bit-tech.net

Windows 8.1 could allow for Start Screen bypass

Windows 8.1 could allow for Start Screen bypass

Windows 8.1 could introduce the ability to bypass the divisive Start Screen altogether, defaulting to the more familiar desktop environment.

Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8.1, formerly known under its work-in-progress codename Windows Blue, is tipped to launch with a feature that will come as a relief to many keyboard and mouse users: the ability to launch directly into desktop mode.

Windows 8, Microsoft's latest desktop operating system, brought with it a whole new user interface dubbed the Modern UI. Based on the Metro UI developed for Windows Phone devices, Modern UI features a tile-based interface which is optimised for touch-screen use: the icons are large for easy tapping, and can be swiped quickly to display multiple pages of shortcuts. It's an interface that has proven divisive, and one that arguably only makes sense when the keyboard and mouse is replaced with a touch-screen - as with the company's own-brand Windows 8 tablet, the Surface Pro.

For those who don't like Modern UI, Microsoft has provided a more familiar desktop environment which can be accessed through the Modern UI Start Screen. While it includes numerous changes over previous releases - most obvious being the complete lack of Start Menu - it is, at least, more suited to a keyboard and mouse. What Microsoft has not provided, however, is a means to force the desktop view as the default: users who don't want to rely on a third-party solution to the problem are left booting up to the new Modern UI and then launching the desktop session from there.

That could be set to change in Windows 8.1, according to details spotted in a dynamic linked library (DLL) file from the leaked Windows 8.1 ISO by Microsoft Portal. Reported and translated into English by WinBeta, the additional code in twinui.dll - the file responsible for switching between the two user interfaces, Modern and desktop - adds a setting labelled 'twinui-CanSuppressStartScreen.'

While the setting is undocumented, its purpose appears clear: to allow the user to permanently bypass the Start Screen on boot-up, defaulting instead to the more familiar desktop environment. Sadly, the functionality isn't quite ready for prime-time: while the DLL looks for the setting, there's currently no way to toggle it from its default off state - suggesting Microsoft has not quite decided whether or not it will provide a means for an end-user to activate the feature.

Microsoft, for its part, has not commented on the presence of the setting, leaving it up in the air whether Windows 8.1 will allow the user to skip Modern UI altogether or if it will be a feature restricted to specialised versions of the operating system not readily available to consumers. If the latter is the case, expect third-party software for toggling the setting to appear shortly after launch.

139 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
barny2767 15th April 2013, 11:42 Quote
Finally Might look at Win 8 now
Guinevere 15th April 2013, 11:45 Quote
PC sales are falling and windows 8 (in it's current form) is contributing to that.

In a world where people want small low power devices, a central store for their media and everything able to play everything MS has shot itself in the foot too many times.

Home server? Did they migrate it down into appliances and simplify it to increase adoption? - NO

Home? Did they bring out something 'new' that would appeal to home users? - NO

Windows? Did they make it look appealing to use it as a family friendly, low cost and quiet family device? - NO

Windows? Did they keep it optimised for those with conventional desktops & laptops? - NO

Windows? Did they make the choice of 'Should I buy another windows machine?' easy? - NO.

Mobile? Did they bring in something genuinely new? - NO

Windows 8? Did 'most' people see a benefit in upgrading? - NO
runadumb 15th April 2013, 11:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by barny2767
Finally Might look at Win 8 now

Booting to modern UI is only one of its little annoyances. The fact they have hidden things like control panel is a far worse sin.
The good news is that learning some keyboard shortcuts make it much more tolerable. win+I for example.
loftie 15th April 2013, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
The fact they have hidden things like control panel is a far worse sin.

Hidden? If you're using desktop, you can right click the bottom left corner and select control panel :)
runadumb 15th April 2013, 12:04 Quote
Double post.
Spreadie 15th April 2013, 12:12 Quote
I only bought Windows 8 because it was £25 and you could turn off the start screen. It's OK, I've gotten used to it - but I don't really care all that much. Sticking with 7 would have been just dandy too.

8.1 sounds an awful lot like Windows 7 ;)
runadumb 15th April 2013, 12:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
The fact they have hidden things like control panel is a far worse sin.

Hidden? If you're using desktop, you can right click the bottom left corner and select control panel :)

That's not hidden at all ;)
Also, I did not know that.

Seriously though when I first booted the thing up I couldn't even find the shutdown menu. Took me a few mins to figure it out. Now I just use shortcuts for everything I can.

EDIT: Windows 8 is on my HTPC, not my desktop. Like Spreadie I got it because it was £25. Well that and it boots in the time it takes me to turn it on, pickup the keyboard and sit down.
I'm saying it boots fast.
Corky42 15th April 2013, 13:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
I'm saying it boots fast.

Well that not strictly true is it, AFAIK Windows 8 returns from a partial hibernation, so it never truly shuts down.
[USRF]Obiwan 15th April 2013, 13:14 Quote
There are a few nags about windows 8 which I would love to get changed. This is one of them (lucky for us, there are some hacks that brings back the old way of doing things). But in the end this should not even be needed at all, if they listen to the users.

If I was the leader of window 8, I would have build in a 'touch device' detection that only shows all touch related items (like the start screen) to the users of touch devices. And straight to desktop if you do not have a touch device.

The second thing I would change is the async copying off files from one drive to others. If you copy, lets say, ten 1gb files to another drive the copy process slows down to a halt. Only pausing some files will make it faster. It should by copied one after another it makes it that much faster.

The third thing I would change is showing the program folder content, it is impossible to find installed programmes.
murraynt 15th April 2013, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Booting to modern UI is only one of its little annoyances. The fact they have hidden things like control panel is a far worse sin.
The good news is that learning some keyboard shortcuts make it much more tolerable. win+I for example.

Then there is the fact that you have settings in two places now.

Safe mode is very difficult to get into, especially if you cant boot normally to use msconfig.

It's insists on using metro apps by default, even if you are in desktop!

Installing unsigned drivers is horrible unless you always run it in 'Test mode', which breaks the metro
apps if you even wanted them.

There is no way of white listing UAC prompts, But then again there wasn't in 7 either.
Xir 15th April 2013, 14:00 Quote
Looked at a Win8 laptop with my wife last week.
It was non-touch, as many are.
She didn't have a clue where to click, moving the mouse around all kinds of stuff would start to pop up. turned out she was making mouse gestures, without realising it.

It should come with a tutorial. It's not that change is bad, but unexplained change just isn't intuitive.
Tangster 15th April 2013, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Booting to modern UI is only one of its little annoyances. The fact they have hidden things like control panel is a far worse sin.
The good news is that learning some keyboard shortcuts make it much more tolerable. win+I for example.
I have Win 8 set to boot straight to desktop. Control panel = win key + type "cont..." same as Win 7.
Nexxo 15th April 2013, 14:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
PC sales are falling and windows 8 (in it's current form) is contributing to that.

Yeah, that's why Apple desktop and laptop PC's are declining as well. :p Actually Lenovo is still doing very well, and not just because they offer a Windows 7 install option. Why? Good after sales service, and it does not produce plastic crap. Something Microsoft has been criticising OEMs for a bit lately.

Ironically Windows 8 runs so lean that it makes old hardware perform as new. Perhaps that is another reason why people are not upgrading --they don't have to. And in times of austerity that is pretty darn handy.

As for Control Panel, once it is running right-click on its icon in the taskbar and select: "Pin to taskbar". Presto.
Snips 15th April 2013, 14:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
PC sales are falling and windows 8 (in it's current form) is contributing to that.

Yeah, that's why Apple desktop and laptop PC's are declining as well. :p

As for Control Panel, once it is running right-click on its icon in the taskbar and select: "Pin to taskbar". Presto.

It really is that simple yet the so called enthusiasts just seem to whine and whine. Microsoft FTW!
Nikumba 15th April 2013, 14:32 Quote
I love Windows 8 and yes I love the Modern UI, I find using Windows 7 start menu a major step backwards.

We have found in an enterprise environment there is less training issues with 8 and the modern UI that Windows 7.

Also someone commented "Mobile? Did they bring in something genuinely new? - NO" I think they did, the people hub/app is brilliant, using iphone is rubbish now having to swap apps to check FB. Twitter, SMS etc, I am going to regret having to give my 920 back to work when I leave and go back to my iPhone as I find the Windows Phone OS to be utterly brilliant, much slicker and faster than iOS which is frankly never changed since version 1, and Android which is a bug ridden fragmented mess
Snips 15th April 2013, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikumba
I love Windows 8 and yes I love the Modern UI, I find using Windows 7 start menu a major step backwards.

We have found in an enterprise environment there is less training issues with 8 and the modern UI that Windows 7.

Also someone commented "Mobile? Did they bring in something genuinely new? - NO" I think they did, the people hub/app is brilliant, using iphone is rubbish now having to swap apps to check FB. Twitter, SMS etc, I am going to regret having to give my 920 back to work when I leave and go back to my iPhone as I find the Windows Phone OS to be utterly brilliant, much slicker and faster than iOS which is frankly never changed since version 1, and Android which is a bug ridden fragmented mess

+1
Nexxo 15th April 2013, 14:55 Quote
++1

And let's not forget Live Tiles. I looked at the new HTC One this weekend. The phone itself is beautiful --the sexiest thing to come out since the iPhone 4. But the latest Android JB OS is confusing. It looks great, polished even, but it's a mess (HTC's own version of Live Tiles on the home screen makes it worse). It just lacks the clear overview and smooth navigating elegance of WP8.
Corky42 15th April 2013, 16:25 Quote
I don't think anyone is denying 8 works well on mobile platforms, but as this news snippet points out 8 does not work so well for non touch enabled devices or when using a mouse+keyboard.
As has been said before, forcing your users into working a specific way probably isn't a good idea.
ya93sin 15th April 2013, 16:48 Quote
Good news. I am just really craving a Start Menu in the "traditional" Windows style however.

I appreciate that currently you can still access programs just as quick, but I preferred the old layout where I could organise Program folders myself in the Start Menu.

It's a rather nice operating system once you get used to the nuances of it however.
Picarro 15th April 2013, 16:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ya93sin
Good news. I am just really craving a Start Menu in the "traditional" Windows style however.

I appreciate that currently you can still access programs just as quick, but I preferred the old layout where I could organise Program folders myself in the Start Menu.

It's a rather nice operating system once you get used to the nuances of it however.

You can just as easily organize groups on the start screen. I have one for games, and one for Office 2013, and one for media.

It is seamless integration between XBMC, the Netflix app and VLC player, from just a single screen.
GoodBytes 15th April 2013, 17:01 Quote
Yes! I can't wait to have the auto go to desktop mode... like this the first thing I get to do when I boot my system is.... hit.... the... Start Screen button.. oh wait... what?
Burnout21 15th April 2013, 17:20 Quote
Bad Microsoft!

Force people to change to new UI to help progress UX design forward, and then release a patch to give them basically a Win 7 desktop.

I fear Win8 might end up like Media centre edition, a feature which once made optional will be pushed backwards out of sight and out of mind.

Still using 7 here, mostly because I never jump into something new new, and also I would rather do a whole fresh build from the ground, and I am currently between jobs...
fdbh96 15th April 2013, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by barny2767
Finally Might look at Win 8 now

You've been able to do this for ages with free unobtrusive software. That's really not much of a valid reason not to upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan

The third thing I would change is showing the program folder content, it is impossible to find installed programmes.
On start screen, Right Click>All Apps and I think that shows all of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by murraynt

It's insists on using metro apps by default, even if you are in desktop!
It is fairly annoying yes, but it is easily changed anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
Looked at a Win8 laptop with my wife last week.
It was non-touch, as many are.
She didn't have a clue where to click, moving the mouse around all kinds of stuff would start to pop up. turned out she was making mouse gestures, without realising it.

It should come with a tutorial. It's not that change is bad, but unexplained change just isn't intuitive.

I don't know about a pre-installed win 8 but I presume its the same; when its setting up for the first time it goes through all the gestures and asks you to try them out.
Corky42 15th April 2013, 18:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
You've been able to do this for ages with free unobtrusive software. That's really not much of a valid reason not to upgrade.

Yes it is, why install software, change settings, etc, etc. to get 8 to behave like previous OS's when you can just use a previous OS ?
When features are removed from software there should be a valid reason for it, not just for marketing reasons.
Nexxo 15th April 2013, 18:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraynt
It's insists on using metro apps by default, even if you are in desktop!
As soon as you install a desktop alternative program, it automatically takes over the file associations. It's a non-problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yes it is, why install software, change settings, etc, etc. to get 8 to behave like previous OS's when you can just use a previous OS ?
When features are removed from software there should be a valid reason for it, not just for marketing reasons.

You are right. You shouldn't have to use third-party software to make your OS run the way you want it. Uninstall right now Google Chrome/Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird, third-party Anti-Virus and Malware programs, Paint.Net and Speedfan. :p
fdbh96 15th April 2013, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yes it is, why install software, change settings, etc, etc. to get 8 to behave like previous OS's when you can just use a previous OS ?
When features are removed from software there should be a valid reason for it, not just for marketing reasons.

How is adding a start screen and metro environment taking away features, if anything installing the software is taking away features.

Honestly if the start screen is stopping you from upgrading, I don't see it at all now but what I do get is a faster, quicker booting OS with many other new features that you don't get in win 7.

Also good point Nexxo :D
mdshann 15th April 2013, 19:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
There are a few nags about windows 8 which I would love to get changed. This is one of them (lucky for us, there are some hacks that brings back the old way of doing things). But in the end this should not even be needed at all, if they listen to the users.

If I was the leader of window 8, I would have build in a 'touch device' detection that only shows all touch related items (like the start screen) to the users of touch devices. And straight to desktop if you do not have a touch device.

The second thing I would change is the async copying off files from one drive to others. If you copy, lets say, ten 1gb files to another drive the copy process slows down to a halt. Only pausing some files will make it faster. It should by copied one after another it makes it that much faster.

The third thing I would change is showing the program folder content, it is impossible to find installed programmes.

Hit the windows key on your keyboard to bring up start screen. Start typing the name of your program. Hit Enter. Done. Same as it was in Windows 7.
GoodBytes 15th April 2013, 19:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yes it is, why install software, change settings, etc, etc. to get 8 to behave like previous OS's when you can just use a previous OS ?
I wonder what you do when you buy a new car... do you rip out the inside of your old car and replace the internal of the new car with the old one? I mean the cup holder placement is different, and the dials are positioned different, and the radio... oh don't get me started. And where is the cassette player! I want choice dam it!

When I buy a new car, I am so confused... I just can't make it work anymore. Maybe that is why they are bad drivers... they got a new car and don't know how to drive it. It's so confusing. That must be it! A law should be put that all cars should be identical in every single way, including color.. but that also makes me forget how to drive. Oh and cassette players and 8 tracks should be optional at no extra cost. I don't have time to figure this CD thing. It makes me less productive, and makes driving my car so annoying, 'cause my cassettes doesn't fit inside. Like if I have time for this. And who wants CD's It's inferior in EVERY single way... you can't fast forward nicely with CD's. It's digital and it's crap.
And to make a CD mix, I need a computer, and a software, convert my music... AAARRRGGGG!!!!
It was simple with cassettes.
Stanley Tweedle 15th April 2013, 19:32 Quote
Biggest problem windows has is not the new UI but the grossly inflated pricing policy. I purchased windows 8 at £24.99. A great price for an OS. Now microsoft wants £198 for the same OS. MAC OS costs £13.
Nexxo 15th April 2013, 19:53 Quote
Why, install OSX on your PC then!

Oh, wait...
GoodBytes 15th April 2013, 19:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Tweedle
Biggest problem windows has is not the new UI but the grossly inflated pricing policy. I purchased windows 8 at £24.99. A great price for an OS. Now microsoft wants £198 for the same OS. MAC OS costs £13.

Its sad how people don't understand the complexity of an OS. The interface is about 10% of an OS. It's extremely complicated peace of software. It cost a fortune to maintain, and development is always slow, especially on back end stuff. Microsoft has several thousands of engineers working around the clock on Windows. It's costly.

If anything the Mac OS updates are what are criminally expensive. Why? Because 90% of the work is done... it's just Unix. They just add small features here and there and hand full of security updates.
Nexxo 15th April 2013, 20:09 Quote
Moreover, OSX only has to work on a very limited range of machines and configurations. Perhaps about a few hundred different combinations, almost all made by Apple itself.

Windows has to work on every PC out there: all the makes, all the models, the entire myriad of combinations of esoteric hardware and software, peripherals, add-ons and add-ins. We are talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of different set-ups.
Corky42 15th April 2013, 20:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
I wonder what you do when you buy a new car

Trying to compare an OS to a car is totally pointless, especially when your trying to draw comparison to cup holders, dials and the radio. But if you want to go there fine, to draw a comparison with a car. would you buy it if they moved the break accelerator and steering wheel akin to to how the basic functions have changed in 8.
There are reasons we still use dials to read the speed and other information in a car, because they work well at doing there job, conveying information quickly and accurately. if it aint broke don't fix it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
When I buy a new car, I am so confused...
If they changed the seating position or forced you to steer the car by using a touchscreen i bet you would. Buy our new car, sure we changed the seating position, but laying down with a LCD displaying the relevant information you need is so much better.

We are not talking about basic changes of a cassette player, in OS terms a basic change would be like changing a application to support a newer file format, using your comparison how about if they removed the ability to play music in a cars all together ?

But then i forget you don't want people to choose if they want to play music in there car, because music is so old....damn it move with the times people music is so last year.
And not only that but using cars as a comparison is pointless as there isn't one company holding a monopoly on all cars sold.
Nexxo 15th April 2013, 21:05 Quote
Funny you should mention that. In newer (fancier) cars, they are looking at HUDs instead of conventional dials so you don't have to take your eyes off the road. Heck, in my Honda Civic the speedo is now a big digital LCD readout just below the bottom edge of the windscreen, so I can glance down and my eyes barely have to adjust focus.

Mercedes has been looking at a joystick for car control. It works better, allowing for quicker reactions, but it thinks people would kind of object to that change because it is too different from a steering wheel and pedals. Saab went half-way by removing the clutch pedal from the gear change.

But we digress. Windows 8 is under the hood not much different from Windows 7. The only significant change is the swap from Start Menu to Start Screen, and the inclusion of some Metro apps that you don't even ever have to use. Oh, the calamity! Control Panel has moved!!! sure, I could just pin it to the taskbar with one click but I don't want to have to. Sounds a bit petulant to me.
GoodBytes 15th April 2013, 21:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Trying to compare an OS to a car is totally pointless, especially when your trying to draw comparison to cup holders, dials and the radio. But if you want to go there fine, to draw a comparison with a car. would you buy it if they moved the break accelerator and steering wheel akin to to how the basic functions have changed in 8.
There are reasons we still use dials to read the speed and other information in a car, because they work well at doing there job, conveying information quickly and accurately. if it aint broke don't fix it.


If they changed the seating position or forced you to steer the car by using a touchscreen i bet you would. Buy our new car, sure we changed the seating position, but laying down with a LCD displaying the relevant information you need is so much better.
Yes but Windows 8 is not doing that. Its you that blow up to huge proportions for essentially just a color change, and new car internal.. it's still a car, and works the same.
Quote:
We are not talking about basic changes of a cassette player, in OS terms a basic change would be like changing a application to support a newer file format, using your comparison how about if they removed the ability to play music in a cars all together ?
Exactly my point. Small changes you blow it up in huge proportion when they are not.
It's because you have not used it. You look at picture and you judge. Which is wrong. Remember when people called Windows 7 task bar being an exact replica in every way to Mac OS? Where's the resemblance? There is none. People eventually used it and shuts up, because they see how wrong they were.
Yslen 15th April 2013, 21:31 Quote
I really don't think W8 is the reason for falling PC sales. It's just the millions of cheap crappy home and office PC's being replaced with tablets, or not upgraded at all because the user has a tablet for most things.

Good to see a straight to desktop option though, if it does exist. It'll save me 0.1 seconds every day!
Tyinsar 15th April 2013, 22:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
... It's not that change is bad, but unexplained change just isn't intuitive.
Best comment so far. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ya93sin
... but I preferred the old layout where I could organise Program folders myself in the Start Menu...
You can rearrange the start screen quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Yes! I can't wait to have the auto go to desktop mode... like this the first thing I get to do when I boot my system is.... hit.... the... Start Screen button.. oh wait... what?
:) Very good point. The problem is many of us are used to having shortcuts, links, and even folders on the desktop. If I know where it is there then it feels faster than going through the start menu / start screen.
theshadow2001 15th April 2013, 22:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

Windows has to work on every PC out there: all the makes, all the models, the entire myriad of combinations of esoteric hardware and software, peripherals, add-ons and add-ins. We are talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of different set-ups.

Windows doesn't have to do ****. I'm pretty sure its device manufacturers that have to make their devices work on Windows not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Control Panel has moved!!! sure, I could just pin it to the taskbar with one click but I don't want to have to. Sounds a bit petulant to me.

pfft! cluttering up the taskbar is for noobs. Right click the bottom left corner for the admin menu ;) This is one of many additions to windows 8 I like.
leslie 15th April 2013, 22:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
I wonder what you do when you buy a new car... do you rip out the inside of your old car and replace the internal of the new car with the old one? I mean the cup holder placement is different, and the dials are positioned different, and the radio... oh don't get me started. And where is the cassette player! I want choice dam it!

The new car's interior doesn't extend a hand that slaps you in the face every time you need to use a turn signal, which is how using the new start menu feels.
Krazeh 16th April 2013, 00:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
The new car's interior doesn't extend a hand that slaps you in the face every time you need to use a turn signal, which is how using the new start menu feels.

And how exactly does it feel like that? What part of touching or clicking on an nice, easily identifiable icon to launch the program you want feels like a slap in the face?
Brooxy 16th April 2013, 00:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
pfft! cluttering up the taskbar is for noobs. Right click the bottom left corner for the admin menu ;) This is one of many additions to windows 8 I like.

Nice, didn't know you could do that +rep :D
fdbh96 16th April 2013, 00:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
The new car's interior doesn't extend a hand that slaps you in the face every time you need to use a turn signal, which is how using the new start screen feels.

FTFY :)

You have to remember how much more functionality the start screen has over the start menu. For example,at a glance I can now see how many unread emails I have, and that I can also see much more applications in one go than before, while also being able to ort them easier.
Corky42 16th April 2013, 00:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Yes but Windows 8 is not doing that. Its you that blow up to huge proportions for essentially just a color change, and new car internal..

Exactly my point. Small changes you blow it up in huge proportion when they are not.
It's because you have not used it.

Windows 8 as default changes the way the user interacts with the OS, how you claim that is someone blowing it up to huge proportions is beyond me, just a color change would be exactly that, a color change not a change in the way you interact with the device.

Trying to claim the modern UI and the rest of the changes are akin to changing the color or the interior of a car is laughable
And to claiming someone hasn't used it is ridiculous, next you will be telling people you know what they had for dinner last night
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Funny you should mention that. In newer (fancier) cars, they are looking at HUDs instead of conventional dials so you don't have to take your eyes off the road.

But we digress. Windows 8 is under the hood not much different from Windows 7. The only significant change is the swap from Start Menu to Start Screen, and the inclusion of some Metro apps that you don't even ever have to use. Oh, the calamity! Control Panel has moved!!! sure, I could just pin it to the taskbar with one click but I don't want to have to. Sounds a bit petulant to me.

But afaik where hud's are used in cars they still have conventional dials, thus giving the user a choice. And from previous discussions on the subject most people probably know that the start screen and some metro apps is not the only significant change with 8.
Pliqu3011 16th April 2013, 00:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

Windows has to work on every PC out there: all the makes, all the models, the entire myriad of combinations of esoteric hardware and software, peripherals, add-ons and add-ins. We are talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of different set-ups.

Windows doesn't have to do ****. I'm pretty sure its device manufacturers that have to make their devices work on Windows not the other way around.
Ah yes, my Geforce 6200 card works because nVidia made it with using Windows 8 in mind…

Windows, whether you like it's interface or not, is an amazing thing, if only because it's made to run on almost everything. Nexxo and GoodBytes are absolutely right. The price is also exactly right: your OS is the program you run the most, if not all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96

You have to remember how much more functionality the start screen has over the start menu. For example,at a glance I can now see how many unread emails I have, and that I can also see much more applications in one go than before, while also being able to ort them easier.
Well, I have all of that right on my desktop (+Fences) and taskbar, don't even have to open any Start menu thingie. :)
Krazeh 16th April 2013, 00:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Windows 8 as default changes the way the user interacts with the OS, how you claim that is someone blowing it up to huge proportions is beyond me, just a color change would be exactly that, a color change not a change in the way you interact with the device.

Pretty sure I interact with Windows 8 in exactly the same way as I interacted with Windows 7. I see things on the screen which I click with my mouse and I type where necessary with my keyboard. Windows 8 may have changed the location of certain things or presents things in a different style but it hasn't changed the manner in which I interact with the system. And yes, people are blowing the change from a start menu to a start screen up to huge proportions; it really isn't as big a change as some people like to make out.
theshadow2001 16th April 2013, 00:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliqu3011
Ah yes, my Geforce 6200 card works because nVidia made it with using Windows 8 in mind…

How's that driver from 2004/2005 working out for you. Or are you using the one which was released nearer to the start of this year?
Pliqu3011 16th April 2013, 01:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
How's that driver from 2004/2005 working out for you. Or are you using the one which was released nearer to the start of this year?
It's using the default Win8 driver from when it was installed. (not my pc btw)
ArthurB 16th April 2013, 01:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraynt
It insists on using metro apps by default, even if you are in desktop!
Try opening a PDF on a clean install of Windows 7. Oh wait, you can't!!!

In both 7 & 8 you need to download a third-party PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader to open PDFs in the desktop.
ArthurB 16th April 2013, 01:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraynt
Installing unsigned drivers is horrible unless you always run it in 'Test mode', which breaks the metro
apps if you even wanted them.
You can sign the drivers yourself...

http://www.deploymentresearch.com/Blog/tabid/62/EntryId/63/Sign-your-unsigned-drivers-Damn-It.aspx
theshadow2001 16th April 2013, 01:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliqu3011
It's using the default Win8 driver from when it was installed. (not my pc btw)

Oh come on, even the bios can get any video card showing an image on a screen. The generic driver doesn't really say much for windows being compatible with every product out there.I have never had any operating system windows or otherwise (I'm talking obscure linux distros on weird OEM laptop graphics cards) fail to get a graphics card to display an image.

The point is. If you make a device. You write a driver for it, not Microsoft. There are ways and means to then get that driver included with Windows itself. If Microsoft changes windows and that breaks your software, you fix it, not Microsoft. You change your software to suit Windows. Microsoft doesn't change Windows to suit you.

Its not Microsoft that makes windows compatible with everything, its simply all devices(well most of them) are written to run on Windows.

Wasn't there a whole driver thing when windows switched from XP to vista? The O/S core changed and suddenly a bunch of drivers won't work.
Corky42 16th April 2013, 10:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Pretty sure I interact with Windows 8 in exactly the same way as I interacted with Windows 7.

If you want to use a mouse+keyboard strictly speak yes you still interact with the OS in the same way, but why use a mouse+keyboard with a OS designed mainly for touch enabled devices? why not just use a OS designed with those controls in mind in the first place.

The point is metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality, a point that it seems Microsoft maybe finally admitting by hopefully including a way to go straight to the desktop.
liratheal 16th April 2013, 10:19 Quote
Please give me my start button back!

I dislike classic shell :(
MSHunter 16th April 2013, 11:30 Quote
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=234999
Ninite link there you will fin Start8 free ware for your start menu and Direct to desk top needs.

If you like the thread pleas asked for it stickied ;)
Xir 16th April 2013, 12:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Why, install OSX on your PC then!
;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
...I can also see much more applications in one go than before, while also being able to ort them easier.
Well, tbh, who used the start menu regularly anyway? All people I know have what they frequently need as icons on their desktop anyway.

I know, software developers think we have an empty desktop so we can see the purrrty background better, but no, we actually didn't.
Only difference is, now the icons are tiles, huge and live.
Woodspoon 16th April 2013, 14:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42

If you want to use a mouse+keyboard strictly speak yes you still interact with the OS in the same way, but why use a mouse+keyboard with a OS designed mainly for touch enabled devices? why not just use a OS designed with those controls in mind in the first place.

The point is metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality, a point that it seems Microsoft maybe finally admitting by hopefully including a way to go straight to the desktop.

+1
Nexxo 16th April 2013, 16:49 Quote
Very little has changed in Windows 8. There's a Start Screen, which is more of an addition than a replacement of Start Menu; the rest is still used and accessed in the traditional ways (try it). Input methods are added, not replaced.

You object to having to install a Start Menu-alike? Why? I couldn't get on with Start Menu so for years I used RocketDock. You didn't hear me moan about it --I just downloaded, installed and got on with it.

You don't like the Metro paradigm? You can ignore it. You're a geek; you should know how. Your objections seem to me emotional more than rational. There's nothing wrong with that (mine often are too) but be honest about it and just install Windows 7 and let others get on with 8. Horses for courses and all that.
fdbh96 16th April 2013, 17:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliqu3011
Ah yes, my Geforce 6200 card works because nVidia made it with using Windows 8 in mind…

Windows, whether you like it's interface or not, is an amazing thing, if only because it's made to run on almost everything. Nexxo and GoodBytes are absolutely right. The price is also exactly right: your OS is the program you run the most, if not all the time.


Well, I have all of that right on my desktop (+Fences) and taskbar, don't even have to open any Start menu thingie. :)

Im aware there is software to do that in win7, but my argument was that its there by default. Also if you want to install extra software, you can get start8 anyway.
Krazeh 16th April 2013, 18:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If you want to use a mouse+keyboard strictly speak yes you still interact with the OS in the same way, but why use a mouse+keyboard with a OS designed mainly for touch enabled devices? why not just use a OS designed with those controls in mind in the first place.

Having used Windows 8 since the consumer preview release I'm pretty happy that it's been designed with mouse and keyboard controls in mind. I've yet to find anything I can't do on Windows 8 that I could on Windows 7. And I've not felt at any point that I'm missing out on anything by not using it on a touch-enabled device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The point is metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality, a point that it seems Microsoft maybe finally admitting by hopefully including a way to go straight to the desktop.

If the functionality has taken such a back seat as you seem to be making out how would MS removing the need to click a single tile, or (if you have put it as the first tile) pressing enter, when first logging in fix those issues? What functionality is it restoring?
Boogle 16th April 2013, 19:30 Quote
theshadow2001: Let me tell you why you're wrong, and Windows is both over-priced and seriously under-priced. As an aside, I dislike the new start screen immensely. It has both good points and bad points, and the bad points outweigh the good. Most of it centres around how you have to move your mouse a LOT more just to select related options. But I digress, onto how incredible Windows is behind the start screen:

The driver model you have in your mind is the same one DOS had. Manufacturers would write a driver (actually a library - piece of code that abstracted the hardware into a programming environment). Programs would then integrate the driver and be able to use the hardware to its full potential. You may be wondering why DOS could display to the screen if there were no drivers in DOS itself? Well, that's down to hardware instructions that were settled upon by IBM - all IBM graphics cards would accept these specific instructions that would let you display text to the screen... and not much else. It's why most DOS programs made their entire UI out of text rather than get into the driver hassle.

Now what is this driver hassle? Surely programs could just include the driver and that's the end of it? Sadly not, each driver from the *same* manufacturer would have a slightly different interface. The interface was radically different between manufacturers. This meant you had to program your application for each specific product (ie. the various Sound Blasters, the various graphics cards, etc. etc.). If any of the supported device drivers had a fault, you had to release a whole new program just to fix that one device that maybe only 5% of your customers had.

Suffice it to say making programs for DOS mostly involved messing about with hardware interfaces, and not much actual program. Microsoft realised that it would be really cool if programmers could spend their effort making brilliant programs, rather than messing with drivers all the time. So what they came up with is an abstraction layer. Basically they made an interface that modelled 'an graphics card' or 'an sound card'. The tricky bit was the interface had to work across any device in that category and be as extensible as possible so that OEMs could differentiate their products. If every sound card had to be exactly the same, the OEMs wouldn't buy-in and we'd be stuck with the DOS model. Eventually Microsoft came through with these abstraction layers, and the software that OEMs made to interact with the layer was dubbed a 'driver'. This mean that programs made for Microsoft's operating system were more fully featured (good for the customer) and faster/cheaper to make (good for the developer). Everyone won.

Microsoft also noticed that developers were spending all of their time making the user interface code. Wouldn't it be great if they could integrate this code into their OS so that a) Developers didn't spend all of their time making the same UI code and b) so that all programs look the same, giving a consistent look and feel across the entire computer. MS went beyond just making a UI library, they made a whole UI system (desktop environment, window manager, low-level UI calls, the lot). This meant that programmers now didn't have to worry about the hardware they were running on, or even how to draw the individual UI elements. Now they could work on their business logic rather than technical trivialities.

Later on MS realised that applications sometimes mis-behaved and could break the entire OS forcing the user to reboot. This is long before 'sandboxing' was even heard of. Instead they decided the OS would manage the memory for the application. This meant if the application tried to write to memory it didn't own, the OS could stop it (we're talking the old 'Illegal Operation' dialog). Now when a program did something naughty, it would be closed and the rest of the computer would still run. Sure the user would lose their data for that program, but none of their others. Additionally by tracking the memory, MS realised that they could enforce it was freed too. So now when a program was closed, all of its memory could be reclaimed - no more memory leaks!

Microsoft also realised that setting up hardware was way too complicated for the average user. They spent far too long trying to figure out IRQs, driver installs, IRQ conflicts, etc. So what MS did is talk to the manufacturers and come up with a protocol that would let the OS (with some help from the BIOS) configure the hardware automatically. This protocol was called 'Plug 'n Play', and it meant if you bought some new sound card, you could just plug it in, and it would work. Windows would even install the drivers automatically if it shipped with them. Next time you plug in a new piece of hardware and don't have to spend a few hours in the BIOS - thank MS.

MS have constantly been improving the computing landscape, they've had such a massive impact I'm not sure you could even quantify it. The things I've mentioned have been at a really high level, and are a small fraction of what Windows and MS do. They're constantly moving repetitive boilerplate functionality away from programs and into the core OS or MS-produced (for free!) libraries. If MS could cut away legacy support the way Apple do, the amount of work MS does would be much more visible. For example OSX does not support genuine resolution independence like Android does. Windows through WPF and WDDM *does*. If you use the Modern UI only in Windows 8 you are seeing this resolution independence in action. To a developer it's almost transparent, yet the OS and MS technologies mean a program can scale to any DPI and support almost any screen size. However, if this feature were added to the old Win32 (we're talking Win 9x UI code here) API your existing applications would break.

So in terms of what MS do, Windows is ridiculously cheap. If someone said 'I want Windows' (and it didn't exist), you'd be looking at hundreds of billions of £ to make it as it is now. Quite frankly I suspect that's what MS actually has spent developing it over the years.

However, at the same time I would say it's also over-priced. For Apple OSX is cheap because it's just another feature to make you buy a Mac. Want OSX (like I do)? Gotta buy a Mac - and if you go the Hackintosh route you'll suddenly realise how much effort MS spent on compatibility. Windows is much like that, it's a gateway into the Microsoft world. Windows 8 is clearly a step in the Apple-like vertical integration MS can get away with now the anti-trust monitoring is over. MS are adding a lot more consumer-facing functionality, things like Skydrive, Outlook, Skype and their own hardware. It's all about lock-in, and it'll be interesting to see how things work out.

The biggest problem MS have, is they don't know how to ease into things the way Apple do. Apple do have a direct analogue of the Start Screen called 'Launch Pad', and it's the default option on new installs. However, if you upgrade the old menu in the dock remains, and you can still manually put Applications in the dock even with new installs. There was some fuss over Launch Pad, but since it was a gentle push the venom has been nowhere near as bad. Apple then integrate their App Store with it cleverly to gently nudge you the Launch Pad way from time to time. Apple's App Store was also a nice 'also' feature when it was first released, you could still install programs from elsewhere easily. As newer OSX revisions come out, it's slowly getting a teeny bit harder to do that (like now the app has to be signed with a developer cert, or you have to know how to bypass the screen - which Windows 8 now has btw). With WindowsRT MS made the app store the *only* way to get apps onto the device. Instead of a gentle push, it was a sledgehammer.

Now the biggest problem I've got with MS in the last few years is a steady decline in the quality of their output and a clear reluctance to listen to the community. I'm now going to put my developer hat firmly on. The ASP.NET team are really integrated with the community and output some great stuff - in fact I'd say they're a beacon of how MS should operate. The new TypeScript language is similarly super-impressive in how open it is to the community and how useful it is - yet totally free by MS despite not requiring anything MS at all. Now if we shift to Silverlight (now dead) things take a turn for the worse. Normally with MS dev tools, if an error occurs it will tell you exactly where and why. It's programmer-speak, but super-helpful. With Silverlight, across all 5 versions, you can easily end up with a generic error that requires you slowly removing code until the problem goes away, then adding it until it comes back and then you know what you did wrong. Silverlight died slowly - MS just stopped talking about it. No one knew until fairly recently if it was actually dead or not, no comment from MS. The WP8 SDK came out the same time the devices launched... hardly ideal if you want to cultivate an app store to rival the iPhone one.

So when Windows 8 came out, it was hardly a surprise that the control panel was split across two different UIs, that the two different UIs were badly integrated and that despite outrage at the removal of the start button it was left out. It's a slow decline MS have been in since Bill Gates left and now it's visible in their most prominent OS.

Can MS bring Windows 8 back from the brink? Undoubtedly, they've got the skill and the finances to do it. Apple came back with far less available to them. Personally though, I think it's going to require a culture shift. At the moment MS seems to be in a copy-Apple culture of 'we know best' without having the attention to detail Apple have. If MS can change it so they listen to the community, and pay attention to the small details; they'll be unstoppable. Some of the feats they've accomplished are astonishing, and I hope they can get back into their groove and start doing incredible things again.

Well that turned into quite the ramble... congrats if you've read all of this - now go outside.

TL:DR: Windows is an incredible engineering feat, shame Ballmer is destroying MS and doesn't care about developers any more
Corky42 16th April 2013, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
If the functionality has taken such a back seat as you seem to be making out how would MS removing the need to click a single tile, or (if you have put it as the first tile) pressing enter, when first logging in fix those issues? What functionality is it restoring?

Without going to the desktop you cant even run more than two metro applications side by side and even then its only a 70/30 split.
How about playing one of your DVD's ?
Getting me to go into exact details on what functionality has been removed is pointless as if you don't know what has been removed i would venture to say you didn't use those functions in the first place so you don't know, on the other hand for those people who did use those functions its a problem.
GoodBytes 16th April 2013, 20:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Without going to the desktop you cant even run more than two metro applications side by side and even then its only a 70/30 split.
1- You can have more with Windows 8.1.
2- It's not really a problem. On your desktop you absolutely rarely have more than 2 window.. which you use Aero Snap.
3- You can go on the desktop.
Quote:

How about playing one of your DVD's ?
You can play DVDs just fine.
Quote:
Getting me to go into exact details on what functionality has been removed is pointless as if you don't know what has been removed i would venture to say you didn't use those functions in the first place so you don't know, on the other hand for those people who did use those functions its a problem.
Microsoft uses telemetry data to remove features, and improve existing features. All features removed are because Microsoft saw, from it's telemetry data, that no one used these features.. when it's bellow 1%... you can remove it.
Krazeh 16th April 2013, 20:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Without going to the desktop you cant even run more than two metro applications side by side and even then its only a 70/30 split.

What's stopping anyone going to the desktop now? How is MS possibly adding an option to boot directly to desktop rather than having to click on a tile make any difference to functionality? I can't help but think you seem to fixated on a belief that because someone uses Windows 8 they must have to use metro apps to do things that they would have done using 'desktop' apps in Windows 7 or earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
How about playing one of your DVD's?

If I still had a DVD drive and wanted to watch a DVD I would use Media Center or just download VLC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Getting me to go into exact details on what functionality has been removed is pointless as if you don't know what has been removed i would venture to say you didn't use those functions in the first place so you don't know, on the other hand for those people who did use those functions its a problem.

You don't have to go into exact details. How about giving 5 commonly used functions that have been removed from Windows 8?
Corky42 16th April 2013, 20:37 Quote
If you could be bothered to read you would see i was answering Krazeh asking about what functionality has been removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The point is metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality, a point that it seems Microsoft maybe finally admitting by hopefully including a way to go straight to the desktop.

Claiming you can just go to the desktop does nothing to address the lack of functionality of metro, windows 8.1 isn't windows 8 and a 50/50 split is hardly what i would call functional if you need to run more applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
You can play DVDs just fine.

Strange that because Microsoft would disagree with you http://windows.microsoft.com/is-is/windows/dvd-playback-help
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Microsoft uses telemetry data to remove features, and improve existing features. All features removed are because Microsoft saw, from it's telemetry data, that no one used these features.. when it's bellow 1%... you can remove it.

Well that would be fine if they where collecting all telemetry data, but as many people disable or opt out of these features and we don't even know what data they gather, i would say at best its a distorted view of how people use there OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
What's stopping anyone going to the desktop now? How is MS possibly adding an option to boot directly to desktop rather than having to click on a tile make any difference to functionality? I can't help but think you seem to fixated on a belief that because someone uses Windows 8 they must have to use metro apps to do things that they would have done using 'desktop' apps in Windows 7 or earlier.

As i have already discussed i was answering your original question about what functionality has been removed from metro, in case you have forgotten what you have said let me enlighten you http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=3329315&postcount=59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
If I still had a DVD drive and wanted to watch a DVD I would use Media Center or just download VLC.

So you admit that functionality has been removed, normally that's what you do when installing software... add a function that is missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
You don't have to go into exact details. How about giving 5 commonly used functions that have been removed from Windows 8?

As you where part of the discussion on this exact same thing im not going to bother posting them all over again, instead i will link you to the thread that you took part in discussing what has been removed from 8.
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=256725
GoodBytes 16th April 2013, 20:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42

Claiming you can just go to the desktop does nothing to address the lack of functionality of metro, windows 8.1 isn't windows 8 and a 50/50 split is hardly what i would call functional if you need to run more applications.
It's still Windows 8.

Quote:
Strange that because Microsoft would disagree with you http://windows.microsoft.com/is-is/windows/dvd-playback-help
Yea? What's the problem? Microsoft removed all it's expensive codecs to reduce the price of Windows 8, and made it an extra package. Simple as that. But I guess 15$ is too much for you, you better off getting PowerDVD at almost 60$ to play DVD using their piss poor player!
Also, it was free from the release of Win8 in October to Jan 31st.
Quote:
Well that would be fine if they where collecting all telemetry data, but as many people disable or opt out of these features and we don't even know what data they gather, i would say at best its a distorted view of how people use there OS.
By default it's turned on, and most people have it on. Doesn't mean you turn it off, that everyone else does. If you are not happy, then turn it on, and then you will be considered. Having it disabled means "I don't care Microsoft, do what you want". So don't complain.
Krazeh 16th April 2013, 20:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Claiming you can just go to the desktop does nothing to address the lack of functionality of metro, windows 8.1 isn't windows 8 and a 50/50 split is hardly what i would call functional if you need to run more applications.

Metro apps not working in exactly the same fashion as 'desktop' apps does not mean there's a lack of functionality. They operate within different niches so they don't need to have the same functionality. I don't use metro apps on my desktop pc because the desktop is far more appropriate for what I use it for. However if I was using a tablet while sat in front of the TV and wanted to browse the web or check my emails or play a game then metro apps make perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As i have already discussed i was answering your original question about what functionality has been removed from metro, in case you have forgotten what you have said let me enlighten you http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=3329315&postcount=59

Given that metro debuted with Windows 8 I'm not sure how it's possible to remove 'functionality' from it. You can claim that by using metro you're removing functionality from Windows 8 but that would require you to be forced into only using metro, which isn't the case on anything other than RT is it?

And my original question was about functionality that had been removed from Windows 8. Metro apps don't remove functionality, they provide different functionality and if you don't like it you can just go back to the desktop where everything works just as it always has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So you admit that functionality has been removed, normally that's what you do when installing software... add a function that is missing.

I've always used third party software to play DVDs on my PC, at least until I got to the point where I just ripped them and stored them on a drive so I didn't have to bother finding the DVD when I wanted to watch something. So no, I'm not seeing any removed functionality but even if it is the case in respect of DVDs then it comes back to the point of it was functionality that wasn't used to a significantly high level to warrant it's continued inclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As you where part of the discussion on this exact same thing im not going to bother posting them all over again, instead i will link you to the thread that you took part in discussing what has been removed from 8.
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=256725

As I recall, the list you provided didn't include features that could be argued to be commonly used. They might be 'commonly used' by a minority of users but they certainly wouldn't have been used by the majority of users. I also seem to recall that several of the 'features' you claimed had been removed were in fact still in Windows 8.
Nexxo 16th April 2013, 21:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As you where part of the discussion on this exact same thing im not going to bother posting them all over again, instead i will link you to the thread that you took part in discussing what has been removed from 8.
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=256725

Yup, and I recall saying:
Quote:
If you list 30 features that have been removed, and I can show that 16 of them are in fact still there, many others can easily be added and the rest is not actually missed, then I think that kind of sets a pattern.

Before you retort, reflect on this a second. Over half of the features that you claim were removed are in fact still there. Could it just be that you are arguing from assumptions, rather than actual experience with Windows 8?
Corky42 16th April 2013, 21:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Yea? What's the problem? Microsoft removed all it's expensive codecs to reduce the price of Windows 8, and made it an extra package. Simple as that. But I guess 15$ is too much for you, you better off getting PowerDVD at almost 60$ to play DVD using their piss poor player!
Also, it was free from the release of Win8 in October to Jan 31st.

Ohh well that solves everything then claim its a price thing, if ever there was a cop out that was it, first you claim its not removed then you claim its been removed because of price.
Funny truly funny :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
By default it's turned on, and most people have it on. Doesn't mean you turn it off, that everyone else does. If you are not happy, then turn it on, and then you will be considered. Having it disabled means "I don't care Microsoft, do what you want". So don't complain.

But still no one knows what information they gather even you, so claiming this data is used to tell what features are and are not used is the same kind of guess work you do when you claim others haven't used 8, when you have no idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Metro apps not working in exactly the same fashion as 'desktop' apps does not mean there's a lack of functionality. They operate within different niches so they don't need to have the same functionality. I don't use metro apps on my desktop pc because the desktop is far more appropriate for what I use it for. However if I was using a tablet while sat in front of the TV and wanted to browse the web or check my emails or play a game then metro apps make perfect sense.

So your answer to metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality is "They operate within different niches so they don't need to have the same functionality." and i don't use metro on my desktop, at least we agree on something that Metro isn't suited for desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Given that metro debuted with Windows 8 I'm not sure how it's possible to remove 'functionality' from it. You can claim that by using metro you're removing functionality from Windows 8 but that would require you to be forced into only using metro, which isn't the case on anything other than RT is it?

Wrong im not claiming metro removes functionally from windows 8, maybe you need reminding yet again what is said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The point is metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality, a point that it seems Microsoft maybe finally admitting by hopefully including a way to go straight to the desktop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
And my original question was about functionality that had been removed from Windows 8. Metro apps don't remove functionality, they provide different functionality and if you don't like it you can just go back to the desktop where everything works just as it always has.

You really do seem to have a problem miss quoting people don't you.
And if i dont like it and just have to go back to the desktop, the question remains why use 8 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
I've always used third party software to play DVDs on my PC, at least until I got to the point where I just ripped them and stored them on a drive so I didn't have to bother finding the DVD when I wanted to watch something. So no, I'm not seeing any removed functionality but even if it is the case in respect of DVDs then it comes back to the point of it was functionality that wasn't used to a significantly high level to warrant it's continued inclusion.

So as long as you haven't lost functionally, that functionality hasn't been removed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
As I recall, the list you provided didn't include features that could be argued to be commonly used. They might be 'commonly used' by a minority of users but they certainly wouldn't have been used by the majority of users. I also seem to recall that several of the 'features' you claimed had been removed were in fact still in Windows 8.

Once again if i don't use it, it doesn't matter is no answer to functionality being removed if you happen to be in that minority its still a feature that has been removed.
And yes some of the features i listed are still available in 8 but i also remember admitting that, but you asked for 5 features that are missing, so i think even with the ones i got wrong that more than meets your requirements.
Krazeh 16th April 2013, 21:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So your answer to metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality is "They operate within different niches so they don't need to have the same functionality." and i don't use metro on my desktop, at least we agree on something that Metro isn't suited for desktops.

No. My answer was that metro doesn't suffer in terms of functionality. It works perfectly well for the environment it's designed to be used in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Wrong im not claiming metro removes functionally from windows 8, maybe you need reminding yet again what is said.

In that case what relevance does MS possibly providing the ability to boot straight to desktop have? It's not going to change how metro operates it so if MS was to add such a feature how are they admitting that 'metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You really do seem to have a problem miss quoting people don't you.

Perhaps if you want to talk solely about metro functionality you shouldn't drop in comments about the desktop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And if i dont like it and just have to go back to the desktop, the question remains why use 8?

Don't. It's that simple. If you don't like it don't use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So as long as you haven't lost functionally, that functionality hasn't been removed...

Not sure that's what I said. Pretty sure that what I said is that I haven't noticed it being removed but if it has then it would have been done because it was functionality that simply wasn't being used by a significant number of users. So yeah it may have been used but should we be keeping every single thing that a previous version of Windows might have had just because a tiny minority may use it? How bloated are we wanting windows to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Once again if i don't use it, it doesn't matter is no answer to functionality being removed if you happen to be in that minority its still a feature that has been removed.
And yes some of the features i listed are still available in 8 but i also remember admitting that, but you asked for 5 features that are missing, so i think even with the ones i got wrong that more than meets your requirements.

Actually I asked for 5 commonly used features. Obscure features that the vast majority of users won't even have known about let alone ever used don't meet that requirement.
fdbh96 16th April 2013, 23:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Without going to the desktop you cant even run more than two metro applications side by side and even then its only a 70/30 split.
How about playing one of your DVD's ?
Getting me to go into exact details on what functionality has been removed is pointless as if you don't know what has been removed i would venture to say you didn't use those functions in the first place so you don't know, on the other hand for those people who did use those functions its a problem.

How many applications can you see at once on your screen (realistically)? I bet its about 4, which is the number 8.1 offers I believe and in more split variations. Microsoft IS listening to criticism, just not to people who say the start screen is rubbish, without
a) not providing reasons
b) not actually using it in person
c) or who are just following the crowd.
Pretty sure VLC plays DVDs anyway (dvds are becoming outdated now anyway).
Nexxo 16th April 2013, 23:21 Quote
And there is always Free-codecs.com for your free DVD codecs. Seriously, how hard is that?
Corky42 17th April 2013, 01:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
No. My answer was that metro doesn't suffer in terms of functionality. It works perfectly well for the environment it's designed to be used in.

And what environment is that ? tablets, phones all touch based devices not for desktops.
Microsoft want people to use metro for desktops as well, its why the start button has been removed and desktop has taken a back seat to metro.
So my statement of "metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality" still holds true.
Even you admit that "What's stopping anyone going to the desktop now?" but why would they need to do this if metro didn't suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
In that case what relevance does MS possibly providing the ability to boot straight to desktop have? It's not going to change how metro operates it so if MS was to add such a feature how are they admitting that 'metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality'?

Errrm because metro lacks functionality and some people don't want to use this environment because they have to drop to the desktop anyway to get somethings done. so why bother with metro at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Perhaps if you want to talk solely about metro functionality you shouldn't drop in comments about the desktop?

What you mean talking about the desktop in a thread all about the possibility of Microsoft allowing users to boot straight to desktop, i simply gave a reason why this may happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Don't. It's that simple. If you don't like it don't use it.

i didn't so i don't, along with the vast majority of Microsoft's customers as show by the terrible uptake of 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Not sure that's what I said. Pretty sure that what I said is that I haven't noticed it being removed but if it has then it would have been done because it was functionality that simply wasn't being used by a significant number of users. So yeah it may have been used but should we be keeping every single thing that a previous version of Windows might have had just because a tiny minority may use it? How bloated are we wanting windows to be?

Well the large majority of user seem to disagree with you, if "functionality that simply wasn't being used by a significant number of users" was true then don't you think the uptake of windows 8 would be a little better ? after all the functionality that simply wasn't being used wouldn't be a problem right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Actually I asked for 5 commonly used features. Obscure features that the vast majority of users won't even have known about let alone ever used don't meet that requirement.

And how am i, or you for that matter to know what are "Obscure features that the vast majority of users won't even have known about let alone ever used"
Well unless you have information on what features people use all around the world in there homes and offices.
Either way if i listed 5 commonly used features you would just argue that there not commonly used features.
Woodspoon 17th April 2013, 02:23 Quote
Metro is just totally unnecessary for desktops.
I got a copy from a buddy that got a few evaluation copies for his work, stuck it on my laptop and took it with me when I visited family and friends just to see what they thought.
Most of the time it was along the lines of, "looks a bit childish" and then "what's the point?" after it went to desktop mode.
ArcAngeL 17th April 2013, 06:26 Quote
If it goes in the way of stardock.com with start8 then I'd welcome that, I'm comfortable working with the UI as is, although as a power user, its productive to have tiled apps to view different apps at the same time.

I don't think its directly caused PC sales to be down, the general user never needed a PC to begin with, now tablets are available I know many that just don't need a PC, they just want web, email access, music, and video access.
Nexxo 17th April 2013, 10:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well the large majority of user seem to disagree with you, if "functionality that simply wasn't being used by a significant number of users" was true then don't you think the uptake of windows 8 would be a little better ? after all the functionality that simply wasn't being used wouldn't be a problem right.
I'm sorry, but that is BS. The users who complain, do so about the change of Start Menu to Start Screen (and the jarring switch between desktop and Metro apps). That's it. That's all. Both problems can be remedied in a minute. The rest is FUD spread by detractors.

At the same time, on all the tech websites there are equally people who think that Windows 8 is great. There are geeks here who really know how to use an OS, including all its obscure features, and they think it's great too. So your opinion is not universally shared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And how am i, or you for that matter to know what are "Obscure features that the vast majority of users won't even have known about let alone ever used"
Well unless you have information on what features people use all around the world in there homes and offices.
Either way if i listed 5 commonly used features you would just argue that there not commonly used features.
If you don't know, how do you know that the features that were removed are in fact those that are missed?

And commonly used features are those which are commonly used, no?

The reason that PC sales are declining are:
  • There is this recession thing going on. Consumers decide to wait a little longer to upgrade. Even if they decide to wait only three months, that drops annual sales of new PC's by 25% on average.
  • There is no reason to upgrade. Most PCs have been powerful enough since the last 5 years at least to do the basic tasks that most people do: SOHO, browsing, email, media playback. Stuff you can do on a low-power ARM tablet. Power-users are more likely to swap components than buy a whole new rig.
  • Most basic computing needs described above can now be done on cheaper, simpler, more reliable tablets.
Corky42 17th April 2013, 12:00 Quote
So your saying the stats on market shares are making it up ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If you don't know, how do you know that the features that were removed are in fact those that are missed?

And commonly used features are those which are commonly used, no?

Well going on the uptake of 8 i would venture to say the features that have been removed from metro are missed, and they where commonly used (maybe not your commonly used).
Trying to say it because of financial reasons fails when the introduction price was £24.99 and you can still buy a copy for £69.70
Nexxo 17th April 2013, 17:00 Quote
No, I'm saying that stats on the market share are misinterpreted with regards contributing factors.

You are assuming that the slow uptake of Windows 8 has anything to do with the features that were removed or altered. But that, too, is flawed reasoning. Let's assume that Windows 8 did not have Metro apps, had a Start Menu instead of a Start Screen and the same features as Windows 7. What would we have? Basically: Windows 7.1. Would people have upgraded in droves? Of course not: there would have been very little reason to. In fact, Microsoft would probably have been criticised for releasing an OS that is hardly different from the previous iteration, which would have been blamed for the stagnation of the PC market instead.

The financial reasons refer to the decline in PC sales: i.e. people buying a whole computer, not just upgrading a new OS.
Corky42 17th April 2013, 17:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You are assuming that the slow uptake of Windows 8 has anything to do with the features that were removed or altered. But that, too, is spurious reasoning.

And so is assuming that the slow uptake isn't.
Pliqu3011 17th April 2013, 17:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And so is assuming that the slow uptake isn't.

One assumes that something is, not that something isn't.
The burden of proof is on you; provide some actual numbers for your claim and maybe people will believe you.
Corky42 17th April 2013, 17:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliqu3011
One assumes that something is, not that something isn't.
The burden of proof is on you; provide some actual numbers for your claim and maybe people will believe you.

Wow arguing about semantics, that's when you know people are desperate.
Would you be happier with presume ?

What numbers would you like?, unless you have been living under a rock for the last six months you would know the market share of 8 is awful.
Nexxo 17th April 2013, 17:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And so is assuming that the slow uptake isn't.

No, spurious reasoning is to assume an explanation for an observation when alternative explanations are available. To not assume an explanation is critical reasoning. You state that the market share for Windows 8 is 'awful'. Compared to what? Do the same circumstances apply? Are there alternative explanations besides "It's just a bad OS"? You are making presumptions but they do not appear convincing.
Pliqu3011 17th April 2013, 17:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Wow arguing about semantics, that's when you know people are desperate.
Would you be happier with presume ?

What numbers would you like?, unless you have been living under a rock for the last six months you would know the market share of 8 is awful.
You misunderstand, I wasn't talking semantics, I meant that you can't just throw Nexxo's “assume” back at him: you make the bold statement that Windows 8 and its “omissions” is causing the stagnation of the PC market, yet you don't give any statistics to prove it, therefore it is only an assumption.
When Nexxo says you're wrong, it is simply because you refuse to back up your statements with actual proof. He doesn't assume anything.

EDIT: Didn't see Nexxo's reply, should refresh more…
Corky42 17th April 2013, 18:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, spurious reasoning is to assume an explanation for an observation when alternative explanations are available. To not assume an explanation is critical reasoning. You state that the market share for Windows 8 is 'awful'. Compared to what? Do the same circumstances apply? Are there alternative explanations besides "It's just a bad OS"? You are making presumptions but they do not appear convincing.

And so are the people who deny that it has nothing to do with it being a bad OS.

It's ridiculous to ask if the same circumstances apply as no one has invented a time machine so the same circumstances will never apply.
And you are just as guilty at making presumptions that it's to due to other reasons, as neither of us have a market report or other stats to back up our claims.

And FYI i didn't say "It's just a bad OS"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The point is metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality, a point that it seems Microsoft maybe finally admitting by hopefully including a way to go straight to the desktop.
Yslen 17th April 2013, 18:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
What numbers would you like?, unless you have been living under a rock for the last six months you would know the market share of 8 is awful.

Nexxo is right though. Windows 7 does what people want from a PC, so why upgrade? Microsoft had to make something new and different to sell any copies of Windows 8 at all, so they did just that. If they'd made Windows 7.1 their sales figures would be rock bottom, rather than merely poor.

It's the rise of tablets that have caused the decline in PC sales, along with a global recession. It's got nothing to do with Windows 8, which if anything has actually helped sell a few more here and there. I know a few people who've bought touchscreen laptops instead of tablets because of the blackberry effect (insistence on a physical keyboard, which I can understand.)

In short, Microsoft is no more to blame for declining PC sales than Kodak and Fuji were for the massive drop in 35mm film sales a decade ago. A more convenient technology has arrived, so the market is no longer there.

Also worth mentioning, given the amount of times the phrase "bad OS" has been used here, that Windows 8 is fantastic in some areas. Take an old PC (Athlon dual core, for example) and try using XP or 7 on it; both are slow. Windows 8 is a lightning quick. It's amazing how well it runs on older hardware; presumably something to do with Microsoft's intention to focus on low-spec devices such as tablets.
Nexxo 17th April 2013, 18:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
It's ridiculous to ask if the same circumstances apply as no one has invented a time machine so the same circumstances will never apply.
So what does that tell you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And you are just as guilty at making presumptions that it's to due to other reasons, as neither of us have a market report or other stats to back up our claims.
No, I am saying that there are other possible reasons which frankly are more convincing.

OK, example. There will be numbers, so concentrate...

Windows 8's current market share on all PCs is 3.6%. Vista's market share at the same stage of its release (i.e. 6 months in) was 4.9%. In 2007, the release year of Vista, there were approximately 1 billion PCs in the world. In 2013 we have somewhere around 1.75 billion in use and the numbers are expected to grow to 2 billion between late 2014 to early 2015. Therefore Vista's 4.9% share of the market in 2007 was roughly 49 million PCs. In today's market a 3.6% share of Windows 8 is in the neighborhood of 63 million PCs.

So approximately 14 million more copies of Windows 8 were sold over Vista during the same length of time (or 28.5% more copies if you prefer percentages over hard numbers).

The question is, do we judge success by number of copies sold, or do we interpret them in light of the number of PCs in use today?

It is important to also remember that the market has changed a bit in the last 6 years. Today's computing is not the same as it was back in 2007. In those days, people could not wait to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. Now people are quite happy with Windows 7, and may be less inclined to upgrade. It's not that Windows 8 is bad; it's just that Windows 7 is that good. Nowadays, even computers from around 2007 are powerful enough to perform the tasks most people use them for: Office tasks, web browsing, email and social networking, media playback. Most of that stuff happens up in the cloud anyway --no heavy crunching required by the PC.

More annoyingly for PC manufacturers, most of those low-power tasks can be done more conviently on a tablet or smartphone. Most people don't need a PC anymore. How do we know? Well, tablet sales are skyrocketing, and the sales of all PC's are going down, not just those running Windows. Apple Mac sales are down too.

TL; DR: It is much more difficult to gain market share in percentage points if the base number of units is 75% higher than it was 6 years ago. This coupled with the changing dynamics of home computing (use of smartphones and tablets) makes comparisons just a bit tricky. But here you come: you don't like Windows 8 'cause they added Metro and removed 30 16 commonly used fairly obscure features, and this is why it is failing and the PC market is grinding to a halt. Well... if you say so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Also worth mentioning, given the amount of times the phrase "bad OS" has been used here, that Windows 8 is fantastic in some areas. Take an old PC (Athlon dual core, for example) and try using XP or 7 on it; both are slow. Windows 8 is a lightning quick. It's amazing how well it runs on older hardware; presumably something to do with Microsoft's intention to focus on low-spec devices such as tablets.
Ironically this may be another reason for the slowing in PC sales: Windows 8 is actually less demanding of older hardware, not more so. PCs boot faster and laptop batteries last twice as long (someone reported that their 2-year old Vaio laptop boots 300% faster and its battery lasts 70% longer). So why upgrade the hardware if just upgrading the OS will do?
Corky42 17th April 2013, 20:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
So what does that tell you?

That i wish i had a time machine :?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, I am saying that there are other possible reasons which frankly are more convincing.

OK, example. There will be numbers, so concentrate...

Ok im concen....con....OOooo shiny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
So approximately 14 million more copies of Windows 8 were sold over Vista during the same length of time (or 28.5% more copies if you prefer percentages over hard numbers).

You seem to be mistaking copies sold for market share, as Microsoft has not released sales data on how many copies it has sold we can only go on third party information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
TL; DR: It is much more difficult to gain market share in percentage points if the base number of units is 75% higher than it was 6 years ago. This coupled with the changing dynamics of home computing (use of smartphones and tablets) makes comparisons just a bit tricky. But here you come: you don't like Windows 8 'cause they added Metro and removed 30 16 commonly used fairly obscure features, and this is why it is failing and the PC market is grinding to a halt. Well... if you say so...

Please link me to where i said "i don't like Windows 8 'cause they added Metro and removed 30 16 commonly used fairly obscure features, and this is why it is failing and the PC market is grinding to a halt."

Because AFAIK i said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The point is metro suffers because its focus on visuals is at the detriment of functionality, a point that it seems Microsoft maybe finally admitting by hopefully including a way to go straight to the desktop.

EDIT: To clarify, when your average person goes to buy a shiny new PC and they find it difficult or confusing to do the things they do with there current PC they are less likely to buy the new shiny PC IMO, as your average person sees the OS as the PC.
Woodspoon 17th April 2013, 20:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
To clarify, when your average person goes to buy a shiny new PC and they find it difficult or confusing to do the things they do with there current PC they are less likely to buy the new shiny PC IMO, as your average person sees the OS as the PC.

Bingo!
Hammer meet nail
Nexxo 17th April 2013, 20:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Ok im concen....con....OOooo shiny
The secret to ADD is to truly value the shiny things. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You seem to be mistaking copies sold for market share, as Microsoft has not released sales data on how many copies it has sold we can only go on third party information.
Which makes it even harder to make inferences as to Windows 8's success or failure and its responsibility for flagging PC sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
EDIT: To clarify, when your average person goes to buy a shiny new PC and they find it difficult or confusing to do the things they do with there current PC they are less likely to buy the new shiny PC IMO, as your average person sees the OS as the PC.

There is nothing wrong with that logic, except that you assume that is indeed what is happening. The problem is that people are buying shiny new PCs neither with Windows 8 nor with Windows 7 nor with OSX. They're buying tablets. They're shinier and simpler (PC's never stood a chance...).

The tablet market turns out to be a tough one to break into, by the way. The iPad reigns supreme. The Nexus 7 and Kindle sell well at the cheap end, but the Nexus 10 appears to be doing worse than the Surface RT. The Chromebook meanwhile (not a tablet, but based on the same philosophy of simplicity, reliability and cloud access) has sold only half a million units in the last 2 years.
leslie 17th April 2013, 21:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
And how exactly does it feel like that? What part of touching or clicking on an nice, easily identifiable icon to launch the program you want feels like a slap in the face?
It's a metaphorical slap, which I explained earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
FTFY :)
You have to remember how much more functionality the start screen has over the start menu. For example,at a glance I can now see how many unread emails I have, and that I can also see much more applications in one go than before, while also being able to ort them easier.
More function?
The Start screen is ONLY a list of (jumbled) programs now, nothing more, while the old one had everything tucked away nicely. The new one put half the functions into other menus triggered by other hot corners. Yes, you can re-organize the Start screen, but folders help a lot, and again, it doesn't need to envelop all 50 inches (dual 25's) of screen real estate. The only added function I see is where it gets in my face every time I need to launch something from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
1- You can have more with Windows 8.1.
2- It's not really a problem. On your desktop you absolutely rarely have more than 2 window.. which you use Aero Snap.
3- You can go on the desktop.
So we have to wait for an upgrade to get more than one screen? Wow, thanks, let me rewind to the 1980's.

Rarely more than two windows? Yes, of course, all of those people with dual screens just did it so they could open two windows more easily. I never have less than two open, as do pretty much every business I do work for, and these aren't always computer savvy people, one is in her 90's, others can barely handle importing pictures from their camera, and send email. Even they use at least 2 windows at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh

Microsoft uses telemetry data to remove features, and improve existing features. All features removed are because Microsoft saw, from it's telemetry data, that no one used these features.. when it's bellow 1%... you can remove it.
Data is just data, it doesn't tell you why it exists. This is why you get articles about funeral services when you read an article about a murder (which I have gotten), targeting advertising is purely going off the data and data isn't smart. However, in this case, it has nothing to do with the drop in use claimed by MS, which by the way they claimed an 11% drop, not 99% as you state. An 11% drop doesn't mean no one is using it, it could just mean that you made the OS efficient to the point that it was used less. Less doesn't equal none. If they just wanted to change it due to that drop they would have left in the option to go back to it, instead MS used it as justification as to why they eliminated it entirely.

They dropped it because they are trying to leverage their OS monopoly into tablet and phone sales. Markets they are desperate to break into because they know it's the future. You can defend this whole atrocity all you want, the bottom line is that MS forced a tablet OS onto your desktop. Before you claim I haven't used it, I have, from the early betas on up. I like the underlying OS, it has a lot of potential, but that U.I. is absolutely horrendous on a desktop or laptop. It's probably fantastic on a tablet, but I have almost no interest in an MS tablet, which brings us to back to why they forced a tablet OS onto people.
Nexxo 17th April 2013, 22:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
It's a metaphorical slap, which I explained earlier.

Someone has been watching Brian Boyko's Windows 8 Video Review. ;)

Yup, Microsoft has forced a multi-device OS on your desktop PC. Sorry. But here's the problem: in five years there will be computers everywhere. Even more so than now. In your car. In your pockets. On your wrist. In your house. On your office desk, your coffee table, your walls, nightstand, all the rooms. They'll run on Intel, Arm and other processors. They'll have touch screens, gesture input, voice command input, mice, keyboards, trackballs, whatever. They'll be getting cheaper and faster and even battery life will catch up.

Microsoft faces the challenge of making an OS that works on all of them, communicates fairly seamlessly and looks and works reassuringly familiar. Apple has been going at it since 1995 and iOS is the result of that. OSX is becoming increasingly iOS-ified too. Give it a few years and you won't recognise it either.

If all this is moving too fast for you, or is too beta (I'll admit it needs some work), then stick with Windows 7 until the kinks are worked out. People stuck with XP for the same reason. Perhaps you'll change up when Windows 9 comes along. But changes are happening and there's nothing you can do about it. In the long term it will be a Good Thing. It will work out. :)
Corky42 18th April 2013, 00:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
There is nothing wrong with that logic, except that you assume that is indeed what is happening. The problem is that people are buying shiny new PCs neither with Windows 8 nor with Windows 7 nor with OSX. They're buying tablets. They're shinier and simpler (PC's never stood a chance...).

Well this is the thing, from what i remember i have not tried to lay the blame entirely at 8's door for the decline in PC sales.
Even though for some reason you and other people seem to think i have (did i imply it without realising?) maybe it needs pointing out to me! or maybe its this damn ADD

If anything i stated why i think PC sales are declining in the news snippet about exactly that
'PC sales suffer biggest slump on record, claims IDC'
leslie 18th April 2013, 22:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If all this is moving too fast for you, or is too beta (I'll admit it needs some work), then stick with Windows 7 until the kinks are worked out. People stuck with XP for the same reason. Perhaps you'll change up when Windows 9 comes along. But changes are happening and there's nothing you can do about it. In the long term it will be a Good Thing. It will work out. :)

It's not too fast for me, but MS was clearly rushing this in order to start capitalizing on their monopoly before it gets squandered away and i get that, but based on the ridiculous sale prices they were offering for it upon release, I think it's obvious they too knew they created a dud.

Instead of taking another 6 months and getting it right, they threw out a dud, and their goal of using this to push people to Windows phones and tablets is actually pushing people away, not closer. Never have I heard so many non-I.T. people discussing Windows alternatives and this includes back when Mac and Windows had a serious rivalry.

Say what you want, but from what I'm seeing in the field, those reports of Windows 8 hurting PC sales, are quite accurate. I'm getting a lot of requests to "fix" Windows 8, and to build a lot of custom desktops just so they can get Win7. My customers simply do not want Windows 8. They would rather buy Vista, and that should tell you something.
Nexxo 18th April 2013, 23:17 Quote
Six months is a long time in computing these days. Microsoft is already well behind the rest of the market. I would be inclined to say that it did not release a dud but jumped too far ahead. It is too much, too soon for many people. People are by their nature conservative-- they don't like change.
impar 18th April 2013, 23:26 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
... they don't like change.
Not in desktop-land.
GoodBytes 19th April 2013, 00:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Not in desktop-land.

I hope that was sarcastic.
leslie 19th April 2013, 22:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Six months is a long time in computing these days. Microsoft is already well behind the rest of the market. I would be inclined to say that it did not release a dud but jumped too far ahead. It is too much, too soon for many people. People are by their nature conservative-- they don't like change.

Already behind by 6 months? They have a near monopoly, they don't have to lead. Vista was 5 years late, and Win7 was still selling fine, so I don't exactly see how 6 months makes a difference.

What they are late to is the phone and tablet game. In which case they could have released 8 for those while building a proper desktop version.
Nexxo 20th April 2013, 00:38 Quote
PC market declining; tablet and phone market soaring. If they don't get in on that act, like, yesterday, they never will. They'll be king of a shrinking domain.

Microsoft's vision is the same OS everywhere. It's a vision that thinks ten years ahead, when there are computers in everything, using mix of x86 and ARM chips. They can create a seperate OS for
mobile devices but sooner or later that will create an artificial distinction between categories of devices that is irrelevant.
Corky42 20th April 2013, 09:09 Quote
But they have been "in on the act" since 1996 with Windows CE.
Nexxo 20th April 2013, 12:31 Quote
Yeah, and how did that work out? Their mini-desktop-on-a-mini-screen GUI lost out spectacularly to Apple's iOS which was designed for small touch screens. Hence Windows Phone 7/8.

Thing is, mobile phones and tablets now essentially run on the same hardware; the only thing that differs is the size of the screen (and battery). Soon tablets (and mobiles) will be as powerful as laptops, and laptops as power-efficient as tablets. Essentially from a CPU/GPU chipset point of view, the difference between all these platforms will disappear. Moreover, they will be expected ro integrate seamlessly, sharing files, settings, bookmarks, contact, calendar and game data. So why would they need different OSs? They wouldn't --such a distinction would become arbitrary. They'd just need a GUI adapted to their particular screen and input functions, but at the same time they would have to feel similar enough so that a user can find his way and use them in the same way on all devices.

Microsoft is striving to create an OS and GUI that will work on all these devices, accommodating whatever screen size and input methods it finds available. It's a big ask, and it will not get the balance right at once. But if it succeeds the payoff will be huge: dominance on ALL the devices.
Corky42 20th April 2013, 13:48 Quote
Yeah it didn't work out well at all, my own personal opinion doesn't count for much but i think Microsoft maybe a little to late to the party with what customer actually want in a tablet/phone GUI, maybe they didn't develop Windows CE enough or listen to what people wanted.

I think Microsoft should have done something new in the desktop area, instead of trying to play catch up with iOS and the like, after all they have tried so many times in the past to get it right and so far they haven't succeeded.

I don't think we will see an end to desktop PC's as they still have there uses, maybe they should have developed a way to use desktops as a hub for all other devices to connect to, so people use other devices as a type of thin client.
Nexxo 21st April 2013, 11:42 Quote
Windows CE was a disaster because the desktop was the wrong GUI paradigm for a small touch screen device (basically the opposite problem of what people are complaining about now). Apple's Newton GUI (a grid of icons each of which launch into a full-screen app with big, easy to hit touch elements) was the right paradigm. It was the basis for iOS.

Microsoft is not playing 'catch up' with iOS. It is obvious from WP7/8 that it is very much going its own way --and doing so very well. The problem is that people are used to iOS and the iOS-alike Android (in fact, most muggles couldn't tell you the difference) and they don't like change, so WP8 has a job ahead of itself. But everyone who has actually tried WP7/8 --even Apple users-- praise its inventiveness and sheer usability of the paradigm. As Steve Jobs once said: the user does not know what he wants until he gets it.

Microsoft doesn't focus on a desktop-only GUI because it has learned from Windows CE that this is not a useful GUI for anything else but desktop and laptop PCs, and that is a shrinking market (even for Apple) while mobile touch devices are a growing one. It has to come up with something that works on ALL the devices, and integrates seamlessly so that it can just be as you say: desktop for the heavy lifting, mobile devices as thin clients and storage in and syncing via the cloud.

Linux is going the same way. Remember the outcry when the touch-friendlier Ubuntu Unity was released? Mark Shuttleworth said: ‘We Didn’t Want Ubuntu To End up Like Windows 8′. Ironically it did just that: People did not like the change at all. But they are starting to embrace it. Now Ubuntu Touch is underway --like Windows 8 one OS for all devices, albeit attempting somewhat different solutions. If it works, well, competition is good for the user.

Apple OSX is also starting to incorporate features of iOS. Again, users don't like it at all. Steve Jobs was right. Like him or loathe him, the guy was a visionary who understand how people use computers.
theshadow2001 21st April 2013, 14:33 Quote
I thought CE was for small embedded applications, for running single programs that don't require the full O/S and industrial applications. Not for Joe consumer, or even really Joe enthusiast.
Nexxo 21st April 2013, 18:28 Quote
Strictly speaking we're talking about Pocket PC, which is a version of Windows CE 2.0 or higher. The first devices were launched in 1999.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2358/2516192520_ce0a8794de.jpg
GoodBytes 21st April 2013, 18:39 Quote
Jiis0HqiHLU
IvanIvanovich 21st April 2013, 18:55 Quote
I just don't see any reason to keep pushing mobile style on a desktop. There is no reason for this, it dosen't work just like desktop style was piss poor on a mobile. Making one OS for both is just likely to make it poor for either. They can share the same core OS, but the users of each type of computer have different usage and needs and need the environment tailored as such.

Also I absolutely hate the entire mobile/tablet push anyway. I find them wholly useless.
Nexxo 21st April 2013, 18:59 Quote
And what about hybrid devices? Those that can function as laptop and tablet? Is it not better to have an OS that can cater for all uses?

All the desktop user has to do is click Desktop. It's no hardship.
GoodBytes 21st April 2013, 19:10 Quote
And how about displays like the Wacom Cintiq, which transforms from a up right standard monitor, to a flat, angled drawing board with the digitize pen and multi-touch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LHkHAHWEPk

I expect the desktop to have such similar monitor later on. Where you still have a keyboard and mouse (the monitor, when put in "flat" mode to draw, is above your keyboard. Pen and touch will complement keyboard and mouse. I expect even games to incorporate such thing:
2-oArux66gA
When the above video pop-up, everyone wanted this, is what I recall. Well with Windows 8 opening door for monitors like the Wacom Cintiq (possibly just less fancy, to make it more affordable), it can be.
IvanIvanovich 21st April 2013, 19:28 Quote
I don't want touch screen on my desktop. It is not useful to me. Sure it is fine, I can select desktop... but when I am on desktop it should be the default, and I should be able to get rid of all the touch and mobile oriented crap I don't need or use, or better yet it is not installed by default at all. That is what I have issue with.
They need to make it more modular and the user can decide what they want. How hard would it be to have a question at install, or first boot in case of store bought system, that ask the user what environment do you want to use. If they change thier mind they could go to add remove windows features and switch.
I want them to stop telling me how I should use my computer. I don't like what they think I should like.
Nexxo 21st April 2013, 19:42 Quote
And how is what you propose simpler and better than just clicking the Desktop tile?

This is the Dell XPS One 27 all-in-one PC with touch screen:

http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/12/MRDellXPSOne27.jpg

The times, they are a-changin'.
GoodBytes 21st April 2013, 19:50 Quote
Ooouu nice! About time!
IvanIvanovich 21st April 2013, 20:18 Quote
Yes times change, but not always for the best.
leslie 21st April 2013, 22:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

Linux is going the same way. Remember the outcry when the touch-friendlier Ubuntu Unity was released?

Starting to embrace it because they have little option and it has improved. However, don't confuse using Ubuntu with using Unity, there are tutorials all over on how to dump it (quite easily I might add), and even forks of Ubuntu without it. There is still a lot of backlash going on over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanIvanovich
but when I am on desktop it should be the default, and I should be able to get rid of all the touch and mobile oriented crap I don't need or use, or better yet it is not installed by default at all.
This.
Nexxo 21st April 2013, 23:12 Quote
All because just clicking the Desktop tile is just too complicated. :p

Why not just use Start8 or something? In the days of Windows 95/98 I replaced the entire shell with things like Litestep. On Vista I used Rocketdock because I just didn't like Start Menu. Surely a geek like you can manage a little add-on?

Unity is controversial but it is also improving. And with Ubuntu Touch it is going over to the dark side even further. Perhaps it is on to something here.
GoodBytes 21st April 2013, 23:23 Quote
Not to mention that what is the first thing you do when on your are on the desktop mode? Oh yea, open the start menu to open your program. Might as well have the Start Menu already open for you.
dullonien 22nd April 2013, 00:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Not to mention that what is the first thing you do when on your are on the desktop mode? Oh yea, open the start menu to open your program. Might as well have the Start Menu already open for you.

Yup, some people must turn their computers on and just stare at their wallpaper all day.

There is absolutely no problem with Windows booting to the start screen. When I start my computer, I first have a quick glance at the mail and the messaging live tiles to see if there's anything new, if there is I'll quickly open each one in turn and check them before closing them which returns me to the start screen. Then I click on the Chrome tile which launches the desktop browser (with a few tabs set to open at startup) and I continue my day using almost exclusively desktop programs, which I have pinned to my taskbar.

In what way has the start screen hindered my use of my desktop computer? None at all. In fact I'd say it's helped because I haven't had to open dedicated programs to check my e-mails or facebook messages (and I wouldn't know before opening if it was worth my while without the push notification system).

Everyone has to open a program after turning on their system, so why not combine this task with getting to the desktop from the start screen?
IvanIvanovich 22nd April 2013, 00:40 Quote
I don't use the start menu or screen, I pin everything I use frequently to the taskbar so I don't have to click though a bunch of sh!t to do what I wanted.

I would be more than glad to use alternate shell, but they are all either old and no longer working on recent Windows or are somehow worse than Explorer or most often both.

It's apparent some are big fans of the direction it's going, and having a differing opinion makes me wrong or something. Whatever.
There is two distinct camps of computer users. Desktop and mobile and neither one wants the same things. Forcing either side is not going to work. Why it is complicated to understand it? Keep your mobile geo locating integrating social updateing cloud touch **** off my PC!
dullonien 22nd April 2013, 01:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanIvanovich
I don't use the start menu or screen, I pin everything I use frequently to the taskbar so I don't have to click though a bunch of sh!t to do what I wanted.

I would be more than glad to use alternate shell, but they are all either old and no longer working on recent Windows or are somehow worse than Explorer or most often both.

It's apparent some are big fans of the direction it's going, and having a differing opinion makes me wrong or something. Whatever.
There is two distinct camps of computer users. Desktop and mobile and neither one wants the same things. Forcing either side is not going to work. Why it is complicated to understand it? Keep your mobile geo locating integrating social updateing cloud touch **** off my PC!

I completely understand that you may not like the metro side of things, but you've already admitted that you don't use or encounter it, because you pin everything to the taskbar. So what are you complaining about exactly? Is it just the mere fact that it's there? I don't see the problem with something you don't use being there in the background, especially when Windows 8 is more responsive than any other version of Windows.

You're acting as though MS has removed the desktop and is trying to force you to work exclusively in metro, but this isn't the case. If anything MS has improved the desktop experience for power users with better multi-monitor support, speed increases, and many, many more features that I'm not going to bother listing.

I'm just struggling to understand your complaints. As I said, I spend 90% of my time in the desktop, using the same programs I did in W7 in just about the same way. Windows 8 hasn't prevented me from doing this and I can't see how W8 would preventing you or anyone else from doing the same? Or am I missing something?
Nexxo 22nd April 2013, 08:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanIvanovich
It's apparent some are big fans of the direction it's going, and having a differing opinion makes me wrong or something. Whatever.

But you are not just saying that you have a differing opinion. You are saying that Microsoft is wrong. Same thing.
impar 22nd April 2013, 10:20 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Not to mention that what is the first thing you do when on your are on the desktop mode?
Click on several shortcuts available in the QuickLaunch\TaskBar.
Corky42 22nd April 2013, 12:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dullonien
I completely understand that you may not like the metro side of things, but you've already admitted that you don't use or encounter it, because you pin everything to the taskbar. So what are you complaining about exactly? Is it just the mere fact that it's there? I don't see the problem with something you don't use being there in the background, especially when Windows 8 is more responsive than any other version of Windows,

For me the problem definitely comes with something im not going to use being there.

You only have to look at the security holes in previous versions from features you either didn't know were running or never used.
PC's have always been know for there flexibility and openness, but Microsoft is attempting force its vision of the future onto people.
dullonien 22nd April 2013, 12:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
For me the problem definitely comes with something im not going to use being there.

You only have to look at the security holes in previous versions from features you either didn't know were running or never used.
PC's have always been know for there flexibility and openness, but Microsoft is attempting force its vision of the future onto people.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see regarding security. It's a little premature to say that the metro side of W8 will be a security problem. I suppose the push notification system stands out as a possible vulnerability, but it all depends how well MS have coded it. In my experience just about every version of windows has been more secure than the last (only stands to reason that it is), but nothing is 100%.

Weren't people up in arms about MS forcing the ribbon interface on them in Office a few years ago? I think most have accepted that after a short learning period it's a better interface for office tasks (most of the time at least), and it also makes sense in the explorer (I still question it's usefulness in a more complex program like Autodesk AutoCAD though). Change it seems is just difficult for some to overcome.

I do think your criticisms are valid to some degree. But the only thing MS is forcing upon you is the start screen, and as I've tried to point out above it's not really a huge amount different. This isn't a complete overhaul, the desktop experience is as it was (with a few improvements, and the start screen).That isn't exactly forcing a user to re-learn the way they use their pc.
theshadow2001 22nd April 2013, 13:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dullonien
I suppose we'll have to wait and see regarding security. It's a little premature to say that the metro side of W8 will be a security problem. I suppose the push notification system stands out as a possible vulnerability, but it all depends how well MS have coded it. In my experience just about every version of windows has been more secure than the last (only stands to reason that it is), but nothing is 100%.

Weren't people up in arms about MS forcing the ribbon interface on them in Office a few years ago? I think most have accepted that after a short learning period it's a better interface for office tasks (most of the time at least), and it also makes sense in the explorer (I still question it's usefulness in a more complex program like Autodesk AutoCAD though). Change it seems is just difficult for some to overcome.

I do think your criticisms are valid. But the only thing MS is forcing upon you is the start screen, and as I've tried to point out above it's not really a huge amount different. This isn't a complete overhaul, the desktop experience is as it was (with a few improvements, and the start screen).That isn't exactly forcing a user to re-learn the way they use their pc.

I think the problem with the ribbon was that people had spent some time familiarising themselves with the pre-ribbon positions of the tools they needed. The ribbon then laid waste to that knowledge which annoyed people. People vocalised this by saying the ribbon is rubbish. Whether it actually is or not is a different story.
impar 22nd April 2013, 13:43 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
People vocalised this by saying the ribbon is rubbish. Whether it actually is or not is a different story.
Its just different. Once we get used to it, its okish. I use daily pre-ribbon MSO, post-ribbon MSO and non-MSO suites. Still preferr non-ribbon ones, though.
Funny thing is that fresh out of school interns dont know how to operate a non-ribbon Office suite. Its unbelievable the amount of power Microsoft has on the education system and public sector in general.
Corky42 22nd April 2013, 16:45 Quote
I never understood why they decided to go with the ribbon myself, sure when you lots of commands to choose from with the old style it can look messy.

But at least you can quickly and easily view all those commands, the ribbon is almost like going to restaurant and being presented with five separate menus, instead of having just one with all the food in it.
GoodBytes 22nd April 2013, 17:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I never understood why they decided to go with the ribbon myself, sure when you lots of commands to choose from with the old style it can look messy.
-> Easier to use
-> Easier to find things
-> A long list of features that reviewer marked as new in Office 2007, are old features in Office. This proved exactly what Microsoft was talking about, on how Office has a lot features that people just don't know about as they are buried between menus.
-> I no longer have my mom bug me every 2min to put text in bold, or inserting a picture or something.
Quote:

But at least you can quickly and easily view all those commands, the ribbon is almost like going to restaurant and being presented with five separate menus, instead of having just one with all the food in it.
No. Not at all.
The old menu layout, is like going to the restaurant and you have all the dishes listed, in no order.. you have no idea if it's the main course meal or an entree/appetizer, all listed in a row.

The Ribbon bar, is like a normal restaurant menu is. You have sections, you have spaces, and sometimes you have pictures.
Nexxo 22nd April 2013, 17:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Click on several shortcuts available in the QuickLaunch\TaskBar.
You mean, like you can set up in Windows 8? :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
For me the problem definitely comes with something im not going to use being there.

You only have to look at the security holes in previous versions from features you either didn't know were running or never used.
Metro Apps all run in full sandbox mode. If anything, they are much more secure than...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
PC's have always been know for there flexibility and openness, but Microsoft is attempting force its vision of the future onto people.
...the desktop programs that you can download and run under Windows' open and flexible architecture.

So let me recap: your objection to Metro is that it may pose a security risk. Then you praise Windows' openness and flexibility, which is a huge security risk.

Then you criticise Microsoft for "forcing" its vision of the future onto people, even though Windows is still so open and flexible that you can replace the Start Screen for a Start menu with a simple add-on, make Metro apps run in a window with a simple add-on, and pretty much alter/change/remove/add anything you always did in Windows 7 with a raft of different add-ons, without that ever being an issue to complain about?

If anything, it is Apple which forces its vision of the future onto people. And the people are loving it. They are selling their vital organs in China for a taste of that future. People queue up at the shops for that future. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.
Corky42 22nd April 2013, 18:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
-> A long list of features that reviewer marked as new in Office 2007, are old features in Office. This proved exactly what Microsoft was talking about, on how Office has a lot features that people just don't know about as they are buried between menus.
-> I no longer have my mom bug me every 2min to put text in bold, or inserting a picture or something.

I think this speaks more for how inept some reviewers and users can be, dont come around my house and beat me up that is not directed at your mom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
No. Not at all.
The old menu layout, is like going to the restaurant and you have all the dishes listed, in no order.. you have no idea if it's the main course meal or an entree/appetizer, all listed in a row.

The Ribbon bar, is like a normal restaurant menu is. You have sections, you have spaces, and sometimes you have pictures.

But they are laid out in order, the same way they are on the ribbon. its just on the ribbon you have to click each sub menu just to see whats in it. instead of just having browsing multiple lists.
To me the ribbon is like having a single menu to view and your not allowed to view the next on until you close the first.
I guess its down to how you process information more than anything, i prefer long lists of information that i can view all at once. but im guessing normal users prefer shorter lists pictures and such, they do say people have shorter attention spans now days :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
So let me recap: your objection to Metro is that it may pose a security risk. Then you praise Windows' openness and flexibility, which is a huge security risk.

No, I said PC's are know for there openness and flexibility, Since XP Microsoft have been trying to enforce stricter control over the the OS.
I remember with 95/98 you could pretty much remove/delete anything you wanted, it is now harder than ever before to remove features you don't want or use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If anything, it is Apple which forces its vision of the future onto people. And the people are loving it. They are selling their vital organs in China for a taste of that future. People queue up at the shops for that future. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.

That just goes to show how crazy these people are if there willing to sell parts of there body, would you listen to someone like that
GoodBytes 22nd April 2013, 18:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42

I guess its down to how you process information more than anything, i prefer long lists of information that i can view all at once. but im guessing normal users prefer shorter lists pictures and such, they do say people have shorter attention spans now days :)
You should not play "Where is Wally/Waldo?", where you don't know what you are looking for (the name of the action).
dullonien 22nd April 2013, 18:50 Quote
Corky42, your restaurant menu comparison really doesn't work, because the ribbon is very similar to most menu's you get in restaurants. Replace the different tabs with different pages (as you get in most menu's, with the starters on one, mains on the next, deserts on an other page, and drinks towards the back. The only time it isn't is in places like Vasity's or Wearherspoon's when you're presented with a single large sheet as a menu.

The benefit of the ribbon for office programs is because the vast majority of time, most people only use the basic text editing tools. You tend to set up your document with a specific font and size, a specific justification, and then you only make minor changes to this format as you go. Now and again you insert an image etc. and it's easier to have a tab for all insert options with hidden tabs that appear for image editing etc. than using the old fashioned menu. This is all my opinion obviously. Of course some are going to dislike the ribbon, but forcing it upon all was the correct decision by MS, because it means all Office products (since 2007) are alike.

Where the ribbon interface falls down imo is in a program like AutoCAD where lots and lots of commands are required all the time. In the space of a minute you might select a polyline, draw something, then clip certain lines, rotate parts, re-scale something, offset a line or two etc. Having these commands on separate tabs imo means switching between tabs too often. Instead having the old style of having tolls placed all around the edges makes more sense. Keyboard shortcuts are the quickest way, but I struggle to learn them.
Corky42 22nd April 2013, 19:37 Quote
They are both menus so i stick by my comparison :p
Like i said, i think its more to do with how you process information and i guess im just more a Vasity's or Wearherspoon's kinda guy :)

I cant remember but pre 2010 couldn't users customise the tool bar to add or remove there most commonly used commands ? i guess that was probably to complicated for the average user
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
You should not play "Where is Wally/Waldo?", where you don't know what you are looking for (the name of the action).

We do know his name its Waldo
leslie 22nd April 2013, 21:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
All because just clicking the Desktop tile is just too complicated. :p

Why not just use Start8 or something? In the days of Windows 95/98 I replaced the entire shell with things like Litestep. On Vista I used Rocketdock because I just didn't like Start Menu. Surely a geek like you can manage a little add-on?

I don't like the fact that clicking on some teeny little corner causes my entire screen to be taken over, it's jarring. This is like having a pro wrestler screaming at you ever time you need to use something you don't have pinned to the desktop. As for Litestep and such, it's just another thing running in the background that can crash. Not to mention it costs money, even you have to admit, it's a little ridiculous that you would need/want to swap out the UI of the OS you just paid a bunch of money for.


You can say we are all wrong and MS is right, but judging by the complaints, I would say you are in the minority. The fact that MS is making a major update so soon and sold it so cheap on the release also speaks volumes. Remember, some people actually liked ME and Vista too, history showed how those went over.

You can actually tell pretty fast how MS and others feel about an OS. If they talk about the next release within a few days, it means they know they released a dud. They were talking about the next release before ME was even out. On Vistas release, within a day or two they were talking about Windows 7. When XP and Windows 7 came out, talk about the next release was minimal for weeks. When Windows 8 was released, that very same day they began discussing Windows 9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Not to mention that what is the first thing you do when on your are on the desktop mode? Oh yea, open the start menu to open your program. Might as well have the Start Menu already open for you.

Most people have icons and shortcuts for the things they use most often, and only use the start menu for less commonly used things.

And why not start in desktop mode when on a desktop?
Who even thought Metro mode was a good idea on a desktop... Why does my radio stream and weather app need my entire screen?
Nexxo 22nd April 2013, 23:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
That just goes to show how crazy these people are if there willing to sell parts of there body, would you listen to someone like that

It shows how much people feel bothered by a closed OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
You can say we are all wrong and MS is right, but judging by the complaints, I would say you are in the minority. The fact that MS is making a major update so soon and sold it so cheap on the release also speaks volumes.

No, that has always been the plan.
Corky42 23rd April 2013, 00:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It shows how much people feel bothered by a closed OS.

But we can ignore them as they are mental challenged, you know in the old days people like that would be locked up in a padded cell for there own protection.

Either way apple has always been know for closed of systems in both hardware and software, where as PC's have always been known for there openness and flexibility, Well unless you go way back to IBM's first attempt that failed to sell.
GoodBytes 23rd April 2013, 03:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie

Most people have icons and shortcuts for the things they use most often, and only use the start menu for less commonly used things.

And why not start in desktop mode when on a desktop?
Who even thought Metro mode was a good idea on a desktop... Why does my radio stream and weather app need my entire screen?

Instead of putting these shortcuts on a desktop and making a mess (like most desktop I see from people), put it on the Start Screen, and this is what my friends and I do, and everything is clean and nice. Hence why they prefer it.
Also, it's more powerful. You can pin any folders you want.. you are not restricted with the pre-made selection done for you, with no way to move them up or down. Here, you can do what you want.

There is no need to go directly to the desktop.. Here you start your computer you see: 2 new emails, it's 22 degrees outside, and sunny, and you click on your program you want.
Snips 23rd April 2013, 10:30 Quote
Wow did you hear that Nexxo, you must be in the minority?

I think it's more clear that a few negative comments about Windows 8 in tech forum doesn't make it a complete failure either.

I've not seen one thing that people have moaned about that hasn't been silenced by a simple click of a button or a swipe of a screen.

Remember when your mum took your comfort blanket away because it was attracting flies and you cried all day, then before bed you got it back clean, fresh and warm and the world was right again? Windows 8!
Nexxo 23rd April 2013, 22:08 Quote
:p

Lessee: Windows 8 licences sold: 60 million. Start Menu replacements downloaded: ten million. Looks like the majority likes Windows 8 just as it is.
leslie 23rd April 2013, 22:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Instead of putting these shortcuts on a desktop and making a mess (like most desktop I see from people), put it on the Start Screen, and this is what my friends and I do, and everything is clean and nice. Hence why they prefer it.
Also, it's more powerful. You can pin any folders you want.. you are not restricted with the pre-made selection done for you, with no way to move them up or down. Here, you can do what you want.

There is no need to go directly to the desktop.. Here you start your computer you see: 2 new emails, it's 22 degrees outside, and sunny, and you click on your program you want.
It's a desktop, not a tablet. It should boot to a desktop OS, not a tablet interface. I have ZERO need for a tablet interface on my desktop.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
:p

Lessee: Windows 8 licences sold: 60 million. Start Menu replacements downloaded: ten million. Looks like the majority likes Windows 8 just as it is.
Correlation does not imply causation
Krazeh 23rd April 2013, 22:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
It's a desktop, not a tablet. It should boot to a desktop OS, not a tablet interface. I have ZERO need for a tablet interface on my desktop.

So the start screen (which is just a screen with icons on it which you can click) is a tablet interface? Does that mean if I have icons on my desktop it's a tablet interface?
Pliqu3011 23rd April 2013, 23:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
It's a desktop, not a tablet. It should boot to a desktop OS, not a tablet interface. I have ZERO need for a tablet interface on my desktop.
It seems a lot of other people are perfectly fine with that “tablet interface” though. Besides, your “desktop interface” is just one simple click away. I still don't see what the big deal is.
(and that's from someone who doesn't even like Windows 8 that much and prefers 7…)
Nexxo 23rd April 2013, 23:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
It's a desktop, not a tablet. It should boot to a desktop OS, not a tablet interface. I have ZERO need for a tablet interface on my desktop.
What makes the Start Screen a tablet interface, and not a desktop one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
Correlation does not imply causation

Only when the numbers do not correlate with your assumptions. :p
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums