windows 8 Do you like or hate Windows 8?

[.Neo]

I just noticed Windows Vista styled Basic + Aero windows are still present in the Windows 8 RTM installer. Microsoft really doesn't give a rats ass about providing a remotely coherent user experience.

[f0rk_b0mb]

^ That's what bugs me the most. I don't mind Metro, however, I'll wait until Windows 9 or even Windows 10 when it is more polished.

[.Neo]

^ That's what bugs me the most. I don't mind Metro, however, I'll wait until Windows 9 or even Windows 10 when it is more polished.

What makes you think Windows 9 will suddenly be different than all previous versions of Windows? I'm finding it admirable you still have hope things will change.

[Jolo]

Really, I can't believe it that MS didn't come with a way to SWITCH betweet a Start Screen and a Start Menu (with the button always on top). It was so simple, so easy to provide, and, we would be all happy; this was the same on Windows XP, where you could choose bewteen old and new Menu.

The MAIN problem here is the Start Menu v/s Start Screen.

Jolo.

[MorganX]

^ That's what bugs me the most. I don't mind Metro, however, I'll wait until Windows 9 or even Windows 10 when it is more polished.

I can't tell you what you will or won't do, but my guess is many like you will wait until there is a compelling Windows 8 app before they upgrade. And then they will as the desktop environment is still there and the Start Page annoyances are relatively minor; Some moreso than others but the speed and stability make it a worthy upgrade IMO (Which has evolved with lengthy use of the RP from hate to pretty dang good, with minor inconsistencies and annoyances and total lack of Windows 8 Apps worth discussing at this time.)

[xWhiplash]

Really, I can't believe it that MS didn't come with a way to SWITCH betweet a Start Screen and a Start Menu (with the button always on top). It was so simple, so easy to provide, and, we would be all happy; this was the same on Windows XP, where you could choose bewteen old and new Menu.

The MAIN problem here is the Start Menu v/s Start Screen.

Jolo.

But...but...but there were technical reasons why the start menu was removed!!!

I agree. This is a very inconsistent OS. Booting straight to the desktop will not make it more inconsistant. When we start Windows 7, is the start menu open by default? Why should the start screen be open by default then? How is it inconsistent to boot directly to the desktop?

[FloatingFatMan]

Because we can't build every option imaginable, and such an option would just create inconsistency and confusion. Start is, well, where you start. Besides, nobody reboots anymore. So it's a moot point.

HAHAHAH!! No. Sorry, that's just complete and utter nonsense. Sorry Brandon, but it is. I think you'll find that most households (the ones without geeks at least, which IS most), turn their computers OFF when they're finished with them. Even I do.

I have a question for you, Brandon. I don't hate the new UI.. It's OK, though I question its usefulness on the desktop, but what I want to know is, WHY get rid of the start BUTTON on the desktop? It's really not intuitive at ALL to have an invisible one in the Charms bar. Make it still go to the Start screen by all means, but no button on the desktop is just... monumentally daft IMO.

[Guest Sasa_RI]

HAHAHAH!! No. Sorry, that's just complete and utter nonsense. Sorry Brandon, but it is. I think you'll find that most households (the ones without geeks at least, which IS most), turn their computers OFF when they're finished with them. Even I do.

I have a question for you, Brandon. I don't hate the new UI.. It's OK, though I question its usefulness on the desktop, but what I want to know is, WHY get rid of the start BUTTON on the desktop? It's really not intuitive at ALL to have an invisible one in the Charms bar. Make it still go to the Start screen by all means, but no button on the desktop is just... monumentally daft IMO.

To force people to use and adapt to Metro and buy more Apps and WP8. Money.

[xWhiplash]

HAHAHAH!! No. Sorry, that's just complete and utter nonsense. Sorry Brandon, but it is. I think you'll find that most households (the ones without geeks at least, which IS most), turn their computers OFF when they're finished with them. Even I do.

I have a question for you, Brandon. I don't hate the new UI.. It's OK, though I question its usefulness on the desktop, but what I want to know is, WHY get rid of the start BUTTON on the desktop? It's really not intuitive at ALL to have an invisible one in the Charms bar. Make it still go to the Start screen by all means, but no button on the desktop is just... monumentally daft IMO.

I agree. Everybody I know that are not geeks say "You leave your computer on all the time?!"

[Dot Matrix]

So why does the programmer have to deal with the Metrified start menu? With Metrified wifi connection utilities? Metrified 'what would you like to do with this device you just plugged in' dialogs? etc.

And what about the sysadmin? How are you supposed to monitor 20-100 servers simultaneously using Metro?

There is nothing wrong with the Start Screen. There is nothing with the Start Screen that is going to screw up your programming.

[xWhiplash]

There is nothing wrong with the Start Screen. There is nothing with the Start Screen that is going to screw up your programming.

The point he is making, if we are in our desktop mode the entire lifetime of the OS, why do we need to be forced to be thrown into metro interfaces?

Even in desktop mode without going to the start screen, we are forced to use metro. Want to connect to a wireless network and there is only one available? Well your entire vertical screen space is taken up by a metro bar for just one connection.

Guess what, in Windows Vista/7, if you have one wireless connection you get a smaller window. If you have two, you get a slightly larger window. If there are three, you get an even bigger window. OMG They can make windows expand? There is NO reason why the metro network connections needs to be 100% in height. None...at...all. More time for the mouse to travel.

[Dot Matrix]

The point he is making, if we are in our desktop mode the entire lifetime of the OS, why do we need to be forced to be thrown into metro interfaces?

Even in desktop mode without going to the start screen, we are forced to use metro. Want to connect to a wireless network and there is only one available? Well your entire vertical screen space is taken up by a metro bar for just one connection.

Guess what, in Windows Vista/7, if you have one wireless connection you get a smaller window. If you have two, you get a slightly larger window. If there are three, you get an even bigger window. OMG They can make windows expand? There is NO reason why the metro network connections needs to be 100% in height. None...at...all. More time for the mouse to travel.

Look for more of that in Windows 9. Sorry, but Windows is changing. Not sure why it's so hard to use a Metro window, one that doesn't even take up the whole screen, but Windows 8 is Metro Modern. It's step 1 in a Modern transformation.

[WinMunkee]

Not sure if anyone has noticed yet, but I love it.

[MorganX]

The point he is making, if we are in our desktop mode the entire lifetime of the OS, why do we need to be forced to be thrown into metro interfaces?

Even in desktop mode without going to the start screen, we are forced to use metro. Want to connect to a wireless network and there is only one available? Well your entire vertical screen space is taken up by a metro bar for just one connection.

Guess what, in Windows Vista/7, if you have one wireless connection you get a smaller window. If you have two, you get a slightly larger window. If there are three, you get an even bigger window. OMG They can make windows expand? There is NO reason why the metro network connections needs to be 100% in height. None...at...all. More time for the mouse to travel.

Not to dismiss your valid discontent and irritation, but that's all this is, minor annoyance and irritation. Go for it, you'll be glad you did and you'll get over it.

[(Spork)]

can't say i hate it

cant say i like it

[PGHammer]

Yes, and that's Sinofsky's official line, too, that Windows 8 is "no-compromise". So if the desktop and Metro UIs are supposed to be co-equals, why does it feel like that the desktop is supposed to play second fiddle to Metro, hm?

Why can't we boot straight to the desktop? Why can't we have a desktop-friendly app launcher? Why are notifications and network controls in Metro? Why are some of the control panel UI Metro-only? Why is the desktop completely crippled on the ARM architecture? Why are users forced to perform UI acrobatics just to get an option between shut down, sleep and hibernate (yes, I can hit Alt-F4 when the taskbar as the active window to access a shutdown menu without ever seeing Metro, but that's not exactly very discoverable, is it?)

The official line and the actions taken by Microsoft seem to be at odds with each other.

So much for working well out-of-the-box, huh? So the best way to use Windows 8 is to spend time to work around all the user experience "enhancements", hm?

Because a lot of users are used to the desktop being either the big dog or even the ONLY dog - and they have no wish OR desire to move away from it.

However, the critics - while saying that - by and large refuse to admit it. They refuse to admit that not only that they don't like the idea of a mixed-UI operating system, I honestly think that while some of them may actually like tablets, they simply don't like the idea of tablets (or a tablet OS) based on Windows.

[Stoffel]

Anybody noticed more and more people are coming around after giving it a second try.

If you voted that you hated it and have come around now, could you change your vote? Just to see how people feel now.

I still love it, can't wait until the 26th

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I just noticed Windows Vista styled Basic + Aero windows are still present in the Windows 8 RTM installer. Microsoft really doesn't give a rats ass about providing a remotely coherent user experience.

Only in the legacy enterprise / OEM installer which hasn't changed at all for Win8. The installer that 99% of people see (i.e. people doing upgrades, or cleaning installing from an existing installation) is totally new for Win8.

[BajiRav]

I just noticed Windows Vista styled Basic + Aero windows are still present in the Windows 8 RTM installer. Microsoft really doesn't give a rats ass about providing a remotely coherent user experience.

Why bother about an installer most people won't see more than once in 8's lifetime? :/ There are other bigger UI issues that they didn't touch, installer is probably pretty much same as 7 :D

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

Why bother about an installer most people won't see more than once in 8's lifetime?

This attitude is exactly the problem. *sigh* :/

[Brandon Live Veteran]

HAHAHAH!! No. Sorry, that's just complete and utter nonsense. Sorry Brandon, but it is. I think you'll find that most households (the ones without geeks at least, which IS most), turn their computers OFF when they're finished with them. Even I do.

The vast majority of PCs today are mobile (i.e. laptops, and increasingly, tablet). It is very rare for anyone to shutdown mobile machines. Most of them you just close and let them go to sleep.

Even desktops, by and large, are rarely shutdown. Obviously some people do it, but not enough that 2-3 clicks is too difficult.

I have a question for you, Brandon. I don't hate the new UI.. It's OK, though I question its usefulness on the desktop, but what I want to know is, WHY get rid of the start BUTTON on the desktop? It's really not intuitive at ALL to have an invisible one in the Charms bar. Make it still go to the Start screen by all means, but no button on the desktop is just... monumentally daft IMO.

That reasoning has been discussed in depth on the B8 blog.

For most people (all but the few who moved their taskbars), the Start button still works exactly the same as before. You throw your mouse into the lower-left corner and click. Having it appear only on the desktop (the way it did in early builds) made the system inconsistent and harder to learn. A lot of usability studies went into the new model, and found that having a consistent way to get to Start from anywhere in the system was much more important than having a visual affordance that's only there some of the time (which makes you think you can only use it some of the time).

Personally, I also thought that having it there made it feel like Start was "anchored" on the taskbar which was a weird inversion of the model. Desktop is anchored in Start via the desktop tile, just as apps are. This felt a lot more coherent, in my opinion, when the pearl was removed.

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .]

Having it appear only on the desktop (the way it did in early builds) made the system inconsistent and harder to learn. A lot of usability studies went into the new model, and found that having a consistent way to get to Start from anywhere in the system was much more important than having a visual affordance that's only there some of the time (which makes you think you can only use it some of the time).

Personally, I also thought that having it there made it feel like Start was "anchored" on the taskbar which was a weird inversion of the model. Desktop is anchored in Start via the desktop tile, just as apps are. This felt a lot more coherent, in my opinion, when the pearl was removed.

This. This is how I've always thought of it, since the pearl was removed, and I'm glad to see someone from the Windows team attest my thoughts.

[Dot Matrix]

Ugh. Is it October yet? Why do we still have to wait so long from RTM to get the final build? TechNet/MSDN(AA)/Developer downloads should open up in the first week, Microsoft Software Assurance Customers the second week, Microsoft Partner Network the third week, and everyone else/Digital GA/GA on the fourth. It's 2012, and we're still crawling at a snail's pace for delivery. :/ I know we're waiting on retail GA, but at least you could open up digital downloads for those that are going that route.

[Calum Veteran]

Ugh. Is it October yet? Why do we still have to wait so long from RTM to get the final build? TechNet/MSDN(AA)/Developer downloads should open up in the first week, Microsoft Software Assurance Customers the second week, Microsoft Partner Network the third week, and everyone else/Digital GA/GA on the fourth. It's 2012, and we're still crawling at a snail's pace for delivery. :/ I know we're waiting on retail GA, but at least you could open up digital downloads for those that are going that route.

Before I agree with you on this, I'd like to hear the reasons as to why they don't. If it's possible for them to do all of that without them losing out then I certainly agree.

[BajiRav]

Before I agree with you on this, I'd like to hear the reasons as to why they don't. If it's possible for them to do all of that without them losing out then I certainly agree.

I'd guess they want a "launch" and the OEMs can't be ready this fast after RTM to have new systems ready with the launch.

This time there is additional factor of the store. I think they will have enough apps by October.