I have been using the Developer Preview of Windows 8 for the past two days and I find it very nimble, a worry many had about including the "extra" GUI. However, I think the real hurdle for users will be the Metro Interface itself.
Are you willing to leave the Desktop metaphor for supposedly greener UI pastures? Does using a tablet-based interface with a keyboard and mouse seem unnatural?
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
You can disable the Metro GUI if you like. See this article: http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/how-to-get-a-windows-7-start-menu-in-windows-8-20110914
It doesn't require more keystrokes/clicks and no functionality (none whatsoever!) is lost, and I can see at least as much information on the screen as I can now in every application/dialog/.... That means no extra titlebars, toolbars, status areas, larger buttons ... that take away my screen space.
Eye candy for its own sake, no thanks.
But it seems like some of the eye candy is just good focus on the UI.
Either way I could care less if they would just simplify and clean the massive code base they have. Balmer needs to press the "Less is More" mantra at the MS shop.
But it seems like some of the eye candy is just good focus on the UI.
Either way I could care less if they would just simplify and clean the massive code base they have. Balmer needs to press the "Less is More" mantra at the MS shop.
Once again this is NOT for workers. Another iteration of OS for people with nothing better to do than fiddle around an OS to look at the nice little graphic that moves.
REAL WORKERS need OS that works. We don't care about the look or animation, we'd really prefer a flawless OS (that is asking for a miracle from any manufacturers since they aim only at consumers flashes and whistles, you know the one that has the annoying sound in the restaurant....)
It seems like work is not essential anymore. I don't know how those corporate thinks but that the whole point I think, they DON'T!
Would they like their programmers to fiddle around all day in the OS moving tiles around and playing animated games? (This is surely what they do already, that's why they come out with such childlike ideas!)
This is cute for phones and other useless devices used by the corporate world, but for actual workers on computers, doing REAL work, it is ludicrous! It's like telling me to do my phone calls on a Fischer Price phone and to call Grover instead of M. X.
Microsoft is living to my expectation...none.
REAL WORKERS need OS that works. We don't care about the look or animation, we'd really prefer a flawless OS (that is asking for a miracle from any manufacturers since they aim only at consumers flashes and whistles, you know the one that has the annoying sound in the restaurant....)
It seems like work is not essential anymore. I don't know how those corporate thinks but that the whole point I think, they DON'T!
Would they like their programmers to fiddle around all day in the OS moving tiles around and playing animated games? (This is surely what they do already, that's why they come out with such childlike ideas!)
This is cute for phones and other useless devices used by the corporate world, but for actual workers on computers, doing REAL work, it is ludicrous! It's like telling me to do my phone calls on a Fischer Price phone and to call Grover instead of M. X.
Microsoft is living to my expectation...none.
....gone mad ! You are spot on. The new generation is bringing in some great ideas but most are an extension of the school playground. Sure, we need a fusion of old and new but we now get "workers" demanding their "right" to have access to "farcebook" on their work machines as well as company email on personal phones. Now these people want to use iPads for everything.
MS is responding to this in a good way, Win 8 is a great UI for that purpose, but they should do what linux distributions do - have various desktops for different purposes and personal tastes. I see no reason why MS could not structure Win 8 in this same way and have options to install an XP desktop, Win 7 desktop, and now the new "Fisher Price" destop for the kiddies and anyone needing a more mobile experience.
What is bad this whole trend, and unfortunately it is widely accepted time and time again, that all change seems to be good even necessary. That is a complete nonsense mantra. Of course we need progress and continuous incremental improvements, but there is a good solution acceptable to millions of people then there is no need to revolutionise it just for the sake of "change" and by doing so it impacts their productivity massively. We saw this massive problem with Office 2007 and 2010. Yes I use Office 2010 but it was exceptionally disruptive and whenever I get the occasion to use 2003 it is so much slicker.
Some products peak or plateau and we should simply recognise that big changes or even any changes will simply be negative and not good, although they still may not be 100% perfect just leave them alone, they are good enough and fully integrated into the workflow. It was the same issue with XP. Win 7 could have made improvements under the bonnet / hood but largely left it alone since it makes much better use of screen real estate, as indeed Office 2003 does.
Microsoft need to do BOTH. They need to satisfy the kiddies and mobile workforce but they must also satisfy the desktop user because regardless of what the "experts" and self-interest groups say, the desktop is going to be around for an awful long time still. If people are ignored then people will make the migration to linux which has very some very simple and productive desktops, as well as more fluffy candy ones. Also there is the ReactOS project which is creating an open source version of NT able to run most / all windows programs.
Ballmer is right, but he is also very wrong if he does not recognise our needs.
MS is responding to this in a good way, Win 8 is a great UI for that purpose, but they should do what linux distributions do - have various desktops for different purposes and personal tastes. I see no reason why MS could not structure Win 8 in this same way and have options to install an XP desktop, Win 7 desktop, and now the new "Fisher Price" destop for the kiddies and anyone needing a more mobile experience.
What is bad this whole trend, and unfortunately it is widely accepted time and time again, that all change seems to be good even necessary. That is a complete nonsense mantra. Of course we need progress and continuous incremental improvements, but there is a good solution acceptable to millions of people then there is no need to revolutionise it just for the sake of "change" and by doing so it impacts their productivity massively. We saw this massive problem with Office 2007 and 2010. Yes I use Office 2010 but it was exceptionally disruptive and whenever I get the occasion to use 2003 it is so much slicker.
Some products peak or plateau and we should simply recognise that big changes or even any changes will simply be negative and not good, although they still may not be 100% perfect just leave them alone, they are good enough and fully integrated into the workflow. It was the same issue with XP. Win 7 could have made improvements under the bonnet / hood but largely left it alone since it makes much better use of screen real estate, as indeed Office 2003 does.
Microsoft need to do BOTH. They need to satisfy the kiddies and mobile workforce but they must also satisfy the desktop user because regardless of what the "experts" and self-interest groups say, the desktop is going to be around for an awful long time still. If people are ignored then people will make the migration to linux which has very some very simple and productive desktops, as well as more fluffy candy ones. Also there is the ReactOS project which is creating an open source version of NT able to run most / all windows programs.
Ballmer is right, but he is also very wrong if he does not recognise our needs.
is a waste of time, but is very common to MS.
Change for (real, not marketing hype) improvement is worthwhile and good.
The Office 07/10 ribbon is a great example of the former. "Metro" sounds like more of the same, but I'll give it a chance before making a final decision.
I love some of the features in W7/Aero, OTOH I was thrilled when TR published registry hacks to disable the ones I found annoying. I've labeled W7 as "some of both - some good and helpful, some worthless.
I expect W8 will be the same - some things better, some annoying.
Change for (real, not marketing hype) improvement is worthwhile and good.
The Office 07/10 ribbon is a great example of the former. "Metro" sounds like more of the same, but I'll give it a chance before making a final decision.
I love some of the features in W7/Aero, OTOH I was thrilled when TR published registry hacks to disable the ones I found annoying. I've labeled W7 as "some of both - some good and helpful, some worthless.
I expect W8 will be the same - some things better, some annoying.
Let's look who the changes are for, and I think we get a sense of the relative success of a Microsoft product. I do say "relative" because some of this is force-fed. XP served MS well enough, but the main point was to pull the MS-using masses off Windows + DOS and onto NT with the least pain possible. It worked pretty well for users. Vista comes along, and there's all kinds of stuff in there for Microsoft, but not much for the end user. Windows 7, relative to Vista, back to offering the user something for the upgrade.
Now, how about Windows 8? Looks like the main point is to leverage the power of the desktop to give Microsoft a shot at post-PC mobility dominance. While any application could have the scaled down, simplifed, touch enabling Metro look, a real Metro app is not regular Windows -- its written in HTML, CSS, Javascript, and Silverlight... and that's the only part of Windows 8 that runs on a tablet. Apps, not applications, sold only through the Zune store.
So this helps Microsoft, but how is this good for the desktop user? I can believe Metro runs fine on my six core, 16GB desktop, plenty fast if it works acceptably on a single core ARM. But why do I want this, as a desktop user? When I have 25 windows open across 2 or 3 monitors, where does a Metro app fit in? Does it run, sized for mouse or graphic pen input, in a window, or will it grab a whole screen, destroying my workflow?
And given the signs that Microsoft is genuinely worried about mobile, is there any other point in Win8? Or is this really just a Windows 7 service pack, plus the Metro integration?
There is a rule, followed by most vendors of pro-level software tools, that says you really don't change the UI for no reason. There are times when a carefully designed change is approoriate -- Adobe did this going from Premiere to Premiere Pro, for example. But changes tend to be appropriate, well designed, well tested, and perhaps optional.
Microsoft seems to have been out of class that day. Some of their changes are not terrible, but arbitrary, and not an improvement. And some, like the ribbon interface, seem to be universally reviled, at least by non-Microsoft employees. New often does mean growing pains, but if that new thing gets old and still proves less productive, its continued spread seems only political. The fact no one else has embraced it is another clue -- I can't think of a single, actually useful new UI paradigm that hasn't been universally cloned.
Now, how about Windows 8? Looks like the main point is to leverage the power of the desktop to give Microsoft a shot at post-PC mobility dominance. While any application could have the scaled down, simplifed, touch enabling Metro look, a real Metro app is not regular Windows -- its written in HTML, CSS, Javascript, and Silverlight... and that's the only part of Windows 8 that runs on a tablet. Apps, not applications, sold only through the Zune store.
So this helps Microsoft, but how is this good for the desktop user? I can believe Metro runs fine on my six core, 16GB desktop, plenty fast if it works acceptably on a single core ARM. But why do I want this, as a desktop user? When I have 25 windows open across 2 or 3 monitors, where does a Metro app fit in? Does it run, sized for mouse or graphic pen input, in a window, or will it grab a whole screen, destroying my workflow?
And given the signs that Microsoft is genuinely worried about mobile, is there any other point in Win8? Or is this really just a Windows 7 service pack, plus the Metro integration?
There is a rule, followed by most vendors of pro-level software tools, that says you really don't change the UI for no reason. There are times when a carefully designed change is approoriate -- Adobe did this going from Premiere to Premiere Pro, for example. But changes tend to be appropriate, well designed, well tested, and perhaps optional.
Microsoft seems to have been out of class that day. Some of their changes are not terrible, but arbitrary, and not an improvement. And some, like the ribbon interface, seem to be universally reviled, at least by non-Microsoft employees. New often does mean growing pains, but if that new thing gets old and still proves less productive, its continued spread seems only political. The fact no one else has embraced it is another clue -- I can't think of a single, actually useful new UI paradigm that hasn't been universally cloned.
I seem to remember Windows XP described in the same way when it first came out. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, though I find the new UI to be quite unattractive (based on the screen shots I've seen). I have yet to download the Developer's Preview (I'm trying to find something to put it on), so take that with a grain of salt for now.
Personally, I think it wasn't sophisticated enough for Fisher Price. I called it Playskool. I roll out systems as a major part of my job, and the first thing I do is turn the Playskool interface off! Doubles responsiveness!
No, we look at the pic at the top of the article. What tiles do we see? News? Tweet? Labyrnth? Solitaire? PaintPlay? MoPod? The Puzzle? Oh yeah, this was designed with business in mind... NOT!
For productivity, nothing beats a Quick Launch bar filled with the business apps our workers need. So, with that in mind, why, oh why, does the quick launch bar, (actually a custom toolbar,) keep disappearing in Windows 7?
No, we look at the pic at the top of the article. What tiles do we see? News? Tweet? Labyrnth? Solitaire? PaintPlay? MoPod? The Puzzle? Oh yeah, this was designed with business in mind... NOT!
For productivity, nothing beats a Quick Launch bar filled with the business apps our workers need. So, with that in mind, why, oh why, does the quick launch bar, (actually a custom toolbar,) keep disappearing in Windows 7?
I suspect that MS sees much of the non-consumer space going towards a web-based interface for everything and is making the same decision that a lot of other companies are making:
That SaaS (or whatever the current acronym is) is the future of the workplace and that the individual users' computers become much less of a factor.
The decision to move back to the dumb terminal model is not new: MS has been quite plain in their plans regarding MS Office (Office 365 being the 2nd generation of that move), and Google apps is targeting the same markets and same mechanisms.
Witness HP's decision to move out of the consumer PC market. Yes, I realize that the new head of HP comes from that same SaaS background, but you don't make that big of a change in a company's focus without reason.
The same holds true with the current infatuation with all things "cloud"; less dependence on the users' device to provide anything other than a path to the internet.
Let's face it, for bad or for good, much of the activity we currently see in the business arena currently revolves around the more portable devices that are also big sellers in the consumer arena.
In that context, the Metro UI makes a lot of sense. Additionally, it is my understanding that is very little change between Win 7 and Win 8 with regard to the OS underpinnings.
If true, then allowing users to revert to the current UI would take little or no effort.
What leaves me scratching my head in all of this is the plain fact that the current internet infrastructure is not stable or reliable enough to be able to handle this model.
In order to bring this all about, there is going to have to be some major changes in that infrastructure and nobody has mentioned how that's going to happen or who's going to pay for it.
That SaaS (or whatever the current acronym is) is the future of the workplace and that the individual users' computers become much less of a factor.
The decision to move back to the dumb terminal model is not new: MS has been quite plain in their plans regarding MS Office (Office 365 being the 2nd generation of that move), and Google apps is targeting the same markets and same mechanisms.
Witness HP's decision to move out of the consumer PC market. Yes, I realize that the new head of HP comes from that same SaaS background, but you don't make that big of a change in a company's focus without reason.
The same holds true with the current infatuation with all things "cloud"; less dependence on the users' device to provide anything other than a path to the internet.
Let's face it, for bad or for good, much of the activity we currently see in the business arena currently revolves around the more portable devices that are also big sellers in the consumer arena.
In that context, the Metro UI makes a lot of sense. Additionally, it is my understanding that is very little change between Win 7 and Win 8 with regard to the OS underpinnings.
If true, then allowing users to revert to the current UI would take little or no effort.
What leaves me scratching my head in all of this is the plain fact that the current internet infrastructure is not stable or reliable enough to be able to handle this model.
In order to bring this all about, there is going to have to be some major changes in that infrastructure and nobody has mentioned how that's going to happen or who's going to pay for it.
Probably Ballmer has Facebook penis envy, I don't know. However it seems from the demo videos circulating that OS8 does multi-tasking better than XP but so does OSX and Linux. Will corporate America dole out iPads/Tablets instead of laptops and if that is the case is this wave the tsunami to switch from desktops to laptops/tablets. And will these devices replace IT departments in medium size companies? Mobile technology is pushing users to use cloud storage (DropBox, etc.) and Sync applications that rely on the cloud. Gentleman place your bets please.
imho MSFT is in the exact position that Kodak was in 1990 when it had the technology, science, patents, manpower, facilities, resources ...BUT NO VISION.
imho MSFT is in the exact position that Kodak was in 1990 when it had the technology, science, patents, manpower, facilities, resources ...BUT NO VISION.
But I want to add additional support from a slightly different perspective.
My marketplace is for those 55+. They are not as familiar with ePads and smartphones as those who are younger, for which this interface may be the most comfortable. It is uncomfortable and serves no valuable service to those who wish to simply read their email, browse the Internet, and socialize with their grandchildren through a camera. The eye candy of Vista and Windows 7 serves a purpose; it helps those whose 3D vision is decreasing more comfortably distinguish open windows. Having so many apps will be very confusing to them.
Many manage large numbers of pictures from their retirement travel and their families. Therefore, the rapid copying capabilities is a plus. I think that the tremendous learning curve for these people is massive negative.
To me the solution would be to provide a setting that is called the "Compatibility" setting. It would be analogous to what Microsoft/WordPerfect did when both were in competition. It would be one that made it look exactly like Windows Vista/7 and have the same location of the commands in the Start Menu.
My marketplace is for those 55+. They are not as familiar with ePads and smartphones as those who are younger, for which this interface may be the most comfortable. It is uncomfortable and serves no valuable service to those who wish to simply read their email, browse the Internet, and socialize with their grandchildren through a camera. The eye candy of Vista and Windows 7 serves a purpose; it helps those whose 3D vision is decreasing more comfortably distinguish open windows. Having so many apps will be very confusing to them.
Many manage large numbers of pictures from their retirement travel and their families. Therefore, the rapid copying capabilities is a plus. I think that the tremendous learning curve for these people is massive negative.
To me the solution would be to provide a setting that is called the "Compatibility" setting. It would be analogous to what Microsoft/WordPerfect did when both were in competition. It would be one that made it look exactly like Windows Vista/7 and have the same location of the commands in the Start Menu.
Exactly. An alternative is to learn from linux where the user can choose different desktops accroding to their needs / tastes. There is no technical reason why MS could not have an XP desktop, Win 7 desktop, Win 8 desktop options sitting on top of incremental changes of the engine. I would argue that accommodating ARM is a far bigger technical challenge than providing different GUI / desktops.
" It is uncomfortable and serves no valuable service to those who wish to simply read their email, browse the Internet, and socialize with their grandchildren through a camera. "
Have you actually used an iPad? Getting those exact tasks done is far easier, far more intuitive and much easier to support on an iPad than in traditional Windows. My Grandma can pick up an iPad and learn it faster than a PC and that's what Microsoft is trying to do. Create a UI/UX with a smaller learning curve. For everyone with ingrained UI experience since Windows 95 there will be a bit of a struggle but if you give it time you'll learn how much easier everything is. I'm sure the same applied to those that didn't want to leave the CLI world for a GUI one but they did and I bet they don't want to go back.
Have you actually used an iPad? Getting those exact tasks done is far easier, far more intuitive and much easier to support on an iPad than in traditional Windows. My Grandma can pick up an iPad and learn it faster than a PC and that's what Microsoft is trying to do. Create a UI/UX with a smaller learning curve. For everyone with ingrained UI experience since Windows 95 there will be a bit of a struggle but if you give it time you'll learn how much easier everything is. I'm sure the same applied to those that didn't want to leave the CLI world for a GUI one but they did and I bet they don't want to go back.
That would be true if you could actually do day to day work on an ipad which you can not. The ipad is so limited kin what it does its more of a glorified toy then a work machine. I have been playing with windows 8 now and on a desktop the metro ui is just pointless, ridiculous and over all annoying. It gives you a sor of classic desktop option but your start button doesnt take you to the normal options it just opens the metro UI again which if thats how it is left means windows 8 will be a huge failure.Windows is a traditionally so much easier to learn then an apple os or UI. On a tablet I don't know maybe it works but one reason I dislike the WP& so much is the metro UI. I am not sure why they want to even use this when what is need is the look and feel of windows xp with the stability and speed oif windows 7. The whole cramp it all into one os I think will be the death of Microsoft as its just very annoying. the metro UI has that sterile non user friendly feel that apple os has. For a tablet look windows should be drawing more from android then what apple has done as windows users dislike the apple idea very much and you will loose your customer base. I will stick to my windows 7 with xp skin on it or give in to linux before I go with the metro UI. I do like the idea mention aboved very much to have skin options built in over the ui to allow users to choose a windows xp look, windows 7 look or windows 8 look. There is no need for the mtro theme at all and I hope it is rethought as it is a very bad idea for desktops.
iPad and tablets do the basics perfectly. Email, web browsing and meetings. You want something that will be more "work" friendly but you're discounting that most work being done by the iPad users is Email, web browsing and meetings. Windows 8 will try to squeeze into that market by allowing the users to also get "other work" done through the desktop interface. That interface is going to quickly become obsolete as most users are Data Consumers not Data Creators.
Keep your Windows XP look (I bet you don't even use jump lists in 7) while the rest of us move into the next decade of computing. Even the touch interface is getting old before it's released (Kinect) so if you're an administrator you'll still do actual computing but the rest of the world is happy just playing around. Gui killed CLI and now Touch interface is going to kill the traditional Desktop.
Keep your Windows XP look (I bet you don't even use jump lists in 7) while the rest of us move into the next decade of computing. Even the touch interface is getting old before it's released (Kinect) so if you're an administrator you'll still do actual computing but the rest of the world is happy just playing around. Gui killed CLI and now Touch interface is going to kill the traditional Desktop.
The great majority of people who I know at work, or in my network, must write and edit reports in Word, do things with Excel, Powerpoint, and less common Project and Visio. Other applications are also involved, perhaps Access or other databases. So the iPad is great when we are consuming or as an extra device to take to meetings and be able to check emails or surf when we get bored, or be able to write notes without clattering on a keyboard, but not great when you get back to your office and have other work to do, even if you attach a keyboard it is insufficient.
If Win8 doesn't have an easy way to change the GUI to traditional at boot, it'll be a bigger fiasco than Vista.
You do not have to use the tiles - you can have the Desktop just like you have now in Windows 7 and never see a tile.
with a Registry edit. Then you lose all the enhancements (pause copy, Task Manager, etc). There are third-party tools to do it through the GUI, but you still lose the enhancements. You can kill start-something or other (I'm not near my Win 8 box) and still keep the enhancements, but you have to do that each time you reboot.
That Metro(sexual) interface may be fine for smart phones or tablets (I have neither), but not for desktops and laptops. It's even OK for Media Center in Win 7 for the limited number of movies I run from the PC. I don't like it for general PC use. I don't run programs full-screen which this forces you to do. I like to have access to the desktop behind the running app and the ability to easily switch between them, something that is difficult through the new interface.
MS needs to set up the final product in such a way that the user can select which interface to permanently use without losing anything new under the hood. I'm not in kindergarten any more. I don't want to be dealing with tiles.
That Metro(sexual) interface may be fine for smart phones or tablets (I have neither), but not for desktops and laptops. It's even OK for Media Center in Win 7 for the limited number of movies I run from the PC. I don't like it for general PC use. I don't run programs full-screen which this forces you to do. I like to have access to the desktop behind the running app and the ability to easily switch between them, something that is difficult through the new interface.
MS needs to set up the final product in such a way that the user can select which interface to permanently use without losing anything new under the hood. I'm not in kindergarten any more. I don't want to be dealing with tiles.
Its very easy to make it go away "forever"- one value in the register has to be changed from 0 to 1 (I guess it WILL be an option with the final buld- If you do not have a touchscreen and mainly use the PC as a working tool you probably will want the traditional GUI)
If that registry edit kills ONLY the Metro interface, fine. However, mudpuppy1 says it also kills off a lot of things that really are nice to have. If that one registry edit makes WIndows 8 work - not just look, but work - like Windows 7, why the heck should I leave WIndows 7?
a single os that can run on any device.
is that really a good idea or more a marketing ploy to compete with Apple
is that really a good idea or more a marketing ploy to compete with Apple
There's always linux, which has versions for virtually every platform ever known, for over a decade. From 486 to iMac to 6x000 Mac to Blackberry to Palm Pilot to Pad to Netbook to ... there have been linux releases for all, and anyone can download the source code and compile it to another platform, any time.
Oh. Right. This is Microsoft, so this idea must be innovative, revolutionary, and state-of-the-art. Sorry.
Oh. Right. This is Microsoft, so this idea must be innovative, revolutionary, and state-of-the-art. Sorry.
MS has is nearing the dead end of it's fork away from mainstream Computer Science. The products of Apple, Oracle, Linux and Android (all based on Unix) are about to eat them alive. Consumers just see the results of functionality and stability (neither of which MS has shown since XP). Saas keeps our data safe n secure and it's not running on a Microsoft platform.
Not quite: Is your internet connection up? Is the Internet connection from the part of the cloud where your stuff is up? How about all the links in between? Is your part of the cloud actually a viable business that's actually going to be around longer than tomorrow evening? Secure? Did you actually put safe right next to secure? Really?
Their original plan was to have their products in nearly everything from computers to microwave ovens. MS has not really changed this goal, but it has gotten much harder to do. This goal was set in the 90's and not a marketing ploy.
Ever hear of Windows CE? It's in EVERYTHING! No ploy either, Apple has a distinct look they made clear they're sticking with when they released Lion. Microsoft has made clear they like their Metro UI look and are moving their products over to it.
And as for a good idea? Their phone sales, despite the device's being amazingly simple and far more intuitive than both iOS and Android have been sluggish this first year. They're going to get the "feel" of the UI into everyones hands and then sell the crap out of Windows Phones. It's a brilliant marketing ploy and one that they couldn't do with... yup, Windows CE on phones because that old UI isn't touch screen friendly.
And as for a good idea? Their phone sales, despite the device's being amazingly simple and far more intuitive than both iOS and Android have been sluggish this first year. They're going to get the "feel" of the UI into everyones hands and then sell the crap out of Windows Phones. It's a brilliant marketing ploy and one that they couldn't do with... yup, Windows CE on phones because that old UI isn't touch screen friendly.
Again these boneheads are screwing with the GUI and the works. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. MOST people use the PC as a tool and each time you make their job harder by changing things you make them pissed off enough to look for alternatives, Mac maybe, Linux maybe. I hope that one of these times Microsoft shoots itself in the foot bad enough that people jump ship in large enough numbers to get their attention.
The author just commented that you are not forced to use the Metro interface. As long as that's the case I don't see what's the big deal. I like Windows as it is too but they have to advance and innovate or they will be left behind. This should be fine unless they take away the option to use a non tile based interface. At this point I don't believe they have taken away the Windows 7 style interface, just given the option for two GUI's.
Absolutely right. When we saw the "banner icons" in Office (starting 2003) we couldn't believe it! It took 10 days to find where our usual functions went. Can I say the boss really sweared at Microsucks! Each time they do these things they don't realize they affect the working world.
I've always said since Windows95 that there should be a Windows for Users and a Windows for Professional, (nothing to do with MS iteration called professional that is actually more "gadgetonial" than anything else!)
Since I did some work at IBM, I can tell you that I would go with OS3 anytime compare to Windows, but the dollar signs spoke years ago and IBM was shoved aside...now we're the one being shoved aside by the non-worker class...
I've always said since Windows95 that there should be a Windows for Users and a Windows for Professional, (nothing to do with MS iteration called professional that is actually more "gadgetonial" than anything else!)
Since I did some work at IBM, I can tell you that I would go with OS3 anytime compare to Windows, but the dollar signs spoke years ago and IBM was shoved aside...now we're the one being shoved aside by the non-worker class...
MS still owns the desktop market and people would rather spend 300% + more for a Mac and Linux STILL cannot GIVE AWAY its OS for free.
>>MOST people use the PC as a tool and each time you make their job harder by changing things you make them pissed off enough to look for alternatives
Hence IE's dramatic loss of market share. If it is a good product it will be adopted. EX: FF, Chrome, MySQL, jQuery, PHP, Apache, Linux as a server, etc.
I really don't like the Linux desk top. Win 7 left it in the dust and Win 8 will make the Linux desktop look like Win 3.1 by comparison. Good enough is never good enough. Ever. Even if it is free. It still needs to be better. Which the Linux desktop is not.
Besides. I use Mac, which makes me better than you by virtue of my choice of OS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0
>>MOST people use the PC as a tool and each time you make their job harder by changing things you make them pissed off enough to look for alternatives
Hence IE's dramatic loss of market share. If it is a good product it will be adopted. EX: FF, Chrome, MySQL, jQuery, PHP, Apache, Linux as a server, etc.
I really don't like the Linux desk top. Win 7 left it in the dust and Win 8 will make the Linux desktop look like Win 3.1 by comparison. Good enough is never good enough. Ever. Even if it is free. It still needs to be better. Which the Linux desktop is not.
Besides. I use Mac, which makes me better than you by virtue of my choice of OS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0
.. rather, a survival ploy. I think Microsoft is having their "Google Moment".. or maybe their "Internet Moment" all over again.
Back in 2005, Google seems to have realized that, the way things were going, search -- their bread and butter -- would be migrating off the desktop pretty quickly. And now, six years later, it's hard to argue. I still use search on a PC all the time, but I never walk to a PC to use search -- it's on my phone and my tablet. Google realized that every mobile device (RIM, Window Mobile, Palm, SymbianOS) was proprietary, and could shut Google out of default search overnight, if they wanted to. Thus, Google bought Android, and did what they needed to do to make Android popular, and thus secure an open platform for search on mobile.
I think Microsoft has noticed, a bit too late, that computing is now moving to the mobile device. This doesn't mean PCs vanish, but that the percentage of computing done on PCs will shrink. And that's doubly bad. If 50% of computing moves off PCs, then Windows, as of today, would drop from 94% or so of consumer computing to 47%, practically overnight. Not only that, but once you spend most of your time on a mobile device, maybe you don't think of needing Windows on your PC. In fact, Apple's made some progress in boosting Mac sales on the iPhone coattails (only lower end Macs, to the extent that Apple seems about ready to give up on the high end stuff and go 100% consumer-as-end-user).
So Microsoft needs mobile. And yet, they don't have it. Windows 7 Phone is out, and by some reports it's not too shabby. But they're still losing market share on phones. Conventional Windows will never be happy on a tablet: it doesn't do touch, it doesn't have enough storage for 100-1000MB program installs, and it doesn't have the CPU power or battery life for gigantic mega-applications.
Enter Metro. The Metro interface works on the tablet and phone, as everyone's seen. Metro apps are written in web technologies: HTML, CSS, Javascript, and Silverlight -- all interpreted. So they run on any platform, ARM or x86, 32-bit or 64-bit. But how to make these popular? Make them part of standard desktop Windows, and drag this interface along to the tablet. This will set up two completely different families of applications on the desktop: Windows applications and Metro apps. And the apps will only be sold via the Zune appstore (or whatever they call it once they realize what a turn-off "Zune" is these days). Windows users will buy these, download freebies, etc. simply because they're cheap and useful.. and that peppers the application base for the tablets.
The problem, of course, is that the tablet market will have another year of settling, unless they really rush Windows 8 out. Android will be stronger, iOS just as strong, and chances are, no one else will be very competitive. Microsoft will have the cash to play the long game here, but they'll have some work to do. I noticed they've already been courting WebOS developers for Metro apps --- WebOS also wrote apps in Javascript, HTML, and CSS...
The could rush this out, and here's how. In essence, Windows 8 is Windows 7 plus Metro. And pretty much nothing else. They integrate the alternate app environment, spin out the Windows 7 desktop as an obviously separate application shell (it always has been, but you never saw it that way), etc. That part's pretty fast. And they're not porting all of Windows 7 to ARM, just the parts needed to support Metro... many if not most of which already live in Windows 7 Phone, one way or another.
Back in 2005, Google seems to have realized that, the way things were going, search -- their bread and butter -- would be migrating off the desktop pretty quickly. And now, six years later, it's hard to argue. I still use search on a PC all the time, but I never walk to a PC to use search -- it's on my phone and my tablet. Google realized that every mobile device (RIM, Window Mobile, Palm, SymbianOS) was proprietary, and could shut Google out of default search overnight, if they wanted to. Thus, Google bought Android, and did what they needed to do to make Android popular, and thus secure an open platform for search on mobile.
I think Microsoft has noticed, a bit too late, that computing is now moving to the mobile device. This doesn't mean PCs vanish, but that the percentage of computing done on PCs will shrink. And that's doubly bad. If 50% of computing moves off PCs, then Windows, as of today, would drop from 94% or so of consumer computing to 47%, practically overnight. Not only that, but once you spend most of your time on a mobile device, maybe you don't think of needing Windows on your PC. In fact, Apple's made some progress in boosting Mac sales on the iPhone coattails (only lower end Macs, to the extent that Apple seems about ready to give up on the high end stuff and go 100% consumer-as-end-user).
So Microsoft needs mobile. And yet, they don't have it. Windows 7 Phone is out, and by some reports it's not too shabby. But they're still losing market share on phones. Conventional Windows will never be happy on a tablet: it doesn't do touch, it doesn't have enough storage for 100-1000MB program installs, and it doesn't have the CPU power or battery life for gigantic mega-applications.
Enter Metro. The Metro interface works on the tablet and phone, as everyone's seen. Metro apps are written in web technologies: HTML, CSS, Javascript, and Silverlight -- all interpreted. So they run on any platform, ARM or x86, 32-bit or 64-bit. But how to make these popular? Make them part of standard desktop Windows, and drag this interface along to the tablet. This will set up two completely different families of applications on the desktop: Windows applications and Metro apps. And the apps will only be sold via the Zune appstore (or whatever they call it once they realize what a turn-off "Zune" is these days). Windows users will buy these, download freebies, etc. simply because they're cheap and useful.. and that peppers the application base for the tablets.
The problem, of course, is that the tablet market will have another year of settling, unless they really rush Windows 8 out. Android will be stronger, iOS just as strong, and chances are, no one else will be very competitive. Microsoft will have the cash to play the long game here, but they'll have some work to do. I noticed they've already been courting WebOS developers for Metro apps --- WebOS also wrote apps in Javascript, HTML, and CSS...
The could rush this out, and here's how. In essence, Windows 8 is Windows 7 plus Metro. And pretty much nothing else. They integrate the alternate app environment, spin out the Windows 7 desktop as an obviously separate application shell (it always has been, but you never saw it that way), etc. That part's pretty fast. And they're not porting all of Windows 7 to ARM, just the parts needed to support Metro... many if not most of which already live in Windows 7 Phone, one way or another.
"If 50% of computing moves off PCs, then Windows, as of today, would drop from 94% or so of consumer computing to 47%, practically overnight."
50% of computing, would probably be refering to the social and communications segment. That's not 'real computing', though it seems to be a 'must have' in todays world.
50% of computing, would probably be refering to the social and communications segment. That's not 'real computing', though it seems to be a 'must have' in todays world.
Metro is a repeat of the Ribbon "Gooey" (boy am I ever sick of it!). MS has come up with eye candy exclusively for newb's. It ignores the needs of loyal customers who have years and decades of experience with the old UI. I hope to heaven that this time (unlike the ribbon) they include an easy toggle back to the old UI. Just let me get on with work. I am a keyboard person. I use the mouse, but hate having to take my hand off the keyboard. Now with Metro, am I going to have to add a touch pad too to be able to use it?
No really. You sound like a troll who pines for the days of DOS and UNIX. Tech is moving forward at breakneck speed that is leaving you in the dust.
You know you don't have to use it right? The is always Vi, notepad and Linux and gasp... Mac's that still have text editors.
You know you don't have to use it right? The is always Vi, notepad and Linux and gasp... Mac's that still have text editors.
that in business, and indeed life, some things just work or reach a peak. They are highly functional and work in a particular way.Essentially they evolved to become good at what they do. Same goes for the people that followed that evolutionary path, they are fine-tuned / integrated to XP / Office 2003 for the sake of my example. They can spew out work at a fantastic rate, highly efficiently, so WHY change something that works so well? If you knew anyting about engineering you would understand design, function and form perhaps better.
Yes there are other people who may wish to do things differently, and they need to be supported, but "throwing away the baby with the bathwater" is not the way to go.
Yes there are other people who may wish to do things differently, and they need to be supported, but "throwing away the baby with the bathwater" is not the way to go.
Actually Duke your statement sounds stupid as yes technology advances but at the same time the user base you have brough along and that have kept you going is still there. To completely change the familar and cost users and companies tons of money and time in complete retraing resetting it guys and the new os to work with machines not inended for this kind of UI is stupid. I have the developer version and as many have stated the metro UI just does not work for windows users with desktop or laptop computers. It just doesn't function well and it lacks the efficiency and familiarity that makes windows users keep using windows. If you take away what has kept your users with you 20 plus years they will look for what they know and thats either old os versions or others who make a useful product they can relate to. I would skip a windows 8 tablet using the metro ui and I did skip the WP7 due to the tiles. It just bad all the way around. Microsoft needs to stop take a look around and actually talk to its customers who will use it te most. Companies and workers and home users with long time windows ties.. With metro integrated windows 8 is just no good.
I've been a developer for almost 30 years. In the 90's I was doing low-level (RDBMS engine internals, drivers for 8 or 9 platforms' (unix variants, windows, even some M/F stuff like CICS, lu62-tcp, bla bla). Point is, I'm not a NOOB. I've been using Word since OS/2 tanked, and for me - the "Ribbon" (which is a variant of tabs for sure, and yeah - more "visual", was a huge improvement over the classic n-dimensional, drilldown menus interface. The point is, people are different. Some are more visual, where color and shape and arrangement have a more tight coupling to memory and thought process. Other folks conceptualize without much of a visual component, plain text and hierarchic "tree" structure is all they use in the way of visualization. I still type about 140-150 wpm, and when I'm coding, of course it's just me and the keys. For many other things, like word processing, the "dryness" of memorizing all the shortcuts (and I did) was just necessity. I found that 2007 (the first ribbon iirc) was a great new interface. And there were definitely conveniences and features that weren't in earlier versions. A tab and a row of icons with contextual menus (never very deeply nested) was a huge improvement - FOR ME. I know that it'd be awesome if everything always stayed exactly the way it was; the way we are used to things being and comfortable with. I think they sold a gazillion copies of '07, despite all the hating - and probably sold plenty of '10 (didn't bump from '07 yet - the shame 
Eye candy is not exclusively for newbs. Some of it is, to be sure. But purely logical, keyboard shortcut based UIs are not popular with everyone, not even developers like you and me. IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT THE BACKLASH IF WORD'S NEXT RELEASE LOOKED MORE LIKE 2003 or earlier. And we're not talking just "LOOK"... all the "candy" is gone, the visual cues for doing things like altering line-spacing, margins, fonts (which are PREVIEWED with a mouseover in the "eye candy" version. Boy THAT SUCKS doesn't it? Who would want to see what a font looks like by mousing over the name? What a DRAG!!!!!). Heh. Pretty tough to argue against something like font preview, right? Or - do you have an argument against it?
Cheers. Be Happy. Or, --- enjoy your displeasure, if that makes you feel good.
Ciao,
Aprilia1k --- maniacal twisty carving is a great weekend release. But you've got to have good health insurance for sure.
Eye candy is not exclusively for newbs. Some of it is, to be sure. But purely logical, keyboard shortcut based UIs are not popular with everyone, not even developers like you and me. IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT THE BACKLASH IF WORD'S NEXT RELEASE LOOKED MORE LIKE 2003 or earlier. And we're not talking just "LOOK"... all the "candy" is gone, the visual cues for doing things like altering line-spacing, margins, fonts (which are PREVIEWED with a mouseover in the "eye candy" version. Boy THAT SUCKS doesn't it? Who would want to see what a font looks like by mousing over the name? What a DRAG!!!!!). Heh. Pretty tough to argue against something like font preview, right? Or - do you have an argument against it? Cheers. Be Happy. Or, --- enjoy your displeasure, if that makes you feel good.
Ciao,
Aprilia1k --- maniacal twisty carving is a great weekend release. But you've got to have good health insurance for sure.
This may be a great thing if you're using a small tablet, but if you're actually working with a computer then spending the money on a second (or third!) monitor is more worth while. Using Windows XP on two screens will have more of a positive effect on a user's abilities than this new GUI.
Don't forget: the OS' name is "Windows" (plural), NOT "Window" (singular). Lots of people open a program and maximise it immediately right now - multitasking actually isn't much needed for most users!
Maybe Windows 8 will be good for those people. Me? I'm going to get a really powerful machine, run Ubuntu, and run Windows XP in a VM for my work - the company I'm working for has 300,000 Windows XP licences and doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon!
Don't forget: the OS' name is "Windows" (plural), NOT "Window" (singular). Lots of people open a program and maximise it immediately right now - multitasking actually isn't much needed for most users!
Maybe Windows 8 will be good for those people. Me? I'm going to get a really powerful machine, run Ubuntu, and run Windows XP in a VM for my work - the company I'm working for has 300,000 Windows XP licences and doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon!
I'm a little surprised for these comments. I have now used this version for few days and I love it and no I'm not using metro because I don't have to. There is this neat Ctrl key in my keyboard that switches the screen to normal windows type, at least in my PC except some of the traditional task bar buttons that I don't need. From there on I can go doing what ever I need to do and because I'm old XP user the change is quite amazing including the speed. What comes to the older generation users, I believe that I'm a one being past 60. I also been using PC's since early 80's and used almost every version of Windows except Me and Nt versions. Some Mac and Linux and we all have different preferences, but so far mine is MS and Window 8 seems to be very nice program allowing me to install almost all my old programs that I need. The fact is that so for far only one refused to instal. So at least for me and my family this seems to be program for our 4 PC's
In your version when your in desktop classic look and click your start button do you have your folders and such or does it take you back to the metro page like mine does? thats the killer for me. I want the classic look desktop and the classic startbutton of xp as it makes things so much easier but when I click the start it just opens the metro UI which is annoying as hell. So far I am hating this entire os. I still prefer xp but I do have some nice windows 7 machine I skinned with xp UI so usabilty is back. the metro and start button need to be removed and a good familar desktop with start and folders an option or its a no deal and I will have to start looking at a linux covered in windows theme option to get work done.
I like what Microsoft is doing, and I love the Metro interface. It is very good at getting your information quickly, and even has multitasking support. This would be one of the ideal interfaces for a tablet. But not for a desktop.
You see, desktops are used with keyboards and mice. A mouse doesn't work very nicely with Metro. It works, but it just fills the screen, while the average computer (desktop/laptop) user would like to use as much of his/her screen real estate as possible.
I'd like to see how this would work out in a business environment, if Microsoft decides to make no changes in this, and RTM a version so that all computers boot in Metro, and people have to click the Desktop tile to get to a limited version of the desktop. (For instance: logging out / changing users / shutting down / restarting goes through Metro.)
Interesting.
You see, desktops are used with keyboards and mice. A mouse doesn't work very nicely with Metro. It works, but it just fills the screen, while the average computer (desktop/laptop) user would like to use as much of his/her screen real estate as possible.
I'd like to see how this would work out in a business environment, if Microsoft decides to make no changes in this, and RTM a version so that all computers boot in Metro, and people have to click the Desktop tile to get to a limited version of the desktop. (For instance: logging out / changing users / shutting down / restarting goes through Metro.)
Interesting.
Windows 8. That alone, says it all.
While it is POSSIBLE to rabbit hunt with an aircraft carrier, it's not the tool for the job. Sure, it's got mobility, firepower, accuracy, but you can't run through a field with it, nor turn it on a dime.
Windows, to the extent that it either tries to add horsepower to mobility or ease-of-use to the stationary platform may be mixing metaphors a tad much. Whatever they do is an obvious REACTION to tech world events.
I will observe that a while back.... just a blink of an eye, the two biggest names in mobility were Nokia and RIM. Both are on the ropes due to Apple. Now, we hear "MS has a 90% market share and it's not going anywhere". Pardon me, but I have heard that before and recently.
As far as the consumer is concerned, they are losing a lot RIGHT NOW. I'm with XP, and did not buy into the hype of Vista nor Win7. I sure as hell won't buy into a non-need for Win8. I really don't care what the features are. I'm done with Windows Genuine Advantage and mandatory cycle penalties for the anitvirus crap, the animated paper clips, and have seen Microsoft's own 20 page "How to migrate from XP to Win7" document? I have 35 years of experience, and could not follow those instructions.
Redmond is clueless. I won't completely write them off, but man, the psychopath dating my sister is unlikely to change if he marries her. You can tell a lot from past behavior. Not to mention it's due when.... 2013? And how many people develop for it now if it's a brand spanking new OS? How much will I have to pay for compilers and development tools? How much training?
This is not a pretty sight, regardless of the eye candy.
While it is POSSIBLE to rabbit hunt with an aircraft carrier, it's not the tool for the job. Sure, it's got mobility, firepower, accuracy, but you can't run through a field with it, nor turn it on a dime.
Windows, to the extent that it either tries to add horsepower to mobility or ease-of-use to the stationary platform may be mixing metaphors a tad much. Whatever they do is an obvious REACTION to tech world events.
I will observe that a while back.... just a blink of an eye, the two biggest names in mobility were Nokia and RIM. Both are on the ropes due to Apple. Now, we hear "MS has a 90% market share and it's not going anywhere". Pardon me, but I have heard that before and recently.
As far as the consumer is concerned, they are losing a lot RIGHT NOW. I'm with XP, and did not buy into the hype of Vista nor Win7. I sure as hell won't buy into a non-need for Win8. I really don't care what the features are. I'm done with Windows Genuine Advantage and mandatory cycle penalties for the anitvirus crap, the animated paper clips, and have seen Microsoft's own 20 page "How to migrate from XP to Win7" document? I have 35 years of experience, and could not follow those instructions.
Redmond is clueless. I won't completely write them off, but man, the psychopath dating my sister is unlikely to change if he marries her. You can tell a lot from past behavior. Not to mention it's due when.... 2013? And how many people develop for it now if it's a brand spanking new OS? How much will I have to pay for compilers and development tools? How much training?
This is not a pretty sight, regardless of the eye candy.
Working with software, that costs 3-5 times HW+OS, it better makes some money.
I really don't need a PSP, but a multi highres screen configuration with lots of information.
This is important in graphic and cad work.
Maybe they should differentiate between home and pro versions even more.
I don't want to be Ipadized on my desktop or notebook.
I really don't need a PSP, but a multi highres screen configuration with lots of information.
This is important in graphic and cad work.
Maybe they should differentiate between home and pro versions even more.
I don't want to be Ipadized on my desktop or notebook.
I've had a try of two interfaces in the Linux world that are presumably designed to be run on a wide range of platforms: Unity and Gnome 3. They're both slick, but both are very ponderous to use on a desktop. One gets the impression, however, that they'd be great on a tablet. In the same vein, the iOS-like features of Lion are pretty superfluous as well.
From what I've seen so far, using the same interface on all platforms is a bad idea. The feel and capabilities of large and small screens--not to mention mouse vs. multitouch inputs--are just too different.
From what I've seen so far, using the same interface on all platforms is a bad idea. The feel and capabilities of large and small screens--not to mention mouse vs. multitouch inputs--are just too different.
I've tried it and hate it!
Why do Micorsoft think users want something so different that they need a total re-education to do what they already do successfully?
A great many users are more concerned about getting the job done without the OS 'getting in the way'. Users have been slow to migrate away from XP because Vista was a big headache and W7 was too different in use (what's wrong with folders/directories and what's the need for 'libraries' they ask?). So W8 seems to be a further step away from what users actually want - a system that helps them do what they need to do productively using the applications they need. The OS should just be a vehicle for that efficient productivity with little retraining needed.
Why do Micorsoft think users want something so different that they need a total re-education to do what they already do successfully?
A great many users are more concerned about getting the job done without the OS 'getting in the way'. Users have been slow to migrate away from XP because Vista was a big headache and W7 was too different in use (what's wrong with folders/directories and what's the need for 'libraries' they ask?). So W8 seems to be a further step away from what users actually want - a system that helps them do what they need to do productively using the applications they need. The OS should just be a vehicle for that efficient productivity with little retraining needed.
If you think it's hard to navigate and find anything quickly in Windows 7, you have problems. I loved XP and still think it will go down in history as one of the all time greats. But Windows 7 is so much better, stable, secure and more advanced than XP, there's no comparison. If you insist that your computer operating system stay exactly the same with no changes or advancements in any way, forever. You will end up being left behind. It takes very little effort to learn to be fast and efficient with Windows 7. I install Windows 7 on very old low powered computers and just spend about 1 minute changing to the performance setting and it's fast, and it stays fast. Did you know you can find most things by just clicking start button and typing usually about 3 letters? And with just a little bit of one time configuring you can make things even faster. I can single click an icon in my taskbar and have Task Manager open. And then there's the jump list. If you look at it with an open mind instead of saying all change is bad, it's obvious that Windows 7 is a far superior OS to XP. I think that Microsoft being willing to support XP for 14 years is pretty amazing. Apple would never do it.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
