Microsoft employees reportedly call Windows 8

[justin76]

true that... 8 is the new Vista

[Rudy]

visually i think the lack of shadows and lack of glass looks meh, same goes for some of the font choices and the removal of flip3d - personal but I'm not a fan of flat UI's 

 

if I'm watching a video and want to search for a program in start i don't like being taken away from the desktop, even temporarily.

 

i don't think the share buttons are integrated enough or uniform enough, the sidebar is kinda useless IMO

 

metro apps that use hidden menus and buttons that need to be slid down from the top are bad UI design because i don't always know what features are available until i specifically go searching for them

 

control panel was kinda of messy before 8.1 

I think the flat UI could work if something is added to the titlebar to make it less plain (something like Watercolor in the XP betas)

[tanjiajun_34]

People just hate changes. When Facebook changes to Timeline people complains. Youtube changes their layout, people complains. Imagine if they don't changes, it would looks so backward. 

I find that Vista or 8 is a correct direction for Microsoft. When I first installed Vista, I had a BSOD due to my driver issue but still I love it. It was the most beautiful Windows I had ever seen.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Idiots.  :shifty:

I hate editorials. I really really do. It's always easier to build up a strawman and blow it down than to properly assess what people are really saying and what they really meant by new Vista.

 

 

People just hate changes. When Facebook changes to Timeline people complains. Youtube changes their layout, people complains. Imagine if they don't changes, it would looks so backward. 

I find that Vista or 8 is a correct direction for Microsoft. When I first installed Vista, I had a BSOD due to my driver issue but still I love it. It was the most beautiful Windows I had ever seen.

You are right, in general, people do hate change. But, regardless, that doesn't mean that Windows 8 has a good or well designed UI. Distilled down to its base your argument is: People hate change. X exhibits change, therefore, people hate it. Here's another argument: People hate badly designed UIs. X exhibits a badly designed UI, therefore, people hate it. There are certainly other reasons people could dislike Win8 other than just hating change.

[Dot Matrix]

I just noticed this is another Paul Thurott drama piece.

[NightmarE D]

Knew Thurrott was behind it just from the title alone.

He can't get access to the update 1 for 8.1 so he's starting his bash and whine phase.

People keep saying there's this huge learning curve to 8/8.1. I've seen people learn how to use it within minutes and they were all very basic computer users. I had my desktop dual-booting 8.1 and 7 so my wife could have her choice. After a few days she stopped using 7 after she saw the benefits of 8 without me even showing her. Now even she wonders what the big deal is with people hating it.

99% of the people I have met who hated 8/8.1 were basic users who saw that Start screen and thought that's all Windows was now. I would show them how to do stuff from the Start screen then they'd see how easy it is and picked up on the rest quick. I always wait to mention start menu options like Classic Shell last. That way they can see it's no big deal, but still have that option to stick with a 7-like experience if they want. Most of them have stuck to the Modern experience and haven't bothered with Classic Shell or any other start menu replacements.

People here who call themselves experts talk about how hard it is to use. Some of these people shouldn't be in computers if you find anything remotely hard about 8. When some of these same people admit to telling people just to buy 7 instead of learning to use 8, that's 100% laziness on their part. If you can't take the time to learn anything new or did learn but won't bother helping others, do people a favor and get out of the computer world and find something else to do because you clearly don't truly care about what you do.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

People keep saying there's this huge learning curve to 8/8.1. I've seen people learn how to use it within minutes and they were all very basic computer users. I had my desktop dual-booting 8.1 and 7 so my wife could have her choice. After a few days she stopped using 7 after she saw the benefits of 8 without me even showing her. Now even she wonders what the big deal is with people hating it.

I dual booted and dropped 8.0 on my mom like that (she's terrible with computers). She claimed to like it initially, but then eventually got annoyed by it and confused about the desktop and modern portions being disjoint and separate. It was at that point that realized how true the saying is: "the only intuitive interface is the nipple."

 

 

People here who call themselves experts talk about how hard it is to use. Some of these people shouldn't be in computers if you find anything remotely hard about 8. When some of these same people admit to telling people just to buy 7 instead of learning to use 8, that's 100% laziness on their part. If you can't take the time to learn anything new or did learn but won't bother helping others, do people a favor and get out of the computer world and find something else to do because you clearly don't truly care about what you do.

Some people don't want to force other people to use things when they figure they won't like it. It's like forcing parents to use Linux because you are an FOSS fan or making your girlfriend who likes Mac OSX use windows because you love Windows. Let people use what they want to use, and be done with it. They'll be more productive with things they want to use than with things they don't. If they are going to use Windows 8, they should be using it organically without prodding.

[neo1911]

Yup. Main objective of Windows 8:

 

1. Redesign UI and push Modern interface on our face

2. Cut down on useful power user networking features in the hope of making it noob friendly

3. Make it touch friendly.

 

But the number one sinister reason was to force people to buy their full screen calculator apps (Exaggeration) in hope that it will make them some money.

Well that single reason doesnt work and brings the whole OS down.

 

Somewhere in the upper management is a person who is completely out of touch with average users and implements designs based with the sole objective of making more money.

That has created a lot of bad-will with customers as well as employees.

 

Now if they again take a U-Turn (which Microsoft has been doing a lot lately), they MUST allow Modern apps to minimize/resize on desktop taksbar and get rid of secondary multitasking UI on the left side. That would make most, if not all complaints go away magically.

[0nyX]

 

However, the well-connected Paul Thurrott says

 

 

Cool story bro

[Lord Method Man]

Comparing Windows 8 to Vista is an insult to Vista.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Windows 8.x isn't that catastrophically bad, but as Microsoft learned from Windows 8, users need visual cues to help prod them in the right direction. Think of Windows 95 and NT 4's "Click here to begin" that, by default, you couldn't turn off. That made it pretty obvious to new and old users - including those who were NOT the first ones to touch that computer - that you need to hit that Start button to do anything productive on this computer.

Windows 8's mistake was cramming that hint into a tutorial which I'd bet most people would gloss over, waiting for Windows to prep itself for the first login. Windows 8.1 is perhaps slightly better with the Help and Tips app, although they brought back the button after all. But things such as typing on the Start screen to search for apps is still not obvious to users.

Same example applied to shutdown/restart/etc in Windows 8 and although 8.1 improved that by adding them to Win+X, I've yet to encounter another friend using Windows 8.x who knew about WIN+X or right clicking the Start button before I told them about it. Most can't be arsed with the Help and Tips app and prior to Windows 8, right clicking Start brought up a (IMO) fairly useless context menu used to just explore your Programs folder.

So for Windows 9, in addition to relaxing the strict separation between desktop and Metro (I would still love for desktop apps to invoke the metro Mail, or soon to be Outlook, app when invoked via MAPI or when I'm trying to send files via Explorer), they need to improve on visual cues to help made it obvious to new users. Think of mobile apps where they nag the users with popups explaining the on-screen controls on the first run. Initial annoyance, but leads to savvier users in the long run.

(it's sorta late so the above is probably rambling nonsense :P)

[DeadEndAccount]

windows generally has been on a good release bad release schedule for the last 10-14 years

 

2000 good

ME bad

XP good

vista bad

windows7 good

windows 8 bad

 

to be honest vista got a bad rep and i thought it wasn't the devil but it was a lot worse when you compared it to how great 7 was 

 

Vista did however introduce many technologies which made Windows 7 release possible but Windows 8 never needed to be the mess that it was. Yes they needed Metro by why shove it down the collective throats of desktop users? why not maintain the classic desktop interface on Windows 8 with a few tweaks and only have Metro on the tablet and phone? Honestly, if there was a possibility of unifying interfaces then don't you (you used in a general sense and no specifically pointing at you Co_Co) think that Apple would have done it already? Have a unifying underlying framework? sure, why not introduce WinRT and have two interface frameworks - one for metro and another for desktop applications so then developers can maintain the same back end but create two different front ends (desktop + metro) for where it makes sense? Microsoft seems to be like my mother when she cooks - she takes something that is 90% the way there then adds more stuff to it only to end up ruining it.

[spenser.d]

Vista did however introduce many technologies which made Windows 7 release possible but Windows 8 never needed to be the mess that it was. Yes they needed Metro by why shove it down the collective throats of desktop users?

Do you really not know the answer? It was always to get developers to make apps for their ecosystem. They've done much more for their long term vision than anyone gives them credit for by forcing metro on everyone because it has forced developers to make apps for the Windows Marketplace. That wouldn't have happened if they didn't push metro. Now, even if they scale back a bit with Win9, the fact that they're combining stores gives them a real solid footing in the app marketplace going forward. They'd have far less of a chance of surviving the future if they hadn't.

[Dinggus]

visually i think the lack of shadows and lack of glass looks meh, same goes for some of the font choices and the removal of flip3d - personal but I'm not a fan of flat UI's 

 

if I'm watching a video and want to search for a program in start i don't like being taken away from the desktop, even temporarily.

 

i don't think the share buttons are integrated enough or uniform enough, the sidebar is kinda useless IMO

 

metro apps that use hidden menus and buttons that need to be slid down from the top are bad UI design because i don't always know what features are available until i specifically go searching for them

 

control panel was kinda of messy before 8.1 

 

I haven't noticed. I run Windows 8 in VMWare, but I find it simple and probably easier for people to learn, especially with tiles.

[Xerxes]

Win8 is the new Vista whether MS likes it or not, doesn't matter what the employees think because the paying customers have spoken! and it's an overwhelming thumbs down.

 

Personally I think Win8 is a good but flawed OS. In many ways it is like Vista, in that it's *trying* (the key here is trying) to break away from Windows of old and make things better (Yes I know that is subjective and the majority say it's for the worse but that is their opinion. Personally I feel it is for the better and more people will realize this too if they stopped being so hung up on the negative aspects everyone craps on about like a broken record). However, MS often get things wrong the first try and Win8 is no exception. Another critical issue here is first impressions matter, if you don't make good impression with customers out the gate your screwed no matter how much you polish it and try to fix what is wrong. Particularly these days with the power and reach of the internet, opinions and ideas (right or wrong) spread like wildfire online and it affects how people will perceive a given thing. Win8 was too radical and removing the start menu, even as a legacy option, scared users away (MS should really know better, people hate change and are creatures of habit and going "cold turkey" is never a good idea). I'm pretty confident that they will make a better effort with Win9 and I'm sure it will be a good combination of the good parts of Win8 plus some more legacy options for people not quite ready to let go of the old ways. Please note this is my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[leesmithg]

M$ should had built windows 8 tablet and touch screen SE and windows 8 desktop.

 

Rather than wasting peoples time and money.

[Knife Party]

maybe windows 9 will be what windows 7 was to vista. Let's hope so

[statm1]

maybe windows 9 will be what windows 7 was to vista. Let's hope so

On one hand I hope you're right and on the other I hope you are wrong. 

 

I hope its not the new Win7 because then people can't keep saying the same old thing about xp good, vista bad, win 7 good, win8 bad.. Even though I don't agree that win8/8.1 is bad.. Having a bad win9 will hopefully keep them from saying it..

[trooper11]

Some people don't want to force other people to use things when they figure they won't like it. It's like forcing parents to use Linux because you are an FOSS fan or making your girlfriend who likes Mac OSX use windows because you love Windows. Let people use what they want to use, and be done with it. They'll be more productive with things they want to use than with things they don't. If they are going to use Windows 8, they should be using it organically without prodding.

I agree that no one should be forced to use something they don't want to use, but then your making it a general blanket statement. If your selling a pc to people, its fairly difficult to guess what they would want to use or not. You need to talk with them and then let them try out the system, see what they think. Your point works fine for say family or friends that you know well enough.

In the pc world, most users need help when a new OS comes out. I have been doing it for years and each new OS launch required some handholding. Win 8 is no different.

I feel like this is going around and around. People can't accept that some people might have no problem with it once they are shown how to use it. I completely accept the fact that some people do have a problem with it regardless. Why is it so bad to think that some people don't fall into that category.

There is also the issue with age of the system. There are users out there that just want XP. They are not interested in 7, 8, whatever. So for those users, XP is what they are comfortable with. Well unfortunately, XP is going to get more and more unsecure, putting them at more risk. These people will have to go to a new OS even if it doesn't feel comfortable. So anyone selling them on a new system is going to have to hold their hand to get them over the hump.

[trooper11]

maybe windows 9 will be what windows 7 was to vista. Let's hope so

Well if mean the same OS with some visual tweaks and a name change, I would say its likely.

As others have said, it will be more about the pr and if they can convince enough of the vocal tech community that it is worth pushing.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

I agree that no one should be forced to use something they don't want to use, but then your making it a general blanket statement. If your selling a pc to people, its fairly difficult to guess what they would want to use or not. You need to talk with them and then let them try out the system, see what they think. Your point works fine for say family or friends that you know well enough.

I've never been to a computer store that sells Windows computers that doesn't have test systems running on the show floor for people to try, so it isn't like this is a shot in the dark. People can test and decide from there, it really isn't your choice. Similarly, if someone's family or friends told them that Windows 8 is horrible and they are against Windows 8, it isn't your choice. This is what I mean by organically.

 

In the pc world, most users need help when a new OS comes out. I have been doing it for years and each new OS launch required some handholding. Win 8 is no different.

You aren't really being fair. Windows UI hasn't had fundamental changes since the transition from 3.1 to 95. Sure, they needed help with some changes, but they didn't need hand holding to run programs, use the start menu, exit programs, etc. Windows 8 has been the only version to drastically change things up in the last 20 years. 

 

I feel like this is going around and around. People can't accept that some people might have no problem with it once they are shown how to use it. I completely accept the fact that some people do have a problem with it regardless. Why is it so bad to think that some people don't fall into that category.

I don't have problems with 8/8.1 and run them on all of my machines. I just don't try to force people I know to use 8 or evangelize it. If they want to use it sure that's fine. If they don't want to use it, that's fine also. It's really not a great of an OS at the end of the day. If anyone asks me my personal opinion about it, I give them fair warning that they may not like it because of the UI changes and may go into the technical improvements/differences over 7 depending on how technically oriented they are.

 

There is also the issue with age of the system. There are users out there that just want XP. They are not interested in 7, 8, whatever. So for those users, XP is what they are comfortable with. Well unfortunately, XP is going to get more and more unsecure, putting them at more risk. These people will have to go to a new OS even if it doesn't feel comfortable. So anyone selling them on a new system is going to have to hold their hand to get them over the hump.

This is just an appeal to extremes. There's a world of difference between a person asking for an officially supported OS and them asking for an OS that probably doesn't even run on the hardware. And if you happen to find the one person who does ask for XP on the one computer that still officially supports it, then you warn them about the shortcomings (not supported after April, etc.) and let them decide.

[trooper11]

I've never been to a computer store that sells Windows computers that doesn't have test systems running on the show floor for people to try, so it isn't like this is a shot in the dark. People can test and decide from there, it really isn't your choice. Similarly, if someone's family or friends told them that Windows 8 is horrible and they are against Windows 8, it isn't your choice. This is what I mean by organically.

So you don't believe that showing them how the system works is useful to them?

I mean part of it is to educate people on how it works. Then if they don't like how it works, you move on. Its not about who's choice it is.

You aren't really being fair. Windows UI hasn't had fundamental changes since the transition from 3.1 to 95. Sure, they needed help with some changes, but they didn't need hand holding to run programs, use the start menu, exit programs, etc. Windows 8 has been the only version to drastically change things up in the last 20 years.

I agree that there are more visual changes in 8 then previous versions of windows. I'm not sure how its unfair to point out that its not new to have to help new users of an OS. You just arguing that 8 requires more help, which I never said it didn't.

My point is that Win 8 needs hand holding to get past the initial shock. Then you show them how it works similar to 7 or how things can be changed to better suit them, and they feel better. Or they decide they don't like the changes and go with another option.

I don't have problems with 8/8.1 and run them on all of my machines. I just don't try to force people I know to use 8 or evangelize it. If they want to use it sure that's fine. If they don't want to use it, that's fine also. It's really not a great of an OS at the end of the day. If anyone asks me my personal opinion about it, I give them fair warning that they may not like it because of the UI changes and may go into the technical improvements/differences over 7 depending on how technically oriented they are.

I hope your not trying to say that you had the impression that was my point. That I was forcing people to use 8 or evangelize it. Not at all, you missed my point. Different people, different choices.

I mean you said it all right there. Its not a great OS at the end of the day, that says it all.

This is just an appeal to extremes. There's a world of difference between a person asking for an officially supported OS and them asking for an OS that probably doesn't even run on the hardware. And if you happen to find the one person who does ask for XP on the one computer that still officially supports it, then you warn them about the shortcomings (not supported after April, etc.) and let them decide.

XP is an officially support OS, at least for a little while longer. If you mean still sold, then your right.

Again, my point is that sometimes what a person needs is to have a guided demo to show them around an OS. Sometimes that changes their mind about it, sometimes it doesn't. How are you going to know until you try. I just think its important when dealing with people that are looking for a pc and aren't going to know the ins and outs of a new OS, especially one that offers more visual changes then previous versions.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

So you don't believe that showing them how the system works is useful to them?

I mean part of it is to educate people on how it works. Then if they don't like how it works, you move on. Its not about who's choice it is.

No, that's not what I'm saying... you can certainly demo it for them at the store and they can test it out and decide after being shown the ropes.

 

I agree that there are more visual changes in 8 then previous versions of windows. I'm not sure how its unfair to point out that its not new to have to help new users of an OS. You just arguing that 8 requires more help, which I never said it didn't..

To be clear, I was saying that it it isn't a fair assessment to just say all prior windows versions required help and to say "Win 8 is no different" in that regard, because that doesn't acknowledge that there are important differences in the amount of required help. If you are trying to argue semantics about your exact wording, please don't. 

 

 

XP is an officially support OS, at least for a little while longer. If you mean still sold, then your right.

XP is not an officially supported OS for most modern PC hardware though. It's officially supported and updated by MS for issues that crop up on supported hardware. You can't very well install XP on someones machine if the hardware doesn't have drivers that support it so it's a scenario where'd you have to tell the user, well this laptop or XYZ doesn't run XP.

 

 

Again, my point is that sometimes what a person needs is to have a guided demo to show them around an OS. Sometimes that changes their mind about it, sometimes it doesn't. How are you going to know until you try. I just think its important when dealing with people that are looking for a pc and aren't going to know the ins and outs of a new OS, especially one that offers more visual changes then previous versions.

A guided demo is cool if it isn't a guided demo with the intent of just evangelizing Win8. It's one thing to show the user the ropes and let them see if they like it, and another to say, well are you sure you don't want to use Win8, look at this feature, and this feature, you can't do that with the older version! That's not organic and it's just pushing an agenda if that's what is happening. I'm sure that's what happens at the MS store ;-)

[Arachno 1D]

Too be honest I personally think the push behind metros launch was that Microsoft saw it as another revenue stream from the home consumer who usually only purchases the OS license.

As for the actual OS its a hard ploy to change your whole team half way through the season and expect all your supporters to like it.And for long term buisness investment I don't think its going to fly in its present format they will move to 7 and stay there till changes force it upon them.

[DeadEndAccount]

Do you really not know the answer? It was always to get developers to make apps for their ecosystem. They've done much more for their long term vision than anyone gives them credit for by forcing metro on everyone because it has forced developers to make apps for the Windows Marketplace. That wouldn't have happened if they didn't push metro. Now, even if they scale back a bit with Win9, the fact that they're combining stores gives them a real solid footing in the app marketplace going forward. They'd have far less of a chance of surviving the future if they hadn't.

 

They could have easily done it without having to use Metro but rather provide WinRT framework on Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 whilst encouraging developers to take advantage of WinRT and using the metro aspects of the Windows Runtime XAML Framework whilst also encouraging desktop developers to move away from common controls and dialogues (plus other parts of the win32 api) in favour of adopting the same framework for desktop applications (the new Windows Task Manager is written using the Windows Runtime XAML Framework). If you can share 95% of your code between platforms and only need to replace the front end (assuming you're a decent enough programmer to keep your presentation and logic separate) then it would have given Microsoft all the benefits of adoption without the backlash.