News - Next Windows officially named Windows 8.1 - free for Win8 users

[shaithis]

What does MUI offer me that I want or need?

As it stands....for me, it's only Winkey+x (which was needed.....now the only shortcut I am missing is a "Open Administrative command window here"

Of course, there was no reason to design (and forcefully impose) an entirely new shell for a new shortcut though.....

[Biscuit]

Im a little confused as to why MS/Tech websites seem to be making a big deal of this being free...

Im not being entitled by saying, 'it bloody well should be!'

[kingpotnoodle]

Boot to desktop? To save you 1, single, individual, easy-peasy click (or win+d) every now and then? Some people are so lazy...

For me Windows 8 is better than 7, smoother and better features. It's got even more to give with touchscreen devices, whereas Windows 7 was abysmally crap for touch use... Like any OS it could do with some tweaks and more customisation options but MS really shouldn't go back on all their hard work because of people who just like a moan.

I can see the benefit of a start icon that is on by default but hidable in taskbar options - it's a visual clue for new users and should have been there from the start. MUI could also do with a few easier more obvious buttons for things like "all apps" (currently a right-click option), the ability to make the charms bar and task switcher stay "slid out" and/or slide out automatically when entering the start screen and launching MUI apps into desktop Windows without 3rd party add-ons. And move that giant clock that appears with the charms bar somewhere moe discrete...

Most of all though it needs a tutorial mode like a game (every OS should have this, many people just cannot self-discover), where it holds your hand with floating prompts and animations. This mode should be run by default for all new user profiles...

I understand why they want a unified platform. What I don't understand is the mind numbingly stupid assessment of the psychology of trying to force people onto it, whether they want it or not.

Because as your later statements and all the detractors prove many people WILL NOT move on voluntarily. Then Microsoft have the headache of maintaining unlimited legacy stuff in a modern OS, the installation size grows and grows, the bugs multiply and support calls go up when people get confused after they accidentally change to "tiny-icons legacy" mode on their mouse-less touch device on the say so of some internet troll's blog entitled "How to make Windows better!".

Resurrecting old stuff that no longer fits is quite rightly for 3rd party add-ons. That's the beauty of Windows (well in fact just like many OS), it's very, very customisable.

[Biscuit]

Boot to desktop? To save you 1, single, individual, easy-peasy click (or win+d) every now and then? Some people are so lazy...

But if that's the way you work every single time to switch on, and if its such a small feature to add, and if it makes millions happy, doesn't it make sense for it to be there?

Sometimes its just those little tweaks that make a big difference to peoples comfort and experience.

[Agent]

Boot to desktop? To save you 1, single, individual, easy-peasy click (or win+d) every now and then? Some people are so lazy..

If you think it's because of laziness, then you're simply ignoring every constructive post as to why people don't like the current setup. It's nothing to do with laziness.

[ethel182]

I'd just be happy if the machine I upgraded in January would finally finish windows update

[kingpotnoodle]

If you think it's because of laziness, then you're simply ignoring every constructive post as to why people don't like the current setup. It's nothing to do with laziness.

But its so easy to go to desktop... SO easy. Its not a big benefit at all, at best its a very tiny tweak that saves 1 click in a whole day! Windows 8 does it the equivalent way to if Windows 7 started with the start menu open and the cursor hovering over it so you need to click out of the menu to hide it... When you hit desktop on any version you then have to start doing loads of clicks to launch things.

[kingpotnoodle]

But if that's the way you work every single time to switch on, and if its such a small feature to add, and if it makes millions happy, doesn't it make sense for it to be there?

Sometimes its just those little tweaks that make a big difference to peoples comfort and experience.

Its a nice little tweak if that's what you like but its absence is the least convincing Windows 8 'bash'.

[Saracen]

....

Because as your later statements and all the detractors prove many people WILL NOT move on voluntarily. Then Microsoft have the headache of maintaining unlimited legacy stuff in a modern OS, the installation size grows and grows, the bugs multiply and support calls go up when people get confused after they accidentally change to "tiny-icons legacy" mode on their mouse-less touch device on the say so of some internet troll's blog entitled "How to make Windows better!".

Resurrecting old stuff that no longer fits is quite rightly for 3rd party add-ons. That's the beauty of Windows (well in fact just like many OS), it's very, very customisable.

The mere fact that the functionality I expect, that being, for the UI to at least optionally work the way it always has, can be implemented so easily by a number of third-party tool developers gives the lie to the notion of it being such a pain for MS to support. So sorry, I don't believe that for a moment. It's about MS trying to force users to adapt to MUI because they want everyone used to MUI so they'll buy Windows-based tablets. It's about marketing, and about trying to get to a position to leverage the Windows userbase to sell tablets, phones, etc.

If MUI was such a good idea for non-touch users, MS wouldn't have to force everyone - we'd all take one good look, say WOW and use it willingly. The simple fact is, for a lot of users, it adds nothing useful, involves a shift in thinking, quite possibly staff retraining, and gives no real benefit to many users.

That's why I "WILL NOT" use it. Because it offers me nothing I want and a fair bit I don't.

And this it not just reluctance to change. I tried it, dislike it, gain nothing from it so I reject it. On the other hand, I tried the ribbon UI in Office and while yes, it took a bit of getting used to, I actually prefer it, so did not adopt ClassicUI type tools to restore the old UI, as I could have done. That also, though, ought to have been left to a user choice, and I know quite a few users, inclyding a couple or large businesses, for whom that was the driving force behind the decision to not upgrade.

I do not reject MUI out of being stuck in my ways, or being unwilling to embrace change, even radical ones. I reject it because it is patently aimed at a touch interface, and I have no interest in having touch screens on my desktop machines. At the moment, there is zero benefit to me in that, and I struggle to see what benefit there ever will be to me from touch screens in desktop use. On a tablet, yes, and in some restricted embedded applications, like supermarket checkouts, yes, but not in mainstream desktop applications.

[kingpotnoodle]

The mere fact that the functionality I expect, that being, for the UI to at least optionally work the way it always has, can be implemented so easily by a number of third-party tool developers gives the lie to the notion of it being such a pain for MS to support. So sorry, I don't believe that for a moment. It's about MS trying to force users to adapt to MUI because they want everyone used to MUI so they'll buy Windows-based tablets. It's about marketing, and about trying to get to a position to leverage the Windows userbase to sell tablets, phones, etc.

...

I do not reject MUI out of being stuck in my ways, or being unwilling to embrace change, even radical ones. I reject it because it is patently aimed at a touch interface, and I have no interest in having touch screens on my desktop machines. At the moment, there is zero benefit to me in that, and I struggle to see what benefit there ever will be to me from touch screens in desktop use. On a tablet, yes, and in some restricted embedded applications, like supermarket checkouts, yes, but not in mainstream desktop applications.

It might not be *that* hard to maintain the classic look options but Microsoft clearly don't want to, and it does rather fragment the OS experience to maintain the legacy options, having Windows behave differently depending on how it's been configured can make some less able users quite confused in the same way they struggle from XP > 7 > 8 and other OS. I can imagine people arriving for a new job having said "Yeah I can use Windows 8/9/X" only to be sat in front of a classic look locked down by some sysadmin who thinks he/she knows best.

Although having said that Windows 8 appears to be a mainly consumer driven release, I think MS realised most businesses have only just started with Windows 7 and the hardware refresh cycle will take most of them to Windows 8.x or 9 before they upgrade again.

Beyond the marketing angle IMHO it is a positive thing for Microsoft to move to attempting a unified consistent look and feel, it makes computing generally less confusing if it can be carried forward like this. We're not there yet but Windows 8/Phone 8/RT etc is a step in the right direction.

I don't think anyone, Microsoft included, is seriously suggesting work PCs on desks will soon be mouseless/keyless touch screens... Windows 8 doesn't force touch on you, it aims to make Windows touchable with the same interface so you don't have to know different UIs for different devices... IMHO quite a sensible goal whether you like the implementation or not and it's far easier to emulate a finger poke with a mouse pointer and click than it is the other way around (finger cannot match mouse precision and use Win 7 so well for example), you can also replicate touch screen gestures (i.e. two finger swipe) using a touchpad or touch-mouse.

I don't know why anyone seriously thinks it's a "good thing" to have Windows look and operate totally differently on phones, tablets, laptops, desktops etc especially as the boundaries between them increasingly blurring... think of it from the perspective of someone less technically minded or totally new to computers and realise the uphill struggle with multiple interfaces to learn. Windows 8 and MUI might not be perfect but it's a first stab at unification and unfortunately the jarring change from Windows 7 is probably necessary because the old classic look is far too fiddly and shouldn't be anywhere on a touch only device...

[dangel]

If MUI was such a good idea for non-touch users, MS wouldn't have to force everyone - we'd all take one good look, say WOW and use it willingly.

Couldn't disagree more - "we" wouldn't because (if you spend any time making software) you'll realise that people very much are resistant to UI changes (better or not). For a product so universal as Windows changing absolutely anything causes people to scream. People complained about all sorts of changes in Windows over the years that were (obviously) better because - yes - people don't want to relearn things and - yes - people are lazy.
As you know I agree with your statement about MS' motives for doing this (I pointed it out in another thread) and I don't think it's right, finished or 'done yet' for desktop users. Yet. That I don't find it a blocker for me is another matter but i'm quite happy for you to state your preference to the contrary on that one

Stepping back from the specifics - the truism as a developer is that you can offer all things to everyone but you'll double, triple, quadruple your workload eventually - your product will slowly sink under it's own bloat and it ends up being far more confusing that it needs to be for your end users. Taking anything out of software is almost impossible at times - because you'll find a fraction of users are both vocal and reluctant to even consider changes and also because your product managers only ever want to add features. Users aren't also interested in your longer term goals - the fact that you're planning 5 years ahead and you know that to get there you need to make some radical changes (or face either far worse outcry or obsolescence/technical debt weighing you down way past breaking point).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You would think on a tech forum people would have realised by now people work in different ways on computers and prefer different ways of doing things. There is no wrong or right way,just the way that suits you!

Ultimately it is caught up by "my way" is "better than yours" oldtimer/newtimer,etc and things turn black and white,when they are not.

It is quite possible for people to both like and dislike the same OS at the same time.

Couldn't disagree more - "we" wouldn't because (if you spend any time making software) you'll realise that people very much are resistant to UI changes (better or not).


For a product so universal as Windows changing absolutely anything causes people to scream. People complained about all sorts of changes in Windows over the years that were (obviously) better because - yes - people don't want to relearn things and - yes - people are lazy.

It is also an stupid attitude to assume that any new change is the best change in the world,and that anyone who says otherwise is lazy or worse.

Companies don't make changes that always benefit the customer,but to benefit their own bottom line,as that is their primary purpose.

Hence,this does not go hand in hand with delivering the product or service which is best for the consumer.

As you know I agree with your statement about MS' motives for doing this (I pointed it out in another thread) and I don't think it's right, finished or 'done yet' for desktop users. Yet.

You just contradicted yourself there. If MS is doing changes which are for their own good and not for the good of the final user,then why shouldn't users talk about this??

In the end,as much as MS cares to increase its bottom line,it is as much the product the user gets which is important to them. They are spending their own money.

When I buy something,I couldn't give a flying monkies about how much it affects the companies bottom line,only how it is useful to me. I don't care about stocks,shares,etc.

They are interesting discussion points on a forum,but ultimately useless info,when making a purchase.

The only important aspect to the end user is the product they are getting.

[cjs150]

Cat-the-fifth: Totally agree. I would go a little further and say that on a tech forum we should be used to using the right tool for each job. w8 does not work for me on a desktop, so I do not use it (for the office machine I still use XP). w8, with a couple of niggles, works much better than w7 on my HTPC so I use w8 on that.

However, even for those situations where w8 is the best tool there are a lot of jarring inconsistencies - situations where you get dropped from the MUI back to the old desktop mode. That is an area which needs to be cleaned up.

[dangel]

It is also an stupid attitude to assume that any new change is the best change in the world,and that anyone who says otherwise is lazy or worse.

Which is why I didn't make such a statement - I agree wholeheartedly. I'd gate that by saying you've also got to quantify whether a vocal minority is right (and voicing the opinion of the majority) or just that - a vocal minority. I think that in this case there are problems with the implementation but the focus on relatively trivial aspects doesn't fill me with confidence.

Companies don't make changes that always benefit the customer,but to benefit their own bottom line,as that is their primary purpose.

Hence,this does not go hand in hand with delivering the product or service which is best for the consumer.

If the customer hates your product it doesn't sell - that's the bottom line - and hence it must be 'best' for the consumer.

You just contradicted yourself there. If MS is doing changes which are for their own good and not for the good of the final user,then why shouldn't users talk about this??

Disagree - read what I said again. Particularly the 'yet'. MS have a number of goals - it'd be very right to argue that their short term goals aren't so much about the desktop - yet. Longer term they're trying to build a whole new platform across multiple devices using a whole new API - WinRT. This is not (by any means) a short term goal. Question (for all of us is) how bad are the bumps on the road right now and do they preclude you from using 8 right now? Second question is can they realise that longer term goal because if they do it really could be rather clever of them (nobody else is doing this). If. Might. Maybe. Hard to tell right now but I am very much interested in WinRT as a developer because it lets me do things I can't do otherwise within the MS sphere.

In the end,as much as MS cares to increase its bottom line,it is as much the product the user gets which is important to them. They are spending their own money.

When I buy something,I couldn't give a flying monkies about how much it affects the companies bottom line,only how it is useful to me. I don't care about stocks,shares,etc.

Neither could I - and all I ask/expect is for people to make that evaluation for themselves rather than relying on misinformation from third parties. I've absolutely no problem with people not buying 8/9/10 whatever - that's up to them. I very much am interested in the reasons why - partly professionally and partly because i'm curious by nature I do find it somewhat bleak when those reasons are (to me) trivial or outright wrong (I read someone today claiming XP was likely to be more stable and secure because it's 'proven' technology. I wept a little.).

However, even for those situations where w8 is the best tool there are a lot of jarring inconsistencies - situations where you get dropped from the MUI back to the old desktop mode. That is an area which needs to be cleaned up.

100% agree - where 8 falls down is the mish mash of half-done stuff booting you from one to another (control panel items great example). Sadly people seem more concerned about a start button (which I actually support having back in all honesty) which has far less impact IMHO. Closing store apps is nasty too.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Couldn't disagree more - "we" wouldn't because (if you spend any time making software) you'll realise that people very much are resistant to UI changes (better or not). For a product so universal as Windows changing absolutely anything causes people to scream. People complained about all sorts of changes in Windows over the years that were (obviously) better because - yes - people don't want to relearn things and - yes - people are lazy.
As you know I agree with your statement about MS' motives for doing this (I pointed it out in another thread) and I don't think it's right, finished or 'done yet' for desktop users. Yet. That I don't find it a blocker for me is another matter but i'm quite happy for you to state your preference to the contrary on that one

Stepping back from the specifics - the truism as a developer is that you can offer all things to everyone but you'll double, triple, quadruple your workload eventually - your product will slowly sink under it's own bloat and it ends up being far more confusing that it needs to be for your end users. Taking anything out of software is almost impossible at times - because you'll find a fraction of users are both vocal and reluctant to even consider changes and also because your product managers only ever want to add features. Users aren't also interested in your longer term goals - the fact that you're planning 5 years ahead and you know that to get there you need to make some radical changes (or face either far worse outcry or obsolescence/technical debt weighing you down way past breaking point).

You would think on a tech forum people would have realised by now people work in different ways on computers and prefer different ways of doing things. There is no wrong or right way,just the way that suits you!

Ultimately it is caught up by "my way" is "better than yours" oldtimer/newtimer,etc and things turn black and white,when they are not.

It is quite possible for people to both like and dislike the same OS at the same time.



It is also an stupid attitude to assume that any new change is the best change in the world,and that anyone who says otherwise is lazy or worse.

Companies don't make changes that always benefit the customer,but to benefit their own bottom line,as that is their primary purpose.

Hence,this does not go hand in hand with delivering the product or service which is best for the consumer.



You just contradicted yourself there. If MS is doing changes which are for their own good and not for the good of the final user,then why shouldn't users talk about this??

In the end,as much as MS cares to increase its bottom line,it is as much the product the user gets which is important to them. They are spending their own money.

When I buy something,I couldn't give a flying monkies about how much it affects the companies bottom line,only how it is useful to me. I don't care about stocks,shares,etc.

They are interesting discussion points on a forum,but ultimately useless info,when making a purchase.

The only important aspect to the end user is the product they are getting.

Which is why I didn't make such a statement - I agree wholeheartedly. I'd gate that by saying you've also got to quantify whether a vocal minority is right (and voicing the opinion of the majority) or just that - a vocal minority. I think that in this case there are problems with the implementation but the focus on relatively trivial aspects doesn't fill me with confidence.



If the customer hates your product it doesn't sell - that's the bottom line - and hence it must be 'best' for the consumer.



Disagree - read what I said again. Particularly the 'yet'. MS have a number of goals - it'd be very right to argue that their short term goals aren't so much about the desktop - yet. Longer term they're trying to build a whole new platform across multiple devices using a whole new API - WinRT. This is not (by any means) a short term goal. Question (for all of us is) how bad are the bumps on the road right now and do they preclude you from using 8 right now? Second question is can they realise that longer term goal because if they do it really could be rather clever of them (nobody else is doing this). If. Might. Maybe. Hard to tell right now but I am very much interested in WinRT as a developer because it lets me do things I can't do otherwise within the MS sphere.



Neither could I - and all I ask/expect is for people to make that evaluation for themselves rather than relying on misinformation from third parties. I've absolutely no problem with people not buying 8/9/10 whatever - that's up to them. I very much am interested in the reasons why - partly professionally and partly because i'm curious by nature I do find it somewhat bleak when those reasons are (to me) trivial or outright wrong (I read someone today claiming XP was likely to be more stable and secure because it's 'proven' technology. I wept a little.).



100% agree - where 8 falls down is the mish mash of half-done stuff booting you from one to another (control panel items great example). Sadly people seem more concerned about a start button (which I actually support having back in all honesty) which has far less impact IMHO. Closing store apps is nasty too.

Regarding the first point,yep you did. By insinuating that people who criticise windows changes are lazy you are also saying people who criticise windows 8 in any way are also lazy.

The second point is hilarious. Maybe you should look at the last 50 years of business to realise,not all changes are for the consumer but the companies bottomline especially in markets with very few players(cartel like agreements) or monopolies.

So,using your logic you must be fine when ultilities companies bump up the cost of things like gas,or when petrol prices shoot up even if the price of oil gets depressed. The lack of capacity in the UK power grid must be great too. What about the price fixing cartels for RAM,Intel's bribes,etc?

Why do you think,we need government bodies to regulate business practices?? Did companies doing what was good for the consumer help with our current finanicial issues,or help perpetuate the whole collapse??

On your third point,sorry even by your own statement,you said UI changes can be bad or good. This contradicts what you said about people being lazy when they criticise windows changes or companies knowing what is best for end users.

This is the problem. We are all different. We work differently,think differently,like different food,like different films,etc.

What you think is a non-problem for YOU might not be for others and vice-versa. This is what us tech enthusiasts on forums need to understand.

Hence,can you really say what MS is doing is the best for all people or not because all people includes everyone not just tech enthusiasts. If that is the case we would not be using any other OS or UI for our computing devices.

Moreover,as with virtually everyone I know,I am more worried about what my computer does now when I am purchasing one,than what MS has planned in 5.667689 years time and the same goes for Apple or Google.

I don't understand this UI Apatheid which happens on tech forums,I really don't.

The thing is that is me done for this thread.

[dangel]

Regarding the first point,yep you did. By insinuating that people who criticise windows changes are lazy you are also saying people who criticise windows 8 in any way are also lazy.

Please, please, stop putting words in my mouth - I made a general point based on my own experience of making software. You've decided to interpret that as any criticism of Windows in any way makes people lazy. Given that i've then go on to do so myself herewith makes me lazy too does it not? That's just silly. PCs are tools to get a job done for most - they will by nature be upset if they have to expend effort learning how to do the same job in a different way. They will prefer not to - not everyone can see a benefit to it (or it might not just be there at all which is Saracen's view for example). I'm fan of criticism, debate and someone else's view (at least I hope so) - all of which can be immensely constructive.

The second point is hilarious. Maybe you should look at the last 50 years of business to realise,not all changes are for the consumer but the companies bottomline especially in markets with very few players(cartel like agreements) or monopolies.

Glad I could entertain (perplexed as to why) but really it's not a contentious point - good products sell, bad products don't.

So,using your logic you must be fine when ultilities companies bump up the cost of things like gas,or when petrol prices shoot up even if the price of oil gets depressed. What about the price fixing cartels for RAM,Intel's bribes,etc.

Why do you think,we need elected bodies to regulate business practices?? Did companies doing what was good for the consumer helped with our current finanicial issues,or help perpetuate the whole collapse??

At the risk of going off an a tangent (just a bit) I think we should keep the scope to 'product' as in software product rather than talking about oil cartels and banking. I don't really disagree with what you're saying but it's not really er.. what I was talking about. Software sells on it's merits and really what people are debating here is whether or not 8 is worth buying or not based on said (I think 8.1 might of been mentioned way back too). MS aren't a cartel, you don't need to buy 8 and your life will go on without it (in fact i've said to a number of people that in their case paying for the upgrade isn't beneficial and they're still alive). Please don't take it as an affront personally, I was making a simple (non-loaded) statement that consumers won't buy a duffer (at least knowingly).

On your third point,sorry even by your own statement,you said UI changes can be bad or good. This contradicts what you said about people being lazy when they criticise windows changes or companies knowing what is best for end users.

Again, no it does not and again I did not make that implication (or if I did then it's the fault of my prose and I apologise if it wasn't clear). Nor do I think companies know what's best for end users - and neither do most companies actually since that's why modern software development involves customers as a principle. However, it does not mean your customers have a long term view, make very good software engineers or even think outside the bounds of what they know now. When we run surveys we often get asked for features we already have - and if you ask end users to think of a new UI paradigm it really doesn't happen (they ask for what they've already got with mods). They're even less interested in the software architecture that makes that happen. Vista - a shining beacon of Windows hatred - actually introduced fundamental changes in Windows that in time made it far more secure and stable (which end users would all happily say 'yes' to when you asked if they wanted those things) but the pain it introduced short term was pretty shocking (far more so than perhaps MUI is now in real terms). PCs went bang a lot due to the new (much better) driver model and users wailed about the agony of UAC preventing them copying to the root of C: (which obviously they needed to do all the time). Of course in time users (and developers) have changed their ways and people like nvidia have stopped trying to kill Windows - meanwhile 7 popped along and refined a few things (and picked up none of the pain since it inherited much of Vista). I mention this stuff because observably UAC in particular freaked people out because it was a massive in your face UI change (at least for Windows) and now of course MS are trying something far more ambitious with MUI (and hence it's even more contentious). Just interesting to think of is all - and I'll remind you that I do very much definitely think it's not there for desktop - yet - at this point too.

This is the problem. We are all different. We work differently,think differently,like different food,like different films,etc.

What you think is non-problem for YOU might not be for others and vice-versa. This is what us tech enthusiasts on forums need to understand.

Hence,you can really say what MS is doing is the best for all people or not because all people includes everyone not just tech enthusiasts. If that is the case we not be using any other OS or UI for our computing devices.

Moreover,as with virtually everyone I know,I am more worried about what my computer does now when I am purchasing one,than what MS has planned in 5.667689 years time and the same goes for Apple or Google.

I don't understand this UI Apatheid which happens on tech forums,I really don't.

The thing is that is me done for this thread.

I do understand that - I deal with it every day on a much smaller scale - I don't write Operating Systems for most of the known World but I do write software. It's bloody difficult and UI is by far the most contentious thing for end users. It's visual, it's what they actually use and it's what they blame. On top of that i'm building for hardware which also does things wrong. Guess which thing gets blamed for that?
You seem to get very worked up with what i've posted - for that I apologise - that's not really my intention. I'm quite happy to point out what's wrong in 8 so i'm a bit miffed when i'm painted as a zealot for it (or MS) since that's not really the case. I'm also well aware that bits of it are a pain for non-teccy users (again I deal with this personally and professionally and even do the odd bit of training) on desktops. They suck in fact. 8.1 needs to fix these things for sure..