windows 8 Windows 8 Consumer Preview: A Call for Common Sense

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

The very fact that folks DO have choices means that Microsoft simply can't entrench and watch itself be niched. Maybe you don't care if Microsoft becomes a niche player (as opposed to the dominant force) in computing - Microsoft (as a public company) certainly has to care.

I agree. They do have to care. Maybe it is even strategically necessary to do what they're doing with Metro. All I'm saying is, that it isn't actually in the best interest of the consumer, with regard to the user experience on the desktop and laptops.

It's been a while since I laughed so much at a forum post. Thank you. :laugh:

In other news, 2013 will be THE Linux year. And Apple will create Skynet.

What's so funny about that? It all depends on how successful Microsoft tablets are really going to be in the marketplace.

[Dot Matrix]

Except that in Windows 7 I can press start orb and type anything to find it while not losing the focus of any applications that are opened on the native desktop.

Except, you are loosing focus. When you click open the old Start Menu, that's where you attention is. It's no longer on the window/windows you were working with. If all your defaults are set correctly, any file you are searching for should immediately open back up on the desktop and you carry on.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

just two points i want to make - my opinion only:

1. all i want is the choice to disable the gigantic, full-screen start menu. just like MS gave us the choice, and still does, to use the classic start menu and modify it as we see fit.

2. Paul Thurrott says "why do you even shut down anymore, this isnt 1989." how about to save energy? i dont need my behemoth gaming pc running 24x7. and, of course people are going to say, "just put your computer to sleep!" and i do, but the point still stands. to put your computer to sleep, or power it off, in windows 8 is the same process.

[Southern Patriot]

Killing the clones staved off the downward slide (because they couldn't compete with the clones on price) - however, the recovery of Apple (and most of their growth since) has nothing to do with MacOS (or even Macs) directly - that was pretty much entirely due to the iDevices and software+services for those devices. The iDevices have become the tail wagging the Apple dog.

Apple was back on the rise even before the first iPod was released. It started with the iMac and iBook, and picked up steam with OS X. Yeah, the iDevices have helped a lot too, but to claim that killing off the clones was one of the mistakes that led to their fall (as you did in your other post), is absolutely incorrect. As you just said in this post, killing the clone program HELPED them, it didn't hurt them.

Except, you are loosing focus. When you click open the old Start Menu, that's where you attention is. It's no longer on the window/windows you were working with.

The point being that you CAN in fact look at both with the Start menu. You absolutely CANNOT do that with the Start screen.

[SavvyFx]

just two points i want to make - my opinion only:

1. all i want is the choice to disable the gigantic, full-screen start menu. just like MS gave us the choice, and still does, to use the classic start menu and modify it as we see fit.

Unfortunately if Microsoft were to provide the choice, many users would not adapt to the new method. As the start menu is closer to a paradigm shift rather than merely a skin update, it is important to update everyone to the new style. Additionally, there shouldn't be a significant change in how you access the start menu. It should be performing essentially the same function. I think the 'jarring' effect will wear off in time.

2. Paul Thurrott says "why do you even shut down anymore, this isnt 1989." how about to save energy? i dont need my behemoth gaming pc running 24x7. and, of course people are going to say, "just put your computer to sleep!" and i do, but the point still stands. to put your computer to sleep, or power it off, in windows 8 is the same process.

I agree that you should be able to shut down your computer.

However, it is a task that you only perform once per 'sitting'. Therefor, having it in a settings menu that is very accessable is a much better idea than having it Omni present. It would be similar to having the device manage menu present on the charms bar. Users typically rarely need to go in to it, therefore it is a few menu's deep.

That is my major issue with it as well, now that I've somewhat gotten the scrolling issues in Metro straightened out. I regularly am looking at something online, and click the Start button to search for something that I'm reading about, or to open another program that is related to what I'm doing (a tutorial for example). With the Start menu, this is not really an issue, since I can still see what I'm looking at on the screen while I do this, but with the Start screen, that simply isn't possible.

I never do that when I use a computer, I do similar things where I may copy and paste if it's a complex sentence into a search engine. When starting an application, as you mention, I can typically remember the task I'm trying to accomplish and know what I'm going to type.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted.

Edit: Spelling

[deactivated_]

I agree with everything here but:

Keyboard. WINKEY + I, UP ARROW, ENTER, U.

Mouse. Charms, Settings, Power, Shutdown.

Touch. Charms, Settings, Power, Shutdown.[/indent]

But just so we're clear, it's a modern PC. Why the frick are you shutting down a PC? It's not 1989, people.

Old way: Start > Shutdown. Done.

All the new ways are longer and far less intuitive. I don't care that there isn't a start button, but Shutdown and Restart should be prominent on the Metro screen.

Why would I shut down a computer? To save power, perhaps?

No one uses or cares about Media Center except for you.

I guess my Home Theater PC will have to stay at Windows 7 forever then. Windows Media Center with the MyMovies addon is bar none the best, easiest to set up, and feature rich way to have a Windows based HTPC.

XBMC doesn't even come close. I shouldn't have to fight with a program so hard to get it set up, and then to constantly argue and fiddle with it to keep it running.

[chillipig]

Wow, Paul Thurrott is still around and people still listen to him? He sounds pretty much like he always has. Like someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about half the time but tries to sound like an expert. News flash genius, not everyone has to follow Microsoft like a sheep. If the ENTIRE WORLD doesn't like the new UI, why should they all just deal with it? If Windows 8 comes out anything like the consumer preview is now, it will be an instant failure. You can barely change the visual style without confusing the hell out of people. Do you really think this Metro crap is going to take hold? It goes against every advancement in computing we've made to this point. Why would we go backwards to a point where multitasking is made more difficult (argue all you want that it's not, even if you can have metro apps side by side, i assure you you will come to a time where you want to flick between 3 or 4 windows, or have them stacked a certain way, and you won't be able to, or at least not as efficiently)? Why would we want a giant full screen, touch optimized start screen, when 95% of the people using it won't have a touch screen, and with increasing screen resolutions, it's just more wasted mousing around to get to something. Sure, there are ways to do things differently, you can adapt to what's changed, but WHY has it changed? There's not one thing that I can see in Metro that seems like a useful change to the desktop computing environment. Is it to make it look better? Because I haven't seen any part of Windows 8 that looks better than Windows 7 yet. Sure it's an opinion, but I'm far from alone in the opinion. I have absolutely no objections with it for a tablet, but that's why Apple has a desktop OS and a tablet OS, because making them the same would be absolutely stupid, as seen here. The tablet OS can even be a full Windows with Metro on top, like Win 8 is, but the desktop really has no need for a huge Metro start screen. And again, it comes back to the same thing, people won't have a clue how to use it. As simple as it may look, and as easy as you may think it is to learn, if you think everyone will just have no issue, you are sadly overestimating the general public's knowledge of computers. Anyone who works in IT supporting non-IT people in any way knows how mind blowing this will be to people and how hard it will be for so many people to grasp, but to me it all comes back to the pointlessness of it. Even if it does work, and even if it does work well, it's just not necessary on a desktop.

Paul is as he always has been. A Microsoft sheep who is more journalist than computer person. He's the last person I'd take any type of computing advice from. I can understand what he's trying to say, but people ARE giving feedback. They are saying Win 8/Metro/the new start screen is garbage. Innovate the traditional desktop that works well because we did years of testing to get to that point and find it's most efficient and works best. I don't care how many shortcut keys you can learn to make using the new system faster, I assure you they are still slower than all the shortcut keys I knew in the previous system.

I couldn't agree more. Thurrott is like some kind of cult leader that predicts the end of the world to his (mentally challenged) followers, is wrong (consistently) then pretends he never said it, anyone would be better off reading a review written by my dog. Metro is a case of the Kings new clothes, most praising it are petrified of being branded "negative" or "backward thinking" for not seeing the light when its obviously tasteless and ugly.

The decision by Microsoft to get into tablets is understandable but going head first with a touch orientated start screen on workstations is very short sighted, all those people who just want to get their daily tasks done and drop the mouse ASAP will be throwing up with confusion right before marching back to the store (probably mine) and demanding a refund for their "faulty computer" which they WILL get along with travel expenses and a managers apology (and if you think that's exaggerated try working in any large electrical retailer these days as they are all too scared to upset anyone,) but that's another story.

[SavvyFx]

?

The decision by Microsoft to get into tablets is understandable but going head first with a touch orientated start screen on workstations is very short sighted, all those people who just want to get their daily tasks done and drop the mouse ASAP will be throwing up with confusion right before marching back to the store (probably mine) and demanding a refund for their "faulty computer" which they WILL get along with travel expenses and a managers apology (and if you think that's exaggerated try working in any large electrical retailer these days as they are all too scared to upset anyone,) but that's another story.

Run on sentences are hard to reply to, but I'll try.

Not short sighted, in fact the opposite. I think you'll find this is part of a long term stratergy.

Additionally, while it's touch friendly, it is in no way only touch. Keyboard? Check. Mouse? Check. same functionality as the old. Perhaps a little jarring but give it time.

How does the new system not allow you to get your daily tasks done? There are no specific examples given.

I have seen images around the net of instructions (from Microsoft in bold colours) about how to use the operating system. I hope these help people transition.

[xWhiplash]

So instead of letting us make Windows 8 better by offering suggestions (which will never be followed through, but you know what I mean here), we are supposed to "shut up"? When did the attitude become "Oh do not use the new Windows like you have for the past 20 years, shut up and get used to it". We have been using the old style for 20 years.

Look, we are all for change, and most of the people I talk to prefer the Apple approach. They brought the iOS like UI in a 100%, completely optional "app" called Launchpad. THIS is what Windows 8 should have done for the desktop version. Have what we see in Windows 7 with a few UI enhancements to the EXISTING UI, and have us Launch Metro completely 100% optional.

Basically, what I think should have happened is this:

What we see now should have waiting until Windows 9. We should have had something in between Windows 7 and Metro Windows 8 to ease the transition.

So instead of voicing our concerns about the fact that this operating system will not do so well in its current state, because the general population will not know what to do with Metro. It took me longer to find out what to do in Metro than how to use OS X the first time I used it.

You cannot expect the general population to follow your guidelines for Windows 8: "Forget everything you have learned since Windows 95 about using the computer, you must learn NEW ways of using it". Do you know what people will say to this? "Put Windows XP/Vista/7 on there instead please".

Such a change affects everyone. If the general population hates the new interface, and hates being told to let go of 20 years of learning for Metro, Windows 8 will not do so well. If Windows 8 does not do so well, the marketshare will not be that good. If the marketshare is not that good, who will develop Metro apps for it? If there are only small metro apps like Facebook, Twitter, Weather, and Messenger, it will get boring quick.

[devHead]

I find this an improvement, but as we know that's just an opinion. You refer to your opinion as fact, which it is not.

I disagree with your findings. It isn't simply pasted into the desktop PC environment. It is well researched and what I believe to be well executed. There is still room for improvement, but the general paradigm I find much better.

Problems with the old start menu:

• The menu feels cramped relative to available screen real estate when you try to see and navigate the full catalog of your programs.
  
• Search doesn?t have the space it deserves to quickly show you rich results across all sources of information, especially on larger screens.
  
• It?s hard to customize the menu to make it feel like it?s really yours.
  
• Icons and shortcuts are static and don?t leverage more of the pixels we see in modern graphical interfaces to surface connected scenarios
  

Source: http://blogs.msdn.co...start-menu.aspx

I agree with every single point above.

The desktop as you have known it is still present, but with some nice improvements along the way.

Better notifications

Faster

Better file copying windows

Better file manager

Better task manager

This however, is not the major point. The market for PC's is shifting as described above. The desktop is losing market share at an alarming rate, and how people use the device is evolving too. Windows 8 is designed to be used in a consistent manner across all devices. This is the first step in evolving in how we all use computers.

I read the MSDN blog article, and I understand where they're coming from, and actually agree with their reasoning. But the whole screen for the Start Menu? How about just half of it? And these Metro Apps? They're not here on the PC because of the need to redesign the Start Menu and make it more useful. That's why I think you still have a case of two shells competing with each other rather than working together. I'm sure when the final version comes out, they will have tweaked more things and I will likely get used to it and eventually even like it. But right now, it seems a little big and cumbersome. Plus, I'm sorry but icons for Windows apps on the Start Screen just look kind of ugly. It would be nice if they allowed the tiles for them to be taken up by a larger size icon. At least for Windows apps. Heck if I have a 256 x 256 icon for a program, why can't it be that big on the Start Screen? It's taking up more room anyway.

[patseguin Global Moderator]

This one pretty much sums up my feeling about forum reaction over last week...

source: winsupersite

[/font][/size]

Love this post.

[ATLien_0]

Another point after reading a lot of comments on the other threads. Paul is right in that a lot of people off the bat wanted to put back the start menu instead of trying the new way of things and I have a feeling people are going to do the same bitching when the final is released. I don't get this, if your going to spend the time and money to buy Windows 8 just to make it work like Windows 7 why not just stick with Windows 7. Seems like a waste of money to me. Most people don't seem to realize that we are at a point in computing where the desktop environment is near perfect. In my opinion Microsoft perfected the desktop with Windows 7. I really can't think of much that would need to be added or changed in that without just doing a real minor release. I mean really at this point do we need another update to the desktop OS when its already near perfect.

Somehow I think most don't realize this and that computing is evolving more to a touch centric approach and a simpler approach. Microsoft has to evolve to keep up, Apple even has started hinting at this with Mountain Lion.

[SavvyFx]

I read the MSDN blog article, and I understand where they're coming from, and actually agree with their reasoning. But the whole screen for the Start Menu? How about just half of it? And these Metro Apps? They're not here on the PC because of the need to redesign the Start Menu and make it more useful. That's why I think you still have a case of two shells competing with each other rather than working together. I'm sure when the final version comes out, they will have tweaked more things and I will likely get used to it and eventually even like it. But right now, it seems a little big and cumbersome. Plus, I'm sorry but icons for Windows apps on the Start Screen just look kind of ugly. It would be nice if they allowed the tiles for them to be taken up by a larger size icon. At least for Windows apps. Heck if I have a 256 x 256 icon for a program, why can't it be that big on the Start Screen? It's taking up more room anyway.

I agree the start menu has a jarring feel to it, but I really hope that will surpass with time.

The Metro apps are part of the larger windows strategy with developers being able to develop across all platforms as simply as possible. Restricting metro apps to just tablets would be silly. There isn't any real reason to go past the start screen on your desktop if you don't wish. One exception to this is some settings are only in metro views. I actually really like this and find it a significant step forward from the current (W7) control panel.

Icons? Could not agree more. They look hideous at the moment. Hopefully that's a RTM feature, I understand it's not high on MS priority. Hopefully we'll be able to set custom pictures for icons. I anticipate seeing some beautiful desktops when the theme designers get a hold of it.

[Guest glyfz]

Another point after reading a lot of comments on the other threads. Paul is right in that a lot of people off the bat wanted to put back the start menu instead of trying the new way of things and I have a feeling people are going to do the same bitching when the final is released. I don't get this, if your going to spend the time and money to buy Windows 8 just to make it work like Windows 7 why not just stick with Windows 7. Seems like a waste of money to me. Most people don't seem to realize that we are at a point in computing where the desktop environment is near perfect. In my opinion Microsoft perfected the desktop with Windows 7. I really can't think of much that would need to be added or changed in that without just doing a real minor release. I mean really at this point do we need another update to the desktop OS when its already near perfect.

Somehow I think most don't realize this and that computing is evolving more to a touch centric approach and a simpler approach. Microsoft has to evolve to keep up, Apple even has started hinting at this with Mountain Lion.

As has been said MANY times before, Windows 8 isn't all about Metro, the Explorer changes, for example, are welcome.

[Stoffel]

I can not believe some of the people posting here.

We are on a site called NeoWIN, we are discussing a new version of windows and we are called fanbois and trolls because we like the direction MS is going.

How does this make sense?????

[Southern Patriot]

I can not believe some of the people posting here.

We are on a site called NeoWIN, we are discussing a new version of windows and we are called fanbois and trolls because we like the direction MS is going.

How does this make sense?????

Because quite a few very vocal people here (and Paul himself) are saying, in effect, "if you don't like it, **** off, your opinion doesn't matter".

[Wakers]

It doesn't.

But if you don't agree with people on the internet, something is wrong with you. Basically, people become more childish the less able they are to back up their argument.

I don't mean to say that all people that don't like Metro are stupid, just the ones who say it's crap and can't accept that some people can actually use it.

[Dot Matrix]

I read the MSDN blog article, and I understand where they're coming from, and actually agree with their reasoning. But the whole screen for the Start Menu?

If you're going t take up half my screen, you might as well as go the whole nine yards.

[Wakers]

If you're going t take up half my screen, you might as well as go the whole nine yards.

Your screen is how big? :D

[Steven P. Administrators]

If you're going t take up half my screen, you might as well as go the whole nine yards.

I remember the XP menu taking up a full 3rd of the screen, unless you had a better screen and customized the menu yourself, so that really isn't the point.

[jimmyfal]

I'm in heaven with Metro. And a few folks in the airport here are also looking over my shoulder and pretty impressed as well. Give it a few days. It's awesome. My biggest compaint? The so called "push scrolling" moving the mouse left and right of the screen is missing in action all over the place. The only place I can seem to find it is on the START Screen. Hopefully there will be requirements for apps to actually use it. Other than that, my complaints are minor. I will be anxious to see how they eventually put metro apps on multiple screens, but I have to think they are already putting that play into effect somewhere.

I do a LOT of multitasking and I'm balls deep into Metro and loving it. Wish I could lose the pesky desktop apps. and I can't freaking wait for a touch screen Ultrabook.

[Wakers]

Ugh "Ultrabooks" are another argument.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

I do a LOT of multitasking and I'm balls deep into Metro and loving it.

Just out of curiosity: What Metro apps are you using?

[jimmyfal]

Usa today, la times, pinball, kindle just came out last night, sketchbook express, vimeo. All have failed in the scrolling department badly. I have to wonder what the F they were thinking. How hard is it? I rely on Outlook and am pretty confused by how i'm supposed to organize my huge list of favorites in IE metro. I'm hoping they add some sort of support for grouping favorites into tiles or somthing, I don't really want a mass of favorite tiles all over my start screen. A few minor inconveniences and I was pretty confused for a couple days till I got used to it. Considering I ran the Dev Preview as my primary OS for a couple months, this is an enormous step forward as I didn't mess with Metro much then.

I would also like to see actual smooth scrolling. I finally enable smooth scrolling in IE (lol didn't even know it was there for a couple years!) but it is not as smooth as I hope it to be.

JF

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

I would also like to see actual smooth scrolling. I finally enable smooth scrolling in IE (lol didn't even know it was there for a couple years!) but it is not as smooth as I hope it to be.

This! A thousand times this!