official Windows 8 Consumer Preview Discussion

[Anthonyd]

Oh brother. So now Win8 is addressing our physiological needs that we haven't yet appreciated till now.

Bless your heart, this is getting quite entertaining.

Grow up kidoos ...

[bogas04]

Can anybody help me ?

My proccy (see signature) is not running in coolnquite mode. I restored defaults of power settings , tried changing to balanced etc , still it runs @ 2.6Ghz all the time...

I have currently set Maximum Processor State to 0% and its super downclocked to .8Ghz (i did so to avoid high temps) . I enabled CnQ from bios but still its not working... please help :(

Creating new thread.

[9UnknownMen]

Grow up kidoos ...

Sure, once I can figure out how for the last 6yrs I've been able to miraculously concentrate on more than 4 systems streaming real time information to my desktop in commodity trading. It's apparently biologically impossible.

[Nimdock]

Our eyes are only able to look at one source of information at once and biology ensures we're only able to interact with one app at once. The Windows 8 Metro experience allows for incredibly fast app switching, so switching to another window could be just like moving our face/eyes to look at another source of information.

There is no need for having more than two apps on screen at any one point in any of the examples you mentioned above. Due to the ability to switch apps fast in Windows 8, productivity would not be harmed by only having two apps on screen at any one time during any of those scenarios.

As I mention, biology does not allow us to have our eyes on more than one source of information at once.

Well... we will never agree... You only need one piece of information at a time and can only focus on one thing. And that's fine... Some of us function differently and are able to handle several pieces of information at a time. Experience (having done it before) tells me that.

With win7 multitasking I don't have to worry about switching, even if it is faster than the speed of light... I don't have to worry about using the mouse or some keyboard shortcut. All the information I want is where I want it.

[trek]

Our eyes are only able to look at one source of information at once and biology ensures we're only able to interact with one app at once. The Windows 8 Metro experience allows for incredibly fast app switching, so switching to another window could be just like moving our face/eyes to look at another source of information.

There is no need for having more than two apps on screen at any one point in any of the examples you mentioned above. Due to the ability to switch apps fast in Windows 8, productivity would not be harmed by only having two apps on screen at any one time during any of those scenarios.

As I mention, biology does not allow us to have our eyes on more than one source of information at once.

Ridiculous. Even if you 'physically' only look at one window at a time, having 3 or 4 all visible at a glance on screen of your 24" monitor undeniably is faster than switching from one to the other.

[Detection]

Closing metro apps is useless, why bother with closing them?

Because they crash and stop working until you close and open them again (Try directly opening a .pdf from the web with "reader" then when it doesn't work, download that .pdf and try opening it with reader from the drive, still won't work because the web attempt killed it, now close reader and try opening a .pdf from the drive, it works again)

[~Johnny]

As I mention, biology does not allow us to have our eyes on more than one source of information at once.

Our eyes don't, but our brain can handle holding the information as we switch views. Heck, as I write this, I've just been working with two Visual Studio windows snapped side by side at one point comparing code (which can't be done properly with the mini snapped states Metro bring), and at one point even opened up an IE Window as a third Window so I could compare to some online code too - something that allows me to be more productive. No time wasted snapping views or switching apps, everything I want from all my sources can fit on the screen, so I should let them. None of those windows need my full screen space for the task, but they can't do their task put into a small snap state either. (as an aside... Probably shouldn't have based my final year Uni project on WinRT considering it's unfinishedness).

Don't get me wrong, I still use Metro apps (I'm actually writing 3 of them now), and I think they have their place and they can provide a great experience if executed well. I just don't think they're suited to replace everything.

[Proculsi]

At first I was not sure about the coexistence of Metro and Desktop, but after some hours playing with it, I started to like it. Although I thinks it need a lot of additional work in the integration of both UI.

I find very useful the SEARCH (in the CHARM BAR) when inside of any Metro application, except when browsing files in Metro for example when attaching a file to an email. The search does not work, you have to navigate through folders to find a specific file. I think this has to be improved.

Also I find very annoying that you can't preview a file (picture, music, video, document) when browsing in Metro. I need to be sure which file I want to attach to an email before doing it.

I think that W8 needs a lot of work managing 2 or more monitors. Metro should be able to be displayed on the second monitor, not just on the main.

[PGHammer]

Thanks for opening me to my blindness to Windows 8 - I was wrong and I feel much better about it having read what you had to say. I get Windows 8 now and it's great for PC. To slide the lock screen up with a mouse and use a useless Metro start menu that has huge useless "live" tiles for my huge mouse cursor to click easily - It truly is great now you've posted that.

Like you have to use those live tiles for *anything*.

I don't use the tiles to launch anything...not even the Metro apps I actually use, and certainly not non-Metro apps.

For non-Metro apps, I launch them the same way I did with Windows 7 - Taskbar-pinning, desktop shortcuts, or the Run box.

Metro apps? Since I don't use many of them as of yet, I use the upper-left corner, and swipe down (with my mouse - specifically the Logitech V220) which takes me to the last few Metro apps I've used. I click-drag the app I want to snap it to the right, and I'm done.

All that without seeing the StartScreen. And on a desktop with a decent amount (1920x1080) of screen.

[Dot Matrix]

Thanks for opening me to my blindness to Windows 8 - I was wrong and I feel much better about it having read what you had to say. I get Windows 8 now and it's great for PC. To slide the lock screen up with a mouse and use a useless Metro start menu that has huge useless "live" tiles for my huge mouse cursor to click easily - It truly is great now you've posted that.

You don't need to slide the lock screen up with the mouse. Just hit "Enter" and the password prompt shows right up.

[delete]

Our eyes are only able to look at one source of information at once and biology ensures we're only able to interact with one app at once. The Windows 8 Metro experience allows for incredibly fast app switching, so switching to another window could be just like moving our face/eyes to look at another source of information.

There is no need for having more than two apps on screen at any one point in any of the examples you mentioned above. Due to the ability to switch apps fast in Windows 8, productivity would not be harmed by only having two apps on screen at any one time during any of those scenarios.

As I mention, biology does not allow us to have our eyes on more than one source of information at once.

HAHAHAHA!!! Oh wow, you cannot possibly be serious with this rubbish can you? Surely you are trolling?

Do you know how quickly the eye can move from one source of information to the next? A lot faster than any hand movement.

Come on, be serious.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Maybe it's to make more people realise how ugly and inefficient having many windows overlapping on the screen is, leading to them preferring the new multitasking concept that the Metro experience allows for :)

Drink that Kool Aid. Having Apps run full screen or one quarter and 3 quarters is never as good as having a screen full of windows.

As i type this i have 4 windows on screen I cant do that with metro.

[johnporter29]

Well, not had much chance to do anything with Windows 8 as yet and have decided not to install it properly on my main PC, so I have it installed in a VM and am actually posting this post using the immersive IE 10, and feel I could get used to this, really could. I just need to learn the mouse gestures and I feel that I will be right at home with Windows 8 including the new Start Screen. I'm looking forward to actually using this as my main OS and getting to grips with the Start Screen and customising it to my liking with it organised the way I want it to be.

People should chillax a little and embrace it for a while before slating it and declaring it a failure!

[Muhammad Farrukh]

HAHAHAHA!!! Oh wow, you cannot possibly be serious with this rubbish can you? Surely you are trolling?

Do you know how quickly the eye can move from one source of information to the next? A lot faster than any hand movement.

Come on, be serious.

What?

[rfirth]

As i type this i have 4 windows on screen I cant do that with metro.

Sure, but you can still do that with Windows 8. You haven't lost any functionality. You don't have to use metro apps.

[PGHammer]

Now here's a beautiful example of how many people will react. They'll see something new, and freak out.

Here's the thing: it's all the same, but it has extra features that you will get used to.

Firstly, you should really read up on Windows 8. You've really missed a lot.

1) That is the Start Screen, and those boxes are Live Tiles which update over time with the contents of the app. For example, the Mail tile will change when you get a new email.

2) There is no need for a start button. a) it's on your keyboard, where it's always been. b) That pixel in the very corner is all you need. When you aim to click on the Start button in Windows 7, where does your cursor travel? To the very corner.

3) Because not everyone is used to using the button on the keyboard. Besides, where else would they click to get to the start screen?

4) Yes, by adding a 'Show Desktop' link into your 'Startup' list. Hopefully there'll be an easier way to do this in the future, for those that require the desktop prominently.

5) There is a LOT they've changed. Windows Explorer has a ribbon, the Task Manager is a lot more user-friendly and there are many back-end improvements that will improve your experience over time.

6) There are shortcuts for everything. Windows Key + I may help you there, look at the bottom.

The improvements are primarily for touch, for now. Windows 7 is almost perfect for normal desktop use, but is a pain on tablets. Microsoft needs a way to fight the iPads, and this is it. Spend some time with Windows 8. Learn your way around it. Then you'll learn to love it.

+1

One thing that I've noticed from the majority of detractors, amazingly enough, is the LACK of complaints that non-Metro application X from Y corporation doesn't work. There's a reason for that - despite the wildly-different UI, the applications themselves could actually care less.

From Calibre for Windows to Crysis 2 - from Osmos to Outlook 2010 x64. Non-Metro applications and games from Windows 7 actually Just Plain Work.

One thing that apparently has sailed right over the heads of folks is the issue of *transition fatigue* between desktops, tablets and other devices (even Apple has been struggling with that with OS X/iOS). Metro is Microsoft's response to that.

Even Google (which doesn't do a PC-based OS at all) has been faced with that - why else was Ice Cream Sandwich designed for more than phones?

[ArialBlue]

You give up way too easily, really.

Open Weather, right click to get the options menu, choose Places. Add a new location (type a city name and state abbreviation or whatever, doesn't seem to work with zip codes yet), when the new location is listed, right click on it and make it the default - then you can remove what was the default previously.

I mean really... people, this is new stuff basically, there ARE ways to get things done, it's just going to take time for them to become habitual.

I actually just re-installed it and got it work. :)

[jarrettwold]

Here's my take on this and I'll try and articulate what my friends and likely family will say and react to.

I personally can see where Microsoft is trying to go with this. Yes, it's a sea change and yes it's massive, but they're trying to make an efficient smooth operating system. After using it, when you get used to the changes it *can* be as efficient as Windows 7. Therein lies the problem though. I'm a software developer and an IT guy, and I have about 6-10 hours into this thing. I still haven't completely figured it out. It's such a dramatic sea change, that even I'm having difficulty adapting. That being said, I do adapt and that's never been a problem for me.

Where it is going to be a massive problem is people that don't have the time to figure out where the hot corners are, that the charm bar is context sensitive, and that the window management bar is mouse to the corner then gesture down. Last night I was trying to figure out why there wasn't a volume control on the video app itself, and couldn't get it. Myself and an IT guy that works for a Fortune 100 company were trying to figure it out, we couldn't get it. Then this morning I moused over to the charms bar, and realized "oh they want me to use the volume control here."

Now, with the start menu being removed the argument for removing it, is that Metro has been tested and demonstrated more efficient. The same argument has been made for the hybridization of Metro and the classic desktop environment. The difficulty with this thought process and testing mentality, is that people like, if not love their inefficiency. The argument is being made that we should move with the future, get used to and over the change and adapt. Which is fine for people like me. It doesn't work for people like my Mom or my two younger brothers. They tend to go with what they have divined on their own to accomplish certain goals.

For example, when I go to log into gmail, unless I've cleared out my browser history recently I go to the address bar in chrome and type the letters "ma" and it auto-completes out to mail.google.com and I'm done. I also have the "google mail checker" extension installed and 50% of the time I click on that. My Mom on the other hand goes to Yahoo, types "gmail" into the search engine and gets to it that way. She's happy in the way that works. I've explained that a bookmark would work better, have created a simple bookmark and she still uses her way to accomplish the task. Her process is horribly inefficient requires more "clicks" than mine does, but that's how she chooses to reach that goal.

My friend is a skilled IT professional, and at home runs a fairly complex networking setup. He has a web server, ftp server and a slew of SMB shares available. He hates using the terminal for anything. He hates configuration files. It's what he has to do at work to accomplish his job, but he far prefers interacting visually as his computing experience. So what takes me about five seconds using SSH to my linux box, with VI to accomplish a task, takes him anywhere between 15 seconds to a minute depending on the task he is completing visually. He loves his inefficiency, because that's what suits him.

I've read around a thousand posts scattered across Neowin, Microsoft Answers, and a variety of other forums and people want their start menu and classic desktop. You can explain and even show to these people that a particular task is improved, in Windows 8 and they still won't like it. You can throw all the testing evidence, and design heuristics at the person and go "see it really does make a difference!" Then they will go "I hate it and don't want it." People won't buy something they hate unless they're forced to do so. People love their inefficiency.

So far I've seen about one person in ten, able to clearly articulate what they like about Windows 8. Nine out of ten of the people, can readily articulate what they hate about it. That's a scary percentage. Very scary. Throw out the people that are trolling in terms of "well just get with times loser lololol" along with people that go "screw change this is a horrible monstrosity." Analyze what remains, and you have a dramatic disparity in early adopters. The moderates, like me, who say "well give it a chance, play with it for a few weeks and see what you think" are a single digits percentage of that population. It's new, we're willing to give it a shot, and if we don't like it... oh well.

There have been spurious examples of Facebook. Facebook doesn't "sell" a product, it's a free service with a massive user base. So if they change something people are dragged along for the ride, as there's not an option to not buy. Windows is a product, that people must feel the need or desire to purchase.

As a business proposition, this is a terrible forecast and omen for things to come. Consistently, purchasing decision makers in IT are saying they will not be recommending Windows 8 to enterprise, or as a roll out to their desktop users. It really is going to be a support nightmare. I can readily show someone how something works in person. Attempting to troubleshoot that over the phone is another thing. Mentally, it's going to be nightmarish to explain hot corners, charm bars, sliding screens up, pulling apps down to close them. IT professionals have a job to do, and typically it's something that must be done quickly to address specific problems for the user base. Yanking the rug out from under them, by removing utility and function (no matter how inefficient) is not going to win you a purchasing recommendation.

All of that being said, consumers are going to have to drive the adoption of Windows 8. When your early adopters, are complaining in significant numbers that they want something, that to them, isn't broken back... You have a problem. Microsoft stands to lose a large number of paying customers who will wait out and extend the upgrade cycle to avoid upgrading. The idea of purchasing and hoarding copies of Windows 7 isn't that far fetched. Further, if the change is too onerous, then there's a strong likelihood you will have an out migration of users that will simply never come back. Ubuntu's Unity interface is a good example of that. Gnome 3 has been forked into Cinnamon, and Mint is now one of the most popular distros out there.

So as a business proposition, to keep customers in the mood for upgrading Microsoft is going to have to ship a copy that allows you to either completely disable or avoid Metro, and return the start menu. If they don't, the possibility of an unmitigated disaster awaits.

All of this being said, I love my ZuneHD and Zune. I love Windows 7 in terms of sheer flexibility, and being able to accomplish tasks in any way I choose and so do a lot of other people. If, in the end, I dislike Windows 8 and this consumer preview largely doesn't change then I will have to use my nuclear option and escape to Linux and XFCE or the Gnome 3 fork. I DO NOT want to do that.

[br0adband]

Drink that Kool Aid. Having Apps run full screen or one quarter and 3 quarters is never as good as having a screen full of windows.

As i type this i have 4 windows on screen I cant do that with metro.

And that's why you still have the Desktop in Windows 8.

Funny how that works, ain't it? :woot:

Metro apps are not designed to be run several at once, even though Microsoft is allowing at least 2 to be displayed at one time IF you are operating with a computer that has enough horizontal resolution to make showing 2 apps (even somewhat adjusted considering the size). If you're not - like I'm not, with a 1280x800 resolution - then it's impractical to run such things.

Metro apps are designed to run full screen, period, or snapped alongside another to get 2 onscreen at the same time. If you want to continue using regular old Windows apps (which we'll be doing for another decade at least), there's nothing stopping you from doing so: that's using the regular Desktop and Windows 8 is doing nothing to stop you from that age old practice.

People need to realize this, and fast.

[SubZenit]

it will take time to accomodate with the new interface (metro), but I think everything is for the best, after a few hours spend on windows 8 (not installed as stand alone, but inside VBox) I started to like it, but hey... it's not even close to the end, the small details still have to be polished, just like happned in w7.

[PGHammer]

Microsoft have actually said they've deployed Windows 8 internally, and they do develop Windows 8 on Windows 8. Metro apps can use whatever accounts you want (and the mail, people & calendar apps support google for example), but if you want Skydrive sync then you need a live account obviously (which does not require a Hotmail email address).

True.

I have a passport.com address (which predates Windows Live) and I've been using it across all of Microsoft for over a decade.

That is, in fact, the very reason behind the Microsoft Account - it basically supersedes Windows Live, yet includes all the functionality of Windows Live.

Poorly documented but true fact - those of us with non-Hotmail Windows Live IDs (passport.com-based IDs in particular) also have Hotmail accounts in the same format - mine is [email protected], for example - with the password identical to that of the connected passport.com account. It's a freebie/throw-in, and has all the benefits of any other Hotmail account.

[Stoffel]

Here's my take on this and I'll try and articulate what my friends and likely family will say and react to.

I personally can see where Microsoft is trying to go with this. Yes, it's a sea change and yes it's massive, but they're trying to make an efficient smooth operating system. After using it, when you get used to the changes it *can* be as efficient as Windows 7. Therein lies the problem though. I'm a software developer and an IT guy, and I have about 6-10 hours into this thing. I still haven't completely figured it out. It's such a dramatic sea change, that even I'm having difficulty adapting. That being said, I do adapt and that's never been a problem for me.

Where it is going to be a massive problem is people that don't have the time to figure out where the hot corners are, that the charm bar is context sensitive, and that the window management bar is mouse to the corner then gesture down. Last night I was trying to figure out why there wasn't a volume control on the video app itself, and couldn't get it. Myself and an IT guy that works for a Fortune 100 company were trying to figure it out, we couldn't get it. Then this morning I moused over to the charms bar, and realized "oh they want me to use the volume control here."

Now, with the start menu being removed the argument for removing it, is that Metro has been tested and demonstrated more efficient. The same argument has been made for the hybridization of Metro and the classic desktop environment. The difficulty with this thought process and testing mentality, is that people like, if not love their inefficiency. The argument is being made that we should move with the future, get used to and over the change and adapt. Which is fine for people like me. It doesn't work for people like my Mom or my two younger brothers. They tend to go with what they have divined on their own to accomplish certain goals.

For example, when I go to log into gmail, unless I've cleared out my browser history recently I go to the address bar in chrome and type the letters "ma" and it auto-completes out to mail.google.com and I'm done. I also have the "google mail checker" extension installed and 50% of the time I click on that. My Mom on the other hand goes to Yahoo, types "gmail" into the search engine and gets to it that way. She's happy in the way that works. I've explained that a bookmark would work better, have created a simple bookmark and she still uses her way to accomplish the task. Her process is horribly inefficient requires more "clicks" than mine does, but that's how she chooses to reach that goal.

My friend is a skilled IT professional, and at home runs a fairly complex networking setup. He has a web server, ftp server and a slew of SMB shares available. He hates using the terminal for anything. He hates configuration files. It's what he has to do at work to accomplish his job, but he far prefers interacting visually as his computing experience. So what takes me about five seconds using SSH to my linux box, with VI to accomplish a task, takes him anywhere between 15 seconds to a minute depending on the task he is completing visually. He loves his inefficiency, because that's what suits him.

I've read around a thousand posts scattered across Neowin, Microsoft Answers, and a variety of other forums and people want their start menu and classic desktop. You can explain and even show to these people that a particular task is improved, in Windows 8 and they still won't like it. You can throw all the testing evidence, and design heuristics at the person and go "see it really does make a difference!" Then they will go "I hate it and don't want it." People won't buy something they hate unless they're forced to do so. People love their inefficiency.

So far I've seen about one person in ten, able to clearly articulate what they like about Windows 8. Nine out of ten of the people, can readily articulate what they hate about it. That's a scary percentage. Very scary. Throw out the people that are trolling in terms of "well just get with times loser lololol" along with people that go "screw change this is a horrible monstrosity." Analyze what remains, and you have a dramatic disparity in early adopters. The moderates, like me, who say "well give it a chance, play with it for a few weeks and see what you think" are a single digits percentage of that population. It's new, we're willing to give it a shot, and if we don't like it... oh well.

There have been spurious examples of Facebook. Facebook doesn't "sell" a product, it's a free service with a massive user base. So if they change something people are dragged along for the ride, as there's not an option to not buy. Windows is a product, that people must feel the need or desire to purchase.

As a business proposition, this is a terrible forecast and omen for things to come. Consistently, purchasing decision makers in IT are saying they will not be recommending Windows 8 to enterprise, or as a roll out to their desktop users. It really is going to be a support nightmare. I can readily show someone how something works in person. Attempting to troubleshoot that over the phone is another thing. Mentally, it's going to be nightmarish to explain hot corners, charm bars, sliding screens up, pulling apps down to close them. IT professionals have a job to do, and typically it's something that must be done quickly to address specific problems for the user base. Yanking the rug out from under them, by removing utility and function (no matter how inefficient) is not going to win you a purchasing recommendation.

All of that being said, consumers are going to have to drive the adoption of Windows 8. When your early adopters, are complaining in significant numbers that they want something, that to them, isn't broken back... You have a problem. Microsoft stands to lose a large number of paying customers who will wait out and extend the upgrade cycle to avoid upgrading. The idea of purchasing and hoarding copies of Windows 7 isn't that far fetched. Further, if the change is too onerous, then there's a strong likelihood you will have an out migration of users that will simply never come back. Ubuntu's Unity interface is a good example of that. Gnome 3 has been forked into Cinnamon, and Mint is now one of the most popular distros out there.

So as a business proposition, to keep customers in the mood for upgrading Microsoft is going to have to ship a copy that allows you to either completely disable or avoid Metro, and return the start menu. If they don't, the possibility of an unmitigated disaster awaits.

All of this being said, I love my ZuneHD and Zune. I love Windows 7 in terms of sheer flexibility, and being able to accomplish tasks in any way I choose and so do a lot of other people. If, in the end, I dislike Windows 8 and this consumer preview largely doesn't change then I will have to use my nuclear option and escape to Linux and XFCE or the Gnome 3 fork. I DO NOT want to do that.

I think you underestimate the 'common' people. They are all buying smartphones and tablets. So all the gestures they are introducing in Win 8 might be much more familiar then think at first.

Also, if you look at what the mom's and dad's do on their computer, it's not much more then write an email, play I simple game and browse the internet.

Those people will barely ever have to see the Desktop version of Win8.

The only people that have to change their habits a bit more are the so called power users, and those are usually the people that b*tch the most, because they feel that they understand computers and their way is always the best.

If you give Win 8 a proper chance, most will notice that not that much has changed in the end.

We also have to realize that this is a BETA product, I do believe it's pretty much feature complete, but I think they will adjust the UI and efficiency of the Os much more

[Ashoktvm]

I don't know if this has been posted before. I get a message, saying applications is not supported in the market whenever I try to open apps . Is there any workaround for this.??????

[TheLegendOfMart]

And that's why you still have the Desktop in Windows 8.

Funny how that works, ain't it? :woot:

Metro apps are not designed to be run several at once, even though Microsoft is allowing at least 2 to be displayed at one time IF you are operating with a computer that has enough horizontal resolution to make showing 2 apps (even somewhat adjusted considering the size). If you're not - like I'm not, with a 1280x800 resolution - then it's impractical to run such things.

Metro apps are designed to run full screen, period, or snapped alongside another to get 2 onscreen at the same time. If you want to continue using regular old Windows apps (which we'll be doing for another decade at least), there's nothing stopping you from doing so: that's using the regular Desktop and Windows 8 is doing nothing to stop you from that age old practice.

People need to realize this, and fast.

But why do we need this on 20"+ monitors with 1920x1080 resolutions. Keep it where its supposed to be, on tablets.

[encarta]

Our eyes are only able to look at one source of information at once and biology ensures we're only able to interact with one app at once. The Windows 8 Metro experience allows for incredibly fast app switching, so switching to another window could be just like moving our face/eyes to look at another source of information.

There is no need for having more than two apps on screen at any one point in any of the examples you mentioned above. Due to the ability to switch apps fast in Windows 8, productivity would not be harmed by only having two apps on screen at any one time during any of those scenarios.

As I mention, biology does not allow us to have our eyes on more than one source of information at once.

Please tell me you're not serious :laugh: According to your statement, it's faster to switch to another app than just focus your eyes to another window (let's say you have 4 of them on the screen)? No need for having more than 2 apps on screen? You just lost all credibility with that statement.