you clicked on. You really can't get more simple.

Using Metro as a start screen doesn't expose you to any of the things that people dislike about Metro.

You might as well say the standard windows start menu is a different and confusing UI, unlike a normal window there is no red 'x' to close it, you can't resize it or drag it around, there's no menu bar. I'm so confused, it's just unusable.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I didn't know what all the negative fuss Microsoft Bob was about!! He was the man/circular ball like thing!!

[aidanjt]

Round and round and round we go, where Willzzz stops apologising, nobody knows.

[Saracen]

Well the subject was the start screen/start menu, you can read back in the thread if you like.

Perhaps the real subject is simply that it is 'cool' to hate Win8.
People who think they are so intelligent because they aren't being 'taken in' by Microsoft's evil plot.

If it's a choice between being cool and saving £80 while getting a more efficient, more secure system then forgive me if I choose the latter.

It's only saving you £80 if you were going to upgrade, and do it before the price goes up. If you were going to upgrade, it'd be daft to wait.

But if you weren't going to upgrade, it cost you £25 (or whatever), not saved you £80.

So, it's a complex formula, isn't it? Shouldwe upgrade? What are the benefits? What are the downsides? What's the cost? If the benefits outweigh the downsides, does it justify the cost?

And we're all likely to come up with different assessments of most of that.

It's nothing to do with evil empires, or people gou say "think they are intelligent" or it being cool or whatever. And that attitude is simply aggression to deflect.

It's as simple as this. Lot's of people do not like Metro. Period. Some will upgrade anyway, because of other things they perceive as sufficient benefit to justify the upgrade. Others won't, because the formula produces a different result. For them. And some people may like it.

It's nothing to do with evil plots, or all that rubbish. It's simply not being prepared to be stuck with an interface we don't want or like, and being expected to pay for the privilege. Noone's saying you shouldn't upgrade if you want to. Or at least, I'm not. But for a lot of people, the UI is a reason, or part of the reason, for not upgrading.

[Noxvayl]

Well the subject was the start screen/start menu, you can read back in the thread if you like.

Uhm, no.

It doesn't get more clear than this:

...

The subject isn't why I (or a LOT of others) don't want Metro. The subject is that we don't want it, and MS is seeking to force it on us, by not giving us the choice.

...

Liking, putting up with or disliking the new interface is besides the point. Everyone has their own circumstances and therefore their own needs with regards to how they use their computers, I am not against people having their own preferences; what I am against, and I suspect Saracen & others are as well, is being forced to do things one way- regardless of our preferences- because Microsoft will benefit from it.

To put it slightly differently to Saracen, the problem is the lack of choice not the particular interface itself. Using third party programs to give yourself a choice is not an option that I have high hopes for considering the owners of the software have vested interest in you not having a choice.

[Willzzz]

Well sure, if you already have Win7 then there's little need to upgrade, but that's true of almost anything in the world of computing.

It's like the people in the Haswell thread saying it's crap because their existing processor is still doing it's job. That doesn't mean it's crap, it just means you don't need it, there's a big difference. People have way too high expectations of new products, they don't have to blow their predecessors out of the water to be good.

Do you guys really consider using the Win8 start screen as being the same as using the Metro UI? It just isn't.
The start screen is a perfectly harmless little change, it really is nothing more than a full screen start menu.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I didn't know this:

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/free...23-jan-1453348

It seems if you bought a Nokia Lumia 820 before the 23rd from CPW,you get a free Windows 8 upgrade thrown in too.