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

Quote:

---

Windows RT will also get updated but we were not informed about what it will be called.

---

Read more.

So, will Windows 8 even get a service pack?

Apple style updates incoming?

I don't know why they even used the term "service pack" in the first place. It's a lot easier to say Windows 8.1 instead of 'Windows 8 with service pack 1'.

I think 8.1 can be assumed as a service pack, it's certainly a simpler naming approach.

I'm actually quite happy with Windows 8, there's a few niggles, there were bound to be, but overall it's won out over Windows 7 for me, especially on low-end systems like my dual-core 1.4GHz acer timeline, it has breathed new life into the device, it's booting and responding like a modern Ultrabook, something which Windows 7 never could make it do, even with a fresh install. It's just such an efficient OS.

Well I'll probably use it. I like "8". I'm impressed by the startup and shutdown speeds. Performance is very good and after a few initial niggles I'm used to the new "Metro" layout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

So, will Windows 8 even get a service pack?

Apple style updates incoming?

---

This is similar to a service pack, but more a feature pack, as it brings new usability features to the OS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scribe

I think 8.1 can be assumed as a service pack, it's certainly a simpler naming approach.

I'm actually quite happy with Windows 8, there's a few niggles, there were bound to be, but overall it's won out over Windows 7 for me, especially on low-end systems like my dual-core 1.4GHz acer timeline, it has breathed new life into the device, it's booting and responding like a modern Ultrabook, something which Windows 7 never could make it do, even with a fresh install. It's just such an efficient OS.

---

Reason why it's more than a service pack is because Blue/8.1 increments the NT Kernel from 6.2 to 6.3 which isn't usually done with service packs.

It's a massive amount of features to be released and this update and other yearly updates have always been on the table long before Windows 8s launch. Just clarifying the last point up as no doubt many uninformed believe Windows 8 is awful (from a stability and developer standpoint, it can be awful from a usability point but that depends if the individual is accustomed to the new UI and understands the shortcuts) and believe MS forced the 8.1 update (well they did take feedback but 8.1 was always to be a released a year later).

'even more tile sizes'

Than two, sometimes?

Boot to desktop yes, return of start button no (I'd rather not have the clutter of a button I don't use on my task bar).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnutt

Well I'll probably use it. I like "8". I'm impressed by the startup and shutdown speeds. Performance is very good and after a few initial niggles I'm used to the new "Metro" layout.

---

I like it too - it works just like a faster/slicker version of win7 once you spend some time tweaking (or buy software to do the same) - in my case to make it boot direct to desktop, restore the start menu (MUI is still accessible but not the default) and make the apps run within a window if in desktop mode.
The fact is Win8 is a good piece of software. However, it is also a fact that all those things should have been options from the off, and should not have needed third party programs or 'off-label' tweaking to enable.
As well as all the webnoise feedback in general, look at how much money third party developers such as Stardock have made from dealing with these problems that MS should have dealt with in the first place. Okay - so they wanted a 'unified' mobile/tablet/laptop/desktop experience, but shoehorning their desktop customers into using a system optimized for the other platforms was not the way to go about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

So, will Windows 8 even get a service pack?

---

As already mentioned, they moved away from the SP nomculture because this actually adds features, rather than being a collection of bug fixes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

Apple style updates incoming?

---

I chuffing hope not! One of the reasons I would never use OSX for business is because of how they handle their licensing and security updates. What's that sir, a 3 year old computer, hahahahahah no security updates for you without another license fee!

will this be any better than windows 3.1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unique

will this be any better than windows 3.1?

---

Or 3.11

I will wait till it comes out and I can have a full review of all the "upgrades".

W8 for me works well on tablets, is totally useless in a business desktop environment and OKish for an HTPC. The basic philosophy MS adopted for W8 is the problem: one size does not fit all, not all (or even most) devices work best with "touch" and, especially for security reasons, not everyone wants to have all data/media stored in the cloud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tpyo

I like it too - it works just like a faster/slicker version of win7 once you spend some time tweaking (or buy software to do the same) - in my case to make it boot direct to desktop, restore the start menu (MUI is still accessible but not the default) and make the apps run within a window if in desktop mode.
The fact is Win8 is a good piece of software. However, it is also a fact that all those things should have been options from the off, and should not have needed third party programs or 'off-label' tweaking to enable.
As well as all the webnoise feedback in general, look at how much money third party developers such as Stardock have made from dealing with these problems that MS should have dealt with in the first place. Okay - so they wanted a 'unified' mobile/tablet/laptop/desktop experience, but shoehorning their desktop customers into using a system optimized for the other platforms was not the way to go about this.

---

Quite. That's a very concuse and coherent way of saying exactly what I've tried to say in the various 'love or hate eight' threads we've had.

Especially ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tpyo

....

Okay - so they wanted a 'unified' mobile/tablet/laptop/desktop experience, but shoehorning their desktop customers into using a system optimized for the other platforms was not the way to go about this.

---

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

I want certain things of my PC's, and since the very early days of Windows, and indeed since early pre-Win versions of DOS, I've upgraded periodically if and when the benefits of doing so justify the cost and the hassle involved.

What does MUI offer me that I want or need? Little or nothing, tending towards the latter. But the hassle of getting used to an entirely new UI? It's all downside and hassle, and zero upside.

I have Win 8, bought and paid for, because I'm content the OS itself is better, and because I can get round and ignore MUI, using either Start8 or similar freebie tools. Had I not been able to do that, and just use it without bypassing all the stuff they tried to force on us, I would not have upgraded. Or not to a new version of Windows anyway.

What they also managed to achieve was to instill a lot of ill-will towards MUI. Had it been an option, even a default but one you could disable, there would have been little or no backlash. But by trying to jam it down our throats, no matter how bad a case of indigestion swallowing it would cause, they generated a LOT of ill-will.

Put it this way. MUI would now, for me, be a major reason to buy a tablet or phone that was not an MS product, simply to avoid it. That's how angry I am about having it forced on me.

Adobe have managed to force me to stick with Photoshop CS6 or find an alternative product (like GIMP) by going subscription-only, and MS are very close to forcing me away from Windows as my primary platform. I never thought I'd switch from Photoshop, and I never thought I'd switch from Windows because of Photoshop.

Realistically, I doubt my photographic needs will ever require anything CS6 and Win7 (or a Start8'd Win8) can't handle, so betweem them, they've saved me exposure to considerable upgrade fees by forcing me to look elsewhere, like Linus/GIMP. So, I suppose I should be thanking you, Adobe/MS, for saving me the money. Between you, the next year or two of savings probably just paid for a camera upgrade. ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnutt

Well I'll probably use it. I like "8". I'm impressed by the startup and shutdown speeds. Performance is very good and after a few initial niggles I'm used to the new "Metro" layout.

---

I agree, however I use sleep 99% of the time on my PC so how or where Win 8 "boots" is never an issue, although when it does boot from a restart for example it is very fast (ok SSD helps) but boots into 12 month install of Win8 in <6 seconds!

Plus, I've been using Start8 $5 utility since I installed Win8 so booting to desktop and the Start button were never really an issue!
I think these two "quicks" are just easy bitching points for people that just like to complain about anything new!

Fantastic work by Microsoft, I don't see how anyone can complain.
I like Windows 8 too. Desktop is there if needed, and that's where I am most of the time.
I've come to like the front end metro screen. Its just the confusion of making a mouse and keyboard work with a touch screen scenario that's the problem. But they will address that's.

Everyone's a winner.
Love Windows 8 for the most part and Windows phones are brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

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.....

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!'

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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..

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle

....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjs150

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

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).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle

....

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 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... ....

---

On the first point, I agree there's nothing wrong with that depending on how it's done.

The problem us that users are expected to suddenly get used to a new UI, and if MS had their way, would have no choice. Any choice we have is thanks to third-party developers recognising what users want, and for large numbers, that is to not have to faff around with MUI.

The reason why it can be good to have a different UI on different devices is that defferent devices are used for different things, in different ways.

The reason, for example, that a supermarket like Tesco uses mouse/kb for their desktop PCs in accounts departments, legal, secretarial functions, and so many office functions is because they work best with accounts software, WP, spreadsheets etc, yet use touchscreens on checkouts, largely driven by "tiles" is that one type of UI suits one type of use, and a different approach suits checkouts.

Exactly the same applies to tablets and phones, compared to desktop PCs. People use tablets in a slightly different way, and for somewhat different things, than they use desktops. And even if MS has a consistent interface doesn't get round the issue that Android and Apple dominate phones and tablets, while MS dominate desktops.

So, in the desire to try to tap into that tablet/phone market, having managed a marked lack of sparkle in previous attempts, MS decided to force existing users to do things differently, regardless of the hassle or aggravation of doing so.

Even so, forcing a change might be a decent decision IF the change you forced was a better way of doing things, but the MUI paradigm does not, in the view of lots of people, suit conventional desktop usage.

One reason the MS attempt to shove MUI on us is precisely that 3rd party devekopers have offered an alternative. MS could have, and in my opinion, should have, offered that from the get-go.

Here's an option.

As part of the install process, MS could have offered the user a choice. Option 1 = the new, "improved" MS MUI, and option 2 = installing a third-party of MS tool to maintain boot to desktop, start button, etc.

After all, MS have incorporated enough 3rd-party tools in the past, like disk defraggers, backup tools, etc. And it could even have been "unsupported", a la Powertoys, provided by but not supported by MS.

They could have offered users the choice to engage with a change that requires users to get used to a new way of doing things, and in the case of business users, very significant retraining costs, or not. But they didn't. So, I'm forced to assume that MS are either so thick that they didn't think about it, or that they decided their long-term strategy trumps user choice and preference. I know which of those my money would be on.

So if 8.1 was always planned, and always intended to address the broken/unpleasant things for the desktop? What's in 8.2 I wonder and is the new yearly schedule going to mean faster and better cures to woes than we're used to? It better.

Anyway, making it optional doesn't suit them at all - it would simply be ignored by developers (and/or end users). By putting it front and centre they're forcing the platform down a new avenue. If the tablet/phone market is unassailable (let's assume it is for the sake of discussion) then how else do they get into it? The truth is we're a lot more forgiving of UI changes on new platforms (phones, tablets) anyway (although it'll be interesting to see what happens when and IF Apple do innovate again and try something genuinely new). I was very surprised MS didn't copy Android/iOS with Windows Phone - and pleasantly surprised in that it's actually pretty good (and I don't own one - GNexus here).

Kingpotnoodle makes a very good point about blurring lines - after all if my Windows 8 tablet here has keyboard, touch, pen and mouse what exactly is it? I have no idea where MS is going with their approach other than eventually MUI will replace pretty much everything and in order to do so will have to change quite a lot yet before it's really going to fulfil the needs of applications that are currently tied to Win32. That's going to take a darn long time - not only for the platform but for the applications that support it. For users it needs to evolve (a lot) because i'm not convinced split screen/full screen apps are a good idea versus windowed ones for a variety of reasons. That said that multi device one-app-everywhere idea is a nice one - but so hard to achieve and impossible in the short term. I suppose it's a very good reason why others haven't yet tried it and for me it seems pretty unthinkable that a company like MS would try something so, well, risky. Then again, if you've weathered a release like Vista so easily do MS actually care that much if 8 isn't an out-the-park success?

They get into it by making their platform the best (if they can) so people picking new devices want it, not by shoving on users of an entirely different platform, to which it isn't well suited, and alienating a lot of them in the first place.

The fact that they forced it, or rather, tried to, is exactly why I'm so annoyed, and why I'll stay with 7 indefinitely, or move to Linux, before I go MUI. While third party solutions are available, that's an option, but if MS ever come up with a way of blocking that, I'll quit Windows before adopting MUI. I tried it, hated it, and in anything like it's current form, they can shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yayyyyy another thread where people who are critical of the changes in win 8 are accused of being lazy luddites despite an alarmingly high number of people around the world with the same opinion, haven't seen one of these since... last week

Being in the majority doesn't make you right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

Being in the majority doesn't make you right!

---

How can you still not get this? There is no right and wrong, just differences of opinion. Unfortunately from evidence in these kind of threads, it seems liking windows 8 seems to bring with it an overwhelming impression of arrogance, intolerance and elitism all packaged in a lovely condescending ball of stubbornness.

Doesn't seem to matter how anyone presents their evidence to back up their conclusion, it all comes down to 'lazy people who dont like change'.

Im with Cat on this one... no time for it.

So why bring it up? :)

Of course she said “Windows just keeps getting better and better every day”. What kind of marketing would that be if she said "“Windows just keeps getting more bloated and unusable every day”. What anyone actually expect PR people to say, and why do people listen to them at all? It's rubbish. Why do we watch ads? Of course they'll say "our products are superior, you can't live without them. Logic... LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

They get into it by making their platform the best (if they can) so people picking new devices want it, not by shoving on users of an entirely different platform, to which it isn't well suited, and alienating a lot of them in the first place..

---

Sounds lovely - completely impractical (see previous musing(s)), but lovely nonetheless. As I said, it's not about end users as much as a new platform and developers for it (and MS' future).

Irrespective - MS haven't really ever blocked anything - you can replace the whole darn shell if you want to (I used to) or explorer (I use Opus) - so their is choices. That MS doesn't supply ever choice under the sun (wherever it may shine) is neither surprising or shocking. What is (to me) is how angry you seem to be about the whole thing because it really doesn't bother me much at all (hence my interest). Ah well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Doesn't seem to matter how anyone presents their evidence to back up their conclusion, it all comes down to 'lazy people who dont like change'.

---

Two way street - I hate that argument too but it's equally annoying when people scream expletives and don't back up their conclusion (which is all too often the case). It'd be far more useful to debate what practical things could be changed to improve things rather than people on one side being blinded by 'its new and perfect so there' and on the other 'trivial inconvenience (with easy workarounds) has made Windows completely unusable'. It seems you have to be all-in or all-out and nothing else which is nonsensical to me. MUI is a sideshow part of Windows to me at the moment - not a central part of my day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Sounds lovely - completely impractical (see previous musing(s)), but lovely nonetheless. As I said, it's not about end users as much as a new platform and developers for it (and MS' future).

Irrespective - MS haven't really ever blocked anything - you can replace the whole darn shell if you want to (I used to) or explorer (I use Opus) - so their is choices. That MS doesn't supply ever choice under the sun (wherever it may shine) is neither surprising or shocking. What is (to me) is how angry you seem to be about the whole thing because it really doesn't bother me much at all (hence my interest). Ah well.

....

---

I have not and would not suggest MS supply all sorts of interfaces. But, when they remove the one we've all used for years and replace it with something that requires getting used to new ways of doing things, I expect it to at least be an improvement. As I went into at length in another thread, I'm angry because MUI offers me nothing of any use to me, and removes the old UI. As I've said, I'd have no problem with the default being MUI, provided I get offered the choice to change from the default to "classic".

The reason I'm angry is that I don't like the attempt by MS to strong-arm me (and everyone else) into doing what they want because it suits them.

MS used to have, for me at least, the only game in town. That's no longer the case. The last brick in that wall vanished when Adobe announced no further "product" version of Photoshop and that, post-CS6, it was subscription only. I'm not going there, either. So, Win 7 or a modified Start8'd Win8, and CS6, will do me for, well, years I suppose. And since Photoshop was only only thing I actually need Windows for, other than legacy stuff some of which is still on XP machines anyway, if I ever need to upgrade, I don't actually need Windows.

I'm angry because I don't like being strong-armed.

I need to buy a copy soon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Two way street - I hate that argument too but it's equally annoying when people scream expletives and don't back up their conclusion (which is all too often the case). It'd be far more useful to debate what practical things could be changed to improve things rather than people on one side being blinded by 'its new and perfect so there' and on the other 'trivial inconvenience (with easy workarounds) has made Windows completely unusable'. It seems you have to be all-in or all-out and nothing else which is nonsensical to me. MUI is a sideshow part of Windows to me at the moment - not a central part of my day.

---

Like I said though, it doesn't matter how one goes about trying to discuss it (which many of us have in other threads) a fresh one starts and the same people chirp in with the same arguments as if the previous debate/discussion never happened. I'm not going to to go through the same articles and explanations I have already gone through to prove that it's not simple inconveniences which are the problem, just because someone too stubborn to take it in and try and understand it has conveniently forgotten it or didn't bother to read it the first time.

Also, why do I give a damn if supporting software is hard work for a team of developers? I'm a consumer, I want a product that works for me, it's up to the developers to do that. If they don't want to do it they can cry into their cornflakes for all I care.

The thing is that none of us are happy with any operating system out of the box. You always have to install programs, create shortcuts, etc. to get things how you want them.

Those of you on Win7, yes it may be set up just the way you like, but that's because you made it that way. Microsoft didn't produce a product that was magically right for you as an individual, you took a bit of time to customise it. Do the same thing with Win8 and all those niggles you experience with the blank canvas you get after install just disappear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

The thing is that none of us are happy with any operating system out of the box. You always have to install programs, create shortcuts, etc. to get things how you want them.

Those of you on Win7, yes it may be set up just the way you like, but that's because you made it that way. Microsoft didn't produce a product that was magically right for you as an individual, you took a bit of time to customise it. Do the same thing with Win8 and all those niggles you experience with the blank canvas you get after install just disappear.

---

Only by downloading and installing 3rd party tools, whether paid-for (but cheap) or free /open-source.

Or am I missing something? Please explain how to "configure" Windows 8 to give me my familiar Start button back, and much more importantly, start menus, and to get rid of Win8 sidebar, hot-corners, etc, without downloading and installing non-MS tools?

All I want is a plain desktop no fancy graphics, backdrops, screensavers, etc, and the long-familiar menus. Yes, I configure things. I put certain icons on the desktop as shortcuts, some on the toolbar, I put the toolbar on the top (not bottom) and I have it permanently there, not appearing/disappearing on mouseover.

I also immediately create a series of menus, like Comms, Office, Accounts, Utilities, Games, Graphics, etc., dropping down from that bar.

In the past, MS introduce a change but you can select "Classic", and carry on as you were. You can have that mouseover toolbar, or not. You can have a fancy desktop graphic, or not. I've never uttered a word of complaint about any such changes, because a few dialig boxes and a few mouseclicks and I'm back how I want things.

So please, enlighten me, where are the options in Win 8 to just carry on and not have to learn how to do things how MS want me to do them? How can I "configure" the OS to get it back to how it was, and ignore and disable all the MUI stuff?

It is NOT just a case of configuring a new OS install, is it? To get back the OS how it was, we have to go out and find which tool will bring back the stuff MS deliberately took out. That means research, which one does what, how well it does it, and indeed, whether the third-party is actually genuine or whether it's a cover for installing a trojan or malware. And we have to do this because, in their zeal to shove us onto MUI, MS saw fit to try to force matters by actualling removing the ability to "configure" Win 8 to work how Win 7 worked. And that is why I'm angry.

As I've said countless times, if they'd retained the ability to "configure" our install how we want, even as a non-default as they did in the past, there wouldn't be a backlash, at least, not by me. But they simply didn't let us "configure", did they? They tried to force us all to work a different way, and it's only by virtue of 3rd-party tools, with varying degrees of versatility, that we can configure, and only then by doing a study, review and analysis of the various tools, with the time, hassle, cost and risk that entails.

So if you have done all that what is the problem?
If you have a series of drop down menus isn't that essentially what the start menu is?

We've had the ability to add menus to the start bar since XP, it doesn't take any research..

If you don't want to use the MUI/charms bar just don't activate them.

Still not seeing an actual incentive to upgrade from Windows 7, especially considering that I already know it will cause certain games I enjoy playing to stop working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

So if you have done all that what is the problem?
If you have a series of drop down menus isn't that essentially what the start menu is?

We've had the ability to add menus to the start bar since XP, it doesn't take any research..

If you don't want to use the MUI/charms bar just don't activate them.

---

What Start menu?

I use the desktop, I use menus. I don't want start screen, I don't want apps from the Windows store, and I certainly don't want flaming great tiles, live updating or not, any more than I want charm, etc.

What I want is my desktop, and start menu, working as it always has, and to not have to get used to doing all sorts of things in a different way just to suit MS' s convenience.

When you say it is "essentially" what start menu is, do you mean start screen, with grouping, etc? Because if so, no, it is not the same. I do not want to see the Metro screen and tiles, EVER, because the ONLY thing it does for me is get in the way of using my PC as I always have.

I'm not interested in switching between desktop mode and MUI, because there is NOTHING in the MUI I want? Not tiles, not groups, not charms, or bars, or hot corners. All I want is for MS to get their new ideas for how a UI should work outta my face, so I can get on with doing what I do with my machines, day to day.

If I can get MUI outta my face, using 3rd party tools, I will. But I should not have to resort to 3rd party tools to do it, and all MS had to do was let users choose.

If it comes to a choice between adopting MUI, now or in the future, or not using Windows, I will dump Windows. Linux offers a perfectly practicable alternative, and one I already use, and while I would have stayed with Windows solely for Photoshop, Adobe killed that for me with their new subscription-only model. So, if it's Linux+GIMP or Windows+MUI+Photoshop subscription, it'll be Linux+GIMP.

No I'm saying just attach a menu to your start bar like you would do in any other version of windows.

A menu that comes out of your start bar with menus and groupings, that's what you want right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

No I'm saying just attach a menu to your start bar like you would do in any other version of windows.

A menu that comes out of your start bar with menus and groupings, that's what you want right?

---

Erm, maybe. I'm not sure we're quite on the same page, though we may be.

What I want is to work more or less as I do now. So yes, Start button, drop-down menu, and nested menus with that, so for instance, menu options that say "Office", "Graphics", etc, and the "Office" menu might contain 2 or 3 (fly-out) sub-menus, like "Accounts", as well as selectable items, like WP, Spreadsheet, Contact Manager.

Or my "Graphics" menu might have sub-menus like Photo, Video, Sound, CD/DVD Mastering & Authoring, as well as half a dozen small utilities at the first level.

What I don't want is the Metro tiles getting in the way, ever. So, boot to desktop, with a start button, menys on it, and the ability to use desktop icons, either as shortcuts to applications or to data directories, without Metro mode gettng in the way.

In other words, to use my PC more or less exactly as I long have.

It really comes down to this. I detest it when MS change the way things word, drastically, without giving US the choice. The Office Ribbon bar was another example, and a precursor to this. It ought to have been up to the user, and in reality it was due to 3rd party tools (again). On that one, I actually liked the Ribbon bar and use it, but a LOT of people still don't, and won't use it. Either way, such a change ought to have been a choice, not rammed down our throats .... a bit like supporting Classic mode through years of Windows upgrades, and neither that nor the Ribbon bar were anything like as drastic a chamge as MUI, given that, short of 3rd party tools, you cannot get out from under MUI lurking around all the time.

As I said, I want MUI gone from my life, not hovering around like a malignant poltergeist when what I want is the desktop mode, the whole desktop mode, and nothing but the desktop mode.

Is it just me who isn't bothered by the start screen.

Once I figured how to group things I actually prefer it.

I have video work which is very seasonal, so when I have work on the group comes to the front, if not my games are there, my other useful stuff is usually around too.

Its just a bigger more customisable start menu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

I have not and would not suggest MS supply all sorts of interfaces. But, when they remove the one we've all used for years and replace it with something that requires getting used to new ways of doing things, I expect it to at least be an improvement. As I went into at length in another thread, I'm angry because MUI offers me nothing of any use to me, and removes the old UI. As I've said, I'd have no problem with the default being MUI, provided I get offered the choice to change from the default to "classic".

---

So, two interfaces then? Why not an option for a Win2k style start menu too? I take your point on MUI not being there yet (i've highlighted my problems with it on more than one occasion) but you very much are asking for multiple interfaces for essentially the same thing - and we've already gone over why this wasn't going to happen. Personally I hope they fix enough in 8.1 to satisfy you (and I) but I suspect it'll take them a little longer than that before it full make sense for the desktop. Anyway, i'm not sure 'strong-arm' is the right phrase given you've got the choice of not buying it, modifying it, or moving (as you seem to be) to linux - at least until such time as you see any value in what they're up to. On this last point I disagree with you because I do see a benefit in their strategy for end users but (big one too) it's going to take a few years to see it materialise (if and when they pull it off).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Only by downloading and installing 3rd party tools, whether paid-for (but cheap) or free /open-source.

---

That feels to me like an artificial barrier - "only if MS provide my option can I use it" - which you're self imposing (as an observation). I can't get through my day with Explorer (on any Windows version) since it's incapable of doing all the things that Opus does - but I don't care that GP Software make it and not MS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Also, why do I give a damn if supporting software is hard work for a team of developers? I'm a consumer, I want a product that works for me, it's up to the developers to do that. If they don't want to do it they can cry into their cornflakes for all I care.

---

Why would I suppose otherwise? If you don't like it then you don't buy it, so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Percy1983

Is it just me who isn't bothered by the start screen.

---

No, it's not just you - i'm not really bothered by it either. I don't use it very much and there are some things about it that i'd like changed/fixed but it's largely avoidable for me. I quite like the idea of it - i.e. the presentation, live tiles and being a start point when turning on the PC but mines mostly a disorganised mess because of the lack of built-in self organisation when things install (which does annoy me). It's tendancy to become a wall of icons is all too apparent. Normally though I use the instant search and it's gone for 99% of the cases where I invoke it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

So, two interfaces then? Why not an option for a Win2k style start menu too? I take your point on MUI not being there yet (i've highlighted my problems with it on more than one occasion) but you very much are asking for multiple interfaces for essentially the same thing - and we've already gone over why this wasn't going to happen. Personally I hope they fix enough in 8.1 to satisfy you (and I) but I suspect it'll take them a little longer than that before it full make sense for the desktop. Anyway, i'm not sure 'strong-arm' is the right phrase given you've got the choice of not buying it, modifying it, or moving (as you seem to be) to linux - at least until such time as you see any value in what they're up to. On this last point I disagree with you because I do see a benefit in their strategy for end users but (big one too) it's going to take a few years to see it materialise (if and when they pull it off).



That feels to me like an artificial barrier - "only if MS provide my option can I use it" - which you're self imposing (as an observation). I can't get through my day with Explorer (on any Windows version) since it's incapable of doing all the things that Opus does - but I don't care that GP Software make it and not MS.

---

Two interfaces? Win 8 has that anyway. It has how you do things in MUI and how you do things in Desktop.

My objection is that in adding MUI, MS did not have to physically remove the parts of the Win7 interface that have been there, in one form or another, for years. athey could have simply left the Start menu so that those, and it's a significant proportion, that don't give a flying fig about MUI or Metro apps, and aren't likely to have touch screens in anything resembling the near future, could have just carried on without all the hassle that deciding to try to force us to do things differently has caused.

MS want to leverage MUI. I get that. But it absolutely is strong-arming us into their way of doing things, because instead of leaving existing methods in place in desktop mode for those that don't want the disturbance of working in new ways, they attempted ti force it by removing those bits. And but for 3rd party developers, they would probably hsve succeeded.

Nor is it an artificial barrier.

I'm not saying MS should have added anything in. Just not removed bits that were already there. Win 8 is supposed to be an upgrsde from Win 7, yes? It's an evolution of an existing product stream. But now, if people upgrade, they have a binary choice :-

- either, bow down and use MS' s preferred route, or
- go to the time, trouble, risk and perhaps cost, of finding a 3rd party way of putting back in what MS took out.

This hassle is not about finding a package to get your PC to do something new. It's about finding something to simply let you carry on working as you were before "upgrading" your OS.

I know quite a few corporates, of varying sizes, that are not upgrading to Win 8 because they are not prepared to put up with the disruption, and even retraining costs, implied by these UI changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Two interfaces? Win 8 has that anyway. It has how you do things in MUI and how you do things in Desktop.

---

Ha, but you know I meant two start menus..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

My objection is that in adding MUI, MS did not have to physically remove the parts of the Win7 interface that have been there, in one form or another, for years. athey could have simply left the Start menu so that those, and it's a significant proportion, that don't give a flying fig about MUI or Metro apps, and aren't likely to have touch screens in anything resembling the near future, could have just carried on without all the hassle that deciding to try to force us to do things differently has caused.

---

The could of done a whole heap of things - but it didn't suit them as we've discussed - as to the numbers of people who are of your view (or mine) no idea. I remember the Start Menu in XP being derided by German colleagues, the Start Bar in 7 being lambasted by others - in fact pretty much any UI change ever upsets someone. On this scale? Ouch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

MS want to leverage MUI. I get that. But it absolutely is strong-arming us into their way of doing things, because instead of leaving existing methods in place in desktop mode for those that don't want the disturbance of working in new ways, they attempted ti force it by removing those bits. And but for 3rd party developers, they would probably hsve succeeded.

---

Would of? They've done it - sure they'll make changes to it and (hopefully) fix it - but those third party solutions aren't widely used (at least in terms of the Windows 8 install base). Remember the largesse of users won't know they exist and you'll be amazed what people will put up with rather than take the time to 'fix' it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Nor is it an artificial barrier.

I'm not saying MS should have added anything in. Just not removed bits that were already there. Win 8 is supposed to be an upgrsde from Win 7, yes? It's an evolution of an existing product stream. But now, if people upgrade, they have a binary choice :-

- either, bow down and use MS' s preferred route, or
- go to the time, trouble, risk and perhaps cost, of finding a 3rd party way of putting back in what MS took out.

This hassle is not about finding a package to get your PC to do something new. It's about finding something to simply let you carry on working as you were before "upgrading" your OS.

I know quite a few corporates, of varying sizes, that are not upgrading to Win 8 because they are not prepared to put up with the disruption, and even retraining costs, implied by these UI changes.

---

And so most people will go with MS' provided option - but if you're willing to spend the time posting on a tech forum about the problem then you're more than capable of trialling some of those solutions which will (probably) provide 8 as you'd like. The artificial barrier to that is saying you're not happy they're not from MS so you'll not bother - sorry doesn't make sense. If I read that wrong my apologies but that was what I was responding to.

As for corporates - most are a long way from deploying 8 regardless of it's benefits or problems - such is the way of things. We still have some users on an XP image (ffs) - probably only 80% complete 7 deployment or so. I suspect most will skip 8 because of the timing and MS make money from their licencing agreements whether they take 8 or not. So do MS really lose out? Probably not, so long as they complete/fix the MUI stuff in the point updates or whatever schedule they've moved to now.

It's not even a matter of having to learn a new interface. The problem with one-size-fits-all ideation is that all is not just one size. It's a simple matter of optimisation, one is more optimal for one paradigm over the other. MUI is as terrible a keyboard and mouse-driven interface as the window modal GUI is terrible with touch-driven interface.

It'd be like walking into shops looking to buy pants, and the only pair of pants everyone stocks is small, and you're not small. Not only do you not capture the median consumer, you're completely disregarding the large, and extra large, etc..

There are all sorts of category of user, Dangel, and no doubt, reactions. Some people will like the changes, some loathe them, and some not notice.

As for whether they've "done it", that remains to be seen, but it may well be. It will probably depend on the nature of large corporate responses, and it'd probably be reasonable to assume any backtracking in 8.1 will be a reaction to such company's "feedback".

As for the size of any backlash, my money is on it being virtually impossible to tell, not least because we don't know how many don't upgrade over this (I know a few, personally), or that do upgrade but then go 3rd party. But personal experience, yours or mine, personal or business, is never going to be much of a yardstick for overall reaction.

Another indicator is the extent of negative press, and that certainly has been very substantial. But again, how indicative is unclear.

Personally, I don't much care. My only interest is in what I do. I've upgraded one system (or to be more accurate, one boot drive) to 8, and only one, and only then because that machine needs to be the current OS. A couple more will stay on 7, some are still on XP and will almost certainly stay that way, 'cos there's absolutely no benefit in changing, so they're immaterial anyway. A new laptop purchase was cancelled because I couldn't find a suitable machine with 7, so it's on hold while I decide which direction to take, but it won't be Win 8.

If MS were to capitulate and restore the functionality I'm on about, I'll revisit that, but if not, then I'll hold at Win 7 for as long as I can, and then slowly migrate off of an MS platform entirely, except where it has to be MS. And for the record, I'm sure not holding my breath for any such capitulation. I have no such expectation, and as my migration is already underway, no longer much interest anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

It's not even a matter of having to learn a new interface. The problem with one-size-fits-all ideation is that all is not just one size. It's a simple matter of optimisation, one is more optimal for one paradigm over the other. MUI is as terrible a keyboard and mouse-driven interface as the window modal GUI is terrible with touch-driven interface.

It'd be like walking into shops looking to buy pants, and the only pair of pants everyone stocks is small, and you're not small. Not only do you not capture the median consumer, you're completely disregarding the large, and extra large, etc..

---

Exactly.

And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me. I wonder how many others are alienated, and in what severity? There are other tailors. ;)

So, as a diversion from pants(!) - do you believe what MS is attempting isn't possible? That they can't unify their platforms in a coherent and pleasant way for the majority? I can see a number of ways they could address the desktop fairly easily - even if they had to introduce specific elements of UI that are only visible on said. We all agree the v0.1 version of MUI doesn't work well for desktop (despite some disagreement on the impact that has) but it's still an interesting idea (just with imperfect implementation). I sort of see the point moving from tablet to desktop through my day as I do..

There's no denying the deliberate focus on touch in v0.1 but that doesn't preclude them shifting back to desktop in the point updates or major revisions. I don't see MS as being married to touch as their only goal - MUI could do many things, it's a whole new platform and as such will evolve considerably.

As an interesting aside - see this fun little demo from leap motion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21LtA...layer_embedded

I've got one on order since all these new methods of interaction are of great interest to me (professionally and personally).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

There are all sorts of category of user

---

Yeah, and maybe kids will actually like MUI while daddy can just go straight to desktop. Could be quite convenient in some ways.

I don't use MUI (except to launch the odd program) but I don't mind it being there hidden in the background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

So, as a diversion from pants(!) - do you believe what MS is attempting isn't possible? That they can't unify their platforms in a coherent and pleasant way for the majority? I can see a number of ways they could address the desktop fairly easily - even if they had to introduce specific elements of UI that are only visible on said. We all agree the v0.1 version of MUI doesn't work well for desktop (despite some disagreement on the impact that has) but it's still an interesting idea (just with imperfect implementation). I sort of see the point moving from tablet to desktop through my day as I do..

---

I dont think that its completely possible to have one size fits all for both mouse and touch, no. I do think that they could do a much better job of making the two environments at least feel and act like one complete system. Unfortunately the only way to completely do that means that you double the amount of development for every MUI application because it would have to have a decent desktop mode and visa versa. The alternative would be to have a 'container' mode for both environments so that everything is accessible in both modes regardless of which it was designed for.

Multitasking and application switching in MUI needs to be looked at, Android and even IOS both do a better job of this and even then the process is clunky.

Screen under-usage in MUI apps needs to be addressed, i know MS are trying to make things look 'clean' but they are doing that at the expense of the effective use of a screen real estate.

The 'start screen' is possibly the easiest for them to fix, and by this i don't mean they could just add back in the traditional start menu, they just need a 'mini' version of MUI that could take advantage of the snap functionality.

Why is there no proper control panel in MUI? the easiest migration path for MS (with regards to a user familiarity POV) would have been to put in a touch friendly control panel with access to everything that you would need to do on a computer within MUI. This goes for a lot of setup-y things which have changed slightly.

The charms bar need to be completely revisited for both environments IMO. Just strikes me as a pointless additional eye-soar and its functionality could have been integrated into the OS in a much nicer fashion.

I really want to like what Microsoft are doing, i like the concept of having a one size fits all operating system that can function effectively with touch or K&M. In day to day life i think the idea is brilliant but what Windows 8 has proved is that its an extremely difficult task and you cannot alienate the working methodology of the traditional desktop in favour of touch.

The evolution to a new interface in the software needs to be in sync with the evolution in real life and at the moment, people see tablets as different to desktops. Microsoft could have jump-started the blend between the two but instead i think they have made the divide worse

The argument that many make about windows 8 and being able to barely ever use MUI and the apps that run in it seems stupid to me, it further proves that MS got it wrong. The introduction of a decent touch interface should have such that people actually use it in conjunction with desktop without really feeling like a lot has changed. We should have got more from this, not a feeling of abandonment and frustration.

Edit - Biscuit posted while I was writing, but basically ..... wot he said.



I'm quite happy to move away from pants, Dangel. I think we've pushed that one far enough.

Could a dual-platform mode work?

In principle, I don't see why not. But, IMHO, it has to be done in such a way that doesn't significantly disadvantage existing users.

OS's evolve. I mean, 8-bit to 16-bit, to 32-bit, to 64-bit, for instance.

But it was an evolution, not a revolution. Sooner or later, there comes a bite-the-bullet point. So, if you ship retail OS with 32-bit and 64-bit versions, and you offer 32-bit and 64-but variants in OEM, you give USERS the say as to when best to move.

If, and I stress IF both platforms can be combined in a way that is smooth and non-interfering, then I have no objection at all. Part of that would be what I've said from the start .... let the user decide, have an option.

My biggest reservation would basically be aidan's point. The reasons most of us want tablets and smartphones are essentially portability, where that is the prime criteria, and where everything else is secondary. And for that, touch works well in some areas, and is an acceptable compromise in others.

But, the criteria for most desktop applucations are entirely different. In spreadsheets or WP, for instance, I'm far more concerned with screen space than I am with touch, and a mouse pointer being a lot smaller than a fingertip, it's far easier to place things accurately with a mouse, and far quicker.

And for, say, Photoshop? Keyboard and mouse is okay, keyboard, mouse and pressure sensitive pen on graphics tablet, far better.

For DTP, personally, the best option is a screen I can rotate (okay, tablets do that) and fine control of the pointer, which says mouse, not finger, to me.

I could go on, but the point is clear, I think - the right tool for the job, so the question is, what is the job?

It's one thing (convenience and portability) for tablets, and entirely another for desktops, which may be accounts, or WP, or art work on a graphics tablet.

My concern is that where touch works is on tablets, but for most, but admittedly not all, desktop purposes, touch is at best, no help, and at worst, a retrograde step.

MUI is oriented towards touch. It (IMHO, and not just mine) doesn't work so well on mouse / keyboard, and frankly (IMHO, again) is an unmitigated nightmare on keyboard and laptop trackpad.

A LOT of what most people do on desktops is not oriented towards touch. There will no doubt be some exceptions. Supermarket checkouts are, by and large, no longer dedicated hardware with custom keyboards, but generic PCs with custom applications, combining the necessary security aspects with touch screens and tile-based interfaces, and they work fairly well. An example would be the self-service weighing scales in Waitrose, with two or three screens of icons (tiles) narrowing down what it is the customer has placed on the scales.

So, app(lication) design is determined in no small part by interface hardware, and like it or not, desktop application design comes from 30 years of mouse and keyboard, and is not well suited to tile-like design and touch screens, yet that's exactly what MUI prioritises, at the expense of compromising desktop mode. And that, IMHO, is the problem.

Long term, maybe application interfaces will be redesigned with touch in mind, and maybe it'll improve the app interface. I'm not holding my breath, and it sure hasn't happened yet. And it's probably due to chicken and egg - why redesign the interface when so few users have touch screens on a desktop, and why buy touch screens for desktops when, given application interfaces, they don't work well with the applications.


MUI apart, Win 8 has a lot ( under the hood, as it were) to commend it.

If MUI were less intrusive to desktop mode, my objections disappear.

I move from tablet to desktop too (tablet right now), because sometimes, a tablet is far, FAR more convenient to use. But it's an android tablet. That requires a bit of a learning curve for anyone used to PCs, but of course, it was my choice to buy, and doesn't affect. how I use my desktop.

If this tablet was based on WinMUI, I still would not accept MUI, as currently implemented, on my desktop. A consistent interface is not enough for put up with the nuisance to someone only interested in desktop mode on my PC desktop. And personally, having a consistent interface would be a tiny consideration in selecting my next tablet.

And for that matter, personally, I far prefer both Apple and android interfaces to MUI, so if interface were a big issue, it'd be a negative for me, as things stand.

Long term, if MS can refine MUI, and remove the objections, then fine. In the mean time, I rather object to being effectively an unpaid and very unwilling UI beta test department, along with the rest of the Windows userbase, when doing so is a pain in the .... erm .... pants, in my day to day PC life.

The thing is, a lot of people who are holding out wouldn't be if Windows 8 had a "must have" feature for them. Once that happens, people switch.

The fact we are even debating whether you would or wouldn't upgrade shows you want to....perhaps there are people who are trying their damnedest to justify not upgrading....

Because, lets face it, I have heard from people who won't upgrade because of a single mouse-click after logon (and for domain logons, you actually save time before the mouse-click, so swings and roundabout)......people who won't upgrade because they want to click on their program icons in start menu instead of MUI

Really? Are those features THAT "broken" for you?

Why aren't I hearing about people who refuse to upgrade because Windows Backup was ripped out? Or MCE was removed and is now "paid for"? (and completely missing on VL) Or DVD playback was removed? Or persistent shadow copies has been butchered? (previous versions) Or recently edited documents is missing?

These are the issues I expect to hear about. These are the things which can really change the way people work on their systems and maintain them.....Yet it's all about the odd mouse click.....stttrrraaannggee.

I cant help feeling that you haven't actually read what myself, Saracen, aiden, CTF and the many others who don't feel W8 represents the requirements of the user have said in this, or other threads, but anyway...

Damned right i want to upgrade, i like things to be up to date and i would like to utilize the improved 'under the hood' efficiency of W8. Im not trying to justify not upgrading, i'm trying to explain to people why this isn't a case of, 'just live with it' or 'stop being lazy' etc etc. The fact is that i just do not like the way things work.

I would argue that the fact that we are having this argument/discussion proves that Microsoft has done nothing more than create another controversial OS, much like Vista or ME.

MCE isn't so much of an issue because i prefer XBMC anyway. With DVD playback and all the other bits and bobs, i think i will always now look towards 3rd party apps that im familiar with, i can see why it might bother others although i cant actually remember the last time i played a DVD.
Shadow copy and backup facilities are of definite importance and they do baffle me a little bit, but in the case of most users and most of the kind of operation they would do day to day, they actually are not about the way people work. These are more superuser activities and the reason they haven't been complained about as much is because most people never used them in the first place, or at least didn't know they were using them.
Recent documents is something i hadn't really noticed as its not something i personally used, i always tend to go to it from within the application I'm using or create shortcuts to the folders which contain my regular documents. With the versioning system i use at work, 'recent documents' doesn't really work for us anyway.

Otherwise yes, those features are THAT broken for me. In independence of each other they all don't seem like much, but as a whole when you add all the little things together, it results in a total package that feels cumbersome and un-intuitive. In my opinion, Its not an improvement in a user interface point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I would argue that the fact that we are having this argument/discussion proves that Microsoft has done nothing more than create another controversial OS, much like Vista or ME.

---

But that's hardly making a significant point now is it - I mean does anyone disagree on that? Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

MCE isn't so much of an issue because i prefer XBMC anyway. With DVD playback and all the other bits and bobs, i think i will always now look towards 3rd party apps that im familiar with, i can see why it might bother others although i cant actually remember the last time i played a DVD.

---

On DVDs I agree but XBMC sucks at recording TV and I'm a big fan of MC (with MediaBrowser which looks as good as XBMC anyway). I actually agree with their reasoning though as I understand very few users use it. I fear it's on the way out..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Shadow copy and backup facilities are of definite importance and they do baffle me a little bit, but in the case of most users and most of the kind of operation they would do day to day, they actually are not about the way people work. These are more superuser activities and the reason they haven't been complained about as much is because most people never used them in the first place, or at least didn't know they were using them.

---

Yup, most people aren't aware of 'backup' as a concept period - even less so that Windows offers such facilities. The rest of us probably use a paid for or free imaging/backup app-lication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Recent documents is something i hadn't really noticed as its not something i personally used, i always tend to go to it from within the application I'm using or create shortcuts to the folders which contain my regular documents. With the versioning system i use at work, 'recent documents' doesn't really work for us anyway.

---

Agree here too - nearest I got to them is the method you described or jumplists the taskbar which are still there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Otherwise yes, those features are THAT broken for me. In independence of each other they all don't seem like much, but as a whole when you add all the little things together, it results in a total package that feels cumbersome and un-intuitive. In my opinion, Its not an improvement in a user interface point of view.

---

Outside of MUI though? I love the multi-monitor support, am baffled by people want 7's bereft-of-any-buttons explorer back, like the new task manager and so on. I don't even miss glass - thought I would. Not that I disagree on the whole - I just don't think it's "THAT broken for me" because really it isn't, and even if it was I could easily change things to avoid MUI altogether.

Shaithis makes a fair point - all the angst is against the somewhat insignificant stuff - and that's a problem because if MS are convinced that fixing those small things will cause people to down pitchforks and have a sing song they're very wrong. I'd rather they completed the MUI control panels, fixed app closing, sorted out splitting or get into the much harder task of answering how apps are no longer Windows but rather just part of a split screen. That latter point worries me more - there's already a 3rd party solution effectively handling this and so MS must be aware of it. Let's face it a full screen start menu and the lack of the button to launch it are side issues - it's more fundamentally how applications work, dock, close or switch that's the issue on the desktop. The concept's there - I like the style personally, I like that they're designed to be ultra responsive, can be suspended, big, bold and modern looking I just don't like how I manipulate them on the desktop as much as I do on the tablet.

It is utterly weird that 'boot to desktop' is an issue though - because the first thing I do is launch an app(lication) which is exactly what the start screen does (and handily tells you some other information with live tiles - not a bad concept either and also open to improvement). But hey, it's big, in your face UI and that's controversial as you say..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

If this tablet was based on WinMUI, I still would not accept MUI, as currently implemented, on my desktop. A consistent interface is not enough for put up with the nuisance to someone only interested in desktop mode on my PC desktop. And personally, having a consistent interface would be a tiny consideration in selecting my next tablet.

---

I think that's an attitude thing though - we're far more open to change on mobile platforms as people. I know plenty of people who moved from iOS to android and barely grumbled at a time when they're were perhaps more diverse. I'd consider WP for my next phone simply for a change - we all get bored of things too. MS' aren't just banking on familiarity though - it's also about one app ecosystem cross device.

Let's face it - Windows is supposed to be boring, it's supposed to be stuck in it's ways and MS aren't supposed to innovate. Then we're all supposed to lambaste them for it, right? I think Windows 8 is shocking - but not perhaps in the sense you do ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

But that's hardly making a significant point now is it - I mean does anyone disagree on that? Nope.

---

Well no-one would disagree with it, but i still think its relevant. Just the same as windows 7 was vista done right, i suspect that history will repeat itself and windows 9 will fix a lot of these controversial issues and become a very capable and fluid OS.
I could be wrong and MS could keep pushing their new system if they feel like banging a few more nails into the coffin containing their reputation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

On DVDs I agree but XBMC sucks at recording TV and I'm a big fan of MC (with MediaBrowser which looks as good as XBMC anyway). I actually agree with their reasoning though as I understand very few users use it. I fear it's on the way out..

---

Yeah TV recording is something im about to experiment with, but not something i actively do at the moment. Hard to complain about something i have never tried :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Outside of MUI though? I love the multi-monitor support, am baffled by people want 7's bereft-of-any-buttons explorer back, like the new task manager and so on. I don't even miss glass - thought I would. Not that I disagree on the whole - I just don't think it's "THAT broken for me" because really it isn't, and even if it was I could easily change things to avoid MUI altogether.

---

No i like some of these features, just not enough to swing me in favour of forgetting the bits that im missing or enough for me to ignore the things that do my nut in. Again, i think adjusting the system and the way you work to avoid MUI is basically proving MS got it wrong. We shouldnt have to do this, it should be an integrated system, at the moment it almost feels like MUI is a virtual machine running on a stripped down desktop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Shaithis makes a fair point - all the angst is against the somewhat insignificant stuff - and that's a problem because if MS are convinced that fixing those small things will cause people to down pitchforks and have a sing song they're very wrong. I'd rather they completed the MUI control panels, fixed app closing, sorted out splitting or get into the much harder task of answering how apps are no longer Windows but rather just part of a split screen. That latter point worries me more - there's already a 3rd party solution effectively handling this and so MS must be aware of it. Let's face it a full screen start menu and the lack of the button to launch it are side issues - it's more fundamentally how applications work, dock, close or switch that's the issue on the desktop. The concept's there - I like the style personally, I like that they're designed to be ultra responsive, can be suspended, big, bold and modern looking I just don't like how I manipulate them on the desktop as much as I do on the tablet.

---

I completely agree on all of the comments about app closing/splitting etc etc but i feel that if the environment between desktop and MUI became more integrated and syncronised, this would start to solve itself. I think the bigger point here is that its unfair to trivialize these so called 'insignificant' things. To people like us, if we really felt the need, we could work round them, learn the new way which would make them trivial. To the greater population who are not geeks that revel in learning new stuff and finding more efficient ways of working, its nothing more than a frustrating roadblock for them.
In some ways, if this is Microsoft's future, many corporations and even home users may quite rightly start to think; "why bother learning/training on new Microsoft products when there are better value (or even free) alternatives out there that would require equal training, save us money in the future and possibly end up working better for us?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

It is utterly weird that 'boot to desktop' is an issue though - because the first thing I do is launch an app(lication) which is exactly what the start screen does (and handily tells you some other information with live tiles - not a bad concept either and also open to improvement). But hey, it's big, in your face UI and that's controversial as you say..

---

But the task bar is equally capable of launching an application quickly and it doesn't need to take up the full screen or involve having to shift from one full environment to another. This whole shifting thing is part of what bugs me personally, its just awkward and cumbersome. You could have live that same live information integrated into you're background/wallpaper via a kind of improved W7 widget service, basically just overlaying the live tile over the desktop. Alternatively, going by the 'mini' MUI start screen that i suggested earlier, you could have a snapshot of this information visible on there and then when you start up to desktop, the start menu is open.
All this takes development, but if they wanted to avoid alienating normal people (and by this i mean both people like us and your average Susan working in a government or company office) whilst still providing an improved and more flexible system, its what they should have thought about, looking forward its what they need to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Well no-one would disagree with it, but i still think its relevant. Just the same as windows 7 was vista done right, i suspect that history will repeat itself and windows 9 will fix a lot of these controversial issues and become a very capable and fluid OS.
I could be wrong and MS could keep pushing their new system if they feel like banging a few more nails into the coffin containing their reputation.

---

I don't see those things as mutually exclusive - or am I reading what you said wrong? MUI as a platform is OK - just not here yet, lots to do etc. I don't doubt they'll keep pushing it. Especially now it's central to XBOX, WP, Tablet and 8. I think that's potentially both clever and unique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

We shouldnt have to do this, it should be an integrated system,

---

..but we do. It's imperfect but alternatives exist is it's a blocker for you was all I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I completely agree on all of the comments about app closing/splitting etc etc but i feel that if the environment between desktop and MUI became more integrated and syncronised, this would start to solve itself. I think the bigger point here is that its unfair to trivialize these so called 'insignificant' things. To people like us, if we really felt the need, we could work round them, learn the new way which would make them trivial. To the greater population who are not geeks that revel in learning new stuff and finding more efficient ways of working, its nothing more than a frustrating roadblock for them.

---

I think closing, manipulating, splitting etc are the big problems - a lack of start button simple isn't. To solve it they've got to look at the big stuff first - instead we'll see them fix what are (imho) trivial things to appease the noisy people. That worries me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

In some ways, if this is Microsoft's future, many corporations and even home users may quite rightly start to think; "why bother learning/training on new Microsoft products when there are better value (or even free) alternatives out there that would require equal training, save us money in the future and possibly end up working better for us?"

---

Well, you can hope (?) - but that's pretty much what linux fanatics pray for with each version of Windows and even Vista didn't affect that change. 8? No chance - and corporates won't be looking till a later version regardless of it's current state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

But the task bar is equally capable of launching an application quickly and it doesn't need to take up the full screen or involve having to shift from one full environment to another. This whole shifting thing is part of what bugs me personally, its just awkward and cumbersome. You could have live that same live information integrated into you're background/wallpaper via a kind of improved W7 widget service, basically just overlaying the live tile over the desktop. Alternatively, going by the 'mini' MUI start screen that i suggested earlier, you could have a snapshot of this information visible on there and then when you start up to desktop, the start menu is open.

---

For launching apps? It's doesn't bother me in the slightest - click, boom app opens. I even like the srubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishy effect. What you're describing it periously close to active desktop (yuk) and widgets etc on the desktop always had a simple problem - they get covered. So you end up doing Win+M (or show desktop) or organising things so they're not covered (which kinda wastes space potentially). Of course then I have restore my windows - another step. I don't really like it much - although I do use widgets now i'm making those concessions to use them. The concept of a launch screen with information that can be summoned and dismissed easily works in my eyes. I simply don't have the requirements to see lots of other windows when using it (for a few seconds). Now apps themselves - more of a problem them being full screen. I accept the duality of it is a problem for some but it's really broken when your workflow switches across two different contexts - i.e. control panel in MUI leads to control panel in desktop proper. That feels unfinished (it is) - but an app launcher's workflow ends with 'launch' and then is disappears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

All this takes development, but if they wanted to avoid alienating normal people (and by this i mean both people like us and your average Susan working in a government or company office) whilst still providing an improved and more flexible system, its what they should have thought about, looking forward its what they need to do.

---

Personally, IMHO etc - I think they have. 8's objective wasn't this though but that doesn't stop later revisions being so of course. Obviously MS roadmaps a good 5 years ahead if not longer and my pet theory is that given they knew corps wouldn't use it anyway and that for them the consumer market for 'new' devices is more important - they were willing to take the hit short term. Whether or not they underestimated the fall out is another matter - personally I don't think it's anywhere near Vista levels (which people bought anyway) - and the fact remains the core product is both solid and better than it's previous version if you can put up with it's UI foibles. Point revisions change the game - we're no longer 3 years from the next update so there's hope for improvements. We'll see :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

I don't see those things as mutually exclusive - or am I reading what you said wrong? MUI as a platform is OK - just not here yet, lots to do etc. I don't doubt they'll keep pushing it. Especially now it's central to XBOX, WP, Tablet and 8. I think that's potentially both clever and unique.

---

I probably should have said, 'they continue to try and push people away from desktop' rather than push their new system. My worry is that Microsoft will try and drive the move towards MUI instead of the public pulling it in, which seems to be whats happening so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

..but we do. It's imperfect but alternatives exist is it's a blocker for you was all I said.

---

I don't understand this logic, i really don't, but we are in danger of going in circles. Essentially i don't think that 3rd party tools should be necessary to make an OS work the way it used to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

I think closing, manipulating, splitting etc are the big problems - a lack of start button simple isn't. To solve it they've got to look at the big stuff first - instead we'll see them fix what are (imho) trivial things to appease the noisy people. That worries me.

---

First of all, all the discussions about it prove that it is not trivial, and by suggesting it is you are making the exact same mistake Microsoft did in the first place. But just for clarity, and forgive me for paraphrasing and twisting words slightly, but previously you have said its acceptable and reasonable to accept the available work-around of avoiding MUI all together (i assume you mean software such as Start8/Start is back/Classic Shell etc) but Microsoft giving people the straight forward ability to easily add this back in as a standard feature may result in them abandoning improvements in the features of MUI? To me, again, it just shows the lack of relevance and functionality that MUI really has at the moment. Despite what Microsoft might think, they are not Apple, they can't tell people it has worth and thrust it down their neck, you have to prove it has worth and let speak for itself. As this part of the software hasn't proven itself from the offset, they now have an even more difficult task of proving revisions of it have changed that, but before they do that they need to damage control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

For launching apps? It's doesn't bother me in the slightest - click, boom app opens. I even like the srubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishy effect. What you're describing it periously close to active desktop (yuk) and widgets etc on the desktop always had a simple problem - they get covered. So you end up doing Win+M (or show desktop) or organising things so they're not covered (which kinda wastes space potentially). Of course then I have restore my windows - another step. I don't really like it much - although I do use widgets now i'm making those concessions to use them. The concept of a launch screen with information that can be summoned and dismissed easily works in my eyes. I simply don't have the requirements to see lots of other windows when using it (for a few seconds).

---

Yes active desktop is pants and yes widgets are a bit pants, im not talking about using those features, im talking about a desktop friendly live tile type situation. How about a button that animates just those tiles containing information over your current applications then animates it away again? No awkward unsightly change to a different full screen environment, just a subtle flash of the info you want.
Hell, even on an MUI envoronment, an app takes up the whole screen so the info you want gets covered aswell. Going to and from the start screen is almost exactly the same as going too and from the desktop except on the desktop you know that it still works the way you expect it too, this argument is almost completely moot.
I would again favour my 'mini MUI start' option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Now apps themselves - more of a problem them being full screen. I accept the duality of it is a problem for some but it's really broken when your workflow switches across two different contexts - i.e. control panel in MUI leads to control panel in desktop proper. That feels unfinished (it is) - but an app launcher's workflow ends with 'launch' and then is disappears.

---

I don't really see how doing it for one function classes as broken and the other function classes as not that much of a problem. I see both of them as as the exact same problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Personally, IMHO etc - I think they have. 8's objective wasn't this though but that doesn't stop later revisions being so of course. Obviously MS roadmaps a good 5 years ahead if not longer and my pet theory is that given they knew corps wouldn't use it anyway and that for them the consumer market for 'new' devices is more important - they were willing to take the hit short term. Whether or not they underestimated the fall out is another matter - personally I don't think it's anywhere near Vista levels (which people bought anyway) - and the fact remains the core product is both solid and better than it's previous version if you can put up with it's UI foibles. Point revisions change the game - we're no longer 3 years from the next update so there's hope for improvements. We'll see :)

---

Its certainly not another exactly the same as another vista, and i didn't intend on suggesting it was. The problems with vista is that it was slow and buggy so users had a bad experience allround. Windows 8 is that they have changed so much that people dont know how to and/or they don't like the new way of doing things, so people are having a bad experience with it.
Yeah its faster, visually smoother, more efficient yadayadayadayada, but aside from us, on the forums, who notices? UI is exactly what it says on the tin, the USER INTERFACE and that's all most people care about. I care about it more than some of you guys who are mostly coders/developers etc but its not all i think about, for everyone else that is ALL they care about.
I think MS over-estimated the popularity and damaged their reputation. My next large (above 5") mobile device probably wont be a Windows one, it will be Android. I don't see windows 8 as a complete system for mobile devices or desktops at the moment its nothing more than a poor attempt at merging the two. Ill probably cave in and stick Win 8 on my PC pretty soon, but my netbook will get relegated to my cupboard in favour of an Android tab with dockable keyboard.
Lets not count the popularity of mobile OSes out of the game completely, the amount of traction they have gained and kind of level the hardware is reaching, unless MS pull their finger out they might see ARM based OSes competing with them in more ways than they expected.

Whether the lack of start button is trivial or not, they are changing it, so why isn't everyone happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

Whether the lack of start button is trivial or not, they are changing it, so why isn't everyone happy?

---

We don't know anything about the implementation of the button, do we? If its just a link that then opens MUI then it doesnt affect anything we have really discussed. Most people do not class the Start Screen as a decent alternative to a full Start Menu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

Whether the lack of start button is trivial or not, they are changing it, so why isn't everyone happy?

---

The inference of that is that the objections are just "no start button". And that either signifies a cheap attempt to trivialise the objections, or an abject failure to read what people have said about the objections. It's a lot more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

The inference of that is that the objections are just "no start button". And that either signifies a cheap attempt to trivialise the objections, or an abject failure to read what people have said about the objections. It's a lot more than that.

---

You can add "people are just being lazy" to that which seems to be common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I probably should have said, 'they continue to try and push people away from desktop' rather than push their new system. My worry is that Microsoft will try and drive the move towards MUI instead of the public pulling it in, which seems to be whats happening so far.

---

I see your point, but I'd also say they inevitably you have to push a new system because well, somebody has to. Users generally won't - well at least not until it's fully complete and with enough value to them. MS job (and I agree) is to pull them in sure but they can't do that without an established platform and developers actively building for it. Chicken an egg etc. Generally i'm loathe to support a new MS technology until it's actively shipping as it's hard to justify to your product manager making the (considerable) investment in learning and using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I don't understand this logic, i really don't, but we are in danger of going in circles. Essentially i don't think that 3rd party tools should be necessary to make an OS work the way it used to work.

---

I agree - circles - but I think I wasn't clear - it's more of a case of 'well here we are and these are the choices'. OTOH I disagree (personally) that MS should provide a 'legacy' mode for it, i'd rather they fixed the new stuff to be plain better for all - that's my opinion and so let's leave it at that. I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

First of all, all the discussions about it prove that it is not trivial, and by suggesting it is you are making the exact same mistake Microsoft did in the first place.

---

I tend to prioritise on perceived value - for me (and I can only speak for myself) I find it far more confusing trying to close, split or other manipulate MUI apps then to figure out how to launch the start screen due to a missing button. It's a mess - it's really difficult to do and much more frustrating. I discovered the 'start button' fairly easily by comparison. I'm not actively suggesting they shouldn't put it back (actually i'd prefer it) but the danger in my eyes is that it's far less important than the things mentioned earlier which make MUI a navigational nightmare for me (i.e. 'expert' user) let alone my mum.. ..and there's a danger that MS are persuaded that fixing the 'easy' (if you like the word better than trivial) stuff will fix MUI sufficiently for desktop. It won't. Read nothing more into it than that - we're not far apart on this I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Yes active desktop is pants and yes widgets are a bit pants, im not talking about using those features, im talking about a desktop friendly live tile type situation. How about a button that animates just those tiles containing information over your current applications then animates it away again? No awkward unsightly change to a different full screen environment, just a subtle flash of the info you want.
Hell, even on an MUI envoronment, an app takes up the whole screen so the info you want gets covered aswell. Going to and from the start screen is almost exactly the same as going too and from the desktop except on the desktop you know that it still works the way you expect it too, this argument is almost completely moot.
I would again favour my 'mini MUI start' option.

---

I wouldn't oppose them giving it to you - I just don't much care when it comes to the start screen myself. I'm not sure overlaid tiles that I summon really is that much better personally - it sounds like clutter compared to a clean break away from it all. Again, I think I just like the 'concept' here and you don't. I'm not opposed to full screen or MUI in principle and perhaps that's a difference of opinion - i'd add that i'm also not convinced that non resizable apps and the concept of 'windowing' should be abandoned and have said as much. I see a launcher quite differently though - but we'll get to that shortly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I don't really see how doing it for one function classes as broken and the other function classes as not that much of a problem. I see both of them as as the exact same problem.

---

I don't. Perhaps I lack the prose to convey my point - but what I was getting at was the workflow is disrupted during control panel to-and-fro whereas the workflow end point of the launcher is 'launch'. I quite like the context switch in this case.
You don't like full screen period though and here we differ - but I think it's fair to point out that control panel items should be done all in one and not the other period. Even duplicating it in both would be better because mentally shifting focus middle of doing something (i.e. finding the setting you need) is far more distruptive (to me). I'm just not bothered by the size (or coverage) of the launcher (well so long as it's big enough really - 7's start menu had it's own issues) because the task i'm doing shifts to be 'launch that app x' and nothing else whilst doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Its certainly not another exactly the same as another vista, and i didn't intend on suggesting it was. The problems with vista is that it was slow and buggy so users had a bad experience allround. Windows 8 is that they have changed so much that people dont know how to and/or they don't like the new way of doing things, so people are having a bad experience with it.
Yeah its faster, visually smoother, more efficient yadayadayadayada, but aside from us, on the forums, who notices?

---

Sorry - I wasn't suggesting you did - merely making the comparison myself. As to experience - well yes but watching/listening to non-expert users i'm seeing them struggle with getting back to the start screen, the desktop, closing apps etc. They seem to like the style and flashiness of it all and the concept of a store and slick UI has been hammered into them as desirable by Apple etc. so they like it. I do too, mostly - just wish it was easier to navigate. They notice alright - and so do I - and for info I work on user interfaces (including for touch thesedays) it's my area of interest.
I'm also a user of an Android phone and tablet, had an iPad and have a Win8 desktop and a Win8 tablet (not that they're all mine personally) for context. I'd consider WPx for my next phone (not yet though) and the tablet (W8) certainly makes me question the limitations of my Nexus 10 by comparison (although I don't miss the iPad 3 it replaced not by a long shot). I shift around between things quite regularly - either through bordom or, more often than not, personnel and professional curiosity as to what's it like on the other side of the fence. I'm always worried about missing out on something better ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Lets not count the popularity of mobile OSes out of the game completely, the amount of traction they have gained and kind of level the hardware is reaching, unless MS pull their finger out they might see ARM based OSes competing with them in more ways than they expected.

---

Which really is exactly why MS are doing MUI. Just try doing something like it in WPF or another MS framework - it basically sucks ass. That they're doing it across multiple devices (including XBOX) has the potential to make it far more appealing to devs (and eventually consumers) - if they get it right. It's not even so much about ARM - that's just a means to long battery life - and I question it's relevance if intel really do have as good a chip as they make out shortly. It's about that mobile computing shift which MS are missing out on thus far - and to get into it they do need to be radical IMHO. I see why it's important for them, I don't appreciate the shortcomings it gives me right now though but I am at least glad to see they aren't abandoning 'legacy' entirely because they heaped a whole bunch of UI (and backend) features in there that made me happy. Then again i'm easily pleased with a billion hotkeys for everything and dual monitor taskbar support ;)

Thanks for the views btw - sorry if i've frustrated you by being unclear i'm no World-class writer by any means :)

(i think we are getting to end of useful discussion now so i will try and cut replies to the barebones)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

I see your point, but I'd also say they inevitably you have to push a new system because well, somebody has to. Users generally won't - well at least not until it's fully complete and with enough value to them. MS job (and I agree) is to pull them in sure but they can't do that without an established platform and developers actively building for it. Chicken an egg etc. Generally i'm loathe to support a new MS technology until it's actively shipping as it's hard to justify to your product manager making the (considerable) investment in learning and using it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

I agree - circles - but I think I wasn't clear - it's more of a case of 'well here we are and these are the choices'. OTOH I disagree (personally) that MS should provide a 'legacy' mode for it, i'd rather they fixed the new stuff to be plain better for all - that's my opinion and so let's leave it at that. I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

---

I think both of these comments come under my thought that it doesn't have to be completely legacy or completely new (like it is), they could have had a better segue system in place to comfort users into the new environment but that also that pushes the ecosystem forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

I tend to prioritise on perceived value - for me (and I can only speak for myself) I find it far more confusing trying to close, split or other manipulate MUI apps then to figure out how to launch the start screen due to a missing button. It's a mess - it's really difficult to do and much more frustrating. I discovered the 'start button' fairly easily by comparison. I'm not actively suggesting they shouldn't put it back (actually i'd prefer it) but the danger in my eyes is that it's far less important than the things mentioned earlier which make MUI a navigational nightmare for me (i.e. 'expert' user) let alone my mum.. ..and there's a danger that MS are persuaded that fixing the 'easy' (if you like the word better than trivial) stuff will fix MUI sufficiently for desktop. It won't. Read nothing more into it than that - we're not far apart on this I think.

---

Ahhh i see, you mean trivial in an implementation sense rather than a user interface sense. Im curious though, if these things did become more apparent do you think you would use MUI as an actual day to day environment more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

I don't. Perhaps I lack the prose to convey my point - but what I was getting at was the workflow is disrupted during control panel to-and-fro whereas the workflow end point of the launcher is 'launch'. I quite like the context switch in this case.
You don't like full screen period though and here we differ - but I think it's fair to point out that control panel items should be done all in one and not the other period. Even duplicating it in both would be better because mentally shifting focus middle of doing something (i.e. finding the setting you need) is far more distruptive (to me). I'm just not bothered by the size (or coverage) of the launcher (well so long as it's big enough really - 7's start menu had it's own issues) because the task i'm doing shifts to be 'launch that app x' and nothing else whilst doing it.

---

I see what you mean i think, suppose here we are going back to the necessity of a 'container mode' so unite the two environments.
I mean, wouldnt it be great if you could pick up your dockable tablet and it automatically switched from desktop mode into a touch friendly tablet mode of the application with a simple way of snapping in some cool information into the side and the bottom of the window for whilst you are travelling on the tube/train? Many of the MS Office applications actually became more touch friendly purely from the use of the ribbon which introduced big chunky buttons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Sorry - I wasn't suggesting you did - merely making the comparison myself. As to experience - well yes but watching/listening to non-expert users i'm seeing them struggle with getting back to the start screen, the desktop, closing apps etc. They seem to like the style and flashiness of it all and the concept of a store and slick UI has been hammered into them as desirable by Apple etc. so they like it. I do too, mostly - just wish it was easier to navigate. They notice alright - and so do I - and for info I work on user interfaces (including for touch thesedays) it's my area of interest.

---

Really? Everyone i have talked to has basically said, 'yeah im figuring my way round it but i prefer the old way' boot up times aside, i haven't heard anyone commenting on the speed of the OS or anything about the new features until i point them in the direction of a guide to using them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Which really is exactly why MS are doing MUI. Just try doing something like it in WPF or another MS framework - it basically sucks ass. That they're doing it across multiple devices (including XBOX) has the potential to make it far more appealing to devs (and eventually consumers) - if they get it right. It's not even so much about ARM - that's just a means to long battery life - and I question it's relevance if intel really do have as good a chip as they make out shortly. It's about that mobile computing shift which MS are missing out on thus far - and to get into it they do need to be radical IMHO. I see why it's important for them, I don't appreciate the shortcomings it gives me right now though but I am at least glad to see they aren't abandoning 'legacy' entirely because they heaped a whole bunch of UI (and backend) features in there that made me happy. Then again i'm easily pleased with a billion hotkeys for everything and dual monitor taskbar support ;)

---

I don't think that its just about achieving better battery life, it also gives the marketplace the benefit of more direct competition for intel, which is something that is becoming increasingly more important. This is relevant as its for the same reasons that i think MS need to be scared about the spread and increasing capabilities of other OSes. They have had dominance for too long!
I agree on the point about it being unified and i can see how and why it makes sense from that perspective, its just that they didn't get it right and it doesn't work... at the moment... but again circles i guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Thanks for the views btw - sorry if i've frustrated you by being unclear i'm no World-class writer by any means :)

---

I just appreciate having a proper discussion with someone who is at least trying to see the other side of the coin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I think both of these comments come under my thought that it doesn't have to be completely legacy or completely new (like it is), they could have had a better segue system in place to comfort users into the new environment but that also that pushes the ecosystem forward.

---

Really the problem they've always faced was Windows didn't work for touch. It wasn't very pleasant on PPC and it plain sucked on the tablets of yesteryear. WinRT is the first time they've had something other than Win32 unpinning things and MUI is the first framework they've had that puts UI fluidity first and has proper boilerplate stuff in the framework to handle multitouch for developers. There's also no way of making legacy apps good for touch and i've had to accept that for our own products. MS have struck out in a new direction and i'm not clear on the future of other frameworks because of it. I suppose they could have tackled this differently but really I don't see a perfect solution other than by trial and error over several iterations and, as i've said, devs would of ignored it had it been a sidelined 'feature'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Ahhh i see, you mean trivial in an implementation sense rather than a user interface sense. Im curious though, if these things did become more apparent do you think you would use MUI as an actual day to day environment more?

---

Yeah, I think we'll all might really - after all as you say people don't care about what's underneath. The PITA is moving in and out of it atm and the splitting is pretty useless too if you're trying to use legacy apps simultaneously. If an apps good, has some value then it'll get used. Personally I've seen some very slick looking apps even at this early stage. I'm only really using a few newreaders, the mail app and 'weather' - and mail probably the most by far right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I see what you mean i think, suppose here we are going back to the necessity of a 'container mode' so unite the two environments.
I mean, wouldnt it be great if you could pick up your dockable tablet and it automatically switched from desktop mode into a touch friendly tablet mode of the application with a simple way of snapping in some cool information into the side and the bottom of the window for whilst you are travelling on the tube/train? Many of the MS Office applications actually became more touch friendly purely from the use of the ribbon which introduced big chunky buttons.

---

It's all about reducing the workload for the devs tho - fancy features which have to be hand crafted are a pain but stuff that's baked in makes it easy. MS could do a lot there but it's not an easy problem to solve. Already MUI apps are a fair bit of work to learn to code versus traditional desktop apps - I don't have a mobile background so that could be colouring my opinion there though. The Ribbon (which I like) is certainly easier to click with a finger but it's far from touch friendly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Really? Everyone i have talked to has basically said, 'yeah im figuring my way round it but i prefer the old way' boot up times aside, i haven't heard anyone commenting on the speed of the OS or anything about the new features until i point them in the direction of a guide to using them.

---

At the risk of flames consuming my soul - users will always grumble if things are different. I've used the word 'lazy' which gets people's backs up because it's a little misunderstood - it's really the path of least resistance thing, or the fact that you have to - as you point out - sell them on something before they see the benefit. Not everybody has the inclination or time to learn. Not always, but quite a lot. Total novices like a big button for news, one for facebook and one for email - the struggle I see is how they get from one to another without touching the keyboard. That's far too hard. OTOH the apps are bright, bold and easy to use - perhaps also not a bad thing. Over time I expect both the platform to improve and therefore the apps (and their depth) to also. You meet some interesting people in my line of work - we've a demonstrator in another country who claims 'he doesn't have time' to learn what's new in our software because he's too busy demoing it to customers. Yikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I don't think that its just about achieving better battery life, it also gives the marketplace the benefit of more direct competition for intel, which is something that is becoming increasingly more important. This is relevant as its for the same reasons that i think MS need to be scared about the spread and increasing capabilities of other OSes. They have had dominance for too long!
I agree on the point about it being unified and i can see how and why it makes sense from that perspective, its just that they didn't get it right and it doesn't work... at the moment... but again circles i guess.

---

I agree with all of that but Android and iOS are a World away from the capabilities of Windows as an OS. That they are and yet still so popular shows how important 'simple' is. I'm perplexed though, WindowsRT really is more capable than, say, iOS - and comes with office - and yet it's compared to full fat Win8 and not it's real competitors - it's a terrible marketing name though and that's a huge problem.
The only thing that will keep ARM going is the fact that intel charge an arm and leg for their stuff by comparison (if we assume battery life is even) and don't let people spin their own versions of it. ARM is clever because it's licensed out - people always prefer having more control over their product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I just appreciate having a proper discussion with someone who is at least trying to see the other side of the coin!

---

:) I'm actually quite a reasonable chap - just ask my wife. On second thoughts..

EERRRGHHH MYYYY GAWWWDDDDDD

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/23/m...comfort-mouse/

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....1368565236.jpg

i cant think of anything worse

The verge have some leaked info about the supposed alterations to the start screen and button. Apparently the background you use for desktop is now the same as what will show as the backdrop on start screen. Fairly simple and I think it may help with the blending of environments but I still don't think it's close to enough. I'm interested to see the final release.