Support NeoGAF

[kitch9]

Windows 8 launches in metro. Can do everything you need (or at least operate a significant suite of programs) while in Metro. Desktop is an icon you click to get to like other apps.

Meanwhile, in desktop, you can do everything you need in desktop (or at least operate a significant suite of programs), and metro is accessed not via a start menu, but through a metro like affectation of moving to the bottom left corner to reveal its presence.


If that doesn't make it a secondary interface, then... secondary interfaces simply don't exist.

Metro as you describe is the start menu......

Metro is the name of the design, or look of the start menu, its not actually a "thing."

In both 7 and 8 clicking the bottom left corner reveals a start menu..... One is full screen, the other is a small box in a corner. I'll leave up to you to figure out what is secondary and what is not, just make sure it suits your "argument."

 

[Zaptruder]

Without a major PR Turnaround push by Microsoft, I don't see things changing.

Frankly, the word of mouth defense here is annoying, and probably counter productive. You all may be right, but the tone in which it's communicated is highly off putting at this point.

It's sad, because I don't actually mind the idea of a interface duality between metro and desktop.

I think it's actually goddamn clever. But it needs to be done right.

And you do it right by not shitting all over your existing userbase.

They've done that symbolically by making desktop a secondary (although still very easily accessible) interface, and introducing a new distribution paradigm exclusively to metro, to make the whole duality feel that much more closed off from each other.

The suggestions I've made in the OP would've done a lot for the perception of W8 - i.e. an enhanced W7 that also has access to a tablet oriented interface that allows for easy transition from desktop to tablet.

But instead, it's been sold as W8, starring metro... and desktop is still there if you need it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The only thing that needs rescuing is people who cannot deal with change. As with all versions of windows, its is better than the prior version (provided it is run on adequate hardware).

Change for change's sake is not necessarily good. Change in this case is for the sake of MS's feeble attempts to gain relevance in tablets and smartphones. Metro on the desktop Windows OS has fuck-all to do with actually improving the desktop user experience, and as such there should be no surprise that most desktop users are rejecting it.

 

[GraveRobberX]

I'm enjoying Win 8

Desktop Mode:

 

[Zaptruder]

Metro as you describe is the start menu......

Metro is the name of the design, or look of the start menu, its not actually a "thing."

In both 7 and 8 clicking the bottom left corner reveals a start menu..... One is full screen, the other is a small box in a corner.

It's not just a start menu at all. Clicking on metro apps in the metro full screen menu doesn't open a window on desktop.

It goes into a full screen metro app, where desktop is out of sight out of mind. There's a clear division in the OS between the desktop and metro.

Not that I personally mind it - but to call it just a 'fullscreen start menu' is been deliberately obtuse.

 

[kitch9]

It's sad, because I don't actually mind the idea of a interface duality between metro and desktop.

I think it's actually goddamn clever. But it needs to be done right.

And you do it right by not shitting all over your existing userbase.

They've done that symbolically by making desktop a secondary (although still very easily accessible) interface, and introducing a new distribution paradigm exclusively to metro, to make the whole duality feel that much more closed off from each other.

The suggestions I've made in the OP would've done a lot for the perception of W8 - i.e. an enhanced W7 that also has access to a tablet oriented interface that allows for easy transition from desktop to tablet.

But instead, it's been sold as W8, starring metro... and desktop is still there if you need it.

Android Jelly Bean recently added an extra drop down box to the main screen to enable easier access to settings.

It took me a while to find it, and it pissed me off at first, as I couldn't access settings as it wasn't very apparent, but now I appreciate it....

Windows 8 had the same affect on me at first, but now I've arranged Start how I want it and cut the fat from it, I much prefer it over 7.

It's not just a start menu at all. Clicking on metro apps in the metro full screen menu doesn't open a window on desktop.

It goes into a full screen metro app, where desktop is out of sight out of mind. There's a clear division in the OS between the desktop and metro.

Not that I personally mind it - but to call it just a 'fullscreen start menu' is been deliberately obtuse.

Yes it is, and if you don't want to use apps you don't have to, if you just want to reserve start for your normal programs you can, christ its not hard. I actually find the odd app useful.

The whining about apps makes me LOL, it takes literally 30 seconds to remove them!

 

[ZiggyRoXx]

I cant even be bothered to waste bandwidth pirating it...such is it's total lack of 'want it' appeal.

However, as long as it serves the greater purpose of bringing about the demise of that dumb shit Steve Balmer, it'll be a success in my eyes.

I look forward to Windows 9 with a standard desktop UI..

 

[GraveRobberX]

Um Ziggy, it would be wise to remove the first part or edit the first sentence

Just saying that gets people banned, + you're a junior, fair warning

 

[Xanonano]

Metro is just the Start menu, its not the damn default interface jesus people, its not hard....

It's not the default interface, except for all the apps that are preinstalled and set as the defaults, and all the apps in the app store, and all the settings panels, and the start menu that comes up every time you log on. Right.

* it's mostly faster : to come up, to browse (instead of exploring a tree structure)

It's not faster as you have to wait for the animation to finish rather than it being instant. And browsing all programs takes two extra clicks compared to Windows 7 and is much more cluttered if you have a lot of programs installed.

* search function is much, much better (I never could use the Win7 search because it was sluggish and inefficient... but the Win8 search function is the most useful feature of the Start screen)

I've not seen or heard about any differences (except that you have to switch between the three sections instead of being able to see all the results at once). What made it inefficient?

* the big tiles make it easier to locate and click your desired software. They're also (arguably) prettier than menus and submenus.

Only if your programs have large easily recognisable icons. Otherwise it's easier to just read the titles, and as Windows 8 has less room to display the titles, it makes it harder to browse.

* for the software that supports it (metro), you can display additional info in the tiles (new mails, available updates,...)

That's no use for desktop users though, unless they want to use a simplified email program designed for tablets.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Now I've installed Start8, my install looks nearly identical to Windows 7, so I like it. Can't even remember the last time I used the Metro menu, I never need it now I have the start button and menu back.

How is Start8? Do you get Aero themes with it, or just the basic opaque theme with it. Also, can MS shut it down with an update, I seem to remember some article saying that MS would ensure that desktop mode couldn't be made the default launcher and the start button/taskbar would not be coming back.

 

[Zaptruder]

Android Jelly Bean recently added an extra drop down box to the main screen to enable easier access to settings.

It took me a while to find it, and it pissed me off at first, as I couldn't access settings as it wasn't very apparent, but now I appreciate it....

Windows 8 had the same affect on me at first, but now I've arranged Start how I want it and cut the fat from it, I much prefer it over 7.

TBH, I like the idea of an expanded start menu.

But they can have most of the benefits without stepping on the toes of people that continue to regard Windows as a desktop oriented OS.

i.e. have the W8 start menu launch a frosted translucent window that is much larger that the current W7 start menu - allowing for the marriage of quicklaunch and start menu, while also extending its function by way of tiles and sections.

The less than full screen (but it can occupy a large part of the screen) effect + frosted translucency (as per the existing Aero look) helps users to identify the new start menu as part of an enhanced Windows desktop environment.

The way they've done it - where the design and UI language transitions between two things when you press the start button creates and reinforces that division between metro and desktop.

That's not what their userbase is looking for - even if in functional terms, it's not that big a deal.

 

[ZiggyRoXx]

Um Ziggy, it would be wise to remove the first part or edit the first sentence

Just saying that gets people banned, + you're a junior, fair warning

Oh well, if telling the truth gets you banned here, I guess this is a forum I can live without.

..plenty more out there.

 

[Zaptruder]

Oh well, if telling the truth gets you banned here, I guess this is a forum I can live without.

..plenty more out there.

If they ban you, and there's a good chance it'll happen... I just wanted you to know, it wasn't because you're telling 'the truth'... it's because you're essentially admitting to been a pirate.

Which is not a great thing to admit to on this forum.

 

[surly]

It's not faster as you have to wait for the animation to finish rather than it being instant.

You're really over-reaching with this. The animation takes up no time.

And browsing all programs takes two extra clicks compared to Windows 7 and is much more cluttered if you have a lot of programs installed.

It takes 1 extra click actually, but then if you're implying that the Windows 7 Start menu was not cluttered, it must have been because you had your shortcuts organised into folders, yet you've ignored the extra clicks it takes to browse through those in your comparison.

I've not seen or heard about any differences (except that you have to switch between the three sections instead of being able to see all the results at once).

You've not noticed the differences when using it yourself on one of your own machines? You have used it right?

Only if your programs have large easily recognisable icons.

The location of particular shortcuts just becomes second nature, but you can easily recognise them from the icons anyway.

That's no use for desktop users though, unless they want to use a simplified email program designed for tablets.

Lots of apps have live tiles. The Calendar app will display the day's events. The BBC News app I use displays the latest headlines. The weather app I use scrolls between different views showing the current weather, a 4 day forecast etc., the Giant Bomb app scrolls between the latest articles/features.

 

[eso76]

what happened here ?
a few weeks ago i bought 8 for 14 € (haven't installed it yet though) and everyone in the windows 8 thread seemed to be very happy about it.
Now it's a disaster.

Should i lock the install CD somewhere and forget about it ?

 

[Jzero]

what happened here ?
a few weeks ago i bought 8 for 14 € (haven't installed it yet though) and everyone in the windows 8 thread seemed to be very happy about it.
Now it's a disaster.

Should i lock the install CD somewhere and forget about it ?

That's because those of us in the Windows 8 OT are very different than the people who have not tried or taken the time to extensively use the OS. None of us are saying the OS is perfect, since it is not, but we are simply not over reacting like the people that make these types of threads. Try it for yourself and then you can judge it.

 

[Xanonano]

You're really over-reaching with this. The animation takes up no time.

He said it was quicker to open. Well it's not because there is an animation, which takes more time than in Windows 7 where it opens instantly.

It takes 1 extra click actually, but then if you're implying that the Windows 7 Start menu was not cluttered, it must have been because you had your shortcuts organised into folders, yet you've ignored the extra clicks it takes to browse through those in your comparison.

It is still quicker to get to the all programs menu (in fact you don't even have to click once in Windows 7). I wouldn't say the Windows 7 layout is less cluttered for everyone, but if you have a lot of programs in different categories, then it's easier to just click to expand the folder you're looking in, especially with all the uninstall and manual links you end up with for each program.

You've not noticed the differences when using it yourself on one of your own machines? You have used it right?

Ah, the classic 'if you don't like it, you probably haven't used it'. I dont have Windows 8 installed any more, but if I type a word in the search box in Windows 7 the results appear as soon as i lift my finger off the last key. Does the latesrt version of Windows 8 do it faster than that? Because that would be pretty impressive.

The location of particular shortcuts just becomes second nature, but you can easily recognise them from the icons anyway.

I don't agree, but I was only explaining how changing the icon sizes is not actually a functionality improvement, not trying to debate which is better.

Lots of apps have live tiles. The Calendar app will display the day's events. The BBC News app I use displays the latest headlines. The weather app I use scrolls between different views showing the current weather, a 4 day forecast etc., the Giant Bomb app scrolls between the latest articles/features.

These still aren't useful if you use a web browser to read the news, weather and Giant Bomb, like most PC users did before Windows 8. The only way to take advantage of the live tiles is to use apps for everything, which is unnecessary and inferior to the original desktop solutions.

 

[jonnyp]

I'd go back to Windows 7 if they released a service pack that gave W7 the boot time of W8.

Win 7 boots pretty fast IMHO. How often do you boot for this to have a significant impact in your daily computer use?

 

[surly]

Ah, the classic 'if you don't like it, you probably haven't used it'.

It's not that. It's that you asked questions that you would know the answers to if you actually had it installed on one of your machines.

Well it's not because there is an animation, which takes more time than in Windows 7 where it opens instantly.

It's quicker to use though, which is the important thing. The time it takes to open is so quick that it's of no consequence.

I wouldn't say the Windows 7 layout is less cluttered for everyone, but if you have a lot of programs in different categories, then it's easier to just click to expand the folder you're looking in, especially with all the uninstall and manual links you end up with for each program.

You can remove the uninstall and manual links. In fact, if you wanted to, you could create category folders in Windows 8 and place shortcuts in there. They would be expanded, but then it takes up the whole screen so that just makes it quicker to click on things. I have 92 shortcuts in my All Apps menu (which all fit on 1 screen) and I can access any of them with 1 click. Sure, you can click your way through a directory structure to find what you want if you like, but don't try telling me that's faster.

These still aren't useful if you use a web browser to read the news, weather and Giant Bomb, like most PC users did before Windows 8.

I disagree. For instance, I prefer the BBC News app to using a web browser, because the layout is nicer, I can subscribe to the categories of news I'm interested in, put those categories in the order of my choosing, see the latest headlines directly on the live tile, and if I like, get notifications when there is any breaking news. But like I said, you would really needed to have actually used some of this stuff before voicing your opinion on it.....

EDIT - I just read some of your posts about Windows 8 from other threads. I'm clearly wasting my time and I don't think you've installed Windows 8 on any computer you've owned. You know so little about it that you can't have used it, or you used it for 10 minutes or something. Some of your gripes are fucking ridiculous. Don't make it so obvious in future!

 

[ghst]

I disagree. For instance, I prefer the BBC News app to using a web browser, because the layout is nicer, I can subscribe to the categories of news I'm interested in, put those categories in the order of my choosing, see the latest headlines directly on the live tile, and if I like, get notifications when there is any breaking news. But like I said, you would really needed to have actually used some of this stuff before voicing your opinion on it.....

wouldn't this be made infinitely more appealing and accessible if it was fully integrated in to the desktop, rather exiled to some weird sand-boxed purgatory?

 

[Xanonano]

It's not that. It's that you asked questions that you would know the answers to if you actually had it installed on one of your machines.

So you're accusing me of lying now. But since I've clearly never used Windows 8, how about you explain what is faster about the start menu search box.

It's quicker to use though, which is the important thing. The time it takes to open is so quick that it's of no consequence.

Again, what makes it quicker to use? The icons appear instantly in Windows 7, I can't see how they could make it quicker. But then again, I'm talkiing nonsense and have never even used Windows 8.

You can remove the uninstall and manual links. In fact, if you wanted to, you could create category folders in Windows 8 and place shortcuts in there. They would be expanded, but then it takes up the whole screen so that just makes it quicker to click on things. I have 92 shortcuts in my All Apps menu (which all fit on 1 screen) and I can access any of them with 1 click. Sure, you can click your way through a directory structure to find what you want if you like, but don't try telling me that's faster.

I don't really think finding an icon in a sea of 92 shortcuts spread across the entire screen could ever be described as fast, but maybe that's just me.

I disagree. For instance, I prefer the BBC New app to using a web browser, because the layout is nicer, I can subscribe to the categories of news I'm interested in, put those categories in the order of my choosing, see the latest headlines directly on the live tile, and if I like, get notifications when there is any breaking news. But like I said, you would really needed to have actually used some of this stuff before voicing your opinion on it.....

What if I want to read news from a site that doesn't have an app? Maybe I prefer Kotaku to Giant Bomb, or maybe I want to use a variety of sites. In that case, I'm better off using a web browser, which also has a range of other advantages like being able to use extensions and keeping a detailed history. And I have used plenty of apps before voicing my opinion.

EDIT - I just read some of your posts about Windows 8 from other threads. I'm clearly wasting my time and I don't think you've installed Windows 8 on any computer you've owned. You know so little about it that you can't have used it, or you used it for 10 minutes or something. Some of your gripes are fucking ridiculous. Don't make it so obvious in future!

I'm glad you're so concerned. But I have used Windows 8 extensively - in fact, I downloaded the developer preview as soon as it came out, followed by the consumer and release previews. I have some screenshots saved that I can show you to prove that I've used it if you like.

 

[Soodanim]

That's because those of us in the Windows 8 OT are very different than the people who have not tried or taken the time to extensively use the OS. None of us are saying the OS is perfect, since it is not, but we are simply not over reacting like the people that make these types of threads. Try it for yourself and then you can judge it.

I haven't read this thread that thoroughly, but as far as I know it's a case of:
Boot > use Metro (which takes some getting used to, as with all new UIs), OR
Boot > Win+D > business as usual, with Start8 as an optional extra.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I really don't know, I've not used 8 yet (our desktop is still on XP) but from the videos I've seen I really like it, it seems to be an obvious evolution of Windows for the smartphone/tablet era. We don't use the computer very often either and really just use a few things such as IE so a start menu with updated info on the screen ready for when I boot up with all the apps I use frequently would be perfect for us, I understand people not liking change but if you love Windows 7 so much why upgrade and then moan about it?

 

[eastmen]

People speaking well about Windows Vista wasn't an uncommon sight to see back then as well. But in the course of time, we know that Vista is regarded as an 'unsuccessful' Windows OS (although it certainly wasn't as bad as ME).

Vista was a great OS if you bought new hardware that could run it . I think what you forget is that vista came out in 2007 almost 5 years after XP . It was shipped by many companys on pc's that couldn't run it .

The service pack you claim fixed all its problems didn't appear until feb 2008 but by that time we already knew of windows 7. In fact a lot of MS partners already had windows 7 that January to test and in January of 2009 we got the beta.

It was to late to fix the problems the OEM's caused and hardware partners caused with poor drivers.

7 didn't have these problems because the growing pains already happened with vista and by then another 3 years of hardware innovation took place and hardware that was expensive at vista launch was cheap.


Windows 8 has no driver problems . There is a lack of compelling hardware or even hardware out by system builders but that will change quickly while drivers would have taken a lot longer.


Reading your posts I don't think you can see how badly what you wanted would have turned out. You still would have had a ton of complaints about those changes that you could have lived with and ms would have only taken a baby step forward.


Now ms has made the jump the complaining will happen with windows 8 and i'm sure a lot of people will stay on windows 7. But the complaining will now be gone come windows 9 and people will move to it as they did 7. THe difference is we aren't going to have to wait 3 years for 9 , it will happen much sooner. I'm thinking 18-24 months from now. There will be slightly better intergration and hardware will be using broadwell instead of using ivy bridge and form factors that are really on the cusp of taking off now will be properly vetted by then.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I'm a fan of windows 8 however, there is an annoying disconnect between desktop apps and metro apps. I don't have an overview of everything I have open. putting metro apps on the taskbar when in desktop mode would help me with that.

It makes the workflow a little disjointed I imagine if you need to use 7 apps and 2 of them are metro, switching between all of em is going to be confusing.

 

[SteveWD40]

I'm a fan of windows 8 however, there is an annoying disconnect between desktop apps and metro apps. I don't have an overview of everything I have open. putting metro apps on the taskbar when in desktop mode would help me with that.

It makes the workflow a little disjointed I imagine if you need to use 7 apps and 2 of them are metro, switching between all of em is going to be confusing.

I agree with this, the Mail app is nice but I tend to just use Chrome as it can't sit in my taskbar, I have to use the right top corner to access that when open.

 

[Fenror]

It's not faster as you have to wait for the animation to finish rather than it being instant.

You can turn animations off in advanced system settings -> performance. It makes the start screen slightly more tolerable. I think it's still quite bad though. It makes no sense to me that an application launcher should take up the entire screen -- I'd rather have it be a small window so I can keep reading whatever I'm reading while launching a program. Also, if you change your mind and just want to exit the start screen after you've started to type something, you have to either press the windows key twice, escape three times, or press win+d -- all of which seem awkward to me. Surely escape or the windows key should take me away from the start screen in one tap! Oh well...

 

[Alx]

I haven't read this thread that thoroughly, but as far as I know it's a case of:
Boot > use Metro (which takes some getting used to, as with all new UIs), OR
Boot > Win+D > business as usual, with Start8 as an optional extra.

The second scenario is usually even more similar to older OS, if you consider what most people do when booting their PC :

Win7 : boot/login > automatically get to desktop > click on your favorite shortcut (desktop or task bar) : Firefox, Steam, Word, whatever
Win8 : boot/login > automatically get to start screen > click on your favorite shortcut (tile) : Firefox, Steam, Word, whatever

It's only a matter of aesthetics, functionally it's the same process.

It's not faster as you have to wait for the animation to finish rather than it being instant.

The start menu has an animation too. I even edited the registry on my Win7 PC to have it toned down, and the Win8 menu still feels snappier.

And browsing all programs takes two extra clicks compared to Windows 7 and is much more cluttered if you have a lot of programs installed.

Hence the use of search function. I had mentioned in my first impressions that 8 is more search-oriented while 7 is more explore-oriented. It's a change that you may or may not like, but both work.
As a matter of fact, search is much more efficient when you have a lot of programs installed (navigating the Start program tree can become tedious, that's why we mostly use shortcuts to avoid it).

I've not seen or heard about any differences (except that you have to switch between the three sections instead of being able to see all the results at once). What made it inefficient?

Speed and relevance. If I hit Win > "cmd" on the PC I currently use, it starts giving me results after several seconds. If I'm looking for a file, it can take much longer to scan the folders, and rarely returns what I'm looking for (or it's so long that I get annoyed and explore the folders myself before it reached the right result)

Only if your programs have large easily recognisable icons.

Well, that's the point of an icon after all... And even small icons are enlarged when displayed in a tile. Those are customizable anyway.

Otherwise it's easier to just read the titles, and as Windows 8 has less room to display the titles, it makes it harder to browse.

As a matter of fact, the whole metro interface is more text-oriented than previous ones. If I remember correctly it's one of the rules of their "design language". Text is usually cleaner and more readable in Win8.

That's no use for desktop users though, unless they want to use a simplified email program designed for tablets.

And why wouldn't they ? Simple programs are no worse than complex programs, and in some situations they can be more convenient.

 

[Tobor]

Vista was a great OS if you bought new hardware that could run it . I think what you forget is that vista came out in 2007 almost 5 years after XP . It was shipped by many companys on pc's that couldn't run it .

The service pack you claim fixed all its problems didn't appear until feb 2008 but by that time we already knew of windows 7. In fact a lot of MS partners already had windows 7 that January to test and in January of 2009 we got the beta.

It was to late to fix the problems the OEM's caused and hardware partners caused with poor drivers.

7 didn't have these problems because the growing pains already happened with vista and by then another 3 years of hardware innovation took place and hardware that was expensive at vista launch was cheap.


Windows 8 has no driver problems . There is a lack of compelling hardware or even hardware out by system builders but that will change quickly while drivers would have taken a lot longer.


Reading your posts I don't think you can see how badly what you wanted would have turned out. You still would have had a ton of complaints about those changes that you could have lived with and ms would have only taken a baby step forward.


Now ms has made the jump the complaining will happen with windows 8 and i'm sure a lot of people will stay on windows 7. But the complaining will now be gone come windows 9 and people will move to it as they did 7. THe difference is we aren't going to have to wait 3 years for 9 , it will happen much sooner. I'm thinking 18-24 months from now. There will be slightly better intergration and hardware will be using broadwell instead of using ivy bridge and form factors that are really on the cusp of taking off now will be properly vetted by then.

Lack of compelling hardware, yes. Change quickly, based on what?

 

[IonicSnake]

I don't understand the Win 8 hate, I really like it.

 

[Tomcat]

I don't understand the Win 8 hate, I really like it.

it's because you have actually used it

 

[balladofwindfishes]

it's because you have actually used it

Operating systems aren't a try and buy product. Their a pain to insall, and a pain to uninstall. Consumers buy them either because they come on the computer or because of advertisements and perception.

If Microsoft has failed to control the perception and narrative of Windows 8 marketing, then they've failed at the product. An operating system you have to try out for a length of time and get used to is not appealing to a customer.

And also can I can't look at my desktop when using the start menu. I can't even count the number of times I've read directions in a browser window as I was looking for something in search or finding something via the start menu. How do I accomplish this in Win 8? And why can't I accomplish it? What purpose does the change serve? What advantage or convenience?

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Windows 8 works fine. But I guess people are afraid of new stuff, and hate microsoft because it's cool.

 

[cubicle47b]

Operating systems aren't a try and buy product. Their a pain to insall, and a pain to uninstall. Consumers buy them either because they come on the computer or because of advertisements and perception.

If Microsoft has failed to control the perception and narrative of Windows 8 marketing, then they've failed at the product. An operating system you have to try out for a length of time and get used to is not appealing to a customer.

Good thing it will come installed on most new PCs then so people will get used to it.

 

[PaulLFC]

How is Start8? Do you get Aero themes with it, or just the basic opaque theme with it. Also, can MS shut it down with an update, I seem to remember some article saying that MS would ensure that desktop mode couldn't be made the default launcher and the start button/taskbar would not be coming back.

It functions pretty much identically to the Windows 7 start menu - you can skin it to look like Aero, which is one of the default options. It even lets you search for and launch metro apps using the start menu, and if you want, place a shortcut on it to launch the metro start screen (although I've never used this since installing Start8, nor can I think of a reason I'd need or want to). It works very well from what I've experienced so far.

I do remember reading that about MS saying they'd block start button replacements, but given the negative publicity surrounding Windows 8 so far, I doubt they'll actually go ahead with it unless they want to annoy some customers even more. If they do though, Start8 was only $5 and I've got a lot of use out of it so far, so it was worth it for me. There's also Classic Shell which is free, but I think Start8 works better out of the box and looks closer to the Windows 7 start menu.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Windows 8 works fine. But I guess people are afraid of new stuff, and hate microsoft because it's cool.

people aren't afraid of new stuff, people are annoyed at pointless UI changes that are awkward and out of place on the environment most people use Windows for.

 

[jmdajr]

I like it, but if the masses don't like it then I guess they got problems.

 

[Cheech]

Yeah, the next time I do a clean install on my work PC, I'm going back to 7. Windows 8 actually impedes my work due to all the workarounds I've had to do to make it usable.

At home I run 8, and it's fine, but I'm looking forward to them ditching all the Metro garbage with the next one.

Also? Office 13 is terrible. Not as bad as Windows 8, but god damn. What is going on at Microsoft?

 

[PaulLFC]

people aren't afraid of new stuff, people are annoyed at pointless UI changes that are awkward and out of place on the environment most people use Windows for.

Yeah this. I hate the patronising tone from some here and elsewhere of "if you don't like the new start screen you don't like new stuff and change and advancement and improvement!"

No, somebody doesn't like what you like. Opinions differ. I wish some would realise that. To me personally the start screen is a waste of time, a tablet-like launcher shoehorned into a desktop environment which provides me with no noticeable benefit over the start menu, at the cost of decreased familiarity and taking over my entire screen just to launch a program or search for something.

I don't like that, therefore I'm perfectly fine using a start menu replacement. It doesn't mean I "don't like advancement" or can't appreciate the other new features of Windows 8.

 

[Lynn616]

Yeah, the next time I do a clean install on my work PC, I'm going back to 7. Windows 8 actually impedes my work due to all the workarounds I've had to do to make it usable.

At home I run 8, and it's fine, but I'm looking forward to them ditching all the Metro garbage with the next one.

Also? Office 13 is terrible. Not as bad as Windows 8, but god damn. What is going on at Microsoft?

No way they ditch the Metro interface or store. I can see them adding the start button back and refining the interface in Windows Blue.

 

[ymmv]

To be fair, people have been using Windows 8 for several months, just as we did for Windows 7. People were hype as shit when Win 7 launched after the Beta. Win8 response seems decidedly muted.

Vista got such a negative, at best lukewarm reception that MS was never able to change the public opinion. Windows 8 is exactly the same. Do a Google Search on recent "Windows 8" news items and you'll see headlines like:

Does the Windows 8 hybrid overcomplicate a simple problem?
Windows 8 convertible devices: Born to fail
Microsoft Windows 8 makes lukewarm debut: sales tracker
Windows 8 sales: Doing great or slow start?
Microsoft-Intel tablet sales sputtering
With Windows 8, Microsoft's playing a scene from Groundhog Day
Windows 8 review: Did Microsoft's (MSFT) Windows 8 and Surface tablet fail?
Microsoft's Surface Pro highlights flawed two-for-one strategy
Is the Surface the New Zune?

 

[alterno69]

FWIW i have not tried W8 but just looking at pics is a huge turn off, i don't want a tablet like interface on my desktop, i just discogered thanks to some pics here that it actually has a desktop but knowing it's not the default UI is still a huge turnoff. So as it stands i hage no interest in even traying W8

 

[Risette]

Also? Office 13 is terrible. Not as bad as Windows 8, but god damn. What is going on at Microsoft?

It seems like they're intent on ruining every interface they have. Does Office 13 have UNPROFESSIONAL LOOKING ALL CAPS MENU BARS THAT YOU CAN'T TOGGLE WITHOUT RESORTING TO A REGISTRY HACK like Visual Studio 2012?

 

[TheExodu5]

It's not just a start menu at all. Clicking on metro apps in the metro full screen menu doesn't open a window on desktop.

It goes into a full screen metro app, where desktop is out of sight out of mind. There's a clear division in the OS between the desktop and metro.

Not that I personally mind it - but to call it just a 'fullscreen start menu' is been deliberately obtuse.

Agreed.

The Start screen, to me, feels like a tablet emulator on my desktop. It just feels out of place.

Hence the use of search function. I had mentioned in my first impressions that 8 is more search-oriented while 7 is more explore-oriented. It's a change that you may or may not like, but both work.
As a matter of fact, search is much more efficient when you have a lot of programs installed (navigating the Start program tree can become tedious, that's why we mostly use shortcuts to avoid it).

How is 8 more search oriented? Search worked just fine in Windows 7. And it didn't require launching another full screen interface to use.

it's because you have actually used it

I'm using it now and I don't like it. The only thing that's a big improvement for me is the task manager (specifically the disk access and network metering are very nice additions).

 

[eso76]

That's because those of us in the Windows 8 OT are very different than the people who have not tried or taken the time to extensively use the OS. None of us are saying the OS is perfect, since it is not, but we are simply not over reacting like the people that make these types of threads. Try it for yourself and then you can judge it.

now i'm afraid : (
nah, i will, the problem is it always freezes during installation otherwise i would have installed already. Need some time to make a fresh install

 

[Uno Venova]

The second scenario is usually even more similar to older OS, if you consider what most people do when booting their PC :

Win7 : boot/login > automatically get to desktop > click on your favorite shortcut (desktop or task bar) : Firefox, Steam, Word, whatever
Win8 : boot/login > automatically get to start screen > click on your favorite shortcut (tile) : Firefox, Steam, Word, whatever

It's only a matter of aesthetics, functionally it's the same process.



The start menu has an animation too. I even edited the registry on my Win7 PC to have it toned down, and the Win8 menu still feels snappier.



Hence the use of search function. I had mentioned in my first impressions that 8 is more search-oriented while 7 is more explore-oriented. It's a change that you may or may not like, but both work.
As a matter of fact, search is much more efficient when you have a lot of programs installed (navigating the Start program tree can become tedious, that's why we mostly use shortcuts to avoid it).



Speed and relevance. If I hit Win > "cmd" on the PC I currently use, it starts giving me results after several seconds. If I'm looking for a file, it can take much longer to scan the folders, and rarely returns what I'm looking for (or it's so long that I get annoyed and explore the folders myself before it reached the right result)



Well, that's the point of an icon after all... And even small icons are enlarged when displayed in a tile. Those are customizable anyway.



As a matter of fact, the whole metro interface is more text-oriented than previous ones. If I remember correctly it's one of the rules of their "design language". Text is usually cleaner and more readable in Win8.



And why wouldn't they ? Simple programs are no worse than complex programs, and in some situations they can be more convenient.

What animation does that start menu have, it opens instantly compared to the start screen.

 

[Alx]

How is 8 more search oriented? Search worked just fine in Windows 7.

Like I said earlier, 7 was so slow to find anything relevant that it was faster for me to explore the folder trees myself. The search in Win8 just works.
Besides, its inclusion in the whole interface makes it always available, whatever the context. For me searching is trustworthy in 8, it's not in 7.

 

[PaulLFC]

it's because you have actually used it

Here we go again. I've used it. I like a lot of features. I don't like the start screen and metro interface.

You are effectively dismissing anyone who doesn't like aspect(s) of the OS for having "not used" it, when you don't have a clue if that's actually true or not.

 

[D'ultimate]

Win 8 will do fine. I'm betting that it will do better than 7. Once compelling hardware with more touchscreen enabled device is available to be purchased it will be widely accepted and I think universally liked.

The Metro start screen has grown on me. If you are using it on a touchscreen device for web browsing, email, social networking and such it works great and is pretty intuitive.

One question though. Is there a way to change the background in Metro?

 

[LCfiner]

I think there's two issues regarding "rescuing" Windows 8.

first, there's the general downturn in the PC market. Windows 8 would have had to be an extraordinary and universally loved release to make any real impact here. but it's not. it's divisive and hasn't done anything (yet) to boost the PC market. So I don't see how this general market trend is going to be reversed anytime soon.

Second, there's windows 8 itself and the dual UI in it. I think it's a mistake and that MS won't see the success they want from tablets with it (or with RT) and the Metro UI only serves to upset businesses and power users running the desktop. Sure, there are some people who like it, but MS really needed something that everyone liked.

I think that "Windows" in general, can be rescued if they split up the Metro from the desktop. Maybe Windows 9? not sure if MS is going to continue down this road out of spite or not.

The desktop market is still going to shrink but at least they'll have a better suited OS for that hardware and won't be actively pissing off a big chunk of those users. And by removing the desktop burden on the tablet hardware, they might have a fighting chance against Apple and whichever Android tablets are selling.