Can Windows 8 be rescued at this point?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

You can customize it with various color schemes and choose from quite a few background designs but that's it.
 
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.

Sounds like you had an indexing problem. Just reinstalling Windows 7 would probably have fixed it, but instead you started from scratch with Windows 8. Of course you may well find that the Windows 8 search ends up with the same problem.
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.

Yep, I've been directly accused of this in this thread. Even though I wouldn't even know about most of the problems I've listed if I hadn't used 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.

Every time I see this "they haven't even tried it" condescending bullshit I want to reach through the internet and slap a fool upside the head.
 
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.

the heck?
I went to search for Photoshop on Win 7 just now, and had to literally type one letter. If I had wanted paint, I'd have typed two.

The results were instant. Two letters at most to get every drawing program on my computer...
 
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.

Windows 8 has very nice search functions where an application can implement the Search contract and from the same search screen used for general searches, searches can be made for any app installed that implements said search contract. Pretty nifty.
 
Sounds like you had an indexing problem.

I guessed as much, but I always had those problems, on both my Win7 PC, from the start (and forcing indexation never helped). Since Win8 worked fine day 1, I'm assuming they improved the indexing in their search engine. So it's better. Maybe it won't last, but it's already more efficient than what I've been using for years.
 
You guys are crazy. There was nowhere left to go for MS besides launching a touch oriented OS like Windows 8. They HAD to do it, or else the whole Windows branch would become pretty much pointless in 2 to 3 years when the inevitable Windows 9 launches.

Windows 8 is Microsoft's opportunity to tell the new tech generation that relies heavily on tablets that they have an option on an ocean of iOS and Android devices. They had no choice but to dive in this trend, since it's pretty much a given that desktop sales.will slow down in the coming years. They need their ecosystem to be known to offer an even more integrated OS with the next Windows, but they couldn't afford to wait any longer, and they're right.
 
Windows 8 actually impedes my work due to all the workarounds I've had to do to make it usable.
It sounds like you are only making it difficult for yourself. I use my stationary computer as a development environment with no problem.
but I'm looking forward to them ditching all the Metro garbage with the next one.
They will not move away from metro. Too much money and work has been invested there, not only by Microsoft, but also by thousands of 3. Party developers.
Also? Office 13 is terrible. Not as bad as Windows 8, but god damn. What is going on at Microsoft?
Are we using the same Microsoft Office 2013?
 
You guys are crazy. There was nowhere left to go for MS besides launching a touch oriented OS like Windows 8. They HAD to do it, or else the whole Windows branch would become pretty much pointless in 2 to 3 years when the inevitable Windows 9 launches.

Windows 8 is Microsoft's opportunity to tell the new tech generation that rilies heavily on tablets that they have an option on an ocean of iOS and Android devices. They had no choice to dive in this trend, since it's pretty much a given that desktop sales.will slow down in the coming years. They need their ecosystem to be known to offer an even more integrated OS with the next Windows, but they couldn't afford to wait any longer, and they're right.

none of that required the same OS for both tablets and desktops. The vast, vast majority of desktop users do not have touch enabled monitors and will never, or not until it's standard in every monitor.
 
Every time I see this "they haven't even tried it" condescending bullshit I want to reach through the internet and slap a fool upside the head.

Most haven't tried it and are merely regurgitating any bullshit they can find on the net....

Others have spent 5 mins playing in PC world, Best Buy or whatever just so they can confirm the hate others have said they should have because apparently its different.

MS made Start more touch friendly and kept the desktop mouse friendly, they know the desktop guys will use desktop more and Start still functions as Start very well, and they know the Tablet guys will use start more.
 
You guys are crazy. There was nowhere left to go for MS besides launching a touch oriented OS like Windows 8. They HAD to do it, or else the whole Windows branch would become pretty much pointless in 2 to 3 years when the inevitable Windows 9 launches.

Windows 8 is Microsoft's opportunity to tell the new tech generation that rilies heavily on tablets that they have an option on an ocean of iOS and Android devices. They had no choice to dive in this trend, since it's pretty much a given that desktop sales.will slow down in the coming years. They need their ecosystem to be known to offer an even more integrated OS with the next Windows, but they couldn't afford to wait any longer, and they're right.

the problem is that the result of combining OSes designed for radically different hardware and interaction modes is that you get a confusing product full of compromises.

simplified function tablets are going to be a big part of computing in the future. But MS blew their chance at making a good first impression by tying their Metro tablet UI to the desktop and this confusing mish mash of products.
 
none of that required the same OS for both tablets and desktops. The vast, vast majority of desktop users do not have touch enabled monitors and will never, or not until it's standard in every monitor.
Notebooks sell more than desktops. Also, a touch oriented OS that also runs legacy Windows applications are extra points in Microsoft's thinking.
 
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.

Win7 has always returned search results instantly for me. Maybe because I have an SSD?
 
the problem is that the result of combining OSes designed for radically different hardware and interaction modes is that you get a confusing product full of compromises.

simplified function tablets are going to be a big part of computing in the future. But MS blew their chance at making a good first impression by tying their Metro tablet UI to the desktop and this confusing mish mash of products.
You're looking at it from a Windows user perspective. From a tablet user perspective, the Metro start screen and the metro apps are enough to fulfill what they could achieve on an iPad. The Windows experience behind it is just a plus, an additional feature.
 
You're looking at it from a Windows user perspective. From a tablet user perspective, the Metro start screen and the metro apps are enough to fulfill what they could achieve on an iPad. The Windows experience behind it is just a plus, an additional feature.
A tablet user does not want a desktop, tablet interface or not. They want a tablet interface on a tablet.

And if a tablet user wanted a desktop, chances are they would want to use a desktop for it's genuinely valuable features that are not possible on a tablet interface, otherwise they would use a tablet.
 
Win7 has always returned search results instantly for me. Maybe because I have an SSD?

Maybe he turned indexing off because that's what the internet jungle drums said.

It was a regular bit of "advice" around Windows 7 launch, along with disabling Pre-Fetch.
 
Notebooks sell more than desktops. Also, a touch oriented OS that also runs legacy Windows applications are extra points in Microsoft's thinking.

but why is it touch oriented on the desktop? Desktop and tablet have very different uses, and trying to design a UI that works on both gives you a cluttered abomination of two fractured UI that don't work well together.

Encouraging your customers to ignore half of your product is ridiculous. That's basically saying "yea, we know it's not really great for all uses, just ignore it"

I don't have a touch monitor. I have no interest in one. I have an iPad. I have a gaming PC. I would totally ignore Metro. Why should I upgrade to Windows 8? I'm paying for features I have no plan on using and actually will need to find workaround to actively ignore.
 
You're looking at it from a Windows user perspective. From a tablet user perspective, the Metro start screen and the metro apps are enough to fulfill what they could achieve on an iPad. The Windows experience behind it is just a plus, an additional feature.

Actually, I'm looking at it from an iPad user's perspective. The ARM Windows desktop (with a second version of IE and with some settings located here and some in Metro) and the slow, non touch optimized ARM version of Office are compromises that make the product less desirable or, at least, more confusing.

Additional features are not always plusses. They can betray a lack of focus. I know some people here think this line is bullshit but I've worked on enough hardware product design to have been a victim of feature creep and to see how it can destroy an idea.

As for Windows 8 (not RT) on Intel hardware, well, I don't think that's a tablet competitor due to price, heat generation, battery life, etc. It's an ultrabook variation. Might do OK, but it's competition with the Macbook Air, not the iPad. MS needs a stronger iPad alternative.
 
none of that required the same OS for both tablets and desktops. The vast, vast majority of desktop users do not have touch enabled monitors and will never, or not until it's standard in every monitor.

Well two things here.

1. This is Microsoft, in Gretzky speak, skating to where they think the puck will be instead of where it is. They're trying to anticipate the future. Will it work? Heck I don't know. It's a riskier strategy but a better one than just releasing a late clone of iOS or Android.

2. More importantly it's a unique pitch for app developers. Write an app and have it available easily across desktops, laptops, tablets, phones and I bet you set top boxes under the TV as well (Xbox Next).

We'll see how it works out but it's far from a dump play. Risky certainly but the worst that will happen is that desktop people will just stick with 7. The potential reward is getting into markets that they're locked out of right now with a unique offering.
 
Right now Microsoft have a desktop operating system and a tablet (touch screen) operating system in the same product. This would be alright except for the fact that you have to use both whether you have a touch screen or not. For the next version they need to either separate the two entirely so that you only have to use one of them, or merge them so that you can switch between the two seamlessly (kind of like how PC games can adapt their interface when you switch from the mouse+keyboard to a controller).


Win7 has always returned search results instantly for me. Maybe because I have an SSD?
Well, I get results instantly with only a laptop hard disk. That's with indexing of course.
 
As a business owner the Windows 8 pro tablets look to be an attractive proposition, because of their flexibility.

Sure, if you as the business owner are willing to spend the time and money to retrain all of your employees to use the new UI.

Most companies will not, and they will stay with Win7. I hope MS is looking forward to supporting Win7 for a decade the way they had to with XP.
 
Most haven't tried it and are merely regurgitating any bullshit they can find on the net....

Others have spent 5 mins playing in PC world, Best Buy or whatever just so they can confirm the hate others have said they should have because apparently its different.

MS made Start more touch friendly and kept the desktop mouse friendly, they know the desktop guys will use desktop more and Start still functions as Start very well, and they know the Tablet guys will use start more.
And others have used it themselves on their own PC and decided they don't like certain aspects of it, which they are well within their rights to do, and which doesn't mean they "don't like advancement" or whatever other accusations get directed at them by some who like metro.
 
Most haven't tried it and are merely regurgitating any bullshit they can find on the net....

Others have spent 5 mins playing in PC world, Best Buy or whatever just so they can confirm the hate others have said they should have because apparently its different.

MS made Start more touch friendly and kept the desktop mouse friendly, they know the desktop guys will use desktop more and Start still functions as Start very well, and they know the Tablet guys will use start more.

You know it has been out for free for months? I had it installed on my PC not twelve hours after it became available. Try again.

Also it would do good for the validity of your arguments to stop referring to Metro as merely a replacement for the start menu. That goes for everyone using it.
 
So interestingly, Win 8 & RT are actually ahead of Win 7 when launch aligned, at least as far as my site's traffic goes. Anyone else able to compare with their site's traffic?
 
but why is it touch oriented on the desktop? Desktop and tablet have very different uses, and trying to design a UI that works on both gives you a cluttered abomination of two fractured UI that don't work well together.

Encouraging your customers to ignore half of your product is ridiculous. That's basically saying "yea, we know it's not really great for all uses, just ignore it"

I don't have a touch monitor. I have no interest in one. I have an iPad. I have a gaming PC. I would totally ignore Metro. Why should I upgrade to Windows 8? I'm paying for features I have no plan on using and actually will need to find workaround to actively ignore.
I think you didn't understood the main point. IMO, Microsoft isn't that worried about current users. That's why its damn cheap to upgrade to Windows 8. They're worried with new devices. They want Windows to be seem as also a tablet OS alternative. Their main product hasn't even launched yet (Surface X64), and they're hyping the hell out of it.

For me, Windows 8 is their bet on future computing, not today's one. Even if there's confusion until it establishes, they NEED to have their brand recognizable as an option for computing new trends like tablets.
 
I think you're missing the point. Metro should have never been included in the desktop version of Windows.
Why not? Its a useful aggregator of info. One button to check my email, Facebook, weather and application updates. Don't use it much, but I am glad it is there.
 
2. More importantly it's a unique pitch for app developers. Write an app and have it available easily across desktops, laptops, tablets, phones and I bet you set top boxes under the TV as well (Xbox Next).
This is the same pitch Adobe uses to sell Flash. And that's working out well, right?

You have to develop your application with an audience in mind, and the tablet audience and desktop audience are different in their expectations for UI control. Just look at the compromises made to games like Megaman on iOS. The different controls, resolutions and uses means that certain aspects of the UI need to be different.

The same thought process to designing cross-platform software should have been used by Microsoft, but instead they went with the one size fits all approach and as we know from novelty socks, this statement is meaningless because very much often one size does not fit all.
 
So interestingly, Win 8 & RT are actually ahead of Win 7 when launch aligned, at least as far as my site's traffic goes. Anyone else able to compare with their site's traffic?

Internet traffic has almost nothing to do with install base numbers, as anybody who has ever looked at traffic from iOS compared to Android is well aware. If you believed the Internet traffic statistics, you would think that iOS outsells Android 10:1. This could not be further from the truth.
 
I think you're missing the point. Metro should have never been included in the desktop version of Windows.
See my previous post. Desktop / notebook versions of Windows 8 are the same, and tocu computing in notebooks is pretty much here. Even desktop monitors are starting to be easier to find with touch screens.
 
I think you didn't understood the main point. IMO, Microsoft isn't that worried but current users. That's why its damn cheap to upgrade to Windows 8. They're worried with new devices. They want Windows to be seem as also a tablet OS alternative. Their main product hasn't even launched yet (Surface X64), and they're hyping the hell out of it.

For me, Windows 8 is their bet on future computing, not today's one. Even if there's confusion until it establishes, they NEED to have their brand recognizable as an option for computing new trends like tablets.

Cramming Metro down the throats of desktop users isn't exactly going to endear them to potential tablet buyers. And I'm not sure how tablets are a 'new trend' when hundreds of millions have already been sold. iOS and Android are already increasingly well-entrenched in tablets, just as they are in smartphones. How exactly is angering your legacy desktop customers supposed to make them want to switch away from the iPads they already own?
 
Why not? Its a useful aggregator of info. One button to check my email, Facebook, weather and application updates. Don't use it much, but I am glad it is there.
LCfiner already said why:
the problem is that the result of combining OSes designed for radically different hardware and interaction modes is that you get a confusing product full of compromises.

Additionally, I'll add that it should've been kept away from the desktop version of Windows simply because it creates bad press and bad impressions. Desktop users want a desktop that takes advantage of the usefulness of a desktop. Metro should not even be present -- because it detracts from the usefulness of the product and platform, a violation of good design.
 
No - and I think Microsoft are in big trouble now. The desktop experience is their bread and butter yet they've taken a massive dump on it in order to go after the tablet market, a market in which they're going to have a lot of difficulty making any headway. Meanwhile the price of computing continues to plummet and something like a Chromebook and/or an iPad/Nexus is going to be sufficient for a lot of home users and probably even preferable to a Windows PC. Not to mention that's only the beginning - by this time next year I'm betting there will be both a Nexus tablet and an ARM-based Chromebox under the $100 mark.

I think what they should have done is on systems where there's a pointer and keyboard is simply had live tiles as a desktop background, getting rid of the traditional icons while retaining the traditional start bar, instead of this two-faced mess they currently have.
 
Gadgets in Windows 7 would accomplish the same thing.
Maybe, but for most people they didn't.



Internet traffic has almost nothing to do with install base numbers, as anybody who has ever looked at traffic from iOS compared to Android is well aware. If you believed the Internet traffic statistics, you would think that iOS outsells Android 10:1. This could not be further from the truth.
iOS and Android traffic comparisons were difficult to relate back to install base or units sold for one HUGE reason. The usage-profiles for the two devices were completely different. iOS users were far more likely to actually use their phones for internet surfing, because a big portion of Android users were non-tech savvy, non-engaged and very low end. As time has progressed and Android has increased it's competitiveness at the top-end, you can see Android picking up higher web traffic share at the expense of iOS.


I think you'd be VERY hard pressed to demonstrate that the usage-profiles of Windows 7 and Windows 8 are significantly different to the extent that higher Win 8 traffic doesn't correlate to more Win 8 users.
 
Additionally, I'll add that it should've been kept away from the desktop version of Windows simply because it creates bad press and bad impressions. Desktop users want a desktop that takes advantage of the usefulness of a desktop. Metro should not even be present -- because it detracts from the usefulness of the product and platform, a violation of good design.

This is really just your opinion man. Some people actually enjoy it and find it useful.
 
How is there comprimises?

It has Windows 7 (so to say..) in a "desktop" app & it also has a tablet touch friendly interface as well. Best of both worlds. Choose which one you want to work in and voila.

I dont know any other OS that can do both.
 
Sure, if you as the business owner are willing to spend the time and money to retrain all of your employees to use the new UI.

Most companies will not, and they will stay with Win7. I hope MS is looking forward to supporting Win7 for a decade the way they had to with XP.

I've already implemented it..... It was fairly pain free I'm finding that the non technical users are having few problems, the change from XP to 7 was worse as I remember it to be honest.
 
Nothing is wrong with 8. the start menu takes getting use to but that's about it.

Why does it needs to be rescued? All of the complaints are preferences and opinions? The os isn't broken whatsoever.
 
This is really just your opinion man. Some people actually enjoy it and find it useful.
Would you not agree that those who enjoy it and find it useful would be better suited to buying a tablet that offers hardware more suited to Metro?
How is there comprimises?

It has Windows 7 (so to say..) in a "desktop" app & it also has a tablet touch friendly interface as well. Best of both worlds. Choose which one you want to work in and voila.

I dont know any other OS that can do both.
The presence of both is a compromise in itself, lol. It is also clutter and a nuisance for many users.
 
How is there comprimises?

It has Windows 7 (so to say..) in a "desktop" app & it also has a tablet touch friendly interface as well. Best of both worlds. Choose which one you want to work in and voila.

I dont know any other OS that can do both.

The desktop is sandboxed away from the Metro environment. In Metro, you can't see the taskbar or the clock, and if a program pops up a notification you won't be able to see it. If you have two programs open on the desktop and one app, you can't choose which desktop window to switch back to when you're in the app - you can only go back to the last one you used. You can't have a desktop window in the 1/4 split view with a Metro app. Those are some of the compromises in Windows 8.
 
Would you not agree that those who enjoy it and find it useful would be better suited to buying a tablet that offers hardware more suited to Metro?
No? I mean clearly the majority of the changes made are better on tablets and laptops, but that doesn't mean they're bad on desktops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom