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.

I do both Windows and Android software development - I have an iPhone, two Android Phones and 2 Android tablets. So I'm hardly "afraid of change". But the fact is that top end tools for what I do are all desktop tools - there is no Visual Studio, Eclipse, or Adobe Creative Suite that runs on a Samsung Galaxy tablet or iPad.

Windows 8 is optimized for portable devices with lightweight apps but it complicates life for those of us on desktops with heavyweight apps. Apple doesn't try to run the same OS on such two radically different platforms as desktop workstations and iPhones. i don't understand what Microsoft is thinking.

Have the courage to explain what you disagree with. For the last several weeks you've 'downvoted' any comment that isn't blatantly pro-Microsoft, even the neutral ones. Your actions give you the appearance of being a Microsoft shill. Even Loverock Davidson explains his positions.

I think the Metro interface looks just like the Lotus Notes interface of the 90s, big square boxes, I hardly want to call them icons.

Microsoft wants you to call them tiles.

Haven't they changed the name of their web-based e-mail client at least three times? They changed 'File Manager' to 'Windows Explorer' to gods only know what it is today. SMS became SCCM. They change their product names more often than Facebook changes its privacy settings, and the public name often doesn't match what shows when you click 'Help, About...'

and online storage is now "the cloud"
and data has to be "big data" now
and PDA phones are now "smartphones" and feature phones are something in between
and programs are now "apps"
and so on and so on

I've always grouped my desktop icons into folders which I can line up neatly along the edges of the screen. I see no advantages to the Windows 8 start screen. I've been working in IT for over 20 years now and I see this as just another major change foisted on the public by the MS giant in order to force us all to buy something new, and for many people, take classes to learn the new system. It's commonly called built in obsolescence and I find it a despicable business practice.

And all you wintendo users are doomed!

there are 3 more pointing back at you! You would do well to explore the total meaning behind, "Examine the plank in your own eye before attempting to remove the speck in your neighbor's eye." I think the term is Hypocrite, sir MTsyko aka Wintendo. Nice little nickname you have coined for yourself.

yes, I'm a bit late saying something on this post.

if you create a folder on your desktop and call it My Shortcuts, you can put ALL your shortcuts in which were created when you installed your programs, so your desktop was clean and stays clean all the time.
No cluttered icons all over your desktop any more and you are in control of it.
In Windows 8 you'll have those icons all over your Startscreen, can you order them all will or what, tell me, cause sometimes I'm looking after a program and it's
not on the 'S' screen, so type Winkey + the wanted app. Then you'll get a Searchscreen and maybe your app is mentioned...........
Tell me Mike, is there a better way?

What a bad line. Windows 8 is a huge gamble for Microsoft and given their user base it may or may not work. Many "home" users of existing windows xp, 7 etc may not like it even if it comes with a new PC. How many Windows XP users are still out there ???
With most applications development moving to "cloud" based web apps what gives Windows 8 any advantage over a MAC or Linux? Certainly not Microsoft's leadership in Windows on Cell phones. How's that boat anchor decision working out for Nokia? Not on Tablets where either IPAD or Android make up nearly the entire market. Developers have been losing interest in Microsoft technology for a long time. The only financial lifeboat Microsoft has had in the past 5 years has been their past monopolistic choke hold on PC manufacturers and Businesses. Both of those areas have started changing directions away from a Windows environment. Microsoft's UEFI scheme just shows to me how desparate they are becoming by trying to lock PCs to only boot Windows "unless" you pay a royalty/license fee to Microsoft... why is that even legal ?? UEFI just seems destined for a court lawsuit sooner or later.

"Tony is the owner and managing director of Microcraft eLearning and is one of the creators of the AUTHOR eLearning Development System."

I do not place icons/shortcuts on my desktop. Why? They are always covered by applications. If I need to launch something, I go through the start menu, the task bar, or a toolbar bound to the task bar.

I don't run an OS or a desktop to look at the pretty representations of my files, I run an operating system in order to run applications.

When I need to interact with the OS (launch applications, configuration changes, software installation, etc), I want it to be fast, easy, intuitive and unobtrusive.

I'm not getting that from Windows 8 and the shell formerly known as Metro.

What I seem to have is an overly widgetized phone operating system running across 4 large monitors, doing it's absolute best to prevent me from being productive. I do not need a Facebook tile, a Mail tile and an RSS tile constantly updating in the background, sucking down processor cycles, RAM and network bandwidth. That's why I didn't install or configure any Widgets in Vista or Win7.

As a long-time SQL Server/.NET developer, please, please, please, get out of my way and let me write code.

Tony's thinking is confused and inconsistent.

For example, he says "When it comes to input methods, I dont want to be constrained." Ok, most of us can agree with that sentiment.

But why, then, are users having forced upon them an interface many do not want to use?

There seems to be a consensus that the underlying Win8 code is pretty good and that the Metro/Modern interface is fine for tablets and other touch-screen devices.

The objection to Metro/Modern is that users are being "constrained", i.e. forced, to use it, whether or not suits their work habits and regardless of its effect on productivity.

Bottom Line: Use of Metro/Modern should be an option, not a requirement, and Microsoft is dead wrong in attempting to force a tablet interface onto desktop screens.

"I dont really understand the reasoning behind their objections."

Because you appear to be one of these people who likes plastering their desktop with icons, some of us keep everything tidy on our start menus and a lot of people only use a small number of applications on their desktop. All Windows 8 does is add a lot of clicking we didn't have to do before and clicking in obscure locations on the screen as well which are counter-intuitive, e.g. moving the pointer to the bottom left or bottom right of the desktop window.

I don't like having all the icons plastered all over the screen (tiles), I prefer having everything in a list, it's definitely easier to find stuff in an alphabetical list, especially if you're an IT person who has dozens of little applications installed that you only use occasionally.

I like what I see of Windows 8, so far. I don't agree with the author on the metro (or whatever) interface). Bluntly speaking it is a pain to use on in a desk top unit. All of my users, as far as I know, work from desktops -- without touch screens. They have no plans to add touch screen monitors. It appears that the author is trying to justify a bad marketing ploy by Microsoft (defaulting to metro) rather than the GUI desktop. I've installed a small program that defaults to the desktop on those units trying Win 8 and the users like it: boots faster, is stable and shuts down faster. Hopefully Microsoft will listen and will see the light in the final release and give us the option to open at the GUI desktop (add visible star and shut down button)

I am a bit disappointed that so many people posting about Windows 8 seem to have not figured out how to use it efficiently. Is it that so many people haven't tried it for long enough?

So many people complain about the Metro style start screen so vehemently that they seem to not be aware that the desktop is one click away. Click the desktop tile and you are back in your comfort zone.

So many people think you need a touchscreen to use Windows 8. You absolutely do not need a touchscreen. You can take advantage of the touchscreen features if you have a touchscreen but you can still use a mouse and a keyboard.

So many people seemed to have not noticed the direction that Microsoft has been moving in since Windows XP. For example:
1. The use of the Run dialog box for running applications. While it was originally used mostly for "regedit", "cmd", and "msconfig", it has evolved to the "Search all Programs and Files" dialog box and it is extremely quick for finding files and opening applications. Now, with Windows 8 you don't even need to open a dialog box. Just type a fragment of the name of the file you are looking for on the Start screen.
2. The use of the taskbar for frequently used applications. It's still there in the Windows 8 desktop. In addition, you can also make tiles for them on the Start screen.

So many people seem to think that the placement of the tiles is static. It is not. Organize your tiles by categories. Move the most frequently used ones to the front. Remove the ones (unpin) you don't think you want or need.

So many people seem not to have an appreciation for live tiles. The ability to see my calendar or incoming email without opening the bloated Outlook client is great.

So many people seem to not have an appreciation for Metro-style lightweight apps. The calendar and mail apps are so clean and uncluttered and do 99% of what I use the Outlook for (make appointments and read/reply to mail). I will spend less time in the Outlook client.

Don't get me wrong. I have my complaints too.
I wish I could resize all of the tiles to my liking - not just have the ability to choose a big or small size for some of the tiles.
I wish I could set my own background colors for the tiles - not just pick from a theme.
I wish the tiles were stackable so I could drill down through a series of related applications.
And they could have made shutting down more intuitive but you can make a shutdown icon and tile. I did. Frankly, clicking Start to shut down never made much sense to me.

I encourage everyone to try Windows 8 for at least 3 weeks before posting complaints about what it can't do because it probably can do it.

Can I:
Resize all the tiles so they are about 15x15 pixels big, and have a text name beside them. And give them a customizable unique static image so I can tell the application at a glace.
stack them vertically, not horizontally. Maybe 2 or 3 columns vertically on 1 screen.
organize them into groups and folders.
highlight newly installed programs.
be able to automatically sort a subsection of programs by most frequently used.
Remove the full screening of the start menu, so I can read instruction manuals or work on remote sessions at the same time.



Wait... if I did all that, I would be back to the Xp start menu. Oops!

Win 7 will remain under extended support until January of 2020.

since I touched on others in my replies to you further up.

No, I have no appreciation for live tiles, any more than I had for widgets in Vista or 7. I don't engage in social media. I don't need the temperature. I start Outlook at the beginning of the week and leave it open until Friday. Besides, my open applications cover almost all of my screen so I'm not likely to see them. Most of my users maximize all their application windows, even if they'd be much better off tiling them side-by-side-by-side. Don't Metro apps cover the entire screen anyway?

As to the Metro apps, unless those lightweight calendar and mail apps tie into the corporate Exchange system, I'm going to run the Outlook client at work anyway. Like the widgets before them, I haven't found any I had a use for or don't already have 'traditional' equivalents.

I agree that many mistakenly point to things they say aren't possible; heck, I did it earlier in this discussion. However, it didn't take me three weeks to decide there was no immediate benefit to me or my desktop and laptop users. Deploying W8 on those platforms won't be a priority for us before 2014, at the earliest.

The nice thing about the tiles is, just like shortcuts, If you don't need them, you can remove them. If thy tiles offend thee, pluck them out.
I'm a three monitor guy. (yeah one of those) The Metro Start screen is on one monitor. The desktop is on the other two.
You can see two Metro style apps side-by-side provided your screen meets the size minimum requirements.
Yes, the calendar and mail apps are linked to my corporate exchange account.
Since Win 8, I find myself in the Outlook client only to periodically archive my email.

My normal layout is to have a window for DTV from a tuner card in the bottom right third of the screen, in the left two thirds I have the browser, above the DTV I have several gadgets showing live data. When I start an app, it's from an icon on the taskbar, so it doesn't hide what's already on the screen.

Simple question, will I be able to have this layout in Windows 8? Not some approximation, not something where I need to switch to see the live data in the background, but the same functionality as I currently have.

Of course, if I can layout even more active windows and control the size of the gadgets more precisely, that would be even better.

You will be able to have exactly what you describe on the Windows 8 desktop screen.
Don't confuse the Win 8 Metro style screen which is basically a large start menu with live tiles with the Windows 8 Desktop screen.
The Windows 8 Desktop behaves exactly the same as the Win 7 desktop.
You can pin things to the task bar, save files and shortcuts to the screen, add widgets, play with your computer settings, etc..
The only thing missing on the Win 8 Desktop is the start button. You can approximate one though.

Living with a wife who was only recently dragged grudgingly from XP to Windows 7 and still isn't crazy about it, I feel the biggest obstacle to Windows 8 success is the fact that people will HAVE TO CHANGE to use it. You may be able to change Windows 8, but many users won't know how. It will be interesting to see what happens in usage of alternative operating systems as a result. If you have a steep learning curve on a program you have to pay for, why not invest the energy learning something that is free? Only time will tell.

it really depends on what the user needs to do.
My lovely wife, (God bless her soul) uses our laptop for only a few things.
1. Email through the Outlook Client
2. Browsing
3. MS Word (Frankly, she could get away with WordPad but I won't hurt her feelings.)

She does not venture any further than those three -EVER.
I think she is an ideal candidate for Windows 8. I can set up 3 tiles, hide the rest and call it a day. She might even be able to get away with Windows RT but she might not like the small screen.

That's not 'ding' on W8 or MS. She'd dislike the small screen regardless of OS or manufacturer, wouldn't she? The screen size is one reason I've ruled out tablets for personal use.

I'll put Win 8 on our laptop instead.
I told her about this discussion.
Her reply? "Really? I can have just my three icons? That's all I want. That's awesome!"

"I told her about this discussion.
Her reply? "Really? I can have just my three icons? That's all I want. That's awesome!" "

And those people would probably be happy using tablets. People who have simple needs - email, contacts, calendar, web-browsing, watching videos, etc, shouldn't be using desktops.

Desktops are for production, design, heavy creative work, etc. CAD systems, professional software development, professional image or video editing, and so forth.

I use a tablet or a phone for email, calendars, facebook, web browsing, etc, because I always have one with me and these are simple lightweight apps. Metro is probably great for stuff like that. But why should someone doing professional work on desktop workstations be using an OS not optimized for a desktop? This makes no sense.

No, it isn't. Resistance IS NOT futile either. There are many options and even better choices available. Talk to any MAC or Linux person. You should start NOW, you may desperately need their help getting you out of an MS Hole it the near future!

I have to confess to working with a preview of Win8 for only a short time. I didn't spend any time learning about the metro interface before booting into the system. I was lazy, just like I imagined a majority of users that I support would be. First I was frustrated that I couldn't find a way to start my commonly used programs, so I started exploring what was new on the desktop. That's when I really became frustrated. I couldn't figure out how to close the program. Then to make matters worse, I couldn't figure out how to close Win8. I ended up ending the virtual space. An inellegant shutdown if there ever was one!

Determined to try to reason my way through the interface, I tried again and again and again. Only then did I search for resources to learn how to "tame the beast." Armed with more knowledge, I found many things to really like about Win8.

But, I'm an experienced techie. The people that I support are not. If I was frustrated, I'm quite certain that those that I support will be even more so. If I had a way to disable the metro interface during installation, I wouldn't hesitate to install it for everyone. But, if I have to try to teach them how to get past the Metro interface, I can wait and install Win7 instead.

The desktop in your illustration is most typical of a Mac user on a Windows machine, but many Windows users have something similar. For the record, I have exactly zero icons on my dual-monitor desktop. Ugly icons don't belong on top of my lovely background.

"Its also becoming more common to simply type in the name of a tool to run it"

Does anyone see the irony of the trend to start programs the way DOS users did, or the way *nix users do?

And the gold medal goes to...

You had to know where the program resided in order to run it.
Remember CD (change directory)?
Then if you couldn't remember exactly how the file name was spelled, you had to ask for a list of files in the directory (dir).
Then if the directory list took up more than one screen, you had to remember to add the pause switch. (dir /p)
Or you had to narrow your search to a specific file type. (dir *.exe)
Now you just need to know part of the name.

haha yeah, good times....

You didn't have to know where the program resided except for the single time you added that directory to the PATH= parameter in ... CONFIG.SYS? AUTOEXEC.BAT? I forget which one.

If you can't remember how the file name is spelled, the search in modern versions isn't going to find it either. Typing 'Axcel' ain't gonna open your spreadsheet app.

I forgot about Path.
True, typing "Axcel" will get you nowhere but typing "Micro", "2010", and "ex" will put it on the short list and "xl" will list all of your excel files where you can jump to Excel.
Swiping up on the Metro style screen and clicking the all apps ico will show all of your apps as small icons with the program name next to them.
Try that with DOS.

This may be one area where I'm getting left behind. Many of these new behaviors are rooted in touch devices, specifically smart phones with touch screen. I had no practical exposure to swiping prior to W8, and had no reason to expect this behavior to be present in a Windows OS. Ditto 'hot spots'.

Hell, I still open a Run dialog box before typing an executable name. I've started removing the Run option from my Start menu on new systems. I still work with more systems that have it than not, and not having it on the Start menu doesn't eliminate Win+R.

Too many ingrained behaviors, too much indoctrinated baggage. I'm going to wind up in a re-education camp in the mountains of western Washington, where the cadre will beat and brainwash the new doctrine into me. "What is this Start Menu of which you speak, comrade?"

If there is a touch gesture, there is a keyboard shortcut that does the same thing.
You can press Win+Z instead of swipe.
It calls up All Apps on the Metro style home screen and app-specific functions when you are in an app.
App-specific Example: While in the Mail app, press Win+Z and you have the option to move mail, provide feedback, pin to start, mark unread and sync.

Are there mouse equivalents to swiping?

Are there other touch movements besides swiping? Are any specifically unique to W8? This is a whole new field for me. Obviously they won't do me any good on my desktop, but we're considering W7 tablets for a couple of specific applications. I'd prefer not to lug a mouse around with me to use these devices, since they're obviously designed to operate without one.

I'm not even sure what to call these touch control movements; it makes Googling them difficult.

IIRC, you can right click on the bottom of the Metro screen to bring up the "All Apps" screen.

Update
It actually brings up a bar at the bottom of the screen with an "All Apps" button.

I can't think of any command gestures specific to the Win 8 OS.
It's just swipe up, swipe down, swipe to the left, and swipe to the right.
Lehnerus2000 is correct, right click still performs some tricks.
One of my old tablets used gestures to call up programs. For example, draw a "g" would open the browser to google and "w" would open MS Word. I don't think that was part of the OS though.
You can do that kind of stuff on the Android phone.
One thing I highly recoomend when getting a tablet is getting one that provides dual input support (Finger and Stylus). The finger is good for large buttons and links where the stylus is perfect for the small buttons you might find in legacy apps. The sylus should also act as a mouse. The stylus makes using a tablet much more fluid. I draw diagrams a lot and would be cursing up and down if I had to use my finger.

One aspect of the project under discussion is using a tablet to complete forms online, instead of writing on paper.

It's name will either be Apple or Linux.

make it clear .......

I will not be using a touch screen for my main systems and the 'Metro' desktop is crap when using a mouse. I want - nay, I insist on having a clean desktop and do not want all that crap polluting my space.
Seriously people - there is far too much emphasis on looking cool and trying to be hip. Productivity wise this appears to be a big flop and is only going to make a lot of business users want to hang on to XP even longer.

Because a scroll bar is a new concept for computer users?
You did see the scroll bar at the bottom of the Metro style screen - didn't you?
and if you can't get the knack of moving your mouse to the right edge of the screen, you can call up the "charms" by pressing Windows-C

Why should anyone have to scroll? I don't have to scroll to see all my applications on my Windows 7 desktop.

it is still there.

I have to go through extra step to get it. How is that better?

What I have now on Win7 is my 30 or so icons organized neatly around the edges of my edges of my desktop so that apps I open that take up most of the screen don't obscure them. This is what I see when I boot up - nothing I have to click to see that desktop. How is Win 8 better?

The author says, "While I can understand why some people object (it is a change after all), I dont really understand the reasoning behind their objections. " The reasoning is that I have tried Windows 8 (both publicly released versions). Microsoft has hidden key functions in various places (lower left corner - left click, right-click on a blank part of the desktop, do something on the right of the screen, hunt for the shut-down command, etc). I'm sure it all makes sense to the programmers, who know where they hid most of the icons.

The fact that the start screen is ugly is irrelevant to me. What I object to the the massive size of the icons on the start screen, using valuable real estate that I would like to use for what I want to appear on the screen. Sure it is easy to get to the more traditional desktop, but it is an additional step that shouldn't be required.

I don't resist change, but I do resist stupid change. I regularly use PCLinuxOS, CentOS, and Ubuntu (both desktop and server editions). Those three operating systems are much more intuitive, easier to use and navigate, and configure than is Windows 8. I currently do most of my computing on Linux. I do have an audio editing program, Picasa, and an invoicing program on a Windows XP platform (running on a virtual machine under Linux).

I will probably have to setup one computer with Windows 8 so I can experiment with supporting clients with Windows 8 (training, setup, configuration, and troubleshooting). Unless Microsoft introduces a method to bypass the Metro interface, I will switch to a Windows 7 platform for my few Windows applications.

In the experimentation I have done with Windows 8, the OS appears to be solid in working with legacy Windows applications.

As for the "demise" of the command prompt, I have to use that tool on a regular basis to change file security setting (via CACLS) which just can't be done with the Windows GUI tools. There are a number of other commands in all versions of Windows that require the use of the command prompt.

Unfortunately, software manufacturers take a long time to figure out how to program for each new version of Windows. It was only after XP was obsolete as a supported operating system that some software could be run by a standard user and not an administrator. I am sure the problem will reappear for some applications when installed on Windows 8, although I had not encountered that problem with the programs I experimented on Windows 8.

I have been running Windows 8 for 4 months at home and at first I had a hard time adjusting, but I didn't run out right away to trash the interface, I stuck with it, and I find some of the critisim is hyperbole. I can uderstand you get used things and you like the way things are, and I can understan you don't like the aestetics, I don't agree but to each their own. The Start menu is just the old start menu exploded onto one screen, and that can be confusing if leave it there. I have a lot of applications on my system and to see them all i have to scroll, (I have to do the same when I hit start menu in Window 7 however), but its just a small middle mouse wheel swipe back and forth, and I don't get a finger cramp. If you leave applications in the default position after install, yeah, you might have a hard time finding things, but I move the tiles for the most use applications to the first and second grouping of tiles, thus eliminating the arduous wheel scrolling, to me this isn't much different than pinning things to the taskbar in Win 7 to avoid the start menu. Alt+Tab and Windows+tab work fine, and the ability to start typing to search out of the start screen is nice once you know its there. I'm not overly fond of the file browser in "metro" or it may be just Google implementation of it in Chrome. After 4 months I have gone from skeptical to seriously considerding upgrading my work machines when it is released.

If it takes an experienced user 4 months to adjust to the new interface, how long do you think it will take the average, less tech savvy user, and how many do you think will take the time? I haven't used it since I don't use Windows in any flavor on a regular basis except at work (They still use XP). I'm sure that for a $40 upgrade fee I'll upgrade the Windows 7 partition on my machine, if for no other reason than curiosity and the ability to be ready if we upgrade at work or I buy a new machine. I still think MS might have an uphill battle getting widespread acceptance of Win8.

He said he's been running it for four months. He didn't specify how long his adjustment period lasted.

why bring up the 4 months at all if the adjustment period was much shorter? It's be nice to hear from him how long it actually took before he felt comfortable. Personally I don't care much as, while I'll get a copy, I doubt it will ever be my daily OS of choice. Win7 is nice, but after 6 years of running Linux I can't conceive of ever going back to Windows. I do, however, have to use it at work.

Wrong branch.

And Windows 7 load disc for those preinstalled systems.

I guess I can be resistant to change, but I wholeheartedly agree with the problem of scrolling across light-years of desktop looking for icons is a killer experience. And I constantly open a specific window, such as Control Panel, and look for the program I need whose name I can never remember. So typing in the name of an app I want just cannot work.
Also, I do a lot of video and audio work, so touch-screen isn't an option, much less any under-powered tablet or something. I need to maximize efficiency, not water my PC down to "pretty pictures" that delight casual users only interested in browsing something. I need to get some serious work done, and Metro makes that painful. Someday I may have a device with a touch screen and use Metro just fine, but that will be because I then own something (for some reason) with limited use and applicability for times when I'm not at my computer.
I like what I see so far in Windows 8, but I really need the start menu back. Other than that I'm good to go...

Since I got it through my college, I took the plunge and installed the release version of Windows 8 Pro RTM over my existing Win 7 Pro install. Installation was pain-free, with the minor exception of having to re-download an ATI Catalyst driver, which worked fine after a reboot. Watching the short tutorial on what mousing to the corners did showed me most of what I needed to know about the UI changes. My findings:

1) The Desktop is (as we all knew) still there. All my Win 7 program icons were right where they were prior to install. All my programs worked, including Adobe Master Suite 6 and my games. No problem. In fact, I got a 5-6 fps boost in Diablo III. Minor, but noticeable--and a boost is a boost.

2) It is EASY to switch back and forth between TUFKAM (The User-interface Formerly Known As Metro) and the Desktop. Tap the Windows key. Done. Tap it again to switch back. Takes less than a second.

3) True, there is no "Start" button any more on the Desktop. But if you move the mouse a little lower to the left, into the corner, you can get to the TUFKAM Start screen and do whatever you wanted to from there. Right-click to access the All Apps list instead of the All Programs list.

4) You aren't FORCED to use TUFKAM exclusively. It is, however, a fairly nice way to keep up on the "light" computing tasks you'd normally use a tablet for. (Email, web surfing, Facebook, solitaire and other simple games--which are gorgeous, btw) The constantly-updating Tiles are a nice way to get info-at-a-glance on weather, stocks, sports, news, etc., but all your Desktop ways of getting to those things are still there and they still work. Would I want to work in TUFKAM exclusively? Not yet--I'm still too used to the old way of doing things, so a Surface tablet is not in my immediate future, but if Surface Pro gives me the same Desktop option, I'll definitely look at it when it comes time to replace my iPad 3.

In short, I just don't see what all the doom-n-gloom is about. It's not a "disaster"; the sky is not falling. It's less of an abrupt shift than Win 3.1->Win95 was, and it appears they've gone to great lengths to make the hybrid experience as smooth as possible. When I want to work, I work on my Desktop just like I did a week ago. When I want to take a break and surf, I tap over and enjoy the simplicity of the new interface. But when break time's over, switching back takes all of a second, if that much. $40 for an upgrade is a steal--until they take the deal away in February. I plan on upgrading all my Win 7 machines to it in October (I only got one free key through DreamSpark, otherwise I'd go ahead and do it now.)

(nt)

Without editing the Registry is there a way to boot directly into the conventional desktop?

I don't think there's a way to do it WITH editing the Registry. There was in the first beta, but MS took it out in subsequent versions. We'll start with Metro and damn well like it, apparently.

It is really quite simple to move from Metro to Desktop and back on the fly. Takes one button press, and you're done. I like having Metro as the startup screen so I can see if there are any email/social/whatever things I need to take care of at a glance, then tap over to the Desktop to work with all my regular Win 7 programs. It literally takes all of one second to switch back and forth.

and my e-mail is in Outlook, over on the classic desktop. I haven't seen anything on the Metro desktop yet that is of use to me. I realize that's me, but Metro is just something I'll have to bypass repeatedly.

Put the Desktop tile in the top left, and all you have to do is hit "Enter" on your keyboard at boot - tada, no clicking or swiping or registry tweaks needed.

If you've been booting directly into a conventional desktop, you have some serious security concerns. You've always had to step through hoops (authentication mostly, on every OS) to get to your desktop, and this is nothing new. Enter your password and press enter twice.