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

Even though larger ssd prices have dropped dramatically in the last few years, I am pretty sure that the Windows 8.1 install at about 12GB could likely easily be half that if I could remove quite a lot of things I will never make use of. I certainly wouldn't mind having another 6GB freed up for another game or something.
It actually would probably be a really good move for them to have a much lighter base install, and instead of having to remove things, you go to the store to add them. It would be a very good way to get people in the store and using it... which in turn may attract software developers to make better use of the store as well instead of having a huge amount of largely useless metrofied webpages on there.

 

You're right I do want it to be all things to everybody. I just completely disagree with how they have done it. They shouldn't remove or not include a feature based on the fact that some users won't understand it. It should be included and turned off for people who do use and understand it to find it and turn it on themselves.
Likewise if you have no need for something why not just remove it?

Its not at all unreasonable to assume that a creator of one of the biggest OSes, has thought of and tried to implement features which would be useful to power users. I mean if multiple desktops is too complicated to include who knows what wonderful features we've missed out on.

I have literally no idea what your referring to or point you are refuting.

 

No. Speak for my self, it's that the end user isn't given the choice. Servers probably don't need the Metro GUI, but are given it anyway. Tablets probably don't need the media streaming service, but they have it anyway. The list could go on forever but i hope you get the idea, that being all things to everybody is fine, but when it comes at a cost to some users you end up pleasing no one. (figuratively speaking)

No. I am not complaining about the loss of a feature that i specifically want or know about, I'm saying that the user is not given any choice.

No. I want Windows to be what i want it to be, not come with a plethora of (to me) unneeded junk that i have no use for.

Sorry how is it weak to repeat what an UX designer who worked on Windows 8.x said ?
As for if they matter we will probably never know, as i doubt he or anyone else in Microsoft is going to roll out a list of things that have been cut, just because you want them to.

As for you claiming you know you are not missing them because you are not missing them, that's a bit like saying what Rumsfeld said in a DOD news briefing...

You can't know you are not missing them as you (we) don't know what those things are.

 

You didn't make the original claim, but you are repeating it to support your arguments against Windows 8. Sorry if my previous post seemed confrontational. Since you repeated the claim, I was genuinely curious about the missing features that makes Windows 8 such a compromise. I've been using it for quite a while now and can't think of anything off the top of my head that makes Windows 8 hard to use, but then I'm not a power user so my mileage undoubtedly varies.

I'll have to find some time to go through the Reddit post to see what I'm missing.

 

Sorry what is the argument that you perceive I'm making against Windows 8 ?
No apology is necessary, perhaps i read something into your post that wasn't there, i am learning to be careful about what i say on the Bit-Tech forums as i know how much people like to tear someone to pieces around here after goading them into saying things.

If you have the time do read the reddit thread it is a good read (IMHO), as it explains why a lot of the things got done the way they did, and what they were trying to achieve when they designed 8.

 

You know, that is actually a really good idea.

That's a different argument (and a fair one). But then you get the following scenario:

• Full-fat Windows with all the trimmings, switched off by default. Non-power users who don't use or care about these features complain that they take up space and that they have to manually strip them out (which to a non-power user is a big deal).
• Windows Lite, add features as you need them. Power-Users complain that they keep having to go to the store/installation disc to add stuff --there's always something you didn't think to add in the plethora of options, unless you just hit "Install Everything" and then you also end up with stuff you didn't want.
• Fragmented Windows. As people move between different PCs at home or work, they are confronted with features present on some installs but not others. Confusion and frustration ensues.

Or perhaps they have, and this is it. There may be other wonderful features that we missed out on, but that is speculative fantasy.

Sorry, wrong attribution.

Whoa. Servers could use the Metro interface really well, if the appropriate apps were made for it, as the actions performed on it would be much more specific. And tablets streaming media? I would think that's a core function of the device (cf. Apple iPad's much loved Airplay; Google's Chromecast).

What you are really saying is that you don't like the choices available to you. But Windows is not just designed for and around you, sorry.

It is kinds of relevant though, isn't it? You complain that there are features you don't want, and that features are missing that you do. So how do we know whether the many features that were cut out are actually any that you do want, or just more of those you don't? How do we know that they are actually any use to anybody at all?

We can fantasise about what features we might be missing out on, but that's still fantasy.

But if I don't know that I don't know, do I experience a sense of ignorance? You are saying that it is possible to experience the lack of something and not know that you're experiencing it?

 

If you make an argument, you have to be able to defend it in a debate. It's what discussion is all about. If you feel that's too tiresome (and I know them feels, bro), then simply don't get involved in the debate.

 

So i guess you didn't understand that i used those as examples of possibly unneeded stuff, even when i stated i was speaking figuratively, and when i said that i hoped you got the idea.

Or would you like me to spend the whole of tomorrow listing them all for you because you are having difficulty in understanding the crux of what i am saying, is it just that you want to pick them apart ad nauseam.

What choices, if i go for a meal i don't expect to be served the entire menu on one plate and be told i can choose what to eat. I expect to be able to make my own choice of what i want to eat.

Why is it relevant what has or has not been cut, the fact is we don't know so we have no way of knowing how useful or useless a certain feature would have been to certain people. The point is it should be the consumer that decides what is relevant or useful to them, shouldn't it?

No. What we do know though is that not everyone has a need for a great deal of what comes with Windows but have no choice, and on that premiss we also know that we have not been given the choice of what we may have wanted or needed.
It's akin to someone telling you they know a secret. You know there is something you don't know, shouldn't it be you who decides if this secret is important or useful to you and not someone else ?

Debating is very different from attributing words to people who didn't say them or goading people into saying things. Sometime ago you said that you thought i had engineered a discussion in such a way to lead to a certain outcome, at the time i thought it strange.
But after spending sometime on these forums i understand why you came to that conclusion, sadly I'm not intelligent enough most of the time to notice such things

 

And I illustrated how possibly unneeded stuff can turn out to be really useful stuff. I hope you get the idea.

To stick with your analogy: Windows is the menu you order from. The meal you eat is the Windows functions you actually use at that moment. You use some (and not always the same, every day); other people use others. Some have the Pizza; some have the Spaghetti Bolognese; some have the seafood risotto (but we all have the garlic bread, because garlic bread is awesome).

Why can't Windows just make the dish you eat? Because the restaurant has to cater for everybody. It can't just stock the food, kit out the kitchen for, and have the chef prepare just one dish. It would make for a very lean and efficient enterprise and not require such a huge food store and kitchen, but it wouldn't catch a lot of custom.

And how do you propose Microsoft does that? Release a huge-ass Windows install with every conceivable feature in it that the end user then has to navigate through, pick and choose what features he likes, and then remove all the stuff he doesn't? What did you say about too big and complex installs being vulnerable to bugs and security flaws? No. At some point decisions have to be made to keep the OS just, well, useable.

Apple's OSX and iOS are admired for their simplicity: one way of doing things, the Apple way. Microsoft has always traditionally offered six different ways of doing exactly the same thing, and it confuses users.

OK, how do we get people to choose in a way that is not overwhelming them (research shows that too much choice actually causes people to make poorer decisions. They lose oversight. There is an optimum number of choices you can give people, and it's a small one)? Ivan Ivanovitch hinted at a solution.

You are turning the "many cut features" into a special sauce secret. You believe that they must have been wonderful, so you writhe in disappointment and anger that they were cut. But possibly the secret is that there is no secret. The features were cut because they were crap features that detracted from the overall usability of the OS --which is why they were cut, and Windows is actually generally better for it.

 

Not really start in the middle which is where we are now more or less. Then let people add and remove as they see fit.

Well no this can't be it. Because the ux guy told us about the multiple desktops. We also know there are other features left out for the benefit of the ignorant. So its very likely there are other little chestnuts among that group, given Microsoft's success and experience at os development. Also the OS is built and used by experienced computer users. The only speculation is how useful the elements that make up the feature set that has been left out actually is. Given multiple desktops have been included in this feature set MS experience / succes and nature of the devs. It's unlikely the rest of this feature set is useless.

But the potential is there for it to be designed around me. Around you. Aroumd anyone. By allowing a larger configurable feature set.

 

could you imagine how long it would take to install just the bits you want, how many questions you might have to answer

 

You could probably group elements into typical use cases. Software Dev. Office worker. Gamer. Basic home user etc. Then customise from there. You could also cloud you're previous choices and the pull them down on you're next install.

 

The system that Ivan Ivanovitch proposes would work well for that. But you'd have to be sensible about how fine-grained you make that system --you cannot create an add/remove for every single feature.

In any case, how's that multiple desktop addon coming along? If people can cope with that, how come they get an aneurysm when they have to toggle between desktop and Start Screen?

Yup, and these are the same guys that came up with Metro, which you find so execrable. So not everything they produce is pure nuggets of gold, right? I mean, come on. It's taken until Windows 7 until these geniuses produced an OS that is liveable with. They know their code, but GUI wizards they ain't. Don't buy into the special sauce.

Again, you have to be careful how many choices you give people. It quickly becomes overwhelming and then people will move on to OSX. It's only one way --the Apple way-- but it's one clear way.

 

Greetings!

http://ninite.com/
And this is a collection of several prgrams from several developers\companies. Microsoft could that a lot more streamlined for their own stuff.

 

I just don't see the problem in expanding this a little bit to include "extended GUI featrues" Then include things like tabbed explorer, multiple desktops, mouse gesture navigation, add always on top to window context menus, etc. We have been adding and removing windows features for a long time.

I don't find Metro itself execrable. Its more what's been done with it. Thats is, terribly integrated and not best suited for desktop computers and large monitors. (lets not go down the whole metro road again) Anyway i would switch out my Samsung tablet GUI with it in a heartbeat.

I didn't think of Multiple desktops today. Its at work I would find them useful and I was doing things that get me paid today as opposed to trialling software. I don't find the need for them at home because I don't do that much multitasking. One desktop is fine for me at home. If only it was integrated I wouldn't have to try out different bits of software.

 

PostCount++

 

@ impar: Not the same thing. Ninite asks you to pick your set of programs. Programs are easy. But Windows would ask you things like:
- Do you want VPN?
- Do you want Dial-Up networking?
- what CODECs do you want?
- Do you want persistent shadow copies for local volumes?
- Do you want Net 3.5 framework?
- Do you want to show non-plug and play/hidden devices in the Device Manager?
Etc.

How is a non-power user going to answer those questions? OK, let's add simple explanations about what all these options mean. Because people like to read reams of text as they configure their PC. After all, we all read the EULA, don't we? We all read the ****ing manual.

And the power user? They love to be prompted by multiple questions every step of the way. Let me clean up your unused desktop icons. Let me archive your files. Let me point out these configuration options. Let me help you write this document. You know, when you just want to get down to doing some productive work, you want to be hassled by options and choices.

If ninite is your answer, you don't understand the question.

@ theshadow2001: (contrary to expectation) I agree with you --that would be a viable solution. And I also agree that Samsung's new tablet GUI is what Metro should be. But Samsung's tablet GUI wouldn't exist without Metro sparking the idea. Let's hope Microsoft watches and learns.

 

No I'm saying I would have metro instead of the galaxy tab gui I have. Not the latest one, mines about a generation or two behind it. I'd forgotten about their newer one though. I must check it out.

 

The new one is really promising. Check out a video which shows the tile resizing.

 

Its pretty good. The magazine UX is very nice aesthetically and in how it moves and interacts. Its big down fall from what I see is that it is only widget based. On the multitasking, I have a funny feeling that like my note 3, only certain apps can be windowed.

If they can get android apps to work in that magazine UX format I think they will be on to a winner.