Discussion on:

Learning to love Windows 8

>>The Windows 8 Start Screen is simply a combination of the Start menu and the Task Bar that is always visible taking up the screen real estate where we used to put our unused icons.


The screen real estate on my desktop is not cluttered with icons, but has active applications that I monitor while doing other things. A start screen that covers everything that's already running is nothing like a taskbar and start menu.

You don't have to show the Metro style start screen at all once the computer boots up. You can go right to the desktop with a click of the mouse,press of the enter key or the press of the Windows-D keys or if you have a touch screen, touch of a finger, or tap of a stylus.
Once there, you will find that the desktop looks very much the same as it does in Windows 7. You can still have tiled applications open across multiple monitors, applications shortcuts pinned to your taskbar, widgets on the screen, and icons on the desktop.

You can look stuff up on the start menu without having to switch back and forth which makes it slow and annoying to use, plus navigating back to the start screen is really annoying in Windows 8.

Windows 8 isn't really good on anything, imo. A lot of people say it is great on tablets and weak on desktops, no, it's better than Windows 7 on tablets but not great.

"You can look stuff up on the start menu without having to switch back and forth"

You don't have to switch back and forth to look up stuff. Windows Explorer has a search box. You can pin it to the taskbar on your desktop. You can even save searches under Favorites. I have one called "Find Programs" It grabs all "*.exe" in c:\Program Files and all subfolders and displays them in a window much like Start > All Programs > etc..
I prefer jumping back to the Metro style screen because I can check in on the live tiles while I type "Exc" to call up Excel for example.
In my opinion, it's faster than the old start menu. (Start > All Programs > (scroll down) Microsoft Office > Excel).

I never use the Start menu to launch Excel, it's on the taskbar as are the other apps I use constantly, so they are one click away. Can I or can I not launch Excel and the other dozen or so apps I use all the time with a single click in Windows 8?

but you might have to find the right page it is hiding on.

It looks and behaves the same as Win 7.
If I wanted to open excel from the Metro style screen, I would type "exc" and hit enter.

Would finding the page take extra clicks? The question is about one click.

I think what mckinnej is getting at is if the Excel tile you want is way over off screen to the right, it's not one click to open the program. It's slide the scroll bar until you find the Excel tile.
But you can order your tiles any way you want. I move the most frequently used tiles on the far left so that they are always visible.
That being said, I think a better way to open programs from the Metro style screen is to type part of the name of the file.
For example, typing "exc" + Enter opens Excel. There is no dialog box necessary. Just type. I think that is awesome.
It works for everything provided you can spell.
Example: Typing "2012 Bu" + Enter opens my 2012 Budget Report.xls file.
If you don't press Enter you will see a list of possible file matches to pick from.
So yes to one click and there are other possibly more efficient ways too.

nt

At last, someone who answers the question.

I use my Windows 7 PC for web and software development and photographic and creative design. So I have about 30 apps that I use frequently - I have software development apps like Eclipse and Visual Studio and Blend, and various debugging, profiling emulation and test tools. I also have the full Adobe Creative suite - with each tool - Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Acrobat, etc as its own icon. I also have a complete set of video and audio editing tools, and specialized tools for the equipment I use, e.g., for Nikon, Canon, etc. I also instances of different browsers or browser rev's to test compatibility for my web designs.

I organize them as icons on my screen clustered by purpose - sw development tools here, image-editing tools there, web-browsing, FTP and downloading tools over there, etc. But all of them together consume only a small part of my screen and I can access each item with 1 click.

How would I do this with Windows 8?

It is quite a common misconception that you are stuck with the Metro ( ahem... Modern ) desktop. It is simply untrue. The old style desktop screen is still there. You can put all of your shortcuts there just as you do in Windows 7. What is missing is the Start button and the Start > Program Files list but you can recreate them if you want to. There is plenty of information available on how to do this.

To inet32: Running the upgrade from Win7 to Win 8 leaves your Win 7 Desktop icons in the same place on the Win 8 Desktop. Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom work just fine on Win 8 without even needing an upgrade from Adobe.

Invoking a program by typing something seems like something people would have done 30 years, back when DOS command-line interfaces, Unix shells, and dinosaurs rules the earth.

I have always used the run / search box to find apps and files. But that's the way I work. Maybe that's not the way you do.
For me, not having to open a dialog box to type in "Acro" to open Acrobat saves me a step. When you are on the Metro screen, all you have to do is type. You don't need a dialog box.
For me it's faster. For you, maybe it's faster to click Start > Program Files > Adobe > Acrobat.
Both ways can work.
As Gandhi once said, "You will find there us room for us all."

It's like MS added a second door to the front hallway of my house. "Sure, you can still get to your living room; just open the second door too! That second door doesn't benefit you in any way, but some of the guys with different floor plans needed one so you have to have one too."

We know the capability is there to disable Metro; the registry shortcut was common knowledge ten minutes after the Developer release rolled out. Put the option back in and prompt for it at install.

Microsoft's fear is that so many people will disable Metro on desktops that developers will abandon it, the lack of apps will cause the MS Store and Surface RT to crash and burn, and the rejection of W8 and MS-brand hardware will drag everything else down with them. They've wagered their desktop dominance on the demand for cross-platform applications.

It's ugly in comparison, and full of holes.

An application that runs at start up and is always running and can freely access the web.... A virus makers wet dream....

If you don't want use Metro however briefly, don't install Win 8.
I argue that Metro goes to the desktop so quickly it's like you opened the first door and if you closed your eyes for 2 seconds, you are past the second door and in the room you wanted. I grew up in an apartment like that. We called that room the reception hall.
To be sure, Microsoft is taking a big gamble with this front end interface and maybe we are being forced to use it as consumers if we plan to buy a new computer in the next 12-18 months but that is not the case with the enterprise as our support for Win 7 will take us more than seven years down the road.
I am hoping that Microsoft has a winner in the consumer market. Who knows, if enough consumers buy into the new interface, they may ask for it at work.
Or is that your fear?

Personally, I am ready for a new way to interact with my computer.

If the upper echelons say we're going to support it, I'll install it for those who ask. I don't see us rolling it out en masse like we did XP or are doing with W7 now, but that isn't my call. Ask me if I recommend it, and I'll explain why I think the learning curve isn't worth the effort. I won't voluntarily inflict it on anyone who doesn't ask for it, but tell me to implement it and I'll make it happen. Maybe I can even get some formal training if a deployment decision is made.

as the Director of IT for a small biotech company, I don't plan to deploy Windows 8 to any of our existing 600+ desktops and laptops. It's not because of the learning curve. It's because most of the desktops are more than 4 years old and most of our enterprise applications are even older. The desktops can't handle Win 8 and I don't have a compelling reason to upgrade or replace them.
I suspect most companies are in the same situation of shrinking budgets, aging applications, and Windows XP boxes.
I have a three year keep, refresh, or obsolete plan for all of my hardware and software. Windows 8 is not in that plan. We are slowly rolling out Windows 7.
The staff can learn to use Win 8 on their home computers.
My IT staff can test Win 8 out at work and I will probably bring in a personal Windows Surface Pro to try out on the domain.
That doesn't mean that I don't like Windows 8.
It just means that it is not practical in my enterprise environment at this time.

I don't see any conflict in making a case supporting a course of action even it if isn't appropriate to your own circumstances. I can see plenty of cases where Linux is appropriate even if it doesn't fit my needs.

Your operation sounds a lot like mine, as do your W7, W8 and Surface (non-)deployment strategies. The big difference is W8 leaves a nasty taste in my mouth on 'traditional' platforms.

It's just that I can't resist explaining how one can apply new hardware or software when they claim it will not work.
Win 8 has its strengths.
Awesomely easy search
Improved Task Manager
Clean lightweight apps.

but I am not a "change for the sake of change" guy.

To use Metro or not it is up to the end user. I like Metro interface as a step to make interaction "human being-machine" more friendly.

It seems like a trap they may fall in is forcing the user to constantly switch between two UI paradigms. Will there be versions of Visual Studio, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office, etc, that use the big colored squares, and when I do a File Open, do I see the rest of the PC as folders and files, or do I see it in some sort of Metro paradigm?

Doesn't fit onto the one screen is what i find a problem.

Sure with a Touch Screen device or maybe using Kinect it's fine for those Touch/Motion Users but on a Desktop Computer scrolling across acres of screen real estate to find the Tile that I want is a nuisance. It may be great for Mobile Devices but for Desktop Users with more than a few programs installed it's a time consuming waste of my time and as a direct result my companies money.

My current Windows 8 Test Bed has about as many programs installed as shown on that overpopulated Win 7 Desktop shown in the article and it's pitiful constantly having to scroll from one side to the other looking for little used programs as customers ask how they can do what they need to. I find the XP desktop easy to use and while I do have a 7 system available because most customers still are using XP it's what I'm using most of the time and to be perfectly honest if M$ continue with their Metro GUI only it's an OS I'll not be using as the primary OS of choice.

XP still has years of service left in it for my customers and when they finally need to move away from it because there are not any sufficient drivers available for their new computers 7 will fill the bill for a very long time to come. Hopefully the next version of Windows will move away from the idiot idea of a One Size Fits All and it has to be Touch Screen to be a workable One Size but I very much doubt it. Microsoft will continue with their imposed changes because they are incapable of doing anything else. Though to be perfectly honest I still insist that the Windows 3 Interface was better than Metro. At least with that you would drop into a "Subwindow" of associated applications instead of needing a single tile for each application.

Col

those tiles can be dragged and dropped. You can drag the ones you use most often over to the left so they're visible without scrolling. And it's not like the Start menu doesn't require a bit of customization to get the most frequently used programs where you want them.

I agree that it looks a lot like Windows 3.x, but there isn't as much customization possible. There are huge margins around the screen where you can't put anything, margins almost the width of two tiles. There also doesn't appear to be a way to arrange tiles other than in vertical columns; attempts to arrange them horizontally get forced back into the vertical format. There's no way to select multiple tiles for mass removal; they have to be removed individually.

"There's no way to select multiple tiles for mass removal; they have to be removed individually."
Long press the upper right corner of the tiles you want to select and then choose unpin from Start.

That wasn't present in the original release. Selecting multiple tiles only allowed resizing. I don't recall trying it in the second.

I retract the comment as outdated.

I verify on my Win 8 tablet before I post anything because maybe I have gone crazy.

Yep I know that's not my issue. It's the little used programs that some customers have that are driving me nuts. Scrolling around whatever metro is going to be called to find them is my problem.

The often used ones get bunched together and the remainder are sort of left to fend for themselves where Windows puts them sort of anyway.

Here is another problem I have with Microsoft they constantly do not provide back support for things which was OK with XP and so on as it was around for a long time but with the new development cycle newer hardware can be as little as 2 years old and it is no longer possible to use on the new OS. I have a Negative/Positive Scanner which was very expensive that never had XP Drivers which I still rarely use to scan in Negatives/Positives for some High Resolution Images when they are required even a Hwhatever Blad doesn't have the resolution that some Pictures need and 2.5 inch Film can only be beaten by Graphic Art type film for High Resolution images. They can also be blown up to 30 X 40 inch without a problem and don't require any messing about with like digital images do.

Anyway I have a couple of clients with scanners or as they like to call them Multifunction Devices from Cannon which work perfectly with XP sort or work well enough with a 32 Bit Vista and simply do not work at all with any of the current 64 Bit Windows systems. Not really sure why they call them Multifunction Devices when they are Photocopiers really but provided that you never use a 64 Bit OS they work a treat. With modern computers try not getting a 64 Bit OS and I'm sure that these customers will scrap their 50K + Multifunction Devices because their new $600.00 NB will not work them.

Happens with some cheaper scanners as well though I don't really consider a $500.00 Scanner cheap by most accounts. Defiantly not Domestic device and I've run across some that will work with 7 64 Bit and simply do not work on either version of 8. Those are less than 2 years old at the moment and I'm sure that they will not be replaced just because they will not work with 8.

However being so new and me only working with Commercial Users I very much doubt that 8 will be considered by any for a very long time to come and most likely 10 will be the current release by the time that they are ready to renew.

I have a couple who are holding their XP systems in their "Cold Dead Flippers" with a vengeance and simply don't want to give them up under any circumstances. One NB even seems to have mold growing on the inside of the screen with dead pixels in various areas and the only question that they are asking is "How Much For a New Screen?" Another at that place had their NB die a very natural death after 6 years and they insisted that i get a replacement that would run XP, which wasn't much of a problem except for the fact that standard it came with 8 GIG of RAM which isn't being all used. Seems a bit of a waste to me but they are happy so I suppose I shouldn't complain too much.

Col

"At least with that you would drop into a "Subwindow" of associated applications instead of needing a single tile for each application."
You can put shortcuts to related applications in a single folder and then pin that folder to Start.
That's not how I would organize it but it can be done that way.

I have tried Win 7 and read about Win 8 so I have become convinced that XP will be my operating system until my systems die. I have a 24inch monitor with MSVDM installed. A quick launch toolbar always on top lies on the right of my screen and carries a host of small icons for all the programs I normally use.
Thus I can have two programs side by side on one screen when using them together and a program that is best on full screen is just a click away using MSVDM without disturbing the others.
I can see no way to make Win 7 or 8 as convenient.

It does a better job handling multiple monitors than Win 7 alone.
That being said, I don't need DisplayFusion for Win 8 as it does a decent job managing monitors on its own.

I do not need or want multiple monitors since MSVDM gives me a similar effect on a monitor right in front of me. So I don't need Win 8 to give a better way of using them than Win 7. Since this discussion is concentrated on display I did not mention that I cannot afford to be without two programs that do not work on Win 7 and so will not work on Win 8

I prefer a multi-monitor (and multi-NIC) set up so that I can remotely access my servers and desktops that span several networks. It would be much less productive for me to be stuck with a single monitor.

I run XP as a virtual machine within Win7, and use them about 50-50.

There are times when the efficiency and ease of use of Office 2003 on XP makes it the tool of choice, and times when I need all the memory available so Office 2010 is used on Win7.

I would love to see the XP UI overlaid on the Win8 code base. Of course, it ain't gonna happen, but it would make me a happy camper.

Although I can appreciate an article such as this, it paints a picture that the objection to the Metro interface is somehow an objection to change.

As a user of multiple Operating Systems (Win 7, Fedora 15, openSUSE...to just name a few) the idea of "change" is normally aligned with "improvement." The Metro UI in a desktop environment doesn't create improvement. If anything, it creates a great opportunity to refreshen my command-line-savvy--which is the primary way that I've engaged Windows 8.

Windows 8 is an otherwise amazing, progressive, modern Operating System. Although many of its improvements come from the Linux branch of computing, they're still welcome. From the graphical file transfer notification to the general way in which 8 functions...beautiful!

My only reservation--after thinking price, compatibility, and migration would be the biggest hindrances--is Metro. I look forward to using this interface on my mobile device in the future...seems very intuitive and...simply...different. However, forcing this upon me in a desktop environment is extremely short-sighted of Microsoft. It would have been better as an option denoted during installation (choose Metro or Classic interface...adjustable upon installation in Control Panel-->Interface)...let the masses play with it...the tech-boys would fiddle with it and convince their not-as-tech-savvy friends that it's cool...and then introduce it as a mandatory interface on Windows 10.

It is the lack of option that people don't like; tech-inclined or otherwise. Being tech-inclined, I'm annoyed with the idea that I don't have options. Third-party applications aren't an interest given their inherent effect on RAM...I should be able to change this in the registry at the very least...

We'll all see how it plays out. Articles denoting those who dissent as kicking and screaming are useless. I expect more of you TechRepublic...

If it is an enterprise install, you can choose to install Win 8 or Win 7 - at least until extended support ends for Win 7 in 2020.

If it is a home install, you're going to need to purchase a Windows 7 license soon.

So if you want to have a "classic" look you need to use Win7? what if your upgrading from win7. Best "Choice" is not to even bother with win8 then.

Like many sad people, I installed the preview. Once you get past the "I'm not called Metro" thingumajig, it's Win 7 desktop with a few annoying differences.
Win 8 is a tablet O/S for the desktop and, in real terms, not only delivers less bang for your buck but isn't worth a penny.
If this is the future, leave me in the past.
On the plus side, my interest having been stimulated by the prospect of a new O/S only to be disappointed by Microsoft, I tuned to Linux Mint for a laugh. It rocks!

"... many people are resenting the coming retirement of the Start menu. ... I dont really understand the reasoning behind their objections."

From earlier in your article:

"A crowded desktop became the norm for most users, until the advent of the Start menu in Windows 95. ... Today, our desktops are a little like icon graveyards, with most functions accessed by a task bar, dock or a Start menu."

The Start screen is a return to those graveyards. You acknowledge the Start menu has replaced the unused desktop icon. If people have stopped using icons, why will they start using them again with Metro? Oh, wait; they don't have a choice. Metro is a return to the pre-Windows 95 desktop of cluttered, unused icons, a return that comes at the unnecessary expense of the Start menu. I'll eventually learn to use it, but I don't see myself preferring it to W7 or XP on desktop / laptop platforms.

There was a registry entry in the first Developer release to boot to the traditional desktop without going through Metro first. Apparently the number of people using it was so large that in the subsequent two beta releases, that backdoor was gone. MS, if so many people were unhappy with Metro, the solution isn't to jam the new GUI down their throats anyway. People expressed an preference for the alternative; take the hint. Allow a choice of GUI based on the hardware platform.

The fear of change mantra is getting real old, real fast.

I don't fear change. If I did, I wouldn't have learned how to use Linux, and change distros all the way to ArchLinux. That's change too, and I wasn't affraid then.

This latest bit about the chaotic desktop is very funny, but not meaningfull. Like the first guy posted, my desktop is not filled with Icons. Further, I have found these kind of desktops to be mostly (with only a few exceptions) the territory of the problem prone inept user. If that is the kind of person MS listens to, then MS doesn't want me as a customer.

The main reason why I object to "the change" is that it bring nothing BETTER with it. Change for the sake of change is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Of course what is new and shiny might sell better, so for MS it might be good. I have no doubt that I could manage under Metro, I also have no doubt I would have no benefit to do so, neither in speed or efficiency.

Since I see no benefit to Metro, I don't like it, period. An emotional response of fear or dislike of change simply does not exist.

You say "If that is the kind of person MS listens to, then MS doesn't want me as a customer."

You have no choice. Those other OS that people name-drop (and comparitively few use) will not run the World Standard programs, such as MS Office. And if they did, those OS are not what is in use and trusted by billions around the globe.

The time for OS competition would have been when 3.1 came out. And it would have been tough. But noone has ever challenged MS. Maybe Apple, but no one can fail to notice the small percentage market share in software that Apple maintains down thru the decades.

So you will wind up doing as MS manuevers you to do. Where is the alternate OS? None known. And no programs developed for it. MS wins again.

I have Windows 7 on my computer as a dual boot. I haven't booted into it in over a month. I recently took a two week vacation. My wife and I took a netbook and my HP laptop which dual boots. While she used the dual core HP and Windows, I happily used the 1.0g atom netbook (and no I wasn't running any flavor of Windows even though it will boot into XP). I use MS Office formatted programs constantly without ever running an MS program. I do have a choice and I've been execising it for over 6 years. It's called Linux and I live there. I may visit Windows occassionally, but it's like visiting a cranky relative, I can't wait to get home.

there is a sea-change occurring across the board with many developers regarding MS's current tactics. I cite for starters the gaming industry. Long held as a major reason many users within that realm would not make the "complete" transition to alternative OS's, such is soon to be a thing of the past. Steam is now in the process of porting all of its games to OSX and even Linux. Further, they have gone on record with their extreme displeasure with Windows 8 and its development platform in claiming publicly that MS has sounded a death knell in further arrangements with game developers.
As for MS and its meteoric rise to the top of the Office suite of applications, no organization is tied to MS at the hip in that area unless they happen to be using Exchange and/or SQL. Granted, anyone having memory of changing platforms in either of those 2 areas will not be looking forward to the prospect of needing to repeat it anytime soon. Nonetheless, this industry is full of brilliant and talented minds who will continue working towards making things more efficient and offering more choice. The future of computers, hardware and software alike will be far brighter with the ensuing competition. Before leaving the Office argument, ask ANYONE who previously used Word Perfect what their thoughts on MS Office products are. If your answers are like those I experience from these users, you will be hard pressed to find one that wouldn't go back to WP in a second given their choice in the matter.
As for my own observations from way back before the Dead Sea got sick and died, I owned both a Windows 3.11 machine and a Mac Powerbook. It seems quite clear to me that the ONLY reason Apple failed to prevail in the industry was in the cost of their products at the time. (In large part due to their own shortsightedness, adherence to Motorola and failure to have the Ace-In-The-Hole contract Bill managed to swing with IBM) Anyone measuring the 2 Operating Systems against each other that could keep a straight face when claiming the merits of Redmonds product over the Mac (at that time) would be thought a fool. It is not my intention to start a flame war here. Sorry, I just call it as I see it. Windows 8 appears to be a major step backward and as is typical of MS, they intend to shove it down your throat as long as you continue to open your mouth.
For all of the MS fanboys, remember these words and watch them become a reality as the motions are already set into action. "All that you have hated about Apple products is about to become a full-blown realization with Microsoft"
Funny how things come full circle.