Windows Windows 8 Marmite thread... Because you either love it or hate it

Re: Windows 8 Marmite thread... Because you either love it or hate it.

Windows historic for its openness. I would say that's stretching it. By no means is it open.

To me open means more than being able to customise your desktop and install 3rd party applications. It means being part of the development, having a say in features and being able to develop features that will find there way into a release. Also having an open framework preferably cross platform for developing applications.

With the recent changes, like the app store it's become even more closed.

In my opinion its not really open. But then no where near as bad as OSX.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

How customisable is OSX or iOS? Not perceived as a problem. I never found Windows very customisable unless I patched uxtheme.dll. Nothing has changed in that regard.

If you don't like Metro apps on your huge desktop, don't use them. The Start Screen however works just fine even on my 30" TFT. Although I agree that Metro could do with a little customization in the colour palette, it's a work in progress so there is always room for improvement. Even iOS launched without copy/paste. Otherwise I'm not sure what could be meaningfully customised.

Actually I do appreciate the ChromeBook. I said before that I really wanted to like it; it needs some refinement but as a concept it is great (but I don't think that this refinement should prioritise a higher resolution and a ludicrously overpowered CPU that cancels out all of ChromeBook's strengths such as low cost, long battery life, instant on/off, OS updates while asleep etc.). What I don't get is how it is supposed to be a much better concept than the Surface RT, which is argued to be a bad concept as 'proved' by its slow sales, when the ChromeBook sells 16 times as badly.

Perhaps 'open' is the wrong word; 'unwalled' may be better.

There's another thing: how is the app store making Windows 8 more closed?!? You can still sideload and install everything on it that you always could (even Metro apps, if you choose). You can still use Steam, iTunes and any other distribution platform. Just because Microsoft had the temerity to add its own store doesn't suddenly change everything. Only Windows RT is closed, but since everybody claims that it is such a small market as to be irrelevant and will fail any day now anyways, how is that a problem?

 

Conceptually a chrome book shoving everything into the cloud is what I envision the future of computing will end up as. I don't necessarily approve of it, but that's where tech will probably go. Conceptually Microsoft have tacked on a technology fresh from 2010 on to their regular desktop. Its not very innovative. You have one company making shapes towards the future, you have another pulling tech from the past.

Having said that, I would take an RT over a chromebook at this present time. I just think google are a bit premature with the chromebook. First and foremost a chromebook needs internet to the same extent we have electricity available, at that stage google and many others will be on to something.

You think the moves Microsoft are making is long term planning, well the chrome book is planning even further out than that.

 

I think that they focus on different objectives. Microsoft is trying to create a GUI that will work on everything. Google is trying to create an OS that will work fully in the cloud (independently from the device it runs on, as it were). One focuses on hat happens between the user and device, the other on what happens between the device and cloud.

Compared to what Apple iOS and Google Android have been doing, Metro is very innovative. Moreover it could go way, way further than that. If anything, as it is right now Metro is still a bit conservative.

 

It could very well be the same objective just a different starting point. Google is working from the cloud down, microsoft is working from the device up.

I don't see metro being hugely different. It is a better interface tablet wise than android (can't comment on apple but I'm assuming there's not a lot of difference between iOS and android). But I don't see it as innovative, more of an incremental improvement. Like gtx 580 to a gtx 680. an Ivy bridge to a Haswell.

 

It's a departure from (just) desktop and windows; that's innovative. Keep in mind that I said: glimmer of innovation. It is not a huge leap. But then again, its full potential hasn't even been touched on yet.

 

I see what you did there

 

That departure was an innovation by apple though, not MS. MS are just following suit.

 

is it though, Microsoft had windows xp tablet edition, before the ipad came out, it was by no means perfect, but it was there

 

True, but that was still the desktop, just on a form factor that really doesn't suit the desktop.

 

No, it's a modified one. XP had larger caption bar, and larger task bar for the tablet. You had added programs in XP Tablet Edition. And it made Microsoft build OneNote, and the free built-in Journal application.

 

I didn't realise there was tablet edition of xp. How much of a step away was it from the desktop edition though?

 

Windows 7 on tablet style. So you had what everyone now wanted: Desktop on touch screen. It didn't work for XP, Vista nor 7, despite Microsoft actually trying hard. Hence why we have Win8. A new take on it. It seams that Win8 approach is the best... and it will be just a question of time before Microsoft Windows team figures out the right balance between mouse/keyb, and touch. You need to experiment collect data of users and feedback.. it will take time. Windows 8.1 will improve things, and I think 8.2 will do as well, and so on.

 

Apple just placed a grid of icons on a desktop, with full-screen applications and called it iOS. It was a good concept for a tablet, but by no means breaking new ground. Google Android added widgets, which really are just Apple widgets that are visible all the time, not just when you invoke Dashboard. Microsoft went further by changing the icons into Live Tiles, which are a cross between icons and widgets of sorts. It also introduced snap view, swiping left to switch between apps (much handier than you'd think!), dragging to the bottom to close. The whole experience is much smoother than iOS.

XP Tablet edition was installed on PC tablets launched in 2004. They were heavy, underpowered, overheated and had an impractically short battery life of three hours. This was just before Intel launched the Core processors. Atom processors did not yet exist.

The GUI was basically desktop with cursor and Start Menu. And it really did not work at all. I know: I own one of those tablets.



Note the impractically tiny keyboard that you stabbed at with a pen (the alternative, a handwriting recognition field, worked pretty well but sucked battery power). Note the taskbar with the Start Menu button. All the other stuff I added myself in an attempt to get a usable tablet. Date and time were a Samurize config; on the right was RocketDock to replace the finicky Start Menu. On the top was Informer, a Yahoo Widget. I also found a plug-in that would display Outlook Calendar items on the desktop.

Basically, I created a smartphone screen several years before the first smartphones came along.

This is what Microsoft tried to improve on with Windows 8. I realise that most people are happy to accept that Metro works great on tablets, they just don't want it on their desktop. But the problem is: future devices will be hybrids of both. Canonical is trying to solve the problem with a GUI that dynamically switches with device configuration (touch controls and full-screen apps morph into a desktop with windows and cursor as soon as the tablet is hooked to a desk dock with keyboard) but it is already running into practical problems with that. It is just not that easy as you'd think.

 

I'm not saying apple did tablets first or that Metro isn't a better interface than the other two. But its clear the Microsoft never got the formula right initially(those xp tablets). Apple had the right hardware tech, the right software at the right time to essentially start an industry segment that is having a major impact on pc sales. That is true innovation.

Sure Microsoft are improving on the tablet interface and Apple is now resting on its laurels. But it was Apple that truly broke the first ground when it comes to tablets and smartphones.

Without apple there would be no metro, android or other phone/tablet interface of significance. I might still have a 3210. They proved that there was a viable industry in ultra portable smart devices. The others are just aiming for piece of that pie.

The point is Metro isn't that innovative, its an improvement yes. But its an improvement to an existing UX type. Essentially they are late to the party and are clambering for what's left of the Apple pie.

 

It would have been the other way around if Steve Ballmer didn't cancel the Courier.

 

A legacy is based on what was done, not what should have been done.

 

^^^ Quote worthy right there.

But a chef is only as good as the last meal he cooked. Microsoft has come up with the most recent innovation in the GUI paradigm. It's not earth-shattering, but has new potential, whereas iOS has stagnated (for now; we'll see what WWDC brings).

 

Greetings!

 

This has been the majority reaction I've seen so far.

I work in a computer shop - repairing, selling, upgrading. Windows 8 is now our only real option for OS upgrades, but we've simply had to resort to installing Classic Shell on all installations we send out because the reaction to the W8 interface has been so unanimously bad. Virtually anybody over the age of 30 who isn't computer-minded or a tech enthusiast but who uses Windows machines in their job or in their home life (for casual internet use) is flummoxed by Windows 8.

I don't know what to call this demographic. Nexxo, you've called them idiots; I think this is elitist. It's easy to forget just how computer illiterate most people are. They're normal in any other respect; they're not idiots. They just don't use computers enough to have much confidence or competence with them, least of all for learning new things. Consequently, as soon as you start explaining that "Start -> All Programs" has become "Left Corner -> click -> blank space -> right click -> All apps", they get irate and grumble about how they'll just stick with the old machine until it breaks.

Show them Windows 7, or Windows 8 with Classic Shell, however, and they adjust without complaint. Seeing a Start menu is all it takes.

That's the rub. Power drills have always been the same shape, gear sticks have always worked the same way, and Windows has had a Start menu for almost two decades. For this demographic, the loss of the Start Menu is preposterous; it's like their bike suddenly not having handlebars.

Nerds everywhere have been laughing at this, at how much the loss of the Start menu seems to bother people. Laugh quietly, because it makes you a conceited snob. For us, computers are a lifestyle and a hobby, and adjusting to new ways of doing things is both enjoyable and easy. For this demographic, though, it's frustrating in the extreme, because it's an area they already have only limited understanding and confidence in. They don't have an intuitive grasp of software structure and they depend on certain constants (like the Start menu) to be able to use computers, which they need to every day. For as long as they've used computers, computers have had a Start menu. Everything they've learned about computing (which isn't much) is built on that.

And this demographic is huge - really huge. It's most people I meet. I'm sure the crowds at tech cons, and kids growing up now, can't fathom that an interface redesign would bother anyone so much, but this demographic could eat those demographics for breakfast. It's basically the entire modern working class - both vocational and white collar. by number counts alone (not to consider economic contributions), they're much more important, and a problem for them is a huge problem for society.

I'm explaining this in as much detail as I can, because there's a culture developing in this thread where you guys get dismissive and condescending and look down your noses at the neanderthals who can't acclimatize to Windows 8, and I find that disgusting. The zero-sympathy, "get used to it or get out of the road, gramps" attitude worries me, because beneath it is the assumption that technology can only accomodate one type of user at one level of proficiency and that everyone else must adjust.

But good technology doesn't force its users to adjust - it can be adjusted to its users.

(Arguably, this is what we're doing by installing Classic Shell - adjusting the computers to match our users' needs. but that isn't to Microsoft's credit. By Microsoft's executive decisions, this demographic would just have to "deal with it" and live in stress and frustration. The credit for their ease of use goes to the developers of Classic Shell.)

I guess my main point is that their experience of Windows 8 is valid. Don't belittle it or laugh off the difficulties these people are having with Windows 8. They're real people experiencing real stress, and there are so many of them that by now the combined stress generated by Windows 8 could shatter an iceberg. Their bad experiences matter, and you're not better than them, or more valid a customer than them, just because you're good with computers.

My second point is that Windows useability itself really matters: don't dismiss it as "fuss over nothing" or think of it as "just software". It's a daily part of society, as much so as the water supply. It's business, homework, government services, research, scheduling. Millions of normal people need it to do their jobs, need it to function and couldn't easily migrate to any alternative system. Does that mean Microsoft owes them something? Does it mean that Microsoft has a responsibility to meet certain assumptions?

Yes, I think it does. When half the population suddenly hate the taste of the water but have nothing else to drink and still need to drink, that's a problem. If Microsoft didn't want that responsibility, they shouldn't have monopolized the task of supplying water (i.e. the de facto home and business Operating System).

And my third point is, don't get too up yourselves and think that everyone who's having a hard time with Windows 8 is a dumb prole who doesn't deserve to be able to use their computer. Computer literacy isn't uniform, and Microsoft was hopelessly optimistic to assume that it was. These people didn't consciously decide to avoid learning computing; they just don't have the time or confidence to learn, and that's not their fault. Remember, you grew up with computers and used them a lot; most of these people just use them for one or two things out of necessity, and only started using them in middle age.

And if you're thinking, "Microsoft doesn't need to make an Operating System for those kinds of people" - yes, Microsoft does. They're half the market.

TL;DR:
1. Average users literally can't do without the Start menu.
2. This is a big problem.
3. It doesn't become not a problem just because you and your kid can do without the Start menu.
4. You are not better than people who can't get used to Windows 8.