News - Windows Threshold to add virtual desktops but cull the charms bar

[cjs150]

I use a mixture of w8 and w7 at home. Both OS have advantages and disadvantages.

For my HTPC I use w8.1, I would not go back to w7. The MUI is just a better solution than w7 when you are operating from the sofa 8 ft away from the TV. But I would not give many of the w8 media applications any room - w8 music is an advertising board that happens to have some music palying ability, similarly video. I like my interface to be clean.

I tried w8 for my main work computer and switched back within a week. W8 just does not work for me, I have 2 screens, at least 3 windows open at all times (email, word and browser for test match updates). Too many w8 applications will take over the full screen if you let them (calculator being a particularly bad example, thank goodness they left the old calc in as well).

[aceuk]

I still feel that it's unnecessary to use the whole screen.

Screen space is like RAM. It's there to be used!

I don't understand why some people like having all of their shortcuts squashed into a tiny corner of the screen.

[aceuk]

I tried w8 for my main work computer and switched back within a week. W8 just does not work for me, I have 2 screens, at least 3 windows open at all times (email, word and browser for test match updates). Too many w8 applications will take over the full screen if you let them (calculator being a particularly bad example, thank goodness they left the old calc in as well).

Why couldn't you use the regular desktop apps on your work computer and treat it like a Windows 7 PC (but with a Start Screen)?

Just because you're using W8 doesn't mean you have to use the Metro apps.

[tribaljet]

I tried w8 for my main work computer and switched back within a week. W8 just does not work for me, I have 2 screens, at least 3 windows open at all times (email, word and browser for test match updates). Too many w8 applications will take over the full screen if you let them (calculator being a particularly bad example, thank goodness they left the old calc in as well).

Why couldn't you use the regular desktop apps on your work computer and treat it like a Windows 7 PC (but with a Start Screen)?

Just because you're using W8 doesn't mean you have to use the Metro apps.

A very large number of users simply dispise MUI and refuse to use it at all. The fact is that 8's kernel is much improved and going back to 7 is a unquestionable downgrade, but 8's UI is a mess. Some people (like myself) use tools to restore/tweak UI functionality (I'm definitely excluding that subpar paid start menu software) while others even go as far as to swap 8's shell with 7's, which effectively turns Windows 8 into Windows 7 with 8's core.

Bottomline is, like many others have said, MUI is geared towards touch-centric hardware, it has no place on desktop systems. The balance of that would be to have a way to switch between UIs.

Now, what really puzzles me is how everyone seems intent on talking about UI features this, UI features that, but very few people are talking about a terrible thing that's supposed to come on the next Windows iteration, namely that very forced and intrusive DRM in the form of next gen license activation. I know there was a thread back then about it, but it didn't really got discussed much.

[Biscuit]

Screen space is like RAM. It's there to be used!

I don't understand why some people like having all of their shortcuts squashed into a tiny corner of the screen.

As I said, unnecessary movement for your wrist and eyes. You can scan a whole start menu instantly, start screen takes a few seconds.

[simonpreston]

Likewise all those who swear by 7 are the same lot who hate vista yet 7 is basically a Vista service pack, the same will happen here a tweaked 8 will be called 9 and they will all love it because everybody says they love it.

Windows 7 was a Vista service pack in the same way Vista was an XP service pack in the same way XP was a 2000 service pack in the same way 2000 was an NT4 service pack in the same NT4 was an NT 3.51 service pack and so on...

Obviously the product is going to be similar else every new version of Windows would have to be completely different to the last in every way. Which would be absolutely silly for application compatibility and just all round usage.

[Saracen]

Windows 7 was a Vista service pack in the same way Vista was an XP service pack in the same way XP was a 2000 service pack in the same way 2000 was an NT4 service pack in the same NT4 was an NT 3.51 service pack and so on...

Obviously the product is going to be similar else every new version of Windows would have to be completely different to the last in every way. Which would be absolutely silly for application compatibility and just all round usage.

I don't think you can push the analogy quite that far. Windows retail versions (original, Win2, Win3, Win95, XP etc) were a rather different line from NT and 2000.

I take your point, but I think it falls down a bit there, in the analogy.

As for Win7 being a Vista service pack, well, sort-of, but sort-of not, for reasons others have already stated. I see Vista as a kind-of extended public beta, usability labs, learning experience and marketing exercise, all rolled into one. Win7 is what Vista should have been, on day one. And Vista, in it's first release, wasn't great. A lot of improvements were made, but Win7 relaunched bith the OS and it's reputation.

Win9 may do the same.

[Saracen]

A very large number of users simply dispise MUI and refuse to use it at all. The fact is that 8's kernel is much improved and going back to 7 is a unquestionable downgrade, but 8's UI is a mess. Some people (like myself) use tools to restore/tweak UI functionality (I'm definitely excluding that subpar paid start menu software) while others even go as far as to swap 8's shell with 7's, which effectively turns Windows 8 into Windows 7 with 8's core.

Bottomline is, like many others have said, MUI is geared towards touch-centric hardware, it has no place on desktop systems. The balance of that would be to have a way to switch between UIs.

Now, what really puzzles me is how everyone seems intent on talking about UI features this, UI features that, but very few people are talking about a terrible thing that's supposed to come on the next Windows iteration, namely that very forced and intrusive DRM in the form of next gen license activation. I know there was a thread back then about it, but it didn't really got discussed much.

I think a lot comes down to why those "lots" of people despise MUI.

No doubt, lots of prople are happy with MUI. And that's great. Good luck to them. But lots, as you point out, aren't, and what irritates me is that element among those that like MUI that put down those that don't as somehow being irrational, too lazy to give it a good try or too stupid to work out how to do things.

I bought Win8, early on. One of those £40 offers. I've given it a fair trial, and I simply don't like the way it seeks to force me to change how I work.

Could I use it? Yes. Do I want to? No.

But referring back to

Two kinds of people:

One, people who genuinely had problems adjusting to 8, or tried it and didn't like it, and explained their reasons, and were willing to listen to explanations of why it worked for other people. I'm not talking about them, and they're alright by me.

Two, oddly bitter folk who positively enjoy sticking the knife in for reasons that make little sense, and actively enjoy doing so. I don't like that mindset.

....

There's elements of both of those that fit me. For group two, bitter? No, but certainly angry at MS. Stick the knife in? I guess so, but certainly not for no reason.

For group 1, I've tested, yes, and don't like MUI. It adds nothing that is of use to me, and makes life awkward in ways that were unnecessary. I've certainly explained my reasons, ad nauseam. I've also listened to why other people say it works for them, but frankly, that it works for those that like it is about as irrelevant to me as my explanation of why it doesn't work for me is irrelevant to those that like it.

And it's not for either lack of effort, or lack of ability to understand it, that I don't like it. Having gone to the time, and not inconsiderable effort, of testing and evaluating various flavours of Linux, before deciding to switch several of my primary machines to Linux, it wasn't done after evaluating MUI for 10 minutes, or even just over MUI, and certainly not just for the sake of jumping on bandwagons. It was over MUI, in part, but also over MS's apparent overall direction of travel.

Which brings me to "sticking the knife in". Well, guilty, I guess.

I am, to say the least, not pleased with MS. They took a deliberate decision to try to force MUI on users, never mind that even a cursory thought would have told them it would cause aggravation and disruption. Either they're so stupid as to not understand that, or knew, and did it anyway. And I don't think they're that stupid. Arrogant, yes, but not stupid. Which begs the question of why they would treat long-term users in such a high-handed fashion? The only conclusion I can come to is that it was strategic, that having had their head handed to them by Apple and Android in the mobile markets, which they (no doubt correctly) see as being a major threat to their traditional desktop OS monopoly, they decided to leverage their way into that market via their hundreds of millions of desktop users, and never mind how much aggravation they caused those users in the process.

So yeah, I'll stick the knife in to both MUI and MS without a second thought, because I see them trying to force MUI on me after about 20 years of using Windows in essentially the same way as having shown contempt for users.

If I thought this was all about MS trying to break with old, innefficient wsys of doing things, as all about UI efficiency, then my attitude would be different. But I don't believe that for a nanosecond. It's about the mobile market, not desktop UI efficiency.

Contrast, for example, my view on Office and the Ribbon bar change. I tried that, and weird as hell as it was to get used to, I actually prefer it. But I know a lot of people that did, and still do, detest it.

Someone that does some work from me is dyslexic, and accompanying that seems to come a need to learn, by repetition, how certain things work. Her brain just seems to work differently from mine, and most people's. She's very bright, but doesn't learn the same way. And either the Ribbon bar or MUI mean, essentially, she has to go back to step 1 and start learning how to do things she's been doing quite happily for years, all over again. I don't know whether that applies to all dyslexics, or just a subgroup, but it's apparently not uncommon for the 'learn by repetition' process to be effective. Even moving things around in a menu structure causes her problems, never mind dumping the menu and having to use icons, or search.

Even for the Ribbon bar, I still think MS should have left the choice of using it, or the old 'classic' interface, to users. So, instead, I loaded her up with classicshell, or whatever it's called, to de-ribbon her Office, and I could do the same, for me, with MUI. Which is precisely why MS ought to have offered that option to users, instead of trying to ram MUI down our throats.

Yet it seems MS have tried again and again to force users to do things the MS way. It varies from the 'always on' decision on XBox One (which, yes, they backed down on), to 'always on Kinect', to MUI, to ever more tightly integrated cloud services (which, with subscription-based Office) suggests clearly to me their direction of travel, to the DRM and activation issue mentioned a few posts back.

So yeah, I'm angry at MS. Angry enough to have partially switched to Linux. And yeah, I'll stick the knife in, because and entirely because of their attitude, but it's not for no reason.

[EN1R0PY]

Really?

"you're making a sweeping generalisation" because your personal experience doesn't agree?

"this ignorant and narrow minded point of view comes up again" because it isn't the one you ascribe to?

I have to point out that I wasn't sure so gave it a try, not just installing the OS and then plainly refusing to use any new part of it, I actually used it, I used the apps, I use the new short cuts. I admit I don't know in your cases but I know from a lot of people I spoke to that they just used it as if it was windows 7 and then go "windows 8 doesn't make as good a windows 7 as windows 7 does" OBVIOUSLY DUMB ASS it's windows 8, it's a NEW OS.

If you LEARN to use it then it works, seriously, how many people are saying "I miss 3.1 with no start button or menu, it was easier to work then" If you think that sounds stupid how about "I miss windows 7 with the single desktop and tiny static start menu with appalling multi-monitor support" The reason people say you sound like an old granddad with his gramophone bitching about mp3 players is because that's what you are!

[EN1R0PY]

If people had to re-learn how to drive a car each time they bought a new one, i dare say people would have problems accepting the new way of doing things no matter how much better it maybe.

They do, every car is different, my partner had to get used to a rental ford focus with ecoboost, that move forward on it's own in the certain circumstances because of the electric motor. Plus I see a million different android types, why aren't people walking around with original android phones if the problem is so insurmountable? In fact by your logic tablets shouldn't exist because learning to use a touch screen is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard!

I personally feel I am not incapable of learning things...

[Biscuit]

"you're making a sweeping generalisation" because your personal experience doesn't agree?

No, because the generalisation refuses to acknowledge that people may have a different view or usage practices than those who have found Win8 works for them.

"this ignorant and narrow minded point of view comes up again" because it isn't the one you ascribe to?

The point of view that is being ascribed to is one that people who don't like Windows 8 are just slow and lazy, this is narrow minded and ignorant and i don't go along with it. I accept that W8 will work for others, the reality is that it just doesn't work for some people, myself included. Its really not complicated and im starting to wonder if the people who repeatedly make these points of superiority realize how slow its starting to make them look.

I have to point out that I wasn't sure so gave it a try, not just installing the OS and then plainly refusing to use any new part of it, I actually used it, I used the apps, I use the new short cuts. I admit I don't know in your cases but I know from a lot of people I spoke to that they just used it as if it was windows 7 and then go "windows 8 doesn't make as good a windows 7 as windows 7 does" OBVIOUSLY DUMB ASS it's windows 8, it's a NEW OS.

I did the same, i installed it and tried it out for a significant period. Its still installed on my netbook. The difference is i came to a alternate conclusion. I found that whilst its a new OS that introduces new features, they do nothing for me and there are many old useful ones that did have been removed.

If you LEARN to use it then it works, seriously, how many people are saying "I miss 3.1 with no start button or menu, it was easier to work then" If you think that sounds stupid how about "I miss windows 7 with the single desktop and tiny static start menu with appalling multi-monitor support" The reason people say you sound like an old granddad with his gramophone bitching about mp3 players is because that's what you are!

I did learn to use it, your correct it does work, it just doesn't work better than what i had before. Im fairly convinced you haven't actually read the detailed posts that people have put that explain their experiences and reasons they tried and didn't like it.

And multi monitor support? Its still pretty crap if im honest. Different sized monitors with different resolutions are still not handled well at all. Im on OSX at the moment and its a million times better.

[SSTUCHFIELD]

My biggest issue was that they shipped Windows 8 as what was effectively an incomplete release, with major flaws for keyboard and mouse efficiency. Then later solved most of these issues in an update and compared it to apple's decision to offer future OSX updates for free. Windows 8.1 was not a major update to an operating system like mavericks but a fix for something incomplete. Also it was only available to Win8 purchasers vs Mavericks being free to anybody with a Mac!

[Biscuit]

My biggest issue was that they shipped Windows 8 as what was effectively an incomplete release, with major flaws for keyboard and mouse efficiency. Then later solved most of these issues in an update and compared it to apple's decision to offer future OSX updates for free. Windows 8.1 was not a major update to an operating system like mavericks but a fix for something incomplete. Also it was only available to Win8 purchasers vs Mavericks being free to anybody with a Mac!

The update to 8.1 is free for 8.0 users though!

You have to remember that Apple make A LOT of money on their hardware. Although its possible to hack OS X onto a normal Intel based desktop hardware, it isn't intended to be used in this way. OS X is only intended to be used on "specialist", approved Apple hardware.
Windows couldn't possibly be released for free in this manner as Microsoft wouldn't make any money from it.