win8 Windows 8 - intuitive or not?

[Condere]

...

As someone who commonly walks users through stuff over the phone, most have a hard time finding the start button (older folks) which is actually visible and has been for most of their computing life. ...

I don't know who you deal with, but the Start button is my savior most of the time.

When I deal with people over the phone, I've found that if I don't know the person OR if I know they are "computer slow", I immediately go for the Start button. Otherwise it takes them forever to find the shortcut or pinned taskbar app. It is just easier to get people to start an app that they normally don't use by saying, "Start button in the lower left, All Programs, Acme Programs, Acme application."

[xWhiplash]

I don't know who you deal with, but the Start button is my savior most of the time.

When I deal with people over the phone, I've found that if I don't know the person OR if I know they are "computer slow", I immediately go for the Start button. Otherwise it takes them forever to find the shortcut or pinned taskbar app. It is just easier to get people to start an app that they normally don't use by saying, "Start button in the lower left, All Programs, Acme Programs, Acme application."

I have had to deal with the people that he is talking about before. It took me forever to get some people to find the start menu at the bottom left. Now with Windows 8 we will have a much harder time dealing with it because of the invisible menu. Telling people to move to the bottom left, they will not see it if they are a few pixels off.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I have had to deal with the people that he is talking about before. It took me forever to get some people to find the start menu at the bottom left. Now with Windows 8 we will have a much harder time dealing with it because of the invisible menu. Telling people to move to the bottom left, they will not see it if they are a few pixels off.

Correct. I also find it easier to have a customer do a windows key + R and type an www. address in the run box, than it is to take 10 mins trying to get them to find the address bar on top the web browser, only to have them still type the address into some ****ing bing bar.

[argonite]

I have had to deal with the people that he is talking about before. It took me forever to get some people to find the start menu at the bottom left. Now with Windows 8 we will have a much harder time dealing with it because of the invisible menu. Telling people to move to the bottom left, they will not see it if they are a few pixels off.

The people I deal with get confused when I say Start button, especially since there's no 'Start' word in Windows Vista and onwards. I usually suggest hitting the Windows key ("between Ctrl and Alt") or just moving the mouse as close as possible to the bottom left corner and clicking. These methods still work.

[Stoffel]

I don't think Win8 is super intuitive, but if you spend all of 15min you can get around nice and easy.

[excalpius]

The people I deal with get confused when I say Start button, especially since there's no 'Start' word in Windows Vista and onwards. I usually suggest hitting the Windows key ("between Ctrl and Alt") or just moving the mouse as close as possible to the bottom left corner and clicking. These methods still work.

I've advised everyone just not to upgrade. I tell them that W8 is really only for tablet users and to stick with their current Windows 7 machines until Microsoft releases a new OS that is designed to actually improve (rather than retard) the desktop experience.

[Stoffel]

I've advised everyone just not to upgrade. I tell them that W8 is really only for tablet users and to stick with their current Windows 7 machines until Microsoft releases a new OS that is designed to actually improve (rather than retard) the desktop experience.

Nice one, just decide what is right for other people. It's not because you don't like it others might not.

This is the reason Vista failed, some tech people didn't like it and just convinced everybody else it was crap. Even now I get people explaining complete BS about why Vista was so bad

[Wakers]

The only reason Vista was bad was because OEMs insisted on putting it on new computers with 1GB of RAM and single core (or really low end) dual core processors. They were also a bit generous with the recommended requirements, meaning everyone that was at that level complained about performance.

If you actually had a mid-high end PC it performed better than XP.

Still, we got something good out of that, MS really focused on streamlining Win 7 as a direct result.

And FYI, people who say that Win8 is only for tablets are clueless, utterly clueless. If that's a qualified IT professional they should get themselves back to school to understand the changes that Win8 brings to the table outside of the start screen (which is more a case of personal preference, but still has advantages over the start menu if you take the time to learn it.)

[+Warwagon MVC]

The only reason Vista was bad was because OEMs insisted on putting it on new computers with 1GB of RAM and single core (or really low end) dual core processors. They were also a bit generous with the recommended requirements, meaning everyone that was at that level complained about performance.

If you actually had a mid-high end PC it performed better than XP.

Still, we got something good out of that, MS really focused on streamlining Win 7 as a direct result.

And FYI, people who say that Win8 is only for tablets are clueless, utterly clueless. If that's a qualified IT professional they should get themselves back to school to understand the changes that Win8 brings to the table outside of the start screen (which is more a case of personal preference, but still has advantages over the start menu if you take the time to learn it.)

1GB? Try 512!

[Wakers]

Was it even as low as that?

What on Earth were they thinking?

[Anthonyd]

The only reason Vista was bad was because OEMs insisted on putting it on new computers with 1GB of RAM and single core (or really low end) dual core processors. They were also a bit generous with the recommended requirements, meaning everyone that was at that level complained about performance.

If you actually had a mid-high end PC it performed better than XP.

Still, we got something good out of that, MS really focused on streamlining Win 7 as a direct result.

And FYI, people who say that Win8 is only for tablets are clueless, utterly clueless. If that's a qualified IT professional they should get themselves back to school to understand the changes that Win8 brings to the table outside of the start screen (which is more a case of personal preference, but still has advantages over the start menu if you take the time to learn it.)

No, before SP1 Vista was terribad, especially on the I/O.

[Wakers]

It really wasn't. The I/O issue was fixed pretty quickly in a standard update. Of course the "norm" back then for people with "knowledge" was to disable updates and wait for a service pack so..

[.Neo]

Nice one, just decide what is right for other people. It's not because you don't like it others might not.

This is the reason Vista failed, some tech people didn't like it and just convinced everybody else it was crap. Even now I get people explaining complete BS about why Vista was so bad

Windows Vista failed because Microsoft screwed up royally during Windows Longhorn development. It was one big pile-up of delays and failure to properly implement features (WinFS anyone?). Then when Windows Vista was finally released - three years behind schedule - both Microsoft and OEMs made one mistake after another when it came to driver support and whatnot. Op top of that I remember there being a feeling of "Is that it?!", people were sort of underwhelmed by the end result. You also had the whole "Windows Vista capable" debacle; as it turned out many of those PCs only supported "Basic". Following that Windows Vista wasn't exactly a good fit for netbooks, leaving the aging Windows XP as the only option.

Promises were made Microsoft never lived up to. Same goes for the expectations many PC owners had. By the time most things were fixed it was too late. So it wasn't simply a question of some tech people who didn't like it. All of the above had a huge impact on Windows Vista's reputation.

[abysal]

Nice one, just decide what is right for other people. It's not because you don't like it others might not.

This is the reason Vista failed, some tech people didn't like it and just convinced everybody else it was crap. Even now I get people explaining complete BS about why Vista was so bad

I don't agree with everything that Win 8 is, but not letting people decide for them selves doesn't feel right. People should always have choice. Even if Microsoft decided to take some of that choice away from us in Win 8. At least people can decide if they want to stick with Win 7 or go with Win 8.

[Anthonyd]

It really wasn't. The I/O issue was fixed pretty quickly in a standard update. Of course the "norm" back then for people with "knowledge" was to disable updates and wait for a service pack so..

I never received that update before SP1, was it through WU ?

[Wakers]

Thats taxing my memory! Pretty sure it was fixed a while before sp1.

[MDboyz]

Name what in Windows 8 requires only touch that I cannot do with my mouse?

windows 3x and 95 still has the same basic user experience. Same type of UI. menu bars, etc. including the mouse being the main navigational tool.

Windows 8 has none of that and requires touch mostly, or a keyboard for shortcut keys. totally different.

So to keep passing off the complaints over windows 8 to being the same as the ones made over windows 95, xp, vista, 7, is just silly, because all those UIs were pretty much the same type of experience.

The UI is what it is today for a reason. Wasn't just some magical bunny that popped outta no where. It evolved to what it is by going through all these tests in the past, and what we ended up with is what worked and still does work best.

Metro might be great for touch, no one is denying that, but not on the desktop, and getting rid of what's already proven to work perfectly, and replacing it with something that simply does not, is just silly. and wrong,

Microsoft should've left the tradition desktop UI alone, and made a separate OS/UI for mobile/touch devices.