Windows 8: The Boldest, Biggest Redesign in MS's History

[phailyoor]

Touchscreens are found on more than just tablets.

Fixed..

Ah. Sacrifice and accept suffering for the greater good. I cannot have a better experience on my computer using my mouse! ALL input methods must be regarded as EQUALS! NONE shall be better than any other. And after you overthrow all of the bourgeois KB+ mouse users, we shall have a leadership of the 10'' proletariat. We must sacrifice for the mother UI! We are all soldiers of the touchscreen army!

[Calum Veteran]

Again, usable is defined by the end user. If the user doesn't think the software is usable then it isn't usable. Since what is usable is defined by the user you have a sliding scale of what constitutes usable software.

Well that just sounds ridiculous to me then, for the reason I've stated: Following your belief, someone could state that Windows 8 isn't usable because it doesn't make them breakfast in bed and because it doesn't feed their cat, and you'd have to agree with them that it isn't usable. That just sounds absurd to me.

If Windows 8 can be used for its intended purpose, it's usable, to me. Other people can state what they'd like, but I'll continue to defend its usability, considering it's perfectly usable for what the developers intended.

[Dot Matrix]

Fixed..

Ah. Sacrifice and accept suffering for the greater good. I cannot have a better experience on my computer using my mouse! ALL input methods must be regarded as EQUALS! NONE shall be better than any other. And after you overthrow all of the bourgeois KB+ mouse users, we shall have a leadership of the 10'' proletariat. We must sacrifice for the mother UI! We are all soldiers of the touchscreen army!

Ok, So you admit there are new technologies on the market? So why should Microsoft continue to ignore them?

[phailyoor]

Well that just sounds ridiculous to me then.

If Windows 8 can be used for its intended purpose, it's usable, to me. Other people can state what they'd like, but I'll continue to defend its usability, considering it's perfectly usable for what the developers intended.

I made an OS called Phail OS.??Its sole use is to use electricity, though not quite as fast as some of those stress testing programs.??It's just as usable as windows 8.??I also made a programming language called WTHCode, based off of LOLCode, brainf*ck, and malebolge.??It's perfectly useable for what I intended it for.

Ok, So you admit there are new technologies on the market? So why should Microsoft continue to ignore them?

That does not change the fact that Metro is unusable. Yes, MS should pursue new technologies. That does not change the fact that said pursuit led to the release of something known as "metro" which is utterly unusable.

[Calum Veteran]

I made an OS called Phail OS. Its sole use is to use electricity, though not quite as fast as some of those stress testing programs. It's just as usable as windows 8. I also made a programming language called WTHCode, based off of LOLCode, brainf*ck, and malebolge. It's perfectly useable for what I intended it for.

They're usable, but they're perhaps not suitable for the user, considering what the user is after.

People seem to be confusing usability with suitability, in my opinion.

Going off what LogicalApex is saying, nothing is usable. A shopping trolley isn't usable because it doesn't allow one to fly. A television isn't usable because it doesn't allow one to teleport. A door handle isn't usable because it doesn't make the room on the other side look like Narnia. . . .

[phailyoor]

They're usable, but they're perhaps not suitable for the user, considering what the user is after.

People seem to be confusing usability with suitability, in my opinion.

Going off what LogicalApex is saying, nothing is usable. A shopping trolley isn't usable because it doesn't allow one to fly. A television isn't usable because it doesn't allow one to teleport. A door handle isn't usable because it doesn't make the room on the other side look like Narnia. . . .

Noted.??How about we say that when we say "usability," we mean "useability for the intended purpose of allowing a user to launch applications, multitask, produce and consume content, and communicate with others"?

[Calum Veteran]

Noted. How about we say that when we say "usability," we mean "useability for the intended purpose of allowing a user to launch applications, multitask, produce and consume content, and communicate with others"?

That makes sense to me. But all of that can easily be done in the "Metro" experience of Windows 8, which means it's usable :)

[Dot Matrix]

Noted. How about we say that when we say "usability," we mean "useability for the intended purpose of allowing a user to launch applications, multitask, produce and consume content, and communicate with others"?

But, Metro can easily do all those things. I can pin and launch my apps from Start, I can multitask by quickly tabbing through open apps either by mousing to them on the right side, or by the classic ALT-TAB, I can produce notes with Evernote, and OneNote MX, I can draw using Fresh Paint, I can make appointments using Calendar, I can send an e-mail using Mail, I can upload an app using SkyDrive, I can compose a tweet using MetroTwit, talk on Skype, etc.... and I can easily consume content using any app you wish to name here.

So where's your proof you can't do these things?

[phailyoor]

But, Metro can easily do all those things. I can pin and launch my apps from Start, I can multitask by quickly tabbing through open apps either by mousing to them on the right side, or by the classic ALT-TAB, I can produce notes with Evernote, and OneNote MX, I can draw using Fresh Paint, I can make appointments using Calendar, I can send an e-mail using Mail, I can upload an app using SkyDrive, I can compose a tweet using MetroTwit, talk on Skype, etc.... and I can easily consume content using any app you wish to name here.

So where's your proof you can't do these things?

No true multitasking-cannot run things in the background(except for MS approved things built into the Runtime APIs).??Example:video encoding in background

Hidden controls-cannot quickly perform different manipulations on content.??Example:Photoshop

2-visible app limit-only one actually gets enough space to be useful

Well, that's about it, not mentioning mouse specific issues.??If MS fixed these issues, I would be on board.??Maybe they should try putting the apps into rectangles that the user can resize and move around, and add some sort of "minimize" feature so that an app can run something in the background without getting in the way....

[Dot Matrix]

No true multitasking-cannot run things in the background(except for MS approved things built into the Runtime APIs). Example:video encoding in background

Hidden controls-cannot quickly perform different manipulations on content. Example:Photoshop

Give it time, and Metro will be able to do those. That'll be after the desktop is done away with, and devices adapt to the new Windows paradigm.

[@Leo]

People attempting serious discussion with Dot Matrix... :laugh:

Just take a look at this thread. Enough said. :laugh:

[phailyoor]

Give it time, and Metro will be able to do those. That'll be after the desktop is done away with, and devices adapt to the new Windows paradigm.

Give it time, and Phail OS will feature creep into being able to do all of those things too.

[Dot Matrix]

People attempting serious discussion with Dot Matrix... :laugh:

Just take a look at this thread. Enough said. :laugh:

And? What's your point? When the right click menu disappears in the future, what are you going to do?

[@Leo]

Mock you regardless.

[Dot Matrix]

Mock you regardless.

:spell:

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Well that just sounds ridiculous to me then, for the reason I've stated: Following your belief, someone could state that Windows 8 isn't usable because it doesn't make them breakfast in bed and because it doesn't feed their cat, and you'd have to agree with them that it isn't usable. That just sounds absurd to me.

If Windows 8 can be used for its intended purpose, it's usable, to me. Other people can state what they'd like, but I'll continue to defend its usability, considering it's perfectly usable for what the developers intended.

Yes someone could say that and it would be true. Microsoft would then respond that they aren't a target user... Why is this hard to understand?

The needle for usability is pushed by both the intended user and the developer. This is why feedback is so important to developers! They have a view of their target user and what they will find easy to use and they adjust it as the users tell them their story.

Every application has a target user group and it is intended to be easy for that group.

This is why we have Photoshop CS and Photoshop Elements, for example. Both can manipulate images, but they have different target groups and each group will not find the other's app easy to use.

This really shouldn't be this hard to understand.

[remixedcat]

And? What's your point? When the right click menu disappears in the future, what are you going to do?

He's gonna explode!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!

[BajiRav]

Something tells me you would defend Microsoft to the death even if they made getting to the Control Panel a 15 step process that also involved moving the mouse cursor all over the screen.

Getting to control panel is actually faster in Windows 8. I know that wasn't your point but just saying.

What's your point. For each of the things you described earlier, the metro implementation is inferior to what would be seen on the desktop. It's worse. I can prove it. Do you want me to count exactly how many extra pixels I have to more the mouse, and how many extra clicks I have to make, and then time it to prove that it takes longer? It works. It's worse. Measurably and provably worse.

Sure, I'd like to know that. Please go ahead and provide numbers where metro is "measurably and provably worse".

Here are my points where I think metro is better (without serious thinking)

- Switching between two apps (in focus and last used) is faster

- Metro App switcher is faster than default taskbar for mouse if your cursor resides in upper half of the screen

- Closing apps to free CPU (because you don't need to close apps)

- Pause playback on metro video player (just hit start)

- Apps provide more than just count on their current status

[Dot Matrix]

Windows 8 is no less than a major new mobile platform that accomplishes two things. First, it provides the software giant with a platform that's vastly superior, out of the gate, to the two platforms that currently dominate this market: Apple iOS (running on the iPad) and Google Android OS. Second, it brings with it the previous Windows desktop platform and (for the most part) all the compatibility that platform provides: desktop applications, utilities, hardware drivers, and so on.

Windows 8 also brings with it all the problems of the Windows desktop (or what we previously thought of simply as Windows). The complexity. The insecurity. The unreliability. The legacy deadwood?software that's still stuck in there because Microsoft has always cared more about backward compatibility than anything else. (No customer left behind!)

- Paul Thurrott

Glad to know I'm not the only Windows fan out there who thinks it needed to change. I agree with the last quoted paragraph above. Also, this:

Change Happens

Windows 8 is the start of a revolution. It's exciting and forward leaning. Yes, it's different, but get over it: We made the transition from keyboard and command line to mouse and GUI. We can make this transition, too. In fact, rather than dread it, we should be embracing it wholeheartedly. With Windows 8?and Windows RT?Microsoft is giving us the best of both worlds.

[simplezz]

I'd be interested to see the return rates and downgrade rates for new Windows 8 PC's shipping.

[Dot Matrix]

I'd be interested to see the return rates and downgrade rates for new Windows 8 PC's shipping.

That's not representative of anything. Almost no one "returns" an OS or a PC unless there is a problem with it physically. And businesses downgrading is a part of normal everyday operations, not because they're abandoning ship.

[Calum Veteran]

Yes someone could say that and it would be true. Microsoft would then respond that they aren't a target user... Why is this hard to understand?

[. . .]

If they aren't the target user, the problem is that the product is not suitable for the task the user would like to achieve; the problem isn't that the product isn't usable. This is what I've been trying to communicate to you. It isn't hard for me to understand; please don't try to misrepresent my ability to understand, by terribly trying to suggest that I can't understand something simple, just because you don't seem to understand the situation. Please, let's be civil here and have a polite discussion until we come to a conclusion.

[. . .]

The needle for usability is pushed by both the intended user and the developer. This is why feedback is so important to developers! They have a view of their target user and what they will find easy to use and they adjust it as the users tell them their story.

[. . .]

That isn't usability; you're talking about requirements gathering and creating a product that meets users' requirements. This likewise is related to the suitability of the product, but it isn't related to the usability regarding how 'usability' is defined in software terms.

[. . .]

Every application has a target user group and it is intended to be easy for that group.

This is why we have Photoshop CS and Photoshop Elements, for example. Both can manipulate images, but they have different target groups and each group will not find the other's app easy to use.

This really shouldn't be this hard to understand.

You started to touch on usability when you mentioned ease of use. But everything else you've said about usability is wrong. It isn't hard for me to understand at all, and I ask you again to please not be so terrible as to suggest I have a problem understanding simple concepts just because you're misunderstood yourself. It isn't hard to be courteous and polite in discussion until a conclusion is reached.

Dictionary.com's Computing Dictionary backs up exactly what I have been saying from the outset. This is their software-related definition of 'usability', which you can find by scrolling down the page:

programming

The effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction with which users can achieve tasks in a particular environment of a product. High usability means a system is: easy to learn and remember; efficient, visually pleasing and fun to use; and quick to recover from errors.

As implied above, usability is only concerned with the actual features that exist within the product; it is not concerned with features that are out of scope for the product to include. You're thinking of suitability, not usability; a product may be usable (as defined in the quote above), but not suitable. Here's a clear example: If someone would like to heat up some food, they might use a microwave because a desk would not be suitable for that task; however, that doesn't mean that the desk is not usable for the tasks the manufacturer intended it to be used for. The desk is usable because the user is able to use it for the tasks that the manufacturer intended, and it is easy for them to use. The desk manufacturer did not intend for the user to use the desk to heat up food.

The statement, from the definition, that usability is how well the user can achieve tasks in a particular environment of a product should be taken to mean the features that exist in the product, rather than the features that don't exist and are out of scope.

I've pointed out why you're wrong pretty effectively by using a ludicrous example. Further, going off your understanding, absolutely no product ever created has been usable, and that idea is simply ridiculous.

[bjoswald]

I can just see it now:

*Start Screen appears*

"What the hell is this ****? Where's the Start button?"

*Clicks around for 2 minutes (on empty space)*

"Where's the damn number to Best Buy? I want my Start button back!"

*clicks furiously (on random programs that have nothing to do with what they want)*

"I can't shut this damn thing down now either?!"

Aaaaaand cue the endless returns.

[Dot Matrix]

I can just see it now:

*Start Screen appears*

"What the hell is this ****? Where's the Start button?"

*Clicks around for 2 minutes (on empty space)*

"Where's the damn number to Best Buy? I want my Start button back!"

*clicks furiously (on random programs that have nothing to do with what they want)*

"I can't shut this damn thing down now either?!"

Aaaaaand cue the endless returns.

Then, they'll be happy to know the Start Button was never removed!

[phailyoor]

Getting to control panel is actually faster in Windows 8. I know that wasn't your point but just saying.

Sure, I'd like to know that. Please go ahead and provide numbers where metro is "measurably and provably worse".

Here are my points where I think metro is better (without serious thinking)

- Switching between two apps (in focus and last used) is faster

Alt tab? Works in dekstop... Also, it's no faster than the taskbar.

- Metro App switcher is faster than default taskbar for mouse if your cursor resides in upper half of the screen

Which is only about 50% of the time. So on average it's not better. It's also worse if you're trying to access an app that is farther in the history.

- Closing apps to free CPU (because you don't need to close apps)

Only really badly written apps waste CPU when idle. I mean realy, really badly written.

- Pause playback on metro video player (just hit start)

Pause playback in WMP-just hit space. There's also the "pause" button.

- Apps provide more than just count on their current status

What?