Reality check - Windows 8 was not made for you

[Steven P. Administrators]

I'll fully admit that you can't do that right now. Remember these apps are updatable. Windows Phone at first was missing quite a few things and had to play catch-up. You do realize that all of these apps are just that...apps. They can be updated, and will be updated over time.

Well in all fairness I and others didn't have a commodore 64 in the workplace, or run a company from it. Early home computing was expensive and still taking baby steps when it didn't have a mouse, or start menu and can't really be compared to today.

Windows 3.1 GUI couldn't so a lot of things due to limitations of the time (multi-tasking, overlapping windows etc) and hey we've gone back to forcing one app at a time on the screen (although you can snap one other to the right) sort of like how Windows 3.1 did it.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Reality check - Windows 8 was not made for you

Well no ****, Sherlock. I'd be even more unimpressed with it if it were made for me and this was the result.

"Hey Intrinsica, we made an OS just for you! See how it uses the touchscreen functions, and we've optimised it for a tablet device? How great is that?!!"

"I don't own a tablet, I own a desktop."

"Oh..."

[x-byte]

Pretty much. List some features that Windows 7 gained that Windows Vista didn't have that aren't UI related or under the hood "you never see them" changes.

Difficult isn't it? - Windows 8 has the same problem if you remove Metro. Not much there to drive me to upgrade. Windows 7 already works so great and fully utilises all my hardware. Maybe if Microsoft made some new desktop apps like Apple did with Lion and Mountain Lion I'd upgrade.

Don't upgrade then. No one is forcing you....

[nekkidtruth]

Like I said, don't use Modern apps then. You just have to accept that the Modern stuff is limited. It's not designed to integrate into the desktop app. Which makes sense. That would mean Modern apps could open other apps like the desktop does.

There are more to Win8 than that. So you say Win7 was just a skin upgrade from Vista?

It's so easy to say that though, isn't it? If you're going to think that way then you're now touching on "Why didn't Microsoft make the Modern stuff optional?".

[Shane Nokes]

I'm already customizing our images as required, hell, I've even singlehandedly deployed Windows 7 and Office 2010 to all of our 960 desktops (4 different hardware configurations and a myriad of application profiles), however most of the UI inconsistencies I've mentionned in Windows 8 Enterprise could AND should have been avoided, next to none of them are configurable via GPOs, a majority require manual registry editing, and many of them won't be configurable (the regional settings are a b****). Seeing the number of inconsistencies, it adds what most enterprises would consider too much of a burden on their IT dept.

Most users don't know how to, if you don't prepare that in advance, make sure you have a good support ticketing system.

Not to sound condescending (honest) but deployment to 960 machines isn't all that hard with only 4 different hardware configurations. You just create 4 base images, and then use scripts to deploy the apps over the network for the different app configurations.

The hard part is in making the images...but once you've done that it's just a matter of pulling the trigger when need be.

Also at this point most Enterprises are not even considering deploying Windows 8 this early in its lifespan. Most Enterprises don't do that until a couple years into the lifecycle to let the kinks get worked out. That's nothing new.

I'm not trying to say that people in this thread don't have some valid points, they do. However I still feel that most are forgetting how things go with EVERY OS upgrade cycle.

[andrewbares]

So you're saying the Modern Ui experience on a desktop is pointless (or unhelpful)? That's what we've been discussing :p

Problem is, there's no getting around some things, once you link your Microsoft ID with Windows 8, your contacts, messenger and everything is forced into the ModernUi apps. You can ignore them, sure.. but I'm still logged into 2 or 3 places at once on the same workstation! :p

...just don't use any of the Metro apps if you don't like them?

You're basically saying: "I hate McDonalds their burgers never taste good" but then you go there EVERY DAY even though you don't like them. And then you say "Well I could ignore them, but they're just right across the street from my house!"

[Vice]

Don't upgrade then. No one is forcing you....

I don't intend to? I was replying to your original comment where you told people to just disable metro. My point is, why pay money to upgrade to an OS only to disable the whole point of its existence. Just seems like wasting money.

[Arkos Reed]

I'll fully admit that you can't do that right now. Remember these apps are updatable. Windows Phone at first was missing quite a few things and had to play catch-up. You do realize that all of these apps are just that...apps. They can be updated, and will be updated over time.

I'm starting to see the issue now...you keep saying Modern UI, but almost every complaint you're making is about the apps...which I just addressed above. These are V1 apps...and are fully updatable. They aren't part of the OS, but were put there to give someone basic functionality. Remember that your average user isn't going to see any of this in the state it's in now. GA is still a ways off, and everything in the apps is updatable.

When I see how long it took them to implement basic tasks like copy/paste, screenshots and whatnot in WP8, I'm genuinely worried for early WinRT users. On the Windows 8 front, Metro apps may be updated in the future and for now the desktop will fill the functionnality gap, however, knowing how microsoft works, anything outside Metro won't be touched at all, afaik they've never changed anything UI-wise with service packs. (our CTO and I really think they are walking on their heads with this release...) And then come the Blue rumors...

[x-byte]

It's so easy to say that though, isn't it? If you're going to think that way then you're now touching on "Why didn't Microsoft make the Modern stuff optional?".

Because they are unifying their software across devices.

[Shane Nokes]

Well in all fairness I and others didn't have a commodore 64 in the workplace, or run a company from it. Early home computing was expensive and still taking baby steps when it didn't have a mouse, or start menu and can't really be compared to today.

Windows 3.1 GUI couldn't so a lot of things due to limitations of the time (multi-tasking, overlapping windows etc) and hey we've gone back to forcing one app at a time on the screen (although you can snap one other to the right) sort of like how Windows 3.1 did it.

Indeed, but many did have 286's, and those were almost all handled via keyboard exclusively until fairly late in their lifecycle, whether your talking business or home.

Have you read any of the old comments from some VERY well known tech writers as regards GUI & Mouse interactions? Most of them called it a joke & were very pessimistic about the chances of success of such gimmicky useless items. ;)

[Steven P. Administrators]

Indeed, but many did have 286's, and those were almost all handled via keyboard exclusively until fairly late in their lifecycle, whether your talking business or home.

Have you read any of the old comments from some VERY well known tech writers as regards GUI & Mouse interactions? Most of them called it a joke & were very pessimistic about the chances of success of such gimmicky useless items. ;)

I don't disagree with that, my whole point is that Microsoft is pretty much forcing two environments on desktop users, a needless Modern UI environment which you can't escape from at all, you still need the Start Screen for example.

I'm just saying the implementation is poor, and it feels like they really have only looked to touch input exclusively for this release. I think we can agree that touch input for workstations isn't going to be the norm (yet) for some time?

[Shane Nokes]

When I see how long it took them to implement basic tasks like copy/paste, screenshots and whatnot in WP8, I'm genuinely worried for early WinRT users. On the Windows 8 front, Metro apps may be updated in the future and for now the desktop will fill the functionnality gap, however, knowing how microsoft works, anything outside Metro won't be touched at all, afaik they've never changed anything UI-wise with service packs. (our CTO and I really think they are walking on their heads with this release...) And then come the Blue rumors...

Copy/Paste was in the very first update to Windows Phone 7. They didn't wait until Windows Phone 8. It's been in there since almost the beginning. Screenshots was something they considered low-priority, until they changed directions and based WP8 off Win8 and were able to make it easier to add in by default.

I mean come on. I have no issues debating, but I want to at least have the debate be based on how things really are...

Also why would you worry about WinRT users? It's an ARM based platform which means standard x86-64 code won't execute there anyways. Their primary interface WILL be Metro. RT devices are pretty much tablets to be honest. I think of them as like being the iPad. Useful but not meant to be a PC replacement.

[x-byte]

I don't intend to? I was replying to your original comment where you told people to just disable metro. My point is, why pay money to upgrade to an OS only to disable the whole point of its existence. Just seems like wasting money.

There are a lot of improvements to the core and integration to online services. For enterprise you got Windows to Go and other great features.

If you are looking just at Modern UI for the upgrade, sure there isn't much there to support an upgrade. I'm just saying you should not upgrade because there is a new product. You should check if the upgrade is for you and if it is worth the money.

[JaredFrost]

Because they are unifying their software across devices.

Having the same UI across devices with different inputs and overall functions isn't a good idea

Hopefully they'll learn this.

[Shane Nokes]

I don't disagree with that, my whole point is that Microsoft is pretty much forcing two environments on desktop users, a needless Modern UI environment which you can't escape from at all, you still need the Start Screen for example.

I'm just saying the implementation is poor, and it feels like they really have only looked to touch input exclusively for this release. I think we can agree that touch input for workstations in't going to be the norm (yet) for some time?

That's why I brought up Windows 3.11 and Windows 95. That's essentially what happened to users there. They were forced into having to use 2 very different environments.

A lot of apps written for 3.11 and 95 were still entirely DOS apps. They would launch you into a completely different environment, and it was 'jarring' to move back and forth between the 2 environments at first.

Over time developers started optimizing and targeting their apps towards the Win32 platform and that's when Windows applications really started to shine. Think of this as that sort of step all over again.

Right now Modern is Windows 95. It's a huge change, and sometimes you get kicked out of that newer UI back to what you've known before, and then jolted back in...but over time as developers figure out how to program for this new UI it will happen less and less often.

I agree that touch input is not yet the norm for workstations. Heck I have 0 touch input on my desktop, and I figured out within a couple days how to make everything work. I found all of it and haven't had any issues navigating and the most experience I had with Windows 8 before this last week was the Dev Preview being used for 2 or 3 days before I was pffft and stopped using it. Everything I do is with a mouse and keyboard...100% of it.

Having the same UI across devices with different inputs and overall functions isn't a good idea

Hopefully they'll learn this.

That's why each behaves in a slightly different manner, but with a similar look. I can't use a mouse/keyboard with Windows Phone 7, but I can with my PC.

The concept isn't to make everything exactly the same, but to provide a consistent look and feel. I can walk in and use my Xbox, my Windows Phone, and my PC and have things behave in a consistent manner.

[andrewbares]

Having the same UI across devices with different inputs and overall functions isn't a good idea

Hopefully they'll learn this.

I would disagree, I think it's a great idea.

Google did this with Android (they've unified the tablet and phone UI with 4.0)

Apple did this long ago with iOS.

Microsoft is now blazing the way bringing it to the desktop. They already brought it to Xbox.

This increases brand recognition and helps people see "Oh hey that's just like my phone!" and makes it easier for people to use their products, thus enticing users to buy more Microsoft instead of any other company.

[x-byte]

Having the same UI across devices with different inputs and overall functions isn't a good idea

Hopefully they'll learn this.

Hopefully not, I like it. Windows Phone and Windows 8 on desktop and tablet will be great!

[Arkos Reed]

Not to sound condescending (honest) but deployment to 960 machines isn't all that hard with only 4 different hardware configurations. You just create 4 base images, and then use scripts to deploy the apps over the network for the different app configurations.

The hard part is in making the images...but once you've done that it's just a matter of pulling the trigger when need be.

Also at this point most Enterprises are not even considering deploying Windows 8 this early in its lifespan. Most Enterprises don't do that until a couple years into the lifecycle to let the kinks get worked out. That's nothing new.

I'm not trying to say that people in this thread don't have some valid points, they do. However I still feel that most are forgetting how things go with EVERY OS upgrade cycle.

FYI, It was done with a single Image, and fully automated once all the processes were in place (this includes remote bios flash/configuration of all 4 platforms).

Regarding WP8, yea, just a typo/brain fart, I meant WP7.

When it comes to WinRT, that's exactly my point, they'll be locked within Metro, and seeing how they can be slow at fixing things sometimes once RTM has hit, early adopters are gonna suffer.

[Steven P. Administrators]

snip

I don't think we're going to agree on this. How is bringing a Touch UI to a workstation an advancement when (in general) those features don't exist, or are even wanted?

[Shane Nokes]

FYI, It was done with a single Image, and fully automated once all the processes were in place (this includes remote bios flash/configuration of all 4 platforms).

Regarding WP8, yea, just a typo/brain fart, I meant WP7.

When it comes to WinRT, that's exactly my point, they'll be locked within Metro, and seeing how they can be slow at fixing things sometimes once RTM has hit, early adopters are gonna suffer.

Nice. I've never tried to set things up with a single image for different hardware profiles before. I just always make a different image when there's a small number of machines. When it's a huge number of different models I just use a vanilla image and use scripts to deploy drivers & changes unique to each type.

With WinRT being locked in Modern was sort of the point I feel. The Desktop mode is there for a few things, but it's mostly meant to be a Modern UI showcase.

Also they are fairly quick about updating apps. I get updates all the time for apps on my Windows Phone. Since they released Windows Phone in 2010 there have been numerous updates, including the more well known releases of NoDo, Mango, & Tango.

Here's a small list of the updates they've released since WP came out at the end of 2010: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsphone/en-us/howto/wp7/basics/update-history.aspx

That's not even all of them as some of my phones have had other OS releases on them. My Lumia 900 for example has 8779 which is not even on that list.

So in about 1.5 years they've had 3 fairly decent sized updates, and numerous other small updates, and near constant app updates improving the experience. The Xbox 360 gets updates every 6-12 months that often changes a TON of functionality and adds features.

If anything since around 2006 MS have been nothing but fast about making changes and making things better. They even did this with Zune, even though that product was largely ignored which is a shame. I love my Zunes.

I don't think we're going to agree on this. How is bringing a Touch UI to a workstation an advancement when (in general) those features don't exist, or are even wanted?

We might not agree, but that's the awesome thing, we don't have to ;)

I don't view it as a Touch UI. I've never even used Windows 8 on a touch screen device. My only interaction has still been through mouse and keyboard. In fact every response to you has been done through IE 10 Modern. I have multiple tabs open in it that I switch between, and I even have Firefox open on the Desktop mode for some other stuff I do.

I'm keeping up with all my e-mails, all my messages, chatting with everyone here in threads, playing some games on Facebook, listening to music, and researching recipes all right now as I'm typing this. :)

[ZombieFly]

Having worked in IT for quite some time, having owned my own PC building & repair business, and having worked at MS I think I qualify as a power user. I manage to do everything just fine...

I mean can you tell me what doesn't work? Click start (just like you could before) and start typing what you're looking for. It sorts it into categories so that you can find what you're looking for easier. Need Powershell? It's there. Need the registry? It's there. Need to use desktop? Win+D

Need easy access to your 'power tools', mouse down to the bottom left, when you see the start tile show up right click, it's all there.

What's missing?

i never said anything was missing. If i am using a desktop, i don't want to be switching to a huge over sized cumbersome mess of a full screen start menu that has different visuals, navigation and basically smacks you in the eyes every time it opens. All those years of refining the taskbar and start menu, not once did I hear anyone say "hey this is all wrong, what we need is a 50ft display screen that looks nothing like anything else and requires the user to jarringly switch between 2 completely different interfaces, one which was cleary designed for a different input method to the one you are using". If anyone had have said this, obviously, it wouldn't have got anywhere.

but now, here it is. And more alarmingly, so called "power users" think this is an acceptable change. No. frankly it isnt. The desktop should have remained a desktop, optionally, you should be able to set the interface to better suit the device you are running on. The 2 should not be combined. the only reason they are currently is to retain some kind of compatiblity in this early version. MS have already said that it isn't staying, so don't you see.... you are supporting your own demise. "oh yes i like this" will soon be replaced by "where has the desktop gone?"... it's going. what you have here is nothing more than a charade, a misconception. If you buy into this now in it's current form, you'll regret it later.

to re-iterate, yes, there is a need for a windows tablet OS, but not at the cost of the desktop. I have no desire to give that up any time soon.

[FiB3R]

I don't disagree with that, my whole point is that Microsoft is pretty much forcing two environments on desktop users, a needless Modern UI environment which you can't escape from at all, you still need the Start Screen for example.

I'm just saying the implementation is poor, and it feels like they really have only looked to touch input exclusively for this release. I think we can agree that touch input for workstations isn't going to be the norm (yet) for some time?

We have the technology, Mr Bond.

Make a regular user account, i.e. not using your Live details. That takes care of the ###### "modern" apps getting on your nips.

Install a start screen replacement app.

You probably knew that, but from your reply, I wasn't sure. But you are right, forcing two environments on desktop users sucks, and the implementation is poor.

[Steven P. Administrators]

We have the technology, Mr Bond.

Make a regular user account, i.e. not using your Live details. That takes care of the ###### "modern" apps getting on your nips.

Install a start screen replacement app.

You probably knew that, but from your reply, I wasn't sure. But you are right, forcing two environments on desktop users sucks, and the implementation is poor.

Yeah I did know that thanks lol :p

As I said though, I'm giving Windows 8 a try out of the box, like it was intended (you're asked for your Microsoft ID during setup) and there are advantages to having it linked.

[ZombieFly]

We have the technology, Mr Bond.

Make a regular user account, i.e. not using your Live details. That takes care of the ###### "modern" apps getting on your nips.

Install a start screen replacement app.

You probably knew that, but from your reply, I wasn't sure. But you are right, forcing two environments on desktop users sucks, and the implementation is poor.

you don't see what's wrong here? the fix for using microsoft's new direction is to avoid the default user account setup and bypass the MAIN FEATURES of the new OS with a 3rd party tool to emulate what it did before? YOU DON'T SEE? jesus

:D

[Shane Nokes]

i never said anything was missing. If i am using a desktop, i don't want to be switching to a huge over sized cumbersome mess of a full screen start menu that has different visuals, navigation and basically smacks you in the eyes every time it opens. All those years of refining the taskbar and start menu, not once did I hear anyone say "hey this is all wrong, what we need is a 50ft display screen that looks nothing like anything else and requires the user to jarringly switch between 2 completely different interfaces, one which was cleary designed for a different input method to the one you are using". If anyone had have said this, obviously, it wouldn't have got anywhere.

but now, here it is. And more alarmingly, so called "power users" think this is an acceptable change. No. frankly it isnt. The desktop should have remained a desktop, optionally, you should be able to set the interface to better suit the device you are running on. The 2 should not be combined. the only reason they are currently is to retain some kind of compatiblity in this early version. MS have already said that it isn't staying, so don't you see.... you are supporting your own demise. "oh yes i like this" will soon be replaced by "where has the desktop gone?"... it's going. what you have here is nothing more than a charade, a misconception. If you buy into this now in it's current form, you'll regret it later.

to re-iterate, yes, there is a need for a windows tablet OS, but not at the cost of the desktop. I have no desire to give that up any time soon.

As I stated before, sure they did. It was called Windows 3.11 and Windows 95. Don't you remember the switch between full-mode DOS applications and Win32 apps? It would jump you back and forth between modes where you could use a mouse and keyboard, or just the keyboard...unless the app had specific coding to let a mouse work.

This is nothing new. UI paradigms and how we interact with them evolve over time. We've just gotten used to this one for so long that most of us are resistant to change. Change happens. I personally like the direction we're moving in, and yes even if that means the desktop interface going away.

You do realize that the desktop metaphor was always supposed to be very temporary and MS has been trying to do away with it for almost 20 years right? They've been researching NUI options for a VERY long time. They finally just found a method they like.