I did not know that. Bastards!
Fair point and I have no sensible answer. (Other than people don't like change
)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows 8 will fail?
- Thread starter Black Magic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fair point and I have no sensible answer. (Other than people don't like change
)
Department of redundancy department. I need to get into the habit of proofreading what I post.
Dinglebutt said:
This is the key here, people. I didn't like Win8 all that much when I first tried it out. If you've got the time, patience, and...I dunno...obsessiveness to check out my old replies, I made a post here where I all but bagged on it.
But I kept using it. Why?
...mostly because I was too lazy to restore my Windows 7 partition, but that's beside the point. Fact is, after a couple of days, there were occasions where I forgot I was even using Windows 8. Once you get used to some of the new ways to do things, there are practically no differences between how you use it and 7. Full sized start screen or not, it does the exact same thing, and I use it about as much as I used the old menu. Which was somewhere between rarely and occasionally.
The plus side is I can now stuff a lot more icons into it than I used to be able to, and organize them better. Beforehand, I had about 4-5 programs pinned to the menu. Now? I have tons in there. And they're easy to find due to the shape of the columns helps guide the eye. Same with searches. I get tons more results, it's easier to read, and as an added bonus, I get thumbnails if I'm looking for pictures.
There are no disadvantages to the new start screen, unless you really, really, really hate that transitional effect that takes all of .4 seconds to run through.
edit: to ape Dinglebutt's example, I'll go ahead and post my start menu here.
I want someone to explain to me how this is a horrible setup for a mouse and keyboard.
Last edited:
If it only works "just as well" and the differences are minimal in your opinion, then why did they bother to change it in the first place?
Because they wanted a new interface that worked as a fullscreen app launcher for their touchbased devices while adhering to desktop functionality?
If it fails, I don't think it'll be as bad as Windows Me was. That was terrible. I think so far Windows 8 my favorite Windows yet. Some things about it I don't like, but my most loved new feature is booting up much faster. I don't really think much of the new Metro UI (As cool as it is, and I think the Windows App Store was definitely inspired by the Mac App Store, but the two look and *behave* totally different in my opinion), but the whole operating system is much faster when running on my Netbook when compared to Windows 7. I also like how Microsoft included two-finger scroll and multitouch trackpad gestures by default. I also think that they made a good move by adding onto Windows' native touchscreen support from Windows XP, Vista and 7 by adding multitouch touchscreen gestures. But I don't think that the ARM architecture support is really necessary, unless we want it to run on an iPod Touch 2nd Gen or 1st Gen. (Not likely, but would be interesting) Besides, I think Microsoft decided to optimize it for tablets, that's why the Metro UI is in place. Not to say that you can't put Windows XP, Vista or 7 on a tablet, they all support touchscreens natively.
In my opinion, I don't think it'll be a terrible failure if it fails at all but that's because I really like it. It's my own opinion.
Besides, not to be offensive or an a** or anything, but I'd really rather not take the opinion of someone who favors Mac OS X (Not to say that it sucks, it's still a good OS) over Windows because I feel there is going to be bias. I like both OS'es and think both are good.
I guess it's either love it or hate it, then, right?
In my opinion, I don't think it'll be a terrible failure if it fails at all but that's because I really like it. It's my own opinion.
Besides, not to be offensive or an a** or anything, but I'd really rather not take the opinion of someone who favors Mac OS X (Not to say that it sucks, it's still a good OS) over Windows because I feel there is going to be bias. I like both OS'es and think both are good.
I guess it's either love it or hate it, then, right?
Last edited:
It looks okay for a mouse, but how do you navigate that with the keyboard?
What I really like is the classic start menu from way back when (See attached thumbnail below). I think it went away in XP, or maybe Vista, but anyway in XP and Vista there was a way to get it back. Then when I couldn't get it back in Win 7, I pinned a shortcut to the "~Start Menu\Programs" folder to the Start Menu, and when I want to find a program I don't use that often (my most often used programs are pinned to the Start Menu or to the Taskbar), I click on the "~Start Menu\Programs" folder, then navigate it with the arrow keys on my keyboard.
Is there a way to move around that grid with the keyboard? Then I suppose I wouldn't hate the new start menu. But as I said before (in this thread or another one, I forget), what I find irritating about Win8 is how it keeps flipping me back and forth between the traditional windows desktop and the new "previously known as Metro" interface. If they had found a way to totally get rid of the traditional desktop and somehow run legacy programs in virtual windows, I think I'd be happier.
But btw, what do you do if you want to see two metro programs side by side? I know there is a way to open up another app in a smaller "sidebar" strip, but is there a way to have two programs open side by side in the same size? Or just open many windows at once and position them all however you want? If not, why would I want to use Metro apps on my desktop?
Attachments
Just to add to this, I believe Apple takes a cut a percentage I believe? 15% on paid apps in app store. While Microsoft just list your app for free
It's a win/win situation for the developers.@Night Spring
They even improved it. When you are presented the new start screen of windows 8, or for some of you call it full size start screen, you just:
1) Start typing 'Pa', you don't even have to finish it well present you with the filtered results, and probably Paint will show up.
2) You press enter to open the up that's it
Now compared to the method you were saying, start screen -> right -> up / down -> right to navigate paint, then finally hitting enter. -> that probably will take you 30 seconds? more or less...
With the one I just posted you just type 'pa' and a filtered result will show up, and Paint is probably the first result, and you just hit 'enter' - probably only takes 2 seconds, that's 94% faster than how you previously navigate.
Also take note when you are presented with the grid on the results, you can navigate via arrow keys as well.
How is that any better than this?
Best thing about the "old" start menu? I can still view whatever is running on my desktop whilst multitasking.
Say I have a VLC window open playing a video and I want to launch an non-pinned application from the start menu. Is there any way I can do this on Windows 8 without losing focus of the video I have running in the background with the full screen start menu?
I've said it before but I can't stand losing focus of what I'm doing on the desktop just to access my non-pinned applications. I just find it too jarring.
Yeah, there is. Hit one of the arrow keys, and you'll get a highlighted box surrounding a tile. From there, just click away until you get what you want.
Though what you're seeing in the main start screen is more analogous (10 buck word of the day) to your pinned start menu apps. The metro-whatever it is equivalent to all programs folder is the apps screen, which looks like this. It's a bit crowded, but tons better than all those nested menus in my opinion. I hate nested menus. Think they're sloppy as hell.
Though the best thing to do, and the one thing you miss out on by reverting to the oldschool 95-XP start menu is type to search. Like if you're looking for a program you don't have pinned anywhere, but know the name of it, just hit the win key and type the first couple of letters of the name out, and you'll see it pop up. Like this.
The only downside to type to search in Win8 is it doesn't have an all programs and files category. It defaults to apps, so if you want to look for a file, you have to hit the down key twice to select it, or mouse over to it. Kinda stupid, specially since they had that option in Vista/7's type to search. The one plus side to 8's search is you can drill down to more specific selections, so I guess it's a semi-even tradeoff.
So yeah, long post short, you can use the keyboard, and do most of the things you can do in the old start menus. It looks and feels different, but acts about the same, plus or minus a couple extra features.
Is there a way to move around that grid with the keyboard? Then I suppose I wouldn't hate the new start menu. But as I said before (in this thread or another one, I forget), what I find irritating about Win8 is how it keeps flipping me back and forth between the traditional windows desktop and the new "previously known as Metro" interface. If they had found a way to totally get rid of the traditional desktop and somehow run legacy programs in virtual windows, I think I'd be happier.
Same size? No. It's always 1/3rd 2/3rds on the left or right side, and you can only ever multitask between two metro apps at once.
Really truthfully honestly, if you're mostly intending on using the desktop there aren't any huge reasons to upgrade from 7. Sure, it's a little faster, a little thinner, and all that good stuff, and it's nowhere near the horror show ruination of Windows some people claim it is, but it also doesn't offer anything you absolutely have to have. It's nowhere near as huge a jump from XP/Vista to 7, in other words. As far as desktop usage goes, it's only an incremental update to what you've already got. Sure, the new start screen, task manager, and ribbon wrapped explorer are nice, but they're not full priced upgrade nice. In fact, if the upgrade weren't just $40 or so, I probably would've gone back to 7, and only made the official jump if and when I grab a Surface.
I guess that's kinda my final review of Windows 8. If you're not making the jump into the new MS ecosystem, there isn't anything earth shattering here to come to. It's not a bad upgrade, but not a totally necessary one, either.
You do realize I replied to your previous post when you navigate via arrows? And the one you just posted is exactly what Microsoft did, it's the same thing, if you click 'windows' then start typing it gives suggestion,
Same thing if you're on a desktop, pressing 'windows button' will bring you to the smart menu, 'start typing' it will search for apps.
And losing focus? Searching Paint on this method will consume you only 2 seconds, not a deal breaker at all.
Heck is it an absolutely must need feature for you? to be able to search paint while watching your video?
Technically its possible by using dual monitors. Or just by hooking your LED TV to your pc, and you can watch it there while you work.
I can't say the benefit of being able to move up, down, left and right on the new start menu would make me love it any more than I do now.
Well, my Desktop use is not only limited to Paint and VLC, I only used paint as it was mentioned as an example above.
I do multitask on the desktop and losing focus does bug the hell out of me. For me, losing focus for 0 seconds is better than losing it for 2 seconds, sorry! I do have some spare monitors at home and could give this a go. Dual Monitor is a bit of a pain in the arse on my desktop as my NVidia GPU insists on running the fans at full speed whenever a second display is used. Same issue as this. Makes my almost silent PC unbearable.
The jump from Windows 3.x to 95 was a big jump back in the day and I'm sure once I get used to it, Windows 8 will make sense. I may seem to be bashing MS a bit here but I do think my reluctance in coming to terms with Windows 8 is testament to how great Windows 7 is. It was always going to be hard for MS to follow up on 7.
On top of the Windows 7/8 transition, I'm also giving Unity a whirl in Ubuntu as opposed to Gnome 3 (made better with Axe Menu or Applications menu). I guess I'm getting averse to change in my old age!
Personal preference, I suppose, but I love nested menus. To me, that seeing everything at once screen looks sloppy as hell.
I like to organize my program shortcuts into nested folders by type, like I have a "graphics" folder, "audio-visual" folder, "office" folder, etc. When I want to open Paint, or my other photo editing program which I can never remember if it was spelled "photo filter or "foto filter," I know they are in my "graphics" folder, and I don't have to wade through icons for my media players or my office programs just to find the photo editing program.
That's about the same conclusion I came to. If for some reason, I had to use Win8 on a desktop, I'd grumble about it for a few days but eventually get used to it. But at the same time, I see no reason to go out of my way to upgrade my desktops. Or my laptop, for that matter. I'll probably pick up a Surface to play with, and that's where the real test of Win8 will be -- how well it works as a tablet OS. But for the desktop, all Win8 does is introduce new ways of doing things for the sake of change.
Personal preference, I suppose, but I love nested menus. To me, that seeing everything at once screen looks sloppy as hell.
I like to organize my program shortcuts into nested folders by type, like I have a "graphics" folder, "audio-visual" folder, "office" folder, etc. When I want to open Paint, or my other photo editing program which I can never remember if it was spelled "photo filter” or "foto filter," I know they are in my "graphics" folder, and I don't have to wade through icons for my media players or my office programs just to find the photo editing program.
That's about the same conclusion I came to. If for some reason, I had to use Win8 on a desktop, I'd grumble about it for a few days but eventually get used to it. But at the same time, I see no reason to go out of my way to upgrade my desktops. Or my laptop, for that matter. I'll probably pick up a Surface to play with, and that's where the real test of Win8 will be -- how well it works as a tablet OS. But for the desktop, all Win8 does is introduce new ways of doing things for the sake of change.
Semantic Zoom and Categories in Start Screen would give you a similar way to group them, but its not nested. If you really want you could make a Programs Folder, pin it to your Start Screen and nested folders and shortcuts in there.
ME was an abortion, I can count the number of people I encountered who actually ran it without upgrading to 98SE or 2k on 1 hand, and i worked in the PC service industry back then.
----------
More importantly, it doesn't work "just as well".
With the traditional start menu, i can keep my applications visible on screen whilst clicking on menu items, rather than experiencing a jarring UI transition, losing visibility of my apps, etc.
the hot corner start screen is unintuitive as well.
move to hot corner, then the natural tendancy is to try and mouse over the pop up to click it, which then disappears.
try giving a user a cheat sheet for a task, and having them attempt to follow the directions with the document open on screen in Windows 8.
see how well the hot corners work in a remote desktop or remote assistance session that you aren't running full screen, because - you know - you have other things to be doing at the same time.
metro is a toy/tablet UI that has no place on a real desktop. not being able to run a metro app in a WINDOW is like going back to DOS. Yes, for now there is the butchered classic desktop, but MS is trying to push metro hard. no one wants it.
I agree. Windows desktop is such a ubiquitous and integral part of global computing; some caution might be a good idea on MSFT's part.
MSFT adding a optional touch friendly launcher for desktop is fine. However some of these desktop changes seem like change for the sake of change with no real benefit.
The Metro UI, or whatever it's called now, works so well on phones and looks great on a tablet...on desktop the verdict is still out.
I'm currently using Windows 8 (unlike most of the people with professional opinions in the thread) and it's easily the best Windows ever. Runs twice as fast (if not more) than Mountain Lion on my i7 MacBook Pro. Looks like Boot Camp will completely replace OSX. Slow mess.
You know what's really weird? I don't remember ever saying that. But there I am. Quoted. What's going on?
I'm going to join the "Windows 8 is going to fail" boat. It's simply too big of a change; PC users have (more or less) been using the same interface for over 17 years, and all of sudden everything is all slick and gesture-oriented, with the desktop not being the "hub" of the computer. They're changing too much too fast, and I don't think it's going to catch on with the average user.
Yea...for PC
what was Microsoft thinking...
I was going to buy my first laptop (Windows) but now its gonna be a Macbook Air.
I rather take my chances with OS X than Windows 8.
what was Microsoft thinking...
I was going to buy my first laptop (Windows) but now its gonna be a Macbook Air.
I rather take my chances with OS X than Windows 8.
Or you could maybe try it on your current computer using the 90 day enterprise version on an extra partition and see for sure.
Why is this scary (My Win 8 desktop where I run it 80% of the time until I wanna play around in Metro)
Or you could maybe try it on your current computer using the 90 day enterprise version on an extra partition and see for sure.
Why is this scary (My Win 8 desktop where I run it 80% of the time until I wanna play around in Metro)
[url=http://i.imgur.com/es5zZl.png]Image[/URL]
LOL
I did try it (the demo/beta version)
I switched back to Windows 7 the next day.