Windows 8. Oh...oh dear.

[MinisterofDOOM]

This isn't a nerd post. This is a "people who use computers" post. Which means you. How are you browsing NICO without a computer?!

I'm not sure who convinced Microsoft that monocolored, 2D, flat-plane, sharp-cornered "tiles" are the future of interfaces. I'm 99% sure it wasn't anyone who used Windows 3.1, though. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT F#$KING LOOKED LIKE IN 1988 WHEN MY 80286 LAPTOP WAS BUILT.

Not quite sure why they think their "Live" tiles are so special either. I've been using animated, info-displaying icons and widgets on my PCs and handhelds for a very long time...since long before Windows Phone 7 came along and sharted eyebleeding 90 degree angles all over the world.

The damned "Live Tiles" display on my 23'' 1920x1080 display no more information than my Android devices display on their 4 and 7 inch screens with tiny, inconspicuous icons. And the whole Metro interface feels that way. It's SO MUCH SPACE used to deliver so little information. People who like it talk about how super-intuitive it is. Great. Even if that was true (protip: it's not), easy-to-use only matters if IT DOES SOMETHING USEFUL. At least Apple's mindless-ease-of-use comes with dependable functionality. Windows just comes with big flat broad colors and goofy buttons that do the same s*** we've been doing for decades with less-wannabe-chic interfaces.

The crappiest part is that Microsoft has put so much effort into the touch/tablet usability of the interface that they COMPLETELY ABANDONED mouse/keyboard usability. And the silly part there is that most tablets will come with Windows RT, a stripped-down version of Windows that DOESN'T run normal desktop apps. So why even bother making them look the same? I don't understand the desire for the phone OS and desktop OS and tablet OS to all LOOK identical. Mac OS doesn't look like iOS!!!!!! Hell even Chrome OS doesn't look like Android! EVEN TABLET AND PHONE VERSIONS OF ANDROID DON'T LOOK THE SAME. But Windows is so convinced that everything has to look the same that they did exactly that.

Newsflash Microsoft: Tablets aren't PCs, and PCs aren't phones. Treating them all differently is GOOD. Capitalize on their individual strengths, don't neuter them all by forcing their weaknesses on each other!

[Dattebayo]

Install Classic Shell and the Skip Metro applications, enjoy windows 7-like interface.

It's actually not bad once you get past all that nonsense.

[Kompresshun]

This is exactly why I haven't upgraded. I'm perfectly happy with Windows 7 and I see no use for the live tiles at all.

I also have no desire to own a touchscreen laptop, unless it converts into a tablet, and I definitely don't want a touchscreen desktop. It's just like gaming for me - I don't want motion sensors and other crap, I want a physical controller. It's more accurate and I don't like feeling like i'm disconnected from the system. There are some things you just can't do properly with a touch interface IMHO.

I think Microsoft is so determined to make their phone OS finally succeed that they think changing their desktop and tablet OS to mimic it will draw more consumers to it. I think they're setting themselves up for yet another failure, but we'll see.

I know my father in law is obsessed with the Windows 8 RT tablets and I wouldn't be surprised if he buys one soon. He's an early adopter for everything and even though I told him he should sit it out for a few months, he'll get one anyways. I told him the same about the HP Touchpads and the VERY NEXT DAY HP announced that they were killing off the tablets and phones. He spent $500 for his and two weeks later I got the same exact one for $99

[MinisterofDOOM]

Yeah, you get to keep your desktop and there are a variety of means by which you can bypass the Metro features. That's fine. But it doesn't change make Microsoft's design direction any more baffling. Have you ever met ANYONE who LIKES Metro? Me either.

[Dattebayo]

Nobody is making you switch, MoD. Win7 is going to be supported for a very long time, if XP's support history has any indication...

But even the metro thing isn't that bad, really, because you can customize what the display shows. I do think it's funny that they would carry over an obviously tablet-based opening screen to the desktop computer models, but it kinda looks like touch-screen computing is going to be the way of the future (for laptops, anyway) now... and I think that's what Win8 was made for and does well with.

I see that HP is offering a laptop replacing the tm2 series, as well as all the "convertible" laptops available now. I currently own a tm2, and it's touchscreen is fairly useful, I am considering upgrading to Win8 just because it's more useful for this sort of device given the physical size of the laptop and the resolutions I like to use...

[MinisterofDOOM]

Nobody is making you switch, MoD. Win7 is going to be supported for a very long time, if XP's support history has any indication...

MS is pulling gaming support bullcrap with it like they did with Vista. DX11.1 will be Win8 only.

But your point stands. I chose to switch. I just wish I liked it more. I was quite fond of 7...first Windows I've genuinely liked since 98se.

[Dattebayo]

98se huh... yikes.

Anyway, gaming is always a BS world like that. Emulation is your friend.

[gwoods]

Oh how I wish Windows ME was still supported, and bring back Netscape!

[themadscientist]

So, you bought 8 expecting that it would not suck? Did 7, Vista, XP and ME not give you enough data to crunch? Die Microsoft!

[krash]

Windows 8 is a flippin mess. Win7 is probably my favorite windows OS so far. It runs seamlessly on my mac too. I was actually surprised at how well it ran, I had 101 issues with vista.

[Jesda]

For people without touch screens, W8 feels gimmicky and incomplete.

I suspect Windows 9 will fix W8's flaws and a marketing campaign will brag about how "Windows 9 was my idea!"


At least W8 boots quickly.

[WDRacing]

So, you bought 8 expecting that it would not suck? Did 7, Vista, XP and ME not give you enough data to crunch? Die Microsoft!

XP was better then Vista and 7 is an excellent OS. Sell crazy somewhere else...

[Dattebayo]

Seriously, I don't see what people are talking about. It's not a huge mess, you have to press like one or two extra keys to get it to look like it's predecessor, ya big whiners.

[krash]

They just built it completely wrong. Like MoD said, they got this idea that the mobile software has to be the same as the PC software and that screwed up everything. What was really good about the windows os for the general public is that most people knew how to use it at least somewhat competently. This new "intuitive" design kind of craps all over that. I'm sure its something that everyone can get used to, but for right now it sucks.

[themadscientist]

So, you bought 8 expecting that it would not suck? Did 7, Vista, XP and ME not give you enough data to crunch? Die Microsoft!

XP was better then Vista and 7 is an excellent OS. Sell crazy somewhere else...

I never moved from XP.

[WDRacing]

I like 7 a lot. I haven't had any problems with any of the updates as of yet, been 3 years now. I had several problems with the XP service packs.

[RicerX]

Windows 7 will be the last desktop-purist operating system we will ever see on the market. For most of us, this will be a hard pill to swallow, but as far as the present state of the software peripherals market is concerned (read: mobile everything), Windows 8 is surprisingly up to speed with things from an interface standpoint.

Even Windows 7 has the underlying architecture for touch screen interfaces. The product I'm currently developing will work on both a desktop and a tablet and requires zero changes to the UI. Before, there was no way to do this (in my customer-required development environment, mind you) without developing two separate products altogether. Windows 8 is building upon the pretense that Apple has set forth - integration of all the products we use on a daily basis into one seamless and familiar ecosystem. This has been the reason Apple has been so successful. It's not hardware being cutting edge, it's about quality hardware engineered not just for quality functionality as a standalone device but as a quality tool that works with all other tools of the Apple toolbox. Very symbiotic.

Microsoft has realized that this will be the key to its future. They need to jump on board or they will fade into obscurity in tomorrow's software world. They have all the tools and they have the toolbox, but no tool they have offered before plays nice with any other they offer. Until now.

The Xbox360, Windows Phone, Windows Surface, and now Windows [Desktop] interfaces are all familiar and similar. They all talk to each other.

If Microsoft continues to capitalize on the potential of their own ecosystem, we will see a game changer in the next Xbox. Microsoft's software ecosystem will be to gamers what Apple is to artists. From there we will see the battle for the general public - Apple just got a major head start.

As far as Windows 8 sucking to learn to use to many of us - it should. It breaks all of the Windows rules that we have all grown up with. It is completely different from any version of Windows ever made from an interface standpoint. And let's face it, we all hate change anyway. No one whined going to 7 from Vista. No one whined going to XP from 98. We all whined going to 95 from 3.1. We all whined going to Vista from XP. We're all whining going to 8 from 7.

I also think that Windows Phone 7+ is a very fresh approach to smartphone UI that borderline takes nothing from the iPhone (at least not as much as Android has, the degree of severity is up for debate but that's it).

These are all very good changes from Microsoft. They're very good changes for the general user base on which Apple is gaining a stranglehold. To stay relevant, all of these changes were necessary.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Integration doesn't mean "identical". Google is the perfect example. I am so Google integrated I might as well have metal antennas sticking out of my head. I can access my google products anywhere, in a huge number of ways, on a huge number of devices. I can do so easily, painlessly, and quickly. This works across numerous operating systems, platforms, browsers, applications, etc. It doesn't LOOK the same. The interfaces aren't even the same. But the product and functionality are the same regardless of where/how/with what you use it. THAT is cross-platform integration. Windows 8/RT/Surface/Phone/Xbox is not cross-platform integration. It's branded product skinning. It is not symbiotic. It's self-mimicry. This is no more effective as a form of product-unification than Infiniti renaming every car they make to "Q".

Microsoft took something that didn't work (Windows Phone, itself an evolution of something ELSE that didn't work: Windows Mobile), combined it with something else that didn't work (Xbox dashboard--something Microsoft has changed numerous times but which has never really worked very well nor been particularly intuitive) and mashed them on top of an OS that actually DID work (Windows 7).

I also think that Windows Phone 7+ is a very fresh approach to smartphone UI that borderline takes nothing from the iPhone (at least not as much as Android has, the degree of severity is up for debate but that's it).

Android copied Apple because Apple WORKS. Windows Phone didn't and it DOESN'T work. So call Android a copycat all you want. At least it's a copycay that works. Phone 7 is a mess of form over function. If Microsoft REALLY wanted to "stay relevant" in the thread of Apple's dominance, they should WANT to copy Apple. And if Apple's approach is so great for consumers, consumers should want Microsoft to copy Apple, too!

As far as Windows 8 sucking to learn to use to many of us - it should. It breaks all of the Windows rules that we have all grown up with. It is completely different from any version of Windows ever made from an interface standpoint. And let's face it, we all hate change anyway. No one whined going to 7 from Vista. No one whined going to XP from 98. We all whined going to 95 from 3.1. We all whined going to Vista from XP. We're all whining going to 8 from 7.

I don't hate change. I hate change that brings no improvements. Change should PROGRESS, not divert. Not disguise or obfuscate or paint pretty.
And I whined going to XP from 98. So did EVERY SINGLE PC enthusiast I knew at the time. As for the others...let's do the rundown.

3.1 to 95:
HUGE interface upgrades. As drastic a change in GUI design as Win8 is from Win7. In a lot of ways, general usability was improved. But without Plus added on top (an extra, expensive purchase) a lot of basic ease-of-use stuff and tweakability was missing. Still, 95 was a genuine upgrade. It offered improved networking features that made it appealing in the workplace and in homes lucky enough to have LANs at the time. It was also a 32-bit OS, where 3.x and earlier were 16-bit. And it offered the earliest versions of "plug-n-play" peripheral support. All of which were big improvements.
95, though, had issues in its early iterations. This wasn't as pronounced as later Windows releases, because Win95 still ran on top of DOS, and many programs from that era either ran directly in DOS or as a shell within Windows (which was real DOS, not some Command Prompt approximation with limitations and combatibility issues--if you were running MSDOS 7.1 underneath Windows, you were really running your programs in DOS 7.1, not an emulator). There was no DirectX then or any of that stuff. Windows didn't handle as many things directly, so compatibility issues were not as significant.

95 to 98:
By the time 98 came out, 95 had been heavily patched and many OEM copies came with Plus included. This meant that the 95 people were upgrading FROM was not the same 95 they had upgraded TO. Later Win95 versions had DirectX integration and other functional improvements.
Early Win98 was really no much of an improvement over 95. It had a lot of underlying tech with POTENTIAL, but a lot of it was either poorly publicized at launch (and thus not supported by developers) or didn't work very well. Driver issues with peripherals became a common thing. Windows 98 "supported" a lot of hardware, but getting it to play nice was another matter.
Win98SE added a lot of usability improvements, improved networking support, and generally better stability and handling of errors.

98 to XP was A MESS.
98 SE, with its updates, was a stable, clean, easy-to-use operating system that supported legacy DOS programs and contemporary DirectX-powered win32 applications.
XP did NOT run on top of DOS as earlier versions of Windows. It changed a lot of its core architecture. This introduced massive compatibility problems. You might not recall anyone complaining about the 98-to-XP upgrade, but I very vividly remember it as the Vista of its day: compatibility problems everywhere and shiny crap in place of stuff that had been known to "just work" (Hell, today, most people I know STILL run XP with everything set to "classic" because it's closer to the clean Win98 design rather than the "approachable" XP design). It was also a HUGE EFFING OPERATING SYSTEM. In fact, basic Windows 8 installations are SMALLER THAN XP INSTALLS. It ate up GOBS of hard drive space. It didn't boot very fast. It hogged memory. Running DOS programs in the emulated Command Prompt hogged even MORE memory, and didn't always work.
Also, Windows XP introduced the general public to NTFS as a replacement for FAT32 on Windows disks. EVERYTHING uses FAT32. Only windows Uses NTFS. Early adoption of NTFS was a nightmare, creating disk and file-structure compatibility problems for anyone using more than just a Windows device (like I was, at the time).
It wasn't until after the first two Service Packs that XP became more stable and hardware and software support got where they needed to be. The XP we were using after SP2 arrived was a pretty solid OS. But, as I noted above, it was much better when you went in and turned on "classic" mode for everything. Taskbar, start menu, control panel, windows explorer...everything. Because then it was like Windows 98 again.

ME was just a disaster. MS took the approachability and ease-of-use approach (the same one that's being cited as the excuse for Windows 8, by the way) and ruined everything that remained good about Windows.

Windows 2000 doesn't really count here: it was a corporate-purposed NT-line product with networking in mind. Average consumers didn't touch it.

Vista was an obviously lazy job. Core functionality was broken (DWM basically running twice in memory, threading support all but nonexistent--undermining any benefits of multicore processors). User Account Control was a reasonably okay idea that was implemented in an asininely overzealous way. And as with XP, much of the familiar usability of the GUI was made shiny and glossy at the expence of usability.

7 took the few good things from Vista and propped it up on top of a core that handles threading and memory-usage like a pro. Multicore processors suddenly became much more beneficial. Memory usage generally HALVED versus Vista (though it's still a steep increase over XP). And varying (more sane) degrees of UAC intervention were added for people who don't want their computer to freeze in terror every time they ask it to run an MSI or EXE file. Lots of little ease-of-use tweaks were added. Boot times were FAR better (not as good as 8, though). Hibernation and other low-power and suspend modes were better handled (though, again, not as well handled as with 8).

8, now, leaves much of 7s goodness intact. It improves boot times. Improves sleep mode. Multimonitor support is lightyears ahead. But everywhere 8 makes gains, the disparity between the residual-7 side and the "look at me I can be on a tablet" side causes problems. Multimonitor support is awesome BUT you can't get to the "Charms bar" without EXTREMELY CAREFUL mouse placement because if you don't hit one of the 3 designated pixels (a slight exaggeration) in the corner, you end up on the wrong monitor, or you simply don't get the charms bar to open. Windows+C works but it's inelegant. There's also no proper way to CLOSE Metro apps. They just run forever in the background like a poorly-coded early Android application under Cupcake. You can Alt+F4 but, again: inelegant. And silly. Give me a close button.

So you can argue whether people did or didn't complain about a given upgrade with Windows. But it wasn't "change" people were afraid of. It was Microsoft's crappy Operating Systems. It just so happens that MS often manages to fix things right before they phase them out. Rather like GM, really.

[RicerX]

Well, this evolved from a "people who use computers" post to a "nerd" post didn't it? haha

You're right about a lot of things in your post, though I was pretty green in the 95/98 days. I was making my post based on the general user (read: outlook and MS Office users) perspective. Obviously you're not that.

Never said I didn't like Android - I have been using Android for years (mostly out of being stubborn against my iPhone-toting friends). I'm only carrying an iPhone now because of certain specific needs I have, and I have grown fond of the idea of carrying one thing around with me instead of my phone and iPods. I will say there are certain Android phones that are much less "copy-catty" than others (yes, I'm looking at you Samsung). I found my HTC phones to be among the best that I've used.

Anyway - tangent. I'm sure we'll all grow accustomed to Windows8 by the time the next one comes out. Your analogy to GM is spot on, btw. With the exception of the Camaro (they just wore out the late 90s, early 2000s and didn't do anything with it so they killed it), GM tends to come up with a refresh just in time to save a product nameplate from certain death.

[Jesda]

I didn't like XP very much until SP1 arrived. I always loved Win2k. I'd still be using it for work if it didnt require 500 patches just to get my shipping app to work.

Dealing with 7/Vista and XP in an office setting is a PITA when it comes to printer sharing.

[themadscientist]

I always like Win2000. It was like an M3-class XP.

[Towncivilian]

I've been running W8 since mid September. I don't use Metro at all. The start menu is just like the old start menu, hit the Windows key, type to search, ???, profit. Why do you need a menu to scroll through your installed crap?

Other than all this whiny nonsense about Metro and having an "unusable" desktop, what is the problem? Take two hours to get used to the interface, you'll be fine.

[WDRacing]

Other than all this whiny nonsense about Metro and having an "unusable" desktop, what is the problem? Take two hours to get used to the interface, you'll be fine.

Wait wait...let me understand this...you're suggesting we familiarize ourselves with the products we buy? Don't you realize that method requires effort! What will the poor entitled generation of instant gratification do? Surely there is another way!

[Jesda]

I've been running W8 since mid September. I don't use Metro at all. The start menu is just like the old start menu, hit the Windows key, type to search, ???, profit. Why do you need a menu to scroll through your installed crap?

Other than all this whiny nonsense about Metro and having an "unusable" desktop, what is the problem? Take two hours to get used to the interface, you'll be fine.

Because, like Cadillac's use of finicky touch sliders instead of volume and climate knobs, the new way is actually less intuitive. It has nothing to do with taking the time to learn and everything to do with the unnatural layout and lack of cohesion. That's what happens when you take two entirely different UIs which operate on entirely different mindsets and philosophies and slap them together with duct tape.

GUI design is supposed to follow a set of principles that minimizes the learning curve while maximizing productivity. Microsoft has struggled with this over the years, bandaging the problem by either treating the user like a complete idiot (getting in the way of power users) and building layers on top of layers. Instead of simplifying things and maintaining a logical order, they have a tendency to make the original problem worse.


And stop whining about whiners, you whiny whiner.

Edit:

Here's a workaround: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012 ... 8/1708953/

[MinisterofDOOM]

Because, like Cadillac's use of finicky touch sliders instead of volume and climate knobs, the new way is actually less intuitive. It has nothing to do with taking the time to learn and everything to do with the unnatural layout and lack of cohesion.

Bingo.

I shouldn't have to "get used to" an interface. It should MAKE SENSE. I've been using electronics since the 1980s. Everything from Commodores and Apple IIs and IIIs, to every version of Windows ever released, DOS, Unix, Linux distributions of all kinds, MacOS, Palm Pilots, Windows CE and Mobile, proprietary mobile operating systems, homebrew console hacks, Android, Apple mobile devices, badly-designed car interfaces...everything under the sun.

Most of them are mediocre. Some of them are brilliant. A few are outstandingly, noticeably poorly done. And only a handful have required me to "get used to" them. Windows 8 is in the latter two categories. If a geek with tons of background finds it hard to adjust to, how it the average user supposed to know what the Hell is going on?

[Kompresshun]

I played with Win 8 some more tonight and I hated it within the first couple of minutes. I still played around with it for a few minutes and I just see absolutely no point in it, unless it's being used on a touch screen interface. Even then, it sucks. I don't like it. Probably won't change my mind either.

Similar to MoD, i've used about every interface under the sun. I have never kept an OS, or a device that I had to "get used to" the interface. I've either switched it, hacked it, or got rid of it. So far I don't see myself even bothering with an upgrade and I may not ever. If the interface doesn't ever grow on me and they decide to stick with it, then who knows? I may even end up switching to Linux or buying a Mac next.

[WDRacing]

I kept 98 years longer than most. Followed by a long stint with XP because 98 wasn't supported. 7 came with my current pc and is by far the best OS I've used to date. I'll keep 7 until I'm absolutely forced to switch, in which case there will be something new on the market that either unfvcks 8 or replaces it.

I haven't read a single good thing about 8 anywhere. Just lots of, "wtf?" followed by "death to MS!".

Not sure why they went from a solid OS to this new "idea?"

[hitbychance]

I kept 98 years longer than most. Followed by a long stint with XP because 98 wasn't supported. 7 came with my current pc and is by far the best OS I've used to date. I'll keep 7 until I'm absolutely forced to switch, in which case there will be something new on the market that either unfvcks 8 or replaces it.

I haven't read a single good thing about 8 anywhere. Just lots of, "wtf?" followed by "death to MS!".

Not sure why they went from a solid OS to this new "idea?"

i agree, i currently have windows 7 and it's great, xp was good, vista was a write off and windows 8 is a mess. I feel windows 8 is a poor excuse to try and get people to buy touch screens and more tablets.

[flohtingPoint]

Idiots drive economy, thus Win8. It's funny you say that Win2k doesn't count though, that and WinNT 4 are the only OS's that I claim as valid OS's from Microsoft. At home, I dont really care, whatever is out there is whatever I will use, I'm very low tech at home. At work, when things actually matter, I want an operating system designed with the network in mind, 2K/NT were excellent at this.

[Ace2cool]

I just came here to say that I read the title in Jeremy Clarkson's voice.