Jump to content



Photo

Windows 8 sales dissapointing


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#256 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,724 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:57

You still had to open the start menu to launch things...so you had to switch away from the current task to launch the new one.

The old start menu used a folder hieracrchy that required digging through levels of folders sometimes to get to the actual program. The new start screen gives a 'flat' approach to the hierarchy which means less digging.

I think what has people upset is purely the fact that it's a change. Instead of a small menu on the bottom left it's a full-screen menu. Functionally it's not really different...aesthetically it is.


No, with the old Start Menu you never lost sight of the entire desktop and whatever was going on it. Everything stayed in front of you. Like the current Start Page, you just type the name of the app and click on it, again, never losing sight of the desktop or having to scroll or survey more than the well defined area of the Start menu to find the result and click on it. Definitely didn't have to click Apps/Files/or Settings.

I'm not saying Metro isn't workable, but the notion that the Windows 7 Start Menu was inefficient or that the Start Page is more efficient is a stretch IMO. So many things are "more" work, whether click, draggin' selectin' or eyeball movin'. Metro works on the desktop but wasn't made for the desktop and we all know that.


#257 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:07

There was nothing efficient about the old menu. Familiar, but not efficient. Take a peek through it, and what do you see? Tiny 16x16 icons, subfolders of subfolders, and archaic naming conventions. Dig far enough, and you run out of space. There literally is nothing "efficient" about that at all. Put it on a screen large enough, and the menu appears as this tiny, tiny thing that is just unusable. You're literally targeting such a tiny area on your screen, it's almost claustrophobic.

#258 Kosh Naranek

Kosh Naranek

    Neowinian

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 01
  • Location: Aarhus, Denmark
  • OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1
  • Phone: LG Nexus 4 ~ Jelly Bean 4.2.1

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:18

Funny, because the Win7 desktop is still there...


No it's not. It's a weird hybrid. When using the explorer why do I need to see 'pink' colors when I highlight a certain type of file ?
Why can't I change the background picture without the UI changing into some hideous colors ?
Why does it go into full screen when I want to play some MP3's ?
When I'm on the start screen why does it switch to desktop when I press WIN+E ?
Why does the built in email client go into full screen ?
etc etc etc ....
It's a weird weird hybrid.

There was nothing efficient about the old menu. Familiar, but not efficient. Take a peek through it, and what do you see? Tiny 16x16 icons, subfolders of subfolders, and archaic naming conventions. Dig far enough, and you run out of space. There literally is nothing "efficient" about that at all. Put it on a screen large enough, and the menu appears as this tiny, tiny thing that is just unusable. You're literally targeting such a tiny area on your screen, it's almost claustrophobic.


It's not about the menu. I use RocketDock, simply because I like it that way. But with the new UI you have 2 homescreens ... windows switching between them depending on what you do is ...weird.

#259 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:20

No it's not. It's a weird hybrid. When using the explorer why do I need to see 'pink' colors when I highlight a certain type of file ?
Why can't I change the background picture without the UI changing into some hideous colors ?
Why does it go into full screen when I want to play some MP3's ?
When I'm on the start screen why does it switch to desktop when I press WIN+E ?
Why does the built in email client go into full screen ?
etc etc etc ....
It's a weird weird hybrid.


What the frak are you doing? What pink colors? What hideous colors? I see NONE on the desktop. Where are you right clicking to change the desktop wallpaper? 'Personalize' is still in the same spot.

If you want a different MP3 app, use Program Defaults, and change it.

Win+E opens 'Computer'.

Metro apps are full screen. Boo Hoo.

#260 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,724 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:29

There was nothing efficient about the old menu. Familiar, but not efficient. Take a peek through it, and what do you see? Tiny 16x16 icons, subfolders of subfolders, and archaic naming conventions. Dig far enough, and you run out of space. There literally is nothing "efficient" about that at all. Put it on a screen large enough, and the menu appears as this tiny, tiny thing that is just unusable. You're literally targeting such a tiny area on your screen, it's almost claustrophobic.


We'll have to disagree. When using classic start menu, you don't look for icons. Say to browsed a hard drive you hover over computer and then browse the disk from the flyout from there. Nested folders? I create them if I need them. If browsing your "documents" from the start menu is inefficient, then "you" are inefficient. I can only assume you are talking about Programs on the start menu and I don't think anyone physically goes through the program menu, you simply type the program as you do in Windows 8.

I've never had Windows 7 on a screen or at a resolution that made it a tiny unusable thing and I'm not aware of this being a major complaint. I'm not arguing for or against the Start Page, but to, in the heat of Windows 8 evangelism, attempt to say the Start Menu was inefficient is ridiculous in my opinion and experience.

It would absolutely not work on touch devices, I buy that, but inefficient, please.

No it's not. It's a weird hybrid. When using the explorer why do I need to see 'pink' colors when I highlight a certain type of file ?
Why can't I change the background picture without the UI changing into some hideous colors ?
Why does it go into full screen when I want to play some MP3's ?
When I'm on the start screen why does it switch to desktop when I press WIN+E ?
Why does the built in email client go into full screen ?
etc etc etc ....
It's a weird weird hybrid.



It's not about the menu. I use RocketDock, simply because I like it that way. But with the new UI you have 2 homescreens ... windows switching between them depending on what you do is ...weird.


I don't know if you were trying to be funny but I do find this post funny.

I do recommend you make Windows Media Player classic your default for MP3s to end launching the full screen music app (you don't want to mess with that anyway :).

And yeah, choose your wallpaper carefully regarding the UI color changing.

#261 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • 17,467 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • Location: Amsterdam, NL
  • OS: OS X Mavericks
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:45

too confusing my ass.

people no a days are just too lazy to even bother TRYING to figure out the new system, they'd much rather be spoon fed everything

it's rather despicable how stubborn and stuck in their ways humankind has become

Tens of millions of people buying a Mac, iPhone, iPad and/or Android-based product show they are in fact willing to try and get used to something new. Could it be consumers simply don't like what Microsoft has come up with? Hmmm...

#262 +Brando212

Brando212

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,503 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 10
  • Location: Omaha, NE
  • OS: OS X Mavricks, Windows 7/8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Sony Xperia ZL, Nokia Lumia 925

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:06

Tens of millions of people buying a Mac, iPhone, iPad and/or Android-based product show they are in fact willing to try and get used to something new. Could it be consumers simply don't like what Microsoft has come up with? Hmmm...

i'd say that's still slightly different. there's a bit of difference between a completely new and different and a familiar environment that has changed quite a bit.

as far as consumers are concerned they seem to be getting used to it just fine from what i can tell, it's just nerds and such like us that have a problem it seems

#263 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • 6,133 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:27

Tens of millions of people buying a Mac, iPhone, iPad and/or Android-based product show they are in fact willing to try and get used to something new. Could it be consumers simply don't like what Microsoft has come up with? Hmmm...


Exactly, Microsoft knows this very well. Consumers aren't "stuck in their ways" or "old fashioned" otherwise Apple's biggest problem wouldn't be where to store their endless bundles of cash. Consumers are willing to try and embrace new when it brings tangible benefits to the table for them.

The risks are so high with Windows 8 for them that I feel they just overshot and if this thing goes the way all of their latest shots have went they have a major problem on their hands. They are stoking the coals with developers that mobile is very important, but run the risk of those developers jumping for the existing successful platforms instead. This is why I feel they severely screwed up with Windows 8 in some major and fundamental ways. They are only bringing one real carrot to the table here. They are bringing millions of Windows desktop users to the table for a strong incentive for the developers, but they failed to bring something for the consumers.

Microsoft really needs to break the ecosystem pull of Apple and Google for users. Since Microsoft was willing to radically rethink the PC their primary focus should have been building a strong ecosystem. As it stands now, they have two separate "Stores" with one for Windows 8 Desktop & Tablet and another for Windows Phone. They have a phone which can't sync music with the PC properly. They have a PC littered with "charms" and they failed to deliver any solid vision for developers to be inspired by on how to use it.

It will be hard to pull users from iOS when they have spent thousands on apps, docks, speaker sets, etc... The same is true for Android, at least for apps.

To be honest, the **** poor release by Microsoft shows either arrogance or desperation and I'm not sure which is worse for them at this stage.

It may have been a smarter choice for them to release Windows 8 in a year or two from now when they could have ironed this out, but we're here now.

#264 Thunderbuck

Thunderbuck

    Neowinian

  • 696 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 09
  • Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:38

1) I wouldn't dismiss Paul Thurott; he's among the best writers out there who cover Microsoft. He has no reason to whine about limited access because he's got tons of good connections there. He also has books out on Win8; he has no good reason to bad-mouth Microsoft.

2) My own evidence is anecdotal, but I've tried to convince a number of people to upgrade to Win8. That $40 upgrade deal is fantastic. Almost all of them have replied with some variation on "I can't STAND those #@?!$ tiles!". If this reaction becomes the general public opinion of Win8, I could see this affecting even Windows Phone sales.

3) This reaction shouldn't be taken as any reflection on the technical merits of Win8. The trouble is, many users couldn't care less about "technical merits" if they feel the UI will demand too many changes to the way they've gotten used to working.

I would compare this to the polarized reaction that came with the ribbon UI in Office 2007. I personally liked it, and understood Microsoft reasoning (the ribbon was conceived when the Office team found that 3/4ths of new feature requests were for things that were already there, but buried so deep that users couldn't find them). There's a solid usability case for Win8, too, but when users make up their minds before they even try, what can you do?

#265 Joni_78

Joni_78

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,950 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 04
  • Location: Finland
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:16

If that was the case then Julie Larson-Green (the person who was responsible for the User Experience in Windows 8) wouldn't have been put in charge.


True, but the decision to go ahead with Julie's plans was Sinofskys.

#266 Kosh Naranek

Kosh Naranek

    Neowinian

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 01
  • Location: Aarhus, Denmark
  • OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1
  • Phone: LG Nexus 4 ~ Jelly Bean 4.2.1

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:24

What the frak are you doing? What pink colors? What hideous colors? I see NONE on the desktop. Where are you right clicking to change the desktop wallpaper? 'Personalize' is still in the same spot.

If you want a different MP3 app, use Program Defaults, and change it.

Win+E opens 'Computer'.

Metro apps are full screen. Boo Hoo.


I know metro apps are full screen. :rofl:

This is what I'm talking about
Posted Image

Now compare that to win 7
Posted Image

#267 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • 6,133 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:26

True, but the decision to go ahead with Julie's plans was Sinofskys.


And then interestingly she wasn't given Sinofsky's job directly. I read the position was split over two people and structured differently.

I don't think this is an admission of metro failure though it is interesting.

#268 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:31

No, with the old Start Menu you never lost sight of the entire desktop and whatever was going on it. Everything stayed in front of you. Like the current Start Page, you just type the name of the app and click on it, again, never losing sight of the desktop or having to scroll or survey more than the well defined area of the Start menu to find the result and click on it. Definitely didn't have to click Apps/Files/or Settings.

I'm not saying Metro isn't workable, but the notion that the Windows 7 Start Menu was inefficient or that the Start Page is more efficient is a stretch IMO. So many things are "more" work, whether click, draggin' selectin' or eyeball movin'. Metro works on the desktop but wasn't made for the desktop and we all know that.


I didn't say lost sight. I said lost focus. As in the start menu was now the active item...which means it had focus. It's a term that refers to the active work item.

So in order to use the start menu, you have to actively disengage from working on something else. You also have to do that with the start screen.

The difference again is in aesthetics...the visual presentation.

Also it's not a stretch. What is better...clicking through a hierarchical folder structure down multiple levels...or having it presented to you directly without having to dig?

Efficiency wise? The way they present things now as flat is better.

True, but the decision to go ahead with Julie's plans was Sinofskys.


I understand your point, but things don't quite work that way in the corporate world. If you hate something you don't fire the guy who said 'ok' and put the person who designed it in charge of everything for the next version...since you are likely to get more of the same.

Think about it from a logical standpoint...not from a top-down standpoint.

Grr...getting so ticked off that I can't mention practical examples since it will bring down the 'he thinks he is superior to us with his hidden knowledge' brigade.

#269 rippleman

rippleman

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,569 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09
  • Location: Near Calgary, Alberta
  • OS: Windows 8.1 (w/ Classic Shell)
  • Phone: Galaxy S4

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:41

Grr...getting so ticked off that I can't mention practical examples since it will bring down the 'he thinks he is superior to us with his hidden knowledge' brigade.


Not your fault you think everyone else is wrong and you are always right. Its just your personality. People tend to not like people like that.

#270 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:58

Not your fault you think everyone else is wrong and you are always right. Its just your personality. People tend to not like people like that.


I don't even feel that way. :p

If I know something I prefer being able to share what I know. I also like being able to provide a perspective that comes from direct experience.

People here don't like that it seems. So now I'm stuck having to read my posts multiple times to make sure I don't upset anyone due to an example or mention of a project or group.

Heck the only reason I spend time here is that I like providing info. It is also why I'm highly selective about what teams I choose to work with. I like jobs with high customer impact, even if it means never being a stock option billionaire everyone knows. :p

I'd rather have the job with impact and geek 'cred' over the high visibility gig any day of the week. :)



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!