The Windows 8 (especially post-8.1) pushback baffles me. If you put any effort at all into learning how to use it effectively, the acclimation period is definitely shorter than Win95 or WinXP was. I use it on a desktop machine with two 30" displays and only mouse/keyboard inputs (i.e. no touch). You certainly couldn't pay me $150 to go back to Win7 at this point.
I even find that I use Metro apps on my desktop fairly often. I have the live tiles for a few key apps like Mail, Calendar, Weather, Google Voice, and Twitter arranged as a dashboard of key notifications that I care about and flip over from the desktop more often than I thought I would.
It's also nice how Metro apps can raise notification toast on the desktop now in 8.1 (and desktop apps like Outlook can also tie into that same system, similar to Growl but built-in). Since I'm on the desktop 95% of the time, that definitely helps bridge the gap between Metro and desktop. I can get a lightweight notification when I get an @mention on Twitter, for example, without leaving TweetDeck running all the time.
On my laptop with touch and on my Surface, Win8.1 is far and away better than Win7 could have possibly been. The Metro side of things is great there - especially since both have HiDPI displays and Metro apps .
Surprisingly, I still haven't installed Outlook on the laptop because the 8.1 update to the Metro Mail app makes it good enough for my relatively light email use while mobile. Since all of the settings sync across machines automatically, the Mail app was already configured with the six accounts I use regularly as soon as I logged into it, so it was a no-brainer compared to installing Outlook or opening six web apps all the time.
I'm a developer, so I'm no stranger to tasks outside of Metroland.
I don't have any trouble using my desktop or laptop to get things done. Win8.1 is essentially just a better, faster Win7 when I'm focused on using desktop applications.
Maybe you could clarify what you meant in the comment I replied to then.
It seemed like you were saying that a laptop with Windows 8 somehow precludes "some people from doing something productive" just because the Metro interface is there in the background.
I'm saying that hasn't been my experience whatsoever, using a Windows 8 laptop for development work.
I'm not sure I understand. I told you that I personally do productive things in Metro, but you're telling me I'm wrong. I told you that I personally do even more productive things by focusing on the desktop when Metro isn't enough, but that apparently doesn't count. What else can we talk about at this point? I don't really understand what your purpose was when you replied to my original comment?
> I told you that I personally do productive things in Metro
Sorry did you say this? Maybe I misread your comment but I think you said:
> I'm no stranger to tasks OUTSIDE of Metroland.
and:
> I don't have any trouble using my desktop or laptop to get things done.
Nothing I see here means "I'm productive with Metro", it means "I can avoid Metro and still be productive". Not sure if that was what you intended to say but that's how I read it.
I don't know this for a fact, but I think very few people were coming from Win2k to XP. Win2k was relatively niche, even in business, from what I can remember of my experience back then. It was essentially only the people who were running NT 4.0 Workstation before who used Win2k in the interim between that and XP.
The issue with Windows 8 isn't that it's unusable, obviously it can be used. The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (that is: a full screen, mono-tasking, touch-based mode) that doesn't really seem to exist on a desktop computer, and so the changes do not improve anything for most people using traditional systems.
Changing the way a UI functions has a cost to the user, and users expect that if they are willing to pay that cost they gain something in return. Once a user acclimates to it, perhaps Windows 8 is equally as usable as Windows 7 was, but given its relatively poor uptake I think it would be difficult to argue that many users actually find the experience better.
Ultimately, paying the "learn a new interface" cost for what is effectively side-grade is a poor value.
In contrast, for users of touchscreen-based Windows devices, this is a cost that is likely worth paying, since the features enhance usability for their hardware. But such devices represent a minority of Windows based PCs on the market.
> The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (that is: a full screen, mono-tasking, touch-based mode) that doesn't really seem to exist on a desktop computer, and so the changes do not improve anything for people using traditional systems.
I think that's not entirely true. The Metro design language isn't really about monotasking and wasn't really about mobile, and I think the idea of adopting as a unified cross-platform experience -- though its a pretty big break from the traditional windowing interface -- had some very good reasons and makes sense even on the desktop. The overlapping windows of the traditional desktop approach are, IMO, a pretty bad UI thing that we've all gotten used to, but something like Metro could do better...
The particular way the implementation worked out in Win 8 originally -- and this has been mitigated somewhat in Win 8.1 -- is still way too mobile focussed, and the sharp break with traditional desktop apps in seperate environments was a horrible UX choice. But I think the problem there was trying as much about pushing vendors to produce Windows Store apps and support WinRT (and, supporting Microsoft's getting yet another cut of the application money, on top of what they get selling the essential dev tools for the platform), as optimizing the UI for mobile.
I suspect that something like Metro really is the interface of the future -- even on desktop-like systems -- but it may take someone other than Microsoft to first implement it right.
> but I think it would be difficult to argue that many users actually find the experience objectively better.
Well, yes, it would be difficult to argue that, starting with that what users find to be better is by definition subjective, not objective, so to argue that would be self-contradictory from the gate.
The changes between Windows 7 and 8 always seemed terribly minor to me -- a few control panels and settings shifted around as they do every OS update, the start menu became larger and looks a bit different but functions essentially the same (right down to preserving your Program Files hierarchy from Win95 if you scroll down from the tiles screen), but nothing major in the big scheme of things.
If Microsoft hadn't made these changes, and in the next few years became completely foreign and irrelevant to the current young generation of consumers who grew up on touch devices that work more like Win8 than Win7, would we be panning them for sticking with "what works" while their consumer base switches to Android/iOS?
No - The problem lies in the fact they tried to create a "One size fits all" solution and failed at creating a usable desktop OS. Windows 8 is fine on a phone, it's the desktop that's the problem.
(before anyone jumps down my throat, yes you can mod Windows 8 so it's more usable in a desktop environment but that's not the point)
>for the most part 8.1 is 7 with a fullscreen start menu.
And missing the non-full screen start menu. I hate going back to metro interface to launch an app, now I have to create shortcuts on the desktop. I used to simply type an app name in windows 7's launcher.
> I used to simply type an app name in windows 7's launcher
Why don't you still do that? That global search has only gotten smarter, it's definitely not been removed. You press the windows key, type 3 letters, hit enter and your app is running before your eyes even register the start screen having briefly appeared and gone. I couldn't imagine going back to desktop shortcuts -- I haven't had to move my hands off the keyboard to launch a program in 7 years.
I do, but it switches me to the metro interface with a color change. Also it pulls metro apps first and only 2 apps then its like 2 settings apps and the 2 documents, but I want all apps.
If there are 4 programs that match my search, it shows 4 programs before any documents or other results. If a color change is that bothersome, you can use Win+S to open the search panel on the desktop. You can also uninstall the Metro apps you're not using and don't want to see in search results. They uninstall in one click.
"Sky" should have return both skypes, not just first 2 search results. Also how do you start desktop internet explorer? The search returns the metro one.
I hit Win, type "ie" (short for iexplore.exe) and press enter. It only starts the metro version if it's set as your default browser.
You've made some pretty bold color choices, that would be distracting. Set your background to be your desktop wallpaper. Then the start screen just looks like an overlay, rather than a context switch.
If you don't like the color change switching into the Start Page, there's a setting that uses a dimmed version of your desktop background as the Start Page's background too. It sounds trivial, but makes a big impact on how jarring the switch between them is. At this point, I usually just Win + type instead of Win + S because the Start Page just seems like an overlay over the desktop for me now with that one setting change. Similar to the Launchpad feature that OS X added a few versions ago.
Metro apps that are full screen are a terrible idea. I hate running skype and it taking up an entire monitor (yes, I know about skype desktop, and use it now, but it's not the default). I hate the PDF reader that is always full screen and difficult to close (alt-f4 is the only way?).
Full screen applications don't work on a desktop where multitasking is the norm.
I really only had two complaints about Windows 8. I couldn't find a way to have two PDFs open and on the screen with that default reader and I had a lot of trouble find out how to shut the machine down. Once I found ctrl+c if fixed the power down problem and to be honest I'm just glad they are finally shipping a PDF reader by default. All and all its not bad for a Microsoft product and I don't completely get the hate.
As far as I know, it did from day one using the "Devices" charm thing. Later on they also made it available using the menu at the bottom - swipe in from top or bottom on touch screen, right click screen otherwise.
I really do not understand why we must have one size fits all operating system in the first place. Some things work better for mobile (metro, ios, android), and some work better for desktop/laptop Windows, OS X, Linux.
Why must we try to make them the same? I would argue a set of well defined junction points like Apple did with airplay in order to share content between mobile and desktop segments is a way more elegant solution.
I have an 8" Windows 8.1 device running an Intel Atom CPU. I love it, it's probably my favourite PC to date.
I can be at the office editing a document on my keyboard/mouse laptop, save it to skydrive, and it's already there on my 8" for review later. Quick edits on the go are a breeze, since I have the identical MS Office software running in both machines.
I can review documentation in a git repository by actually installing git for Windows and cloning the repository. Now I'm not saying I'm going to actually code on an 8" Atom device, far from it. But the fact that I can participate, using the exact same tooling in the exact same manner, as is fitting for the device, is brilliant.
The only difference is I use 90% Metro Apps on the 8", and 90% desktop apps on the laptop. It's the plumbing that's one size fits all, and once in a while you cross the boundaries of the UI and it works well enough. You're not giving anything up. You have it all.
They could have a one sized fits all operating system, however they need to tailor the interface to each type of device. Using a mouse on a "touch" interface is a terrible experience, same as using touch in a mouse environment. I have not tried Windows 8 update, however first impressions have done the damage to Windows 8 already.
8.1 really makes it shine, and is amazingly useful in touch or M/K modes. I find the reactions to Windows 8 fascinating; my girlfriend and grandfather both love it (it was awesome to see the gf use windows side by side for once, rather than just maximise and alt-tab, and she worked out the snap mode on her own -- yes I know it's in Windows 7, but she loves the auto width changes with the slider) and they're not particularly tech savvy.
My mother on the other hand is quite adept, and dislikes it. Well, she did, until 8.1, and I configured it to use the desktop as the main interface, and she got used to it. Now she likes it too.
Personally, I haven't used Windows in half a decade, so it's interesting to watch the reactions too it. I think they are moving in the right direction, but need to adjust the desktop story a little.
That's my personal experience. If you want to call me a shill, then say it, rather than insinuate it.
Edit: Apologies, that was antagonistic. I was a professional salesperson for 7 years - I sometimes lapse into sales talk when discussing any product. Usually it's things other than Microsoft, and I'm not joking when I say that the last version I used was Vista, but I honestly think 8 is interesting, if unpolished. My family isn't adept other than my mother (she's 41).
I wasn't necessarily saying it was a bad thing. We're all grownups here on HN for the most part. I was just observing that it sounded like that to me. I don't knock salespeople. My old boss used to say that last two groups let go when a company is in trouble are those who make it (engineers like me) and those who sell it.
As a long time user of Windows, I'm frustrated, but maybe they're going after new people and they don't have the same expectations as me.
I use Win8 daily and have no issue using a mouse or my fingers, actually the mouse is far more accurate and faster so I fail to understand your statement.
Swipe gestures are a pain with a mouse, because you need to move the mouse to the right spot, click, drag in the opposite direction and then release, requiring a non-trivial amount of effort; and it just feels wrong when you're expected to do so regularly because you know there has to be a better way (like the way it used to work). Decades of desktop UI design focused on "discoverability" also mean that an unindicated need for a swipe gesture in order to access core functionality is frustratingly non-obvious to people experienced with classic desktop interfaces, and these will tend to be people whose advice is requested in purchasing decisions.
Swiping is awesomely natural on a touchscreen, but obviously sub-optimal otherwise. Reliance on a swipe gesture should be avoided in UI design for a mouse/touchpad and keyboard environment, in favor of buttons and menus, and mouse wheel/two-fingered scroll support.
If swipe gestures even work with the mouse in Windows 8, I didn't know it and it never occurred to me to even try, though now I'm curious to see what happens when I get back on my laptop. I never even considered trying. You don't do swipes if you have a keyboard and mouse in Windows 8, you use your buttons, menus, clicks, and mouse-wheel just as you suggest. Where did you get the idea that the Win8 interface required gestures?
You know what would really help with accuracy? If every tile was screen-sized. How could you possibly miss?
Also, the several seconds I've spent trying to open stupid like charms menus and things meant to be swiped with a thumb were not an enjoyable several seconds.
I've been using windows 8, and now 8.1, since public release.
For me, windows 8 answers a few questions.
1): What do we do when users want to use their fingers instead of a mouse to click buttons made for the (superior) accuracy of a mouse pointer?
2): What do we do when monitor manufacturers sell 4k+ displays and windows applications aren't written to scale up that way?
3): How do we sell users and developers on using desktop applications again (instead of web apps)?
I think all three questions are answered well, and users will be less hostile to the changes once enough applications move to Metro, and consumers are buying 4k tablets.
At the moment, what I am hearing most is "Why change something that worked so well? Why do I have to learn something new?". The next generation PC hardware will answer that question.
I spend all of my time in windows, and I wouldn't want go back to 7. I like the new start screen; I find my applications a lot quicker when all I need to do is hit the windows key and type the name of the app, or file, or whatever I'm looking for. Windows 8 really shines on the surface, where a high DPI screen and touch come together. I use desktop apps on the desktop and mostly ignore metro; but on the surface I prefer metro apps which are more finger friendly and easier to read.
I like the new store architecture, and the limitations made on apps written for it. I will have to worry less installing an application from a publisher I don't recognize. I read a lot about the APIs, but I haven't written anything for it yet. I am waiting for metro to be available to enough users to make it cost effective to put effort into it.
If I were working at Microsoft right now, I would be shouting at the top of my lungs "Let's put out commercials explaining why Windows 8 is better!". I don't feel Windows 8 is a technological or UI disaster; I feel it's a marketing disaster.
Counterpoint: "HP Bringing Back Windows 7 PCs? Not so fast..."[1]. TL;DR: this is a marketing tactic, and HP is actually offering fewer systems with Windows 7 than it was last year.
Sure. The point is, "bringing back" implies that there was a period of time where Windows 7 PCs weren't being offered by HP, which appears not to be the case.
I think the idea is that Windows 7 is done, new computers moving forward will have 8. In the same sense that I can't go to a Honda dealership and buy a brand new 2011 Honda Civic. (I could if they have one still in inventory, but they're not getting any new ones)
You've been able to buy it installed on a machine offered by a major hardware vendor and publicly offered in their catalog? Or just been able to buy the install disks?
I've been using Windows 8 on my laptop for well over a year, and I quite enjoy it. Especially with Windows 8.1, I just don't see how you can love Windows 7, and at the same time show an extreme displeasure for Windows 8. Have these people even used Windows 8?
IMO, the resistance has more to do with bad Microsoft PR and the anti-MS bandwagon, than flaws in the OS.
This article greatly exaggerates. A quick search shows HP offers only 2 Windows-7 laptops, but offers 35 Windows-8x laptops. Similar numbers go for desktops as well.
Can't "Back by popular demand" refer to the $150 discount on old systems instead of Windows 7 itself? I'm leaning that direction since I associate snowmen with December holidays.
Windows 8 is the most unusable collection of software I have ever had the misfortune of fighting. It is the worst experience I have ever had with an operating system, coming from experience with dos, windows 3.1-95-xp-vista-7, ubuntu, and arch.
The built in apps feel like MVPs. The interactions are unintuitive, and many things that should "just work" smack you in the face time and time again.
the whole thing feels like it's been slapped together without any thought for actual usability, and with zero polish.
edit: i should note that I have not yet tried the 8.1 update
I've been using Windows 8 on my desktop PC for some time now (primarily used for gaming and entertainment, not development) and for my purposes it's a clear upgrade over 7. Yes, the Metro apps are terrible but you don't ever need to use them. I spend almost all of my time in the desktop, and the few times I need to use the new Start interface, the workflow is exactly the same as Win7 (press Windows key, start typing program name, hit Enter).
This sounds like the same, unconvincing argument I always hear about Windows 8.
"It's a bit faster, there are some other minor obscure improvements, and if you just ignore all of the crappy new stuff it's not a big deal!"
If boot times are a big issue for you, then I get it. For me, they aren't, so I'm inclined to pass on the update. Perhaps it would work great with a Windows Phone or Surface (I'm tempted to try those at some point, so if anybody would like to share their experiences with theirs...), but it doesn't seem like it was designed for a desktop. So why should I put it on my desktop?
> if you just ignore all of the crappy new stuff it's not a big deal
It really isn't a big deal, because you're not being forced to use the Metro apps. You can populate the start menu with regular application shortcuts and you're on your way.
Faster, nicer UI, better multi-monitor support, better touch support, improved tools. Basically the same reasons you've upgraded to Windows 7 before that.
Everything feels faster and more responsive IMO. Dare I say the scheduler has been improved somewhat since 7 (that's a guess). Also there are a number of nice tweaks to the task manager and explorer, and some other things.
I spend almost all of my time in the desktop, and the few times I need to use the new Start interface, the workflow is exactly the same as Win7 (press Windows key, start typing program name, hit Enter).
I liked this workflow better when it was called DOS.
> I liked this workflow better when it was called DOS.
Knock it all you want, but it's obvious that people like working like this. OS X has Spotligh/Alfred, Linux has Gnome DO etc, it's basically on every OS.
I very recently had to help someone who was using a new Win8 laptop, and it's amazing how much the little things matter - like the title bar's text being centred. I had several notepads open and it was difficult to see which one was which file, because with the text at the edge I would usually leave that edge of the window sticking out beneath the others, but with the title centred I can't see the filename from either side. That seriously annoyed me.
I've also helped a few people with Windows 8 and they are just lost, lost, lost - it is a very confusing interface to use. It catches me out all the time and I consider myself fairly adept at these things.
I'd counter that with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I spent a few days with Win 8 and I've never seen a more unintuitive UI experience in my entire life. The frustration of having to re-learn simple computing tasks far outweighs any aesthetic improvements IMO.
There's nothing wrong with adding features and improving software, but if you're going to obscure computing idioms that are in some cases decades-old (e.g. closing and minimizing windowed content), you had better be sure that is what users want.
In the consumer's mind, not all change is good change. New Coke wasn't good[0]. New Tropicana orange juice packaging wasn't good[1]. New GAP logo wasn't good[2]. Change for change's sake isn't always good. Microsoft took something that wasn't broken and didn't fix it. I blame Microsoft trying to be everything to everyone - that which is good for a touchscreen isn't necessarily good for a desktop/laptop without, and their desire (and hubris) to have a single UI amongst everything is biting them in the consumer market.
Some people are afraid of change, but those of us who aren't don't like change that take things away. Windows 8.1 did not fix the start button for us desktop users. There's absolutely no reason to take that way except to force change, which is obnoxious.
While Windows 8 might not be as bad as some people would like you to think, it's definitely a schizophrenic monster when it comes to the jarring Metro/Aero divide. How you can call that "aesthetic" is beyond me.
The only thing I've been happy with since the move from Windows 7 has been the new Task Manager. Every other change has been met with a "why did that need to be changed?".
There's one good thing about Windows 8: anyone who uses this phrase is now known to have absolutely no argument worthy of discussion.
People rejected an interface which offered them nothing new on their existing hardware and was going to force them to relearn their current daily tasks.
People will gladly accept change if there's a clear benefit. They'll often accept change even if the only benefit is aesthetic. However, there's no clear benefit to Windows 8 apparent to most end users and the aesthetic changes were not enough.
It's a failure of Microsoft in the marketplace, not a moral or intellectual failing of Microsoft's users.
Some yeah. But it's a bit too easy to say that just because most people don't like the OS you like.
It's pretty known that you have to skip a version of Windows every other version and it seems like Microsoft is not changing the pattern right now. I love windows 7 but 8 is just unusable on desktop for me, I love windows 8 for phones though.
One of the Windows 8 improvements is with the default file copy/move, and I no longer use TerraCopy. There are a bunch of under-the-hood/utility improvements outside the aesthetic.
the cognitive disarray caused by the metro menu is the worst UI innovation since mystery meat navigation. that being said, disabling it in favor of a classic start menu makes Windows 8 on par with 7.
This sort of workaround does not make things OK for the average person.
I even find that I use Metro apps on my desktop fairly often. I have the live tiles for a few key apps like Mail, Calendar, Weather, Google Voice, and Twitter arranged as a dashboard of key notifications that I care about and flip over from the desktop more often than I thought I would.
It's also nice how Metro apps can raise notification toast on the desktop now in 8.1 (and desktop apps like Outlook can also tie into that same system, similar to Growl but built-in). Since I'm on the desktop 95% of the time, that definitely helps bridge the gap between Metro and desktop. I can get a lightweight notification when I get an @mention on Twitter, for example, without leaving TweetDeck running all the time.
On my laptop with touch and on my Surface, Win8.1 is far and away better than Win7 could have possibly been. The Metro side of things is great there - especially since both have HiDPI displays and Metro apps .
Surprisingly, I still haven't installed Outlook on the laptop because the 8.1 update to the Metro Mail app makes it good enough for my relatively light email use while mobile. Since all of the settings sync across machines automatically, the Mail app was already configured with the six accounts I use regularly as soon as I logged into it, so it was a no-brainer compared to installing Outlook or opening six web apps all the time.